Journal des débats 1982-juin-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege concerning a question I asked of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) yesterday in this House. Apparently, somewhere along the line, some of the news media that picked up the story, namely the Canadian Press news service and the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., interpreted the questioner's name as that of my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid).

Although I am very happy to share this moment with my most able colleague, I would like members of the media who are here at least to take a good look at the member for Halton-Burlington and remember that his name is spelled "Reed" and not "Reid" and that it was I who asked the question concerning the great town of Acton in the riding of Halton-Burlington.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure this has been well clarified and that the mistake will not be made again.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all the members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery Dr. Guido Guidi, president of the regional council of emigration, Umbria, Italy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House today of the appointment of the remaining members of the Hospital for Sick Children review committee. They are:

Joan Gilchrist, director of the school of nursing at McGill University in Montreal. She is the past president of the Canadian Nurses Association, president-elect of the Canadian Association of University Schools of Nursing and a former director of nursing at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal;

Dr. Hugh McDonald, president and chief administrative officer of St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. He is a past president of the British Columbia Health Association and a former director of institutional services with the Saskatchewan Department of Health; and

Dr. Henry Nadler, dean and professor of paediatrics at Wayne State Medical School in Wayne, Michigan. He is a former chief of staff at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago and chairman of paediatrics at Northwestern University.

These three distinguished health care professionals will join Mr. Justice Charles Dubin of the Ontario Supreme Court whose appointment I announced last week.

The terms of reference provide that they, and I quote directly:

"Be appointed under section 7(a) of the Public Hospitals Act to inquire into, investigate and report to the Minister of Health, including interim reports as they deem expedient, on the quality of the management and administration of the hospital and the quality of the care and treatment of the patients in the hospital, with specific reference to whether the hospital has instituted appropriate patient care practices and procedures to protect the safety and security of its patients;

"And that they report to the Minister of Health immediately whenever they ascertain that the practices and procedures in respect of any particular aspect of patient care are inadequate or insufficient to protect the safety and security of the patients;

"And that for these purposes they give priority to aspects of patient care which arise out of:

"(a) The reasons for judgement of His Honour Judge David Vanek, given on May 21, 1982, in Her Majesty the Queen versus Susan Nelles; and

"(b) The verdict of the coroner's jury in the inquest into the death of Jonathan Murphy given on May 28, 1982."

While I believe these terms of reference are sufficiently broad to allow the committee to carry out a thorough and searching review, I have told Mr. Justice Dubin that we will broaden them or provide any additional powers if he finds subsequently that this is needed.

As I told the House last Tuesday, the primary task of this committee is to review all the practices and procedures related to patient care and patient safety in the hospital and satisfy itself that they meet the standards of excellence expected in a world-class institution such as the Hospital for Sick Children.

The committee members are to report immediately to me and to the hospital if they find any immediate changes must be made as a result of their review. I will make any interim or final reports public as soon as I receive them, consistent with my desire to inform the public and particularly parents about conditions in the hospital.

I want to emphasize once again that this committee will not be involved directly with investigating the tragic deaths at the hospital. That responsibility lies exclusively with officers within the criminal justice system. The concern of the Ministry of Health must be with conditions in the hospital at this time.

As the honourable members will recognize, the four investigators have substantial other commitments which they have agreed to set aside temporarily to participate in this review. While they have only general knowledge of the specifics of this matter, they have all said they are aware of the impact these deaths have on the hospital, which they know to be a vital component of paediatric care and treatment in North America.

The review committee does not intend to hold any public hearings. However, it intends to invite, through advertising next week, any institution, organization or individual with knowledge in this matter to contact it so they may be interviewed by the committee on a confidential basis. In the meantime, anyone who wishes to contact the committee may write to it in confidence at the Hospital for Sick Children Review Committee, MGS Box 16, Queen's Park, Toronto.

Finally, I would like to repeat once again that the hospital has instituted a number of procedures over the past 14 months in the area of patient care and safety and its performance has been viewed favourably by the Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation. I am assured it welcomes this review by the four investigators and that it is determined, as I am, to see that the Hospital for Sick Children provides the highest level of care that is humanly possible.

INCOME MAINTENANCE PROGAMS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of some significant initiatives my ministry will undertake in the province's income maintenance programs.

As the honourable members are aware, the ministry has been conducting an ongoing review into areas of possible improper discrimination in the family benefits and general welfare assistance programs. This review has already resulted in the following initiatives:

2:10 p.m.

The extension of eligibility to disabled female spouses on the same basis as disabled men with families. Yesterday, in my speech to the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, I announced, after a thorough review, that single fathers will be eligible for family benefits as of July 1, subject to the same criteria as sole-support mothers in this program.

I want to emphasize the eligibility of sole-support fathers for FBA will apply to longer-term clients as this program is designed to assist persons who are in long-term need. With these changes very significant areas of discrimination are being removed from the family benefits program.

I would also like to bring members up to date on recent developments regarding my previously announced intent to transfer delivery responsibility for able-bodied family benefits recipients to municipalities.

Mr. Mancini: Who is going to Brussels next?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not me.

Mr. Mancini: I don't blame you. I wouldn't go either.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You wouldn't be invited.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As many members are aware, the general issue of delivery of income maintenance has been the subject of considerable discussion for a number of years as there has been a very real need to reduce or eliminate the existing duplication of effort that now exists, since both municipal and provincial governments deal with common clients simultaneously, and rationalize the provision of support services necessary to assist applicants and recipients to become independent of social assistance.

Accordingly, over the next several months we hope to put in place up to eight test projects in selected municipalities across the province where we would functionally integrate the administration of the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act for single parents. We would like to run all the tests until the end of 1983. This will give us at least 14 to 16 months to assess the operation of each project and determine future courses of action.

Municipalities will be contacted over the next two weeks and we will fine-tune the details and arrange for implementation. I want to make it clear this is an administrative integration only. The funding mechanism and rates paid to recipients will not change. At the same time, the province will continue to administer the Family Benefits Act to the disabled and permanently unemployable recipients.

Since I first announced this initiative last year, a great deal of discussion has taken place between the ministry, municipalities and other groups. From these discussions we have developed a set of criteria for delivery integration and a set of guidelines for the funding of employment support services.

As part of the integration, an appropriate level of personnel and other resources will be made available from the province to the participating municipalities during the life of the test projects.

It is our intent that the municipal administrator have functional and program responsibility over all staff involved in the pilot tests. In this connection I wish to stress that both municipal and provincial staff would continue to be employed by their respective jurisdictions and operate under existing conditions. The integration at this stage would be simply functional. All costs related to the administration of the family benefits program will continue to be the responsibility of the province in terms of staff, transfer payments and related expenses.

Turning to the area of employment support, it has been widely recognized that many able-bodied social assistance recipients face a number of barriers when returning to full-time labour force participation. For many years our philosophy has been that able-bodied persons in receipt of social assistance should be attempting to attain self-sufficiency. However, an objective examination of the program and projects we have put into place reveals that a general emphasis of the social security network is to help clients once they have a job.

Very little has been done by way of support to assist clients in obtaining a job. For instance, under family benefits we provide a phase-out allowance to any recipient who withdraws from benefits and returns to work on a full-time basis. In contrast, there are no formalized programs which will assist the recipient in looking for employment.

We hope to respond to this gap in service by providing an array of employment supports and other related services including: preparation of individualized employment and training plans; information and referral regarding appropriate programs or opportunities; pre-training and pre-employment assistance; job search assistance and counselling; assistance with child care requirements.

We intend to introduce these supports on a test basis in about 10 municipalities, including all the municipalities participating in the FBA/GWA functional integration test projects. Participating municipalities will be asked to prepare an overall plan which will indicate how existing services and new services will fit together to provide the above range of supports.

With respect to child care, we intend to introduce sufficient flexibility to enable sole-support parents requiring child care to choose the form most suitable to their individual circumstances. During the test projects we hope we will be able to offer a full range of child care alternatives.

I would like to make it clear that at this time I am not contemplating the use of any sanctions to require able-bodied recipients to seek employment. We believe recipients will respond to work opportunities on a voluntary basis.

In closing, I am sure these new directions will go a long way towards improving the delivery of our income maintenance programs and reducing long-term dependence on social assistance. In fact, I am confident we will able to turn the corner on the dependency cycle, the prime goal of every social assistance program.

CAPITAL WORKS PROJECTS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I announced last week that my ministry and the Ministry of Northern Affairs had received $60.5 million through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which is to be used in the creation of nearly 2,500 jobs in the province.

Today, I would like to bring the House up to date on the other projects which BILD funds have enabled the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to accelerate in the past year, and detail the additional work to be undertaken in 1982-83.

The original BILD allocation of $25 million was to serve as a stimulus to the construction and to related supplier industries while improving the movement of people and goods on the highway network in the Golden Horseshoe. This resulting radial roads program saw construction advanced on a total of 10 projects last year, specifically on Highways 403, 404, 406, 427 and 7N.

In addition to the value of work carried over against our 1982-83 allocation of $25 million, we hope to advance six additional projects this year. They include three contracts for improvements to the Queen Elizabeth Way between Burlington and Hamilton, advance work on Highway 410 at Brampton, Highway 7N at Peterborough and grading on Highway 403 between Brant Road 25 and Highway 53.

As I mentioned earlier, the obvious results of advancing these 16 projects are short- and long-term benefits to the road construction industry and for the more efficient movement of people and goods.

Mr. Mancini: It is still nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Less obvious is the encouragement of growth through the provision of new sites for industry. With these benefits, the radial road project advancement program supports the intent of the government's BILD program, which is to reinforce the strengths of the Ontario economy.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome back the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) who has returned from his government junket to Japan --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat?

Mr. Mancini: It is absolutely disgusting; he introduced a budget and then left the province and was not here to answer the questions of the members of the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all honourable members that when I am standing they must take their seats or suffer the consequences.

Mr. Mancini: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I welcome his statement of today. It appears to be a blue-chip panel that will be investigating the current problems at the Hospital for Sick Children.

2:20 p.m.

However, would the minister not agree there are a number of significant questions that will go uninvestigated as a result of this inquiry, even coupled with the police investigation going on at the present time? There are a number of questions with respect to reporting, informing parents, the role of the coroner's office and what transpired at the hospital during that period of time when these mysterious events were taking place.

Would the minister not agree those questions are not being looked at, either by his inquiry or by the police? We are going to have to look seriously at those questions, given the amount of anxiety that exists about what transpired in that hospital a year or so ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that all those questions will not be looked into in the course of either the criminal investigation or the Dubin investigation. All those questions will be reviewed. As the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has indicated, there is a possibility there will be a further inquiry. Ultimately, as a result of these processes or perhaps a further one if necessary, all those questions will be reviewed.

Mr. Peterson: At this point we have the minister's personal assurances, but so far all we see is a closed inquiry. The minister makes a point of saying it will not be open to the public. Almost every day we have read in the press about an anxious parent who was contemplating putting his or her child in the hospital now, or did in the past, and who was not aware of what transpired.

There is a tremendous breakdown of communications and the anxiety that results therefrom must surely give the minister pause. Surely he must realize the best way to clear the name of the Sick Children's Hospital, not only now but for what took place in the past, is to have an open inquiry to make sure everyone is fully informed of what transpired and is assured it will never happen again.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Leader of the Opposition will look at his words "informed of what transpired" and "what procedures are in place," that is what we want to ascertain -- what procedures are in place and what procedures ought to be in place.

I think it is important that the public not be in a position where it is confused and has its fears compounded by allegations that will certainly be made in a public forum, many of which may turn out to be unfounded. Also, he must understand that the Dubin investigation is far more likely to get information if it is relayed on a confidential basis, so people need not worry about reprisals or discovery. They should not be inhibited at all from being able to present that information to the Dubin investigation. I think it is very important that we proceed down that route.

Finally -- and the Attorney General has been over this many times with the Leader of the Opposition -- it is quite obvious that some of the things he continues to ask for would impede the course of the criminal investigation. I am sure he would agree with me that the most pressing matters are, first, to find out who the perpetrators of the criminal acts are, and second, to ascertain that the hospital is a safe, well-run hospital today. Between the Attorney General's operation, the police and the Dubin investigation, we will address both those matters quite thoroughly.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am a bit confused because of the minister's response to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) last week.

Can he say if Mr. Justice Dubin's inquiry will be looking into the allegations about the hospital failing to notify other interested parties? It has been alleged that during the course of the Sick Children's Hospital's internal investigation into 15 deaths between July 1980 and December 1980, the hospital failed to involve its own pathology department and failed to notify the coroner's office. Will the Dubin inquiry be looking at those allegations within its terms of reference?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make it clear that between the criminal investigation and the Dubin investigation, all those matters will be reviewed. Under which of the investigations the procedures and questions will fall is a matter which ultimately has to be resolved between the persons involved, that is, Mr. Justice Dubin and the police. I do not want anything to get in the way of the search for the murderers in this case. That is our primary goal at the present time, while we also go about ensuring that safe procedures are in place.

Who, ultimately, is going to end up reviewing those matters and reporting on them, will be something that will have to be determined in the course of these two investigations. It could be that we will look at a further inquiry, as the Attorney General has indicated, if that is warranted. Let me make it clear that in the course of one or other of the investigations or inquiries, all of those details will be covered.

Mr. Peterson: Because it appears, at least in many people's minds at the moment, that a great deal of truth has been suppressed, and a number of people are hungering for information as to what happened to their particular child -- I just use that as an example -- did the minister not feel that it would be better to leave it to a commissioner to decide what does or does not come out? In this particular case, wouldn't his or her judgement be better than a politician's response or even a policeman's judgement about what is held in camera and what is not?

All of the questions that we put forward yesterday are going to have to be answered some way or other and, frankly, we are not satisfied that either of the minister's present forms of investigation are going to answer the questions that must be answered. Why doesn't the minister start it now? It could operate parallel with the police investigation, which would have paramountcy, and could in fact assist the police investigation. There is absolutely no reason one has to interfere with the other.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition may have attended a different law school from the Attorney General and me.

Mr. Bradley: I hope so.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree he attended a different school of politics from us. That is why we are on this side of the House and why we have a reputation for being responsible while he tries to look for some sensationalism --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now to the question, please.

Mr. Riddell: When has the Attorney General ever been right?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can phrase this question as many ways as he wants but it comes down to a question of whether the Leader of the Opposition is more qualified to establish the proper route for finding Out who the murderers are and how to establish the proper procedures in the hospitals, or whether the police who are conducting this investigation, and the esteemed Mr. Justice Dubin, are best able to sort those matters out.

I have to say, with all due respect, given the esteemed persons who are involved in both the criminal investigation and the investigation I have set up under the Public Hospitals Act, I am quite confident that all the facts will come out, all the procedures will be reviewed and all the questions the honourable member has raised will be satisfied.

The course the Leader of the Opposition continues to advocate is the most dangerous and sloppy course from the standpoint of assuring everyone that we will catch the perpetrators of these terrible acts.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is right, of course, if he believes that the public cannot stand the truth, which is exactly the premise of his approach.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: that is a very serious allegation the Leader of the Opposition is making, that this government believes the public cannot stand the truth.

This government has appointed an esteemed justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario to conduct a thorough investigation. If the Leader of the Opposition does not think he and his team are qualified to conduct that investigation, let him go out and say that. That is his right under our system. But for him to suggest that this government does not want the public to find out the truth behind these horrendous murders is irresponsible and ill suits the office of even that member of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the Leader of the Opposition, without any editorial comment.

Mr. Peterson: That was a foolish point of privilege.

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, and let me welcome the Treasurer home. I am sure we are the only people in the province who are glad to have him home so we can force him to explain this fatuous budget that was brought to the people of Ontario just before he left.

2:30 p.m.

