Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, to refresh the memory of some honourable members, I should point out that at six o'clock I had just finished reading the letter sent to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) by a constituent of the riding of Cochrane North.

If my memory serves me right, which I hope it does, I think we had discussed the possibility of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) reading his reply to this letter to the Legislature so we could all see what the policies of that member were concerning the taxes included in Bill 115. I certainly hope the member for Cochrane North will rise immediately after I conclude my remarks to make a brilliant exposé on the value of the legislation we are discussing tonight. We are waiting anxiously.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: So far you have said nothing but invite our member to speak. Why don't you say what is in your mind, if anything?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you are quite correct in saying the government whip is out of order which, of course, he is.

I will discuss the bill directly, which is what I was doing prior to the dinner hour, if his memory is long enough to recall what happened in this House two hours ago. I will continue.

I will read this article by Orland French. I think he writes very well. This is in the Friday, May 21, edition of the Globe and Mail. It is called, "A Friday Ration of Trivia." We will go through this quiz because it relates directly to this bill.

The Acting Speaker: As long as you are speaking to the bill on the floor.

Mr. Boudria: Yes. That is exactly what I just said.

The Acting Speaker: It is amazing you are bringing trivia into it.

Mr. Boudria: It says: "Here's another O'French Famous Frivolous Friday Trivia Quiz, designed to stuff your head with a wealth of useless information about this great province of Ontario.

"1. How many provincial cabinet ministers does it take to sign a sewage contract?" The answer to that is: "Four. Three to make the speeches and one to flush the toilet. This remarkable event" --

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask the member to tie his remarks in to the bill under debate. It is Bill 115. I do not see how that ties in to it.

Mr. Boudria: The second question of the quiz is about the budget, so I am sure you will agree to that --

The Acting Speaker: Tie it in to the bill.

Mr. Boudria: I will do that.

The Acting Speaker: We are lenient but not that lenient.

Mr. Elston: It is obvious the tax should be flushed as well. I think that is the whole purpose.

Mr. Boudria: I think my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) has a good point: He says the tax should have been flushed as well. The second question is the following: "Treasurer Frank Miller has substantially narrowed the list of items which he considers essential and therefore not subject to sales tax." You can see how this relates to this bill, Mr. Speaker. "Which of the following items are considered essential? (a) Tampons? (b) Suncor? (c) Mr. Miller's brilliant scarlet plaid jacket? (d) A government jet?" I would challenge the government members to reply to this quiz later. I would think, of course, that the --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It is really brilliant.

Mr. Boudria: You are saying it is not brilliant --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Who writes your stuff?

Mr. Boudria: This particular thing, if you had been paying attention, was written by Mr. Orland French.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I know that.

Mr. Boudria: This is from the Globe and Mail. You have heard of that, have you not? Okay, I will continue reading.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Can't you be original?

Mr. Boudria: I can be original, but I do not believe the minister has discussed which of the items I have just read he considered essential and which he did not. If it so pleases the minister, perhaps I could go on to some other item that will show even more clearly just what the people of this province think of the budget and the tax measures included in this bill.

I will quote here from another newspaper called the Vankleek Hill Review, which is a newspaper from my constituency. I hope the minister finds that there is nothing wrong with that. This article is entitled, Ontario Budget Stinks. This newspaper had been known to have somewhat Tory leanings at one point in the past, but I am sure that, as members can see, this is rapidly changing:

"The smoke hasn't even cleared over the recent federal budget, and here we are again facing another budget handed down by the province last week. Politicians must think Canadians are growing the green stuff in their backyards. Slowly but surely everything will be taxable if governments get their way. The latest budget fiasco not only hurts but it kills. Ontario Treasurer Frank Miller has warned he may not be finished soaking consumers. Beware of taxes on the air that you breathe."

Now, I do not see anything about taxing the air we breathe in this particular tax bill; but if it is not there it is implied, and I am sure it will be in next year's budget. I will continue reading:

"This time around, Ontarians have found out that they have to pay taxes on personal hygiene and household cleaning products, plants, pets and -- can you believe it? -- labour on car and appliance repairs and all food eaten or ordered outside the home. Miller had some heart by not taxing the food we eat at home. He claims it is fundamental to man's daily needs. How did he figure that out? Pretty soon food will be a luxury rather than a necessity."

Mr. Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like the chair's clarification on rule 19(d)(4), which deals with the matter of reading verbatim any document in this Legislature. Could I just have the benefit of your opinion on that in light of the current debate?

The Acting Speaker: The rule is very clear: Members in this House are not to be repetitious or to read verbatim at great length. I trust that the honourable member who has the floor will respect that rule.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to hear especially that particular member talk about reading verbatim, when every single member in the back row, probably with the exception of the member for Cochrane North, who has yet to make a speech in this Legislature --

The Acting Speaker: The member is speaking to Bill 115.

Mr. Boudria: -- talk about other people talking at length. I was just responding to that particular point.

The Acting Speaker: You do not need to respond; I already have.

Mr. Nixon: There he goes again.

Mr. Boudria: Oh, again. Well, we will have some more.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I did not indicate at any time during my point of order that I was questioning the member's speaking at length. I was dealing with the very specific procedural point covered in the standing orders, which did not have to do with speaking at length.

The Acting Speaker: All right, I accept that. The honourable member has made his point, and I would ask the member for Prescott-Russell to continue and to speak to his point. The bill at hand is Bill 115.

Mr. Boudria: I will not speak any longer to that point. I will instead just press another very important matter that is going on in my constituency right now. I am sure, sir, that you will pay particular attention to this one, and I hope the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere will do so as well.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Robinson: Absolutely.

Mr. Boudria: I am going to read this particular article of grave concern. This is from the newspaper, Le Carillon.

"La CIP fermée pour trois semaines.

"Autres arrêts à prévoir.

" L'usine de la Compagnie internationale du Papier à Hawkesbury a fermé ses portes vendredi pour un peu plus de trois semaines, soit 24 jours, en raison de la faible demande pour ses produits sur le marché."

Alors comme vous voyez, Monsieur le président, dû aux taxes et aux prévisions budgétaires que ce gouvernement propose pour notre province nous sommes dans une situation économique qui est maintenant rendue intolérable et comme vous voyez le sujet du Bill 115 se rejoint directement aux remarques que je fais dans cet article et j'espère que les députés du côté du gouvernement partageront mon avis à ce sujet.

En continuant, Monsieur le président, "Il s'agit du quatrième arrêt temporaire des activités depuis le début de l'année, et touche environ de 410 à 440 travailleurs."

Alors, comme vous le voyez, Monsieur le président, ces travailleurs qui sont présentement sans emploi dans mon comté ne sont pas en mesure de payer des taxes augmentées dans le budget ni dans les propositions du Bill 115. Ce projet de loi, Monsieur le président, affecte les électeurs de ma région d'une façon tout à fait particulière. Comme vous l'apprécierez, je suis persuadé que le député de Cochrane North le fera également. Les gens qui sont sans emploi ne sont pas en mesure de payer des dépenses encore plus grandes que ceux d'auparavant.

Comme vous le savez sans doute, Monsieur le président, mon comté a malheureusement environ de 15 à 20 pour cent des gens qui sont sans emploi. Ceci est un taux très élevé et une augmentation de taxe sans une augmentation des prestations d'assistance sociale veut dire que ces gens qui sont déjà démunis se voient dans une situation encore plus aggravée qu'ils l'étaient auparavant.

That is why it is so important, as the members can appreciate, and why this bill has particularly disastrous effects on my constituents.

It would be appropriate if we talked about waste in government spending. As the members know, the government wants to increase the retail sales tax in order to pay for some of the expenditures it is making. They should not make these outrageous expenditures, if the members will permit me to call them that.

I will give an example of spending the government is doing that it should not be doing.

One day the government printed an advertisement in a Toronto newspaper on the Toronto Bayview Clinic. That particular advertisement cost $13,421.76. What use did that have? I would suggest it was of no use. Millions and millions of dollars are spent in this province every year telling us to "Preserve it, conserve it" and to tell our English-speaking constituents that we are not doing anything for the French-speaking and vice-versa. The amount of money spent on that kind of hog-wash is just incredible.

The government also has a buy-Canadian policy. Again, we are talking about government spending and the fact it has to raise these taxes in order to pay for this outrageous spending.

In the past, we have talked about government spending and its buy-Canadian policy. We have talked about the fact that it seems to buy our office supplies from every country around this earth except Canada, and with the even greater exception of the province of Ontario. It seems to buy everything it possibly can from outside the province. They buy from Taiwan, from Czechoslovakia, from Germany for pencils, and from all kinds of other places to obtain the materials used by Ontario.

It seems to me that to provide employment in this province, the government should be buying at home instead of elsewhere. Of course, the members will recognize that in so doing it would generate employment and then it would not need the increase in taxes that is espoused in this particular taxation.

Members will recall, and I am sure the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) will recall, that the government of this province had these coins struck. We talked about them recently. They are medallions which say on them, "We're proud to be Canadian." They were struck in Rochester, New York by a company known as Metal Arts Co.

