The House resumed at 8 p.m.
EXTENSION OF INTERIM SUPPLY
Hon. F. S. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Wells, resolution 5:
That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing June 1, 1981, and ending October 31, 1981, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I really have no comments to make on this motion except to say the current rules require that the interim supply motion be for not more than six months. This one meets those requirements. It expires October 31, and I ask the other parties to accept our motion.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on this side, we quite understand the purpose of the motion. I think there would be some derogation of our duty if we did not make certain comments on the motion and did not take advantage of this opportunity to address a few comments to the House.
We hope the comments will filter through to the Treasurer. We have not had the opportunity to see him since the budget. As the system works, the Treasurer comes into the House and -- well, as he was saying in a recent speech in Ottawa, and I quote, "It goes without saying that the biggest event of the year for any provincial Treasurer is budget night."
On budget night the cameras are rolling, the lights are on, the place is full, the galleries are full of friends of the government and it is an occasion for a performance by the Treasurer. It has to be one of the best jobs going. He gets all the glory, all the focus and all the attention.
Then, as the bills come in to be defended and put through the House, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) gets all the glory. We are into a situation where the more contentious part of the budget, the ad valorem tax, becomes the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue who, over the last two or three weeks, has been sitting here listening to the comments of a variety of my colleagues about our concern and our objection to this tax. In the meantime, the Treasurer goes off for other things, such as making speeches all over the province.
I thought I would take this opportunity to review this with the Treasurer who I am so pleased to see is in fine form. I was watching him jogging this evening as I was walking across the park, and I thought it was appropriate and significant that, while all the joggers were going basically counterclockwise around the park, the Treasurer was the only one going clockwise.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I see all the girls twice that way.
Mr. Roy: I think that should go on the record. He says it gives him an opportunity to see people jogging -- the girls, did he say?
Hon. F. S. Miller: The ladies.
Mr. Roy: The ladies from both sides; I thought that things must be looking up for the Treasurer to be picking an evening like this evening to be out there jogging. He must be getting in better shape all the time, because this is not one of the better days; it is pretty warm to be out there. But he was there, and I saw him going around; I did not count how many times he went around.
I thought it important that, when we reviewed this government supply motion, I should review with the minister his recent speech in Ottawa. My colleague from Hamilton earlier in the day mentioned the famous Ottawa speech he made on Wednesday, June 10, 1981, at the Ottawa men's club. I am not really sure what that is. What is it?
Hon. F. S. Miller: The Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa.
Mr. Roy: Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. Was it made at the Chateau Laurier? Mr. Speaker, a speech was made by the Treasurer just this week, and I thought I should review it with you and with the Treasurer, because I cannot quite believe he made this speech. I do not read many of his speeches, but I could not quite believe he made this one.
If anyone wants an indication of the cynicism and the arrogance of this government, all he has to do is read the minister's speech made to the Men's Canadian Club on Wednesday, June 10, which was a ringing defence of the budget address presented earlier in the month. I will review it briefly.
It starts off by saying, "It goes without saying that the biggest event of the year for any provincial Treasurer is budget night." Of course, it is. All of us who have watched this performance take place are quite aware that there is not much news emanating from Queen's Park, but budget night is certainly news, especially this budget night.
The Treasurer and the government made sure that what they had been missing, or what they had slipped up on, in the previous budget when they were in a minority situation, or in the other situation when Darcy McKeough backed off, they made up for in this particular budget.
The Treasurer goes on to say, "At that point my remaining task is to defend my budget measures, and I must say that the budget I introduced on May 19 is one that I am more than happy to defend."
When he gets involved in this sort of aggressive, jock-like defence of his budget, it reminds me in some ways of his enthusiasm for closing hospitals a few years back. This is the same gung-ho, jock-type, let's-go-get-'em attitude: "We have a tough decision to make, and we are going to fight for the cause" -- the whole bit. That is the type of enthusiasm he reserves for us in this speech.
He goes on to say: "On the day of the budget the media people at Queen's Park are locked up for the day to read it and prepare questions. In the afternoon, the Treasurer walks into that locked room and faces 40 or 50 people whose one thought at that point is to tear the budget to shreds."
He is setting up the whole thing here of how heroic the Treasurer is in this process.
He goes on to say: "This year was no exception. But one of the nicer questions -- certainly one of the easiest to answer -- was when a reporter asked me to describe the budget in one word."
I ask my colleagues here how they would describe the Treasurer's budget in one word. One of my colleagues behind me says "devious." Somebody talked about "hypocritical;" somebody else talked about "cynical."
But what is beautiful about the Treasurer -- it is the old story, if something is repeated often enough, people will believe it -- is that he says: "The word I chose was 'responsible'." I do not know why at that point the members of the men's club were not throwing buns at him. Considering what he was imposing on them, that is what they should have been doing.
He goes on to say: "Why responsible? The economists in my ministry are fond of talking about fiscal responsibility." I do not spend much time reading his speeches, but this one here is a beauty. I must pay closer attention to some of the press stuff that is coming out of that government.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will send you an autographed copy.
Mr. Roy: I say to the Minister of Health, if his speeches are any better than the Treasurer's, he will be coming up next. I am sure we will have occasion to be discussing some of his speeches. There are very few places in the province he has not been. They all know the Minister of Health. There is no ulterior motivation for that. He is there because he cares.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Memories of Paul Martin.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Don't let Sean interrupt you now.
Mr. Roy: Oh, the interruptions; I do not mind them at all. I will not get cross. I will try to keep restrained and on topic, Mr. Speaker, because I know that if I digress you will bring me back on line, and I certainly do not want to do that.
He goes on to say: "Responsible economists in my ministry are fond of talking about fiscal responsibility, which in its simplest terms to me means government not living beyond its means." Again, I am sure the men's club in Ottawa were thoroughly impressed. Did the Treasurer have his plaid jacket on when he was giving this speech?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Apparently your official critic got it today, but it is all faded now. That is because he is only a pale image of me.
Mr. Roy: Oh, his is not nearly as loud. In fact, I thought when he walked in here with it on that he had fallen out of the car, or somebody gave it to him.
The Treasurer goes on to say: "There are three topics I want to deal with." This is the speech he gave at the men's club in Ottawa. He wants to talk about what he calls "tax increases, the deficit and spending restraints," in that order. I am sure it was given less time, especially with the press and everything around there. The Treasurer must have breezed right through it, to get away with saying what he said before the Ottawa men's club. I do not quite understand why they would let him out of the place.
The Treasurer goes on to say: "Our spending is up this year by 12.2 per cent, which is roughly equal to inflation. Yet, had we maintained our taxation levels of last year, the deficit would have been $600 million higher." He is just trying to set us up at this point, saying in effect that if it weren't for his fiscal responsibility, the poor people of Ontario would be facing an additional deficit of $600 million.
Can members believe that? Can members just see these people on their knees at this time? Can members just hear them saying, "Thank God for Frank Miller and Bill Davis and the Tories of this province"?
[Applause.]
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think you would want me to state for the record that as I and my colleagues in the opposition stand here and decry this cynical approach to taxation, how the government is taxing the people of Ontario and how we are opposing this, the Tories across the way are smiling and applauding. I think the record should show that. Historians should note this as they are researching their records for posterity.
Interjection.
Mr. Roy: I woke up the fat one on the other side.
The Deputy Speaker: Now, Mr. Roy.
Interjection.
Mr. Roy: I woke up the member for -- is it Cochrane North?
Mr. Piché: No. Cochrane Nord.
Mr. Roy: He should hire on as the logo for the Conservative Party. He has that massive, contented, arrogant look about him. He would make the perfect logo for the party. He should come forward. His picture should be on all the pamphlets that are distributed and so on. In fact, the whip should have him on the side of the limousine indicating the Conservative Party.
The Deputy Speaker: Now, Mr. Roy, with great difficulty, I am bringing you back to this resolution.
Mr. Roy: I was in the process of telling members how the Treasurer saved the people of Ontario from an additional burden of $600 million. Here he says in just one line -- I like the transposition in the speech, it is really good -- "I had to raise taxes." He says: "I had to; I was forced into -- "
Mr. Piché: Albert, how come you are not in Ottawa today? Is there no court? This is a part-time job for you; we know that.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Roy: I say to the member for Cochrane North, he should not lean too far back; he will fall over backwards and they will never find him again. He will just be splattered on the back.
Mr. Martel: Is the member for Cochrane North going to argue on our side on gas?
An hon. member: He's on the government side on hot air.
Mr. Martel: The transportation critic for the north --
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martel, order, please. Amazingly enough, Mr. Roy has the floor.
Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Roy is creating a problem in this Legislature.
The Deputy Speaker: Stop being so provocative. Let us just carry on.
Mr. Roy: I apologize, and I want to apologize for that meek, mild member, the new member for Cochrane North --
Mr. Martel: The transportation critic for the north. He was opposed to gasoline tax increases --
Mr. Roy: Transportation critic? I do not believe it. How much extra money are they paying him?
Mr. Martel: Not enough, he says.
Mr. Roy: Three thousand extra?
Ms. Copps: Six thousand.
Mr. Roy: Six thousand, somebody tells me. Yes. Knowing his disposition, I just know that they have to be paying him extra to yap that way. He has to be getting extra money to be as vocal --
An hon. member: You are not the Speaker.
Mr. Roy: The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) cannot say a word. He has to get back in his seat. Mr. Speaker, are you going to bring him to order? He is not supposed to be saying a word from that seat.
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that. Carry on with the resolution.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Have you got a message there, Albert?
Mr. Roy: Yes. Hang on; I am just coming to it, if I may continue. I was in the process of saying that the Treasurer told the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa on June 10, 1981, "I had to raise taxes." He did not say, "I will cut the advertising budget of Ontario to save you taxes." He said, "I had to raise taxes."
The Treasurer did not say, "I will cut out all these public opinion polls, which are wasting millions and giving an unfair advantage to the Ministry of Health." He said, "I had to raise taxes." He did not say, for instance, "I will cut out these grants to pay for companies that reports show were not necessary, some for more than $100 million." He did not say anything like that.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: Somebody mentioned limousines. Did he say, "We will get smaller limousines"? No way. The reality of March 19 is that we go around with those big cars, chauffeurs, the whole bit. He did not say anything like, "We will cut out those grants, those supposed incentives to large corporations to locate in Ontario," which is another cynical way of giving large corporations money. He said, "I had to raise taxes."