The Treasurer may or may not be aware that he has decided to use his executive prerogative to exempt Meals on Wheels programs from sales tax. Presumably that brings into play the test of essentiality. Why has he not, in his wisdom or the ministry's wisdom, decided to exempt other low-priced meals that are equally essential for seniors, for students, for workers, and for others who do not have the facilities to prepare meals for themselves, where it is essential that they dine out? Why has he not extended the principle that he has just adopted?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the regulations are being drafted by the Ministry of Revenue, and I believe the minister was asked a question along these lines yesterday. I have been reviewing the regulations since I returned last night. I find that, for example, the spirit is being followed quite properly in that we are exempting church dinners and some dinners of that nature where the fund-raising is of a charitable nature. That was one of the ones that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: Thank God for the opposition. If it were not for the opposition, people would be ripped off more than they are being.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think it will be found that regulation was written before the interventions were allegedly made. I can assure the honourable members one of the great advantages --

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We, on this side of the House, have always found ourselves flexible enough to write regulations in the spirit of the law and will continue to do so.

Mr. Peterson: Yesterday, the Treasurer's friend, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), was defending the fact that the Treasurer was taxing church suppers. I congratulate him for changing his policy. Why would he not extend that policy to the area of essential meals for students and people who are obliged to go to cafeterias at noon hour? Is the Treasurer aware of some of the inequities that the program has brought about -- such as forcing Brantford Collegiate Institute to have a separate line saying, "Residents of the reserve: no tax payable on their meals," so that the Indian kids are getting french fries and chips for the other kids going to school? Does he like that kind of result from the taxes he has brought in?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That kind of difference, as it relates to native people, has existed for a long time -- for example, with cigarettes and gasoline. If one looked back at the number of cigarette sales that have passed through the reserves of this province, and divided it by the number of people on the reserves, one would find quite a high number have passed through the reserves tax exempt, simply because that is one of the rights the native people were given in this province. It is a right we continue to honour. We do honour the treaty rights.

One would need to read carefully, as I did, my colleague's answer to the question yesterday. He pointed Out that if a church or charitable institution was selling at a fair, on a steady basis, in competition with other suppliers of food, it would be deemed to be taxable. That is what he said yesterday. The clarification will be spelled out in the regulations giving those conditions where taxes are exempt.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Allan MacEachen of Ontario as he retreats on his budget.

I would like the Treasurer, now that he has retreated from the adamant stand taken by the Minister of Revenue yesterday, to admit it would be unfair for the United Church ladies' auxiliary to have in a booth a sign that said, "Get your tax-free hot dog here" --

Interjection.

Mr. Foulds: That is what the Minister of Revenue said. Now that the Treasurer has retreated on that --

Hon. Mr. Stephenson: He has not retreated on that.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, he has not retreated on that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now may we have a supplementary?

Mr. Foulds: Certainly. Will the Treasurer tell us what he has retreated on in terms of exemptions to the sales tax and whether he will expand that retreat to include other essential items, such as meals in cafeterias, school supplies and meals costing less than $6 in all areas? What other areas will he retreat to now that he has retreated on the church suppers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we did not retreat. This government tends to go forward, not backward. All I pointed out, and I thought the honourable member heard me --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know there is a very high level of interest in these questions and in the answers, and I ask the co-operation of all members so that we can all hear the answers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We surely could hear the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, we could surely hear the question.

In the latter part of my response to the Liberal Party, I tried to explain that where churches set up competitive booths, such as at a fall fair or with some such item where they are competing directly, they would be taxable -- that is the hot dog bit which the member for Port Arthur just waved around. However, where they have special-event dinners, there will be clearly defined exemptions within the regulations.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer is retreating on one leg.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Peterson: It is very clear that the Treasurer, upon his return, has just made an Ashe of himself on this subject.

The Treasurer is aware that the Ontario food service industry has suggested that removing the $6 exemption and taxing all these meals is going to cost 7,500 jobs in Ontario. He is doing this to generate, in his judgement, about $110 million -- which, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, is roughly the interest on Suncor for one year -- even though the industry's figures say it will cost the industry $170 million in revenue. How can the minister come into this House and say he is prepared to saw off those 7,500 jobs which they say they will lose from this iniquitous new round of taxation that he has brought in on meals, albeit a lot of them essential?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not believe that it will cause that loss of jobs. It is an industry that I know reasonably well. I do believe the Leader of the Opposition will find that I am quite properly taxing a retail sale like most other retail sales and that it is properly taxable and is taxed by many provinces in the way we are doing it.

Mr. Peterson: No other province does it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer about the shoe industry. He will be aware that the anti-dumping tribunal report of February 1981 respecting the Canadian footwear industry found that imports were unduly and unjustly causing injury to the domestic industry. He will be aware also that when the Newfoundland fishery gets into difficulty, Mr. Peckford is heard right across the country on the matter. In addition, he will be aware that when the Alberta oil industry gets into difficulty, we hear loud and clear from the Premier or the government of that province.

Can the Treasurer explain why it is that this province has not been very forceful and has not been very public in its defence of the Ontario footwear industry and its workers against the barrage of shoe imports? What action is he willing to take to counteract the effect that this dumping of imports is having on the industry in Ontario? More than half the Canadian shoe industry is in this province, and a recent survey showed that in the 22 firms in Ontario, employment has dropped one third, from more than 7,000 to fewer than 5,000.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to say what percentage of the industry is in Ontario or Quebec, but it struck me the larger percentage was in Quebec. However, it is of importance. I know the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) has an interest in this and has expressed concern to me about it.

Obviously this government does make recommendations to the federal government to protect jobs within the country when it feels that unfair trade practices exist. We have done that loudly on behalf of the automotive industry, some 80 to 90 per cent of which is domiciled in Ontario. That was the very purpose of my recent trip to the Far East. There are probably more jobs at stake in the automobile industry and in the parts-related industries in Ontario than in any other single industry, and it too is being hurt by those kinds of actions.

Whenever actions are taken in restraint of trade or through dumping or through nontariff barriers that protect countries against the reverse flow of our efficiently manufactured goods, I think we have not only a right but also an obligation to stand up and make it known. I also know that the honourable member is keenly aware that this is federal domain. All we can do is make our views known.

Mr. Foulds: Will the Treasurer make a commitment to introduce in this House a special resolution to be debated and voted on which demands that Ottawa reverse its present policy of exempting leather footwear? Will he endorse the principle of a global quota on imported shoes so that Ontario and Canadian manufacturers can have access to at least 50 to 60 per cent of the market?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly sympathize with the objectives the member is expressing, and therefore we are not disagreeing in principle at all. I do not think it is my responsibility to bring that resolution forward, but I believe it is the kind of thing that is a very good point to debate on a Thursday afternoon and have a free vote on.

The fact remains that we have our channels. The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) and I are able to use those channels, and we do use those channels.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, the minister has mentioned the work he has done in trying to protect the automotive trade in Ontario. I wonder if we could have a commitment from him and his government that they will do a study of this area to see if there is definitely a problem and report back to this House. Could we have a commitment that he will support the shoe industry in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the member for Port Arthur. I think the problem has been established beyond doubt. The problem exists; it exists in a number of other areas.

One of the things we tend to forget in this world is that we are free traders. We accept the fact that if another country can make a product more efficiently or at lower cost than we can, our consumers should benefit from the quality or price of a foreign manufacturer. We have always done so on the assumption that this kind of attitude would be reciprocated, that Canadian goods which were efficiently made would be allowed to enter foreign countries.

Lumber is a classic example of one product that is denied entry on an open basis to the very country I just visited. Food is another. Many countries are protecting themselves through all kinds of barriers, and those have caused me of late to become much stronger in my protectionist stance. That is one of the reasons I carried a fairly strong message to Japan recently.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this industry has extreme importance for Ontario, particularly in some regions of the province. In view of its importance, should the Treasurer not have seen that a major statement on this industry and a raising of the sales tax exemption on children's shoes from $30 to at least $60 as part of his budget would be a psychological boost, if nothing else, for this industry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the problem there is that the exemptions from sales tax apply to shoes no matter what their origin. This perhaps even exacerbates some of those problems. I would argue that the quota system that was in place until a year or so ago -- I am not quite sure of the date when the quota was relaxed on shoes -- gave a real boost to the Canadian shoe industry for about three to five years. For a period of time, our shoe manufacturers were exceedingly busy because of that protection. I believe that is the best route to go and I believe it is the one that should be maintained, particularly in the face of evidence that says dumping exists.

SPALDING CANADA

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Treasurer about plant closings. Why is his government willing to allow the US-based Questor Corp. to terminate the jobs of 281 Brantford workers by closing its Spalding Canada subsidiary? How does the minister justify that loss of jobs as Ontario is slowly being transformed, because of budgetary initiatives, from a province of producers to a province of mere warehousers and packagers for foreign companies?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I honestly cannot answer the details of that question. It would be better addressed to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) when he is here. I suggest it should be answered by him on another day.

I fear very greatly for a number of industries, parts of which have been closing and going to the United States. I believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) recently made some comments on that problem. One of the points a number of finance ministers have made in Canada -- including Mr. MacEachen, in a more general way -- has been that over the last two years we have seen our unit cost increases in this country exceed those of our neighbours to the south. This has led to many operations becoming unprofitable in this country as opposed to the States.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not even aware that the workers in that plant agreed to a wage freeze in 1978, to an increase of merely four per cent in 1979 and to a six per cent increase in the third year of their contract? Yet with those wage concessions, the company is still going out of this province without a whimper from the government. Will the minister not agree it is about time his government brought in plant justification legislation? When a plant is closed like this, they give no justification; they just go out and make that plant a warehouse.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I pointed out that question was best answered by the Ministry of Industry and Trade and I leave it at that.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, surely the Treasurer is aware that the statistics that came out earlier this week from the Ministry of Labour showed that a total of more than 8,000 employees have been affected in the first three months to date by reduced operations and partial or full closures. Why is the Treasurer not willing to take some action to ensure that this continuing flight of companies out of the province, taking away more and more jobs, is not at least halted and perhaps reversed? Why are the Treasurer and this government not willing to take any action to force companies to justify these closures?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of comment I would expect from the New Democratic Party rather than from the honourable member. I would hope that he, in a city like his where he knows he has had major labour problems, would realize that that kind of talk about forcing companies is the surest way to send them to other jurisdictions. He knows it and I know it. I can only say that I, as opposed to the federal government, took a number of job-stimulating actions in the budget that encourage investment in this province. The federal budget drove people out of Canada.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer not aware that the Brantford plant that used to produce baseballs now has those imported from the Haitian operations of Questor? They used to produce golf balls and now it appears, after the shutdown, all they are going to be doing is spraying and stamping them. Yet this government still goes to foreign jurisdictions and says it wants more foreign investment. When is this government going to stand up and say to multinationals that if they are going to operate in this province they have to ensure there are manufacturing jobs for workers in Ontario? When is it going to say that if there are not going to be manufacturing jobs for workers in Ontario then we are not interested in that foreign investment?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, assumes tariff walls to keep out lower-cost goods. I am not sure whether the NDP has been in favour of raising the price of consumer items or not. I will tell the honourable member what I am for, and that is jobs for more Ontario people. That is the message I carried to Japan. One of the things I said consistently was this: "We are glad to buy your product. It is well made; it is well priced. But if Canadians do not have jobs because you are not buying parts from us, there will not be any cars sold here."

HAMILTON HARBOUR WATER QUALITY

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister may be aware that Hamilton harbour and Windermere basin were identified by the International Joint Commission in November of last year as one of the most environmentally degraded water bodies in the Great Lakes basin. The concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in the sediments in the Windermere basin are the highest documented in Canada.

A report not yet released by the minister's Hamilton regional office shows that the ministry's own sediment guidelines are being exceeded 34 times for zinc, 14 times for lead, 12 times for cadmium, five times for mercury and four times for organic substances. Given this environmental nightmare, why has his ministry done nothing to monitor the situation? What plans does the minister have to clean up the Windermere basin and Hamilton harbour?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Hamilton harbour is not something that anyone became aware of just recently. Because of the intensely concentrated industrialization in the immediate area of the harbour over many years there has been a very excessive load on the capacity of that harbour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are very aware of this situation, and on a number of occasions we have been in communication with the local municipality on the matter. At this point I cannot be specific about the precise --

Ms. Copps: It is your own report.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Listen. All right. Calm down, my dear. Don't get excited. The simple fact of the matter --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. I would remind all honourable members that interjections are completely out of order.

Supplementary, the member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Copps: This is not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understood the minister to call me "my dear." It was not an interjection; it came from the minister, and I would ask that he withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the minister has offended the honourable member, and I would ask him to withdraw the offending remark.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I really did not --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would just remind all honourable members that perhaps, given the minister's marital status, he finds that a bit more difficult than some of the rest of us.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, if he refers to me as "dear," my wife will be upset. But I would like to ask the minister through a supplementary --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cunningham: Dr. Michael Zarull of the Ministry of the Environment has stated that the harbour still receives more waste than it can absorb and decompose. Given the present state of the Windermere basin, and because the Hamilton sewage treatment plant just meets an outdated phosphorus effluent standard, would the minister commit himself now to a program that will environmentally revitalize Hamilton harbour?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure honourable members that this is clearly the objective. With regard to a specific program, at this time I cannot be specific. I can indicate -- and I was about to do this when the member for Hamilton Centre was offended by my reference -- that I was a little concerned about the nattering that "it was your report." I was never saying that we had not been looking at it; in fact, I said we had been very aware of it and concerned about it. I will be having within a matter of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: What is the minister going to do about it? George Kerr was looking at it in 1975.

Mr. Watson: Why don't you listen to the answer?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The next step in the process is a meeting which I have set up with the local municipal officials in the near future. Once that has been held, I think we can move on to something more specific.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the minister made the point, and I think quite correctly, in the answer to the original question, that the Hamilton harbour situation is a rather longstanding problem. Yet he is saying he cannot tell us anything specific. How long are we going to spend trying to decide what we have to do to clean up Hamilton harbour? When is he going to start taking the public into consultation as part of the process, as well as the groups that have been working on the Hamilton harbour problem? Then we could all be part of developing the solutions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the cooperation of all members not to converse back and forth while the question is being asked. Having said that, the Minister of the Environment will proceed.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the members understand that the situation of Hamilton harbour is not simple, but rather is a complex combination of influences that have created the present situation. It is not going to be a simple matter to redress those or to move in the direction of restoring the ecological health of that harbour.

There are a variety of things that have to be looked at, ranging from matters relating to storm runoff to industrial effluent and the appropriate higher levels of treatment of that. It is going to be a while before those are in place. It is certainly something which is actively under consideration and is being looked at by the ministry. It will involve consultation with municipal governments at the regional level. Presumably, through them, it will involve local citizen participation at the appropriate time.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Cunningham: Stand up and say it; you don't have a program.

Mr. Mancini: You don't care about the harbour; just admit it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor. Please proceed.

INCO DISPUTE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I am nervous about proceeding when you are on your feet, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I will ride shotgun for you.

Mr. Van Horne: Surrender, Floyd.

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Labour concerning the strike between Inco Metals and Local 6500 of the United Steelworkers in Sudbury. The strike has now begun and there is general agreement that if Inco Metals gets its way in this dispute there well could be a prolonged strike.

Since conciliation and mediation services of the Ministry of Labour were involved in this dispute in the latter stages, can the minister tell us whether he knows why Inco Metals refused to discuss either a one-year, two-year or three-year contract based on the Thompson, Manitoba, settlement of late 1981?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the bargaining that went on during the process over the past few weeks and months other than to say that our conciliation and mediation services were involved heavily; I would like to think they were competently involved, although the final results might indicate otherwise.

I have a great deal of confidence in the senior people in conciliation and mediation services. I think they did everything within their power to try to have an agreement reached. I do not think it is appropriate for a Minister of Labour to make comments on the position of the labour force or of management.