While this was done, most local mints were not even asked to bid on them. One of the largest firms in Canada, called Johnson Matthey, whose pamphlets I have here, was never asked to bid on that job. I had a phone call from Mr. Blais' office, and I am told the Royal Canadian Mint was not even asked to strike those coins. Instead, we chose to have them struck in the United States --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It takes the Canadian government six months, which is typically Liberal. We needed them in one week.

Mr. Boudria: I would have the minister know Johnson Matthey told me it would take them 48 hours to strike them. Instead, the order was given to a company from Willowdale or from that area, which apparently did not even have the equipment on its premises to do the striking from the beginning. So the government gave the job to a company that could not even do it. That company had to farm the job out elsewhere and gave it to the United States, probably because of an omission in the contract that did not specify the work must be done in Canada. That was probably an omission by the government. I do not think it was deliberate. I hope it was an omission.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it appropriate under the rules that, when an honourable member is referring to a particular statistic, he should at least use that statistic in its entirety and within context. When he is talking about a whole contract going down to the States, he quite reasonably should point out the relative numbers involved in that contract. Most of that contract remained in Ontario, in Canada, and only a very small part went to the United States.

The Acting Speaker: I think the whole subject as it is now developing has a hard time being applicable to Bill 115, which is under debate.

Mr. Boudria: I will end my remarks on that issue. The only thing I was trying to illustrate is the kind of policy this government has towards creating employment in this province and country, which is such that it is losing revenue; therefore, it has to raise those taxes. I am sure members understood how the two tied in very closely. The minister, as usual, did not understand what I said. Maybe I am not all that clear when I speak. I did not say the coins were minted in the US. I said they were struck in the US. That is the process that was done there.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I know that, but you put it in the context of all the money that went to the US.

Mr. Boudria: That is exactly what I said. The coins were struck in the US. The minister cannot deny that. If he will, I will gladly leave the floor for him to do that, but I trust he will sit down and not do that.

I was speaking on government spending. In May, I put a question on the Order Paper relating to the expenditures of operating the car pool. There is a car pool for just about everybody in the Tory benches to use. There are also specific cars for cabinet ministers. A list of the value of those cars was given to me by the government along with the quantity of cars. The cabinet ministers and such have 31 automobiles and --

The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member, with respect, to realize the bill under discussion is Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Newman: This is interesting.

The Acting Speaker: It may be interesting, but I want the member to tie his remarks to the subject under debate.

Mr. Boudria: I believe I am doing so very frequently. But I will say again, just to keep this very clear to each and every one of us, the government is having to raise money with these bills because of its wasteful expenditure policy. I was just giving an example of how it is wasting money. It has 31 automobiles worth a total of $459,934.40 to carry these cabinet ministers around. Those are not my statistics, in case the Minister of Revenue wants to challenge them. They are his.

In the last eight months, the government has bought a certain number of these automobiles. One of them -- and I do not know who drives it; perhaps it is that minister or another one who drives around in it -- is worth $19,567.09. I suppose it is absolutely necessary to drive around in a $20,000 car, to go from here to the Macdonald block or wherever it is they go with some of those cars. Another one cost $18,175. That is the economy model. I know you understand that.

8:20 p.m.

For some reason I do not understand, one of them drives a $12,000 car. Can you imagine lowering yourself to driving a $12,000 car? I understand it is a propane-powered Cougar. I trust it belongs to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow.) I think he deserves applause for being such a thrifty minister compared to the extravagant bunch sitting around him. I am glad the government is applauding that.

If we thought that $459,000 represented a rather exorbitant expenditure just for the cabinet, there is another $95,000 for the cars that drive a few people like the parliamentary assistants back and forth to the airport and other places when they replace their respective cabinet ministers. There are 10 such cars and they are worth $95,000. That is the kind of fiscal restraint we see from this government. The people of my constituency sure think this is an awfully expensive way to run a government.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: What car is down there for the leader of the official opposition?

Mr. Boudria: The leader of the official opposition's car is included in that. It is not new and it is not a $20,000 car, as the Minister of Revenue knows. It is a mid-size car. It is not an Electra and it is not one of those really expensive ones. It may cost $11,000 or $12,000. The minister knows it is an ordinary car. He has seen it outside the door. That is not what the majority of the cabinet ministers drive with the exception of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Foulds: What does he drive?

Mr. Boudria: He drives the propane-powered Cougar that costs --

The Acting Speaker: I am most anxious that the honourable member tie his remarks to the bill.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was just doing that. I want to talk briefly about some of the --

Mr. Hodgson: What about the member's expense account?

Mr. Boudria: I am glad the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) brought that up. This is excellent and ties in to the bill because it is spending of this Legislature. I see parliamentary assistants drawing two salaries; cabinet ministers drawing two, some three; and they are telling us that it costs a lot to have an opposition member go to his riding which is 350 miles away from here, while that member lives within a stone's throw of his riding.

I am glad that he is bringing that up when the member sitting right in front of him, who represents a constituency similar to mine, required all of $100 worth of translations to serve his francophone community last year while I spent $4,000 on getting translated documents that this government refuses to give to my constituents.

If that member or any other thinks that I am going to apologize for providing French services to my constituents, he is mistaken. I never have and I never will. I am going to give them the service they deserve. Maybe my predecessor did not provide them with that service.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We are on Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Your predecessor translated them himself; he did not have to charge for it.

Mr. Boudria: I am glad to hear those remarks and, of course, tying into the expenditure of this government are my expenditures as a member. We all appreciate this is very relevant. I am glad to hear my predecessor was doing all the fine translating himself, in view of the two speeches he gave in the 14 years he was in this Legislature. They must have required a lot of translating. There must have been a lot of work involved in that. We appreciate all the hard work that went into those two speeches.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Words are cheap.

Mr. Boudria: The minister says that words are cheap. We know words are cheap but not his words. The $40 million spent in advertising for the government are not cheap. They are a lot more expensive than it costs the people of my riding to have me here. Last year, it cost them $75,000 to have me here as a member.

I happen to be the member who is second highest in this Legislature, it is true and the minister has said so in either heckling or directly in the last week. I admit that. The people of my riding have sent me here and it cost them that much money. Also, they own 1/125 of the jet. The jet, divided over 125 ridings, is $100,000 per riding.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is supposed to tie his remarks to Bill 115. Please do so.

Mr. Boudria: That is exactly what I am doing, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: No. I have asked you several times. You are wandering off the topic. The subject is An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. I ask you now, very formally, to tie your remarks in to that.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just about to say that in order to pay for the jet, the government is raising these funds. The cost of the jet over the number of ridings in Ontario is roughly $100,000 per riding. The government should ask the people of my riding which they would like better, a share of the jet or me here as their member, and it will see which one they prefer.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I have tied my remarks to the bill.

I would like to deal specifically with the impact of the legislation on my constituents. The cost of constructing the Hawkesbury and District General Hospital is said to have increased by $400,000 because of this bill. It is making the project much more expensive.

I am sure you understood, Mr. Speaker, when I said in French a while ago that our area has very high unemployment. We have been holding drives to raise funds to construct that hospital and we now see the cost increased by $400,000 due to the policies of this bill. That deals directly with this bill, you will admit, Mr. Speaker. It is not hard to tie that in. The increase is $400,000 because of the increased taxes in this bill.

I want to talk about a company in my riding. An explanatory note in the bill provides for taxation on trees, shrubs, bushes, seeds, etc. This is very important and I hope the minister will pay close attention. In my constituency there is a company, Manderley Sod, which produces sod for commercial sale. Their head office is located in the constituency of the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling).

The plant located in my riding sells over 80 per cent of its product to Quebec and herein lies the problem: dealers come from Quebec to buy the sod and carry the material back to their province. Because they pick it up themselves the material is not tax exempt. They have to pay it and ask for a refund. In the usual expeditious way that this government deals with these things, it takes them roughly 90 days to get their money back. They have to pay up to $210 a day in taxes. As a result, they are all pulling out and are going to buy their sod from a company located in the eastern townships of Quebec.

We will lose 20 jobs unless a specific change is made to allow those purchasers a tax exemption when they pick up the material. I understand if the sod is delivered in Quebec, the tax is not charged, but if they pick it up, it is charged and they have to submit a claim for a refund. It is a very serious problem for an operator to have to pay $210 a day in taxes, or some $60 or $70 a load. How much is that in 90 days? The experts sitting behind the Speaker's chair could quickly tell us that no small business can support a line of credit to that extent.

That industry has been in our riding for a long time and unless something is done, all of those people will lose their jobs. I suggest to the minister that those provisions be amended. If he will not remove the tax, he should at least allow the exemption requested so that those jobs in my constituency are not lost. I think this is important and I hope the minister will address this problem.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I think the taxes in this bill are offensive. They are an attack on the working poor, on welfare recipients, on children, on the needy and on most people who cannot afford to pay. This is another case of a backward Robin Hood, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. This government does not deserve to be in power.

8:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: I would just like to make the House aware of the general time that was allotted for all honourable members and how closely that is being followed. It is truly up to you, but the government party has 54 minutes left; the Liberals two minutes, and there are 50 minutes left for the NDP. That was just an understanding the table was working on.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as is the usual case with my colleagues, I do not plan to take the whole 50 minutes. I plan to take about 10 or 15 minutes.

One of the fundamental questions we have to ask ourselves, and the reason we are here debating this bill, is why did the government feel it necessary to expand the base of the sales tax? The only answer is a very simple, direct one. It is because of government extravagance, of government stupidity and of government irresponsibility when it comes to spending.

