The House resumed at 8 p.m.
INTERIM SUPPLY (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period July 1, 1982, to December 31, 1982.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I was reminded as I chatted over the dinner hour with my colleague the House leader, who is the distinguished member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), that, as is often the case in a dynamic and working parliamentary environment, changes can take place rather quickly that alter the course of events.
On my arrival here at eight o'clock, I am somewhat like the Catholic church parishioner who goes and sees a choice between the long and the short reading. Tonight, for a variety of reasons, we will have the short reading.
Mr. Breaugh: This is tantamount to fraud. I came here for the long gospel.
Mr. Conway: That is not in any way to suggest to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) or the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) that there is not going to be a time at a later date when I will have a more general commentary to make with respect to the budgetary provisions of the May 13 document.
I do want to say in respect of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), whom I appreciate being here tonight, that I read with care a couple of times his rather interesting intervention at the outset of the interim supply debate on Tuesday night when he went on at some length, but not an inappropriate length, outlining the circumstances that led up to his decision-making vis-à-vis that budget.
I do have a number of things I would like to say about his interpretation of events. But I was thinking, as I prepared for the longer reading, challenged as I was by the Treasurer's assessment of the process, I was reading in the intervening 48 hours among other things an excellent publication entitled Formulating Government Budgets: Aspects of Australian and North American Experience, by Mr. Kenneth Knight and Mr. Kenneth Wiltshire. It is a very good look at the budget-making process, which compares essentially the congressional system in the United States and the parliamentary environment as studied in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
What caught my eye and what I wanted to quote very briefly in respect of my reflecting on the recent experience of the Minister of Treasury and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) was a quote at the outset of chapter 1 of this rather excellent book, a quote from the very famous British diarist and public servant, Samuel Pepys, who wrote in his diary of September 26, 1666:
"Being come home, I to Sir W. Batten, and there hear our business was tendered to the House today, and a Committee of the whole House chosen to examine our accounts, and a great many Hotspurs enquiring into it, and likely to give us much trouble and blame, and perhaps (which I am afeard of) will find fault enow to demand better officers. This I truly fear."
I certainly was interested to read the entry of the famous Mr. Pepys, and it certainly struck me as not an inappropriate reflection on the recent experience in this House, at least, of the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue.
And might I say, because I like to be, in the presence of the distinguished former mayor of Sudbury, that life-long spear-carrier for the Conservative cause in the great city of Sudbury, a beacon of consistency in an often unreliable world of party politics, I want to give credit where credit is due, and credit is certainly due the Treasurer, to the Minister of Revenue and no less to the chief government whip, who have, I think, properly assessed and correctly surveyed the mood of this place and the developing chorus of concern and protest about various aspects of the May 13 budget.
As I indicated to the House the other evening in the beginning of my remarks, remarks that were dutifully listened to and sometimes responded to by the member from Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), it was my intention and the intention of my colleagues to use all reasonable and responsible parliamentary avenues to focus attention on our particular concern with respect to the broadening of the retail sales tax base as outlined in the budget of the Treasurer.
Lo and behold, my friend and colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) presented me at eight o'clock with a very neatly typed out package, which has about nine points. The first one is, "Conway to finish early." As the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) will know, I am a very reasonable person, and when I am asked and directed by my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to finish early members can rest assured that I will respond dutifully to those marching orders.
I just want to say again that I think the members opposite deserve credit for having acceded to the parliamentary pressure that has built over the last number of days. I certainly want to give them that credit here this evening, and I know the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue, the chief government whip and 67 other members of the Progressive Conservative Party look forward with each and every one of us in the opposition to the debate and the hearings that will develop very soon in the general government committee, or wherever, on the matters that were decided on over the dinner hour. As I indicated earlier, there are a number of other aspects of this budget I would like to talk about.
8:10 p.m.
I certainly wanted to draw to the Treasurer's attention the concern of the good electors of the great district of Renfrew North who have instructed me to speak on their behalf about matters of general economic policy as they have been developed here at the seat of provincial government over the past 12 months. From Whitney to Deep River and from Micksburg to Mattawa, the suggestions, the protests and the acclaim, as in some cases has been the mail, are my responsibility to communicate. Of course, that must await another time.
Mr. Breaugh: Why?
Mr. Conway: The member from Oshawa says, "Why?" I must respond to that intervention with a reason I hope is compelling for him. That is that the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) has perhaps more dutifully than anyone else over the past number of days bided his time with infinite and exemplary patience. My so-called package tells me that I am to finish early because the member for Windsor-Riverside, who has waited so long and so dutifully, has a number of things he would like to address the House about.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I always enjoy the presence of the Treasurer during these omnibus debates on supply or on the budget motion and look forward to resuming a longer discussion, hopefully of a dialectical kind, with the Treasurer on a variety of subjects which he drew to my attention with what I might even say was a provocative statement on Tuesday evening.
Before I sit down I want to say to the Treasurer that in my home town or the place I grew up in, there is a small newspaper that I am sure he reads every week, This Week in the Madawaska Valley. In the May 12, 1982, edition there is a very interesting article, "Toughest Budget Yet, Says Treasurer Frank Miller."
It is a lengthy article on the eve of the budget. It invites a whole series of questions about what is going on in the Treasury process that I did not really feel were adequately dealt with in his preliminary remarks. It is the sort of thing I would like to return to, together with the comments of my good friend, one of the government whips, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), whom I noted was quoted in the weekend press. I will just throw out this little nonpartisan assessment for the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). I might say to the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), who is known in Peking as the vice-minister of agriculture for Ontario, he made a very --
Mr. McNeil: Wise minister of agriculture.
Mr. Conway: Wise none the less. I was reading the weekend papers here in Toronto and I found it interesting, given the general mood of the Conservative government in Ontario these days, the very great emphasis on restraint and the accent on lean government and every penny counts, it was interesting to see the member for Lakeshore quoted in the Sunday Sun of June 13, 1982: "However, Tory MPP Al Kolyn takes a different approach to his boss's new jet, now expected to arrive from Texas in July or August. The Lakeshore MPP insists the Challenger will be 'the people's jet.'" Quoting the member directly it says, "Looking at our $20-billion budget, there is little of a lasting and permanent nature that $10.6 million can do."
I certainly wanted to elaborate. Even when one adjusts for inflation, the member for Lakeshore makes the former federal Minister of Trade and Commerce Mr. C. D. Howe look like something of a piker, dare I use that expression in that respect. The member for Sudbury will recall well that great expression that became famous across the land 25 years ago, "What's a million?" Apparently, the member for Lakeshore feels, "What's $10.6 million in a budget of $20 billion where there is just so little room to make changes?"
I do not intend to be provocative and I do not intend in that respect to irritate my friend from Brockville with recent utterances from the new Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), who has had things to say about the irrationality of the expenditure policies of his government that really make one wonder about the old British parliamentary doctrine of cabinet responsibility. I think he holds the view of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) that the long arm of separation should be the guiding light when it comes to the Treasurer in these days of post-budget discussion.
At any rate there are a number of subjects about economic policy, general and specific, questions about employment strategies that were dealt with by, among others, my esteemed colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) with his interim report on youth unemployment. Yesterday, at the press centre in a speech to the Institute for Political Involvement, my leader dealt, I thought rather effectively and creatively, with a number of positive alternatives and options with respect to dealing with the problem the Treasurer himself addressed in his remarks on Tuesday evening; that is, reforming the budget process to make it more relevant and more useful to the 1980s.
I will not keep the members here tonight with a recital of the various specific points that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) made, but I certainly will at another time, with the House's indulgence, elaborate on that very important aspect of public policy, because I think the experience in Ottawa and, quite frankly, here in Toronto in the past 12 months indicate that reform of a general and immediate kind is necessary.
I know that I speak for my friend from Sterling, the Conservative member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock). when I say there are those of us who have constituents in the Bancroft area working at the mines who are now out of work and who are deeply concerned about the fact that Ontario Hydro and the Ontario government has not seen fit, for whatever reasons, to intervene with a "Buy Bancroft" procurement policy for uranium.
Certainly in my home city of Pembroke there is a lot of concern about property tax reform, the impact of the budget upon local government, school board and municipal. But these, of course, are matters for another day. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I want to say again, and in conclusion, that it is a good day for this parliamentary place when we have arrived at a sensible compromise that will allow a very contentious issue in this budgetary debate to go before a committee of the duly elected members of this assembly to hear public witness about what is bad, inappropriate or almost unenforceable as far as the sales tax matter is concerned.
I give full credit, certainly, to the Leader of the Opposition who has in a very successful way focused the House's attention and that of the province upon the need for this kind of hearing. As I said earlier, I give credit to the government, after having endured and weathered the storm over a number of days, for seeing the need as well for that accommodation. With those few remarks, the short reading has ended.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have waited for two weeks, and now, based on the agreement this afternoon, I have very little to say. This, by the way, was not the bill this party was going to filibuster on. Unlike the people to my right, we do not consider that civil servants, people on family benefits and the various other people who rely on the provincial government for their income are the people who should be held to ransom to force the party opposite to agree to public hearings.
I tend to disagree with the former speaker. I will judge the agreement that was reached by the three parties this afternoon, and the success of that agreement, after I have seen what the government intends to do in that committee. If it has decided to go to committee for two weeks of hearings simply to pacify the opposition, if it is not going into these public hearings to listen to the people of Ontario, to listen to the interest groups who have been so adversely affected by this regressive sales tax, then I say the agreement that has been reached this afternoon will be an utter failure.
8:20 p.m.
If, as I said, they are just going to committee to pacify the opposition, to do it at the beginning of the summer and have third reading of the sales tax act before we adjourn, hoping that the people of this province will forget about the sales tax, I would suggest that the people of this province will not forget about this regressive tax. Every time they purchase a coffee or a hotdog, or a puppy dog for their children, they will continue to remember the Treasurer.
I hope the committee hearings really will work. I hope the members of the Conservative Party will be as open as the Treasurer said they were when we asked repeatedly if he would allow his party members to vote in favour of public hearings if the sales tax bill was referred to committee. As I recall, the answer we got was something like, "The committee will decide."