3 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Is the minister aware that by offering basically only the cost-of-living allowance increase as opposed to an increase in the base wage rate, Inco was waving a red flag to the membership of Local 6500? About three years ago, when that strike was already seven months old, Inco made the same basic offer of COLA versus increasing the wage rate; the membership rejected that, because they knew it would not increase the base rate on which so many other benefits are based. Does the minister think that is bargaining in good faith?

When these negotiations started, the union said pensions were to be a number one priority. The company offered less to the workers in Sudbury than it had offered to the Thompson workers as a percentage increase. Since the average seniority in that work force at Inco is 20 years, pensions are obviously a very high priority on the part of the workers in Sudbury. Does the minister think that is good-faith bargaining on the part of a company that has taken more out of that community than it will ever put back in, even with a decent offer?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am aware of the matters the honourable member is bringing forward. I still feel that this is an extremely sensitive situation; we are just into the first day of the strike. I can only repeat what I said earlier: I am not anxious to inflame the situation by giving opinions on one side or the other.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister is aware and remembers well the length of the last dispute involving the workers at Inco and the company and the fact that it went on almost three quarters of the year. The community of Sudbury has not yet fully recovered from that last dispute.

Before the two sides get dug in and before we get into another dispute that could drag on at great length and really cripple a city still trying to recover, why does the minister personally not take a hand in this dispute and talk to the two sides separately or individually?

Perhaps he should start with the company, since it is now clear that the union has decisively rejected the last company offer, and see whether he could not find some common ground to bring the two sides together before they get dug in. Why does the minister not take a personal hand in this?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to be reminded of the devastating effect of the last strike on the area around Sudbury and on the workers themselves. It was a disastrous strike in every respect.

This dispute now is compounded by the effects of the last one. A premature initiative by my ministry could serve to prolong the dispute. We have to get the two parties together, and that is what we are attempting to do at present. Both parties at the moment have dug in and have established certain positions.

As I said earlier, I have great confidence in the senior people in my ministry, the people who have gained a reputation for expertise and fairness in the bargaining process not only in this province but also throughout the country. At this time, I am inclined to take their advice and not get involved prematurely, but it does not mean I will not get involved at some time.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General but, unfortunately, I do not see him in his seat. I will defer it until he returns.

NORONTAIR MOVE

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. I hope he will be able to lift the lid of secrecy that his ministry seems to have clamped on the operations of norOntair.

Is it true that norOntair personnel and staff will be moved from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie? If so, why is it being done and what is it going to cost in these days of government restraint? Will the minister table any documents he has to justify the move at this time and, at the same time, inform the House why the employees and others are not being told the reason for the move or when it will take place?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, there is no secrecy about this particular move; it was announced some time ago. It is a result of a study that was undertaken by my ministry about two years ago which made a number of recommendations in relation to the norOntair operation.

For reasons of efficiency, cost savings and higher visibility for norOntair, as serving all northern Ontario, the study came to the conclusion that there was much to be gained by moving the office of the norOntair operations from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie, where the Ministry of Natural Resources, which uses the same type of aircraft, has a major maintenance depot; in addition, improved maintenance facilities for repair of radio communications are available in Sault Ste. Marie. That has been publicly announced; so it is no secret.

Mr. T. P. Reid: People in North Bay have been trying to get some information out of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who among other things has ignored them for some time.

Can the minister tell us how much this is going to cost? Is he saying the facilities used by the Ministry of Natural Resources for repairs and so on will be used by norOntair? And can he assure us that Air-Dale will not have a better chance, shall we say, of getting the contracts when the Dash-8 and everything else comes in?

Because there has not been any public pronouncement, details have not been made available. There are a lot of questions being asked that are not being answered.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The announcement was made some time ago. As I pointed out, the study has been completed. There are cost-efficiency plays in there that we have recognized and will implement.

The exact costs are not known at this time, but there is no deal with Air-Dale, which the member is fearful of. There is no deal with anybody. The member is from northwestern Ontario, and he should be supporting this kind of move instead of criticizing it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I just want to know, will you table the report?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for Algoma.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Will the minister table the report for justification? No, he will not.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member should be cheering it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Table the report. What about open government?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River will please contain himself and allow the member for Algoma to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what proportion of the regular maintenance work for norOntair is done now by the Ministry of Natural Resources or other government agencies and what proportion is done by the private sector?

Can he also indicate whether in this move there will be any major investment involved at the Sault Ste. Marie airport, at the Springer airport at Bar River or at the Ministry of Natural Resources base in Sault Ste. Marie?

Finally, will he indicate what position the member for Nipissing has taken on this move?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the cooperation we will receive from the Ministry of Natural Resources in our maintenance and repair will be extensive. Even the reduction of the inventories we have to carry with regard to our aircraft will be substantial because of the combined operation we will have.

In the long term we hope a major facility will be established at Sault Ste. Marie airport to carry out repair services and maintenance work not only for our Twin Otter aircraft serving 21 communities in northern Ontario but also for the Dash-8s that are coming on and will be used in both the northwest and the northeast and will need a major repair and maintenance depot to work from.

We see a very high visibility in the Sault Ste. Marie area for this transportation success story of the decade.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, if he will take his seat and stop his lobbying for leadership.

The question concerns the Willson Nursing Home in St. Thomas. I ask the minister whether he is aware of the problems that exist there. On May 25, one third -- six of 18 -- of the nurses aides were laid off, which raised the staffing ratios at the home. On the day shift the staffing ratio was raised from one staff member to 8.3 residents to one to 11.5. On the afternoon shift the ratio changed from one to 12.5 to one to 16.7, and on the evening shift the ratio of one staff member to 18.7 has been raised to one staff member to 25 residents.

I am wondering whether the minister is further aware that on the same day that the layoffs were announced, this nursing home decided to hire a security guard to work inside the nursing home. Has the minister investigated the situation? Has he anything to report to the Legislature on what can be only described, with that security guard in there, as an outrageous situation in this nursing home?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a full report on the situation and had expected to have it by noon today. It just is not in my hands yet, but I will have it later today and will report on Thursday. I will send a report to the honourable member tomorrow.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister also going to look at the fact that in this particular nursing home one of the ways of coping with the staff shortage because of the layoffs has been for this nursing home to put condoms on men who are incontinent, 24 hours a day, rather than hiring adequate staff to deal with the problem? According to Dr. Gryffe of the Baycrest Centre in Toronto, in many circumstances this is unsafe and unhealthy. I hope the minister will look into this situation as well and report back to the Legislature on Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the member is aware of the very strict rules we have laid down and the enforcement we have undertaken with regard to nursing homes in the province. In fact, the member was involved in the case of one nursing home that we insisted be closed because it did not meet our standards.

I know the member is aware of how serious we are about cracking down on those nursing homes that are not meeting ministry standards. Those standards will be applied with equal force to this nursing home when the report of that investigation reaches my hands.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDER

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Mr. Gary Alexander McCorkell has been charged in Etobicoke with attempted murder and sodomy. Is this the same individual who in 1962 was convicted of killing two babies, Ronald MacLeod, age three, and Michael Atkinson, age two? He was sentenced to die for these two murders, which sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and he was paroled in April 1981.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not know. This is certainly something I can inquire into. If it is the same person, it does illustrate the concern a number of citizens of the community have about the release of some highly or potentially very dangerous offenders by the National Parole Board. This is a federal matter. This is something I would be happy to discuss with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and get back to the honourable member.

PICKERING LAND EXPROPRIATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As the minister walks over to his seat, I might state that it is always with a certain amount of trepidation and concern that I raise an issue stemming from a headline in the Toronto Sun and Claire Hoy's column. Nevertheless, it is dealing with what Claire Hoy calls the "sorry saga" of Pickering.

Will the minister confirm that so far more than $8 million of public funds has been spent on a variety of inquiries, legal fees, etc., in this matter? When can the House expect the full and complete report to the House of where we are in this situation? Finally, I ask the minister, when will we see the end of this whole sorry mess?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: To answer the last question first, Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would see the end of it as soon as possible, since this has been going on for nigh on five or six years.

I cannot confirm or deny the figure of $8 million. Mr. Hoy's figure is some $3 million higher than somebody else projected a few months ago. I would have to say that if one were to look at the legal bills, and I am sure the member for Ottawa East knows about legal bills, they were rather substantial since the government and the people of Ontario picked up all the legal costs regardless of who was involved, whether they were agents of the government of Ontario or whether they were those who were going before the Donnelly commission or the Hoilett commission. The legal costs were substantial. I have answered a question in this House before in relation to them.

If one were to look at the costs incurred in the five-year period by civil servants and their participation, whether for Mr. Hoilett and the Ombudsman's office, the people on the select committee or the legal counsel for the select committee, one could imagine that we probably have gone through several million dollars.

The Hoilett commission report was submitted to me in March. We are still doing an assessment and analysis of the more than 3,000 pages which took two years to complete. In a relatively short time, I hope I will have an opportunity to meet with the Ombudsman to review the situation and submit our report. At that point, I believe it is the Ombudsman's responsibility to report back to the select committee as to the final decision on how settlement might be arrived at.

Mr. Roy: I think it is the minister's responsibility, not the Ombudsman's, to the taxpayers of Ontario.

How many reports are we going to go through? I have here the report of the Ombudsman of 1976, the report of the Ministry of Housing of September 1976 and the report from the commission of inquiry by Mr. Justice Donnelly of March 1978. Finally, the minister has talked about a report from Mr. Hoilett which he received in March 1982. Row many more reports are we going to go through?

Does the minister not get the feeling that the only people who were not properly represented and defended in this whole process were the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This House will recall that most of the confusion started right in this Legislature; that there was not a fair and equitable position being taken by the agents on behalf of the provincial government in the acquisition of land.

The acquisition of land was carried out in two stages. For roughly the first two-year period, it was by deed purchase. The second period was when the former minister indicated on February 4, 1974, that we were going to take the rest of the lands by expropriation, which we did.

Then, as a result of the Ombudsman's office, we established an opportunity for those who had already made settlements to have their situations reviewed once again. Legally, this province had made its final settlement with those individuals, save and except the Ombudsman asked that they be reviewed in the light of the escalating land values of that day.

That was the Donnelly commission. The individual land owners who were supposed to come before the Donnelly commission refused to do so. The Donnelly commission reported clearly to the Ombudsman and to this House how it saw the situation and indicated there was no fault on the part of the agents of Ontario.

Second, they tried to resolve the further problems of others who wished to have a further settlement for their lands by the people of Ontario. Indeed, I hope the Ombudsman's office, the legal counsel and so on were representing both the land purchaser and the interests of the taxpayers of Ontario.

That hearing concluded in 1979. Mr. Hoilett has taken two years or more to write the report. The Ombudsman and I now are expected to consume 3,000 pages of evidence within a relatively short period of time and report to this House instantly. In the interest of the taxpayers of this province, and to make sure justice is served for all taxpayers, the ministry will review it and report back to the Ombudsman.

To correct the member for Ottawa East, the report is to the Ombudsman, not to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Ombudsman has the responsibility of eventually reporting back to this House.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) made a statement that it was his type of legal training that put him and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on that side of the House. On behalf of many people in Ontario, may I ask the minister if the Susan Nelles case of $200,000, the price of innocence --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: I want to get this question on the record.

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot. The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Sargent: It is not a question --

Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is.

Mr. Sargent: I am asking this on a point of privilege.

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

Mr. Sargent: On behalf of a lot of people, it is a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member resume his seat, please?

Mr. Sargent: Why can't we find out --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

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

Ministry administration program, $26,610,100; adults and children's services programs, $1,943,904,900.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT

Mr. Mancini moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley. first reading of Bill 129, An Act to require that Consumer Contracts be Readable and Understandable.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the bill requires that consumer contracts be readable and understandable by the ordinary consumer. A consumer contract that contravenes the detailed requirements set out in subsection 2(1) may be rescinded by the consumer, who is also entitled to recover any damages suffered as a result of the contravention and may be entitled to punitive damages.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with orders of the day, I remind all honourable members that pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with an answer to a question, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with an answer to a question and the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with an answer to a question. These matters will be dealt with at 10:30 tonight.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, it was determined at the House leaders' meeting that we would divide the time on this debate equally three ways, and I ask that the table keep track of the time.

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, motion 26 under standing order 63(a):

That the government of Ontario, as a result of its failure in the Treasurer's budget to take any substantive action to assist farmers, home owners and unincorporated small business to cope with unprecedented high interest rates, and as a result of its failure to create adequate short-term jobs and its complete failure to create long-term jobs through a government investment or industrial strategy, and as a result of the government's policy of shifting the taxation burden to those least able to pay through increases in OHIP premiums and removing sales tax exemptions on a number of essential goods and services, and as a result of the budgetary policy of the government which attacks the poor instead of attacking poverty, this government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should explain why we in this party have taken steps of making a no-confidence motion specifically on budgetary matters at this time.

By the traditional rules of this House, we do not get to vote on the Treasurer's budget until the House adjourns in December. We feel in the present circumstances that this is simply too late, it is not adequate and by that time more than half the money the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will have gained in taxes will have been spent.

This is a pitiful and pathetic budget. I do not usually engage in the practice of political predictions. However, when the defeat of the Conservative government comes to be written about in 1987, about two years after it is defeated in 1985, commentators and political scientists will point to this budget as the watershed, the peak that caused its defeat, as the seed of the erosion of the confidence of the people of Ontario in the Conservative government.

This budget spells the demise of the Conservative Party. It signals more clearly than any other previous document that the Conservatives and the government led by the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) has lost the will to lead. It is a budget that lacks courage and imagination. It is a gutless and whining budget.

Yesterday, it was instructive that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) said Ontario was "one little province." This is not a little province, but the Tories, with their mindset, have begun to think of it that way. They think of it as a have-not province. The Treasurer is beginning to think of it as a Third World country. That is why he thinks the workers at Spalding should take wage cuts.

We in this province believe this is still a great province with a lot of potential. We in the New Democratic Party have faith in the future of this province. The Conservatives and this government have lost the faith they had in the future of the people and in the promise this province had. This is a budget that makes crystal clear, clear as a lake suffering from the damages and ravages of acid rain, the total bankruptcy of the Ontario Conservative economic and social policy.

Instead of attacking poverty, this budget attacks the poor. Anybody who is a member of the Liberal Party, with Allan J. MacEachen as its Minister of Finance, should not make any comments about this budget, because we have Allan J. Miller in Ontario and Frank S. MacEachen in Ottawa.

This budget reveals a government that weakly succumbs to events instead of trying to control or master them. It reveals a government starkly naked of ideas. Instead of dealing with the jurisdiction and authority he has, to improve the lot of the people of Ontario, the Treasurer merely attacks others, especially the federal government, for their failure.

Last fall, we had a Liberal budget that failed to deal with the needs of the people of Canada and of Ontario. We had a Liberal budget that stung the people of this province. This spring, after much delay, we had a Conservative budget that failed to deal with the needs of the people of Ontario.

This budget even expresses a pitiful and pathetic hope, as one of its cornerstones, on page 4, that US defence spending will stimulate the Ontario economy. That is how pathetic, how silly, how desperate the Treasurer is in clutching at economic straws for the hope of the growth of the economy of this province, that the United States will stimulate and increase its defence spending.

It would be unfair to suggest that the Treasurer might hope the United States gets involved directly in the Falklands crisis; it would be unfair to suggest that he does not care on whose side. But it does make one uneasy, when the Treasurer takes the time to say that defence spending in the United States is one of the main hopes of stimulating the Ontario economy. Surely there are better ways out of the current recession than spending on armaments.

3:30 p.m.

This has been termed a nickel-and-dime budget, but frankly I think that is giving it too much praise. This is a second-rate budget by a Treasurer who, as I said, believes this is now a have-not province.

I want to deal briefly with six items. Within the time allotted to me, I may only get to five. I want to deal with interest rates, unemployment, the north, the burden of taxation, sales tax and the failure of this government to develop a long-term strategy for the economic development of this province.