Mr. Boudria: That is what I said.

Mr. Foulds: It is too bad that in the three- quarters of an hour that he talked, he did not make that clear.

One of the difficulties I have in understanding the imposition of this expansion of the sales tax is why a government that is touted and known as being so politically astute did such a stupid thing. I can only assume it is because they spent the money on the wrong things. They spent the money on the polls and the polls betrayed them. What the polls showed was the people did not want an increase in sales tax but they wanted the base expanded. Until it came, as the commercial says, to the real thing and when it hit, the Tories failed to interpret their very expensive polls correctly.

What they did is they took the advice of the only minister in the House before us, the Minister of Revenue, and acted in a Draconian manner, acted like a tight-fisted, tough-fisted, stupid tax collector. That is what they did.

What happened is they introduced a tax which is not only unfair because of its regressive nature, because it taxes the poor instead of the rich, because it hits people on essential items, but it is an administrative nightmare. Day after day in this House the Minister of Revenue has not been able to tell us in any clear manner what is taxed and what is not taxed. How can we vote in this House on a bill implementing a tax when we do not even know what it will be taxing or where it will be taxing. The Minister of Revenue has been absolutely no help at all because every time we ask a question, confused George, the Minister of Revenue, the member for Durham West, does not know.

When I asked him the simple question about the barbecued chicken, he was wrong. He was simply wrong and I want to say to him that day after day in this House we have failed to have a clear definition from the government about what is taxed. We have failed to have from the government a clear statement or definition of where those goods are taxed. We saw that with the dry cleaners this afternoon. We saw that with university students' food. We saw that in terms of the items bought at a grocery store when we illustrated it the other day with an apple, an orange, yoghurt, milk and a muffin.

I bring to members' attention an apple purchased today in the cafeteria of this building. Not only is there a sales tax on that apple, but what the people have done in the cafeteria of this building is what a number of people are going to do. They have raised the price to round it out.

This apple used to cost 40 cents. What the legislative cafeteria has done is raise the price to 42 cents so it can charge three cents tax and have a round figure of 45 cents. That is just a small illustration of the minor kind of ripoff that is going to occur to the consumer because of the ill thought out, ill-founded, regressive and foolish tax brought in by this government. That is one of the reasons we in the New Democratic Party are opposing it.

A saying that has gone around the province in recent months and was brought home to everybody because of the Hamilton West by-election is the famous saying by the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) which was, "A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal." There is a parallel saying that a tax is a tax is a tax, but that is not quite true. The parallel is not quite exact because people see some taxes as being fair and some as being unfair. They do not see the Liberals as being fair one way or the other these days.

The sales tax in this emanation, in this budget, hits the people unjustly. There are two things that make this sales tax politically unpalatable and mean it will haunt the Treasurer for the remainder of his political life and haunt this government until it rescinds it. One is, if a tax is fair people are willing to pay it, by and large. If a tax is seen as being fair, people are willing to pay it, by and large. However, there needs to be a second step in the social contract about taxation. Not only does the tax need to be fair and be seen as being fair, it needs to be seen to be paying for things that are justified.

The people of Ontario are decent people. They are hardworking people and they are willing to support their fellow citizens. But they are not willing to support their government when the government uses the taxpayers' money simply to glorify itself or to pay itself, the tight thing known as government.

What citizens want from taxation is the idea and the understanding that taxation is redistributed to the other people in our society to benefit them. In other words, taxpayers give their money in trust to the government.

The reason this tax has caused such an outrage is the people of the province no longer feel they can trust this government because the tax is being used to increase the revenues of the province -- not to benefit people on welfare assistance, because there is no increase for them, not to increase public transportation, because there is no increase in service there, not to benefit people in northern Ontario who need assistance with transportation costs, Ontario health insurance plan costs, hospitalization or health care because there is no increase in those services -- but the people of the province see the government taxes as paying solely for the glorification of this government through the spending on its jet, the spending on its oil company and the spending on its advertising. It is not done on behalf of the people of the province, it is done on behalf of a sloppy, tired, stupid, short-sighted government.

My colleagues have itemized time and time again the impact on universities, on school boards and on municipalities. That is the unfairest thing of all. The consumer is getting hit with this tax to help finance municipalities and the province is withdrawing taxation support from those municipalities.

8:40 p.m.

In my own community of Thunder Bay, just in the city council alone the additional OHIP cost is $156,000 in a full year. This budget will cost the Lakehead Board of Education $320,000 on an annual basis. For the separate school board it will cost, as an estimate, $85,000. The government might as well have imposed another ceiling on the expenditure of funds at the school board or municipality level because it introduced this budget, and therefore this tax, after they had struck their budgets for the current year.

The other thing that is seen as unfair by the friends of the Tory party, those administrators and those elected officials at the municipal level, is that the government did not play straight with them. It did not let them know ahead of time, it did not consult with them and it did this after they had no ability to increase their taxes, so they will have to cut back on their budgets. They have gone through very tough budgetary processes.

One of my colleagues was saying there was an hour and a half discussion at the board of education, or it might have been the municipality, where they cut out a $17,000 item and then the next day were hit with a budget that, in effect, cut $250,000 from their budget. They asked: "Why should we be so cost-conscious? Why should we try to do the decent administrative thing?"

In conclusion, there is a sense out there, very simply put, that the Treasurer did not need to tax essentials such as tampons, toilet paper and toothpaste. He did not need to tax the labour on repairs for clothing, shoes and auto repairs. The people who take their cars, shoes and clothing to be repaired are those people who need to take those things to be repaired and who cannot afford, like the Tory cabinet ministers, to buy a new suit. Those people do not run around on private business in government cars. The people who are being taxed are the very people who cannot afford to be taxed.

Finally, this budget taxes kids. It taxes jelly beans, candy bars, ice cream cones, those things that have been part of the Canadian way of life; a kid being able to go to a corner store and not having to pay tax. There is no kid who can go to a corner store these days and not have to pay tax on a confection unless he buys three jelly beans or less, because anything more than three jelly beans costs him 20 cents.

This is a tax on working people, a tax on women, a tax on kids. What has happened is the Treasurer has already hit the beleaguered consumer who is feeling the crunch because he is losing his job and because he is not getting an increase in wages that is commensurate with the cost of living. He hits them again with a seven per cent increase on food, on groceries, on the essentials of life.

We in the opposition resent that more than we can say. We resent the insensitivity and the stupidity of this government. I have a final little footnote. The basic unfairness of this tax for the people in northern Ontario was spoken to very movingly by my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). I want to emphasize that because the base price of everything that is bought in northern Ontario is higher -- every essential good from an automobile to a hamburger, which is not taxed unless you buy it at McDonald's -- we in the north are getting just a little tired of paying more than our fair share of taxes.

I sit in this House and I do not see any northern caucus member of the Progressive Conservative Party standing up in his place in this forum of debate, in this forum of responsible government and challenging the government and putting the case of his constituents. I think it is a tragedy that the members of the Tory party from northern Ontario have been bought off. They will stand up and salute. They will vote for this lousy tax tonight at 10:15. Those who have the guts will be here and those who do not will absent themselves. But silence means consent, and they do not deserve to be in this Legislature when they are not representing the constituents who elected them, either in terms of the people who voted for them or the people from northern Ontario.

We will be opposing this tax and in the committee hearings we will be fighting tooth and nail, hour after hour, to get the beggars on the other side of the House to rescind this tax and take it back. Let them sell their damned jet. There is no need to gouge the public of Ontario to get this kind of taxation.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying I think the bill we are considering tonight, out of all of the budget bills and out of all parts of the budget, is the real outrage. Not only do I think that, but there are thousands and thousands of people from all over this province, from every walk of life, who think that. That is why for the last several days and weeks we have been taking five or 10 minutes every day this House has sat to hear and to present in this Legislature petition after petition saying that various aspects of this budget, various aspects of the retail sales tax changes we are debating tonight, are wrong and should be dropped.

By my count, we have now had people speaking for every section of this bill, saying the tax is wrong and the exemption should be reintroduced. It is very strange that this government has seen fit to make only minor changes. It has seen fit to send the bill to committee. I feel very sorry for the seven Tories who are going to have to sit on that committee and who, according to the Treasurer this afternoon, will be whipped into line.

As I listened to my friend to the left just a minute ago, I hoped none of them would be from the north because, and I say this to my friend the member for Cochrane North, the parts of the budget for the north are particularly iniquitous, and he knows that. I am sure the member for Cochrane North and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) will not wish to be in their places in committee to vote to support even higher charges in the north than those of us down in the south will feel. I was in Sudbury on the weekend and I know how much that community is hurting. It is hurting almost as badly as Windsor.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House for unanimous consent to continue for nine minutes? The Minister of Revenue has indicated he will give me some time.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If it is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, I would be satisfied to take the floor at 9:30.

Mr. Piché: Good. I am in agreement too.

Mr. Wildman: What is happening to our time?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You can split it.

Mr. Piché: The member is not saying much, but he can continue.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do we have unanimous consent of the House for the member for Windsor-Sandwich?

Agreed to.

