The House resumed at 8 p.m.
ROYAL ASSENT
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.
Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:
Bill 1, An Act to revise the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.
Bill 2, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.
Bill 3, An Act to amend the Charities Accounting Act.
Bill 4, An Act to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.
Bill 27, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act.
Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of London.
Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.
Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre of Toronto.
Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.
Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.
Bill Pr32, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Township of Fauquier under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Moonbeam.
INTERIM SUPPLY
Hon. F. S. Miller, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, moved resolution 8:
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 July 1, 1982, and ending December 31, 1982, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will take my 10 minutes, the Liberals will have their 10 minutes and the New Democratic Party will have its 10 minutes. I am sure we will pass this motion. If that is agreed, I will watch the clock very carefully.
An interesting piece of information was given to me as I walked in to take my seat tonight. At a meeting somewhere, I think it was the official critic of the Liberal Party, a person who looks after my ministry's actions, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), who was alleged to have said it really did not matter if this motion was passed until July 15, because there would be a paycheque for employees on July 1 and there would not be any need for any more money until July 15, so they could keep us for that period of time. I suppose I can understand that because, surely, if he is right, there would be no more paycheques to the employees of the government of Ontario held up for that period of time.
Of course, that would indicate to me some of the lack of understanding and concern that is all too real in the party opposite. They tend to forget that on a daily basis the government issues cheques to many business people in this province for services rendered, which I understand are also authorized by this motion.
Mr. Nixon: Like consultants.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, like the average small businessman who is supplying goods around the province to this government and who is having difficulty in meeting interest payments, particularly if his accounts receivable are delayed. These are the kinds of things I believe we should speed up -- the speedup of payments the opposition was happy to see us do last year when we agreed we had a responsibility to pay interest on unpaid or slowly paid accounts, which is something few governments do.
I only hope the message I got did not indicate a desire on the part of the Liberal Party to delay the payments or the approval of this motion until that time, because it will not be they or I who will hurt, and it will not be the civil servants who will hurt; it will be the people who sell goods and services to the government of Ontario who have every right to expect their paycheques like anyone else.
As we debate this motion, I hope that some of the rhetoric they send to me across the House each day will be remembered and that they will remember, and I am sure they will, that we should look at the principles here. They can speak as long as they wish, but let us make sure we do not hold up this motion past the day it expires, June 30, 1982.
Mr. Bradley: Send out bulletins to all the civil servants and tell them we are not holding up --
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order. You'll have your opportunity.
Hon. F. S. Miller: It has been my custom to leave this motion for discussion by the opposition, believing that was in the interests of the process and of time. However, tonight I wish to make some comments. They are going to be completely extemporaneous, but they are going to deal a bit with what I suspect will be a topic the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and perhaps members from the New Democratic Party will choose to talk about: general government policy and the budget.
I would like to talk about my budget and about some of the things that seldom come up in question period. I would like to talk about the good things that were done in that budget, about its objectives and about the process this province uses in creating a budget.
8:10 p.m.
A budget is not, as it may be at a municipal or household level, simply the money coming in in one column and the money going out in another column. That, of course, is the core, the foundation, the basis of a budget: dollars in, dollars out, dollars surplus or dollars short.
However, budgets of governments the size of Ontario's are more than accountings of figures: they are statements of economic policy; they are reactions to the times; they are attempts to deal with those times in a way that benefits the people of the province, the people for whom members of this House are elected.
In Ontario we use a process that is quite long. There are two completely separate parts to the process. The allocation of spending authorizations to the ministries in most years starts for the next year almost immediately after the budget is read. Across the hot summer ministers probably have more disagreement, discussion and diatribe with me than members of the opposition do, because each minister is charged with getting out of Treasury as much money as he or she can get to carry out the mandate to run a specific ministry, and that is the way it should be.
Cabinet has to listen to the reaction to those requests as analysed by Management Board and by Treasury. We generally set overall growth targets for spending and then try to fit the sum total of everyone's requests into that growth; and it never fits. In fact, it bulges out, much as rising dough does while you are waiting to make loaves of bread: it just comes out of the pot. It is dough of a different type, though. Our purpose. then, is to push the dough back into the pot until the pot can contain it. That is why, I suppose, I need a lot of money.
Mr. Sweeney: Remember what Harry Truman said: "If you can't stand the heat, take over the kitchen."
Hon. F. S. Miller: I might say to my friend that he has never had to take the kind of heat I have taken in the last few weeks, and I wonder if he could take that kind of heat.
Mr. Sweeney: Give us the chance.
Hon. F. S. Miller: He talks bravely about taking the heat while he dishes it out, but every so often one of the members opposite should learn how to take it.
An hon. member: You are good at it.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, we are good at it. That is why we are the government of this province.
Mr. Wrye: But only for three more years.
The Acting Speaker: I ask the Treasurer to speak to the resolution.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Well, I was sticking quite properly to the principles. I am trying to be serious, and I hope the member opposite will be too, because I am trying not to be emotional in my comments except when somebody interrupts me who never would have tolerated a student in class talking like that.
Mr. Sweeney: It is a different thing altogether.
Hon. F. S. Miller: It does not need to be. There is a time for my friend to speak; there is a time for me to speak.
Mr. Roy: Don't be so sanctimonious.
The Acting Speaker: The Treasurer is speaking to motion 8.
Hon. F. S. Miller: It is interesting that the member who just said I was sanctimonious also is alleged to have said this to people who quoted it to me: "Our purpose for the next three weeks is to create absolute chaos in the Legislature." Those are the words that came back, which he is said to have said: "Our purpose.. . is to create absolute chaos."
Mr. Sweeney: You have already created chaos.
Mr. Wrye: That was created on May 14.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The Treasurer is speaking to motion 8.
Interjection.
Hon. F. S. Miller: What was that?
Mr. Van Horne: How much time and money do you spend finding out what people say? You are irresponsible. You waste time running around trying to find out what people said. Get on with your job.
The Acting Speaker: Order. There is no need for the dialogue back and forth. The Treasurer has the floor; then the party on my left will have the floor and we will pass it around.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I would just say to the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) that I have sat through seven and a half hours of his colleague's words in this House, and I do not think that at any point in that whole seven and a half hours I have shown any anger towards his friend. In fact, we have had a number of laughs together in the process, even when he was trying to make his points. I like to bring that attitude to this House, and I hope the member will bring it with him.
Mr. Riddell: Everyone appreciates words of wisdom.
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I can speak for seven and a half hours too, and if the member opposite wants to leave, I say to him, please do. It happens that if he does not interrupt, I will get on with it a lot faster.
Mr. Roy: Don't filibuster your own motion.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: I'd just as soon listen to the Treasurer as the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).
Mr. Watson: That is the first intelligent thing you have said.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The Treasurer has the floor.
Hon. F. S. Miller: That process of allocating the money to each ministry is done with the assistance of the policy fields, the provincial secretaries and the cabinet. It usually ends some time around mid-December, following which announcements are made by ministers of general spending guidelines to recipients of major grants: hospitals, universities, boards of education and municipalities.
Following the Christmas break each year I begin with my staff a process that, as far as I know, is unknown in Ottawa, one of inviting in some 35 to 50 groups who represent specific interests to give me not only their viewpoint on the economy but also their suggestions as to what is needed in a very specific way for their industry and in a general way to guide me as I make my basic policy. Out of all that come a lot of requests to eliminate taxes totally and a lot of suggestions to spend more money in their areas while cutting it in others.
Finally we come to a conclusion about what we think the sum total of all the knowledge is about the way the economy is going to go, and from that we come to the most important single figure we develop in the budget process: that figure is what we believe we can sustain as a borrowing cash requirement for the year.
For about three years I have targeted around $1 billion. In some years -- the first two or three years, the first two at least -- I was able to come in, when our figures were finalized, and show members that we borrowed less than we had estimated. Revenues were healthier and, with my colleague the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) controlling spending at the predetermined levels, we held the fort pretty well.
Last year, because the economy went into a bit of a tailspin and because we made certain major purchases not predicted at the beginning of the year, such as Suncor, we had a cash requirement that exceeded the approximately $1 billion by about $600 million to $700 million. This year most of the people who came in to see me, most of the advisers representing unions, banks or companies, said that if you used good, old-fashioned Keynesian theories it was not a year to go to the well too deeply, too often; that we should really aim at a considerably higher cash requirement, provided it did not cause a long-term trend towards heavier borrowing.
8:20 p.m.
I consulted with people who could advise me on the amount of money available from the various pension funds and the cash reserves of the province that could be wound down somewhat, and I targeted between $2 billion and $2.5 billion as the desirable cash requirement level. I then had to go into the economic document part and decide whether it was appropriate this year for government to take stimulative actions aimed at creating jobs directly or to aid industry to create them indirectly. We chose to do both.
At a time when one could argue that I should not have taken any tax reduction measures, we chose to eliminate the corporate tax on small businesses. I hope members will agree in all honesty that this was not bad.
Mr. Riddell: For those businesses that are making a profit.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Even if the member gives me that much, I accept it as modest approbation.
Mr. Riddell: All kinds of others are struggling for survival.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I accept that. I cannot give tax back to a guy who does not have to pay it.
We also decided that in this particular year there had been such a fundamental attack in the federal budget against the principles of private investment in Canada that Ontario should refuse to parallel certain capital cost allowances, certain measures that tax in the year of sale the capital gain of a farm or a small or big business whether they were paid in cash or not, and certain measures that were aimed at penalizing one of the healthier industries we had, namely the steel industry, by eliminating its resource allowances.