Number one: Interest rates, which remain the bugbear of the Canadian economy. Home owners lose their homes, farmers lose their farms, unincorporated small businessmen lose their businesses, and workers lose their jobs. The Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer (Mr. F.S. Miller) and the Conservative government stand idly by, just as Allan MacEachen and the Liberals stood idly by last fall.

The provincial government has taken no action on interest rates. It introduced no moratorium on mortgages, and it has no plans to use the Province of Ontario Savings Office as a fully fledged financial institution along with credit unions, to help farmers, home owners and small businessmen maintain their property. We on this side of the House endorse the idea of privately owned property so much that we believe everybody should have some, not just the banks and the trust companies.

Number two: Unemployment. The number one aim of any government must be the creation of jobs. Deindustrialization is a term that rolls easily off the tongues of politicians, political scientists and economists. But what does that mean for the average man and woman in this province? Deindustrialization means the loss of dignity, the loss of a job and, in many cases, it means the loss of a home and the breakup of a family. On the campaign trail, I used the example of my friend and neighbour, Ben Miharija. I have never used it in the House and I want to read it into the record. Mr. Miharija is a neighbour of mine in Thunder Bay. At Christmas time he received the following letter from Canada Steamship Lines, and I want to read part of it into the record:

"Dear Mr. Miharija: It is with regret that Canada Steamship Lines Inc. has come to the decision that it can no longer maintain its Package Freight operations.

"As a result of our decision, the Package Freight terminals will not be reopening in the spring of 1982, and I am enclosing herewith a cheque having the value of two weeks' pay plus a cheque for severance pay applicable under the Canada Labour Code.

"We thank you for your efforts in the past, and rest assured that we regret the need for the decision we have taken, but feel we have no other choice."

Mr. Miharija is a Portuguese immigrant. He worked for Canada Steamship Lines for over 25 years. There is no pension plan, and he is a man of 58. What does he do? What does this government do for him? If we had a government worthy of the name of the adjectives, humane and decent, he would have a job to go to, or at least he would have a pension, which he has not with this company. That is what deindustrialization means.

Just this morning we learned that over 4,000 Ontario workers lost their jobs in March. Twenty-two companies closed their doors, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) warns that there is worse news for April and May. What do we have from the provincial Treasurer in his budget? A feeble attempt to create 31,000 temporary jobs and some summer student employment. Surely that shows the government's lack of will, its lack of leadership, its failure to take on the responsibilities of government. It reveals the government's helplessness and its utter gutlessness when it comes to aiming for full employment so that the people of this province can live lives of dignity and joy.

Number three: I want to talk briefly about the north. For years the Conservatives have been neglecting the north. This time they actually introduced a budget that attacked the north. Consider just the following brief items: The cost of car licence plates go up; on those big autos in southern Ontario it goes down. Sales tax has always been heavier on northern residents because the base price of goods is higher; this gets extended to essential items from toilet paper to toothpaste.

No matter what the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) says, in the north, he is powerless to do anything to reverse that trend and the attack that the government has made on northern Ontario. Energy costs continue to go up. Hydro costs go up, and Hydro makes a plan for a differential that in fact increases the cost unduly and discriminately against northern residents as opposed to those in the south.

Finally, for the first time since I can remember there was not one word in the budget about diversifying the economy of northern Ontario to create full-time, year-round manufacturing jobs. There is no longer a design for development strategy to ensure jobs in one-industry towns such as Elliot Lake, Wawa or even Sudbury when the time comes that the ore runs out in the mines.

Number four: The burden of taxation. This budget has clearly and irrevocably shifted the tax burden onto the individual and onto the family. For example, the typical family in Ontario will have an increase, when you total them all up, of at least $305. Taxes have shifted to the individual steadily since 1960. The individual and the family are now paying more and more and getting less and less. They are getting less from the province in educational services, less in health services and certainly less in consumer protection. With regard to job security this government offers nothing.

Just to give members some idea of the tax shift that has taken place, in 1960 for every dollar collected in personal taxes, $1.79 was raised in corporate taxes; by 1982, with this budget, for every dollar raised by personal taxes, only 14 cents will be collected from corporate taxes.

Number five: The sales tax. The focus of discontent on this budget has been on the sales tax because the Treasurer has extended the sales tax in what can only be called a greedy, chintzy and inhuman way. In his desperate search for revenue, which gouges the individual and the family instead of taxing the corporate sector and other areas of taxation, the Treasurer raised Ontario health insurance plan premiums by 17 per cent.

But he fastened most on reducing the exemptions from sales tax. This is the area that has stuck in the craw of most people. They resent their provincial government taxing everything from toothpaste to toilet paper. The Treasurer has expanded taxation to what are now considered essential items, and to tax these items is just plain mean. To tax school supplies is niggardly, and to tax charitable organizations such as legions, ethnic groups and church groups, surely has forced volunteers to become tax collectors for a wasteful government that gives its parliamentary assistants, let alone its cabinet ministers, limousines to run around in and its Premier a jet plane.

The government claims that the only way to replace lost federal revenue is to increase sales tax. But the measures he introduced have had the same effect as if he had raised the sales tax from seven per cent to 7.7 per cent. In other words, he might as well have raised the sales tax by one percentage point. The reason we object so strongly to the broadening of the sales tax base is that this imposes unnecessary hardships on families. The tax on personal hygiene and cleaning supplies, the tax on prepared foods and the tax on energy conservation products are all unwise and unjustified.

Finally, I just want to read into the record parts of a rather unusual letter that was sent to me by one of my constituents. It was sent to the Treasurer, and a copy was sent to me.

"To Treasurer Frank Miller:

"You have stooped to the lowest that any MLA can go. You should hide not just your face but your whole self because you stink so bad. Who ever told you this paper I am writing on is not essential, and the soap and shave cream and toothpaste I use is not essential? Where are your brains?

3:40 p.m.

"You better take off that tartan blazer. It is starting to show the dirt in your colour. You should be ashamed of yourself.

"I'm not, like you and your rich Conservative Party, able to afford an electric razor. Also, I take pride in keeping myself clean.

"You and your party are dirty and low. Don't you ever come to 'God's country,' clean northwestern Ontario. This is the part of Ontario you people forget about. We up here pay for all your essentials.

"Another very concerned citizen, also a veteran of World War II, Mr. A. Craven.

"P.S. I know I am being blunt. I'll be a hell of a lot more so in future if my pension cheque gets much smaller through your stupidity and ignorance.

"Resign!"

There follows, on the copy: "Thank you. Jim. I am awfully sorry I had to resort to this but he just went too damn far this time. I just get one cheque and not three or whatever."

That person has been driven to a point of frustration to take the kind of dramatic action most normal citizens in this province would not take, and Mr. Craven is a normal citizen. I think it is that kind of anger that is going to spell the death-knell of the Tory government.

Finally, there is no vision for the economy in this budget. It is a weak fiscal document. It did nothing to create an industrial strategy to create the jobs that are being lost at Spalding, in the auto industry and in northern Ontario. This government failed to respond to these admittedly difficult economic times with any kind of skill and courage.

This government has been in power for 40 years. It is easy to govern when things are going well, as they were between 1943 and 1973, but it takes skill and courage to manage in bad times and this government lacks that courage and skill.

The Treasurer whined like a petulant schoolboy about the limitation of the tools that he has. In this century, Winston Churchill said, 'Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." This Treasurer had the tools to do the job and he failed to use them. If I could paraphrase, he said: "We do not have the tools; we do not want the tools; we do not want the jobs. Let the feds do it. Let Ronald Reagan do it. Let somebody else do it. Let anybody do it, but not us."

If this government is not prepared to do the job, we in this party are. The leader of this party, Mr. Rae, and the Treasury critic, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) have outlined in detail how this party would get this province moving again. For that reason, we have moved this no-confidence motion now. We want this government defeated now. If it is not prepared to govern, we are. Move over for a party that is prepared to do the job.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague to the left in enthusiastically supporting this motion. I have often said privately to my friends to the left that too often we tend to think the enemy is at each side, on this side of the House. We look to the left or to the right and we do not realize often enough that the people who are our enemies are the people across the aisle.

Using my vast experience in this place, I think back to the days of 1975 and 1977, when we should have got rid of those incompetents on that side. We should have united at that time and thrown them out when we had the opportunity. I suppose in some measure this government, which is perpetrating this injustice on the people of Ontario at this time, is a result of our own failing on this side in not having united earlier to kick those beggars out of office.

I noticed that, after the acting leader of the New Democratic Party spoke, no one on the government side rose with any degree of enthusiasm. No one made any effort at all to rise to attempt to defend this budget.

I see the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is here this afternoon. Like many of the other members I find it encouraging that he is attending here. I appreciate that it is with a certain degree of boredom since he has spent the last few weeks in more exciting endeavours in other areas of the globe. But I say to the minister, I think there was something cynical about his presenting a budget and a few days later leaving the country and not being in a position --

Mr. Haggerty: I don't blame him for leaving.

Mr. Roy: I suppose some people would say that. But a responsible minister would have remained here and defended his budget. It is not fair that he should leave it to the Minister of Revenue, poor old George Ashe, who is always confused, to determine what is and what is not government policy. This has happened more often than not. I have seen this before. When the Treasurer has difficult programs to defend he leaves the Minister of Revenue, very often, to pilot the bills through the Legislature and to defend the process.

I for one have no hesitation in supporting the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party. The most significant part of the motion is the line wherein it is stated that this present government's policy in this budget seems to be to attack the poor rather than attacking poverty. I think it a pretty cynical document indeed.

In the brief time I have available I intend to review the hypocrisy and contradictions of this present administration and of this minister. It is ironic. The Treasurer at times has the image and reputation of being a candid, sort of nice and easy, upfront, there-it-is-all-on-his-sleeve person, of not being a cynical type of politician; he puts it all out there. Yet, he is perpetrating a terrible policy on the people of Ontario.

I intend to review some of these contradictions of promises made in earlier elections and in previous budgets, promises made by his leader, by himself and by some of his colleagues, which are flagrantly contradicted by some of the policies in this budget.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) who has just come from Brussels, I am told -- is that right, was the last trip to Brussels? --

Mr. Brandt: At his own expense.

Mr. Gillies: At my own expense.

Mr. Roy: -- where he visited the former Conservative candidate. I understand he saw Omer. Is he well, is the limousine tuned up? Is Omer enjoying his new job?

Mr. Gillies: I certainly did. He is a very fine man, much more likeable than you, Albert. He is doing an excellent job.

Mr. Roy: When he was running in Ottawa East he did not want to admit that he was looking for a good job, but he was rewarded. He made the sacrifice. The martyrdom in Ottawa East in 1981 has blossomed into one of the best jobs in this government.

Mr. Philip: Like a lot of provincial Liberal candidates.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Are you speaking to the motion on the floor?

Mr. Roy: It is right on. The beauty of this motion is that I can speak on anything about anybody at any time. There is tremendous freedom.

So I want to say to the member for Brantford and to his sidekick, the well-fed member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), go to Brussels and visit Omer. Just think. If they work hard enough and make enough sacrifices, they too will get a good job. Yes, they will be given a good job, possibly even in cabinet.

The response of this party to the budget has been consistent. We feel this budget has failed to recognize and identify the present crisis situation faced by home owners. In other words, the emphasis in this budget was on loans again.

I am glad to see the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) is here because we were talking about him earlier.

Do you know what the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) said? "There is no way I am going to go swimming in Hamilton Bay. There is no way I am going to follow the member for Burlington South who wanted to swim in that bay." Was that in 1975? Here we are, seven years later, and he will not even stick his big toe in that bay.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: He can walk across it now.

Mr. Roy: My friend from Erie said he has a better chance to walk across it than swim across it now.

I will get back to the budget. The crisis faced by home owners is obviously something that this government has not recognized. It is putting forward a program of $5,000 loans. Who will it benefit?

Mr. Boudria: The rich.

Mr. Roy: The rich, likely. It will reduce the inventory of the builders. It will help those who are making $35,000 and $40,000 a year. But I say to the member for Sarnia, maybe he does not have that many constituents who make less than $35,000 or $40,000 a year, but if he does, how is this $5,000 going to help them? Please answer that question.

How is this budget going to help the small businesses? The government says they are not going to pay any corporate tax, but to pay corporate tax one has to be making a profit. How is this going to help those small corporations that are not making a profit? They are not making a profit because of the high interest rates. Where is the program for them?

Mr. Gillies: Did you say interest rates? The member should tell that to his friends in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: The member for Brantford talks about Ottawa.

Mr. Gillies: You mentioned interest rates.

Mr. Roy: I am glad he mentioned that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He got out of his foreign car to come here.

Mr. Roy: That's right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How is the member's Mazda?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Roy: I will say that when the member for Brantford was in Brussels he was not going around in any Mazda. What kind of limousine was it that Omer was chauffeured around in, in Brussels? It was no Mazda.

Mr. Gillies: It was a taxi.

Mr. Roy: It was a taxi? Yes, I will bet it was.

What is there in the budget to help the farming community which faces tremendous pressures because of high interest rates? I say to the Treasurer, where is that help? This party had proposed some solutions and yet the Treasurer saw fit not to deal with that problem.

We feel the budget is based on contradictory industrial and economic social policy and on misguided priorities. We feel the expanded retail sales tax base and the increased OHIP premiums are hitting hardest those people who can least afford it. In turn, this government has blamed the federal government for financially backing the provincial government into a corner. That is the cynical part. I intend to deal with that aspect of the budget.

In this party, our philosophy is to help those who through no fault of their own may find themselves in positions of losing their homes, their small businesses and their farms. We did have a program. We put forward an interest program.

I listened to the member for Brantford saying: "The interest rate is the fault of the federal government." The members will recall in 1977, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, "If the feds or somebody does not do anything about the interest rates, I will." Was that the promise given in the 1975 or 1977 election? Maybe the Treasurer can answer that. I should not ask that of the Treasurer because it is unfair. To ask the members on that side of the House which promises they kept is unfair. That is not a fair question. I apologize if I asked that question.

We felt there should have been an introduction of what we called an interest subsidy program. Let me deal briefly with some of the contradictions in this budget.

The government has spent some $6 million to promote energy conservation. God knows we got enough of that during the last election from the ad "Conserve it, preserve it." We still get it. I sometimes watch "60 Minutes" on Global and we still get "Conserve it, preserve it."

Hon. F. S. Miller: It's "Preserve it, conserve it." We haven't said it enough. You have it backwards like everything else.

Mr. Roy: Yes. There you are, Frank, if you had any --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): We do not call people by their first names in the House.

Mr. Roy: Did I say that? It is an endearing verbiage I am using with the Treasurer. Occasionally, he has that cute smile. It cannot be seen as well when he does not have his plaid jacket on, but when he gets that smile and that twinkle in his eye, one has a tendency to call him Frank, like in his days of the used car business.

The Treasurer should be ashamed. As protector of the public purse, how could he allow the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) to waste all that money on advertisements, which in some ways were self-promotion. I have yet to see a TV ad where the minister's name did not come on constantly at the end of the ad, and the Minister of Energy still has his name on it. How could the Treasurer allow him to get away with that when he says he is protecting the public purse? That is something I do not understand.

We have a government that has spent $6 million to promote energy conservation, then this budget removes the incentive to purchase conservation items, such as storm doors. There are taxes on those now, and there are taxes on storm windows. Thermal insulation and wind deflectors for trucks are taxed. All these items are now taxed. What is the Treasurer trying to do? How can he tolerate such contradictions in a program? He promotes energy conservation on the one hand and, when people go forward to buy the tools necessary, he moves in and taxes these items.

The government has criticized the federal government for cutting back expenditures on health and post-secondary education, yet the Treasurer, on page 17 in the budget, serves notice that all recipients of provincial funds should not count on funding for anything above the inflation rate.