I hope that same openness will prevail when the sales tax bill is in committee and that the committee will be allowed to voice its opinion; that he will allow his back-benchers to express themselves when we move amendment after amendment affecting the exemptions which have been eliminated by the sales tax bill introduced by this government.
I look forward to the hearings and I am sure we will hear from all the municipalities which have been hit hard by the sales tax. The ratepayers will not feel the effects because of what I am sure was a deliberate ploy on the part of the Treasurer to bring in his budget after the mill rates were set at the municipal level in order to delay the property tax implications for a year. In that way the local politicians will get the blame instead of the Treasurer.
It was smart politics. We must give the Conservative Party credit for being damned good politicians, but they are rotten when it comes to planning the economy of the province. They are rotten when it comes to taking care of people at low income levels. They are rotten when the time comes to talk about reform of our tax system in the province.
I hope the Treasurer and the members who sit on the standing committee on general government, or whichever committee will be looking at this sales tax bill, will be open-minded. I hope they will be fair. I hope they will not turn the hearings and the clause-by-clause discussion on this bill into a sham. But although I have been here for only five years, I am not very hopeful. Time after time we have seen referrals to committee by both opposition parties on matters that are important to all people across this province, and time after time the Conservative Party has blocked all attempts to have annual reports discussed in order to get at important problems.
The government of this province has made a sham of the legislative process. Who would expect that the Treasurer, after introducing his budget, would show up for only 10 minutes of the speech of the official opposition critic for the Treasury, take off for Sault Ste. Marie the next day for a sod-turning at a sewer project and then head for Japan a day later, leaving the province for another week?
The government talks about democracy, but the lack of respect on the part of this Treasurer and this government for democracy and for the legislative process is absolutely amazing. The people of this province are beginning to find out how arrogant, inconsiderate and hypocritical this government has been on issues such as the sales tax and cutbacks to colleges and universities. In this budget the government is making the same kind of massive shift in taxation to the municipalities as the federal government has imposed on this provincial government.
The Treasurer, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) has done, has attempted to fudge the issue, but the fact is that there is going to be an impact of one per cent to 1.5 per cent on municipal budgets because of the sales tax bill. Add to that the Ontario hospital insurance plan premiums and it amounts to a massive shift.
As I said before, the ratepayers of this province will not know what this provincial government has done until next year when the mill rates are set. This party will do its best to remind the ratepayers' groups, some of them led by traditional Conservative supporters, that it is this government that has to take the responsibility. I can only hope the local politicians across this province will do a good job of pointing out that it is this government that will be responsible for the shift in taxation and the increases in property taxes next year.
The lunacy of this budget was so obvious this afternoon and on other occasions when we raised the problem of the various ethnic groups that will be having their festivals this weekend and the implications of the sales tax on those activities. This government has backed down a bit, but really very little. The $75,000 tax exemption, when you consider the inflation rate over the last number of years, is less than the $50,000 limit that was in place before. When one considers inflation, in order to keep up with the $50,000 the government should have raised that exemption to at least $85,000.
But the impact of this sales tax on those communities will come home to roost in the fall when we have Oktoberfest in Kitchener and in various other communities across this province. Those clubs, along with some of the Italian clubs, such as the one in my riding that has a Grapefest, when they have run out of their four exemptions and exceed the $75,000, will then have to collect the tax. We will say it is the Treasurer who is responsible for that, that progressive Treasurer and his government who say they are so concerned with multiculturalism in this province. They are going to tax those events and will discourage communities from participating.
We have heard the Treasurer and the Premier say time and again: "What is seven per cent on a $6 meal or something under $6? What is seven per cent on a hamburger?" If one is to look at those implications and say that seven per cent means nothing, one can look at inflation and say, "What is 10 per cent in one year in inflation?" This sales tax bill fuels inflation, there is no doubt about that.
I get back to my original point. I hope this government does not make a sham of the referral of the sales tax bill, but I am not very hopeful. I can warn the Treasurer now that if there are no changes in this sales tax bill in committee there will be substantial disappointment among all groups in this province, whether they be small businessmen, the ethnic communities, the corner store or the ordinary citizens and families who are expecting changes from this Treasurer and his government. There will be debate and an opportunity for us to raise this matter when it comes back into the House on third reading.
I want to turn to a couple of other points. I do not intend to speak at any great length on this bill. If I sound a little angry, if I sound a little disappointed, the fact is I am not expecting much out of these hearings. I do not think the agreement that was reached this afternoon will be the be-all and end-all to this serious problem within the provincial budget. However, we will give it a try. We will put forward our positions. We will listen.
I can guarantee members that if substantial and reasonable arguments are put forward to justify this Treasurer's budget and the sales tax, we will listen to those. If it can be proved to us that this sales tax bill will not hurt anyone, and I do not think that can be proved, we will listen and we will give speedy passage of the bill on third reading. But the Treasurer is going to have to do a heck of a lot of convincing.
We do not intend to support this bill on second reading, of course, because he has given no defence, nor has the Minister of Revenue. The Minster of Revenue did not do a very good job when he was a parliamentary assistant. He has shown that with his capabilities, even in a ministry which is usually not controversial, the Ministry of Revenue, he is able to make a spectacle of himself in that particular portfolio.
Mr. Elston: Here he comes.
Mr. Cooke: Yes, here he comes. He can even make a spectacle of himself in that portfolio. When questions were asked of the Minister of Revenue this afternoon he could not even tell us which food items were taxed and which were not. In fact, he made a mistake. If he does not understand the regulations, then tell me how the people in this province at the corner store, or the ethnic groups or whatever, the ordinary people who have to pay this tax, are supposed to understand this screwed-up piece of legislation and its various regulations?
8:30 p.m.
There are other items in this budget which I think deserve some discussion. I want to point out that one of the most disappointing aspects of the budget is its lack of any attempt to come to grips with the structural problems within our economy, whether they be in the auto sector, which is still suffering very much from a very deep depression, or whether they be in the machinery sector, where we have a great opportunity for jobs to be created.
I think it was last week that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) raised a question about the layoffs at Falconbridge and the problems being experienced at Inco. The fact is that mining machinery initiation could take place through the provincial government.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that we now have 60 polls reported out of 149 in the by-election. The vote at this point is 2,600 for the New Democratic Party, 2,000 for the Liberals and 1,800 for the Conservatives. That is with 60 polls out of 149. We will repeat the result later when we have 149 out of 149, but someone else can repeat it, because I will be out drinking champagne.
As I was saying, there are initiatives this government could take in the mining machinery sector itself. One cannot simply say that it is all the federal government's responsibility, although it does have some responsibility. This government here, since this is the manufacturing heartland of the country, has some responsibility itself. It thinks setting up some kind of study committee is adequate. The types of initiatives this government has taken for import replacement in food processing, auto parts and machinery are woefully inadequate; we need some initiative, some direction and a strategy on the part of this government.
I want to make one other point in this debate. One of the reasons we cannot support this motion for interim supply, besides the fact that voting for interim supply would put us on record as supporting the budget and the government's spending priorities, which we obviously do not, is that the motion for six months of interim supply again points to a government that wants the Legislature to be here as seldom as possible. The government is never in trouble when we are not having discussion here in the Legislature during question period and on the issues of the day. We should be here sitting in the Legislature and debating the important issues of the day on a much more regular basis.
There is nothing that demonstrates more this government's lack of commitment to the legislative process and the accountability it should provide than calling the Legislature back on March 9, waiting more than two months to bring in a provincial budget, and then letting things go so that estimates could not be debated. It was our party's position that estimates simply could not be debated until the budget had been introduced. We need time to look at the government priorities. We need time to debate the legislation in full, to deal with legislation in committee and not be rushed into passing estimates, legislation and motions without full participation of the opposition.
The legislative process can work only when accountability is built into the system. The only way that accountability can be built in is when the opposition is here and the government is there answering our questions, debating the issues of the day and making itself available to clarify problems and to justify its position. Allowing a summer recess of July, August, September and three quarters of October, as is usually the case; adjourning before Christmas, then not coming back until March; not having a budget until May, not getting into estimates, having to cut back on estimates because of lack of time to deal with them; all these things show the real weakness of what is happening in the Ontario Legislature.
We in this party are not prepared to allow the government to have six months' interim supply. We cannot justify six months, half a year, half of the budget, $11 billion of supply. We will instead be moving a motion that will call for three months' supply, and we think that is justifiable. We should bring back the Legislature on or before September 30. We will give the government supply when we are called back in September. To me that is a very fair and reasonable position. What is wrong with calling us back in September so we can get back to the economic issues that face this province?
Interjection.
Mr. Cooke: I know the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere would prefer to be somewhere other than the Legislature, but I was elected to represent the people of Windsor-Riverside. I have responsibilities as a critic to raise issues across the province that are relevant and important in people's minds and of concern to them. We cannot do that properly when we are not here in the Legislature.
Some committees do function reasonably well during the summer. The fact is that we have a role to play as legislators; the government has a role to play in initiating policy and programs to make this province work effectively. We cannot do that, we cannot build in the accountability when the Legislature is not in session.
We as an opposition party would be completely irresponsible if we gave this government supply for six months. If we did so, it would mean the Legislature could, as usual, be called back in late October. We would have a little bit of time in October, we would have November and then we would be getting close to Christmas, rushing in some important pieces of legislation at the last minute as they usually do, putting pressure on the opposition by saying: "We have to have this legislation. If you do not pass it without question or debate, you are going to be at fault, you are going to be blamed for not passing this legislation." The same tricks are played on the opposition every year, and we in this party are getting sick and tired of them.
I am going to be making a motion but, even though I probably should not, I would like to make a further report, the second report on the by-election. With 78 polls reported, the New Democratic Party has 4,202; the Liberals, 3,125; and the Conservatives, 3,099. We are now 1,000 ahead. I would suggest that we could be having a rather substantial verdict on this ill-conceived, regressive Conservative budget.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: We are not losing the seat; they are.
Mr. Cooke: It is traditionally the Tories' seat. The minister can justify it any way he wants but tonight, if by some chance these trends continue, the fact is that the Tories and the Liberals are both losers.
Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, that government notice of motion 8 be amended by changing "the period commencing July 1, 1982, and ending December 31, 1982" to "the period commencing July 1, 1982 and ending September 30, 1982."
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise to catch my breath before speaking on the bill for interim supply.
The Deputy Speaker: Catch your breath.
Mr. Foulds: If I may, I want to take a few moments to say something about the Legislature itself, the legislative process in this crazy place we call Queen's Park.
I have been in the Legislature for exactly the same length of time as the Treasurer. I remember in 1971, when the Treasurer actually sat in this seat, or very close to it, on this side of the House; it was when the big blue phalanx moved right around to the left here, and there was a genuinely progressive element in the Progressive Conservative Party.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. McClellan: Name names.
Mr. Foulds: Well, I will not, but I do remember the very first speech the Treasurer gave, which was about small business in his community and in this province. It was a speech that was a bit weak in its research and background and factual material. It had a bit of a junior chamber of commerce, gee-whiz quality. However, the speech is one that has stuck in my mind because of the sincerity with which the new member for Muskoka, now the Treasurer, delivered it. It was a speech that came from the heart and the soul of the newly elected member for Muskoka, now the Treasurer.
Although it had a bit of what I, in my more cynical moments, might call a gee-whiz, junior chamber of commerce attitude, and it was a bit weak in terms of its research and the actual and true impact on small business in the province, it was a speech that was delivered with enormous sincerity.
Unfortunately, there has been an enormous change in the man who was elected to the Legislature in 1971 and has become the Treasurer. The essence and elements of the member are still there, but the spark is gone. The sincerity is missing on long stretches. Personally, I find that a little worrying, because the Treasurer's heart was not in this budget; it was not in the number of pieces of legislation that we are having brought before us.
We have a budget presented to this Legislature by a government that has, and the budget expresses it, no sense of social responsibility. It expresses no sense of fiscal responsibility, no sense of economic responsibility.
Somewhere still inside the Treasurer, still inside the man who brought forward this budget, I believe is a sense of social responsibility, a sense of fiscal responsibility, a sense of economic responsibility. If I may say so, the Treasurer did the one thing that a politician should never do if one wants to maintain his own soul or his own integrity. In this budget, the Treasurer betrayed the essence of what he, as a human being, stands for. I find that one of the saddest commentaries on the political process that I could make. I mean that.
Frankly, leaving aside all the joking and ribbing that goes on in this chamber that I genuinely love, leaving aside all the cut and thrust and the partisan remarks, I find it a little sad that the man who stood on this side of the House because there were so many Tories elected in 1971, and gave a speech from his essence, telling us what it was all about for him, betrayed it in this budget.
This budget has no sense of social responsibility, because it fails to deal with poverty in this province.
Mr. Cooke: Third place, you guys.
The Deputy Speaker: Is this the latest report?
Mr. Foulds: I just want to announce the latest returns from the --
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure we are not following it. However, under the circumstances --
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, you have to be on your feet if you want to interrupt me.
The Deputy Speaker: That's the reason I am not.
Mr. Foulds: After speaking to interim supply, as not Ella Fitzgerald but Edward Fitzgerald wrote in Omar Khayyam, the moving finger writes and then moves on. This is the third report from the Wells/Boyd desk: with 127 out of 149 polls reporting, the NDP is leading with 7,572 votes, the Conservatives are second with 5,552 votes and the Liberals are third with 5,381 votes.
I want to say something, if I may: we have won. I want to say something else to my massed colleagues behind me and my massed opponents ahead of me and my massed opponents to my right: you beggars counted us out in the New Democratic Party, both of you, on March 19 a year ago.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Twenty-one and one still only makes 22.
Mr. Foulds: Look at the results today and look at what is happening in the province, and do not count us out any more. Just move aside, because we are going to be over there forming the government in 1985 if you bring in another budget like this one.
Mr. Conway: I have a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have a point of order.
Mr. Foulds: You have a point of order?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry: I mean he has a point of order.
Mr. Foulds: He thinks he has. He has already spoken for 45 minutes in this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: What happened to the unbiased, nonpartisan speech you were going to give us?
Mr. Foulds: Well, it's just -- all right, all right.
Mr. Conway: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that however much we in the Liberal Party appreciate the dispatches from the New Democratic Party, we only ask that these dispatches be shorn of their scatalogical references.
If these dispatches are correct, my best wishes and those of my colleagues go out to the very distinguished Dr. Richard Allen, who I know to be a fine, outstanding academic in the field of social history.
All of us look forward with great expectation, if these results are confirmed, to his arrival in this place. And our interest will grow apace at the immediate prospect of the former member for Broadview-Greenwood, who we understand is still surveying the expanse of landscape between Attawapiskat and Cornwall to ascertain where it is that his parachute will come to rest.
The Deputy Speaker: I think you have made your point.
Mr. Foulds: I think the point of interruption actually exceeded its --
The Deputy Speaker: I think you are right.
Mr. Foulds: I think what this budget shows -- where is the Treasurer, by the way? Where is he?
The Deputy Speaker: Confirming your numbers, I think.
Mr. Foulds: After all, this is the second most important bill that he has before the Legislature. He is asking in this bill that we give him a blank cheque for $11 billion, and he is not even in the House to hear us when we say things about him that are favourable and things about him that are perhaps not so favourable.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: What were the favourable items?
Mr. Breaugh: Go ahead, be bitter; it looks good on you.
Mr. Foulds: If the member who is at present the Minister of Revenue and will not be for very long wishes to take the little tax quiz again after he has had time to bone up on it, I will be pleased to administer it. But he will recall I was saying that this government's budget --
Mr. McClellan: Really stinks.
Mr. Martel: Give it to him, Jim.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, you will have to forgive me. I hope it will not betray one of the confidences, or my colleagues will not mind if I betray one of their confidences at caucus, but this morning they said to me: "Foulds, you are getting just a little too aggressive. You are getting just a little too nasty. You are shoving it to the Tories just a little too hard. Lay off and take it easy for a day or two."
Now tonight, a mere 10 hours later, less than that, they are all for me taking off the gloves once again and socking it to those guys. I find myself in a terrible dilemma. I do not know whether I should abide by the earlier decision of my colleagues or their current one.
Anyway, as I was saying, the budget shows no sense of social responsibility when one thinks that for the amount of money sunk into Suncor, or the amount of money sunk into settling with the medical doctors of this province, we could have --
Mr. Shymko: When are you taking over?
Mr. Foulds: For the edification of the rather idiotic member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), we could have raised every man, woman and child on family benefits, general welfare assistance and the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled above the poverty line. We could have raised every one of those people currently below the poverty line above the poverty line with that kind of money. That betrays a very deep sense of social irresponsibility.
The Treasurer has betrayed the member for Muskoka who was elected in 1971 and spoke from this side of the house. There was no sense of fiscal responsibility in this budget. This Treasurer for years has been preaching the right-wing, free enterprise philosophy that one has to balance the budget. What did he do? He not only raised taxes in a harsh, stupid and mean-spirited way, but he also put us further into debt as a province.
This government has no sense of fiscal responsibility when it will spend millions on advertising, millions on its refurbished jet and millions on a resource company that does not bring one job to Ontario. It does not give jobs and job creation a number one priority.
That is what I mean when I say this budget has no economic responsibility. No matter what the government of Margaret Thatcher in Britain does, no matter what the European Economic Community does, no matter what Ronald Reagan and the administration in Washington do, and no matter what Allan MacEachen and Pierre Elliott Trudeau do, this government has a responsibility to the people of this province. It has a responsibility within its jurisdiction to create jobs, to bring down interest rates and to make it abundantly clear that Ontario is indeed a place to stand and a place to have a home. It is a place where people should be proud to live.
It was instructive the other day when I asked the faltering Minister of Revenue a question on budgetary matters and he said, and I quote him directly, that "one small province cannot do it by itself." It is instructive when a minister of the crown of this once-proud province would refer to Ontario as "one small province."
It was interesting this afternoon, if I may say so as one gets impressions and reflections of this place, that when the Minister of Revenue was on his feet embarrassing us all by his lack of knowledge of what is taxed and what is not taxed, the Treasurer slunk in his seat with his hand over his face, rubbing his eyes and his forehead in disbelief, weeping in sadness, wishing that his junior colleague in the finance division of the government would disappear slowly into the carpet.
We cannot support a motion for six months of interim supply, because this government has grown arrogant, fat and sloppy. It cannot control its own spending, it cannot put its spending where it should be put: to the ordinary working men and women of this province and to those people who unfortunately are not working although they want to desperately. It cannot do anything except create temporary jobs. They aim for a mere 31,000 when they know that between April and May we have lost two thirds of those jobs already -- 19,000.
There is not one imaginative job creation move in this budget. It is a mere fiscal piece of paper instead of being an economic blueprint for recovery. What has happened is that this government cannot control agencies such as Ontario Hydro. It refuses to look upon Hydro, as any civilized western government would look upon Hydro, as a tool for economic development. Sure, they will spend billions on their nuclear stations and they will use as a justification for that the creation of jobs, but when it comes to saving jobs in Bancroft at the Madawaska Mines, they will stand idly by and do nothing.
Let me tell the member for that area, that coming from northern Ontario, an area that very much suffers the regional disparities that the people in eastern Ontario suffer, I understand the anger and the frustration that must be rampant in Bancroft when the government will pour billions into nuclear stations that we do not need but will not spend a relatively modest amount of $50 million to save a town and a mine. That money would not be wasted and that money would be less than the cost that Hydro is paying to the friends of the Tory party, such as Stephen Roman, for their assured contract in Denison and Rio Algom.
This government has lost touch with what it means to have a sense of accountability to the Legislature and to the people of Ontario. That is why they lost in Hamilton West tonight. That is also why the Liberal Party lost in Hamilton West tonight, because they too have lost the sense of what it means to be responsible both at the federal and provincial levels. The government has assumed that it can be accountable to the people of Ontario simply by reading the polls they conduct and responding to them; but they have been betrayed by the polls, they misinterpreted the polls. There is not the shadow of a doubt in my mind that, several months ago, the Treasury ministry conducted a poll, or that a poll was conducted for the government of this province, that asked people whether they wanted their sales tax increased or whether they would rather see that tax imposed on a wider selection of goods.