We did so for two reasons: not that the $135 million we gave up would save those businesses but to show the federal government that Ontario believed in investment and to show them that in a year when we were hurting financially we were willing to set an example which we hoped they would follow.
With the knowledge that Mr. MacEachen was bringing out some kind of economic document or statement in late June or early July -- at that time we did not know when -- we felt there was a fighting chance that the pressures that had been mounted on him over the past six months would result in a withdrawal of those measures which we think eventually could be dangerous to the economy.
We also looked at a way we could create jobs immediately. We felt the fastest way to do that was to take some off-the-shelf government projects that had to be done sooner or later and could be done with minimum engineering time or delay. So members saw $171 million spent on mostly minor highway works, municipal roads and access roads. We also took steps to help universities, high schools and public schools do major repairs. We had a $35-million project for the municipalities based on general welfare assistance cases per municipality, and we put some more money into the youth pot for this summer's jobs.
We then went one step further and said we could not only create jobs in Ontario but also attack a fundamental housing shortage in the rental area by directing some money to encourage younger people, who had the wherewithal to do it, to buy houses.
We have an interesting paradox in Ontario at present. We have a case where the savings rate is touching 13 per cent of after-tax income. A year ago that was closer to 10 per cent. The American rate is under six per cent. Even with that very high savings rate, Canadians have not been purchasing major goods; but Americans are, while at the six per cent savings rate.
The question is, why are Canadians putting their money in the bank or into some kind of investment instrument that is debt-related when Americans are buying consumer goods, which one expects people to do when they have enough money to do it? Until Canadians start doing it, most of us in this room will agree it will be difficult to stimulate jobs in our basic industries.
No more fundamental industry exists than the housing industry. We had a shortage of rental accommodation. Occupancy rates in some major cities are down to less than one per cent. Last year there had been very successful combinations, or piggybacking, of federal multiple-unit residential buildings programs and provincial grant programs sometimes totalling, they tell me, in excess of $15,000 per apartment and created just to get apartments built.
We believed that if we created a program to move renters into new homes, not only would we leave a vacant apartment but also we would get somebody who could afford it into a house and, at the same time, have people back at work building those houses, making the lumber for those houses, making the plumbing supplies, the electrical supplies, the appliances and, inevitably, the furniture people buy when they move from one place to another that is larger.
The last time I looked, on Monday, we had 1,250 applications. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) tells me our 15,000 target is likely to be exceeded before the program ends.
Mr. Bradley: That is not happening on the peninsula.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Each house represents something in the order of three to three and a half man-years of employment.
The $5,000 interest-free loan for 10 years is much less costly than the grants we are giving to create rental accommodation. The social objectives, I think all of us have to agree, are better. It seemed to be one of those programs that met a number of objectives and criteria. It appears to be successful. We are hearing from ridings where -- quite frankly, in rural Ontario the members had little expectation of any take-up, yet we are hearing that it is working in some of those ridings to their benefit.
It was not aimed at getting rid of inventories of houses that were on stock. We put an upper cap on the value of the houses at $115,000 in Metro Toronto and $90,000 in the rest of Ontario. We required the person to have 10 per cent of his or her own cash down to pass the mortgage lenders' criteria for lending before our money was put in there. That is all done.
Mr. Roy: But what level of people is the government helping? What income are they making?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am helping people who have the wherewithal to buy a house. The people I am really helping are those who now can find an apartment to rent and the people who have a job building the houses. If the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) does not think that is a valid government objective, I would appreciate his standing up on every street corner, on every platform he can, and saying he disagrees with this government because it is doing the wrong thing. I say to him, please stand up on those corners and say it. That is all I am asking him to do.
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Ron Van Horne, you have been a very even-tempered person. I do not know what is wrong with you tonight.
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for London North. I am sorry; if I had known his riding I would have had it right the first time.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Van Horne: We met in the last election.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, we did. I tried to offer him early retirement on an involuntary basis, but it did not work.
An hon. member: Is this a filibuster you're engaged in?
Hon. F. S. Miller: No. I think it is quite important because --
Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) has been on duty all day today.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think I have ever had the opportunity in the House quietly, and I hope factually and unemotionally, to put forward the creation of a budget.
Mr. Foulds: You need a little fire in the belly, Frank.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not trying to put any into it tonight. I am just trying to be factual, something the member could emulate.
We also sent another signal in the budget, because the real impediment to growth in Ontario's and Canada's economy is the rate of interest. Will we buy that? That, more than any other single factor, tends to stop people from making major investments.
Interjection.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Our attendant, Jim Stesky, had a son who weighed over seven pounds at 6:55 p.m. Both mother and son are fine.
See, I bring in a good budget and good things happen.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was wondering if there is seven per cent on the delivery.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Only if Chargex is used.
The other signal we sent in the budget was that inflation is Canada's greatest single problem. It is inflation and the resulting interest rates that are causing unemployment problems. It is also causing the lockup of funds, to some degree, because people are saying they are earning so much in real terms, why spend it?
It is also irritating to Mr. MacEachen and to me, and I hope to the members, to find that the policies of our country are seeing interest rates in Canada go up, at a time when interest rates in the United States are going down, because people have lost confidence in the value of our dollar. So, in the budget, we took a step that we hoped would be a first step followed by many others.
That first step was to say that senior civil servants would be restricted to six per cent salary increases this year. That is some 15,000 people. There was some flexibility left for people at the low end of that scale who interfaced with the bargaining units.
We also said there would be a sunshine rule brought into this House, and that bill is before you. It requests that all those emanations of all governments that have employees earning more than $30,000 a year should have them listed year to year, with the changes in salaries listed so the public could have an opportunity to see whether the guidelines we have recommended are being followed in fact as well as in spirit.
Mr. Riddell: We would believe the Treasurer was serious if he took the parliamentary assistants off the gravy train.
Hon. F. S. Miller: That, of course, is jealousy, it is not seriousness. The interesting thing is that the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) in his own way has really touched the fundamental issue. He is sitting over on that side of the House green with envy because certain positions come with power in government that pay more than a back-bencher gets, and he does not like it. He does not like it. Those guys work hours and hours. Do not ask me to justify every one, but mine does and others do. I certainly did in the Ministry of Health. If that member were in this government --
Mr. Wrye: And we will be.
Hon. F. S. Miller: We learned it from the feds. They created them first. We looked at their example of making parliamentary assistants, or parliamentary secretaries I believe they call them in Ottawa --
Mr. Foulds: Why don't you let him answer questions when you are not here?
Hon. F. S. Miller: That is not the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: We are straying a little from the motion in front of us.
Hon. F. S. Miller: He is touching the very fundamental part of why they are filibustering.
The Deputy Speaker: Do not get me going.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, you were a parliamentary assistant.
The Deputy Speaker: No, never have been.
Mr. Wrye: Sam earns his money.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to point out that I spent seven and a half hours listening to debate on my bill, and if I am not any further off the point than at least one previous speaker --
The Deputy Speaker: I thought I was helping.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am here for the night.
The Deputy Speaker: All right, carry on.
Hon. F. S. Miller: We did that because we believe not only senior officials of governments but all those emanations should keep their salaries down to show guidance and leadership to the people who are in bargaining units. It is happening in the United States and in other countries. Every time we increase salaries in Canada at a rate that exceeds our productivity we lose our edge in the international world markets and lose employment to the United States or Japan. We have to get that message out from all sides of the House. It is not a partisan issue.
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am talking about the economy outside of this building. I am simply saying it is a reality of life that we must have some understanding that the nation has to earn the money it pays itself.
Mr. Wrye: Would you put that in a letter to Hugh Macaulay, please?.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I have sent a letter to Ontario Hydro in advance of this week's meeting of the board in which I understood there were to be some salary changes coming. I pointed out what we were doing and asked that they consider their actions in the spirit of the policies we are laying down.
Mr. Bradley: What did you do two weeks before the last campaign? What did you do?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am trying very hard to carry on.
The Deputy Speaker: Continue.
Hon. F. S. Miller: That six per cent guideline, which we were hoping would be followed in negotiations, was set at a time when many a taxpayer in the private sector was not so much worried about whether he or she would get a six, eight or 10 per cent increase as about keeping his or her job. We feel it should go with the security of employment which we offer our employees that there should not be increases equal to inflation. We feel we have to be prepared to stand up and say that and that is what we are doing.
In my opinion, once we are past the foofaraw on the tax measures relating to the seven per cent sales tax which was stirred up yesterday, the day the tax commenced, I believe it will be seen to have been a responsible budget at a time when the economy required responsibility.
When I get to the sales tax changes, the part where the opposition members obviously have had the most public support, I can only point out that there were a number of alternatives. I understand less than 50 per cent of all moneys spent by families in Ontario is spent on items that attract tax.
In this province, where sales tax has existed for over 20 years, starting with the 1961 budget, we have seen the tax base eroded rather than added to; until my 1981 budget, when I said the holes in the base made it look like Swiss cheese; that there was no rhyme or reason in the exemptions that were there; that in many cases a non exempt item was just as necessary, or whatever term one may wish to use, and just as politically sensitive as an item that was not taxed.