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the Minister of Revenue. In a sense I wish he had not given me the time, but rather that he had stood in his place and withdrawn at least one of these changes. I do appreciate that in the parliamentary tradition he has kindly given up the time.

I want to say at the outset, as a member from a community which is hurting, I feel the most outrageous part of this budget and the most outrageous part of this Retail Sales Tax Act is that it in no way shows any understanding of those communities which are being hit harder than others.

The changes which will tax municipalities and school boards come on top of months and months of debate which have left the school boards and municipalities exhausted and hoping they will still be able to balance their budgets.

I see the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) writing away there and I am sure he knows, because for months he has heard from the people of Brantford just how bad things are. Yet he will stand in his place tonight and say to the people of Brantford: "It is okay. Let your property taxes go up, let your school taxes go up, pay more at McDonald's, pay more for that puppy, pay more for those plants and shrubs."

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, no, he won't.

Mr. Wrye: Yes he will. Perhaps the member for Brantford would like to come into committee and perhaps the member for Cochrane North and the member for Sudbury, who claims he is so sensitive to the people, would like to come. Come into committee and vote with us in committee. We need only one.

Let me talk a little bit about what this budget has done. I was speaking with a member of the fourth estate, from which I came, this weekend. He was saying that neither opposition party in the debates and discussions on this bill understands what it means to be very poor. I discussed that matter with him for some time and in some sense I agree with him that this budget hurts the very poor because it taxes, as my friend the member for Port Arthur just said, toilet paper and even the very poor need toilet paper. It taxes tampons, it taxes so many of the absolute essentials of life that even the very poor, those who are literally driven to the point of starvation, need.

If one moves one step up to the working poor and the unemployed, that is where the crunch will really come. For those of us in communities like Windsor that is where we are feeling it most.

It is okay for the Tory cabinet ministers and the parliamentary assistants, with their $8,000 or whatever they get, to go running off to Winston's and La Scala and to enjoy all the luxuries of life. In the city of Windsor for many people today, a luxury is to be able to take the wife and a couple of kids to McDonald's or Harvey's just to get a night out away from home and away from the pressures they feel. Now when they get the bill and it is $7, seven per cent is added. The members across the floor sit back and laugh and say: "What can it be, an extra 49 cents? How important is that really?"

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the government members, when one is literally pinching pennies, 49 cents is 49 of those pennies and it may mean the difference psychologically between going out to McDonald's and staying at home in isolation for one more evening.

What about the kids? Once in a while the people who have children and who are unemployed or who are working but not drawing a large salary because they do not draw a large salary or they work only part-time, could take the kids out for a pop or an ice cream cone. Now that is being taxed. Or perhaps they wanted to buy the family a pet, but the minister did not miss that one either.

Of course the Tory majority opposite, with its big fat salaries, would not even understand what it means to have an old car and that is why they tax the cost of labour on repairs. That is why they tax patterns for clothes, because they do not make their clothes, they buy them at expensive stores. The working poor buy patterns and make their clothes because that is all they can afford. Yet they have added a few more dollars.

I would like to know how much time I have? Is it about one minute? Let me conclude by saying this, we have about one hour and 20 minutes. I do not believe that one hour and 20 minutes from now we should be voting on this bill. I believe that in the next hour and 20 minutes some sense and reason should come to those people. They should withdraw the damned thing, sell the jet, stop the crummy advertising that congratulates themselves and start cutting costs over there.

Mr. Piché: Sell the jet; you are against northern Ontario, that's your problem. If I were living in Windsor maybe I would. Mention the jet once more and that's all your are, against northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: The member for Cochrane North should begin to understand and know first. They should withdraw this bill. We should not vote. The Premier (Mr. Davis) will be busy gallivanting around the country and the member for Cochrane North knows it.

Mr. Piché: No, no.

Mr. Wrye: We should withdraw this bill, find the revenue somewhere else and cut the government's costs.

Mr. Piché: Stop criticizing. What is the alternative?

Mr. Wrye: There are lots of alternatives, my friend.

Mr. Epp: Resign.

Mr. Wrye: That is the best alternative of all. This bill should be withdrawn. It should be withdrawn post haste and we should bring in other cost savings, not new taxes but cost savings to make up for the revenue we will lose. Only then, and I say this sincerely to my friend the member for Cochrane North, will the taxpayers and the people of this province be satisfied. Only then will they not come into committee and demand that each and every section of this bill be withdrawn. Pass it tonight and we will fight it in committee.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill not just because it is a bad bill, but because we in this part of the House feel this bill is unnecessary. If we had a government at Ottawa that put the public interest first, if we had a government over on the other side of the House that put the public interest first, if we had anything like full employment in this country, if we had lower interest rates provided by the federal government, we would not need any extra tax measures in this province.

The latest figures show we are running at only 69 per cent of capacity. The actual cost of unemployment in this province is $17 billion annually. If we had only half the unemployment we have now, and if we were running at 90 per cent of capacity, the difference in the tax at the same level would be far more than the additional taxes including this sales tax we are applying here at the present time.

We do not have that situation. The government has imposed this sales tax and other taxes. It is not unfair to say it imposed them in the worst possible way it could. This sales tax is the worst of them all.

My colleagues have covered many of the faults and every section in the bill is a fault. I do not intend to cover many of them. We know the bill provides an aggravated nuisance tax on such things as repairs by cleaning establishments. We know there is a complex application of the bill that is impossible to decipher in many instances.

I had a lifelong Tory come to me, Mr. C. Swayze, who runs the Thorold Flour and Feed Store and who also sells pets, or at least sells chickens and rabbits. If he sells them for food, of course there will not be any tax on them. If he sells rabbits as children's pets, he has to pay a tax. He says: "What do I have to do? Do I give a lie detector test to everyone who comes in to find out whether I am selling it for a pet or whether I am selling it for food where they are going to kill it and eat it?"

This tax applies to the most essential products we could possibly think of: foods, patterns, textiles, smoke alarms. It contravenes the conservation measures that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) loudly touts. Of course, we know it is only rhetoric, because he will not even interfere with the gas company that now wants to assess gas rates, which will not promote conservation but which, in fact, will inhibit conservation measures.

9 p.m.

Worst of all about this tax, of course, is its regressive nature. We know that the average income for the past three years has not kept up with the cost of living, and those with low incomes have been hurt the most; they have seen their real income fall the most. Now we have the most regressive tax bill one can probably imagine, Bill 115. It applies even to property tax.

I have a letter here that comes from the Niagara South Board of Education. They passed a resolution that calls on the Ontario government to rescind the sales tax and the additional Ontario health insurance plan premiums, which they are going to have to pay. They point out in this letter that they will pay $283,000 extra in a full year because of the sales tax. This means that in the Niagara region alone the municipalities and the boards of education are going to have to get in excess of $1 million in sales tax from the taxpayers.

We know that the property tax is a regressive tax. The government has said, "We instituted the property tax credit to make it less regressive." But what does this sales tax do? It is put on top of the tax they pay, so that a senior citizen, who may get $500 as a tax credit and will have to pay $600, will now find that he is perhaps going to have to pay another $25; so his net tax will increase by 25 per cent. It is those people with low incomes who are going to have to pay proportionately by far the largest share of this increase in the property tax as a result of the sales tax.

This applies to many things. The wealthy inner society, of course, will not be paying for the cheap meals; they get the reduction on the expensive ones and all those things. It applies more to those with moderate and low incomes than it does to those with high incomes.

One of my responsibilities in this party for some time has been that of consumer prices; so I just checked today the increases in some of the consumer prices. I have been fighting to have the government intervene to stop ripoffs, and they have constantly refused to do it.

Just let me talk about a few of the articles this tax applies to. Toothpaste, for instance: A 100-millilitre tube of Colgate has increased in price by 38 per cent in the past two years, but with this tax the increase will be 47 per cent. The price of Pepsodent has increased by 26 per cent, but with this tax the increase is 38 per cent.

Toilet tissue: The price of a four-pack of White Swan has increased by 14 per cent in the past two years, but with this tax it will be 22 per cent. The price of a four-pack of Cottonelle will go up by between 26 per cent and 36 per cent because of this increase in the sales tax.

Let us talk about another item that has been very controversial: tampons. The increase in price of the Playtex 30-tampon package over the past two years has been 40 per cent; this tax means it will go up to 49 per cent. And if one uses Carefree tampons, the increase will be from 82 per cent to 94 per cent in two years.

Instead of the government intervening to protect the consumer on prices where there is a ripoff, it is aggravating the prices that consumers must pay. All these items are necessities; they are all items that people in the lower income brackets have to use in the same quantity as those in the higher income brackets. Thus it is the people in the lower income brackets who are going to have to pay the bulk of this cost.

There are many of us in this party who would like to spend much more time dealing with this issue, but because many others would also like to speak on this I am going to conclude my comments at this time.

In concluding them, I want to say this. So that the committee members can adequately deal with this whole question of the sales tax when it comes before them, the government should even yet get its economists to do an impact study so the people on the committee that is sitting and the people of this province will know where this tax is going to have an impact. As we in this party know, it will be on those with lower incomes; and if that is proven by their own people, I think even this government might have the courage to rescind it.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on this bill, because the good people of Cornwall would want me to speak out against this unfair, unwelcome, unpopular and unjust tax. In the six and a half years I have been here, I have received more phone calls about this budget than about all the other budgets combined since 1974, even including Lord Darcy's 36 per cent Ontario health insurance plan tax increase and his various budgets.