The Premier partly built his reputation, and how well we remember that, on being a transportation man. Remember the 1971 election? He cut off the Spadina expressway. Remember that dramatic gesture? He even went down to Florida and got himself some medals as Mr. Transportation Man. The same government that was tacitly supporting public transit now adds a sales tax on buses and on the labour on servicing most of the public transport across Ontario. How is that for a contradiction? When the Treasurer was presenting this policy, was the Premier tugging on his coat? Was he kicking him under his chair? Was he pinching him? How did he get this past Mr. Transportation Man of the Year?

The budget announced a $133 million capital works acceleration program as a job creation program. At the same time, it will apply retail sales tax on building materials and certain other items purchased by publicly funded bodies such as municipalities. On the one hand, the government accelerates construction, and on the other hand, it applies sales tax on these materials.

Another contradiction in this government's assistance to the hospitality industry is that it has placed a 10 per cent tax on liquor, five per cent on rooms and seven per cent on other things. There are three levels of taxation in this industry. An interesting side to this is that the retail sales tax is supposed to be paid by the final consumer, but the tax on the purchase of disposable items, such as soap, toilet paper, etc., is now borne by the motel operator, who is not the final consumer. Those items are taxed again when the consumer pays tax on the room. In effect, in this budget we have double taxation.

Does the Treasurer realize that? He is not aware of it. I know he has been spending some time in Japan thinking about other things, but this is what is happening in his budget.

The government talks about a job creation program, saying there must be meaningful jobs. Yet the budget dwells on and emphasizes temporary replacement programs, which do nothing to address the structural unemployment problems in the province, and 55,000 jobs lost in manufacturing are not going to reappear when the business cycle starts. These jobs, I am sorry to say, are gone forever. The people over there are dealing with this superficially.

4 p.m.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: Time after time the colleagues of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), the Treasurer and the Premier, have stood in this House and taken great credit for job creation when things were going well. Well, they are not standing in the House and bragging about the jobs lost, are they? They are not facing the people of Ontario. They are not bringing forward solutions to the real problems. They are offering only superficial, Band-Aid treatment for a very serious problem.

Mr. Shymko: What would you do, Albert?

Mr. Roy: What would we do? The member was not here when I talked about our program. I cannot be repetitious; I do not have sufficient time.

Probably the greatest hypocrisy of all is when this government talks about financial restraint. The budget announces that we are going to increase members' salaries by only six per cent. However, out of the 70 beggars over there, the 70 Tories, 62 are getting increases. They are all there at the public trough getting extra money for something: 62 out of 70.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Why don't you perform your duties here properly? You have got your nerve to stand there.

Mr. Roy: A bunch of hypocrites. The Minister of Northern Affairs talks about performing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Roy: That member has not performed yet. He has not earned his salary yet. My God, he is overpaid.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You're short-changing the public. What a hypocrite. Of all people to talk.

Mr. Roy: The minister should be ashamed. His hand should shake. What a bunch of hypocrites.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You should resign; here two days a week.

Mr. Roy: When the Premier freezes salaries he is freezing the opposition, not the people on the public dole.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: My God, these incompetents. They have not deserved --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: The hand of the Minister of Northern Affairs should shake every time he picks up his pay cheque.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Task the member for Ottawa East to hold his thoughts to the presentation. He is getting a little bit personal.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hit a raw nerve there.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Yes, the hypocrisy. The Premier on the one hand says, "We are going to limit members," but he does nothing about all those limousines running across the province. No.

And what about the acting House leader? Where is the House leader? I wanted to talk about him briefly. First of all, he is chief government whip. He is getting one salary for being an MPP; he is getting another $8,800 in salary for being government whip and $11,000 for being Minister without Portfolio. And these people dare to say they want a limit of six per cent.

Mr. Shymko: The member has got two salaries.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I have two, but part of it is not on the public dole. Does the member not understand that? All the government members are at the public trough. A bunch of incompetents.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Roy: They have their nerve. My colleague from Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) says I should switch to French. I do not think I have adequate words in French to describe the hypocrisy on that side.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this government dares to preach restraint when we saw the acquisition of Suncor and we saw the acquisition of a $10.6 million jet for the Premier. How can they justify that purchase when the Treasurer talks of restraint? How can he possibly smile? How can he possibly go around Ontario and talk about responsibility when he is blowing over $10 million on frills like a jet that are not needed in Ontario at this time?

The members opposite have their nerve, they really do. I look at the Treasurer and, my good God, even that cute and candid smile of his will not get around the hypocrisy of that policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Count the four-engined Liberal jets.

Mr. Roy: There are no jets in the Liberal caucus. I am not here to defend federal policy. I am here to criticize Conservative policy at this level.

I have so much more to say and I could go on.

This afternoon, my colleagues and I witnessed with some interest the start of a retreat. Did members notice that during the question period? He said at one point about church meals, "We have a regulation there. We will show some flexibility." He knows the Premier got to him and said, "Look, Frank, I am in favour of the Lord's Prayer and God, you are taxing church meals. This has been a bad week for me. I had my picture taken with a Playboy bunny and then you are taxing church meals. All in one week -- this is terrible. We cannot get away with that, Frank." So the Treasurer backed off on church meals.

In my relatively short experience in this place I have seen different Treasurers and different budgets, but I can only think of one other Treasurer and budget that reminds me of this one. That was the famous John White budget. Do members recall John White's budget? Do members remember when John White put a tax on energy and when people complained, the Treasurer said at that time, "Turn down the thermostat boys, and put on the sweaters." Do members remember that cynical comment?

That was as cynical as this Treasurer's comment about the criticism of his budget, such as "Let them eat peanut butter" -- which he says he did not say -- or his cynical comments about toilet paper and sanitary napkins. I could read letters from my constituents like those all members have obtained on this.

If only we had the numbers, we would be so pleased to turf the government out. The Bramalea charter said that in 1982 there would be a balanced budget. When I asked the Treasurer the other day if he recalled that he said, "If there had been a Conservative administration in Ottawa..." Yet he was the one who was instrumental in the defeat of Joe Clark. Does the Treasurer remember that? He was instrumental in that. If the Treasurer had any guts and any honour, if he were not so full of hypocrisy, he would take this budget to the people of Ontario and then we would see what the people really think about this.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in what is a traditional and proper way to --

Mr. Laughren: Where is the applause for the Treasurer?

[Applause]

Hon. F. S. Miller: One gets praise from unexpected places from time to time.

Mr. Foulds: Do you support the motion?

Mr. Cooke: What did you get for us in Japan?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a nice prepared little speech here, but the member for Ottawa East at times does test a person's patience. I do not know how he can talk about all the things he does in a Tuesday-to-Thursday week.

Mr. Roy: Where were you last night? I was right here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was in Toronto working last night and unfortunately the bells do not work in my office or I would have been here.

Even the former leader of the Liberal Party, the one who just vacated the position, had to say, "I wish the member for Ottawa East would turn up on more days of the week. It is a bit embarrassing when he is in court there, working away like he does."

Mr. Roy: It is not at the public trough.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member is collecting his cheque as if he were here for a full week, flying on government paid-for aircraft back and forth to his riding so that he can carry out his duties in court. I am also --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Return half your salary. You are only here half the time.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I am having trouble hearing the Treasurer.

4:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Before I start my own prepared comments I am tempted to point out that the member talks about the jobs we are creating as if they did not matter. He pretends the 32,000 man-years of jobs we will create in the building of new homes this year will have no permanent impact.

We already have had more than 690 applications in our program to help people buy homes, some 400 of them from people who are renting. Some have already bought houses. We have had 8,700 calls and sent out more than 22,000 applications.

The member says those things are not important. He says capital works like roads in the province and repairs to universities do not matter. He says student work in the summer time is not critical. I wonder, then, what is.

This country stands at a critical point in its economic development. I pointed out several weeks ago in my budget that the nations of the industrial world have been coping with problems of very slow economic growth and inflation ever since 1973. In that year we had the first of a series of oil-pricing shocks from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. No country in the world has met that challenge fully.

We in the west have experienced relatively short bursts of economic activity since then. Each time the economy seems to be moving ahead at a reasonable pace, the rate of inflation increases, and that, in turn, leads to higher interest rates which dampen the economy.

As we know, last year the American administration began a major attack on inflation. Apparently they were so determined to follow that policy in the States that they were prepared to see interest rates go to almost any level. They were prepared to see unemployment rise to a point they have not seen since before the last war. This policy has had a very real impact on all the major trading partners of the United States and particularly on us. We are their largest trading partner, of all the nations in the world.

This very week the leaders of the seven major western industrial nations will be meeting at Versailles. We have urged, and we know the government of Canada will urge, that the United States ease up on the fiscal squeeze to which it has been subjecting its economic partners. I think we can have some confidence that this may happen this year. The rate of inflation in the States has been dropping noticeably and I believe this should provide some room for the authorities in that country to ease up.

If that happens, there is every reason to believe that with the amount of pent-up demand there is in the American economy, we will see strong economic performance in the second half of 1982. That would have a positive effect on Ontario and Canada, as we have predicted.

Mr. Samis: You are really looking for outs, aren't you, Frank?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Do not be so sure we are not right. We have been right before. The opposition likes to laugh each time we make a prediction.

Mr. Foulds: Name one year.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We were right last year. We produced more jobs last year than we predicted. We produced more than 120,000 new jobs last year at a rate that no other province in this country can match.

Mr. Foulds: You created unemployment, too. The only thing you really catch up on is doctors' salaries. You never catch up on job creation.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I continue to be amazed. We sit relatively quietly on this side and try very hard to listen. I am trying to make points because I think the member made a good speech. I am trying to make one in return.

I make these observations about the international economic environment to emphasize to the members that Ontario is not an island within Canada, nor Canada an island within North America or the world. We cannot, independently, implement economic programs that will push or pull our economy in a direction fundamentally counter to other international trends. That is equally true of Canada in the international environment.

Over the past several years, one would have thought an appropriate economic policy for Canada would have been one that emphasized a climate of investment confidence and job creation. One would have thought an effective national economic program would focus on creating incentives for capital investment, both to develop our natural resources in all parts of the country and to strengthen manufacturing industries so they could become more competitive.

Last fall, when the federal government announced its intention to introduce a budget in November, many thought this would present that government with an opportunity to address the major issues. But on the night of November 12 most of us were disappointed when we saw what actually happened in the federal budget.

I have had lots of chance to talk about that in between and I do not intend to say any more about it today. It is still my hope that, because of the concerns I have expressed and which others have expressed as well, there still exists the possibility that the thinking in Ottawa will change and that some of the less desirable components of that budget will never become law. In fact in the last day or so the comments of Mr. MacEachen have encouraged me to believe that will happen.

In the meantime, it still casts a shadow of uncertainty across our economy. As I planned my budget I knew it was doubly important for Ontario to take steps to improve confidence, to create jobs, to get our economy moving again, even with the limited resources at our disposal. This task was certainly not made any easier by the fact that the federal budget cut into the very heart of the major federal-provincial, cost-sharing programs by taking $290 million out of my revenues this year. I refer, of course, to the abrupt cancellation of the revenue guarantee in the established programs financing agreement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It wasn't abrupt. You know it wasn't.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was abrupt and all 10 provinces agree it was abrupt. If the member does not believe it was abrupt I suggest he go out and talk to the other provinces and discuss it with them because it happened before a single, solitary talk was held --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They did to you what you did to the municipalities.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. This action meant that we not only had to shoulder a responsibility for stimulating our economy but we also had to face a direct threat to our ability to finance health and post-secondary education programs. That was the environment in which my budget was framed. Despite the difficulties imposed by that environment, I believe our budget has proposals in it which will have a highly positive impact on growth in our economy. It is going to improve investor confidence. It will create new jobs and will maintain an affordable standard of public service here in Ontario.

This is already becoming evident. The members are familiar with the main aspects of my budget so I do not need to repeat them now. Nevertheless some members need to be reminded because they have concentrated their criticism on only one or two aspects of the budget and have ignored all the others. To hear them tell it, the budget contains a few tax increases and nothing else.

Of course they do this deliberately because they know that taken as a whole this budget will be extremely helpful to the province. It is only natural they do not want to draw attention to that fact. Some fail, for example, to mention that the budget will create directly 31,000 jobs through the acceleration of capital projects and that funding for youth employment has been increased to $91 million.

They forget to say that the budget includes a $75 million stimulus for the housing industry, incentives for manufacturers and the complete elimination of the small business corporate tax for two years. Nor do they mention that, in advance of the budget, we had already taken a major step towards helping farmers with their financing problems.

These are the kinds of programs we need to create jobs and restore confidence. They have been accepted and they have been welcomed around the province. Let us hear what one respected analyst had to say about this. On May 18 in the Globe and Mail in its Report on Business, Ronald Anderson, under the headline, Pro-Business Budget Refreshingly Different, wrote the following:

"What the critics choose to ignore is that Mr. Miller had limited resources for few initiatives, and he has attempted to direct the available funds to the particular points where he thinks they will do the most good. He has not designed a tax supported bail-out program for failed small businesses or distressed home buyers -- other programs exist for such purposes. And he has not put forward another scheme for redistributing income from the more well-to-do to the poor. Again, a plethora of such schemes are in effect, which helps to explain why the private sector feels burdened by excessive taxes. What Mr. Miller has tried to do is put together a program that will help get the provincial economy moving again."

4:20 p.m.

Let me now turn to what the Canadian Manufacturers Association, which speaks for businesses employing hundreds of thousands of workers in this province, had to say in its press release last Friday. It quotes a letter sent to me concerning the budget. That release says, "Ontario division executive committee have sent a letter to the Ontario Treasurer commending him on a budget that responds to challenges and opportunities confronting Ontario in 1982 and beyond."

Looking specifically at the two-year elimination of corporate income tax for small business, I am sure most of the honourable members are aware of the very favourable letters from a number of accounting firms written to their clients about that measure. That in itself is going to stimulate confidence within the small business community, the sector of our economy that creates more than half the new jobs in the province. The members, I am sure, have received copies of a letter from John Bulloch, who heads the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Mr. T. P. Reid: An objective observer on the scene.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He calls it the way he sees it. The way he sees it was that we help small business in a way that no government has helped small business for years. He gives the budget unqualified support. His support and his enthusiasm will be infectious for some members of his organization.

I also will quote from a letter I received right after the budget from a small businessman in southwestern Ontario -- right down in Liberal country. He began by saying, "I am sure you have been deluged with messages of support for your new budget, but I still wanted to write." I stop at that point because he obviously does not know politicians never get deluged with letters of support, no matter what.

interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In spite of that assumption --

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like members to listen to what he has to say.

"Your new tax measures come as welcome relief. For some time, many of us have been" --

Mr. McClellan: Who was this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One of my sons, who do you think?

It is from southwestern Ontario and it is from a patternmaking company and I have the name.

"For some time, many of us have been operating on a very marginal basis with real after-tax returns falling well below reasonable levels. I have seen many people simply give up under these conditions. Some have rejoined the labour force compounding the unemployment problem. Your new tax reduction has persuaded us to hang on. On behalf of my employees I thank you for this responsible action in these troubled times. We all understand that your government seems to be the only one to understand our problems and offer help."

We have been getting quite a few letters of that kind.

Mr. T.P. Reid: Signed, the Deputy Treasurer of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He is probably in the riding of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) as a matter of fact. I think I will just send him that quote from the member -- that he is short a couple of, what was it? -- a couple of pecks short of bushel?

Mr. Van Horne: A couple of apples short of a bushel.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A couple of apples short of a bushel, is what the member for London North said about his constituent. I will gladly send that to him.

Let us turn for a moment to our housing program because that is an element of the budget that the opposition has asked me to withdraw. I would like to quote from the Toronto Sun of May 26. The business editor, Garth Turner, certainly did not write a very flattering article about me the day afterwards, so I only suggest that the members opposite listen to what he wrote after he had a chance to see how the budget works.

Mr. Sweeney: How about David Oved's column?