9 p.m.
So in the first days of the disaster of the Treasurer's budget he tried to say that they took the tough stand, they took the stand that was difficult, they took the road that was hard. Well, that song and dance from the Treasurer is getting a little hard to take, because they did not. This government takes the easy way every time. It is a gutless government that responds only to polls. It will not show leadership when it comes to economic development and the creation of jobs; it will not show leadership when it comes to protecting the environment; it will not show leadership when it comes to protecting eastern Ontario or northern Ontario; and it will not show leadership, guts or courage when it comes to making a budget, even from a Tory point of view.
Areas of taxation were open to the Treasurer that he did not take advantage of; areas of taxation in the resource sector, in the corporate sector, in the personal income tax sector; and even in the sales tax area there are items that could be genuinely considered luxuries on which he could have legitimately increased the tax and he did not have the wisdom, the foresight or the courage to do it.
We have seen a major capitulation by the Treasurer and the government of this province on this budget, and while it is not so open and apparent as the retreat by John White in 1973 over the energy tax, it is a retreat and capitulation that has far more far-reaching consequences.
The Treasurer first said in this Legislature, "Budgetary bills are never referred to a committee outside this House," yet the Treasurer has referred a budgetary bill outside of this House. It is my hope and the pledge of this party that we will work during those hearings to get the unjust, stupid measures and the monstrous, administratively difficult measures of this budget changed.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Gentlemen, gentlemen.
Mr. Foulds: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you could bring my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) to order; then I can continue with my remarks so that you, at least, can hear them.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Martel: I am listening to you.
Mr. Foulds: Now, if he wants to make a disruption over on the Tory side, if he wants to have a little chat with the back-bench members of the Tory party -- out of sight, out of mind -- I do not mind. But when he is distracting me on my right with the Liberals, with the Peterson-Trudeau Liberals, why the member for Sudbury East wants to kotow to that crowd --
Mr. Martel: I just signed up three of them. They are crossing the floor.
Mr. Foulds: All right, carry on. Keep up the good work. Where was I?
The Deputy Speaker: Monstrous --
Mr. Foulds: -- monstrous, administratively difficult measures of this budget to be changed. I sincerely hope they will be changed in committee because there is no purpose, absolutely no sense and no reason for a bill to go to committee unless there is a willingness to listen, a willingness to amend and a willingness to change the legislation. It may well be that the government will have to save face by introducing amendments and concessions. But two weeks of fruitless hearings in which the government just says, "No, we are not interested in any changes," will not serve any useful purpose either to this place, to democracy or to the people of this province.
The failure of this Legislature thus far is to pinpoint and highlight other weaknesses in the budget. Would the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere take a seat beside my colleague, the member for Sudbury East and keep his mellifluous tones down.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere take his seat? It is distracting and we have been tolerant.
Mr. Foulds: What has been a great sadness for me is that, almost unnoticed in this budget that spells the ruin of the leadership ambitions of the member for Muskoka, a former Minister of Health would have buried in his budget a substantial increase in OHIP premiums. I believe that kind of a tax has no place in a modern society. That kind of tax on sickness has no justification in a province that has had the potential and richness of Ontario. I suppose the greatest sense I have, standing in my place here, is the sense of loss.
When I first came to this place in 1971, along with the member for Muskoka and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), there was a sense that this province had strength and cared about its people; and there was a sense that this province actually cared enough about the rest of the country to share its wealth with it. The Davis years will go down in the history of this province and this country as the years in which opportunities were lost, challenges were avoided and the province lost 10 years.
If anybody writes the history of these years, and the history of the Treasurers, he or she might consider using the title 12 Lost Years, since the Premier has about two more. Maybe not, maybe he will hang on until 1985; because when one looks at the alternatives, the alternatives have missed their chances. I know a little about that in terms of leadership. The only one left running strong and eagerly is the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the Tory party of this province is not yet ready to accept the Minister of Health as its leader. The others are nowhere in the race.
9:10 p.m.
But to get back to the budget, it is sad that we are asked to vote tonight for an $11 billion expenditure and that the Treasurer had to grab it from the pockets of those who have to pay their own Ontario health insurance plan premiums to get additional money.
I know all the arguments about those who have negotiated settlements and whose employers pay half or all of the premiums. Every week in my constituency office, and I suppose at least every second week in the constituency office of the Treasurer, comes one of those people who has to pay his own OHIP premium. Occasionally, we even get people in our constituency offices who have not paid the premiums because they could not afford to and did not know that premium assistance was available. I am sure that every one of us, at least once in the 10, 15, 22 or 27 years we have been in this crazy place, the Ontario Legislature, has run into at least one person who was ill, who needed medical attention, but who did not go to get it in time and kept postponing it because he did not have OHIP coverage.
I say to the Treasurer as he sits there and to the cabinet ministers and the Tory benches, if they have anything to do with that multimillion dollar public relations budget spent by the Conservative government and with the amount of money spent on television advertising for "Preserve it, conserve it," and "Ontario, yours to discover," I will not object if they cut that advertising by half and put that money into advertising the legitimate programs of their government.
If they would put that kind of money into letting those people who are unorganized, the working poor, know that premium assistance is available to them, that is the kind of government advertising I would accept. That is the kind of government advertising the people of Ontario would accept and willingly pay for.
It is just a little galling for the 56 per cent of the population of Ontario who have never voted Conservative and will never vote Conservative to think their tax money is being spent on advertisements that advance the cause of the Conservative Party. It is true that is politically smart and it comes from the attitude of thinking they will rule the province forever; but very simply that is wrong. that is immoral, that is stealing money, that is misspending the money that is given to the government in trust.
I think the Treasurer and the government benches, particularly the cabinet, should understand there is a compact between an electorate and its government. They betray that compact with a budget like this and with the kind of spending they do on things, like advertising, that are unnecessary and self-serving. I say as strongly and as directly as I can, every time they use a taxpayer's dollar to buy his or her vote for their re-election, that is theft and I resent it.
The saddest part of the budget is the whole area that is not in here. The saddest part is that the member for Muskoka, his Premier, his ministry and his colleagues did not have any vision of Ontario. They did not have any idea where it could and should take the province. They looked at the problems of diminishing revenues and tackled them without imagination and without wisdom.
Suppose I had been a Tory Treasurer in 1982, I would have looked at the situation from a Tory point of view and said: "I do not want to tax my friends in the corporate sector all that much, they might get angry with me. I do not want to scare business away from the province. I do not want to rock the boat too much, but we are facing difficult economic times. We have had a constant drain on our budget and we need to raise substantial revenue."
I think the people of Ontario are still decent, hard-working people who do not mind paying taxes that are justified. They do not mind paying taxes for their fellow man as long as they are seen as being fair and administratively clean. The sales tax fails to meet those criteria.
It was not only politically stupid, and they will pay the consequences for that, but it fails two important tests of a tax. It is not seen as being fair by those who have to pay it and it is an administrative nightmare. They will never be able to enforce it. It is worse to enforce than any of the speeding legislation.
If I had been a Tory, I would have raised the sales tax by one per cent on existing goods. What the heck, people pay $1.07 now and they will not mind $1.08. Raise the personal income tax one per cent, raise the corporation income tax one per cent, raise the resource sector tax one per cent and everyone will complain like hell, but they would say, "At least he did it to all of us and hit everything."
They might even get their cherished dream of coming close to balancing the budget. If they did that, speaking strictly from a Tory point of view -- God forbid it be mine -- they would have room to manoeuvre and to create some decent jobs. Instead, they piddle around with a bit of a tax here, hoping the revenue they get will just about keep their heads above water; they fiddle around with a little temporary job creation there and there is nothing in it.
Mr. Kerr: Flushed with victory.
Mr. Foulds: To the heckler from behind the stands, I would rather be flushed with victory than flushed the way the heckler is. The only charitable thing about that comeback was I did not mention who the heckler was, and I would not because he is such a fine person.
Mr. Breaugh: Flushed, though.
Mr. Foulds: Flushed, though, right; not flush but flushed.
If I may conclude, it was a major failure of the government that it did not do anything to create jobs. It is still trying to create jobs by press release. When "nine-job Walker" got to his feet last Friday and made a five-page statement about a warehouse coming into Elmira, surely that epitomized the bankruptcy of government policy in job creation.
9:20 p.m.
The previous day a major announcement had been made by Falconbridge that 1,000 jobs were going to be terminated in Sudbury. Then this government, through the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), proudly announced the creation of nine jobs. Surely, weighing those two equations in the balance, this government is found wanting. This government is found wanting when it comes to this budget, when it comes to its tax measures and to interim supply. It deserves neither our confidence nor that of the people of Ontario. This government, like the Treasurer himself, has betrayed the ideals of the people of Ontario.
The Treasurer and this government no longer view the population of Ontario as a hardworking and generous people. They view the populace of this province as one that must be bought with its own taxes, that will respond only to the government's initiatives when those initiatives have been tested by poll.
If the last three months in this Legislature have taught us anything it is that we need a reform of the legislative process. We could start the reform of that process by having budgetary matters referred to committee on a regular basis and by not approving six months' interim supply. Instead, we should allow this government to spend only a quarter of its budget at a time with a three months' supply motion. We want those beggars accountable. Every time this Legislature is not sitting, they betray their own principles and the people of Ontario.
The results of the election tonight in Hamilton West show that the people of Ontario are beginning to understand that the only difference between the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is that of physical girth. There is not that much difference between them and the people of Ontario are beginning to recognize that. If Hamilton West can vote NDP, no riding in this province is safe for the Tory-Liberal coalition.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, you do not know what a pleasure it is to participate in this debate this evening. As the night goes on it gets even more pleasurable.
These supply motions are all about numbers and the last set of numbers I want to read into the record are 7,572, 5,552 and 5,381. On the sheet I have, that puts the Liberal Party right where it ought to be, dead last in third place. If they wish, we can talk about exchanging benches tomorrow morning. I suppose we will have to renegotiate how much money each caucus gets for research capacity, but after today's election in Hamilton West I do not think there should be any problem.