The Treasurer has said in the Toronto Star, "Within six months they will forget the bad things in this budget and only remember the good things in it." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to go out on the streets of Toronto or any municipality in Ontario today, you would find out how wrong he is. This budget and his statements will be absolutely fatal to his leadership ambitions, because this budget is an absolute albatross around his neck, and for good reason.

He did not even take the advice of certain economists before the budget, for example, Ben Gestrin, chief economist of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, who said he advocates the temporary lifting of the provincial sales tax: "People would rush in and buy during the period. I think this time around the whole retail area is very weak, and it could be a more across-the-board kind of sales tax reduction."

Lorie Tarshis, the senior economist of the Ontario Economic Council, said: "The tax cuts that I would recommend would be to get rid of all the product taxes that don't have a real social justification. I'd probably increase taxes on things like tobacco, liquor and gasoline, but the sales tax is the only revenue-maker that should go. We tax things like shoes and boots simply as a revenue device, and I think it is a lousy one simply because one of its effects is simply to raise the prices. If we are fighting inflation, what's the point of that?"

That sort of advice was totally unheeded by the Treasurer. Instead, he socked it to the average people of Ontario. He raised their taxes by between $150 and $300. They have to pay more for their gas, more for their OHIP, more for tobacco, more for booze. We are probably talking about $100 a year in retail sales tax for the average family as a result of this one bill.

One only has to read the Toronto Star today to realize how bad the economy is in Ontario. The Star quotes the Conference Board of Canada, which says Ontario slid so far that it now ranks dead last among the 10 provinces in its prospects for economic growth. The article talks about record unemployment, record layoffs, record bankruptcies.

The Star article says, "Real disposable income per person will plunge from nine per cent above the national average to barely two per cent above the norm." It points out that "retail sales will grow this year by barely 4.6 per cent, a rate slower than all provinces except New Brunswick and tiny Prince Edward Island." In that economic context, in that kind of climate, this minister decides to hit the ordinary people of Ontario instead of stimulating the economy.

I worry about the growing dependence in this province on the sales tax and on personal taxes in general. In 1960, for every dollar we collected in personal taxes we raised $1.79 in corporate taxes. With this budget, those figures have changed: for every dollar raised in personal taxes we are now raising 14 cents in corporate taxes.

In the past two years corporate taxes have declined by some 30 per cent as a proportion of total tax revenue, while retail sales taxes have increased by almost 20 per cent as a proportion of the total tax revenue. Personal income taxes have increased by more than 30 per cent as a proportion of the total tax revenue.

I wonder whether it is just a coincidence that four of the five provinces in Canada that charge the highest retail sales taxes happen to be Tory governments, led by the Tories in Newfoundland at 11 per cent, the Tories in Prince Edward Island at 10 per cent and the Tories in Nova Scotia at 10 per cent. All the top three are Tories: the lowest in the corporate tax and the highest in the retail sales tax. There is a philosophy there: hit the little guy and give the big guys all the breaks.

9:10 p.m.

I wonder whether it is a coincidence that we have this increase in the retail sales tax at a time when this government has just wasted $650 million on the Suncor fiasco, when it has wasted $11 million on a jet that nobody needs and when it has wasted between $20 million and $30 million on advertising that does not serve the public interest whatsoever.

I will admit the Treasurer had difficulty because of some of the moves made by Ottawa and the economic situation, but the government has to take the full blame for the fact that it has wasted almost $700 million public money in this province in the past year, and what it is doing is using this retail sales tax as a way of recouping some of that money. The way they have done it is to hit the average person the hardest.

There are all sorts of other areas they could have touched, but they did not have the guts to do it. They did not touch personal capital gains. They did not touch the sales tax on production machinery and equipment. They did not touch succession duty. They did not touch accelerated capital cost allowances. They did not touch inventory valuation adjustments. They did not touch dividend tax credit. They did not touch the corporation tax. They did not touch the banks.

What did they do? They hit the sales tax and the people least able to defend themselves politically. It is an unjust tax, an unfair tax, an unpopular tax and an unwelcome tax. It discriminates. It makes a mockery out of the idea that it is a discretionary tax. That was supposed to be the purpose of the sales tax: it was to be applied on discretionary items. How can members of the government look us in the face and say that soap, tampons, take-out food, storm windows, school supplies, smoke alarms, toothpaste, cleaning products, etc., are discretionary in 1982? How can they describe car repairs or appliance repairs as discretionary items these days?

Why are we the only province in Canada that charges a tax on meals costing less than $4? Why do we reduce the taxes for people who go out to the fancy restaurants and impose a seven per cent tax on people who go to Harvey's or a hamburger joint or a pizza place? Why does the La Scala crowd get a tax break, and why are these people hit?

Why do we freeze tax on the corporate sector and hit the ordinary people on the necessities of life? Where is the equity in these tax changes? Why not hit the expense account crowd? Why not hit the race track crowd? Why not hit the Albany Club crowd?

Why drive up the cost of living in terms of cart, maintenance, etc., when they do absolutely nothing to increase the tax on banks, land speculators and the likes of Steve Roman and the Eaton family?

This budget means higher school taxes, higher property taxes, higher transit fees, higher Ontario health insurance plan fees and, in terms of the pure sales tax portion, at least $100 per year per family. In terms of business, especially small business, it means more layoffs, more people on unemployment insurance and more people on welfare.

I will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane North? The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give the member for Cochrane North the opportunity to speak because I hope, if he ever does take the opportunity to speak in this House, he will speak on behalf of northern Ontario.

I oppose this bill for the obvious reason that it is the epitome of Tory tax philosophy. The philosophy, as shown in this bill, is to tax the little guy and to let the big shots off. It is a ripoff.

This bill implements a budgetary policy of the Treasurer which basically means that the ordinary families of Ontario will be paying more for goods and services that they require and the corporate sector will have an even greater opportunity to avail itself of the grants and whatever this government is providing for the corporate sector without paying its fair share.

This is a regressive form of taxation. That is why the Tories would support it and why, when they are looking for tax room and tax manoeuvrability, they would decide to increase the sales tax.

As my colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) indicated, there were many other types of taxation this government could have used to meet the fiscal problem it has because of its need to raise more funds. But, no, this government chose instead to increase this type of taxation, a type of taxation that has no relationship whatever to the amount of money a family makes.

It is a most regressive type of taxation and one that we in this party cannot support. In the economic situation we face in Ontario today, the movement should have been in the opposite direction. Instead of widening the sales tax, we should have been restricting it.

In the communities in my area, we have enormous layoffs. The lumber industry is almost completely shut down. The steel industry has been insulated from the downturns in the economy to this time. Now Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie has laid off more than 2,000 men. The downturn in the manufacturing sector, which is related to the downturn in retail sales across this country and in North America in general, is finally spinning back into the steel industry and we are seeing a very serious economic situation in my part of the province. About 11.3 per cent of the work force is unemployed in Algoma and Sault Ste. Marie.

Instead of a stimulative budgetary policy, this government has brought in a policy that is going to add to the cost of goods and services and make it more difficult for people who are facing hard economic times to purchase the goods and services they need. So we have a continuing snowball effect. The ordinary families of this province are going to be hit very hard by this budget and this bill. For that reason, we cannot support it.

I searched for reasons why the Conservatives would introduce this bill. There are all kinds of contradictions in it. When one increases the cost of insulation products, storm doors and windows, how on earth does that fall in line with the famous "Preserve it, conserve it" ads and the philosophy of energy conservation? If they really believe those advertisements we have seen so much of were actually intended to encourage the conservation of fuel and energy in this society rather than just trying to increase the prospects of the Conservative Party in Ontario, how on earth can they justify increasing the cost of the very products that would make it possible for us to conserve energy?

I also look at the increase in the cost of meals to ordinary families. We will be taxing children through the cost of candy, confections and low-priced meals. I wonder how this minister feels about being an Oliver Twist to the Treasurer's Fagin in this whole process. He is sent out to rip off the public and the small children in this society to help swell the revenues of the Treasury. The minister just sits there and says, "I am just doing what I am told by the Treasurer." I wonder whether he really accepts the fact that he has to do this or whether he is one of those ministers who are actually pressing for it.

When we had a debate in this House during question period about the tax on meals served by church groups and other benevolent and charitable organizations, I got the impression that this minister actually wanted it to be tougher than it is. He wanted to protect the private sector from so-called unfair competition from charities. He wanted all the little old ladies who work very hard making their pies at community events to collect tax for this government, thus making it more difficult for them to raise money for charitable purposes.

Instead of his being just a tax collector and implementing policy as determined by the Treasurer, I wonder whether the minister himself is actually pushing to collect more and more tax and whether the Treasurer is the one who is trying to rein in the Minister of Revenue. After all, it was the Treasurer who actually said: "We are going to ease up a bit on charities. If they do not have their events more than four times a year, perhaps we will not charge them."

9:20 p.m.

The tax on household products, cleaning products, smoke alarms, trees, shrubs, pets, patterns and textiles, magazines and on labour for repairs adds to the cost of living for the families of this province. They are a nuisance to those families who can afford them. They are a burden to those who are at the bottom of the income scale.