Then he goes on to say -- and this is hard to believe -- "And I would like to point out one thing which many people do not seem to realize" -- good people of Ontario, you do not seem to realize this -- "that Ontario taxpayers have the second-lowest tax burden in the country."
In other words, he is saying to the people of Ontario, to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa: "You should be lucky to have us, folks. You know we are not taxing you very hard. You are the second-lowest taxed." When he comes to this conclusion, he does not include the rate of Ontario health insurance plan premiums they are paying; he does not include what they are possibly going to pay now with the new ad valorem tax--none of that. He is just saying, "You are extremely fortunate, folks, because you people have the second-lowest tax burden in the country."
Mr. Martel: Except OHIP. When OHIP is added, it is the highest.
Mr. Roy: Yes. He says: "Our provincial spending is the lowest per capita of any province, and yet our education, our health, our social services, I believe, are second to none."
Mr. Rotenberg: Right.
Mr. Roy: "Right," they say. The record should indicate that again most of the Tories on that side were shaking their heads and saying "Right." And yet, ask people in the education field. Why is it, I ask the people on the other side, that we are tenth and lowest in funding post-secondary education? There is a contradiction, I believe, in this statement that our services or education are second to none. They are second to everybody, folks. They are the lowest in Canada for post-secondary education.
8:20 p.m.
Ask people in the health field whether they feel Ontario has the best health delivery system in Canada at this time. It is just not so. Finally, in the social service field, he is trying to get the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa to accept this type of garbage. But I shall continue. The speech goes on to --
Mr. Rotenberg: Why don't you make your own speech? Can't you make up your own speech?
Mr. Roy: You had better bring him to order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Roy, that is a good point. Mr. Rotenberg, when you were down in the far corner I heard you just as well as I do when you are right here.
Mr. Roy: That member is hard to take from the other end of the Legislature. Right across the way is unfair and cruel treatment.
An hon. member: A cruel and unusual punishment.
Mr. Roy: It is an unusual punishment.
Mr. Conway: If the Premier thinks he belongs in the far corner, then we object.
Mr. Roy: That is right. The member for Wilson Heights knows we felt he should be in cabinet.
Mr. Rotenberg: So did I.
Mr. Roy: I know he did, but how does he feel when he looks around and sees the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), who is a Minister without Portfolio, running around in a limousine while he is just running around in his little Chrysler motor vehicle? What is it, a Dart? The member should be envious.
Mr. Rotenberg: At least I am eligible.
Mr. Roy: The speech to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa goes on to say, "This to me is an indication that the Ontario government has been one of Canada's most financially responsible organizations for a number of years." He says, "Did you know that we actually owe in terms of debt only half as many months' income now as we did when Leslie Frost was Premier?" I have to go over this. It is hard to understand. It is the typical old trick. If one can find the right statistics --
Hon. F. S. Miller: One plus one equals two.
Mr. Roy: That is right. Let us go over it again. He said, "Did you know that we actually owe in terms of debt only half as many months' income now as we did when Leslie Frost was Premier? I can't remember anyone accusing Leslie Frost of throwing away the taxpayers' money." That is quite right. Leslie Frost listening to this would surely turn in his grave.
I look at some of my colleagues who have been around here for many years and I ask them, can anybody tell me, during the days of Leslie Frost was there ever any deficit? Was there any deficit in Ontario? I ask the Treasurer, during the days of Leslie Frost was there even what he calls -- he does not call it a deficit; he calls it net cash requirement. Was there any net cash requirement during the days of Leslie Frost?
How phoney that is. Can you imagine the gall of comparing this administration with Leslie Frost's? Since 1971, while the current Premier (Mr. Davis) has been Premier of this province, there has been a deficit every year. There has never been a balanced budget. As far as I know, during the days of Leslie Frost there was never a deficit. To compare the two administrations is close to being sacrilegious. If the Treasurer were in the barber's chair when he said something like that, he would come out bald. There would be nothing left.
I hate to accuse him of having a deficit, because if one keeps repeating something often enough, even the Tories -- they do not use the word "deficit" any more; all one gets from the newspapers and television is "net cash requirement." Is that not a neat phrase? What the hell is that? It is a net cash requirement; no more deficit.
Then the Treasurer says, "Before we leave the question of tax increases, I would like to mention one tax which has been singled out for special criticism, and that is the ad valorem tax on gasoline." He says, "We have been accused of cashing in on oil price increases." Well, what is it?
I look at the Treasurer and recall the advertisements the Liberal Party ran during the 1980 election campaign against Joe Clark when the Treasurer was on television. Does he remember that? He was getting national exposure in those days on behalf of the Liberal Party. In that advertisement he was saying how irresponsible and how tough that budget was on Ontario and what a sacrifice and an imposition it was on the citizens of Ontario.
Mr. Martel: And a sacrifice of industry.
Mr. Roy: Industry, yes; the whole bit. Does Joe Clark still talk to the Treasurer after this budget?
Hon. F. S. Miller: He comes to me for advice all the time.
Mr. Roy: If he met Bob Stanfield, I think he would slap the Treasurer right across the face.
How cynical. On the one hand the Treasurer is saying what an imposition it is on the citizens of Ontario, what greed it is, how they are gouging the public and the industry of Ontario; but here we are with the ad valorem tax, a percentage increase, and the government is benefiting and profiting from inflation.
He goes on: "I can say with absolute certainty that it is a tax measure which is fair, reasonable and will be seen to benefit the economy beyond the simple raising of revenue for the province." That is what he is saying to the men's club in Ottawa.
I ask the Treasurer, who is here this evening with a resolution wanting some money to pay civil servants and for the operation of the government until October 31, 1981, what does he mean by saying, "beyond the simple raising of revenue for the province"?
Does he have something in mind? The Premier is one who loves the old habit of pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Is the Treasurer buying something? Is he trying to give us a message that somehow we in the opposition, who have been stalling this tax measure now for some three weeks, are misguided and we do not see what is happening and that he has in mind that he wants to get in on this oil stuff to buy an oil company?
If that is what he is trying to do and if it turns out to be that, because I would not surprised if they had something like that in mind, I say that he is very irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if he has started a measure for taxation without having advised the House; or, in other words, not having advised the people of Ontario of his intentions.
What are his intentions in the long run? Is the money only to reduce the deficit here in the province, or does he have a scheme whereby he wants to purchase part or all of an oil company?
Mr. Boudria: He is buying Texaco.
Mr. Roy: Whether it is Texaco or any other one, I think we have the right to know. Before any imposition is made on the people of Ontario and before any imposition is made on this Legislature, we should have been told.
I think members will agree with me that when one has a strategy whereby one intends to take certain steps, the people should be told. In fairness to the federal people, they said, "The tax increase we have here is going to be to purchase Petrofina." They said, "We have a tax to purchase a share of the oil industry." It seems to me that if this is a scheme that Ontario wants to get in on, and if it is what the Treasurer is trying to suggest in his speech, we in Ontario are entitled to know what is going on.
I want to get into the part of the speech that I think is by far the most interesting. It is the old game where, when one is attacked, when one is in a corner, when one is on the defensive, one throws up smoke by attacking everybody and they will forget about one's own personal problems.
The first government that the Treasurer attacked in this scheme is the government of the United States. Can the members imagine that? He goes on to say, "People sometimes ask me why we cannot take a lesson from Ronald Reagan I suppose it makes him feel good, when he is talking to the men's club in Ottawa, to say: "Reagan has a different strategy than I have. I, Frank Miller, operate in a different fashion."
He says here: "People sometimes ask me why we cannot take a lesson from Ronald Reagan..." and simply cut taxes. At the risk of criticizing his administration's fiscal policy, I would say the President is getting away with a shell trick."
8:30 p.m.
Can the members imagine that? He says President Reagan is getting away with a shell trick. Then he goes on to say that in the United States they are not as fortunate as those in Canada who have indexation in their taxes. Whose friends in Ottawa brought in indexation? It was our friends in Ottawa. Was it not John Turner?
Hon. F. S. Miller: It was the only piece of Conservative advice he took.
Mr. Roy: Did the Treasurer take his advice on that?
He goes on to say, "It may not be as popular a method as President Reagan's, but I believe it is more honest and fair to the taxpayers."
That is the first thing he says. He takes on Ronald Reagan and says we in Ontario are taking a more honest and fair approach to the taxpayers.
He goes on to say: "As I told reporters on budget day, I could eliminate the deficit in one year if I wanted to, but the measures I would have to take to do that would be socially and economically unacceptable for Ontario."
The first year we were promised a balanced budget was 1976, after the 1975 election. At that time, we in this party were discussing the irresponsibility of this administration and the fact that it had deficit after deficit. At that time it became politically attractive to talk about a balanced budget: so we first heard about it in 1976.
Some of my colleagues are reminding me of certain things that happened in the province. I mentioned the audacity and cynicism of the Treasurer in criticizing Ronald Reagan. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) would be extremely critical, would he not? Was Ronald Reagan not his guest speaker at one of the Conservative dos? Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: A great day for Mississauga.
Mr. Roy: There we have it. On the one hand, the Treasurer says the President of the United States is perpetrating a shell game on the people of that country, and on the other hand the honourable member says when the President visited it was a great day for the area. Does he not see the contradiction in that statement? I know he is only the whip and is not expected to be logical; nevertheless, does he not see some illogic in that process?
I am talking now about a balanced budget. We were hearing about it in 1976, only five years ago.
The Treasurer goes on to say: "This year we decreased our spending as a proportion of the gross provincial product for the sixth year in a row." It is the typical situation of getting statistics to say anything. They have even got statistics to say that somehow the provincial debt is less harsh now than in the days of Leslie Frost. They have statistics to say they have decreased provincial spending for the sixth year in a row.
He says, 'We also avoided raising corporate taxes." We all know they avoided raising corporate taxes.
Mr. Wrye: That is keeping the promise.
Mr. Roy: Yes, that is keeping the promise.
The Treasurer goes on to say: 'We have not abandoned our commitment to a balanced budget -- far from it. Although we do have a deficit this year, it is one which we feel is responsible, which is manageable. It will not contribute unduly to the inflation rate, which is already completely unacceptable."