We were causing administrative problems for many retailers because untrained clerks could not tell what was or was not taxed; we gave our undertaking to review the exemptions so as to have some idea of whether they were still fair.
8:40 p.m.
There were items I could quickly have added to the tax base, or I could change the rate; those were the alternatives. Eight per cent, the easy way out, the way members have recommended to me, would have brought in about $435 million. That is somewhat more than I got through my own route. The seven per cent I brought in was closer to $300-odd million on a wide variety of items.
Why take a politically difficult route when a politically easy route would have worked and brought in more money?
Mr. Nixon: Bad judgement.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, it was not bad judgement. You may say that. That is easy to say when you are in the opposition.
Mr. Bradley: It is easier to sell the jet.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No, not at all. It was clearly recognized that eight per cent was easier to sell than what I did.
Mr. Roy: Did you poll that?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not going on any poll. I am talking about my discussions with my staff and my Premier (Mr. Davis). At that point we concluded that from an economic point of view the deterrent of one per cent more sales tax on high-ticket items would cut sales further and would further erode employment in the industries affected.
Mr. Nixon: One hundred dollars on a car.
Hon. F. S. Miller: A thousand dollars on a big truck?
Mr. Nixon: You are talking about a $5,000 truck.
Hon. F. S. Miller: That is a normal highway carrier.
Interjection.
Hon. F. S. Miller: That is an increase.
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: The other alternative was to tax some items that would have irritated special interest groups but not the public. Let me name them so that they are on the record.
Mr. Nixon: Not farmers.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Not farmers, no; farmers need some help.
Mr. Riddell: Sure, farmers are struggling, and you just put a tax on ice cream.
Hon. F. S. Miller: No; the tax would have been on advertising: television, radio, newspapers. But again that goes to the assumption that advertising is not money invested by businessmen to create business; I believe it is.
So we chose a somewhat difficult route, and I have faced quite a few angry people in the process. I would argue that is one of my responsibilities as Treasurer. Not all the angry people are in front of me. It has been said that some of them are in my caucus.
Mr. Nixon: They talk to us.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh, sure; you ask any guy who has to go home on a weekend, from any party: it is a lot harder to go home as a government member supporting a Treasurer than it is to go home as a member of the opposition able to swear at a Treasurer. The members opposite know darn well they can go home and with great joy complain about the idiots on the opposite side of the House, whereas these gentlemen have an obligation to go home and support the idiots on this side of the House.
Mr. Van Horne: Is that an admission?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I see at least one and maybe -- how many members of the New Democratic Party are up in the press gallery tonight?
Interjections.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought that was out of bounds.
Mr. Speaker, we get to debt. The opposition has a lot of fun with debt. They talk about the profligate ways of the province of Ontario, the way we are putting it into debt beyond the ability of any citizen to pay. I want to tell members a few things. The deficit this year was one tenth of my gross budget; the deficit in 1975 was closer to 18 per cent.
Mr. Roy: That's only because you are comparing it to another election year.
Hon. F. S. Miller: This year, 1982, is hardly an election year, my friend.
Mr. Roy: That's what I'm saying; that's why it went to 18 per cent in 1975.
Hon. F. S. Miller: It was an election year in 1975; 1982 is not an election year. I have had budget deficits as low as two per cent of my spending; four per cent by record, but two per cent actual. My debt is about 0.94 years of income.
Mr. Van Horne: I would hazard a guess that if we had put you in charge of the Sahara Desert five years ago we would be out of sand by now.
Hon. F. S. Miller: But you would have more oil.
My debt right now is about 11-odd months' income. In Mr. Frost's day it was 21 months' income. My spending per person, including municipal spending because they have to be lumped together, is the lowest of any province in Canada. If I were spending at the level of Quebec, my budget would be $9 billion higher than it is. If I were spending at the level of Alberta, it would be between $20 billion and $22 billion more. Those sober factors need to be kept in mind.
At the same time, show me another government in Canada that in the last five years has seen a reduction in the number of employee-years of all types within it. We are down to about 81,500. We were at 87,000 back in 1976. Compare that with Quebec, Alberta or, horrors, the federal government. There is almost cancerous growth in those governments. Some of them are reaching their Armageddon.
All of a sudden, the resource revenues of British Columbia and Alberta have evaporated. Unlike Ontario, those economies are dependent in the main on single-base economies. We are a multi-base economy. We have many strengths and the diversity of those strengths has kept us going across the tough years. This is without doubt one of the toughest years we have had.
Above all things, it is a test not of economic theory but of the will and confidence of Canadians in their country. My job and my budget was not half as much to cure economic ills as to cure mental ills and get us back to believing that we can once again invest in this country, see results from that investment and make it a safe place to get an honest return on one's investment.
That above all else is what business people want to hear. If they do not hear it, they will move their money into other domains where they consider it to be safer. They have done that in droves since the federal budget of the fall of 1980 when the national energy program came into being. The person who moved an 84 cent dollar out in 1981 has done very well. He has 105 cents for every dollar he had then because he has seen his dollar drop.
I believe that trend will reverse itself and I hope it happens soon. I hope the speculation against our dollar will stop soon. I hope we will hear our people say this is not only the place to live, but it is the place to invest with confidence. That is one of the jobs of all governments. The members may say I do not do it well. That is their privilege. I am doing it as well as I can. I wish to God my colleagues in Ottawa would do it as well.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded by my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) that this is the evening on which the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. begins a 30-hour uninterrupted broadcast of James Joyce's famous Ulysses. I would not wish to keep anyone from listening to that marvellous classic, but I am reminded as well that it begins somewhat later in the evening.
Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of others being in the chair, I tried to prepare myself for the interim supply debate, keeping in mind a memory I had from about a year ago when some of us began to discuss the issues that concerned us in that debate. We had a bit of a problem determining the rules governing the interim supply debate, so in consideration of that potential difficulty --
The Deputy Speaker: You come prepared.
Mr. Conway: -- I stole away to the library and brought with me a couple of references that I hope will set the picture, as I imagine it, and give you guidance should you find that from time to time in places I am not following the orders as they should be followed.
8:50 p.m.
As I always do in these matters, I turned to a very excellent publication by the distinguished father of our current Clerk, Mr. Alex C. Lewis, who in 1940 authored Parliamentary Procedure in Ontario. I wanted to touch very briefly upon the guidance provided in that very useful publication, one which I would strongly urge honourable members to acquaint themselves with because as I was reading some of its passages this afternoon I was reminded how we had strayed from its very good direction. I was thinking particularly of the injunction that members ought not to read speeches. I knew I had read that somewhere. I was just noting it again this afternoon.
I want to quote from page 83, under the subheading Debates on the Address and the Budget, and I quote from Mr. Lewis's volume: "While the foregoing rules apply generally to debate" -- the foregoing was a brief discussion of relevancy -- "two principal debates of the session are exempt from the rule regarding relevancy. On the debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, and also on the debate on the motion that the House resolve itself into committee of supply, members are allowed to range far afield and discuss a great variety of subjects. These are the two dress parade debates of the session where every member is given an opportunity to air his views." I rather like that expression, the two dress parade debates. Would that our current parliamentary commentators use such good language.
The Deputy Speaker: Not wanting to debate from the chair, it made reference to committee of supply.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to cite that reference which is for me at least some guidance on how one might approach the matter of the supply debate. I was then struck by a reference in Professor Mallory's The Structure of Canadian Government, wherein that very distinguished observer of the Canadian parliamentary scene writes on page 251 of that volume, "The business of the committee of supply was to give an opportunity for every member of the House to act on that ancient maxim of parliamentary law, grievance before supply."
He goes on to discuss how it is that the supply debate is an opportunity to do just that, to invite all honourable members to express themselves individually on the issues that concern them, both as it relates to the general administration of the government or upon those aspects of public policy as it relates to affairs within their constituencies.
The very distinguished W. F. Dawson, in his Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, also goes on, on pages 215 and following, indicating the same rule that Professor Mallory indicates is to be followed, that all honourable members have an opportunity to speak at length on issues that concern them.
I was listening, as I always do, with care to the member for Muskoka, the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), in his earlier comments, which I appreciated. I listened to his 38 minutes of civics. I felt a bit of pique where he made an interesting reflection upon the very difficult responsibility which it is his to discharge. There was a very thinly disguised message in his early remarks to the opposition along the lines of, "You people better understand that we will not be happy if we have to cease making payments to those on the civil list as of July 1, 1982."
His rather freewheeling discussion of this government's intraparliamentary intelligence network is always interesting. I know how many and how well paid are the genteel agents whose sole purpose in this place is to gather information and to report it back.
I find always most startling in its sweep the Progressive Conservative candidates' handbook during election campaigns. It is at that time that I recall who sits where looking down on this place and dutifully taking notes that are filed away for very selective use some years later. I am thinking about the Treasurer's comments in respect of, "Be very careful, members of the opposition. A discharge of your traditional parliamentary responsibilities in the supply debate could cost you dearly in a political sense."
Lest the members wonder to what point I am proceeding, that reminds of a quote in the excellent, The Public Purse: A Study of Canadian Democracy, by Professor Norman Ward of the University of Saskatchewan. He recounts a story of a Conservative Prime Minister of the day, Robert Borden, who said in this matter of debates on interim supply when he was Prime Minister, in dealing with another Nova Scotian who was putting a question to him, "I should like to say that I myself tried once in opposition, under what I thought were somewhat serious circumstances, the policy of refusing any vote on account" -- that is, on account of interim supply -- and before 10 days were over" -- said the poor Prime Minister -- "I got very tired of my position because I heard I think from every province and from nearly every community in Canada on that subject."