I suspect that the real crunch is going to come next spring when the municipalities and the school boards have to restrike their budgets for next year to cover the additional cost they are facing as a result of this budget. We were told that the city of Sault Ste. Marie is going to have to find, somewhere, about $236,000; that is not even counting the additional cost to their new water and sewer project, which was announced the day after the budget. Algoma College is going to have to find an additional $10,000 during the rest of this year.

The school boards in our area are going to face additional costs: Central Algoma Board of Education, about $20,000; Sault Ste. Marie Roman Catholic Separate School Board, $36,000; Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education, about $188,000; Michipicoten Board of Education and the Michipicoten Roman Catholic Separate School Board, together, about $14,000; and the North Shore Roman Catholic Separate School Board about $25,000.

All those amounts are going to have to be found somewhere in budgets that have already been struck, which means either additional property taxes, which will hit the ordinary families of this province, or cuts in services to institutions, school boards and municipalities that have already cut their budgets to the bone because of the difficulties caused by inflation.

This budget came down when those other budgets had already been set. It is very difficult for the people to adapt to this most regressive type of taxation. I wonder how the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue can hold their heads up when they go into their own communities.

Mr. Cooke: They will have to have a prop.

Mr. Wildman: My colleague says they will have to have a prop. The only prop they have, I suppose, is their corporate friends, who know that they do not have to pay any extra tax because of this budget. But even in their interest this budget is regressive. As I said, the additional sales tax will hurt them, in that their markets will continue to be restricted and we are going to have more and more unemployment.

At a time when we should have had job stimulation, this budget is going to make for more unemployment and more hardship in our difficult economic times. For that reason we oppose this bill, and we hope the hearings before the committee will result in this government's rethinking its position.

Mr. Cooke: I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by spelling out the expectations of this caucus from the upcoming hearings on this bill. I wish the Minister of Revenue would listen. I assume from the answers he has given to questions on the sales tax in the Legislature over the past week and a half to two weeks that he does not listen very often to his bureaucrats, because he certainly does not understand the implications of this sales tax bill.

When one looks at appendix A to the budget, which spells out very clearly where the sales tax exemptions have been eliminated by this budget, one really sees the ridiculous and crazy regressive approach that this government has taken. I am sure that from a political point of view, the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer took the approach that eliminating certain exemptions would be less politically damaging to the Conservative government than taking some other kinds of approaches if they felt increasing revenue in this budget was important.

The fact of the matter is that this budget and the elimination of exemptions under sales tax symbolize the approach taken by the Tory government of this province over a great number of years. It is regressive, it is unfair and it shows more than anything else the inequity that this government believes in under the tax structure.

When one considers that consumables such as soap, tissues, and other essential products now are subject to tax and that food sold on university campuses and college campuses, where students have no alternative but to buy their food from these outlets, is now going to be taxable, one really understands that this government has no concept, no understanding and really does not care about any form of equality or eliminating inequities in the tax system.

We have expectations from the hearings, which have been forced upon the government of this province because of opposition pressure and because of pressure from the communities and ordinary people all across this province. When the government considers them, I want the Minister of Revenue to understand very clearly that this party will not be at all satisfied unless the regressive taxation that it has imposed on the necessities of the people of this province is withdrawn before this bill is reported to the Legislature for third reading.

In other words we expect, after public hearings and after the inequities have been proven in the resource committee, that there no longer will be a tax imposed on personal hygiene and household cleaning products. If the Minister of Revenue expects that we can go out to hearings and that the government can put on the front that they are an open government, that they believe in democracy, that they believe in input from the people of this province, and then they can report back the bill for third reading with no major changes whatsoever, then the minister is more out of touch with the realities of this province than even this party believed.

Let us talk about the way this minister has responded to legitimate questions in this Legislature. Last week, when he responded to questions from my deputy leader on the inequities, there was total confusion within his staff on which items were taxed and which items were not taxed. When he failed the questions about which food items were taxed and which were not, he expected that he was giving legitimate answers to the Legislature.

Let us take the ethnic groups that are providing a very important service to the people of Ontario by organizing the functions of Fiesta Week in Oshawa, Carousel in Windsor and Caravan in Toronto. The minister indicated they were going to be tax exempt. Maybe the Minister of Revenue will listen. Will he listen while he is straightening his tie?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You are not saying anything different or new.

Mr. Cooke: I know the minister is not saying anything legitimate or worth while, but none the less I would like him to listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cooke: I ask the Minister of Revenue to respond to the following questions. Will the various large ethnic communities within this province be subject to tax on the food they sell in the fall after they have surpassed the four events and the $75,000 gross? For example, will Oktoberfest in Kitchener be subject to tax? Will Oktoberfest in Windsor be subject to tax? Will the Winefest at the Caboto Club in the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville be taxed?

Are those items going to be taxable in the fall, or has the minister inadvertently misled the Legislature and the people of the province by saying they are tax-exempt? What will be the status of that this fall? Will they not be taxable?

Why does the minister not respond to the dry cleaners and their concerns? We met with them this morning. They pointed out the ridiculousness of this piece of legislation, whereby dry cleaning will not be taxable --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Do they want it taxed?

Mr. Cooke: Of course they do not want it taxed. The minister should not be so silly.

On the other hand, minor repairs, some of which they charge for, will be taxable. When one goes to some of the dry cleaners in Toronto and in other places in this province, if one is missing a button on a garment, they will replace that button tax-free. If there is a major repair, which may involve a button, that button is going to be taxable.

I would like the minister to respond to me. Which of those buttons will be taxed at the wholesale level and which will be taxed at the retail level? You are pointing to the clock. Is the clock nontaxable?

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, if I can just take two more minutes and point out to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: No. Your time has expired.

Mr. Cooke: I will just point out to the Minister of Revenue that we intend to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: We have great expectations for the public hearings on this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I hope the minister has not misled the public by --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Revenue has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You have two minutes, George.

Mr. Wrye: That will be more than he will want.

Mr. Cooke: You have 45 minutes to dig yourself six feet deeper.

Mr. Wrye: The caucus made you do this.

Mr. Martel: The Treasurer did.

Mr. McClellan: Where is the rest of the cabinet, George?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, if I had known all this was going to come from the members of the third party, I would not have given up the 10 or 15 minutes to them. Obviously, some members over there feel the extra time was only to abuse the privilege and not to respect the agreement that was made.

In the past four hours, approximately, I have heard a total of 13 speakers. I am not quite sure if that number is significant or not, but from the 13 speakers I heard many of the same things 13 times. We can probably agree on that without any great problem.

What I am going to try to do over the next short while is touch upon some of the questions and issues raised by the members without trying to get too repetitive, albeit there is no doubt some of the issues do cross one another. Then I will review some of the other issues I think are relevant to the piece of legislation in front of us.

The opening speaker, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), from whom we have heard on many, frequent and lengthy occasions prior to today -- although I must say he was rather charitable today and with only about half an hour gave our ears a bit of a break -- touched upon the whole concept of the retail sales tax. He made the reference that it was a regressive tax, it was inflationary and it hits all alike.

I do not agree with that conclusion. Statistics will prove there is no doubt at all that everybody who makes purchases, which, granted, is from the very low income to the very affluent, pays at basically the same level. Nobody can argue with that.

One would find there are many ways within government that those at the lower end get back further credits towards the taxes they pay, either through the tax credit program for those who file income tax forms or through the sales tax grant program for seniors. These relate, particularly through the income tax, to the lower- and middle-income people who get back more of a credit than those in the upper income levels.

The other thing is there is no doubt at all in the statistics, and one does not have to be a mathematician to bear out the fact, that those who earn more money, spend more money. Those who spend more money obviously pay significantly more in sales tax.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not see a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum has been called; call in the members.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, you are quite in order but we could have done that on them all day long and did not. That will be remembered. Just remember that tomorrow and the next day.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

9:39 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to have it noted on the record that the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), who called the quorum, made up 50 per cent of the representation of the third party in the Legislature at that time and now is still absent himself from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Let us not be provocative.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of privilege: I might point out that I know the Minister of Revenue was elected in 1977 on June 9, the same year I was, but even I know it is the responsibility of the government and not of the opposition to keep a quorum in this House.

Interjections.

9:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: I call to order the member for Windsor-Riverside, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member from Mississauga.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order--

The Deputy Speaker: I am on my feet at the moment.

Mr. Martel: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East on a point of order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I was here when the quorum was about to be called and there were six of us here. There were more New Democrats, with 21 members in this Legislature, than there were Tories. There was one cabinet minister and three other Tories over there. It is their bill and we do not have to man this House or have the quorum. If the minister wants to do it proportionately, he should get his trained seals in here. He should not tell us who we are supposed to have in here and who is in control. They are supposed to be in control over there and should get their members in. It is their bill, not ours.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside, the member for Sudbury East will come to order. The Minister of Revenue has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One thing we know for sure is that we would not count on the third party to provide a quorum because they would need all their members in here just to make 20.

Mr. Martel: At least they come around, George. That's more than your party will do.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: When you are down in the low numbers percentagewise, you are doing better with every one it increases, I agree.

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to some of the points that have been made by the members. The member for Rainy River talked about the so-called contradictions in this particular piece of legislation and said that the Treasurer had no idea of the implications in the budget.