The word is clearly in. The Liberal Party in Ontario shed one image and decided it was no longer associated in any way, shape or form with the federal Liberal Party. Therefore, after today's results, they should be prepared to say that they want to shed their relationship with the Ontario Liberal Party. That leaves only the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the Liberal- Labour Party still standing as an entity they have not tried yet. I would not be surprised at all if tomorrow they came in here and made some announcement that they had shed all connection with the provincial Liberal Party as well and were now about to become the Liberal-Labour Party.
Mr. Conway: How about the Ontario reform association?
Mr. Breaugh: You see, there is another. The second one has come out: the Ontario reform association.
Mr. Conway: We used to be called that.
Mr. Boudria: I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.
Mr. Breaugh: Not to exaggerate. Well, I --
Mr. Conway: Well, I don't know. Where are Colin Isaacs and those by-election victors of recent months?
Mr. Breaugh: I notice that the member for Renfrew North is reminiscing tonight about previous good times they had. He seems a little short on commentary about this evening's transaction.
Mr. Conway: Listen, Michael, I conceded, I thought, gracefully.
The Deputy Speaker: He missed your speech.
Mr. Breaugh: Gracefully, a concession wrung out of him; I think that is worthwhile.
The second thing I wanted to take note of before I begin my comments this evening is that I thought I heard some comments earlier this --
Hon. Mr. Leluk: You see, if your leader had run he would have had a seat by now.
Mr. Breaugh: What's this?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: If your leader had run he would have had a seat by now.
Mr. Breaugh: Well, that is the point I wanted to make. The Minister of Correctional Services is referring to the fact that the new leader of the New Democratic Party is very busy. By my calculations, if we keep --
Mr. Boudria: Claire Hoy calls him "Chicken Bob."
Mr. Breaugh: Who? Whom are you quoting now?
Mr. Boudria: Claire Hoy.
Mr. Breaugh: Oh, the Liberal Party in Ontario is now quoting Claire Hoy as a mentor. I think somehow that is appropriate. The Liberal Party in Ontario is shifting its ground carefully and steadily and now, having shucked Trudeau, has picked up Claire Hoy as its philosopher prince. That seems fair to me. It is a slight shift in political philosophy, I suppose, but since they have walked one side of the street and were not very well received on that side, it only seems logical that they would move over to the other side of the street.
Mr. Boudria: We have still got 50 per cent more seats that you do.
Mr. Breaugh: Not in Hamilton West you don't. You had it, but you don't have it now. So I think there are interesting things here.
Just to respond very briefly to the Minister of Correctional Services, who seems upset, a little beside himself, and wants to make a couple of comments about my new leader, I think I understand why he is upset.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: We have not seen him for a while. Where is he?
Mr. Breaugh: There is a reason you have not seen him. The new leader of the New Democratic Party is out on the road these days. He is talking to the people of Ontario. And quite frankly, if we keep winning seats like Hamilton West I will be content.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: He should be looking for a seat.
Mr. Breaugh: He is out there looking for a seat, and he picked one up tonight. It is called the riding of Hamilton West. If you would like to have a few more by-elections, we will keep him on the road. He seems to be doing not a bad job out there. That is a seat we did not expect to win easily.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: He should be doing a job in here.
Mr. Breaugh: Well, he is doing the job, you see. That is the problem. I understand why you do not like it; I understand why you would like to have him in here. But from my point of view he is doing a hell of a job out on the road. It seems to me somebody in Ontario is listening to the people. More than that, it seems to me that somebody in Ontario, like the new leader of the New Democratic Party, is talking about the things people are concerned about. He is identifying some issues, and he is proposing some answers that the people see as being sensible. So I am quite happy with the given situation.
I think, too, it reflects something that more and more people in our society are beginning to understand. They have seen the federal Liberals in charge of this great nation of ours put forward their budget ideas.
Mr. Boudria: They saw the NDP in Saskatchewan with similar ideas.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: And look what happened to them.
Mr. Breaugh: They saw Allan MacEachen put forward a budget last fall, and then they got to see the Treasurer of Ontario put forward a budget this spring. They are measuring those two budgetary proposals and looking for some distinctions between the two approaches, and they are not seeing very many.
I think what is reflected in part in that by-election in Hamilton this evening is that this is the truth: Ordinary people where they work and where they live are seeing two levels of government respond in an almost identical manner, stating pretty clearly their priorities are not about what happens to people who are just ordinary people; that is not where their interests are; that is not where their concerns are. Their concerns lie elsewhere. That is why we see, though many times I have heard the Premier say that when he brings forward -- oh, I am sorry. I have to read some more numbers into the record here. There are only five polls to go. The New Democratic Party has 8,300 votes. The Progressive Conservative Party has 6,900 votes and I believe what is still called the Liberal Party has 6,600 votes, third place.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Shall we move the seat over tonight?
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Breaugh: The Minister of Revenue has suggested some changes in the seating arrangements in the chamber. I know there will be some vacancies in the front benches over there shortly, but I was not aware there were that many concessions coming. Perhaps there are; there certainly should be.
Mr. Conway: It is a long road in politics that has no trash cans.
Mr. Breaugh: I do believe I hear a lament from the front bench to my extreme right over there. I have been at Irish wakes before, and I know that things usually get interesting when the laments start. I think that is kind of a good sign for a great many people.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: First to third is pretty bad. We were consistent, second to second.
Mr. Conway: That is a very selective interpretation of the election history of Hamilton West.
Mr. Breaugh: I thought there were more concessions coming. I see people on both sides wanting to speak and I am sure they have valuable things to say. I thought perhaps there were more by-elections being called. I am rather anxious that as many by-elections as possible be held in the next little period, because we have a lot of things we would like to accomplish.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: What about one in Oshawa so we can get your leader a seat?
Mr. Boudria: Which one of you is going to resign to give Rae a seat?
Mr. Breaugh: The way elections are going tonight, it does not appear necessary that anybody in this caucus resign. We can just sit around and wait for other people to die off and pick them off one at a time. It is like an old Tom Mix movie, you just wait at the pass.
Mr. Roy: Will Bob take it, that is the problem.
Mr. Conway: Could you win again with Michael Cassidy?
Mr. Breaugh: I think this evening we could win with a whole lot of folks. Back to your lament.
I think a lot of people in this province are taking a look at two very old and very tired political parties which are putting forward in very difficult times, and we all understand that, their proposals for change and their priorities for spending and for taxation. If we look at Allan MacEachen and the kind of proposals he put forward, we see a kind of hold-the-line attitude. Those people who are reasonably well off in our society will be able to withstand a little bit more pain in certain areas. In fact, in a sad and cruel way, those who have wealth in our society are not unhappy with high interest rates, because they are in a position to capitalize on that profit. They are in a position to make money on high interest rates. Many of them are not that concerned about losing their homes.
As in every recessionary period, one of the bitter ironies is that we see that those large ticket items -- larger than what most people really consider to be within their range to purchase: luxury automobiles, luxury homes -- those things continue on a very steady trend, because the market for those things is relatively constant. The middle of the economy, those people who are still contemplating buying Chevrolets and cars of that nature, is where the market suffers most. We cannot really expect the poor are going to live with less, because they do not have anything to cut back on.
I would have thought, looking at the approach of the federal Liberals to our economy, that they had very clearly identified what they wanted to do, which was hold the line. In some strange concept that is beyond me, they decided that the poor can take a little bit more pain, more consistently. There is no need to attack major items that are problems in our economy, like our unemployment. There really is no need to review the needs of our economy from a strategic point of view, from a research and development point of view, from a new manufacturing point of view. They can just hold the fort and wait it out.
Of course, many of the federal Liberals are in a position to do precisely that, without much pain. They can withstand it all. There is a Prime Minister in the country who, it is rumoured, is unlikely to seek re-election, so he is not going to be around and there is an opportunity there for a rebirth. At some time a brand new white-haired leader can enter their chambers and lead them off down on a whole new revamped process.
The irony is, in Ontario it is much the same piece of business. One would have thought, listening to the Premier of Ontario in the last election campaign, that great things were about to happen in this province; he was about to do great and promising things for Ontario. The whole theme of the election program was built around that and all the promises that were in things like the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. All those things were key parts, and there would be substantial changes.
Yet we are now into the kind of post- honeymoon period with this government and we still see their true economic policies coming out of the woodwork. Now we are seeing that all those great promises, once made, are not necessarily promises that have to be kept, that there are variations on that scheme, that really they do not have to do those things, that they had no intention of doing those things, that in fact they are prepared to blame other levels of government and then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves. It is a rather ironic twist that is cruel to those people who bear the brunt of it.
In relation to the discussion that we are having this evening, how ironic it is to see this latest budget. I suppose the best one could hope for would have been some sensitivity to the economic reality. Instead, we see a reaction to a polling system which the government has used extensively in the past, and a spreading of a most unfair tax right across the population.
If during an election they had said, "This is a government that really wants to tax kids' lollipops," the public at large would not have believed it. If they had said, "We want to put a tax on the Dickie Dee kid on a bicycle who sells ice cream cones in the neighbourhood," nobody would have believed that. If they had said in an election period, "We want to tax the guys as they come off the building site. We want to get them at the coffee wagon, that's where we want to grab them"; if they had said in the middle of an election, "Listen, we want to catch every ladies' auxiliary in Ontario and turn it into a tax collection agency for the government of Ontario," it would have seemed incredible. Nobody would have believed that a government would be so cold, insensitive, greedy, money-grubbing and unthinking as to move into those areas for its source of taxes. One would have said that was ridiculous.
I saw a sign on a wall somewhere, a kind of political slogan, which said, "Make the rich pay." I do not know who put it up there, but it appears to me quite appropriate that with one small change this government seems determined to make the poor pay. I do not understand it. My mother always told me that you really cannot get blood from a rock. It is a silly notion to try, by taxation, to attack the poor, to extricate pennies from kids, to have school kids picking up sales tax, to go into the fast-food places and say that is where you are going to put a grab on people, that that is the kind of taxation money you need.