To understand this speech requires some in-depth analysis. Here we have a situation where the Treasurer is saying, "I am going to balance this budget." We have been hearing that since 1976. I think the first deadline for a balanced budget was 1981 --
Mr. Martel: No, it was 1978.
Mr. Roy: Was it 1978? Then we went to 1980. and then 1982. What are we now -- 1984? He reminds me of the Toronto Argonauts, who every year in spring training -- it is beginning to be spring training for football now -- are going to win the Grey Cup. They get a few players in June or July and they are going to win the Grey Cup. So here we are with a balanced budget.
This year the budget deficit -- and there is a nice touch to it -- is $997 million; it is just under $1 billion. It sounds harsh when one talks about a $1-billion deficit; so they are just $3 million underneath with a deficit of $997 million. That is the process after the budget deficit has increased. How much has it increased? Last year was the budget not closer to $600 million or $800 million?
Hon. F. S. Miller: It was $949 million, for the member's information.
Mr. Roy: The budget keeps increasing, and yet we get their promise that we are working towards a balanced budget. I have difficulty understanding that.
The Treasurer goes on to say the spending of the province in this budget will not contribute to the inflation rate. The other governments will be the ones contributing.
First of all, we have had an attack on the government of the United States; now here is the attack on the rest of the country. He says: "That is why I am quite honestly dismayed at the actions of some other governments in this country. This year we have seen a budget with a $2-billion deficit in the case of Quebec."
Basically, what he is saying, is: "They are terrible in Quebec. Our budget, with a deficit of $1 billion, will not contribute to inflation, but Quebec's will. In Quebec, those terrible people are contributing to inflation."
Then he goes on to say: "We have seen increases in government spending -- in the case of Saskatchewan an increase of 24.5 per cent." My friends to the left, he is now attacking the Saskatchewan government.
Mr. MacDonald: They are not cutting back on social services. They are raising the money to do something about them.
Mr. Roy: Yes, but they are irresponsible in Saskatchewan, you see. In effect, what the Treasurer is saying to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa is: "Saskatchewan is being irresponsible; it is contributing to inflation." They do not even have a deficit, do they?
Mr. Martel: Twenty-four dollars.
Mr. Roy: In any event, what those terrible people in Quebec, Saskatchewan and the United States are doing is inflationary.
Then he goes on: "The worst of all is the federal government in Ottawa, where spending takes up 20.8 per cent, one fifth, of the gross national product." In Ontario, the spending increase does not contribute to inflation; the deficit does not contribute to inflation. It is Ottawa that is the villain; it is Saskatchewan, Quebec, the United States -- everybody but the Treasurer. He is still going clockwise around the racetrack. He is going the opposite direction of everybody else.
He goes on to say: "The federal government spending, on the other hand, is without doubt the strongest contributing factor to inflation in Canada." Not Ontario's spending, not the Ontario deficit; but the federal government, the Quebec government, the Saskatchewan government and the US government. Mr. Speaker, if you were sitting there at the men's club, would you start throwing buns right about this time? Did the Treasurer actually walk out of that place after making these comments?
Of course, he always has some saving factor in the speech. He goes on to say: "I know it is easy to criticize other governments, to insist that they should cut spending. I cannot tell the federal Minister of Finance where he should cut spending. What I can do is provide an example of fiscal responsibility."
What would we do without the Treasurer, the Premier and Ontario? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? This government has had deficits every year since 1971, but that does not contribute to inflation. Saskatchewan, Quebec, the feds, the US, they are villains; but not the boys here in Ontario. That is what he is trying to tell the men's club in Ottawa.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Piché: Before you go on, Albert, you are holding two jobs. You are doing well.
Mr. Roy: Did I wake my friend up? I thought I put him back to sleep. Mr. Speaker, can I move to send him back to the cafeteria? Can I do that?
Of course, to give credence to these words one has to quote someone in the press. My colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) was quoting the press. There is very little press in all of Canada and all of Ontario, including the Toronto Sun, that was favourable to anything in his budget. So he goes to find some press -- W. A. Wilson, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press. He has to go away out there to get some press.
Mr. Speaker, if you were in front of a men's club and you wanted to give punch to your speech, you would be quoting the Toronto Sun or Claire Hoy; you would be quoting the Toronto Star, which was very supportive in the last election. But no, sir, he was quoting the Winnipeg Free Press and W. A. Wilson.
Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What are you doing here on a Monday?
Mr. Roy: I thought we had paired and the Attorney General had said he would leave this place and not come back for a couple of days. That is why I thought I would return early.
The record should show that on Monday night at 8:45 the Attorney General walked into the House and sat in his seat. That is the first time all week. That is right. Did they let him out of the courts? May I proceed, Mr. Speaker? I was just finishing a speech.
If I was trying to give this speech to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa I would have filed it. I would have just put out a press release and run out of the place. I would not have the audacity to give this sort of speech to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. Let me proceed. Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Have I interrupted?
Mr. Roy: Yes. I am just starting to get revved up a little bit here. We are talking about money, and the government wants money until October 31, 1981. I am very apprehensive and leery about giving him carte blanche, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. That is what the issue is. It is fiscal responsibility. May I proceed?
He goes on to say: "Deficits, excess spending, high interest rates -- all contribute to an inflation psychology." But he is not talking about Ontario. We have a $1-billion deficit, but we are not talking about Ontario, it is fiscally responsible. Spending on such things as $100 million to a pulp and paper plant, more than $100 million in the program to entice companies to locate in Ontario, that is not excess spending, because we in Ontario are fiscally responsible.
He says: "Irresponsible fiscal policies which result in soaring interest rates hurt people directly." I ask my friends, what is this government doing about soaring interest rates? What is it doing about inflation other than adding on and trying to take advantage of it, trying to profit from inflation.
Then he ends by saying: "When asked to describe the budget in one word, I choose 'responsible'." Do members remember that he said this at the beginning? It was no Ted Sorensen who wrote this piece for the Treasurer. He ends the same way as he started.
"When asked to describe this budget in one word, I choose 'responsible'," he said to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa, and "I am not about to change my opinion." Then he walked out. Did he really get away with reading this thing? I do not believe that they let him walk out of the place. Did they give him lunch before he made this speech?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Roy: Was he able to keep his lunch down while giving this speech?
What is it about the Treasurer? He has that air of candour, of frankness about him and yet, in giving this speech, it is that used car salesman/Santa Claus combination that seems to be coming out.
Mr. Martel: Santa's Village taught him that.
Mr. Roy: Something. He is trying to get the people of Ontario to swallow this stuff. Imagine the Treasurer, of all people, giving that sort of a speech. Do members remember that when Darcy McKeough was in trouble in this House he used to shout all over the place? Even Darcy would not have tried to shout this piece through to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. It is the old line and the big lie that if one keeps saying it often enough, people will believe it. It is the old thing they have been giving them.
I could take up more time and talk about all these editorialists in respectable papers who are talking about this budget and what they were saying.
I look at what the Treasurer has said. Does he know what it reminds me of? It is like when young kids say: "Your poo stinks and mine doesn't." It is like that sort of thing. "Your deficit causes inflation, ours doesn't." It is that sort of stuff. "Ha, ha! We are getting away with it."
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Roy, I think we are diverting from the resolution. I would say the act should be cleaned up a bit.
Mr. Roy: Everybody else smells but the Treasurer, is what he is trying to tell us here with this budget.
Let us look at what the Globe and Mail had to say about this budget. I just want to read a few lines; not what I or the terrible opposition is saying about this budget, but what a responsible paper has to say. He could hardly accuse the Globe and Mail of being irresponsible or of being too Liberal. He could hardly say that.
The Globe and Mail headline says, "That Miller Budget." We can sense the frustration. That is the headline. It says: "After the sugar, the nasty medicine, and last night Frank Miller ladled a hefty dose down the gullets of the Ontario taxpayers."
Hon. F. S. Miller: Something you should know something about.
Mr. Roy: The Treasurer was not reading that editorial in front of the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa on June 10. It goes on to say: "They had the desired effect -- 'the realities of March 19,' as William Davis likes to describe the return of the Tories ..."
That is what the folks get: the realities of March 19. They go on to say: "Last year at budget time Mr. Miller cleared his throat at budget time and said, er, ah, there would be 'a pause in our deficit reduction strategy' -- that is, his deficit would increase rather than decrease. Last night in the Legislature, he was back at the same stand. His budget speech simultaneously announced yet another jump in the size of the deficit [and] produced an estimate that by 1984 it will still be no lower than $700 million."
Where are we going? We were talking about a balanced budget in 1980. In 1984, we will still be looking at a deficit of $700 million. The editorial adds that the Treasurer "wound up with the grand declaration: 'Mr. Speaker, it maintains the province's commitment to balance the budget.'" That is what the Globe and Mail says.
He keeps repeating the same words, the same things, and expects people to swallow them.
The famous quote goes on to say: "Just so are the Blue Jays committed to winning the American League pennant. We may have to wait a while." Well, we may have to wait a while before we see the fiscal responsibility the Treasurer tells us about in this budget.
8:50 p.m.
I am sure he did not remind the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa of the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen of May 20, 1981, talking about the "inflation scam." If I said something like that, he would say I was being partisan, narrow and parochial. But that is what the Ottawa Citizen is saying; it also says: "Ontario's latest budget is further proof that governments generally cannot, or will not, do anything about inflation and high interest rates." That is what the Citizen is saying.
The Treasurer keeps saying to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa that his budget is doing something about inflation. He is the only one who thinks that. He is still going the wrong way on the old track and expecting people to swallow this stuff.
I thought the Citizen said something very appropriate -- I say this to my colleagues -- when it said, "That's the only bright spot in an otherwise bleak budget. Ontario's weak economy has caught up with us, but we were warned." We were warned, it says. "A certain politician nicknamed Dr. No by his Tory opponents" -- Mr. Speaker, remember during the election this name being used about our leader? -- "told us in the last election campaign that Ontario's economy was performing below par, and we had to turn things around before we got into further economic trouble."
Remember that, Mr. Speaker? Remember the Liberal leader saying that during the election? You did not believe him. I suppose you were going around your riding calling him Dr. No and saying he was negative. Do you not feel badly about doing that now? Maybe the Treasurer does not, but I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, after seeing what is happening.