I would suggest that there is no jurisdiction in Canada that has a budget process that is as consultative as the one which was established in Ontario a considerable number of years ago and which has been carried on by the present Treasurer. We have more input, listen to more organizations and more people in coming up with our budget than any other jurisdiction across the breadth of Canada. This is not a new phenomenon; it has been going on for a number of years.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) then took the floor and we both agreed on one thing, that nobody likes taxes. He indicated that, in his view, the way of this particular bill was unfair. He used the example of the buns and, as usual, was incorrect. If he reads what he said in Hansard he will see his own error. I will not bother pointing it out.

He indicated that even as late as today there was no clear indication as to the direction for Caravan, Carousel, Fiesta and so on, although last Thursday it was made so abundantly clear that even he could understand that the implications for Caravan, Carousel and Fiesta were that they all would be tax-free.

Mr. Breaugh: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the minister does not like the interjections from this side of the House, then he should have the members on that side of the House not misrepresent what was said. What was said this afternoon was that specifically in the case of Fiesta Week, they have actively sought to get an opinion from the minister in writing. As of yesterday evening they had not yet received that.

It seems to me that since the regulations require he does inform in writing, to make the regulations clear to people who are supposed to collect the retail sales tax, that would be an obvious thing for the minister to do. As of 7:30 last night, they had not received any written comment for interpretation.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as late as yesterday or as late as today, any information that was given to Fiesta was given in the same way the question was asked. I have not as yet had any written request from them. Any request that has come verbally either through members in this House or directly from some members of the committee have been answered in exactly the same way.

There were representations by the member for Oshawa on the tax bills. He read some background references of tax bills not being legal versus precedence, versus retroactive law. He really answered his own question. I do not think there is any great dispute on the legality in that context. Again, I have answered that question about the retroactivity and when we would start to enforce the law, not only in here but outside the Legislature to the press.

The big part of the issue, of course, is that the bill quite traditionally is retroactive to the date of the imposition of the tax or change in the tax. In some cases it is to the night of the budget, in some cases to May 25 and in other cases to Monday of last week, namely June 14.

The member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) made reference to the tax on accommodation that has been reimposed. Let me just clarify the record for his benefit --

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Revenue just said that all inquiries about Fiesta, Caravan and Carousel have been answered in kind. That is to say if they were phoned in they were answered by phone. I want the record to show that on June 16, a letter was sent to the minister and hand delivered by myself and the member for Windsor-Riverside. That letter has certainly not been answered in kind.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as usual he was not listening. I made specific reference to Fiesta which is the one he had referred to previously. I did not mention Caravan or Carousel.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister of Revenue, you are not helping matters.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to read this into the record. I want to make it clear that Fiesta Week in Oshawa is one that was clearly identified in my letter to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Getting back to the member for Wentworth North and the tax on accommodations that has been reimposed --

Mr. Martel: Ignore it, George. Pretend it wasn't there.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: No, he said it.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Let me again clarify for his information that the tax on accommodation was not reimposed in this budget. In fact, the tax on accommodation was reduced from seven per cent to five per cent. In case he has been giving some incorrect information on some inquiries I just wanted to correct the record for him.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) referred to the lost jobs because of the clothing repair tax. If there was any particular issue that was ever put grossly out of perspective that has to be the one, particularly with some of the points being made by other honourable members. I stand to be corrected on the figures but I think the point is still valid.

Out of a great sum of money that was being collected within a particular dry cleaning establishment, a relatively small sum -- I think it was something like $112 -- was all that was collected for repairs over this period of time. If $112 compared with, I think the other figure was something like $2,200, is going to put a lot of people out of business then they had better get their information together. Obviously, that is grossly misstated and meant as a scare tactic. It is not borne out by the facts.

9:50 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Have you talked to the dry cleaners?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of Revenue has the floor.

Mr. Cooke: The minister is giving false facts.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If the member would listen, I said the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) said, in talking about lost jobs on the clothing repair tax, there would be a lot of jobs lost.

Mr. Martel: Right. Your stupid little tax gets rid of a job in Sudbury at the YMCA. Ask the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) behind you, because he has been there. Since they went to him first, didn't they lose one job --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That same member spoke about what is in her view the discrimination in the tax against females, small businesses, coffee trucks, home owners, and to use again her words, "the huge increases that were being imposed on home owners because of the tax changes." Again, if a 0.4 per cent impact on average upon local budgets is a huge increase, then I am not quite sure what jurisdiction she represents. I doubt if it is within Metropolitan Toronto, which I happen to know is where her riding is.

She made another point that escaped me. She mentioned that it worked out as an actual 7.7 per cent increase upon many families. I am still trying to work out the arithmetic of that, but maybe she can pass on to me in some written form her methodology. How does seven per cent become 7.7 per cent? I would be interested in seeing that. It might be something we can use to increase the revenues of the province by compounding, but it did escape me.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) talked, quite rightly and quite legitimately, about the problems being experienced in the city of Windsor. I do not think anybody would in any way belittle the problems besetting many municipalities within Ontario, particularly those that are greatly dependent on the automobile industry.

I do not agree with the context of the tax revolt reference that was being made. As a matter of fact, I think the members would find, if they looked at the tax components in Ontario versus other jurisdictions within Canada, or versus other jurisdictions within the United States, if one wants to get into property tax, Ontario stands at the lower end in many forms of tax, in the middle in most, and at the top end of the tax scale in very few.

A reference was made to the Goodfellows and the excellent job I am sure they do in their community, as the member pointed out, as do many other organizations in many parts of the province. One of the problems with trying to create individual exemptions for very legitimate purposes for organizations such as that one -- I can assure the members I think any one of us, myself included, could rationalize why the Goodfellows and their good efforts on behalf of the community could be exempt from tax on, in this case, freezers -- but the unfortunate follow-up of that kind of a decision is that there are literally hundreds and thousands of organizations that can put forth, in their view, an equally substantial case as to why they should not have to pay tax for a particular purpose.

That is a problem in two ways. One is the actual administration of all the perceivedly legitimate requests and, two, once again, is the overall significant impact on the revenues of Ontario. Although I sympathize with the particular point the member made on behalf of the Goodfellows, frankly it would be impossible to comply with it.

The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) referred to sales tax in the context of northern Ontario. I cannot disagree with him. Being a retail sales tax, and based on the price that is paid at the retail level, when there are added costs, regardless of the reason -- and legitimately transportation is one that can have some significant effect in the north -- there is no other way reasonably and equitably to take care of that difference. I would suggest to the honourable member there are many other ways in which this government over the years has recognized the different kinds of problems in northern Ontario.

I will use a couple of examples. We did touch on one this afternoon, the automobile licence, which I know the member took some exception to. I do not think this is the most significant one; it is one that is maybe more obvious to more people on an annual basis.

I will point out a couple of others. Resource equalization grants generally are more favourable to communities like those in the north. I point out that in many of the grant programs, such as Wintario, the percentage involvement of public funds is more significant, usually to the extent of being 100 per cent greater, than in similar organizations providing similar facilities in my riding, as an example, and all of those in southern Ontario. So I think the distinctive problems of the north are recognized in other programs, albeit -- and I will acknowledge this -- not in the sales tax area per se.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was in opposition to this bill not just because of the nature of the bill but because the bill was unnecessary in itself. I find this very amusing coming from a member of the party that literally daily is constantly at this government with suggestions and prodding as to why we are not spending more on this or that program or this or that person. We all know, at least all the members on this side know, this money does not come out of the air; it comes out of the taxpayers' pockets in one form or another. The retail sales tax is just one source of revenue which has been utilized very fairly and fairly judiciously by this government over the years.

The member for Cornwall talked about the long-standing negatives, in his view and in the view, apparently, of some of his constituents, about the budget, and he said the long-term benefits would be long forgotten. Of course, I disagree. There are many very positive parts of the Treasurer's budget, which we will be getting into in more detail in the next few days in other legislation, so I am not going to take time to dwell on them tonight. But I do want to point out that many of the things we are talking about that are supposedly causing problems are really a matter of adjustment or of reaccustoming oneself to them.

The question was asked, if we do need more money why did we not, for example, touch succession duty taxes, among others. I just point out that the Succession Duty Act was repealed quite a number of years ago and would have to be resurrected rather than just touched, if we were going to get back into that area.

The member also made the comment that corporation tax revenue has been decreasing as a percentage of the total provincial revenue over the last couple of years. Generally speaking, that is true. I know members of the third party think all corporations make all kinds of money all the time; but, believe it or not, the declining revenues generally indicate what some corporations, both large and small, have been saying statistically for some time: that things are not really all so rosy within the corporate sector and that all corporations do not make piles of money all the time, contrary to the views of the member for Cornwall.

I will not go into any great detail on the matters the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) touched on. Basically there was nothing new in what he said other than the reference to "preserve it, conserve it" and how some of the parts of the budget were contrary to that. Yes, it is true some of the conservation tax relief measures that were put in on a temporary basis in the budgets over the last couple of years -- and they were always intended to be temporary -- have been removed. I should also point out that within this particular document there is a further plus, if you will, for the conservation area, in that existing exemptions for licensed vehicles powered exclusively by fuels other than gasoline or diesel have been expanded to include licensed vehicles that can be fuelled by both fossil and alternative fuels, including conversion kits.