Certainly it has been the experience of everyone, from the distinguished Prime Minister Robert Borden to those of us in this local assembly, who but a year ago engaged in our responsibility, that governments are quite capable, and now much more able, to get the message out about so-called obstruction of supply. I just wanted to cite, and certainly Professor Ward is very clear on the subject, that the responsibility is there for members of the Legislative Assembly and members of Parliament to --
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not think the member is deliberately changing my words, but I think I gave both sides of the risk. I pointed out that in discharging what I quite properly see as the opposition's responsibility to criticize and to extrapolate or extend the debate, they were running one risk. That risk was that people would think they were delaying the business of the House. I also pointed out that my government was running a risk that people would agree with the opposition, that is the risk we take in that situation. It was not a one-sided alternative.
Mr. Conway: The appreciation that many private members have that the discharge of these responsibilities is a regrettable nuisance for the members of the executive council and, quite frankly, something of a nuisance for members of the esteemed fourth estate, is something that is a burden from time to time that those of us interested in that responsibility must shoulder.
9 p.m.
I want to say -- and again, I do not do so as much for the edification of the minister as for the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who I know is a particularly anxious arbiter in this matter -- that I referred to those four authorities to indicate that in my view the role of the members of the House in so far as interim supply is concerned is an important one and one, quite frankly, that I think should be taken more seriously than it has been in the past. I will not cite the recent decisions of the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) as Speakers who would clearly indicate that the supply motion is, to quote Mr. Lewis senior, a dress parade debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Actually, I did not know we had trouble interpreting the range last time.
Mr. Conway: My recollection from the late evenings of June 1981 is that there was from time to time a difficulty with the relevancy rule so I came tonight with those references because I thought they might be helpful.
I want to say a few additional things about the Treasurer's introductory remarks which, as I indicated earlier, were interesting and instructive in some respects. I have a problem I would like to share with the Treasurer. It relates to a personal experience I had with the budget-making of an earlier year.
I have great difficulty in believing that the civics homily delivered by the Treasurer is the whole story. The experience I had with the 1978 Ontario budget made me somewhat more cynical than I ever imagined I would want to or could ever become in this august place.
As the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) leans back in his blue covered chair with a rather quizzical look, I would only suggest to him that he, among other things, refer to a film which I keep referring to in this connection. That is the famous film of the government of the Premier, The Art of the Possible, which was screened about three and a half years ago. In that film, we get a splendid insight into the 1978 Ontario budget-making process. I must say to the esteemed member for Oxford that it is at some variance with what we have just been told by the Treasurer.
One can never forget the Premier of the day leaning back in his chair, saying to his deputy minister, Dr. E. E. Stewart, "What is the line we use about the justification of OHIP?" It was an exchange at any rate between the Premier and Mr. Stewart on the Ontario health insurance plan, and a lovely exchange on the tax exemption for storm windows and storm doors: but that was four years ago; I rather note, with interest, a change of heart in this budget over that.
I would not want to take up the time of the House to reflect more seriously upon the misinformation we were given by the government in so far as the justification for the OHIP move is concerned. There was in my view a serious breach of the parliamentary way in that discussion, where it was clearly the case that the government was less than forthcoming with all the information that had been available to it in so far as that budget was concerned.
The member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) is quick to point out in an exchange with my friend and colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) that, "Well, we are over here and you are over there; and really, this whole business is about power, its maintenance and its exercise."
We do have a difficulty, quite frankly, in fully understanding the corridors of power and their exercise in this province where for 40 years we have had this Conservative dynasty, but we do from time to time have an opportunity to look at some of those processes, and I can simply say that the 1978 budget experience was for me one of a rather remarkably different kind from the process outlined by the Treasurer in his introductory remarks tonight.
One also gets the impression that the Treasurer, and I draw this conclusion on the basis of his sonorous, serious and almost reverential tone --
Mr. Roy: Angelic.
Mr. Conway: Angelic may be too strong, but certainly sonorous and reverential tone here this evening. The Treasurer, I gather, is not having a particularly good time in these days of the post-budget period. I do not know whether he knows what the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) has been saying about aspects of the budget, and I do not know whether he knows what the member for London South (Mr. Walker) is saying about the budget, to which I will return.
Last night we were treated to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), who could not have put more distance between himself and the budgetary measures of the Treasurer. Quite frankly, one got the feeling that the ancient British parliamentary notion of a collective responsibility in the exercise of a collective cabinet was something he was not going to easily lend his name to. He repeatedly put the long arm that he is famous for between his ministry and some rather controversial things that had been attempted and, in fact, were being effected by his colleague, and one presumes his friend, the Treasurer. It is clear the Treasurer is receiving not only the pressure of the opposition. One gets the very distinct view that there are many in the Conservative caucus who are bringing to bear their considerable talents upon him to reconsider some of the initiatives he has undertaken.
We were treated as well tonight by the Treasurer to a discussion about the responsibilities of government. It is true that they are different from the responsibilities of the opposition. It is. of course, known to all honourable members that the executive council will propose and the opposition and the Legislature must dispose. It is certainly going to be our continued view that our responsibility in the opposition is a serious and positive one. I, certainly, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, will tonight, as I feel I am being X-rayed by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, place before the House our ongoing concern about the broadening of the base for the application of the retail sales tax.
The members of the executive council and the members of the government party would do well to appreciate fully the seriousness of our resolve in that specific connection. My colleagues and I note with some satisfaction that on a couple of minor measures the Treasurer and his rather acerbic junior minister friend the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) have yielded, and we commend the Treasurer and the acerbic junior Minister of Revenue for their thoughtfulness in that respect.
I want to reiterate on behalf of my colleagues the view put by my leader and by our finance critic, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). We are not at all happy about the sales tax provisions in this particular budget, and we will undertake such actions as we deem necessary and responsible to continue to draw to the attention of the Treasurer and the government, as well as to the attention of the public at large, the serious and negative effect this sales tax policy is currently having and is going to continue to have upon the economy of this province.
9:10 p.m.
I would simply ask the Treasurer, as the lead minister in this respect, not to in any way consider as frivolous or as quixotic our actions in that respect. I cannot believe that my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and of course the new member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) when they ply the waters of Georgian Bay and Rice Lake on the weekends, are not too visited with the serious and negative effects of the sales tax measures undertaken by the Treasurer.
I would strongly encourage the solid spokesmen and women for the Conservative heartland, members of the government caucus, to impress upon members, the cabinet and in particular the Treasurer the need to accommodate the legitimate concern of the opposition vis-à-vis the reference of this matter to a committee of the Legislative Assembly for such purposes as entertaining delegations whereby we can all learn of the actual effects of that particular measure. None of us in this opposition wish to be considered difficult or obstructionist. We feel there is a responsibility, however, to fully ventilate the mounting frustration we have identified. We are not unmindful of the remarks the Treasurer of Ontario has directed to the federal sphere of political activity and repeated here tonight about the need for reform in their budget-making process.
Might I say that however true that may be -- and I think there is now a wide consensus that in fact a change will have to take place -- there is in our view an equal obligation on this government and assembly to undertake reform of our own budget-making provisions. The fact that we often have budgets that are altered very quickly after they are introduced recommends itself as a good cause for this reform to all honourable members.
I cannot imagine that any reasonable member of the Conservative Party in this assembly would seriously, and privately at least, object to that kind of a measure. I reiterate the serious and steadfast concern of the Liberal opposition on that principal measure, the sales tax item in the May 13 budget. I would restate the position of my leader and of my colleague the Treasury critic, the member for Rainy River, that unless and until there is a commitment by the government, specifically the Treasurer, to refer that sales tax measure to a committee of the assembly, we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to expedite the business of this House for the expected recess time.
I want to say that as one member who is, I might add in response to the Treasurer's statements about the housing industry, in the process of building a modest cabin in the central highlands of Renfrew county, I feel an obligation to get back home to my constituency to, among other things, superintend my modest contribution to the sort of consumption I thought the Treasurer was encouraging all honourable members to participate in. I want to conclude that part of my remarks by saying, as directly and as unequivocally as Jean, on that we will not waver.
We feel the sales tax policy of this government is wrong, is having a very negative effect upon the economy we all seek to rehabilitate, and we feel very much that it is going to be our responsibility to discuss those matters fully in a committee of this House.
As the members may know, we have had some opportunity in the past four and a half or five weeks to discuss the budget. The Treasurer, in his opening statement tonight, invited us to join with him in a survey of the economic landscape he finds himself in some position to guide.
I was many miles away that night in mid May when the Treasurer introduced this document to the assembly and, through it, to the people of Ontario, so this provides me with my first and best opportunity thus far to comment personally and generally on the economic statement the Treasurer introduced at that time.
Because the appropriation bill that will ultimately come forward from this debate will cover a range of salaries, before I do that I want to pick up on something my friend the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) introduced by way of interjection and, as I recall, the Treasurer said that it perhaps spoke to something of the nub of the issue.
I wanted to start my remarks tonight in another area by reflecting briefly -- at the risk of being sexist, I was just raising my head to see the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) waving a white purse in his right hand. It was a little distracting. I know the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) will claim it quickly. I apologize, but I was simply put off my stride.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: I'm glad something puts you off your stride.