The editorial goes on to say, "Pooh-pooh, said Premier William Davis." I am using that word again. I apologize for that, but I am reading from the editorial. "Stuart Smith is being too negative." That is what he was saying then. "There is nothing wrong with the economy of this province." That is what they were telling us prior to March 19. "Nothing at all -- nothing that cannot be fixed by hitching revenues to inflation and jockeying the consumer around a little bit." The Treasurer was not bragging about that to the Men's Canadian Club of Ottawa. That is what his budget is doing.
I could go on and read more editorials, such as one from the Globe and Mail entitled "Realities of March 19."
We have the Treasurer going to Ottawa, in the light of all the evidence I have presented, and he is still trying to put forward the idea that somehow the government is being fiscally responsible in this province and his budget is not causing or taking advantage of inflation.
In the light of all the evidence, everybody else is misguided but the Treasurer. It is the old game where, to hide what is happening, he attacks everybody. He did not miss anybody. How come he did not attack the government of Mexico or maybe the government of Cuba? There is somewhere else on the continent he must surely have missed that has worse budgets than this. He attacks Ronald Reagan, Saskatchewan, Quebec -- everybody else is fiscally irresponsible but the Treasurer.
You can understand, Mr. Speaker, why my colleagues and I have some reluctance on voting a resolution and giving these people carte blanche until October 31, 1981. These same people told us one thing prior to the election, yet performed otherwise after the election. Even after doing it to us, they were going around the province telling us what a great thing they are doing for the people of Ontario.
We in this party will continue to fight with every ounce of strength we have to oppose such measures. Possibly what we are doing and saying is irrelevant. If nothing else, it is therapeutic for those of us who are participating. We will not be a party to this fiscal irresponsibility, and we will use every weapon at our disposal to make sure the Ontario public sees this government as being what it is: hypocritical, cynical and not keeping its promise to the people of Ontario.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, if the resolution this evening has one good aspect from the Conservative point of view, it is that it gives the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) the night off. The minister does not have to sit here, as he has done over the last few weeks, and listen to the opposition oppose the tax measures this Treasurer introduced in his budget.
As the member for Ottawa East mentioned, it seems a little unfair, at least to the Minister of Revenue, to have the Treasurer introduce a budget, put forward a fiscal plan for the province and then leave and not have to listen to any of the criticism and not have to respond in any way. He can simply give a budget statement and leave it to one of his colleagues to have to carry through the measures he introduced.
It is interesting that when one analyses the debate on the tax bill, one will find that even the Minister of Revenue -- I see he is coming into the House now.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That was a long, drawn-out one. It was more comfortable out there.
Mr. Wildman: We just thought we were giving the minister a little time off, that he did not have to come in and listen to this debate, because we understand the argument used by the government is that the Treasurer makes the policy decisions and the Minister of Revenue is really a collection agent, an errand boy.
It is unfair to have all these policy arguments on a simple collection of the revenue the Treasurer has decided must be collected. I am sure the government understands we have to have some opportunity to express our disapproval of the various tax measures introduced in the budget. Since there is no really concerted budget debate in the sense that it goes on and is brought to a vote near the time the budget is introduced, we must have these policy debates on the various tax measures.
As I was saying when the Minister of Revenue entered the House, it is interesting, when one looks at those debates, that we do not get even from the minister a real defence of the tax measures. Basically all he says is: "This is what the Treasurer has decided and this is what I am to do as Minister of Revenue. Therefore, I am going to collect it."
I suppose we might be able to engage the Minister of Revenue in a debate on whether the exact details of the administration of these tax measures are adequate, but that is all he wants to talk about. He does not want to talk about the policy; that is set by his colleague --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will talk about anything you want to talk about any time.
Mr. Wildman: We certainly can in this debate. In this debate the government is asking for interim supply until the end of October.
Mr. Grande: He is just a tax collector.
Mr. Wildman: I do not think he debates that. The Minister of Revenue is a tax collector. We do not disagree with that. It is unfortunate, though, that we have not had any debate from anyone on that side of the House in defence of the budget or the fiscal policy of the government.
We have the Treasurer's statement, and that is it -- nothing else. None of the back-benchers on that side has spoken in the debates on any of the tax measures. Not one of them has got up and defended those tax measures. I am not even asking them to get up and argue against it; I do not expect them to be opposed to the fiscal policy as enunciated by the Treasurer. I am not even asking for that. But we have not had anyone on that side of the House get up and defend the various taxes that were introduced.
9 p.m.
I do not understand it. If it is a good policy, if it is a policy that is going to benefit the economy of this province, surely the back-bench members of the government party can defend it. But they do not say anything.
We have all looked forward to the maiden speeches of the various members in the back row over there. We have heard some of them speak; others have yet to speak.
Mr. Roy: Not one has spoken on this budget.
Mr. Wildman: Some of them have spoken on the budget, but not one of them has talked on the tax bill. They just do not want to align themselves. At one point it looked as if the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), who I notice has just stepped out, was going to speak. He did get up and agree with the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). He said he agreed with everything he was saying about the cost of gasoline in northern Ontario.
The member for Lake Nipigon sat down and said, "All right, if you want to make a statement, go ahead." He did speak for about five minutes, I believe, on something that was approximating a point of order, but he did not really make it clear whether he was agreeing or disagreeing with the policy of the government.
The member for Cochrane North was all in agreement with the member for Lake Nipigon. I certainly understand that, because if anyone knows the difficulties facing people in northern Ontario it is the member for Lake Nipigon. But he was unable to take the step of saying, "I agree with the member and therefore I must reject the policy that would increase the cost of gasoline for people in northern Ontario." He also was unable to say why he was not going to reject that policy.
Anyway, I hope there will be an opportunity during this debate for us to get a response from the Treasurer. When he gets up to respond, I hope he will be able to say why his fiscal policy is going to benefit the province, and not just make the general happy statements he made in the budget where he glossed over so much and really did not say a lot. But maybe we will get some analysis tonight and we will understand how this government is going to benefit the province.
We cannot accept the fiscal policy of this government because, in our view, it is most unfair and inequitable.
Mr. Rotenberg: We have heard that speech already.
Mr. Wildman: The honourable member has heard it many times, I think, from the people on this side of the House.
Mr. Grande: Get up, David, and let us hear you speak.
Mr. Charlton: Let us hear yours.
Mr. Wildman: All we have been asking is for someone over there to get up and tell us we are wrong.
Mr. Rotenberg: If you would stop speaking, you would have a chance to hear the Minister of Revenue speak.
Mr. Wildman: That is not true, Mr. Speaker. That is really not true. I do not like to accuse another member of not saying exactly the truth, but the fact is that he keeps saying if we would stop talking they would get up and speak.
Mr. Rotenberg: I didn't say that. I said the Minister of Revenue would get up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. Wildman: We are willing to sit down if the member can say that he is going to get up and defend this government; but I know he will not. I know if we were to sit down, he would say, "All right, Mr. Minister, get up." That would be fine if the minister would get up and say, "All right, I am going to respond to what has been said in this House about" --
Mr. Rotenberg: Give him a chance to speak. We happen to agree with our own Treasurer.
Mr. Grande: You have to agree. You have no choice.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, did the member opposite say he has to agree?
The Acting Speaker: I asked for order, and I want order right now. Will the member for Algoma carry on?
Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree we need order, and we need an orderly approach to the fiscal arrangements in this province.
What is unfortunate about this budget, as I was saying before the other members decided to join in the debate, is that it was not fair, that it increases the taxes of those least able to pay and it exempts those institutions in our society that in our view are well able to pay.
I want to talk generally about what this government is doing. In his budget statement, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said this province had experienced rather sluggish growth over the last year -- I think the phrase he used was "somewhat sluggish." When one considers a number of facts it is a real understatement. The Treasurer has proved himself to be a master of understatement. When one realizes we have 292,000 people out of work in Ontario right now, that real economic growth over the last three years has been 0.9 per cent, that really is sluggish; no one can debate that.
The Treasurer also made a profound statement in his budget address when he said, "When the economic growth slows, it adversely affects the revenue this government gets." That certainly is an obvious statement; nobody can disagree with that. If there is slow growth, it does adversely affect the revenue this government gets.
But what is that somewhat sluggish situation? We know that about 3,600 workers were laid off in the first three months of this year; we have had 23 plants shut down permanently; 46 have been partially closed. The Treasurer in his budget statement said the province would create 106,000 new jobs this year --
Mr. Rotenberg: How many new jobs have we got so far?
Mr. Wildman: He said 106,000 would be created, and he made a somewhat oblique reference to the BILD program. What is that again? -- the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development --
Mr. Eakins: That's B-I-L-D-G-E.
Mr. Wildman: Bilge; okay, that certainly fits, because when one goes to those you think would be the friends of the government and asks them what they think of this proposal of 106,000 new jobs that are going to be created in Ontario, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce says it does not think those jobs will materialize; it does not think the Treasurer is right.
The government last year said 59,000 jobs were going to be created in Ontario, and they were pretty close; about 57,000 were actually created. But the bank doesn't think the government is right on this one; it doesn't think that many jobs will be created. But even if the government does -- well, I shouldn't say "even if the government does," because that is not really what the government was saying; it was saying there would be 106,000 new jobs this year -- it would not be through government action necessarily, and most likely it would not be, because there was almost nothing in the budget that was a direct job creation program other than Darlington.
That raises all kinds of questions about the overproduction of electricity in this province. In another incarnation the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) made a number of statements about what he thought about the creation of jobs and economic growth through the expansion of the electrification of this province and the nuclear industry. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) at that time rejected that, or said he did not have anything to do with the idea, that it certainly was not a trial balloon the parliamentary assistant was floating at the time and it really had nothing to do with the Ministry of Energy, that the honourable member opposite was just commenting through his wide knowledge of the nuclear industry and putting forward some new ideas --
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am just away ahead of my time.
Mr. Wildman: Away ahead of his time. We find that he really was not that far ahead, if we want to use that term, because it now appears that the Minister of Energy is putting forward the same kinds of views to various people in the province. Perhaps he is doing so just through the reason of the comments of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who has been twisting the Minister of Energy's arm behind the scenes. Maybe that is what has happened. Perhaps the Minister of Revenue is really the power behind the throne over there. Perhaps he is the one who really calls the shots. Maybe that is what is happening. Maybe that is why we have seen the Minister of Energy move so far from the comments he made.