10 p.m.

This is an attractive option that many private individuals as well as small corporations in both the private and public sectors have been looking at. We think this is an incentive to have more organizations get into the experience of using the dual-fuel type engine.

The member for Windsor-Riverside was referring, in his review, to the confusion about Oktoberfest, etc. I think last week that was made abundantly clear. Once again, I will answer the question I think I have now answered at least three or four times vis-à-vis the $75,000, Oktoberfest and the relationship of Oktoberfest to the spring and summer festivals such as Fiesta Week and Caravan. For organizations that would normally qualify, four is not the key criterion; if there is an irregular number, of which four is an example being some quarterly event, the $75,000 is the key component.

If an organization is regularly in business and derives that kind of gross revenue, I suggest it would have to be a pretty big operation. Seventy- five thousand dollars is a significant volume of business. Once it passes that threshold, it would be in a tax category. That is exactly what we have been saying right along.

Mr. Foulds: No, it is not. It may be what you said outside the House, but it is not what you said here.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is exactly what was said. The member can look back and see what it says. He had better get his hearing aid on.

That is consistent. The $75,000 is a 50 per cent increase from the previous regulation, which was $50,000. I think the $75,000 threshold allows most organizations that are legitimately in fund-raising for very good purposes -- and nobody disputes the excellent purposes for which the funds are being used -- lots of flexibility. I suggest organizations that are in volumes that go beyond that in any given year are probably into businesses and probably should pay tax accordingly.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Minister of Revenue would not want to mislead the House on purpose, but the fact of the matter is the $50,000 exemption, if inflation is factored in, should be $85,000. So the Minister of Revenue is giving nothing to the various ethnic groups; in fact, he is cutting back on the exemption. I would not want him to mislead the House.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, might I just correct the record?

The Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of privilege, a point of order or to correct the record; what standing order? I have often heard the member for Oshawa deliberate so eloquently on the standing orders and abiding by them.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister has just spoken about all this clarification and how he has been clear and consistent. I want to quote from the Ottawa Citizen, June 3, where the Treasurer is quoted as saying, "These churches, charities and nonprofit organizations will be allowed to stage two tax-free meals a year provided net profits are $1,000 or less. Mr. Ashe said Monday that all meals sold at church booths, including those events like the Central Canada Exhibition, would be subject to provincial sales tax under the budget."

I want to quote a third source, "Revenue official Jim Wilbee said churches, charities and nonprofit organizations will be restricted to one tax-free event a year, provided it does not make more than $1,000."

That is only three variations of the same one. That is hardly consistent.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Of course, I do not know the dates for what was referred to.

Mr. Breaugh: It is June 3 in the Ottawa Citizen and quoted in the article are the Treasurer, the minister and a senior tax official, all giving three variations of the same policy.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I cannot speak for the correctness or otherwise of the news media in the province, particularly in another jurisdiction, so it is quite conceivable.

The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) did not say anything particularly relevant that had not been said before except for the question about Manderley Sod. I would like to touch on that in two ways. First, I was aware of the issue before the member brought it up today.

Mr. Boudria: They wrote to you.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes. We are examining the issue to see if we can reach some agreement with Quebec authorities.

Second, I want to correct the record in terms of how long it takes for those who go the route of having to pay the tax to get a refund. The member referred to 90 days. If a firm puts in a request for a refund on a regular basis, the normal time for a refund of that nature is two to three weeks. I would suggest two to three weeks is considerably different from the 90 days referred to by the member.

I am not 100 per cent sure of the cash or credit basis Manderley is on with the people it is supplying in Quebec, but unless it is on a cash basis it is probably on a net 15 or 30 days. The actual payment of the bill and the refund could be practically coincidental.

Mr. Boudria: So you want Manderley to finance your taxes. That is what you are saying. You want Manderley to carry the cost.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Why does the member not listen for a change?

Mr. Boudria: That is what you said. You want business to carry your taxes. The record is clear.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is no point.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is true. In closing, I want to put a couple of very relevant pieces of information on the record which have been sadly overlooked in this whole debate on Bill 115 and the relevant budget debate we have had to date.

If this government had not had a shortfall of nearly $300 million in anticipated transfer payments from the federal government, it is quite conceivable to suggest that there would not have been any changes in the retail sales tax field. The net revenue generated by all the changes in the retail sales tax area is coincidentally approximately $300 million, just about the same amount the federal government is shorting Ontario in transfer payments in fiscal 1982-83. It is just part of the $1.9-billion shortfall over the next five years.

Many of the members have been chatting in this debate and suggesting that in many cases these taxes were being levied for the first time, that they had never happened before and how awful it was for the government to come up with all these new taxes. For the record, I would like to repeat once again, as I did earlier today, that many of these items were included in sales tax legislation in the past. For example, trees, shrubs, bushes, seeds and plants were in the Retail Sales Tax Act until 1973.

Mr. Nixon: You took them off before the election and put them on after.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The exemption for personal hygiene and household cleaning products went into effect in 1974. Keep in mind that we are talking about the Retail Sales Tax Act which has been in effect for 13 or 14 years. Street flushers, street sweepers, classroom supplies, student supplies, household pets were all in the act of 1973. Clothing patterns, textiles and trimmings were exempted in 1979. They had been in there up to and including 1979. Smoke alarms were also exempted in 1979, so that has only been exempted for two years. They are now being added in. It is not a new phenomenon to change the tax base.

Mr. Cooke: If these items were taxable at one point, why were the exemptions brought in if it was such a good idea to tax them in the first place? Will the minister explain that?

10:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the priorities of a government change over the years. The pressures put on a particular sector of the economy lead to the need for assistance from time to time. It is funny the same honourable member did not ask the government why we removed the sales tax on automobiles for a temporary period of time when that sector of the economy needed some help. I suggest that many exemptions grew over the years for the exact same reason. Fiscal responsibilities change, and the needs within the economy change.

May I also point out that the Treasurer in his budget in 1981, contrary again to the views of some here, gave one year's notice, as a matter of fact, that the whole issue of the tax base, the exemptions then in effect, and the base itself were under review and that, if anything, the exemptions would be removed or reduced in the not-too-distant future and that the tax base itself probably would be significantly expanded. With the need for money, that decision was quite consciously made in this budget of 1982.

Mr. Wrye: We did not realize your review was a Marty Goldfarb poll. That was your entire review, one question in a Goldfarb poll.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The Treasurer no doubt had many issues before him. I think it could have been very easy for him to say, "Sure, we will just raise the rates to eight or nine per cent." That is what the press were anticipating anyway. There probably would have been a bit of grumbling and that would have been it, no flak.

Mr. Kerrio: Or he could have cut down on the expenditures.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Why don't you shut up for two minutes?

Mr. Kerrio: That is not parliamentary. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Don't be nasty, George.

Mr. Swart: You are as mean as your legislation.

Mr. Mackenzie: You can't even do a good job of being mean, George.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We certainly can't live up to your level.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, I sure would not want to live up to the member's level. If I ever got as mean and grimy as him, I think I would want to bury myself, I really would.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Revenue has called a member of this Legislature grimy. I believe that is unparliamentary and he should withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that and I would have to ask the minister whether he did use that word.

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

Mr. Speaker: Now we have it confirmed. You have apparently offended the sensibilities of one of the members and he has asked you to withdraw it.

Mr. Wildman: If you wouldn't tax soap, we wouldn't be grimy.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I will go along with your ruling, of course, but I suggest we look up the dictionary and see what the word "grimy" means.

Mr. Speaker: I quite understand what it means. I don't think we have to look it up in the dictionary.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would suggest to you that "grimy" in the context it was being used -- we were talking about burying people -- is really not wrong. But if it offends you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: It does not offend me. I suggest you go on referring to the bill.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would be very happy to withdraw the reference to "grimy," Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: You grimy little thing, you. You are grimy, George. Why are you trying to grime your way out of this? What a grimy little creep.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The only reason is it would probably be more appropriately put to many other members over there.

Mr. Cooke: Don't be so sleazy, George.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Listen to what is talking, the sleazy of the sleaze. It comes right from that one.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections. The member for Oshawa with something.

Mr. Breaugh: I just thought it should not go unnoticed, Mr. Speaker, that tonight the word "grimy" has been accepted as parliamentary language from a minister of the crown. I am sure in the future --

Mr. Speaker: That's not true. He withdrew it.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not hear any ruling, and you just allowed him to use the word "sleaze" and enter that into the parliamentary record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I quite clearly heard the minister responding to somebody else who had used the same language.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I say with great seriousness that in the rules of debate you are required under standing order 19(d) to call any member to order, on either side of the House, when that member "uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder."

I say to you with great seriousness, if you expect this Legislature to conduct its business in an orderly manner, it is your responsibility to call all members to order when language is used that is likely to create disorder. If you look around you this evening and say this is an orderly debate, then I submit to you that it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur is completely out of order. As you have quite correctly pointed out, it is my responsibility to make those decisions and I shall indeed make those decisions without being reminded by you or anybody else in this House. The minister's time has expired.

10:30 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Ashe's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, 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., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 62; nays 40.

Ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House adjourned at 10:36 p.m.