Hon. F. S. Miller: David Oved wrote a very nasty column too -- fine. Many people do after a budget. All I say is that after a week or so of observation they began to realize perhaps their off-the-cuff suggestions were not quite on the mark.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Discontinue the dialogue back and forth. Each has an opportunity to speak and the Treasurer has the floor.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The headline was, "Weekend of Hope -- At Last?" He said:

"I believe in symbols. Last weekend -- in the new worlds being built on the leading edges of the city -- there were thousands of them. Young, eager, confident couples deserted their apartments, travelled to those edges and did some incredible things. They smiled. They laughed. They talked about things in the long term. They thought about the future and were happy. They bought houses. After almost a year of darkness, in the drizzle and the fog of a crummy long weekend, there was sunshine. There was activity, and there was hope. It took no longer than a few days for the word to spread that Ontario was going to give people up to $5,000 for 10 years to help them buy a house. . . A lot of people in the real estate business called it a Band-Aid. But it wasn't. It was a transfusion."

As of this morning, we have had 8,705 calls. We have sent out 22,325 applications. We have had 690 back already. We have approved 104, and we have already mailed cheques for 19. In Metro there were 450; in the rest of Ontario, 240. There are 421 renters who have already bought, and 269 first-time home owners. That is a remarkable reaction in two weeks, and it is going to go on and to create jobs far beyond our expectations.

Our home buyer program is working well. It is going to create jobs. I point all of this out to the members of the official opposition as evidence that the budget is already having a positive impact on confidence and job creation in this province. Of course, it is a little difficult to have a constructive debate with my friends in the official opposition because they simply do not tell us where they stand.

When their colleagues in Ottawa took the $300 million a year for social programs from this province they were silent. When their colleagues produced a damaging budget they were silent. When it comes to finding constructive programs for creating jobs for our people they are still silent. Like poor Johnny One Note, they only had one thing to say -- that they are opposed to Suncor, period. That is the sum and total of their economic policies.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn your attention to some of the views expressed by the third party, because at least it has put views forward in a constructive way. I give that to its members. I do not agree with many of their proposals, but at least we know where they stand. In its pre-budget statement, the third party said, it "did not expect miracles from the Treasurer." No, its modest program would involve the full protection of every family in the province from high interest rates, the elimination of poverty, the creation of long- and short-term jobs and the total reform of the tax system. They are all admirable goals. I can find many points I agree with in these objectives.

Indeed, we have taken steps to protect farmers, and, as I have pointed out, our housing and our small business programs will help others contend with high interest rates and will help create longer-term jobs. Our capital works acceleration program will create jobs in the short term. I have also tabled a discussion paper, which does discuss certain elements of our taxation system that could be changed. But if any government of this province were to go all the way with the third party's program, it would perhaps not require a miracle, but it surely would require a lot of money. By its own figures, its programs would cost well over $1 billion this year.

The third party has pointed out in general terms how it would try to find the money, essentially by taxing investment. While its tax policy is not specific its papers refer to actions such as taxing capital gains and dividends at higher rates, reducing the capital cost allowance and extending the sales tax on production machinery and equipment.

There are a number of interesting elements to this position on tax policy. First, at a time when we need to do everything we can to bolster investment confidence, the third party proposes to erode it. I cannot understand how anyone can advocate the destruction of investor confidence and say it is consistent with a strategy of job creation. Or is there a piece missing in the strategy? Is there something we are not hearing about? Perhaps the third party has totally written off the private sector of the province.

4:30 p.m.

There is a second element to their tax proposals that I would like to comment on. They suggest that 100 per cent of personal capital gains should be brought to tax and that the dividend tax credit should be reduced. As members know, such actions would require changes to the personal income tax, which is exclusively under federal control. I wonder whether the third party is advocating that Ontario adopt its own income tax system. As members know, I have asked the Ontario Economic Council to explore that issue during the rest of the year in one of our white papers, and I look forward to seeing the proposals to the council of the members opposite.

My budget represents a determined effort to create jobs and get our economy moving, and the business community is responding positively. But we are not going to do this at the risk of compromising responsible fiscal policies, which the government has traditionally maintained. We are not going to pay for job creation programs by reducing investment incentives that create jobs in the first place, and we are not going to do it by borrowing from future generations.

I think the Leader of the Opposition agrees with this approach, because he said: "I would say that it is each generation's responsibility to carry itself, and our responsibility is to invest for our children, not to rob from them. One has to constantly look at the temporary circumstances and balance off between tax increases and deficits. I do not believe for a minute that we can balance the budget tomorrow."

This is what we have done in this budget: we have increased the deficit by an amount that is well within our ability to finance. Our capital investments this year will be $2.2 billion, and our total outside borrowing will be about $1.9 billion. If we had not increased certain taxes in our budget, then our deficit and our borrowing would have had to be higher or we would not have been able to undertake the economic stimulation programs in the budget. Moreover, we could not have made up the $290 million that the federal government took from our revenues this year. This would have meant staring at the possibility of deep cuts in the health care or post-secondary education programs, and those are not acceptable to us.

We have been able to provide a significant degree of stimulation to the economy while still holding the deficit in check. Members might be interested to know that, in relative terms, other provincial governments have been forced to chalk up very high deficits this year and that in per capita terms, Ontario now has the second-lowest provincial deficit in Canada. If British Columbia's is put on a comparable basis, we have the lowest.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued to note when the Treasurer was listing his endorsements that they certainly included the chamber of commerce and the business community, but I did not hear one from a social group, a church group or a labour union in Ontario.

On March 19, 1981, the Conservatives won a majority in the Ontario provincial election, and for the people of Ontario that has turned out to be a sad day indeed. Up until the 1975 election of a minority government in this province, a rather exciting period when there was some accountability on the part of the members, the one outstanding characteristic of the Conservative government was that they ran the show. Oldtimers tell us many tales of the way the Tories ran business through the House to suit themselves. Today it would clearly be called arrogance.

The 1981 election with its majority result has seen a return to the arrogance of most of the preceding 38 or 39 years. They may have started slowly, but within a year they were back to their old tricks, and the May 13 budget was about as arrogant and insensitive as we have seen in a long time in Ontario.

First, we had the softening-up process before the last election, the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on advertising. This was the people's money, taxpayers' money, taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, not Conservative Party funds, and they were used to spew out the fancy jingles and media promotions. How many will ever forget the "Preserve it, conserve it" jingle and so on in Ontario?

We have some great moralists in the Conservative Party, and I wonder how they separate principle and integrity from outright greed and opportunism when they divert tax dollars to partisan political gain. There are many who would not hesitate to call it the lowest form of political hypocrisy.

Having used public funds for the softening-up exercise, the Tories did spend their millions in campaign funds in an effective but cynical way. The people will well remember the jingles we were bombarded with during the election campaign, which called on all of Ontario to "help keep the promise." It was blatant and deceptive, because the promises were seldom spelled out. It was just a global call to the people's loyalty and patriotism, to every citizen in Ontario, to their own and their children's future.

Unfortunately, it worked. Had there been an understanding of the responsibility that type of campaign brought with it, the Conservatives might have been forgiven. There has not been such an understanding. It seems the opposite is true. Not only is the arrogance back but also we are seeing what only can be called a clear loss of contact with the people of the province.

I have been knocking on a lot of doors in the last short period of time, both in my own riding and in the by-election in Hamilton West. The Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Tories might be amazed at the number of Conservatives -- I know I had four families last night alone -- who are saying the Premier and his party seem somehow or other to have lost touch with the people of Ontario. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the budget with which we have just been torpedoed.

When the Conservatives asked the people to "help keep the promise," why did they not tell the people that the promises included no action to reduce interest rates, even though that is one of the major factors crippling our economy and bankrupting individuals? Why did they not tell the people that to "help keep the promise" there would be no action to prevent foreclosures on homes and farms, even though these actions are on the increase and can destroy the hopes and aspirations of hard-working citizens of Ontario?

No real action was taken to provide adequate- paying jobs, to control our economy and to reverse the branch plant economy which in this province, next to the interest rates, is the major impediment to any real sorting out of our industrial problems and to re-establishing the industrial base. There was very limited help for small business. Why, for example, was help offered only to the 60,000 incorporated small businesses and nothing to the 200,000 that are not incorporated, many of which are small family concerns?

Did the call to "help keep the promise" include a $96 increase in Ontario health insurance plan premiums for the people of the province? Did it include the drastic expansion of items covered by the seven per cent sales tax?

Does this government think the people would have accepted a tax on essentials, on women's and men's toilet supplies, on toilet paper, on a kid's ice cream cone, on a can of pop, on that special treat of a chocolate bar once in a while, on a hot dog or a hamburger? Did the promise include tax on a pizza the gang orders in when watching a hockey game or a ball game? To add insult to injury was the ludicrous spectacle of a tax on the delivery of that pizza.

Has anyone in this House seen a performance as childish as that of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) yesterday when he tried to defend the seven per cent sales tax -- aggressively, I might say -- on fund-raising dinners, usually by churches, service clubs and charitable and nonprofit organizations? In his defence, he tried to say they might be unfair competition to the local restaurant or hot dog stand. Fortunately, we seem to have had some backing off and it will be interesting to see just how far the minister goes.

Did the promise include cutting the tax on expensive, fat-cat dinners such as some Tories enjoy at Winston's and La Scala from 10 per cent to seven per cent, while taxing a visit to McDonald's at seven per cent? Did the people know their government would cut the taxes for those who could afford to spend $20 to $50 a meal and put them on for those who could only afford $5 or $6 a meal?

Did the promise include taxing shoe repairs, home repairs, car repairs -- all essential to the average income earner but of no real consequence to the well-to-do? They are even taxing piano tuners. How many small jobs and small businesses may suffer as a result of this? Where is the "Preserve it, conserve it" theme when we tax efforts to achieve conservation? What hypocrisy!

Does this government not understand the double taxation we are imposing on municipal residents as a result of the increased costs we must now pass through to the property taxpayers because the sales tax will add substantially to the municipal and education costs? In Hamilton alone it is up to $1.5 million more on the convention and trade centre. It is $164,000 for OHIP increases for the civic employees alone who are covered under contract. We have been able to identify $768,000 in other civic projects, and we are not into the education field as yet.

4:40 p.m.

Has this government no concern and is it not talking to the people on the doorsteps, the people in small houses who are paying taxes of $800, $900, $1,000, $1,200 and $1,500, which is more common, on very modest homes? I am talking to them and let me tell the minister, they are upset about it. It is a real concern to people. We see a substantial increase coming through here.

How many people are we turning into tax collectors in the province? One small variety store near my riding headquarters told me that from $6 to $7 tax revenue per day, he was already up to $15 or $16 and he had not yet seen the effect of it on his small snack shop. What a public ripoff!

If we add to this contemptible budget, which once again helps the wealthy and shafts the poor, the rather unbelievable expenditures which were also never exposed to the electorate, such as the Premier's $10.5-million jet; the $650 million for Suncor, the initial $325 million and the interest we are going to pay on that money; the very rich settlement to the doctors which gives them $42,000 a year more, over the next three years; while all the injured workers on disabled pensions, as we found out yesterday, are down 23 per cent of disposable income since 1976, then clearly, as far as I am concerned, this government has lost the confidence of our party and I hope of the House.

Certainly, and I say this with all the feeling I can muster, if honesty and integrity ruled in Ontario, the Premier and the Treasurer either would withdraw this budget and start to show a little concern for people once again or would have the guts to dissolve the House and go to the people now. That is a challenge I throw to them.

This government should be defeated in the interests of good government, in the interests of integrity in government and as an answer to the growing public cynicism about politics. The public heard the "Help keep the promise" slogan during the last election and then they saw what happened. Not one of those promises that people would have accepted were ever set before the people of the province. This government should be defeated.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to talk as long about this motion as I would like to do, because there are just so many terrible things in the budget that one could talk for hours and still not get the message across; so I am going to confine myself to one particular aspect, and that is agriculture. Before I do so, I would like to read a letter that was sent to me by a senior citizen in London. Like the letter which the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) read, it was written on toilet tissue. It says:

"Dear Mr. Riddell:

"As much as I dislike using this taxable tissue, I feel compelled to write to you about another matter. I bought my plants for my balcony boxes May 17 and was taxed $1.20 on a bill of $17.14. Is this legal when the budget has not been passed? We understand this tax should not take effect until June 14. Anxiously awaiting your immediate reply, or is it worth the government stamp and is the letter worth a 30-cent stamp?

"P.S. All my friends are raging at having to pay tax the day after Miller brought in the reading of his budget."

That letter was written by an 80-year-old senior citizen in London who was purchasing plants for her balcony, the one form of activity that takes away the loneliness and gives senior citizens a more enjoyable life. Now we find that this Treasurer has taxed that form of activity.

A night out at the Ponderosa or other such restaurant that the senior citizen at one time could afford is now but just a dream for many of these senior citizens because of the added cost of sales tax. Essential items such as toothpaste, toilet tissue, personal hygiene items, soap, etc., now are being taxed, and to buy these items senior citizens are depriving themselves of some of the other activities in which they once engaged and which helped diminish their loneliness and made their life more enjoyable.

What the federal government has given senior citizens by way of old age security and guaranteed income supplement, this government now has taken away with the sales tax. I really think that is a crying shame.

Let me now turn to agriculture. First, I have something I would like to read into the record, because the Treasurer has been selective in referring to the letters he has received. He has not told us about the kinds of response he has been receiving which have not been favourable. But we have been informed about those kinds of response he has chosen not to talk about; so who does he think he is fooling?

Let me read the following news release, which was issued by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture after the budget was brought down:

"'Our provincial politicians have been paying lipservice to agriculture. The budget was their opportunity to put their money where their mouths are and they blew it,' Ralph Barrie, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said today.

"The budget allocated an additional $11 million in new money to agriculture, $6 million for tile drainage and $5 million for farmstead improvements.

"The budget passed by agriculture with barely a nod of recognition,' Barrie said. 'The politicians either don't believe there is a problem or they simply don't care.'

"Barrie said the $6 million for tile drainage could have been attractive in more prosperous times. He said, 'It is less attractive under present circumstances because of changes in the tile drainage program.'

"The loan rate has risen two per cent to 10 per cent. Governments used to subsidize up to 75 per cent of the cost but now subsidizes just 60 per cent, forcing farmers to borrow the other 40 per cent at current interest rates.

"'The farmstead improvement program will just give farms a facelift,' Barrie said. 'It's purely cosmetic and won't do anything to make a farm more economically viable. Something more than a make-work program is needed, considering there have already been farm bankruptcies in Ontario this year.'

"Barrie said the increases in Ontario hospital insurance plan premiums are also going to have a negative effect on the farm community. 'Over 70 per cent of private and public employees have their OHIP paid for them; 100 per cent of farmers pay their own. That will cost farm families an additional $96 a year.'

"Barrie said the OFA would continue to put pressure on the provincial and federal governments to deal with the two major farm problems, lack of affordable credit and the absence of programs to help farmers achieve price and income security."

That is what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which represents 26,000 members, thinks about the Treasurer's budget.

The Treasurer talked about the tax holiday for small business and read into the record some letters he had received from people representing small business. I have also talked to small business people, and they tell me the Treasurer fails to understand that they do not pay a corporation tax when they are not making any money. The fact of the matter is, they are not making money. As we know, many of these small businesses are going broke.

Once again, one can be very selective in the kind of letters one cares to read into the record, but when one gets out into the real world and talks to some of the small business people, they will give information which the Treasurer is a little reluctant to give in this House.

Mr. Watson: You are being very selective.

Mr. Riddell: How much time have I got?

Mr. Watson: You've had long enough.

Mr. Riddell: I have not heard too much from the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), who is supposed to represent the farmers as well. I have not heard a thing from him.

4:50 p.m.

This budget aptly demonstrates the failure of this government to recognize the importance of the farm sector to the Ontario economy or the substantial contribution of the farming community. We have some 85,000 farmers in Ontario, a further 73,000 people who work in the food processing industry and 10,400 people in farm machinery production. These 170,000 jobs in these three closely interdependent areas are gradually being eroded because of this government's inaction.