9:10 p.m.
We on this side felt very sorry for the minister when he was the parliamentary assistant. We really felt that the Minister of Energy had hung him out to dry. He put him out there, he made a statement, and when the statement did not go over very well he was repudiated. There he was, left out there on his own, swinging in the wind. But now it appears he really was not left out there; he knew more about what was going on than the minister admitted. Perhaps he was not just putting forward some view of his own and he was away ahead of his time. Perhaps he was really putting forward the view of the ministry, but the ministry at that time did not want to admit it.
So we now come to the situation where in this budget statement the only job creation program that the government is proposing is to speed up Darlington. The fact that we already have overproduction of electricity and so on does not matter, because apparently the Ministry of Energy is ready to move to change the act to allow for export as the central purpose of the creation of a new plant.
Other than that, there is nothing to create employment in the budget. The 106,000 new jobs talked about are going to be created largely, as far as we can see, through the private sector, according to the minister's statement. There is some talk about BILD -- I will not call it bilge, as my colleague suggested --
Mr. Rotenberg: How come unemployment is our fault? How come we don't get credit for the good things we do?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a member from the other side participate in this debate. I would like him, as I said before, to get up and speak on this resolution.
At any rate, if I could be permitted to respond, I might be prepared on some occasions to blame this government for unemployment, but I must admit that in this speech tonight I was not. What I was blaming it for was the fact that it was not doing anything about unemployment. There is nothing in the budget statement that says it will. Even if the 106,000 new jobs that the minister talks about in his budget statement are indeed created this year, with the growth in the work force we are still going to have 295,000 people unemployed.
That is a tremendous prediction. That is something we should really be proud of in Ontario. Even if we produce these new jobs, we are going to have 295,000 people unemployed. Tonight the government is asking us to give it the money to continue these kinds of policies that are going to result in 295,000 people unemployed. It wants us to agree to that approach to the economy of this province, to the continued sluggish growth.
I admit that some economists have said they are surprised at the growth rate this year, that in fact it might not be quite as slow as it has been in the past. They are upgrading their predictions and they are saying that things might be a little better this year. But really, when one considers that we have had a real growth rate of 0.9 per cent, one does not have to go up very much to be a lot better than we have been in the past.
It is funny -- I should not say it is funny; actually it is rather sad -- that in this budget statement the government this spring made only passing reference to inflation. They have made a lot in the past of their record in the so-called restraint program that the Treasurer was famous for, or should I say infamous for, when he was Minister of Health. He used to go around saying he was going to break the back of inflation by closing down hospital beds. He was going to resolve what he considered to be an unmanageable deficit. He was going to bring about a balanced budget.
Darcy McKeough was also talking in terms of a balanced budget. The Treasurer was his front runner, the man in the trenches who was cutting down hospital beds and who was going to cut the budget.
In this budget statement the Treasurer only makes a passing reference to it. He hardly mentions it. Only in one sentence of the whole budget statement does he say he is concerned about inflation. I am glad he is concerned. He is probably taking a page out of the book of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), who is noted for his concern. He is known to be a concerned man whom we have asked to bring in his omnibus concern bill in the near future so we would know all his concerns. But that is all the Treasurer says, that he is concerned about inflation.
The Treasurer admits wages have lagged behind growth in the cost of living over the last three years. I found that to be an interesting admission, considering what the Liberal government in Ottawa has been saying. Prime Minister Trudeau has been claiming real wages have gone up in the last decade and that things are really better than they have ever been, that when people are concerned about the loss of buying power of the dollar and the loss of value of wages, they are really crying in the wind.
This Treasurer does not say that. He admits buying power has gone down. Over the last three years, wage earners have dropped in their buying power because they have lagged behind inflation. After saying that, he only says he is concerned about inflation. There is nothing in the budget that reacts or provides positive attempts to bring about growth. If we are going to fight inflation, we believe we must have real economic growth. We have to create new wealth in this province, but there is no real attempt at that.
Instead, the Treasurer went on in his budget to increase tax rates to the highest levels in Canada. I know the Treasurer likes to maintain the myth that we are the second lowest taxed or third lowest taxed in the country in terms of provinces. He talks about 48 per cent of the federal tax payable.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Forty-six per cent this year.
Mr. Wildman: Forty-six per cent and then 48 per cent next year, going up from 44 per cent.
As has been said many times in this House, that is a convenient way of dealing with what the people of this province actually pay. He is forgetting about and is ignoring the health care tax. Of course, in this province we do not call it a health care tax; we call it a premium.
Mr. Rotenberg: That's what it is.
Mr. Wildman: I have to admit it is a premium in the sense that everybody pays the same. It has no relationship whatever to what an individual or a family can afford. When one adds the 15 per cent increase in the so-called premium for the Ontario health insurance plan to the nine per cent increase in income tax, one ends up with a situation where a family of four earning $15,000 does not pay 48 per cent or 46 per cent of the federal tax payable; in fact, it pays 80 per cent.
The government likes to talk about the fact it has responded to the cries for a progressive tax system. When we take into account both OHIP and income tax and we look at the other levels of taxation in terms of income, a family of four earning $20,000 pays about 65 per cent of the federal tax payable while a family earning $25,000 pays about 60 per cent. What happens is that those who make more are going down in the percentage of federal tax payable to the province. The more one makes, the less one pays.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Rotenberg: That is nonsense. The less one makes, the less one pays. The member is talking percentages.
Mr. Wildman: All right. We will admit that small group at the bottom of the scale that makes less than $8,000 a year gets premium assistance, if they know about it.
Mr. Rotenberg: If a man makes $15,000, he pays less than the man who makes $25,000.
Mr. Cassidy: He pays the same OHIP premiums, and that is the trouble with this government.
Mr. Rotenberg: The member is talking percentages.
Mr. Wildman: Okay, but he is making a lot less in absolute dollars too. When a man is making $15,000, 80 per cent of the federal tax payable is an awfully big chunk, and it is a lot more than someone making $25,000 is paying when he pays 60 per cent of the federal tax payable.
Mr. Rotenberg: Not when his federal tax is so much lower.
Mr. Cassidy: What is wrong? Is the member for Wilson Heights feeling upset about the budget?
Mr. Rotenberg: I think it is a great budget.
Mr. Foulds: The member should vote against it. He might get a promotion that way.
The Acting Speaker: Please stop the interruptions. Carry on, Mr. Wildman.
Mr. Wildman: To please the member for Wilson Heights, I will deal with it in different terms. I will not deal with it in terms of OHIP premiums and the income tax and what percentage of the federal tax is payable. I will just talk about the OHIP premiums. When one considers OHIP, the honourable member cannot argue with the fact that no matter what one makes in the province, one pays the same premium, except for the very small group at the bottom of the scale.
Mr. Foulds: And less than 10 per cent of those eligible apply for it.
Mr. Wildman: There is an echo over there. At any rate, as I said, if one makes $15,000 a year, I do not think the member can argue that one pays the same amount of OHIP premiums in a year as does someone who makes $25,000 a year.
Mr. Kolyn: How many do not pay anything?
Mr. Foulds: How many? The member opposite should tell us.
Mr. Wildman: Very few; less than one third of those eligible for OHIP assistance, get it. I suppose the honourable member is referring to those people who have negotiated agreements with their employer in industry and their employer pays the OHIP premium. But we all know that is part of the benefit package negotiated; we all know the worker is paying for that in the sense that he has given up that amount of money in his total package so that it can be paid into his OHIP premiums. To argue that the person working in industry whose employer pays the premium directly is not paying for it himself is fallacious.
Mr. Rotenberg: What about the senior citizens? They do not pay.
Mr. Wildman: Is the member suggesting they should?
Mr. Rotenberg: No.
Mr. Wildman: The reason the member opposite is having difficulty is because he is trying to defend an indefensible system. Although the government professes to believe in a progressive system of taxation where the more one makes, the more one pays, and the less one makes, the less one pays, the fact is it has a major tax -- the OHIP premium, the health care tax -- where everybody pays the same, except for senior citizens and those people at the bottom of the scale, those few who know about the premium assistance and get it. Everyone else pays the same, and it is far too much.
Mr. Rotenberg: Everybody pays the same on the liquor tax. Why not pick on the liquor tax or tobacco tax?
Mr. Wildman: The member opposite is now trying to argue that sales taxes in general are somehow progressive, when everyone should realize that sales taxes of any kind are regressive. To say that everybody paying the same OHIP premium is like everybody paying the same sales taxes is quite right; they are both regressive; they have nothing to do with ability to pay. The member is getting himself further and further into a hole, because he is trying to defend something that is regressive.
I think it is quite normal for this government to defend something that is regressive, because that is its whole approach. But it will not work. The fact is they have to admit that in a system where everyone pays the same no matter how much he makes, the middle-income people, and the people who are not necessarily at the poverty level but just above that, are paying too much. They are paying disproportionately more than they should be paying if we were to have a truly progressive system.
It has been recognized in most of the country. Only three provinces have premiums for health care. The rest have eliminated them. They pay for their health system through general revenues, which we think is the way it should be paid for. In those provinces where they do still have premiums, those premiums are far less than they are in Ontario. This government will not listen.
What bothers me about this particular issue is the recent statements by the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). We realize that in the last number of weeks the federal government has been making a number of statements about the fact that it wants to decrease its contribution for social and health services across the province, its contribution to shared-cost programs, to the established programs, by approximately $1 billion.
What is the response of this government? To go back a little bit in history, we could point out that this government has not been spending to the levels to which it could be spending when one considers the revenue it is getting from the federal government. They have been cutting back more on their share than they should have been if they were going to maintain the spending levels that had been agreed to before the block funding came in. That is the reason the federal government is now talking about decreasing its contribution, because it does not have any say over how it is spent. It feels its share of those programs is going up while the province's is either staying the same or dropping.
We in this party want to make it clear that we are opposed to the approach of both governments, the provincial government in Ontario and the federal government in Ottawa, because in essence what both governments are talking about is decreasing their contributions to health and social services in this country. We cannot accept that because that basically hurts the sick, hurts those people who are the most vulnerable in our society. So we reject the approach of both the federal Liberal government and the provincial Conservative government on this score.