I thought it would not be a rational concept to say that a government would tax food, but, heaven help us, that is exactly what they are doing. This latest round of tax grabbing is a unique effort. It brings to the forefront some of the things which people have said about the federal budgetary process, people like Allan MacEachen, who, having stepped on a bit of a land mine, has suddenly decided that perhaps it is not necessary to have the Finance minister be the only person in Parliament who knows what is going to happen on budget night; that perhaps it would be a sensible thing, openly and publicly, to talk to the members of Parliament and have wide public consultation with the people who are going to be affected.
Perhaps it would be a rational thing, in Ontario, for the Treasurer to go through his concepts about the areas of the economy he wants to tax; for other people like the Minister of Revenue at the same time, prior to the grand announcement, to go through all of the regulations to see that they do make sense, so that at least the Minister of Revenue would know a week or so after these things are announced, and a month or so after the budget is announced, at least the person responsible for the collection of these taxes would have some clear understanding about where he was getting this tax money. At least he would be able to answer during question period simple questions about whether something is a taxable item or not, instead of screwing up 50 per cent of the time.
It seems to me that is a pretty logical piece of business. Without making a broad call for the great reform of parliament -- which I think is overdue as well -- wouldn't it be a sensible and a logical thing to do that small piece of business, so that when they announce what evil deeds they want to do they will have at least figured out how they are going to carry out these evil deeds, and the public would have immediate notice of what the taxation measures are and an immediate and direct understanding of how they are going to get them?
9:40 p.m.
We have before the House tonight, just briefly after a budget was announced, a request for cash on the basis of an interim supply motion for six months. The great, grand plan for our economy in this province, the great, grand plan for taxation measures is hardly in its grave yet. Rigor mortis has barely set in to the Treasurer's fair body. Now he is here on bended knee looking for interim supply to keep things rolling.
Did we not just have the grand statement of what is going to happen in Ontario for the next year? In theory we did, but in practice we have not even figured out yet who is going to steal the money from the poor. We have not really identified that. We now have people who are unlicensed vendors supposedly out there collecting a sales tax that is not yet law, that has not even had second reading in this House, with a set of regulations that are not yet published, are changing daily and are not even clear in the Minister of Revenue's mind.
What way is that to run anybody's parliament? Worse yet, never mind the parliament, what way is that to run the economy of a province? Does the minister have a hope in hell of economic survival when he cannot even figure out how to get the pennies out of the piggy bank, so to speak? He has not done that yet.
Is that a reasonable, rational way to proceed? There are many in Parliaments here and federally who say no, it is not. Among those are people like Joe Clark, bless his little soul, and Walter Baker who have all written dissertations on the matter. Even Allan MacEachen has now done that.
There is a growing realization that the process we are going through tonight is not sensible. It is not rational. There are better ways to do that. If one looks at our neighbours to the south, who operate under a political system I do not happen to think is the greatest in the world, at least they have figured out one or two things: it is nuts to try to put together a budget without knowing accurately what incomes might be, what taxation proposals might be or what regulations might be before one begins to license the people who collect that money for one. The American budgetary system is dead opposite to what is being done here.
I do not see anything in here that is going to help anybody. Most of us come from areas of the province that are really in bad times. In my own area, it is a crucial piece of business because the major economic factor in our district is in great difficulty.
There is no response in the budget to the proposals the Canadian automotive industry needs. There is not much recognition of the severe problems there. I guess it is a sad comment on parliament in Ontario and the governing process in total when, prior to an election, there appears to be great sensitivity on the part of the government to the needs of particular sectors, and then after the election there is no sensitivity.
In the course of discussing these budgetary concepts with people around Ontario, we had an opportunity to visit different parts of the province with members of the caucus in a little task force forum, going to see people in municipalities and listening to the real, quiet rage that is there at the municipal level.
Municipal politicians follow provincial and federal politics with great interest, perhaps more so than the population at large does. They have listened to the screams from the Treasurer of Ontario that the federal government was changing all these funding arrangements without consulting anybody, that Ontario and all the other provinces had not been consulted when that established programs financing act was put together.
The real crime of it all is that was supposed to be a reasoned, rational and planned response to the needs of a country and here was the federal government once again being the villain of the piece by changing that tax-sharing arrangement without consulting properly with the provinces.
That is the same man who walked in here on budget night and changed the arrangements with the municipalities dramatically without even a peek, an announced intent or a tea party to celebrate what was going on. Not even a sympathy letter went out. There was no consultation.
The particularly brutal part of that is most municipal governments are up for re-election this fall. Prior to an election period they respond, as this government and the federal government respond. They attempt to be sensitive in an election year. One of the things people are aware of is there has been a constant flow of provincial programs, almost totally provincial in nature, back on the municipal property tax base. It goes across the board. It is hardly hit-or-miss. It goes from policing to hospital costs to social programs, through a great range of things which this provincial government thinks up, entices municipalities into and then loads on to that property tax base -- even though, and almost every member in here would agree, the municipal property tax base is pretty close to its saturation point.
It is an unfair way to try to run social programs. It is a tough way to try to run an educational system even on partial terms of funding. There are real problems with that. Yet, at the same time, they have been pointing to the federal government saying, "You are ceasing to share properly your financial capacity with the provinces." In the same breath they turn around and put on to the municipalities the exact same problem.
When we went to different municipalities we met a lot of shock and anger. People said, "We went through our municipal budgetary process." I want to point out that in this country the municipalities have the only budgetary process which is open and where people can go to see how the politicians are putting together budgets. They can sit in at committee sessions and watch municipalities make their choices and establish their priorities.
People off the street who are ratepayers in a given municipality can go to express an opinion about spending priorities, whether to build a rink, road, softball diamond or new swimming pool, or whether to continue a road program or go into park land or a library. Unlike both provincial and federal levels of government, all of those things at the municipal level are very open. It is very similar to the American concept where they talk to people before setting their tax programs and before establishing the spending priorities.
Our municipal politicians have just come through a difficult period. This government has been preaching restraint to them for some time now. There has not been a substantial alteration of major grant programs for some time but there has been a loading of new programs through the municipal level and they are in trouble.
Quite normally and naturally in an election year, they are very sensitive. Almost all of them went through their budgetary process exposing their ideas and choices to the public as they went through it, which is very dissimilar to what the Treasurer of Ontario did, and they were mindful that they thought there would be some fairness applied to this. They were mindful that the Treasurer of Ontario was one of the foremost screamers at the federal-provincial conferences about consultation. At least they were under the impression that there was some common line of agreement here, that some fairness would apply.
They felt the Treasurer -- claiming the federal government to be a foul perpetrator of deeds -- would not turn around and do to them what he was accusing the feds of doing to the provinces. But he did, and on budget night he hit them. He hit them in kind of sly and sneaky ways, ways which they cannot really get out of either. He hit them with the Ontario health insurance plan. They cannot budge on that. They are bound into agreements with their employees, quite normally and rationally, which identify clearly their share. He hit them again with little things like licence fees; small things perhaps, but matters which municipal governments are pretty sensitive on.
He hit them again when he went after things like putting sales tax on building materials, services and supplies which they buy. This does not sound as if it would have a major impact unless one has been on a municipal council, as many members in here have. After going over the municipal budget proposals there is not a whole lot of room to manoeuvre in there. Lots of times hard-nosed decisions are made. Somebody will say they have to get $20,000 out of this budget somehow. They know that taking $20,000 out means losing another $80,000 in shared grants from some other level of government, but if the $20,000 has to go, it has to go and outgoes the service as well.
These municipal people have gone through that whole process. They have borne the pain of setting their spending priorities and taxing proposals in public for the forthcoming year. They sometimes spend a lot of time, anger and frustration looking at other local levels of government such as boards of education and police commissions and saying, "You really did not do as tough a job as we did."
Imagine their shock and dismay when they got whammied by the Treasurer. Imagine that. How would members feel if they had gone through this whole process and the day he announces with one simple announcement, he does not jab one with another $5 or $10 here and there; in total, most mid-sized municipalities we have asked are being hit for around $1 million. Then, to add more aggravation to that, he comes back and announces a wonderful little program of job creation for the short-term summer period.
9:50 p.m.
I would like to see this government put in place and react to some federal program which the federal government said they had to get ready within six weeks' time. This government would be beside itself because there was no notice or lead time given, saying it takes time to work out proposals, to get the application forms processed, to put all of the stuff together. Yet the Treasurer expects the municipal governments in this province to do just that.
That is nuts. Quite frankly, it does not make an opposition member like me very susceptible to being friendly towards supply motions at this short period.
We talked a little bit about a couple of other things in the industrial sector as well. One of the things that I must admit is not high on my priority list is the Canadian shoe industry. That is simply because we do not have very many people in my area who work at the manufacturing of shoes. But it is true that in many parts of the province, and it was once true in Oshawa where we had a major tanning operation, the shoe industry is at least in place. It is fairly modern in many respects. It is competitive in the world market in some respects and not in others, and it has fallen upon tough times. People who are used to earning a decent, honest living by making shoes in a factory are now working three-day weeks instead of four- or five-day weeks.
The shoe industry itself is in trouble. This government, I know, has been briefed thoroughly by the shoe industry. It is aware of the problem, but it seems to be taking the exact same attitude to the shoe industry in Ontario that it took for so long to the auto industry. It seems to have some passing awareness of what things like sales tax on kids' shoes really do. It seems to have some minimal knowledge of that.
It is aware, as is anybody else in our society, that sometimes symbolism is just about as important as reality. If a government makes a move to provide some assistance to one part of our economy, one industry, that often will focus some attention on that industry and around that will come some small measure of assistance over what the government gave it. The fact that the government paid some attention to the needs of those workers and the needs of that industry generates a little life of its own.
They cannot even get that from this government. They have been pleading with this government for five or six years now to simply raise the exemption level, let it keep pace with inflation, let it move up a little bit to reflect simply the reality of the marketplace out there. They cannot even get this government to respond to a simple request like that and, worse yet, they find that the government runs in the other direction.