Mr. Roy: Is the member playing around with red folders these days?
Mr. Wrye: The member for Ottawa South is here so his bill cannot be up tonight.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. The minister has arrived; we know. The member for Renfrew North may carry on.
Mr. Conway: It is my experience with the colourful member for Ottawa South that he forgets very little.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Blue colour, blue.
Mr. Nixon: Sometimes black and blue.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: It's okay, Robert, I looked at your expenses today too.
Mr. Nixon: What are you suggesting? They are at least considerably more modest than yours. At least we did not supply a mansion at public expense.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member who has just arrived, we know you have arrived. The member for Renfrew North would like to carry on.
Mr. Ruston: He just wanted to let everybody else know he's here.
Mr. Riddell: Why don't you go home and enjoy your new house?
Hon. Mr. Bennett: I enjoy every house.
Mr. Roy: And so did the taxpayers of Ontario.
Mr. Cooke: How many do you have up for sale, Claude?
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member has the floor and I would ask members to pay attention. He does have the floor. I would ask other members at least to give him the respect he deserves.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Conway: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that doughty defence of my right to maintain the floor.
I did want to say something about the size of government and the role of government, as the Treasurer indicated, to show some leadership. I know it rankles a little for members of the government to have this subject raised and I want to do so in full regard to the tenderness of feelings that might obtain in that respect. It has to do with the panoply of office holders we see across the way.
I am always kept up to date on this by my friend the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), who from time to time places before me and others a list of who is who in the government. There is more to this than the private envy some of us might have, in so far as what might have been, had the results of the election been otherwise. None of us can objectively imagine that it would have or could have been otherwise. I think we all fancy the day when we might be called to that great leather table on the second floor of the east wing in this building.
I simply want to say to the Treasurer that when I see in an assembly of 125 members we have a cabinet that now takes up approximately 20 per cent of that membership -- I think the last time I counted there were something like 26 ministers with portfolio and without portfolio and, of course, the so-called superministers, the provincial secretaries, and a full list of parliamentary assistants -- I have to ask myself, how genuine is this government's commitment to a lean administration?
They are quick to point out what they have done to the public service and how they have cut back in the public service. I have done no study of this, but it is my rough impression that there has been an inverse relationship between the reduction in the spaces in the Ontario public service to the spaces of privilege provided to elected members of the Conservative caucus in this place.
If I felt there was a genuine commitment by those special people to discharge --
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Here comes the big spender.
Mr. Conway: I always try to entertain the good advice of the member from Mount Forest. Perhaps if he would repeat that --
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I said, here comes the big spender.
Mr. Boudria: Oh, that's me.
Mr. Conway: I do not think we really want to engage in a debate about the spending. I looked at the sessional paper very cursorily late this afternoon. There is an old maxim in my part of the world which is useful in this connection. It is one well known to the very thoughtful member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." I simply leave that discussion there. I do not wish to suggest that is a personal comment about the accounts of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, but I did note with some real interest some accounts on some other side.
I want to say in the presence of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), who I know struggles very valiantly to rein in the expansionist propensities of his cabinet and caucus colleagues, that it does not recommend itself too highly to us to see a government that has grown this fat in the parliamentary way --
Mr. Nixon: And in some other ways.
Mr. Treleaven: What was that about casting stones?
Mr. Conway: -- a parliamentary government that has grown this fat. It is a real --
Mr. Nixon: I wanted to help you out a little bit.
Mr. Roy: That's our job here.
Mr. Conway: It is a real revelation to members of the community who are not in daily contact with this place to know that provincially in Ontario we have a Minister of Revenue. They just assumed that was part of the Treasurer's discharge and it remains so. When I tell them that we pay the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) approximately $50,000 to be Minister of Revenue they are somewhat surprised. But when I tell them the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) is paid something in the neighbourhood of $8,000 or $9,000 to act as his parliamentary assistant, they are verily apoplectic.
I know the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) as --
Hon. Mr. McCague: Do you tell them what they pay you?
Mr. Conway: Indeed, I do. I tell them happily and repeatedly. In fact, in response to the sunshine bill, I tell these people who have an interest in how and what we are paid that they should never accept anything less than the kind of treatment we get in the publication of our various salaries, since the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet raises the subject.
Would that they could be so lucky to have their various accounts buried in so many different corners so it is not easy to add it all up. For the edification of the Chairman of Management Board, I regularly tell the good electors of Renfrew North that they are quite wrong in thinking that when I am paid $10,000 tax-free dollars for my expense allowance that does not cover what they think it covers. There is another panoply of accounts into which various receipts may from time to time be deposited, as the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) could more directly indicate.
I am in no way ashamed to indicate that they pay me probably something in the range of $43,000 to $48,000, and that is probably what somebody discharging that function ought to be paid, give or take a little bit. I am not being facetious when I say that.
When we have a supply bill before us that asks for this kind of multibillion-dollar appropriation, the sort of questions I have to ask myself in respect to the administration are basic and I hope understandable. For example, what does the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), the Minister without Portfolio, do?
Mr. Nixon: Even tonight, what is he doing?
Mr. Roy: He is standing by his limousine --
Mr. Conway: I always read the provincial press with great interest, the Alliston Trombone, the London Free Press, the Ingersoll whatever. I was reading the London Free Press about two months ago and was struck by a very large and interesting article on the new Minister without Portfolio. I have always had a certain admiration for the pluck and persistence of the member for Middlesex. He has had his crosses to bear with respect to promotion. He is very candid about these in the article by John McHugh, in the London Free Press of Saturday, March 6, 1982.
I am reminded that he is obviously very proud of his new responsibility because there he is down Dorchester way with the lovely farm home in the background, a very nice limousine and a driver. I am not going to quote what he says about his additional emoluments, and I certainly will not quote what the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) had to say about it all.
Mr. Nixon: Oh come on.
Mr. Roy: Come on, Let's hear it.
Mr. Nixon: Let's hear it. We demand to hear it.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Conway: In fairness, I said I wanted to deal with this sensitive, tender question in a reasonably impartial sort of way. I do not want to engage in the kind of partisan rhetoric that upsets the equilibrium of the member for Ottawa South and others in the executive council. But I think the member for Ottawa South, who was a rising star on Ottawa city council some years ago, in my youth, will understand my interest in and concern about the taxpayer's question, "What special benefit accrues to me as a result of this particular politician's new situation?" I know well the tradition of Ministers without Portfolio. I can recall the duties of the upwardly mobile member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) prior to his elevation to the film industry some weeks ago. But I have searched in vain for a public policy mandate that explains this particular Minister without Portfolio. God knows, I know about the chief government whip: I do not in any way quarrel with his entitlement to the without-portfolio responsibility, though I sometimes chide him about his rather expensive grey limousine.
I hear from my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex, in the absence of the Premier's setting out a framework for the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Middlesex. It is only from members that I glean the intelligence to guide us in these matters.
I hate to say this in the presence of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), but I have come to a rather unfortunate conclusion. I pray I may be wrong but, on the basis of the information I have, the conclusion I have drawn is that the member for Middlesex basically has the title, the car and the driver to tear around that Grit stronghold of southwestern Ontario, acting as a political agent for the executive council and not much more than that.
Mr. Roy: That is entirely too harsh. That's not fair.
Mr. Conway: I hear the chorus of unhappiness. I am not saying the member for Middlesex is not a great member. I just say that the member for York West (Mr. Leluk), somewhat akin to the member for Middlesex, waited a long and difficult while at the door of opportunity --
Mr. Roy: And patiently at times.
Mr. Conway: Patiently and ultimately successfully.
I ask my friends in the government, in consideration of these appropriations, what is the function of the Minister without Portfolio? They can tell me if I am wrong, but what am I to make of the fact that the member for Huron-Middlesex is told by no less a luminary than the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), the putative Premier, that no meeting will take place in Huron county in connection with a discussion of health-related issues without its being organized by the member for Middlesex, the Minister without Portfolio? I ask the Chairman of Management Board what that sounds like but the oldest practice of base politics that we all know and appreciate.
When the Treasurer invites us to consider seriously and to carry back to the great reaches of eastern Ontario the leanness of this government vis-à-vis its public service, one of the great questions I have in my mind is this list of ministers, and especially the two categories of provincial secretary and parliamentary assistant.
It grieves me as a believer in the British parliamentary process and as one knowing something of the traditions of Westminster and, more colonially, of Ottawa, that during the post-budget period the Treasurer is unavoidably detained with other outside obligations as, presumably, we must from time to time expect of so important and busy a man.
Mr. Watson: Where were you for lunch?
Mr. Conway: I have said publicly in this House, and I will repeat for the edification of the member for Chatham-Kent, that indeed I was absent for a period of time in the spring session. It is a concept of travel that I do not expect some members to appreciate; it is called "pay your own way." I note that one of the columnists in the Ottawa Citizen today observed my absence, and that is obviously something I will have to explain to my electorate.
I simply want to say this about the matter I was drawing the members' attention to: The government would have us believe, as I know the Provincial Secretary for Social Development would want me to believe, that these are important people with important responsibilities.
I am prepared to believe that when I look at the distinguished member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones). The member for Mississauga North has been here for the full seven years that I have been around. He has certainly played a significant role in the deliberations of the government. I well remember early press accounts that this was the rising star in the West Toronto-Mississauga crowd. And the member for York West --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: What is he talking about? We are on interim supply.