But what really concerns me is the response of the Minister of Health in this province late last week in a speech he made in relation to the comments made by his counterpart in Ottawa, Monique Bégin. He said that if the federal government decreases its contribution to health care in this province, I think the words he used were, "the people of the province will have to pay more." What he was talking about, as far as I can understand it, was one of two things: either he is going to increase the premiums even more, which is bad, or he is talking about deterrent fees, which is even worse.
This government is going to start a policy where a patient will have to pay the doctor directly for each service. In other words, he is looking at institutionalizing extra billing. That is what this government is talking about. So when the member tries to defend a regressive system I can understand it; he is talking about a regressive government, a government that has regressive policies and a regressive philosophy.
Mr. Rotenberg: That is not the way the people see it.
Mr. Wildman: It is true this government won a majority. We cannot deny that; we have to sit and face it every day.
Interjection.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Wildman: That is right. I wonder if the Conservative Party ran on a policy of increasing OHIP premiums. Did they run on that policy? Did they say, "Vote for us and we will raise your OHIP premiums by $72"? Did they say, "Give us a majority and we will raise income taxes"? Did they say, "Give us a majority and we will increase sales taxes and change the system of sales taxes on liquor and tobacco and gasoline?"
An hon. member: We said we would give responsible government.
Mr. Wildman: They said, "Responsible government." I have always understood responsibility to mean that when you say something, you do it.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That sometimes means tough decisions.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Order. Order.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood responsibility to mean that when you say something, you do it. That is what I have understood responsibility to mean. So if this government is talking about responsible government --
Mr. Rotenberg: That is why you have never been responsible.
Mr. Wildman: Does the member mean responsibility is not to say something and then to do it?
Mr. Rotenberg: No, I said that is why you have never been able to be responsible; you never do what you say.
The Acting Speaker: I am in the chair and I have asked for order. I have asked for it a number of times and I am really very concerned that you can't hear me over there. I have asked for order. Please give attention to Mr. Wildman.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, you are most helpful, but I really wouldn't want to deprive Hansard of the pearls of wisdom from the member for Wilson Heights.
The last comment he made was one of the better ones I have ever heard him make.
That member says I don't understand what responsible government is because I don't do what I say I am going to do. I think that was the point of what he was saying. I would like him to relate that to his own government. If a party runs on the basis that it is going to maintain low tax levels and it is not going to increase taxes, and then after it wins a majority it does in fact increase taxes, how does that square with the comments made by the member for Wilson Heights? Is that responsibility? I don't think so.
Mr. Philip: That is hypocrisy.
Mr. Wildman: The Minister of Revenue, who wasn't in his seat but made the comment that he is in favour of responsible government and who said this budget is a responsible document, is ignoring the fact that this government doesn't have the guts to run on what it is actually going to do. It would rather run on a different program and then turn around and do the opposite after it has won a majority.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, that is not responsibility. As my colleague says, that is hypocrisy.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Wildman: Certainly, shame. I agree with the member who is not in his own seat who says "Shame." I agree with him. It is a shame.
The other thing in relation to inflation that the budget did not refer to at all was the present crisis we face with interest rates. We are now in a situation where the prime rate is over 19 per cent. It has moderated or dropped slightly in the last week -- a few decimal points -- but this government did not make clear at all in its budget what the government's position was on the federal policy of high interest rates. The government has made a few vague statements recently about assistance to farmers because of the number of bankruptcies that they face, but it hasn't said anything at all about what it would do, if anything, for small business, which is in the same bind as the farm community.
Mr. Riddell: They haven't said what they will do for the farmers.
Mr. Wildman: That's right. They have been very vague. They have said it might be interest assistance; it might be a direct grant of some sort in terms of certain costs for the hog producers and the beef producers; it might be something for feed. It might be a number of things, but the government doesn't say what and it hasn't said anything about small business. As a matter of fact, there has been absolutely nothing from that government about interest rates and how they affect home owners.
Mr. Brandt: Talk to the feds about that.
Mr. Wildman: I am glad the member interjected that. That is the comment that is always made by this government: "Talk to the feds." That really is responsible government. When they do not have a solution, when they do not know what to do, when they do not want to do anything, they say: "Do not talk to us. Go talk to somebody else." That is responsibility. It is a different kind of responsibility than what I was taught, but that is the approach of this government.
Mr. Philip: They are like a bunch of promiscuous does: always passing the buck.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, might I inquire why you do not call the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) to order? You called me to order.
Mr. Cassidy: He withdraws the word "doe."
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.
Mr. Wildman: To be fair, he is not a promiscuous doe.
There is absolutely no statement in the budget at all about the high cost of housing. When one considers it costs $100,000 for a new home in Toronto, or more than that --
Mr. Rotenberg: Some are lower.
Mr. Wildman: Certainly some are lower. But the costs are very high and escalating, and there is not a statement in the budget about it. I notice the member does not interject on this score and say to talk to Ottawa. They do not even say that in terms of the cost of housing. They say absolutely nothing.
The Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) when queried about this in the House has an interesting approach. He says one should move to the outskirts if one cannot afford a house in the downtown area. That is why he is attempting to develop so much farm land: he wants to build on the outskirts so people can move out there.
Mr. Foulds: Actually, there is some accommodation at Minaki that might be available.
Mr. Piché: That is going to be good for northern Ontario. I wouldn't talk like that if I were you. Especially being from Thunder Bay, you should know better.
Mr. Foulds: Minaki is the biggest white elephant you guys have got involved in.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Will the member for Algoma carry on?
Mr. Wildman: We know the member for Cochrane North ran on the program of a Minaki in every pot. He wants a Minaki in every riding in northern Ontario.
The member for Cochrane North always is very helpful in these debates. I wonder why, instead of saying, "Let us build more Minakis," he is not saying to the Treasurer, "Let us do something about the cost of housing." He should say: "Let us do something about the speculation in housing. Let us do something about the foreign money that is coming in to buy up real estate and speculating. Let us do something about the money from western Canada that is coming into Ontario and buying up land and forcing up the price." He is not saying anything about that. He is saying, Let us have a Minaki in every riding in northern Ontario."
Mr. Piché: No. I never said that.
Mr. Wildman: Is that member going to move the Ontario Northland Railway up to Kapuskasing from North Bay? Has he talked to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) about that?
There was not anything in the budget about foreign money buying real estate in this province, mainly because this government wants to continue its policy of attracting as much foreign investment as possible. That is the whole approach. They are themselves not willing to do anything that is going to stimulate growth directly; the main ingredient is simply to attract more and more foreign investment to the province. So, of course, they could not say anything about foreign investment in real estate. But that does not help the home owners very much.
Mr. Piché: Come on, I want to go home on June 19.
Mr. Wildman: As far as I am concerned, the member can go home any time.
The problem with the foreign investment policy of the government is that it perpetuates the branch plant economy and it perpetuates the weaknesses in our economy as a result of that. The government moves to its global product mandating as a resolution. I will not go into that. We have explained on many occasions in the House why we think it is a short-sighted approach when we have an economy that is experiencing such penetration of imports in manufactured goods, an economy that could be producing jobs in this province if we were only to try a serious program of import replacement. I will not go into that at length.
9:40 p.m.
At any rate, it is interesting to look at the statements of the Treasurer in relation to his approach of attracting more investment. When he talks about incentives and how this government wants what he calls a favourable climate, a good economic climate for foreign investment, he admits in his budget statement that the incentives for research and development have failed and that they are not going to reach the federal government's objectives by 1985.
The minister seems a little unhappy to say, though, that the province cannot afford any further incentives to try to persuade the private sector to do what they have not done in the past. So he suggests that the federal government come out with new incentives, because he cannot think of anything else; he does not have any other ideas.
In our response to the budget and in the speeches we made on the budget, we suggested a number of fiscal policies that the government could institute if it wanted to raise the revenue, or more than the revenue it actually raised in the tax measures that were carried out by the Treasurer in the budget.
I would never want to be accused of being irresponsible, as the government is wont to accuse the opposition. We did not come in here and say they should spend, spend, spend; that they should not raise funds. We said, "They should not be raising funds the way they are; they should be raising them in other areas." And we suggested a number of areas they could use.
We really do not believe it is good for the people of the province to be increasing Ontario health insurance plan premiums the way the government is, or to be increasing sales taxes, or to be instituting an ad valorem tax. We believe there are other ways of doing it, and we have suggested them.
I will not repeat them here, except to point out the one thing that really is important to us as a party that believes we should be building on the strengths we have in this province, the resource base we have in this province.
We suggest that this government should move towards the levels accruing to the province of Saskatchewan in resource revenues, where they collect about 5.5 times as much revenue from the resource sector -- the metal and nonmetal resources, excluding petroleum -- than they do in this province. They could be collecting about $450 million more.
The government's tax measures in the budget that the Minister of Revenue is having to try to defend -- other than OHIP, of course; the government never has to defend OHIP increases, because they do not have to come to the Legislature -- would increase the revenue by only $603 million. In one area they could be getting more than half of that revenue, and we gave them a number of other options.
We think the government should be moving in those directions and using the revenue it gets to move directly into the economy to provide jobs and real job creation in areas where we have a great deal of import penetration, in areas where we will be vulnerable if we do not move directly and decisively to develop new technologies and new industries.
We want to create growth. The government is always accusing us of just talking about expenditures. In fact, we think the government should be directly and positively involved in the creation of new wealth in this province. But no, this government leaves all that to the private sector. This government believes that somehow, through tax incentives, grants and so on, the private sector is suddenly going to change and do what it has not done in the past; that economic growth will suddenly flourish, that we will be moving ahead, that somehow things will be different.
We think we should not leave it simply to the other guy to do it. We think it is our responsibility as representatives elected to respond to the needs of the province to propose measures and that it is the government's responsibility to institute measures that would produce jobs and economic growth in this province.
Mr. Jones: That is not new. You are always on that one. You just dusted off your old budget speech.
Mr. Wildman: Of course. I am not saying it is anything new. It is nothing new for this government to say: "No, we do not want to do that. It is all up to the private sector." I do not know why this government does not get off that kick. The Treasurer admitted we have had sluggish growth and too much inflation, and yet he does not suggest any positive measures to do anything about it. Instead, he wants to institute policies that are going to exacerbate the situation.