This government seems quite paranoid to make sure that nobody does a single thing in this province, that no purchase occurs, no service is rendered without tax being paid. In as many ways as it can conceive of, it wants to grab some tax money even if it knows that will affect the market, the industry, the jobs and, in the long run, the revenue base of this province. It seems to have little regard for that. It does not care about it. It now takes the same attitude with the shoe industry as it took three or four years ago with the whole auto industry: it chooses to ignore it; it chooses not to respond to it.
At the very best, one can perhaps say that the government has the small manners to listen to what the problems are. I do not know whether it is afraid to speak publicly to the federal government about the needs of our industry. If it is, I am damned if I know why. Are they proud? Are they ashamed to say openly and honestly that we have some industries in this province that are dying on the vine and need a little help, maybe even need some protection from offshore competition?
What is wrong with us? Why are we too proud to do that? Why is it that the Japanese and people in many other countries simply say, first and foremost: "If our people are to survive, they must have jobs; and if our economy is to grow, prosper and develop, we need a little content legislation. We need to make sure that when layoffs occur in worldwide industries they do not hit bang on to us."
In the auto industry, it is simple. There are countries in this world, automotive-producing nations, where the layoffs do not exist. The reason they do not exist is that the governments in those countries say: "If you want to lay workers off, lay them off, but do not come to the governments afterwards and ask them and everybody else to pay the social cost of the layoffs. Lay them off if you want to, but you pay them."
In this country, and in the United States, strangely enough, we seem to be so stupid as to allow the private sector to say, "We are going to lay all these people off." And the municipalities say, "What do we do now that they have laid off most of the workers in my town or now that they have a heavy impact in other towns?" We lay it off on some other level of government. We shuffle it off to some other person in our society. But we do not go to the automotive producers and say: "This is your idea. You pay the consequences." That seems to me to be a reasonable and rational way to proceed.
In most of the European countries where governments have taken that attitude, they are not taking layoffs. There is no big downturn in the auto industry. There is a constant progression and development and the industry gets better. One of the things I find pretty aggravating is the mentality that flows now. It is very trendy to talk about Reaganomics; but aside from the trendiness of all that, there is a great deal of thought of politics and the process and particularly of fund-raising.
I happened to spend a bit of time at the convention of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities lately. I was impressed, for example, by one morning session in one of the committee rooms, where they were discussing housing. Not too long ago, this was a matter of great concern to all levels of government in Canada. All of them were very interested and active in the field of providing housing to people. Now it is rare to find any government anywhere in Canada thinking a lot about the provision of housing services to its population, even though we know that people are losing their houses, even though we know the interest rates are driving people out of their homes, even though we know the supply of rental apartments in most municipalities is pretty much the same as in mine. It is just not there. There is not a great deal of talk. There are no great programs announced. It seems to be something that is passé for government.
At this conference, where there were supposedly some 600 delegates, there were about 25 or 30 of them present at the morning session. I went upstairs to listen to what I thought would be another interesting discussion about energy costs and transportation. It struck me that the place ought to be jammed. Most people around Metro Toronto and in Metro itself are concerned about energy costs, transportation and things like providing GO train service throughout a whole commuter corridor. People should be talking about that. Yet there were only some 25 or 30 delegates present.
In the other session, the third session they were running that morning, there was an itemized litany of how many ways one can contract out. How many ways can a municipality get rid of its responsibility? How many ways can it gyp its employees? How many different names can be put on these things? In how many different sectors of the operations it runs can it start dumping into the private sector?
That is fair game. I suppose, as politicians go, we are all interested in other people's theories of how government should operate. But what I found absolutely amazed me, because it seems to me it would be a rational exercise if people were in there saying: "That is a really interesting idea. Tell me, how much money do you save? How much do you save in the short run? How much do you save in the long run? How do you capitalize on the standard equipment you already have? What about the facilities you own? What about the financial and legal obligations you have?" However, there were not a whole lot of questions about that. People there seemed to want to hear more. How many other ways can we sock it to people at the municipal level? How many other ways can we get rid of our responsibilities to municipal employees?
What I found sad about that was that there was not a careful analysis of whether these were good or bad ideas, whether they saved money in the short run or the long run, whether they provided a better or different level of service or service in a wholly different area. There was no questioning of these things. It was, "Gather up the latest and most recent way to shed your responsibility." I found it perplexing in that session, because the place was jammed with people. I suppose that is normal.
On reflection, that is just what all levels of government are doing in this nation at this moment. They seem to be trying to shed their responsibilities. They seem to be trying to lay them over into the private sector with not much careful analysis of whether the private sector is even interested in responding to those needs.
10 p.m.
In this budget and in this supply motion there is a lot of that going on. The Treasurer of Ontario is saying, "We are going to have to take a look at whether it really is our responsibility to do anything about housing or to provide a transportation system for the people of the province."
I found some of the stuff he had to say in his budget presentation a little on the dumb side. I wish someone would provide me with the rationale whereby the Treasurer of Ontario rises in his seat and says it is the people who are dependent upon the province for survival at that level -- people who are at the poverty line, below the poverty line or a few fortunate souls just slightly above the poverty line -- how does he decide that is the group to which he says, "You cannot expect to keep up with the level of inflation off the Treasury of Ontario"?
He sure as hell did not say that to the Premier when the Premier wanted to buy something. He sure did not say that to a lot of other people at the upper end of our economy. He did not go after those people at all. For example, in the budgetary proposals of the Treasurer there is in a rather moot form what is now being bandied about, I take it, in the federal Liberal caucus as well; that is, a return to the panacea of the free enterprise system: when you get in trouble, sock some kind of wage controls on.
What I find a really nifty piece of business is that if I were the Prime Minister of Canada, making $120,000 or $130,000, and if I were given a large mansion, two Cadillac limousines, three or four jet planes to travel around the world, somebody to look after my kids and even the food on my table paid for, I guess maybe my position on wage controls would be: "Why not? Freeze it at $124,000 a year. So what?"
At the bottom end of the scale, when one looks at an ordinary working family and talks to people who are already having difficulty with their mortgages, with some of them losing their houses, there are already people at the point where they say: "We just cannot make major purchases any more. It is beyond our capacity."
People are having some trouble putting together enough money to meet their existing expenses. Say to those people, "Wage controls are the answer," and they all look in bewilderment and say: "You are nuts. I can't live on what I am making now. Inflation is taking it higher and higher, and you expect me to get nothing in return for my services."
That is where the whole wage control philosophy falls flat on its keister. It cannot even stand the analysis of middle-income people any more because they are all faced with those problems. They understand this is not going to give one other person in a factory a job. This is not going to give anything except more pain and misery to one's neighbours or one's neighbours' children or the families one lives and works with. It is not going to do a thing for the province's economy as a whole.
Planted firmly once again in the middle of what the Treasurer wants to do with the province these days is that nifty little concept that I thought was long gone and dead. It should have been dormant. It has been tried within the past 10 years in this country. It has been tried in many other countries. It has not resulted in any good for anyone. It has not wrestled inflation to the ground, as the saying goes. It did not do anything for our economy. It did not give anyone a job. It is that funny little notion called wage controls.
On the last trip through, I noticed there was at least the pretence of saying "wage and price controls." On this trip through, everyone seems to have dropped mention of price controls. Now there is, in word as well as intent, exactly what we had the last time: a system of wage controls which I thought had been tried in this country and on which I thought the consensus was that it did not work and was not successful in any sense. It did not produce any positive results.
Yet with governments at the provincial level and, I read in the morning paper, again in the federal Liberal caucus -- if there still is one -- an idea has come around for a second kick at the cat that somehow something which did not work five years ago is going to work now. How?
Mr. Boudria: There are more Liberals in the federal Liberal caucus than you will ever have.
Mr. Breaugh: We never have any members in the federal Liberal caucus and never will have.
Mr. Boudria: In any federal caucus.
Mr. Breaugh: My friend has a little trouble counting there.
I want to say it is a strange process that is at work here, because we seem to have a level of government that ought to --
Mr. Watson: The New Democrats are the only liberals west of Ontario.
Mr. Breaugh: If the member for Chatham-Kent had gone to Hamilton West and made that brilliant and incisive remark, the government might actually have won that seat back. It is unfortunate he did not do that.
Mr. Watson: I'll do it the next time.
Mr. Breaugh: Go over tomorrow.
Mr. Watson: If Rae runs in your riding, I'll come down to Oshawa and say it.
Mr. Breaugh: Any time the honourable member cares to come to Oshawa and walk down our main street, I will go right along beside him and show people that this is a Tory. We have not seen one of those in Oshawa in quite a few years. Maybe we could charge admission. It might be fun for an afternoon. I guarantee the member safe passage in and out of town, and I am sure my people would have a good laugh.
Mr. Watson: I was there one day, and you didn't even show up.
Mr. Breaugh: I do not doubt that. I do not hang around --
The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. Boudria: Is the new member going to resign so that Bob Rae can run?
The Acting Speaker: Speaking to the motion for interim supply.
Mr. Breaugh: Several members have questioned me tonight about whether I am going to resign, and I want to say to all my friends --
Mr. Boudria: No. Whether the new member is going to resign for Bob Rae.
Mr. Breaugh: I do not think so. But I want to --
The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member to restrict his remarks to the subject at hand.
Mr. Watson: If he's going to make an announcement, let him.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa is like the Maytag repairman: the loneliest guy in town.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The debate is on the motion for interim supply for the period July 1, 1982, to December 31, 1982.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, some of these people cannot figure out why in this caucus one member can stand by himself in his place and do the job of an entire caucus while this wimpy little group on my right takes half a dozen just to hold the floor. And, of course, I do not know what the rule is over on the government side, because there are people on that side of the House whom I have not heard speak yet. I am not sure they can speak.
Mr. Shymko: You've heard me, Mike.
Mr. Havrot: There are more guys like you who talked themselves out of the House than talked their way in. Just look at your majority.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Breaugh: I think the member who just pointed so well is the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot). I have not heard him speak publicly; I have read his comments on garbage tracks, but I have not had a chance to hear him speak.
The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable member to refrain from responding to the interjections and to speak to the motion on the
Mr. Breaugh: I would be happy to; but if you are not going to keep order here, somebody has got to try.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I am trying, and I appreciate your assistance.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you just point your foot at the member for Timiskaming and try to keep him in his place, please?