At a time when farmers were looking for some sort of meaningful relief for their financial problems, all they got was whitewash. This budget merely pays lipservice to the farming community while completely ignoring the real problems that farmers are facing.

Ontario farm bankruptcies are increasing dramatically and, under Conservative government guidance, stood the highest in Canada last year at 140. In 1979, Ontario farm bankruptcies stood at 64. In 1980, they had climbed to 122. Farm bankruptcies in the first four months of this year equalled the total number of bankruptcies for the entire year of 1979, which I remind members was 64.

The agricultural industry's outlook for this year is cause for concern, and perhaps even alarm, with net farm incomes forecast to decline 23.5 per cent. This is the highest decline in Canada.

How does this budget respond to these problems? It offers to spend $14 million less for agriculture than it did last year. In fact, agricultural budgetary expenditures will decline to 1.1 per cent of total budgetary expenditures, down from 1.3 per cent last year and down from 1.83 per cent in 1971. In other words, since 1971 we have seen a decline in the total percentage of the provincial budget which is devoted to agriculture.

It offers farmers an increase in tile drainage loans of $6 million. In fact, this amount is still about 40 per cent less than the demand last year and at best will only go to aid some 700 farmers even if they receive only half their maximum loan limit. Lest these 700 farmers out of the 85,000 in the province receive any benefits, the interest rates on these loans have been increased from eight per cent to 10 per cent. Only 60 per cent of the total drainage works will be covered, down from 75 per cent, which means the rest of the funds will have to be borrowed from banks at normal bank interest rates.

When the principal and interest payments from previous loans are considered, the new money actually destined for the tile drainage program may amount only to some $14 million and not the $36 million the minister would have us believe.

Finally, this budget proposes to offer cosmetic assistance at a time when many farmers are struggling to survive, without the funds to plant this year's crop. An amount of $5 million is to be offered to farmers to improve their farmsteads. No doubt, the Treasurer is concerned about getting the barns painted for the auctioneer -- a cruel hope indeed. The increase in the Ontario health insurance plan premiums alone, which farm families must pay 100 per cent themselves, will cost Ontario farmers more than $5.5 million and completely wipe out the farmstead program.

That is the extent of this government's commitment, or lack of it, to the agricultural industry in this province. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture reacted to the budget by stating: "The budget passed by agriculture with barely a nod of recognition. The politicians either do not believe there is a problem or they simply do not care."

My leader is asking me to wind up. I will wind up by giving some constructive recommendations. The members on the other side like to talk about how we do nothing but get up and give negative responses to government policy. All right, let me be positive. What is required, and what we in the Liberal Party would do to alleviate the economic problems facing our farmers, while ensuring adequate supplies of food for the future needs of consumers, is the following.

The overriding need is for low-interest loans for consolidated debt purposes. In 1975, the Farm Credit Corp. supplied 72 per cent of long-term farm credit; today it is down to 30 per cent. The Ontario Liberal Party would eliminate the government's ad hoc, Band-Aid program and introduce a provincial interest subsidy program on operating and long-term debt which would bring interest rates down to an affordable 12 per cent. Such a program would be based on a sliding scale depending on the immediate need of the farmer and a percentage of his assets to his liabilities. Assistance would be based on helping to pay operating expenses, rather than on expansion.

There is an immediate need for the government to encourage young farmers to get into farming. We would introduce a low-interest, long-term provincial loan program to encourage young farmers to get into farming now.

We would provide up to $50 million per year for low-interest tile drainage loans, which would cover 75 per cent of the cost of the drainage work.

We would also introduce a right to farm act, which would preserve agricultural land and protect farmers from harassment and complaints of nonfarm encroachment into farming areas.

In view of the fact that the Ontario Veterinary College is in danger of losing its accreditation next year, and possibly its licence to teach, we would provide the necessary funds to ensure that Ontario farmers are provided with the best possible education and research facilities.

We would introduce legislation that would prohibit unfair discounting trade practices in the food industry, similar to legislation in the United States under the Robinson-Patman Act.

We would increase the capital support program for farmers for modernization of buildings, equipment, energy development, etc.

To replace the $2.3 billion worth of agricultural and fine food products imported into Ontario each year, to create new jobs and to expand markets for farm products, we would create a special food strategy fund to support projects such as well-situated storage facilities, more processing plants, improved market intelligence and increased research and food storage. The government's Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program is supposed to address this problem, but the amount of food imported into Ontario clearly demonstrates that very little is being done.

We would introduce a program to assist the establishment of retail farmers' markets in cities that support such a program.

We would introduce a soil conservation program that would preserve the quality of our soil and allow a sustained yield.

We would introduce legislation to close the loophole that is allowing foreign, nonresident purchasers to bypass the Land Transfer Tax Act, and we would restrict ownership of Ontario agricultural land to Canadian citizens.

To ensure that the Ontario food industry has a secure, expanding and competitive energy supply, we would implement an energy strategy for agriculture that would emphasize conservation, fuel subsidization and energy production from agriculture.

Those are some of the programs we would introduce, not one of which was mentioned in the budget, and it is a pox on the government over there.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the budget debate today as I think it would be helpful to add some kind of balance to the diatribe we have heard yet again from the opposition.

I listened to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) describe some of the so-called proposals he was making as recommendations to the government. They sounded very much like the BILD program that is under way.

In the course of his debate he took a couple of shots at the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). If he would pause and reflect for a moment, it was through the efforts of that member that the new farm technology centre planned for Chatham came into being and is now on its way to Chatham. So let us not take away from a member who has given that kind of support to his industry, agriculture.

He talked about storage facilities. That is old news. The government is already going forward under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program with new ways to identify high technology which can be harnessed in Ontario so that the domestic food industry can be utilized to its maximum in this province. So lest we forget, and in order to maintain a balance, this government is ahead in some of the things the member for Huron-Middlesex was recently outlining.

5 p.m.

I would like to summarize briefly what I think is the main flavour, the main purpose, the main focus of the budget that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) brought to us. Somehow or other the main theme seems to have been lost in the shuffle of normal debate that opposition parties like to generate.

Perhaps something from outside the borders of this province would help us regain some perspective on the purpose of this budget. For example, La Presse was editorializing on May 22 about Quebec's budget and also about ours, and I think it is helpful to stand back from outside this province and see just what they had to say about our budget here. For example, Alain Dubuc wrote:

"Ontario is subject to the same budgetary pressures as Quebec. The recession has caused its revenues to fall and has raised its expenditures on social payments while new fiscal agreements imposed by Ottawa will cause a loss of some $300 million in revenues.

"These two factors have created a gap. However, Frank Miller has filled it without too many victims. On the one hand he has raised OHIP premiums" -- and we have heard a great deal about that. "He has taxed a long list of products." But the article goes on to say, "The product of these taxes, $340 million, all has been almost completely applied to job creation programs, to house-buyer programs and to the abolition of taxes on the profits of small business."

I read that into the record because that is being observed from outside our province. We have to remember what the main purpose of this budget was; what it set out to achieve and how evidence is now coming back to us that the Treasurer's purpose did strike the mark and is receiving very favourable comment from across the whole of the province.

The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was commenting that four people had told him recently the budget was not terribly favourable to them. Then other members chose to make light of what some people have written, which the Treasurer shared with us. They included the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, individuals in business in western Ontario, and a host of other comments that have come back. Someone started to make fun of small business and some of their representatives, such as John Bulloch. But after all, as the Treasurer put it rather clearly, one of the main thrusts of this budget was to help challenge Ontario's economy and help remove some of the impediments that have come from a negative attitude.

The member who last spoke said he wanted to get away from the brush painting that has always been attached to that party, and lately, we see it rearing its head yet again. Members will recall that the Treasurer said very clearly -- and we all know it in our heart of hearts if we are honest and forget the debate for a moment -- that the people in this economy who create no less than some 50 per cent of the new jobs are the farmers the member was just talking about, and the small businesses.

We talked about the fact that there is a lack of confidence in the economy and in those important sectors of job creation. Whether it is the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or small business representatives who speak, it is not to be taken lightly when these people ask, "Help us to help ourselves and to restore the confidence in the economy that is so desperately needed at this time."

It is against that backdrop that the Treasurer brought forward this budget which had job creation as its main theme. It put $171 million in a four-point program to create 31,000 jobs and that is but one phase.

Mr. Cooke: Don't be silly. Even you don't believe that. That's silly.

Mr. Jones: The member says that is silly. In his debate he only spoke about 31,000 new jobs and one particular program in this budget out of several complementary programs.

Mr. Cooke: That is not accurate.

Mr. Jones: I listened to the member and he talked about only 31,000 temporary jobs. That is under one particular heading, the creation of short-term jobs, and that was the package of $171 million. He chose to ignore, or make light of the fact, that the youth employment program had an increase of some 14 per cent. There are other programs on page 6 of the budget book, but the member was looking at page 7.

Mr. Cooke: It is the only substance in your budget.

Mr. Jones: That is not so. There is a 14 per cent increase this year over last in the programs that were proven to work. The member should look at the OYEP program, with $30.4 million and 57,000 jobs. The young people are going to be terribly grateful for that. It is okay for the member to pooh-pooh those jobs, but those programs work in harness with the private sector as he well knows. They are very well received and important to small business and indeed to the business community as a whole.

The opposition chose not to touch upon the new winter program and others which are provided for in the budget. The Ontario career action program and others that have proved vital to young people in this province, ought not to be sneered at. They have been improved and increased as part of the Treasurer's objective in this budget to help create jobs.

Of all areas, probably the most sensitive is small business, which in the past we have always been told the member's party has recognized as having that need. But the critic for the New Democratic Party, with all his interjections, chose to ignore small business. All of a sudden the friends of small business in the NDP were gone. That is not the reaction the Treasurer is sharing with members this afternoon as he joins the debate, nor is it the reaction we are receiving from the small business community, for we do communicate with them.

There is an impressive list of other aspects of job creation. We cannot ignore the fact that the new home buyers' program was intended to serve many needs. It is intended to help with rental accommodation and to provide new homes for young couples. It was also intended to stimulate the economy and create jobs in that important sector. As a matter of fact, as of today some 690 applications have been received by the Ontario Mortgage Corp., 421 from renters and 269 from first-time buyers.

As we address ourselves to all the problems that exist in our economy today, from external as well as internal causes, the main thrust of this budget has been forgotten in the debate. I know that was the intention of the opposition. It was a good news budget, given the backdrop against which the Treasurer had to work. That was what was said in the letters the Treasurer was sharing with the members of the opposition. But that does not suit their purposes in opposition. I understand that.

To refer to the comment made by someone from outside our borders, nobody likes taxes. But that $340 million went directly back into job creation programs.

5:10 p.m.

The Treasurer was faced with a shortfall in federal funding of some $300 million and an economy where small businesses, employers and young people were saying they needed a psychological lift and an opportunity to help get the economy going again. He responded with a budget we find is doing that in many important areas, the main focus being on employment, new job creation and the preservation of other jobs.

I know this was touched on earlier in the debate. A lot of people said that somehow or other we have ignored inventive ways to utilize unemployment insurance. That just ignores a section on page 5 which talks about the co-operative projects employment fund and the things it will do to preserve the 6,000 jobs alluded to there.

I would ask all members to remember, as we close this debate on the budget, that the main thrust was to restore confidence in the economy and assist in unemployment, the most important of all issues, and help in job creation. I believe that has been achieved.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough West, in rotation. Your party has approximately 20 minutes left.

Mr. Cooke: Where is the enthusiasm?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Each time I rise, the calls come up behind me, "Where is the enthusiasm?" I have never understood why this takes place.

I rise as a member of my party to condemn this budget, to call for the retraction of this budget and to show we have a lack of confidence in this government to be able to manage the affairs of this province.

In my mind and my party's mind, this is a crass, class budget. Those who have, get more. Those who have not, get less. It is straightforward. It takes away from those who already have little and it gives to those who have more.

The budget is explicit: On OHIP premiums, this is a regressive tax which is the same for all except for those few who happen to be found to qualify for assistance in this great province; the sales tax affects us all equally no matter how much money we have and, therefore, affects the poor more because they have less to operate with.

It is also implicit in this budget -- and that is where it is most insidious -- this budget implicitly states that doctors in this province, who are already earning $90,000 a year on average or whatever the figure is --

Mr. Wildman: It is $83,000.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Earning $83,000 a year on average --

Mr. McClellan: Soon to be $122,000 on average.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They will receive implicitly in this budget, this year, $13,000 extra to live on; $13,000 to catch up to the standard of living which we should expect for them in this province. Next year that will be raised by approximately the same amount again so that in a two-year period, implicitly in this budget we are saying they should get a raise of $26,000; $750 million committed by this government to increase the wealth of doctors in this province over a three-year period.

On the other side of this implicit, insidious budget, the poor will stay poor. There is no mention in this budget, as I have said before in this House, of anybody who is on public assistance getting more money because times are tough. There is a lot of comment about successful businesses getting more breaks in this budget because times are tough, but there is nothing about the very poor in this budget at all, except that one mild reference to the fact that those who are receiving public funds should not expect to continue to receive inflationary increases.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), who is responsible for seeing that people have a basic income in this province, affirmed in committee during estimates yesterday that was the case. People on public assistance in this province should not necessarily expect to be able to continue to have those programs which support them funded at even the rate of inflation in this province. They will never catch up. The gap will always be larger. This government has stated that: "Hard times are upon us, and we will decide which side we are on. We will help our friends, who are the wealthy, the successful, the winners in our society. Those are who we will help."

The trickle-down theory is that if one puts enough money into the pockets of the wealthy some of it will trickle out of their pockets and find its way onto the sidewalks where the poor will benefit by it. Most likely it will benefit the poor in the Bahamas or the poor in Europe, as our wealthy are now able to travel on a continuing basis, but it sure is not doing much for the poor in this province.

We know what side the government is on. This budget has made it abundantly clear. Let me just say what side we are on. As a Socialist, I believe a rule of government is to make sure that all people have a right to share in the wealth of a nation.

The government believes that doctors -- and it's implicit -- should receive another $13,000, but does it believe that a welfare recipient has the same rights, the same worth? No it certainly does not. It has been shown in terms of this budget.

Letters seem to be very popular today. The Treasurer was reading letters. I dare say we would be able to read significantly more from this side, in terms of opposition to this budget. Here is one written to the Premier (Mr. Davis) by a Miss Ivy Simons of Windsor, Ontario.

She writes: "Here it is budget time again and as usual you are sticking it to the poor and working-class citizens of our province. Many items of your budget do not concern me. I do not smoke, very seldom drink or go out. I do not travel much, as I can barely afford to feed my son.

"I am on welfare receiving $346 a month. I have a couple of minor bills, and my rent is $99 plus hydro. Bus fare here is 75 cents one way. I do not know if you know much about diabetes, but it is very important to eat a very balanced diet six times a day plus extras if they should have a reaction.

"Try grocery shopping for items that are sugar free. They cost extra. In the $346, I am allowed $10 for my son's diet. This pays for one large bottle of Sucaryl and rubbing alcohol, never mind food. Now, with your changes in the tax structure, I will have to pay tax on a lot of goods that were once tax free. I calculate this will probably cost me $3 to $5 weekly. Not much, actually, but with my income this means I will have that much less to buy groceries for my son. It will be his apples and oranges, fresh fruit and vegetables, a must, but one can stretch a dollar only so far.

"The next time my son is hospitalized due to his disease, I sure wish it could be you hearing his screams and not me. I also wish you could be here every day at meal time when he asks why he cannot have an apple or an orange, etc.

"Congratulations, you have sure done it to the poor again. I will be sure to tell my son it is Bill Davis' fault that he cannot have the things he needs to keep healthy."

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Did you write that letter yourself?

5:20 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I did not write that myself. It was given to me by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke). Ask the Premier.