I have not talked much this evening about the ad valorem tax. We have been talking about that ad nauseam since the introduction of the bill. I wanted to spare the Treasurer the embarrassment of having to defend a policy he himself attacked in the past, of having to get up in this House and say: "All the statements we have made in the past about energy pricing and energy taxation are inoperative. They no longer apply. Now we are going to get on the bandwagon. We are going to profit. We are going to take as much as we can. The more petroleum prices go up the better."
I hope in his response the Treasurer will make clear what the government's policy is on energy pricing and energy taxation. It would be useful not only for us in the opposition and for people of this province, but also for the federal government and the government of Alberta to know where this province stands.
Has this government abandoned its former opposition to increases in revenue from energy unless those revenues were spread and shared throughout the country or unless they were related to the cost of production? Has the government over there abandoned that policy? Have they now moved to a situation of saying: "The more gasoline prices increase the better, because it is going to mean more revenue for the province. It will help us cut a deficit, even though in the past we have said we should not use tax revenue from energy as a deficit-cutting measure"?
If they have abandoned that position, they should make clear what their position is. If they have not abandoned that position, if they want to maintain that they are still in that policy stance, could they please explain what on earth they are doing by introducing an ad valorem tax that flies in the face of the statements this government has made in the past?
We believe this province has a great deal of potential. We have the material and human resources to build an economy that is self-reliant, that can produce the wealth we need to provide the jobs we need. The share of that wealth going to the public sector could then be used to provide the social equity we believe the people of this province want and need.
We believe that health care, for instance, should be funded according to need, and not according to some arbitrary figure set by the government. That can be done if the government takes a positive approach to the economy of this province. This government should at least be freezing OHIP premiums, if not abolishing them or moving to eliminate them over a period of time. The government should not now be increasing them, going in the wrong direction; it should not now be out of step with the rest of the country. Why can this government not accept that user fees are inequitable and unfair and that we should not be talking, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is doing, about instituting new ones?
I hope the debate this evening on interim supply for the government until October will give the Treasurer the opportunity to respond to the questions raised by the opposition in regard to this budget and the tax measures that he introduced in that budget. I hope he will be able to explain exactly what the government's policies are in relation to energy prices, interest rates and the high cost of housing. I hope that will be done this evening.
We believe the government, if it has the will, can respond to these concerns and needs in the province. If the government had enough confidence in itself, it would move in that direction. I look forward to hearing the Treasurer's response so that we in this Legislature and the country at large will know exactly what are the policy underpinnings of the budget, if there are any.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to retract a couple of unfortunate remarks I made the other night in a spirited debate on Bill 72. A couple of my colleagues on the government side drew to my attention, as I think is their right, a not particularly appropriate reference, oblique though it may have been, to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) on that occasion and reported on page 1473 of the June 9, 1981, Hansard.
I want to make some remarks tonight to resolution 5 standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Muskoka, the Treasurer: "That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing June 1, 1981, and ending October 31, 1981, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply."
In my view, it is an unfortunate resolution, one to which we have become too easily accustomed. In some respects I think a good case could be made for saying that it is quite a regular affront to the parliamentary democracy of which we are supposed to be a part.
I do not in any way wish to express surprise at the reaction that might come from the cabinet benches. It is their job to run the executive branch, and I can well appreciate how some or many, as the case may be, find this House in all its legislative works a proper nuisance. The less time they are forced to spend in this place, the happier their lives are and the easier their executive functions necessarily become.
I address my remarks to those of us who have a fundamentally different role from those who sit on the Treasury bench. It seems to me that we, as a Legislature, have a responsibility to supervise the executive as best we can, to respond to it, to resist it as the case may be, if, as and when the occasion arises.
As I read this resolution, it calls for interim supply for a period of almost five full months. I find it quite extraordinary that any government in this day and age should in the first instance seek, and -- regrettably, if the case should be this way -- receive interim supply for that period of time.
Given the multibillion-dollar expenditures as set out and called for in the departmental estimates, that any Legislature should be in any way disposed to grant supply of that order is, as I know my friend the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) might agree, quite extraordinary. It certainly would not be in any way, shape or form my disposition to grant supply for that period of time.
However, as the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) reflected upon in an earlier intervention, it does provide honourable members with a useful and appropriate opportunity to speak to the issues of the day as they relate to any or all aspects of government public spending.
Tonight it is my intention to begin a commentary on some of those budgetary policies and expenditures to which this supply will be directed.
I found the review by my colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) of the Treasurer's speech of last Wednesday to the Ottawa Men's Canadian Club to be rather interesting, since at that time the Treasurer undertook to set out his views, as were properly quoted at some length tonight by the honourable member.
I generally read the speeches of the Treasurer, and I read that one with some particular interest. I found it difficult to believe that what was being said, or at least what was printed out in that particular text, was delivered. Certainly, had it been delivered, I found it difficult to believe it could have been intended in a serious way.
My colleague the member for Ottawa East explained some of the reservations which those of us in the opposition have about that kind of speech. It seems to me that the biblical reference "Let he without sin cast the first stone" would apply to the Treasurer on that particular occasion.
Reading this document, which he very happily introduced into this House on Tuesday, May 19, 1981, I really did have to wonder whether the author and architect of this document was the same architect and author of the speech to the Ottawa Men's Canadian Club.
Some honourable members may have awakened this morning to the London Free Press, which carried a short story datelined St. Thomas, reporting rather briefly the Treasurer of Ontario's remarks to the Alma College graduating class on Saturday evening.
In the text of that particular speech by the Treasurer, as reported in this morning's London Free Press, I found the quotation, "The future may be misty, but it is not beyond your control." That is my recollection of what I read in the paper this morning. Since the London Free Press is a very accurate journal, I think that is a reasonable representation of what the Treasurer might have told his daughter and other graduates of that very fine, distinguished and historic educational institution in the heartland of our rural southwest: "The future may be misty, but it is not beyond your control."
That did not provide me with a feeling of the hope I would like to have that this is a Treasurer who is able to cut through the mist. I did not in those few lines in this morning's paper have a feeling that he had identified much more than the mist and was like a lot of the rest of the province, wandering in a bit of a fog without any clear notion as to how, when and where we might escape from its worrisome clutches.
This budget carries a number of observations and policy commitments that I would like to touch upon briefly. I found interesting, and I commented the other night on Bill 72, when we discussed it here with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), on the truly heinous aspects of Bill 72, the ad valorem tax, which is the essence of that particular bill.
On that occasion, I discussed something I would like to touch upon briefly. I found it somewhat contradictory that in the opening pages of this budget speech, the Treasurer -- as undoubtedly all Treasurers are likely to do and as they should, I suppose -- found the best possible construction to place on events. On page three, under the headline "Mini-Budget Actions Stimulate the Economy," the Treasurer goes on at some length, saying:
"The members will recall that on November 13, 1980, I introduced a $260-million package of supplementary actions to stimulate the Ontario economy. Foremost in the program were temporary retail sales tax cuts designed to selectively impact on various troubled or important aspects of the Ontario economy. While it is too early to present a detailed analysis of the economic impact of these measures, I have already received encouraging signals of their beneficial effect." And he goes on.
10 p.m.
Let me say at the outset that I would certainly like the Treasurer to share with me, if no one else, the preliminary and final detailed analyses of those tax actions of last November. I am not quite as sanguine as the Treasurer about their short-term, intermediate or longer-term benefits, simply because I remember in 1974-75, when his illustrious predecessor, the former member for Chatham-Kent, Mr. McKeough, undertook a massive pre-election tax cut to stimulate the economy in a similar way, the detailed final analysis, as I remember it, indicated there was not a very significant long-term net benefit as far as the Ontario economy was concerned.
It may be that this Treasurer has evidence to contradict that on this occasion. I, for one, would be particularly interested in seeing that preliminary and detailed tax impact study when it is completed.
I found it passing strange that at a later point in this particular document the Treasurer, having understandably applauded the stimulative aspects of that particular tax action in November -- a mini-budget that I suspect was introduced for some political as well as other economic reasons -- complains rather directly, on page 17:
"As I mentioned before, the province's revenue needs are not being adequately met by our current tax structure. The inadequacy of revenues reflects to a considerable degree the many tax reductions implemented in recent years."
A little later, on page 20, he complains: "I spoke earlier about my general concern with the diminished responsiveness of the revenue system."
I may be wrong, I may be unfair, I may simply be nitpicking when I say now, as I did earlier in a previous debate on another bill, that I find those two sets of statements transparently contradictory.
On the one hand, the Treasurer wants us to give him full credit for the stimulative economic fallout from the tax actions of last fall. Then, having done that, he wants us to join him in a general complaint about the lack of responsiveness on his revenue side. As he points out, the lack of responsiveness is due largely, as he says on page 17, to the many tax reductions implemented in recent years.
I have to wonder which side of this Treasurer I am to believe in this particular respect. As I said earlier, he is a Treasurer who wishes it both ways.
Much is said in this document, and certainly much will be said over the course of the next few months, about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. I applaud any government that recognizes its responsibilities in the economic field to intervene selectively and, I hope, with a very positive effect. To that degree, I understand the economic reasons for BILD and do not have a general complaint about some of the broad intentions to which it directs its attention.
But I do find -- and this is as good an opportunity as I suppose I will get, having said that about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development -- that there is something tragic and pathetic about what the politics of BILD have come to mean. I am glad to see some of the new members here. I listened probably as much as or more than most old members -- I am an old member now, relatively speaking -- and I thought some of the new government members made some particularly interesting speeches. I thought from my chair that the new member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), whom I do not know, made a courageous and interesting speech, and I look forward to more of his interventions.
But there was one speech made -- and unfortunately the honourable member in question is not here -- by the new member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). His counterpart in my mind in this instance is the relatively new member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell). I think my memory serves me correctly: The new member for Cambridge got up, and I remember distinctly that much of his maiden speech in this House dealt with one of the new technological centres that was promised in BILD.
What I found so personally degrading about the politics of BILD as they were played out by this government in this last election is the pathetic environment into which they have unavoidably forced some of the government's own new members. There sat the new member, the cheerful, spirited, bright new man from Cambridge, pleading in a sorrowful, pathetic sort of way with someone somewhere that he, and not the new member for Carleton, get this particular plum that was promised. I sat here and thought to myself, "How sorrowful; how sad is the bribe that is BILD."
The Deputy Speaker: And I am thinking to myself that you are working your way to the resolution in front of us.