The Acting Speaker: It is a hard job, but I will do my best. Will the member for Oshawa resume speaking to the motion on the floor?
Mr. Breaugh: Yes. I want to get at that right now.
Mr. Havrot: You are such a bunch of angels.
Mr. Foulds: I thought it was on the table myself.
Mr. Breaugh: On the table. There are some really good remarks coming in here, Mr. Speaker, which you ought to get on the record. Some of these members do not get a chance to --
The Acting Speaker: Do not allow yourself to be distracted.
Mr. Watson: He's running out of things to say.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am not that easily distracted.
The amendment that is currently before the House, I think, is a sensible and rational approach for this House to take in dealing with the matter of interim supply. One of the things it is difficult for people on the outside --
Mr. Watson: Your members are really supporting you and listening to your speech.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to try to help you keep order, but you seem to be having a little trouble.
The Acting Speaker: I just cannot hear them as well up here as you can there. You can help me just by disregarding them.
Mr. Breaugh: If I did not know better, Mr. Speaker, I would say you were an ideal Tory, because you have a hearing problem. I would not say that; I know you are not an ideal Tory.
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: All joking aside, surely it is your job to keep order in all corners of the Legislature.
The Acting Speaker: That is my endeavour, and I am trying to do so. I have said "Order" so many times that I am sure members are tired of hearing it. Member for Oshawa, will you please stick to the debate and speak on the subject?
Mr. Breaugh: I should never have awakened you, Mr. Speaker. You are getting nasty all of a sudden.
I want to speak to the amendment that is before the House, which does what one would normally and logically think an interim supply motion ought to do. The amendment is pretty straightforward; I imagine most members will understand it. It says that an interim supply motion is a temporary motion, that it ought not to go for a lengthy period of time and that it ought to be a mechanism the government uses just after or just before a major adjustment.
What people on the outside certainly would have difficulty understanding is the simple idea that if the budget itself, the major piece in a government's economic statement, has just been announced and is barely a month or so old, what is the need then to come in with a request for interim funds to carry the government over? If there is a need for interim funds, why do they need a half year's supply of interim money?
10:10 p.m.
I wonder how many households in this province do their budgeting on that basis, where someone comes in to the kitchen table and says: "Well, I need an interim supply motion tonight. I need half of my annual income tonight." I cannot do that in my household. The treasurer in my household would say: "You are nuts. You are going to get interim supply. You are going to get a week's supply of money, if you are good." I would never get away with walking into my household and saying: "I need interim supply. I have to have something to tide me over, and it has to be for a six-month period."
That is not a logical thing for a big, sophisticated, expensive, political and economic machine such as the government of Ontario to do. It talks about needing money to tide itself over until its budgetary policies are all settled down, until the arguments between the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue are resolved about who is exempt from the new sales tax and how much sales tax will be collected, until the Treasurer resolves the very dicey problem of whether he really has enough moxie to make caterers and people who run coffee trucks go out and do a totally insane thing, that is, become an unlicensed vendor and collect a tax that is not yet legal.
One of the things the Treasurer ought to do in the three-month period that is the subject of our amendment is go out some morning to a building construction site. He ought to get in somebody's coffee truck and go out there. I have heard the Treasurer say, and I even heard the Premier say -- though I doubt he has been out there that early in the morning -- that this is not going to cause much inconvenience to anybody. I would like him to get in somebody's coffee wagon some morning and go out to a construction site and deal with the 30 guys who all want their coffee in five minutes, and figure out how they do that.
He should see how he likes taking abuse from people who are a little grouchy in the morning, who have a job that is not quite as soft and cosy as that of the Treasurer of Ontario. Maybe he would like to go to a construction site at noon hour when people have a very short period of time to get fed, and other people drive a truck up -- this is not La Scala we are talking here -- and try to feed people in a short period of time. He should see how friendly people are to him, as he says, "Just wait a minute, I have to figure out the sales tax here." He should see how practical it is for somebody running that kind of operation to run out and get a computer-programmed cash register and stick it on his truck. He should see if he can afford it in these times.
Maybe during the period of interim supply that is being debated tonight, one of the things that should happen is that the Minister of Revenue ought to go around the province and talk to those groups he is now making tax agents -- our cultural groups, our recreational groups, people who try to assist other organizations -- and see how rational they think the proposal is that they become tax collectors for Ontario.
The irony is that the government of Ontario will suck out at one end of the process some small additional amount of revenue. At the other end of the process, there will probably be more applications made for government assistance, because what those supposed free enterprisers over there are doing is destroying people, destroying that basic concept.
There are all kinds of organizations who fund themselves independently of the government, who like that idea, who work very hard to keep their cultural or recreational groups together, and who need every penny they can get. They need the money much more than the Treasurer does. One of the sad things he is now doing is making them more dependent on an agency they are not particularly happy with, and that is the government of Ontario.
The amendment that has been provided for the House to consider this evening is a clear, simple and logical piece of business. It does one simple thing. It says that an interim supply motion ought to be that. It ought to be for a time period that is reasonable and is really interim. That is all the amendment does.
Mr. Speaker, if we could only get some common sense and some rationality into this parliament and into almost all levels of government, and concepts as simple and as sensible as the amendment that has been proposed, we would all be much better off.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Martel: Miller, you brought the Tories down tonight.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I certainly think I am owed a vote of confidence and thanks from that party. I want to say it is a sad fact that their leader did not have enough courage to go and put his name on the line. Too bad.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to tell members that I hope the Treasurer, when the time comes to call an election, will not try to drag it into a winter election because we will take him with Bob Rae any day of the week.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martel: Let's go.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: You're whistling in the wind, Elie.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Your new member is the new Cohn Isaacs; in by nine, out by eight. Quick dry-cleaning.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I call him the leader from never ever here.
Mr. Martel: Call him what you want, you ran third.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. F. S. Miller: When the leader from never ever here comes back, we will be glad to see him.
I listened to the last speaker, the member for Oshawa, and I have to comment, although it is not normally my practice to make comments at the end of an interim supply debate. The absolute lack of understanding of the requirement of the interim supply motion demonstrated by the member for Oshawa really frightens me. He says, "What a way to run a business; you have to come in and ask for half a year's pay now because you do not know what you are doing." I would hope that he would be the last person to think we would work without the authority of this House to spend money.
He knows the budget process is the only process which allows the spending of money in this House. Until the budget process is finished and the bills are passed, we can only spend money on the basis of the interim supply motion. That is why that motion is before this House. The money is not spent on that day. It is spent across those months and we have to recognize that.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not want to shock the Treasurer --
Mr. Speaker: Let us hear your point of order.
Mr. Breaugh: -- but the matter before the House, and I thought, Mr. Speaker, you might have picked it up, is an amendment to the supply motion, not the supply motion.
Hon. F. S. Miller: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, but in either case, the paucity of information contained in those extemporaneous and lengthy comments indicates the small amount of knowledge in the brain.
Mr. Martel: Your budget indicates that.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am finished with my comments and am prepared to have the votes.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. F. S. Miller moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, government notice of motion 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.
Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, an amendment to the motion as follows:
That government notice of motion 8 be amended by changing "the period commencing July 1, 1982, and ending December 31, 1982," to "the period commencing July 1, 1982, and ending September 30, 1982."
All those in favour of Mr. Cooke's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
10:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will proceed with the main motion.
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the House, I want to indicate the business of the House for next week:
For Monday, June 21, afternoon and evening, second reading of Bill 115;
On Tuesday, June 22, second reading of other budget bills in this order: Bill 111, Bill 113, Bill 112, Bill 114, with committee of the whole House as required;
On Wednesday, June 23, afternoon and evening, second reading of Bill 127;
On Thursday, June 24, in the morning and evening, second reading of Bill 46 and committee of the whole House as required, followed by second reading of municipal bills in this order --
Mr. Foulds: Morning? We're not sitting in the morning. The hell we are.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You did not catch that?
Mr. Martel: No, no, keep going.
Mr. Foulds: You say we are sitting in the morning. We are not sitting in the morning.
Mr. Speaker: You had better speak to your House leader. There should be some communication over there.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Bills 12, 13, 15 and 29; and 92, 62, 105, 119, with committee of the whole House on those bills and on Bill 28.
On Thursday afternoon, we will have private members' ballot items standing in the names of Mr. Samis and Mr. McKessock.
On Friday, June 25, committee of the whole House on Bills 26 and 84, followed by municipal bills continuing from Thursday.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
BY-ELECTION IN HAMILTON WEST
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would beg the indulgence of the House, because I will not be here tomorrow morning, to take this opportunity to express on behalf of the government my congratulations to Professor Allen, the successful candidate in the by-election in Hamilton West.
I should extend those congratulations to the leader of the New Democratic Party as well, although if I could offer him any hindsight advice, I am not sure why he was not the candidate in Hamilton West. But I do most sincerely offer my congratulations.
While I have this occasion, I would also like to express to the candidate of our own party, Mr. McMurrich, my congratulations for waging an excellent and aggressive campaign.
I think the House leader for the Liberal Party will understand if I am not, on this evening, modestly provocative -- which I think I could be, considering the final result of the Hamilton West by-election -- except to say that the Liberal candidate did participate in a democratic process.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence: Since some members were not present for an earlier opportunity, I would not want anyone, particularly the leader of the government, to get a wrong impression.
I, too, on behalf of my colleagues, would like to extend our very best wishes and congratulations to Professor Allen. I have not encountered him as a candidate, but I know him to be the author of some excellent social history of this great country. I want to extend to Professor Allen very best wishes on his electoral success this evening, and certainly to our candidate, Mr. Barbera, and to the Conservative candidate, Mr. McMurrich, our very best for having waged vigorous campaigns and for having participated in the electoral process.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let me simply thank the Premier and my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) for those words of congratulations. It is always nice to win. We have known the pangs of defeat; we do not win with smugness.
But I do say that the budgets of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and that fellow in Ottawa, Mr. Allan MacEachen, have done great things to change the attitudes of people in this country. I say with sincerity that I hope it makes the government reconsider some of its positions on the budget, and maybe it will make some changes that will appease some of the people.
The House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.