Mr. Conway: I invite the Minister of Education to draw her attention to my earlier remarks where I cited rather directly and, I hope, effectively the framework of the authorities on the ambit of opportunity with respect to the debate on interim supply.
The Deputy Speaker: While you are there, by the way, and just to point out a particular point --
Mr. Roy: Have you got a point of order?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
As the Clerk so kindly brought to my attention, when you referred back to 1942 and interim supply, or supply, that was the old budget motion; it was not interim supply as we now know it in this motion.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate that advice. It was in anticipation of that sort of direction that I tried to broaden the authorities on whom I have depended. I will simply cite again for your consideration Professors Mallory, Dawson or others.
The Deputy Speaker: No, that is not necessary.
Mr. Conway: My point for the Minister of Education is that much of this government's thrust as far as budgetary policy is concerned has been, "Listen, we deserve the credit, the approval and the votes of the people of Ontario, because we have been tough on the public service and we are as lean and fit a government as you are going to find in Canada."
That is not a surprising claim from a government, but I want to review its expansion in some areas. I want to focus attention on the parliamentary --
Hon. Mr. McCague: It is true, though, is it not?
Mr. Conway: I am certainly prepared to engage the Chairman of Management Board in a debate in that respect. But I simply want to ask why we have to have this panoply of parliamentary people. I fully understand why the Treasurer would want to have a parliamentary assistant; I think that is very understandable. But here is the rub: Why should I vote money for that office? Why should I in this place have any respect for it when, in so critical a time as the post-budget period, the opposition in the absence of the Treasurer cannot expect permission to be granted the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer to rise in his place and speak for the government and his minister on matters that relate to his direct departmental responsibilities?
If my friends in the government want to have credibility for this rather expansive parliamentary apparatus they have built and we all pay handsomely for, then they must undertake reforms so that we do not have to see the pathetic, shameful situation where it is only by prime ministerial nod that the poor member for Mississauga North can let loose that built-up frustration and expectation by rising in his place and giving an answer on matters he has some direct responsibility for.
9:40 p.m.
This is a government that has grown, in terms of ministers, just too large.
Mr. Roy: We are not talking about individual ministers being too large. We are just talking about the government.
Mr. Conway: I would not want any wrong impression to be left in that respect.
It is my view that this Treasurer would have a lot more credibility, as would the leader of the government, if there were some indication that a greater leanness of administration were effected. It is very difficult to look at this list of 70 members of the government party and to find 62 holding down some special position. That does not stand in very good stead when it comes to a consideration of this government's claim that it is very lean in its administration.
I want to touch upon some other aspects of the Treasurer's budget, and in so doing I want to begin by making reference to two Order Paper questions my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) drew to my attention. I want to read them into the record, because they remind us of this government's position and its breathtaking reformist view of the budgetary process. These were Order Paper questions standing in the name of the member for Rainy River.
Question 188: "Would the Treasurer please indicate how his ministry arrived at the figure of $110 million mentioned in his 1982 budget speech as the projected revenue for this year expected as a result of the application of the retail sales tax to all prepared food and meals at the single rate of seven per cent? Would the Treasurer please table any background studies, tables, calculations and memoranda which would clarify how this estimate was made?"
This was answered by the Deputy Treasurer, Mr. Tom Campbell. "The 1982 estimate for the tax revenue from prepared food and meals was based on Statistics Canada expenditure and sales data (Cat. No. 63-536, and 63-204 and system of National Accounts, unpublished data) and on prior year tax revenues." Listen to the concluding paragraph of this answer: "In the interest of budget security, I feel it would be inappropriate to table background studies, tables, calculations and memoranda that related to the formation of budget policy."
Question 189: "Would the Treasurer please indicate how his ministry arrived at the figure of $230 million mentioned in his 1982 budget speech as the projected revenue for this year expected as a result of the elimination of certain exemptions from the retail sales tax? Would the Treasurer please table any background studies, tables, calculations and memoranda which would clarify how this estimate was made?"
The end of the answer to that particular question again read, "In the interest of budget security, I feel it would be inappropriate to table background studies, tables, calculations and memoranda that related to the formation of budget policy."
It is very difficult to listen to a lecture about the procedures in Ottawa -- I say to the departing Chairman of Management Board that his smiling countenance and sweet reasonableness will be missed from the evening sitting, but I do realize he has other pressing obligations.
Hon. Mr. McCague: I will be back.
Mr. Conway: Those who were here during the 8-to-8:45 period heard the Treasurer. The budget speech invites us all to march to Ottawa and force upon that regime a change of budgetary procedures. We see how genuinely reformist the Ontario government is in respect of its own procedures, a cursory back of the hand: "It is none of your business. It is all secret and if you do not like it, well, there are a variety of things you presumably can do."
I would say by way of digression that the current Deputy Treasurer, Mr. Campbell, continues to play an important part in the economic and political policy making of this jurisdiction. I will always remember his intervention in committees this past winter session, where I heard more political speech-like material from a senior deputy minister of this government than I would ever expect to hear from the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) and a minister of the cabinet itself.
I will not bore the members with a recitation of my views on the politicization --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: If you are going to examine that, look at Ottawa first.
Mr. Conway: The Minister of Education, I must say, gets a gold star for her restraint in this debate and in recent days.
Mr. Nixon: There is steam coming out of her ears.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You just wait.
Mr. Conway: I get the feeling that the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory) has really been cracking it over there. To see the Minister of Education as a model of restraint this past 72 hours is no small credit to her capacity.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Obviously you were not here this afternoon.
Mr. Conway: I want to note as well, since it is relevant at this time, that one of the observations I have about the Treasurer particularly and about the administration generally in recent months has to do with the remarkably increased politicization of the administration of the affairs of state.
The Treasurer was to have been in my home town of Pembroke yesterday for the grand signing of a trilevel agreement between the government of Canada, the government of Ontario and the corporation of the city of Pembroke. For reasons I will not comment on, the ceremony was not held.
But when I hear from my friends involved at other levels in that matter, when I hear that word went out from Queen's Park that these 12 people were to be at this ceremony but there was no invitation from Ontario to the provincial member --
Mr. Nixon: Claude Bennett is looking after all that.
Mr. Conway: I want to say this about the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett): As long as he remained the political minister for my area, he was an exemplar of courtesy and goodwill in these matters and showed himself to be a very decent gentleman. I know that might raise a question in the mind of some but --
Hon. Mr. Bennett: You have always had an invitation to everything we have put on down in your area. You took the shovel as we were putting them in your part.
Mr. Roy: When I want to make a speech, the minister never lets me make a speech.
Hon. Mr. Bennett: Albert, you always had an invitation to the senior citizens in your area.
Mr. Roy: Don't worry, Claude; we are saving a room for you now.
Mr. Conway: In this respect, I will stand in my place and agree unequivocally with the member for Ottawa South in what he said about his behaviour in my respect at least. I commend him for that. But it is somewhat surprising to see a senior member of the administration come into my community and apparently give orders that 12 of the most prominent Conservatives were to be invited to this grand, multimillion-dollar signing.
In fact, I hear that the defeated Conservative candidate of the last contest, no less a person than the defeated Tory candidate in my riding in 1981, is to be a signing officer at this public event.
Mr. Nixon: On behalf of the government.
Mr. Conway: Presumably on behalf of the Ontario government. I ask my friend the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, how does that suit her sensibilities?
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: At least you could have sent Paul Yakabuski up there.
Mr. Conway: I would be very happy to have the duly elected member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) there on behalf of the people of Ontario, because he enjoys the support of the people in his constituency.
What is one to make of that kind of administration, Mr. Speaker? The stories that I hear out of such places as Brantford, where the very assiduous and watchful parliamentary assistant to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development is, I gather, fast becoming an expert --
Mr. Roy: Has she got a parliamentary assistant too?
Mr. Conway: Yes; indeed she does.
There is a widespread consensus among the opposition that this government is certainly becoming very political in the way it does ordinary business, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to simply indicate one member's objections to that.
I will return to the budget statement of May 13, which the Treasurer invited us to reflect upon. If there is a frustration that we have in the opposition about these matters, it certainly has to do with the promise, the fulfilment of which we as Ontarians were invited to get excited about 15 months ago, and the promise of earlier years.
I have noted that in his remarks on the budget the Treasurer did not draw our attention to the fact that this year's budget was delivered at about the time that we were to be celebrating, after five years, the long-felt desire and ambition of Darcy McKeough, John White, the Treasurer and the Premier, namely, to balance the books.
My friend and colleague and mentor from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will remember far better than I the loud protestation of many Treasurers of the I 970s that the day was fast coming and the date most likely and most often cited for the achievement of the balanced-budget goal was 1981 or 1982.
I understand the hard times, and I note only that in terms of net cash requirements in fiscal 1982-83 we are farther than we have ever been from the realization of that promise. I ask myself, what is there about that to get happy about?
The Treasurer says in his introductory statement, "I am a natural optimist." Well, if he has become optimistic about net cash requirements of $2.2 billion, he is indeed a changed man. I want to share with honourable members the view that we have in this respect, and that is that this government has not in this budget year lived up to that trumpeted and much-trumpeted commitment of the mid to late 1970s, which was that in 1981 or 1982 we would balance the budget.