Mr. Conway: Yes. And I, sir, ask you to pronounce yourself upon the point that brings me here, and that is that since we are asked to vote on this resolution, I interpret it to mean we have scope as individual members to speak to any aspect of government expenditures that will be related to the interim supply being called for. That is my understanding of what a supply motion is all about. I cannot understand how it might be that the BILD program would not be part of that, since in this budgetary statement it is offered as the centrepiece.
Having agreed with the understanding of how and why we get government involvement in the economy in terms of stimulus, and accepting, as I have, the general direction of that sort of intervention, I wanted as part of my remarks tonight to express my personal disgust about the bribe that is BILD -- a public policy that forces two honourable members such as the members for Carleton and Cambridge to have to stand and plaintively beg that they get some kind of plum that was offered to one of them.
I know there was another case in the BILD document where St. Catharines and Chatham were offered the opportunity to have one plum. That is a twentieth-century construction on a nineteenth-century kind of politics. I feel sorry that the new member for Carleton and the new member for Cambridge will now have to grovel before whomever and beg and claw and squeal and cry and ask, "Oh Lord, let it be mine; keep the other pretender away from this subvention."
Mr. Roy: Late night visits and all.
Mr. Conway: Late night visits. To force anybody with the community standing of the new member for Carleton to that kind of degradation I find appalling. I have too much respect for the new member for Cambridge to see him here reduced to that kind of supplication; to say nothing, of course, about the general politics to which this sort of mentality speaks.
10:10 p.m.
I have to think the Premier (Mr. Davis) at the end of the campaign on the night of March 19 had an arthritic elbow, because not since the high tide of former Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis has the parish pump been so exercised in the interest of party politics --
Mr. Wildman: Did you say "exercised" or "exorcised"?
Mr. Conway: I said "exercised." Not since the high tide of Maurice Duplessis has the parish pump of public policy been exercised with such brazen enthusiasm as was done by the leader of this government in the recent campaign.
I can accept a government that is prepared to come in and say, "If you elect a government member you might get some additional consideration." I do not particularly like it; I find it genuinely offends my democratic sensibilities. I hope I have a feeling for, an understanding for the British parliamentary system. If my colleagues over there want a kind of Brezhnev politburo system in this country, that is their due, but I happen to believe there is a place in the Ontario of 1981 for a parliamentary dialectic without this offensive, bribing politics that forces the new member for Carleton, the old member for Chatham-Kent, the new member for Cambridge and the morning radio man in St. Catharines into this kind of contest.
I know there are people over there from Mount Forest, Brockville and elsewhere for whom that kind of politics is genuinely offensive. I know it is the kind of politics that certainly does not have much standing in the mind and heart of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson). But that someone somewhere, God only knows where, would reduce the great Progressive Conservative tradition in this province to that level of degradation, to so besmirch the new member for Carleton into such a terrible conundrum, to reduce him so -- I am going to follow with great interest how that particular contest works out to see who wins and, pray tell, who loses.
I mentioned earlier the new member for Leeds, for whom I have a very high regard. I think my reading of the Ottawa Citizen during and somewhat after the election brings to mind a complaint that he, a man who scarcely faced an election like the rest, raised about all that was being offered by way of theme parks to Cornwall -- a more attractive contest from the government's interest -- and why could he not get some share of the action? That so fine an honourable member would be forced on to the pages of the public press to register that kind of complaint is unfortunate.
Let me say again, I support the notion, as I did this afternoon in Woodstock and Ingersoll, with farmers who were telling me on RR 3 Ingersoll just how little they think about the budget and what they would do with Duke Street lawyers who come now with a different tune from that which they offered some weeks earlier. I thought this resolution tonight about interim supply a good opportunity to share some of my concern about the kind of post-office, parish-pump politics we are being asked to accept in this province in recent days.
I have too much respect for the greatness of the tradition from which these people come, to see the modern-day construction on that reduced to so basic a level. I believe, as I hope some of them do, that John Locke had a better and more accurate sociology than did Thomas Hobbes, but the kind of bribing politics that are in BILD would make one think they all operate in the power circle with a Hobbesian view of the polity.
On page five of this document, part of the BILD commitment, much is said about the electricity component. This government has gone on record as endorsing once again its view that electricity would play an extremely important part in the future of this province, and it goes on further to talk about the nuclear generation field where I have some very clear and well known sympathies in the positive as far as that commitment is concerned.
For a long time I have lived in a part of this province where nuclear power generation is an active major player in our society and our economy, and for some time now I have been hearing stories that while, on the one hand, this government takes credit for an aggressive electrical commitment now and in the future, on the other hand it has not, certainly in terms of the nuclear power generation field, undertaken any kind of a manpower strategy to make sure that very important part of the commitment will provide maximum benefits to the people of Ontario.
I have been somewhat concerned that we have not developed manpower training programs in the secondary and post-secondary institutions of this province to ensure that some 20 years after we made the nuclear commitment in this province we will maximize the job opportunities from this kind of electrical commitment. Mr Speaker, I know you, like other members of the House, might have read in this morning's Globe and Mail a very interesting story under the byline of Mr. Thomas Claridge, pointing out that there are now internal reports indicating Hydro has serious manpower and morale problems in the nuclear generating sector. According to the story, as yet unconfirmed by other sources, there are serious concerns about the utility's capacity to provide a sufficient number of skilled people to run the reactors in your beloved constituency, Mr. Speaker, and in others where these reactors will be built.
The Deputy Speaker: And you will be moving with the speed of electricity back to the main point of the resolution.
Mr. Conway: It is my understanding, and I repeat it again, that a supply motion entitles me to speak to the range of activities and expenditures to which the government directs its attention and ours in this motion. That is my understanding of what supply motions are all about, and I will gladly stand down if I am proved to be incorrect, but I cannot believe a discussion of BILD and the budget is in any way inconsistent with this particular motion.
At any rate I wonder, and this is certainly something I intend to pursue with the relevant authority, the real authority, just how it can be that on the one hand we have a government determined to take all the credit for this commitment, and on the other hand it is all the while unable to supply the skilled manpower for the jobs here in Ontario. There is also the question of the bias and the prejudice spoken of in Mr. Claridge's article.
10:20 p.m.
I also noted with some interest, and to be sure the Treasurer will know of my interest, that in that sector of his budget speech to which moneys being voted here tonight will undoubtedly apply, in the community section on page six, he said, "As part of the province's commitment to assist rural communities in securing industrial and commercial opportunities, the government has already dedicated funds to the areas of Collingwood, Huntsville and Edwardsburgh for sewerage and water works." On the face of it I cannot imagine three more deserving communities, and I applaud the dedication of public funds for those important and worthwhile undertakings at those local levels.
I want to say I would find this resolution a lot more palatable if the Treasurer would point out to me that in the funds being approved through that resolution there were specific moneys being dedicated to my home city of Pembroke for its immediate and serious water and sewage needs. I know of the Treasurer's ongoing interest in that subject. I know the Treasurer knows of the Deputy Premier's erstwhile interest in the commitment, upgraded as it was by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) in my home community on or about March 4, 1981.
I have to say to the Treasurer that this resolution would be infinitely more agreeable to me if I knew that I would be approving, in any way, funds that would flow to the city of Pembroke for its very important water and sewage requirements, keeping in mind not only the commitment entered into by this minister last fall, but the genuinely alluring, attractive, additional commitment entered into by the honourable Deputy Premier on or about March 4, 1981. I would certainly be delighted and be made much more responsive if the Treasurer would indicate to me now, or at a later, more convenient and perhaps more private time, how it is that this resolution could be brought to bear upon that most serious and urgent requirement of the city of Pembroke, which involves the surrounding townships.
I know the honourable members will be interested in the commitments spoken of here about other things. Thinking of what moneys would be applied over the summer, I was interested in the comments about pension reform, as outlined here. I presume a fairly significant allocation of dollars will be made some time after the House rises, certainly after June 1, to set in motion that particular select committee.
Mr. Haggerty: That would bail out the government.
Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend from Erie (Mr. Haggerty) that it is seldom -- if ever, in my experience -- that we have seen, on the one hand, a government set in motion a select committee -- the chairmanship of which certain ministers of the crown, without portfolio, have a very understandable interest in -- and on the other hand set out so boldly, on pages 14 and 15 of the budget statement, five or six conditions which in my view so restrain the range of possibility as to make the entire enterprise pointless.
I was interested in that particular activity until the night of this budget. I listened with interest to the Treasurer, whose feelings on this subject I can understand and whose feelings I think I know full well. Those are his to make and to defend, but I sat and listened to the Treasurer say on the night of May 19 how he felt government policy would be decided, and he boldly and clearly and succinctly set out six conditions that would characterize government policy.
I think he has told all honourable members of the House that the decision has already been made. The executive branch of this government has, as is its right, clearly made up its mind what kind of pension reform it wants. I certainly do not agree with all of those conditions, but I would not under any conditions serve under such farcical arrangements.
I like to believe, as I know the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) once liked to believe, that those kinds of committees have genuine input of some significance. But this committee has been neutered at the outset. In the interests of balancing the budget, in the interests of allocating dollars more effectively, why proceed on the basis of such a farce? The decision has been made, it is clear; page 15 says so without hesitation. So why should 12 or 14 or 15 members be sent off on a merry chase over the next four or five months when their report is obviously not going to impact in any real and significant way on the pension legislation this Treasurer and his cabinet colleagues are prepared to implement or at least to introduce?
Certainly one would like to believe the pay bill, once introduced and dealt with, would look after the other considerations which sometimes characterize the frequency and number of select committees. I have to think the many good and hardworking members on all sides who have indicated an interest in this activity, would do well to go elsewhere. From what I can tell, it is in essence a non-negotiable item. If the Treasurer means what he says, I think there should be one of those charming little House leaders' agreements to send people along to other things where there might be some hope of impact.
I found it amusing as well when my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) spoke tonight about the OHIP premium reference. I spoke the other day in a supplementary to a question put by the leader of the third party, or the New Democratic Party health critic, about OHIP premiums. I am intrigued at the conversion the Treasurer has undergone in that respect. It was not many years ago in this building that he headed a very spirited defence of the status quo and how he would not entertain any changes to the beloved premium concept.
The Deputy Speaker: Will the member be moving the adjournment of the debate?
On motion by Mr. Conway, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.