Who are the poor in this province? They are the Family Benefits Act mothers, mothers with one child who, as I have said before, have lost 14.8 per cent against inflation since 1975. They are a mother and one child, recipients of FBA and the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled, who have lost 16.4 per cent against inflation since 1975.

They are general welfare assistance recipients, a mother with one child, who have lost 23.4 per cent against inflation since 1975. They are workers receiving workmen's compensation who have lost 23 per cent against inflation since 1975. They are minimum wage earners who in 1975 in this province, used to receive an income of about 47 per cent of the average industrial wage and who are now receiving 38 per cent of the industrial wage.

That doctors' increase I talked about earlier on is the equivalent of three times what a single person on GWA receives to live on in a year; the increase is that much. It is two times what a mother with two children on FBA would receive in a year to live on; and it is 2.5 times what a single disabled person in this province is expected to live on.

If one lives in the city of Toronto and is on general welfare, besides the $238 a month that one receives, one is also eligible for a maximum $50 shelter allowance. The average single apartment in Toronto rents for $360 a month at the moment. The average room with a shared kitchen rents for over $200 dollars a month at this moment.

This government has made its choices and has made them clear. It will give money to the doctors, but will not give money to the poor. It is for that reason that this budget must be defeated, and for that reason this government should go to the people and face the music, so the people can return a government that at least has some heart.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has the floor. It is also my understanding that in terms of time allocation your party has seven minutes.

Mr. Sweeney: I noticed three things that seemed to be coming from the other side of the House. One is that there are all kinds of people out there, according to the Treasurer, who are very happy with this budget. I would concur with one of my former colleagues who said that he is being very selective in the kinds of references he makes, and I want to read a couple of the others.

The second point they make is that job creation was the great thrust of this budget. I want to suggest a couple of things they have done in this budget which do just the opposite.

The third point the Treasurer makes is that things are so bad he did not have very much room to move. Maybe we had better take a look at the last 10, 11 or 12 years and find out why things are so bad in this province that he did not have very much room to move.

The Treasurer talks about people who approve of his budget, but I am quite sure he got a copy of the press release from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: He did not read that one.

Mr. Sweeney: No, he did not; and I wonder why. Let me just read a couple of lines, and perhaps we shall understand why he did not read it. This same Treasurer who stands up here day after day, berating the federal government about what they are doing to poor little Ontario, does not tell what his government is doing to the municipalities and the school boards in this province. Oh no, we do not hear the other side of the story. We hear a one-way street sob story from the Treasurer of Ontario about what the government of Canada is doing to them.

For example, he does not say that according to this press release the Association of Municipalities of Ontario records strong objections to those new provincial tax initiatives that place additional financial burdens on local government. He does not tell us about that. He does not tell us about the statement that says, "The Treasurer's proposals will exacerbate the already diminishing capacity of municipal governments to meet necessary local services."

He does not tell us that the provincial expectations that municipal governments are able to assume these additional costs are very unrealistic. We do not hear about those. He does not tell us the budget, in effect, offsets the 1982 transfer payments, and the impact of the budget now magnifies many times this inadequacy. I could go on and on for the next 10 or 12 pages of this statement where the association records chapter and verse what this budget has done to it. He did not read that.

I am sure he also got a letter from the Ontario Restaurant and Food Services Association telling him what it thinks of his budget. I'll bet he did not choose to read this paragraph: "There is another segment of the market whose purchases of meals are not discretionary. People who are unable to return to home or who lack the cooking facilities to prepare their own meals must eat in cafeterias and budget restaurants. Students, workers, the elderly and travellers frequently find themselves in this position. They are essential and basic meals, served to a low income market." We did not hear that letter at all.

Another one he did not choose to share with us -- and I am sure he has a copy of a motion that was presented to the York County Board of Education just a few days after his budget. But maybe he did not see it because he was travelling to Japan. He was out of the country, because he did not want to hear these kinds of things.

The motion says, for example, "The board directs its business office to do an immediate cost analysis of this budget." The amount it is going to cost that board is $250,000.

He does not point out the part that says some change must be made, or the part of this motion which says, "The board informed the ministry that it is suspending initiation of all approved capital projects." Do members know why the school board is doing that? I'll bet dozens of other school boards and dozens of municipalities across this province are doing the same thing. This budget that is supposed to create jobs has caused school boards and municipalities to suspend capital projects that were supposed to be accelerated, capital projects that were supposed to produce jobs, but will not be done at all, because he is going to drive them into deficit.

We are talking about municipalities and school boards that have already fixed their budgets. We are talking about municipalities and school boards that have already set their mill rates. Then the Treasurer comes along and tells them they are going to have to put out more money they do not have. The University of Waterloo has calculated the budget is going to cost it $1 million extra when all the factors are taken into consideration.

I was just looking at page 31 of this budget. Here is a minister who cries about what the federal government is doing. But on page 31 of this budget, in the table at the back, it is interesting to note that in 1978, the amount of the budget going to education was 26 per cent; in 1979, 25 per cent; in 1980, 24 per cent; in 1981, 23 per cent; and this year it is 22 per cent. The budget allocation for colleges and universities is down in percentage every single year, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22. We talk about job creation, but that is what the budget is doing to the very institutions which will train people in the kinds of skills and education we need in this province. What hypocrisy.

This government has often talked about job creation in the conservation area, getting people to put on storm doors and storm windows or getting them to put in insulation. That will not only save energy, but also create jobs. But this same minister now taxes those kinds of job creation.

I have travelled all across this province and talked to young people who are out of work and to employers. This budget does nothing about job creation for those people.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments and observations to my colleagues opposite on the budget that was brought in by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on Thursday, May 13. Let me say at the outset that I stand along with my colleagues on this side of the House in solid support of the budget the Treasurer brought in.

That is not to say that as a fiscal conservative I would not have liked to have seen a lower deficit. In addition, I can tell the members opposite that the members on this side of the House would also have liked to see a budget that did not require an expansion of the tax base and did not require increased government revenues, particularly, I might add, an expansion of retail sales taxes.

Mr. Laughren: Right on.

Mr. McClellan: Where is George Ashe?

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Let me finish.

I daresay many worthwhile programs have been brought in as a result of the increased revenues this budget has required, which will stimulate vital sectors of our economy. I would refer this chamber to the $171 million dollar job creation plan which they have asked for and talked about on that side of the House, the $75 million renter-buy program and the $250 million small business tax relief for the next two years that will assist small businesses in this province.

Moreover, the tax decrease on hospitality accommodation and the relief given on corporate income tax will further strengthen the Ontario economy in the year ahead. Of course, these programs are not a complete economic cure and they are not meant to be. I have always been of the belief that government cannot spend itself into prosperity and cannot spend itself out of a period of economic stagnation. This is especially true when the economy is in a downturn.

What we must face is the reality --

interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: What we are prepared to face on this side of the House is the reality --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I am being provoked, Mr. Speaker.

What we are prepared to face on this side of the House is the reality that we do have a very difficult economy at the present time. The members opposite would like to blame all of that problem on this government. In a political sense, I suppose this is to be expected from the opposition parties.

An hon. member: Simple minds, Andy.

Mr. Brandt: Simple minds come to simple solutions.

If we make an honest objective analysis of the economic slowdown that is being experienced by virtually every industrialized country in the world today, an entirely different picture emerges. Not only are layoffs, plant closures and rising unemployment occurring in just about every other jurisdiction in the world but the losses, I suggest, are deeper and more critical elsewhere than they are in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: If they will listen for just a moment I will tell them.

Just a partial list shows the United States lost 1.5 million jobs last year and the United Kingdom more than a million. Even supposedly strong economies like Japan's lost 70,000 jobs and West Germany a quarter of a million.

Let us consider unemployment statistics in comparative jurisdictions that are closer to Ontario. While Ontario suffered a 6½ per cent unemployment rate last year, neighbouring economies experienced significantly higher levels of joblessness. For example in Quebec the rate was 10½ per cent, in New York state it was 7½ per cent, in Pennsylvania it was 8½ per cent and in the neighbouring state of Michigan it was over 12 per cent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make very simply is not that Ontario should feel comfortable because our job losses and our unemployment rate are better than most but that we should come to grips with the reality that the world economy is in a recession and that, quite frankly, with all due respect to the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), we are not sheltered in Ontario from this reality. This is especially true in the Canadian context because of the large contribution that international trade makes to our gross national product.

Clearly our province and, indeed, our country are exposed to the fluctuations of international activity. When that activity is impeded by skyrocketing interest rates set by the opposition members' federal friends in Ottawa the effects are as extensive as they are injurious. They tend to hit provinces like Ontario particularly hard because a large percentage of the products that are manufactured here are exported.

Mr. Gillies: Terrible. Resign.

Mr. Brandt: Who?

Mr. Gillies: Them.

Mr. Brandt: Oh, yes.

That is why the Treasurer's budget provides the needed stimulative measures in certain very specific areas of the economy while maintaining this province's traditional policy of government restraint and effective fiscal management.

This is especially true when one considers the limp offerings from the members across the floor. To begin with I must admit to a feeling of disappointment after reading and listening to the remarks of the official opposition party's finance critic. I sat in this House, as many members did, when the honourable member waxed eloquent last week for more than two hours on the challenges that our province's economy will face in the years to come. I was disappointed, quite frankly, that he failed to mention the part his federal colleagues have played in complicating that challenge. But I suppose this is to be expected.

Equally disturbing was the lack of any semblance of an economic platform that one could look at from this side of the House. Vague rhetorical statements made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) such as, "We want to see an expanded program for agriculture, tourism and small business" only reinforce my opinion that the economic policies of this government enjoy much broader support in this House than many people realize. In fact, $11 million in additional agricultural funding was put into the budget, a $10 million accommodation tax reduction was put into the budget and $250 million for small business, which the honourable member knows quite well is going to assist this province in coming out of some of the economic problems that we have at the moment.

The members on the other side of the House consistently -- and here is the hypocrisy from that side of the House -- demand an expansion of services. They talk about health services, subsidies for small business and agriculture, social services, transfers to municipalities -- we just got through talking about that -- education --

Mr. Roy: And Suncor.

Mr. Brandt: Suncor does not answer it all, Albert, I am sorry. Funding for day care, better roads for a cleaner environment, for the handicapped, for seniors -- the list goes on and on. One of the things we do not hear about from that side of the House -- rarely if ever do we get any suggestions, and we understand why -- are methods that might be used to raise money. We only hear how to spend it. The opposition members cannot have it both ways.

5:40 p.m.

By way of summation, much good will come from this budget. There was much more I wanted to say about some of the actions taken by this government that I feel are positive moves for the future of this province. We are confident about the business climate of Ontario, and I want to express on behalf of all members on this side of the House our confidence in the Treasurer of Ontario.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see so many Tories here because we see them so seldom.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Where is your leader?

Mr. Cooke: The Treasurer has been out of the country for a week. I understood he was not in Japan but in protective custody for a week.

The Treasurer is interjecting but I cannot hear him over here. It is very nice not to hear him.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Cooke: I thought the first thing the Treasurer would do when he got back from Japan would be to tell us what he had accomplished. And I guess he did: there was no statement in the House and that was indicative of what he had accomplished in Japan. He goes all over the world just as the former Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) used to do, looking for investment. We know the Treasury is where he wanted to be but the Treasurer won the power struggle. But then he became Minister of Health and took all the present Treasurer's money anyway.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about the regressive budget the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) so proudly brought in and that the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) so proudly defended. I was very pleased the member for Sarnia did not once mention our prebudget package. It is very easy to punch holes and pick fault with his party. He did not talk about our package because our package had substance.

The basic thrust of this Conservative budget is one that was stated by the Treasurer before he went to Japan: it was a budget for winners and a budget for his friends. If one is a home owner about to lose his or her home one is a loser in Ontario, and the Treasurer will not help. If one is a small businessman who is unincorporated or is not making a profit, do not look to the Conservative government for help. They do not care. If one is a farmer who is going bankrupt, do not look to this government for help. It does not care. If one is a tenant and the rent is going up because the landlord is having to refinance, do not look to this government for help. All it cares about are the winners in Ontario.

If one is on general welfare, family benefits or workmen's compensation do not look for help from this government. It does not care about the people. All it cares about is the doctors: it wants to make them richer. This government decided to increase Ontario hospital insurance plan premiums to the extent of $96 more for families.

As of January 1, this government raised income tax by a further $57. Now this government has raised sales tax or eliminated exemptions to the amount of a further $100 to taxpayers. There is the ad valorem gas tax. The government no longer has to come to the people's representatives for approval. It just raises the tax automatically as it does with so many things. That will cost the people of Ontario, on average, $35 more. Tobacco and liquor will be $17. All that adds up to $305 for middle- and low-income families, and that means lost purchasing power, and it means lost jobs because of this government's budgetary policy.

Appendix A of the budget lists some of the things they are going to tax now: Personal hygiene and household cleaning products; materials and equipment such as storm doors, storm windows and chillers; and materials incorporated into buildings or structures owned by municipalities or school boards. What ridiculousness on the part of this government.

School boards and the municipalities have not kept up with the rate of inflation through grants from this government and now they intend to transfer more costs to those creatures of the province. The Premier defended that taxation and said it would only be one to 1.5 per cent of their budgets. The amount of money this government is losing in transfers from the federal government is less than 1.5 per cent. Yet, they kicked and screamed about that, and now they are doing exactly the same thing to the municipalities of this province.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not.

Mr. Cooke: The Minister of Education should not say it is not so. She does not know what she is talking about. She gave the Windsor Board of Education a one per cent increase and took away $600,000 in sales taxes.

Let us talk about small business. Again, they are only helping the winners. The fact is the 60,000 incorporated small businesses have to be making a profit in order to benefit. As of April 30 of this year, 1,207 business bankruptcies have taken place. If that trend continues throughout this province for the rest of the year, 18,000 jobs will be lost in the small business sector. That is 8,000 more jobs than this Treasurer's most optimistic figures predict will be created from the $250 million giveaway by this government. It is a bloody disgrace.

Let us take a look at the housing program this government has come up with. The Treasurer's own officials would not defend the 38,000 jobs to be created. The $5,000 for those people who can already afford to buy houses -- they have to qualify for a mortgage -- is nothing more than a bribe to the friends of the Conservative Party. The 38,000 jobs to be created are just a hope on the part of the Treasurer. In this province, there are already more than 10,000 brand new homes waiting to be purchased, and this program is designed, at maximum, to help 15,000 people buy homes.

There are two major flaws in this program. First, it helps those who need no help, and second, it will not create the jobs. I talked about the effects on the municipalities, but let us look at the short-term job creation program of this budget. There are to be 31,000 jobs created when 575,000 people are unemployed in this province.

The municipalities we have visited so far in our task force examining this budget have told us they will not be able to take advantage of this money. Sure, the labour costs will be paid but the building materials still have to be purchased. They will be taxable now and mill rates have already been set.

Even for this part of the Treasurer's budget it is questionable as to whether it will create the 31,000 jobs. Even if it does reach its most optimistic projections, 31,000 jobs is a drop in the bucket at a time when this province is deindustrializing every day. Spalding is the latest example. This budget does not come to terms with the structural long-term economic problems facing this province. The number of calls this caucus has received and the numbers of letters I have received show very clearly this budget will not soon be forgotten and it will come back to haunt this government time and time again.

Mr. Speaker: We are voting on a motion standing in the name of Mr. Foulds.

The House divided on Mr. Foulds's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.; Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 45; nays 64.

Mr. Speaker: Before I leave the chair, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to an address to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. It is a very imposing document signed by the government House leader, the representative of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and a representative of the third party, the Speaker and the Premier. We will have it on display at the bar of the House for --

Mr. Nixon: That's downstairs you know.

Mr. Foulds: That's the wooden bar across the entrance.

Mr. Speaker: -- for the edification of all members who may want to see it before it is dispatched.

Mr. Nixon: I'll take it.

Mr. Speaker: If you wish. Oh, too late.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

1 juin 1982