The Treasurer says it is the role of the opposition to be negative about these things; the government has to be concerned about the creation of positive initiatives and it must oversee these in a constructive way. In this budget, and more so in the budget papers, the Ontario government of this Premier and this Treasurer in 1982 continues to be identified in the minds of many of us as one of the leading negative and oppositionist mentalities anywhere in the country. They are less and less concerned about the dialectic between government and opposition in this place and apparently very anxious to continue their crusade as the opposition to Ottawa.
I noted with some interest the budget paper that dealt with the record and challenge of fiscal federalism. I do not know who wrote that particular paper, but it represents some of the most selective writing of the history of intergovernmental relations in this century and this country that I have ever seen.
To quote from the first page of that particular paper, I note that the Treasurer says, "Ontario has a long and honourable record of supporting the powers required by the government of Canada to govern our country and to manage its economy." Well, the government of Ontario published not very long ago a very fine study of relations between Queen's Park and Ottawa in the recent period. Certainly that study, paid for by the government of Ontario, would take very sharp and clear issue with that particular statement.
I have to wonder where the promise of those earlier budgets with respect to a balanced account by the early 1980s rests today. Believe it or not there are some fiscal conservatives, some rightwingers, I hear, in Ottawa, in Pembroke and in places in between who are still waiting for the day when that oft-repeated commitment of this provincial government will be lived up to. There is certainly no sign of it whatsoever.
When I was reflecting on the promise of this particular budget I was thinking as well what had happened to so many of the others. I did not see, for example, any commitment in this particular budget to give effect to the famous promise that the lumber economy in my part of the world is waiting for with bated breath: namely, the two trees for every one. In my part of eastern Ontario, and I know in the great county of Lanark, many people derive their livelihood from the forest sector, and the critical issue in that particular debate is that nothing is more important than the long-term and intermediate-term supply of forest sawlogs and other materials.
Many, including my lumbering relatives, were excited about the promise of 1977 that this key sector of the Ontario economy would be revitalized by the Brampton charter's famous commitment of two trees for every one. We have waited five years, and certainly there is nothing at all in this budget of May 1982 to indicate that the Premier five years later is any more interested in or any more able to give effect to the very important commitment to that vital sector.
I was interested in listening to the Treasurer tonight to hear him talk about the initiatives of his budget and the kinds of choices he made. I will give the Treasurer some credit, because one of the questions I had for him was that in his budget he offers on page 10 a rather quaint one-paragraph deduction of how he came to a very controversial decision to opt for broadening the retail sales tax base as his most likely and most available alternative. He simply says on page 10:
"A one-point increase in the retail sales tax rate would provide adequate replacement for lost federal transfers. Mr. Speaker, I have carefully considered this option and rejected it. Therefore, I have sought another option which keeps Ontario's sales tax rate at seven per cent."
In breathtaking speed we are led by the Treasurer to what he would have us believe was the only course for him to have taken and that was, of course, the one that he took.
10 p.m.
Those of us who are concerned about the retail sales tax base wonder -- and we have not yet heard from the Treasurer of Ontario; at least, I have not, to my mind, had an adequate explanation -- how it is that the fiscal condition of Ontario in 1982 has changed so dramatically as to throw out completely the commitment made by the Honourable Darcy McKeough, who, in 1977, said it was a matter of social policy that this Conservative government in Ontario would not stoop, then or ever, to a retail sales type of tax on the essential meal.
I thought the columnist in this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail did some excellent work in drawing our attention -- as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk does regularly -- to the way the sales tax was initiated in this province, some 21 years ago, by the former Treasurer, the Honourable James Allan.
Mr. Nixon: They called it the "Frostbite."
Mr. Conway: The "Frostbite," yes.
Mr. Nixon: Three per cent -- unbelievable.
Mr. Conway: But it is important, in reflecting upon what this Treasurer has done in 1982, to consider it in the context of his predecessors. I have cited --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: I must confess that members seem to be getting a little unruly. At least, they are talking awfully loudly.
Mr. Nixon: They are not paying enough attention.
The Deputy Speaker: So let us tone it down a little bit.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew North.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Education is anxious to participate in this debate because she is reputed to be one of the real powers in the executive council.
One of the issues that must be addressed by this government and by this Treasurer has to be: What has changed so dramatically to render void Darcy McKeough's commitment of five years ago that this was a great province with great promise, and certainly there would not be, in his day, a tax on the essential meal that is now being taxed, because, as Mr. McKeough said on that occasion, "There is social justice in Ontario"? He felt, and in our view properly so, that there would be an exemption provided in that respect for ever and a day.
I want to go back not just to Mr. McKeough but to Mr. Allan who, in 1961, introduced the famous three per cent provincial sales tax -- the "Frostbite" as it was called. Quoting from Mr. Allan at that time:
"The sales tax is a tax on income when it is spent. It does not deter willingness to work and save, which in a young country such as Canada is of great importance. The fact that exemptions under the Ontario plan are very broad relieves the tax of regressive features. Certainly the tax is widely employed, being used by eight of the provinces and most of the states of the American union."
As Mr. French ably pointed out in his column of this morning, Treasurer Allan went on to say: "By exempting food, fuel, rent, children's clothing, books, school supplies and medical expenses, we have avoided taxing most of the items that represent the greatest expense to families with small budgets."
From those references to Mr. Allan, who introduced the tax 21 years ago, and when one reflects upon the statements of the Treasurer of the day but five years ago, one gets a fairly good idea of the social context in which the sales tax was to have applied.
I must say to the Treasurer that I have yet to hear from him how the Treasury of Ontario is today so changed, as are conditions for the working poor, the elderly, those low-income people who are now going to be subjected to a tax on something that was long exempt for the good and honourable reasons that have been identified. I find it paradoxical and distasteful that those of us who are on expense accounts can now go to the finer eating establishments in this community and have a deluxe dinner and, in effect, benefit by a three per cent reduction, while old people on fixed incomes now find that a cafeteria meal that remained exempt for 21 years is going to be hit in a way that really reinforces the truly regressive qualities of this particular measure.
Certainly, the impact it is going to have on all sectors of the Ontario economy has been drawn to the attention of the members in the past few days. In my own constituency I had a very hard-working, very successful automotive dealer tell me that, as a result of this one measure, two additional employees he was prepared to hire are now not going to be hired for awhile, if ever, because he has experienced such a strong local and negative reaction to the application of the seven per cent sales tax to repairs done to automobiles.
In that one specific instance in my constituency a very respectable, responsible, hardworking, small businessman has taken time out to phone and to write me and say that, as a result of that particular measure, two people in my county will not be hired for positions that prior to May 13 were considered, but are now not going to be put into place because of the uncertainty and strong negative reaction that the Treasurer has created by virtue of this particular initiative.
As well, I might add that a number of automotive dealers in my part of the world, garage operators, have indicated that seven per cent on the bill is going to mean a change in the pattern of repairs. People who cannot afford much more by way of tax are going to make their own arrangements and, as a result of the application of seven per cent on automotive repairs, we are going to see less safe vehicles on the road, because there are going to be more home repairs done by less qualified people.
An hon. member: Ya, ya.
Mr. Conway: That appears to have excited the not inconsiderable enthusiasm of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot). It may be that he wishes to correct the record. All I do as the member for Renfrew North is come here and report what hard-working, small businessmen in that sector have indicated to me is a likely response to that particular tax initiative. It may be that in his part of the province conditions are very different. I do not intend to speak to anything more than the representations that have come to me in this respect.
Mr. Havrot: A lot of rhetoric, and no fact.
Mr. Conway: I think it would be very unfortunate if, as a result of this particular tax policy, that kind of change took place and the safety of our highways was lessened somewhat.
I want, as well, to talk about one other aspect of government spending that has occupied the attention of members on earlier occasions. I know that this nettles members of the government. I know that it must be a particular hardship for the Treasurer because this government has sought to cloak itself in layers of self-credit for its leadership in economy. It has, over the period of my time as a member -- certainly thinking back to the famous Maxwell Henderson report -- really tried to rein in expenditures and to convey to all and sundry that we are going to have to do more with relatively less.
10:10 p.m.
In some respects, there were many in the community, particularly on school boards, on hospital boards and at municipal council levels, where the friends of this government are not inconsiderable, who were prepared to believe that and who, by the time of this latest recession, were prepared to say: "Yes, Queen's Park really does have a tightened situation. Revenues are down because of the continuing sluggish economic environment and expenditures continue to rise. We do feel sorry for the Treasurer, whose job must get tougher by the week."
All that capital of goodwill vanished one day about six or seven months ago when, standing in his place, no less a person than the leader of the government said, "We have this day, through the Ontario Ministry of Energy, through its wholly owned subsidiary the Ontario Energy Corp., taken a 25 per cent position representing a commitment of something in the neighbourhood of $625 million Canadian in Suncor."
I do not want to get into the energy aspect of that debate which is an issue for another time. I have to say to the Treasurer, who seeks to give himself and his government credit for tough decisions and consistency in these matters, that was a profligate digression that has cost him dearly. He tells people it is very difficult trying to make expenditures match revenues. Let me restate the now rather shop-worn phrase that Suncor does not speak to a very high priority for economy in this recession-ridden province and with this recession-burdened government.
There are not many people out there now who find that, as their puppies, their personal hygienic products and their school supplies are being taxed, and as a host of other daily necessities are being taxed for the raising of something in the neighbourhood of $340 million, this $625 million, 25 per cent position in Suncor is a wise expenditure.
I have to say to the Treasurer, buried deeply as he is in the late edition of the Toronto Star, his position both economically and morally on this matter is seriously undercut by the Suncor commitment. How and why should anyone in the province believe he has a serious commitment to holding the line on expenditures, particularly in the nonsocial policy envelope, if we get these kinds of announcements without any indication?
One of the specific questions I have for the Treasurer is what kind of personal involvement does he have with the Ontario Energy Corp. and its dynamic, colourful chairman? I would like to believe that as the puppies, the toothpaste, the candies and the school pencils are being taxed now in this province, you, Frank Miller, are keeping a watchful eye on the ambitious empire-building, rather independent --
The Acting Speaker: Please refer to the honourable members by their titles.
Mr. Conway: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear what you said.
The Acting Speaker: Refer to other members by their titles or by their ridings.
Mr. Conway: I appreciate that and I will --
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the Minister of Education should be made to pay attention to such important things.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Roy: I think it is disturbing to my colleague from Renfrew --
The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister is not disturbing anybody.
Mr. Roy: -- to see only the back of the Minister of Education.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is unusual to see you on a Tuesday in the Legislature.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Renfrew North may continue.
Mr. Conway: I appreciate what you have had to say, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a private, if not a public, commitment from this Treasurer, a man who, as the principal proponent of economic policy in the Ontario government, is the chief architect of this budgetary policy. He is still carrying both the public and private bruises of having lost internally in the very select company of two or three others who were privy to the decision to take the position with Suncor.
I would like to know that this Treasurer is undertaking a vigorous and vigilant watch of the activities of the Ontario Energy Corp. My experience with the chairman of that corporation is that, alone, he is capable of propelling this government into far greater and more exotic and more questionable expenditures than Suncor.
I would like to think the Treasurer, with the able assistance of the Chairman of Management Board, would try to do what apparently no other Tory minister, including the Premier himself, has been able to do in 11 years and that is put a rein and a rope of responsibility in these recessionary times on one Malcolm Rowan. I would feel very content if I could --
Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer agrees with that all right.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North has the floor.
Mr. Havrot: Just check the records here for the last year. They are the biggest spenders in the House.
Mr. Conway: I say to the member for Timiskaming that when it comes to comparing expenses I am a very parochial person and I look only at the comparative figures for north and south Renfrew.
Mr. Havrot: That is just about the scope of your mentality.
Mr. Conway: It was drawn to my attention that there are other areas where this government has a certain sensitivity and in his introductory remarks the Treasurer drew our attention to it, with that famous smile of his. He invited members of the opposition to join with him as he recited those sectors that he did not tax.
It is an interesting list. He will correct me, or he will complete the list at another time, but I will quickly recite two or three of the categories. He said he did not tax radio, television or newspapers.
Mr. Bradley: We all know why.
Mr. Conway: My friend from St. Catharines is dead on, as he usually is. We do know why.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, just dead.
Mr. Conway: Indeed, this government would be very loath to destabilize the radio, the television and the newspaper. That reminds me of another article which I read in the provincial press, a very fine newspaper in the home of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), the famous Sault Ste. Marie Star.
I want to read from Mr. Eric Dowd's column of May 22. 1982, under the headline, "Frank Miller's Big Myth: He Cuts Fat from Government." I do not intend to read it all, but I will read some of it. "The biggest myth in Ontario Treasurer Frank Miller's budget is that he cuts all the fat out of government."
I know the Treasurer has certain sceptical reactions to my earlier comments about my views of the fat remaining in the parliamentary part of this government, but certainly Mr. Dowd draws our attention to other aspects of expansion within the government of Ontario, and it also relates to the matters of radio, television and newspapers.
10:20 p.m.
Going on, "Mr. Miller boasted that the province has reduced its employees by six per cent from 87,109 to 81,826 since 1975, and one Ontario public servant now serves 106 residents compared to 94 seven years ago." Mr. Dowd goes on to talk about one little part of Ontario government operations that has not shown anything but a joyful expansion. Members might have guessed what it is. My friend the member for Ottawa East might guess that it was nothing other than the information officers of the executive council and the various departments of the Ontario government. I did not realize and I know --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: There has been a reduction in ours.
Mr. Conway: Indeed there might have been, but I was stunned to find out --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a permanent state with you.
Mr. Roy: There would be a reduction in a nonelection year only. In the election year there was an increase.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not in our ministry.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: Are members aware that there are 42 information officers in the Ministry of Northern Affairs? The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will know from a more direct and regular experience with Governor Bernier that his empire is imperial and, I hear, can be very political.
I have to ask the sometimes dour Chairman of Management Board how he can authorize the expenditure of public funds, which we are invited to approve here tonight in interim supply, part of which is going to go to the employment of 42 information officers, not in the entire government of Ontario, not in the entire Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, not in large ministries like Health or Education, but to 42 information officers under the control of Governor Bernier and the Ministry of Northern Affairs?
I ask the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board what kind of special leanness that speaks to.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: He spends his time in China, but he cannot go north.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I say to the member for Renfrew North, do not allow yourself to be distracted by these interjections.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be able to tell the Minister of Education and the Chairman of Management Board that for purposes of the Legislative Assembly Act I am no less than a northern member. Not only do I know --
Mr. Conway: I am simply saying that for purposes of the Legislative Assembly Act I am a northern member. For purposes of some of the Minister of Education's own travel programs I am, and my entire county is a northern region. I am very happy to inform the minister of that particular finding.
I am not going to read on in Mr. Dowd's column, but I have to say to the Treasurer that does not speak to a leanness or a very good internal operation in so far as that sector is concerned.
I never cease to be amazed. The chief government whip, whom I sometimes --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I was not referring to you, I was referring to the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
Mr. Conway: You caught my eye. In the absence of the leader of the government in the House, I have a certain sympathy and sensitivity for the sometimes beleaguered chief government whip. I just wanted to say that I thought of Ontario very little when I was in China, but I did think of the chief government whip. I want to tell him why, very briefly, because it relates to this debate.
Interjection.
Mr. Conway: Actually that is very good and Bahrain is only halfway.
The Acting Speaker: Please tie your remarks into the debate.
Mr. Conway: In the dictatorship of the proletariat in China, there is one obvious indication that some people are more equal than others. It hits one right away upon deplaning at Capital Airport in Peking. The immediate question is, who rides in the back of those beautiful, big, black Shanghai sedans with the curtains drawn all around? There are cars for no Chinese save and except that special class of people, the cadres, the senior officials in the Chinese Communist Party.
The moment I saw that big, black Shanghai sedan with the nice lace curtains and a very important cadre sitting in the back, my mind wandered 8,000 miles back to the main entrance of the Sutton Place Hotel where at that very instant I thought the steel grey limousine without curtains would be attending upon no less a personage than the chief government whip.
I am sorry the Treasurer has left, because I wanted to conclude tonight with a reference to that part of his budget dealing with the whole question of restraint in the public sector.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You should have got Don Boudria a car. It would have been cheaper.
Mr. Roy: Look at the members who don't even use a car.
Mr. Riddell: How many salaries are you getting, Bud? You want to talk about his expenses? Let's talk about yourself.
Mr. Boudria: I don't apologize for serving my constituents.
Mr. Riddell: And his hand does not shake when he gets his pay cheque.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Conway: I am surprised that the sessional paper tabled late this afternoon has excited so many members to a public statement of view on that subject.
I was particularly struck by the statement on page 19 of the Treasurer's budget which said, "Without any question, we expect that people who derive an income from the public purse, directly or otherwise, will be forced to account for their salary and benefits if that salary and attached benefits put them at the $30,000-or- over category."
I could not be happier when I read about some of the arrangements that were struck in Metropolitan Toronto for those school directors. I was astonished and I certainly would be happy to accede entirely to that request.
I have to say to my friends in the Conservative Party, why should anyone on a school board in Brampton, Peel, Scarborough or Dufferin pay any attention to that direction when no less a Tory and public servant than Kirk Foley paraded before the standing committee on public accounts last week and said, "Frank Miller can take his sunshine requirement and We have an expression in Pembroke that I will not use, but certainly Mr. Kirk Foley is not going to feel any pressure that the Treasurer or the Chairman of Management Board might like to put upon him to reveal his public salary.
If the government of Ontario and the chief government whip expect business people, school trustees or anyone else in south Peel to believe they mean something in this respect -- and they enjoy my support; they will get no quarrel from me about what they intend to do -- they had better get their agents and political cronies. I cannot think of one more suited to either title than Mr. Kirk Foley. They had better make sure he never parades before the public accounts committee of this assembly again and says, "To hell with you, I will not reveal my salary," the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board notwithstanding.
If they allow that back-of-the-hand dismissal of this important aspect of their budgetary and economic policy to stand, then in my view they completely surrender any position of authority they might have with those agencies, boards and commissions that are not directly under their control in the public sector in this great and wonderful province of Ontario.
Mr. Gillies: Kirk Foley has generated more wealth in the last year in this province than the Liberal Party ever has.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable member is reaching the magic hour.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I note you have drawn my attention to the hour of adjournment and lest the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who I know has ministerial ambitions, should continue to misspeak himself from the Treasury bench, I will certainly surrender the floor but reserve the opportunity to continue at another time.
On motion by Mr. Conway, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.