BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the supper break I had talked at some length about the budget, saying I thought it was the worst budget this government has ever brought in, especially for people in the lower-income bracket.

Since we have had some criticism about the House not being open last Friday for an hour and a half and on Monday for three and a half hours, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we have a quorum. Would you check to see whether there is a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens) ordered the bells to be rung.

8:07 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: We have a quorum. The member for Essex North will continue the budget debate.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, when I asked for a quorum I did not really want to force everybody to come in to listen to me. So if anyone --

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There are no cabinet ministers present to hear this budget debate. I would like to draw it to your attention.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: It might have escaped the attention of the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I happen to be a cabinet minister, and I am here. I just thought I would like to remind her of that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex North now has the floor and our full attention.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I understand that about four cabinet ministers are up in the Sault, opening up the sewage disposal system. I guess it is understandable.

As I attempted to say, I did not want to force anybody to come and listen to my remarks. They may feel free to wander out into the hallways while I finish my speech. I will not call for a quorum; however, someone else might.

Sometimes this House seems irrelevant. It was just mentioned that there were no cabinet ministers present. I recognize that the chief government whip and Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gregory) is with us this evening, but no other cabinet minister. Going back to my first five, six, seven or eight years in this Legislature, I recall that at any given time at least one or two cabinet ministers were present, especially under the reign of John Robarts, but not so much from then on.

I think that shows the kind of distaste that the present Premier (Mr. Davis) has for this process. It bothers me some, because there are people in the gallery most evenings, looking around. Of course, we know that on many occasions there are committees meeting in other parts of the building; we understand that we cannot have them all in here. Something the public probably does not realize, but we who are here certainly do, is that some members have commitments in committees.

If we are going to make democracy work, this is a forum that should be used. I know that some of us will use occasions such as budget speeches and throne speeches to talk on line-fence issues, I suppose one would call them, or local matters. Sometimes it is the only forum one has to get these matters on the record and to draw the attention of the House to them.

As was mentioned previously, there are not many cabinet ministers here, but we do know that they have many executive assistants who keep track of what is going on here by reading Hansard. I am aware of times when I have spoken here when there was hardly anyone in here, but I have received a letter a few days later from one of the cabinet ministers about something I had mentioned in my speech. So I guess they do keep track of things.

I have one or two items I want to speak on; they are what I would call local issues, although they involve the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). One has to do with a project in the township of Rochester. The township had applied to the province for assistance in building watermains in the municipality. They had hired engineers to make a survey of the municipality to enlarge some of the watermains. The pressure in some parts of the municipality is down to 15 pounds, and other areas have no water available.

In the area I am speaking of it is almost impossible to obtain water through wells or to drill wells; so you have to have it by pipeline. They had their engineers' report sent down to Toronto to be perused by the Ministry of the Environment and, after some meetings and discussions back and forth, Mr. Harry Parrott, the then Minister of the Environment, sent them a letter, dated March 20, 1981. It says:

"This refers to your request for an up-front grant for the above-noted project.

"I am pleased to confirm that I have approved the grant in the amount of $969,000, which represents 72 per cent of the net capital cost of the project, based on the estimates provided by the municipality. The estimated grant allocation for the fiscal year 1981-82 is $700,000.

"The appropriate grant claim forms are attached, and these should be submitted to my project co-ordination branch in accordance with the instructions shown, together with proof of the tender award for the project.

"I request confirmation of receipt of this letter together with a statement that the municipality will definitely proceed with the works for which the grant has been assigned in fiscal year 1981-82. This confirmation must be received by May 15, 1981, as I propose to reallocate funds to other requests should your municipality not confirm that it can utilize the funds presently allocated.

"I trust that this grant assistance will enable you to complete your undertaking successfully.

"Yours truly, Harry Parrott."

That was March 20, 1981. The municipality then had Ontario Municipal Board approval for the project, and that approval was granted on the basis that the township of Rochester would receive 72 per cent of the cost of the project.

I have a letter from Mr. Letman, manager, project control section, Ministry of the Environment, to the township of Rochester, dated December 4, 1981:

"Re: Township of Rochester waterworks extensions, provincial up-front grant.

"This acknowledges receipt of your letter of November 10, 1981, advising of the recent Ontario Municipal Board hearing. We note that the board has requested assurance that grant funds will be available beyond the current fiscal year.

"Please be advised that the allocation made for the current year was based on an estimate prepared by staff of the municipality's expenditures during the current year. Provision has been made in our budgetary allocation to cover the costs of completing the work in 1982-83 and the subsequent fiscal year based on information already provided to us.

"We shall continue to retain funds in our budget for the current year on the assumption that contract award will proceed prior to April 1 next. If such is not the case, we would appreciate being advised in order that the necessary adjustment can be made in our 1982-83 allocation.

"We trust that this information will be sufficient for the purposes of the board.

"Yours very truly, Mr. C. E. Letman."

There were some other municipalities in the area making applications on almost similar projects. The municipality called tenders on April 1. It called the government to tell it that it had the tenders and had opened them and asked what direction it should take at the time.

This is a registered letter dated April 15, 1982, to Mr. Richard J. Bondy, Barrister and Solicitor, 310 Canada Trust Building, Windsor.

"Dear Mr. Bondy:

"Re: Township of Rochester waterworks extensions, provincial up-front grant.

"This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning following the receipt here of your letter dated April 7, 1982.

"As I indicated on the telephone, an error has occurred in the calculation of the above grant. A corrected calculation produces a $90,000 grant instead of the previously indicated $969,000."

Mr. Sweeney: That's one heck of an error.

Mr. Ruston: It says "error".

Mr. Wrye: It is like the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Mr. Ruston: "We have, therefore, to advise that we cannot proceed on the basis of the figure indicated earlier. You indicated that tenders were open a few days ago, and I suggested that you take no further action to lock yourselves into this project.

"You expressed the desire to meet regarding this matter and, subject to confirmation from you, we could meet on the morning of April 22. I will be accompanied at the meeting by Mr. G.E. Higham, executive director, finance and administration, of the ministry, and possibly by other staff.

"Yours very truly, Mr. J. Neil Mulvaney, QC, director, legal services branch."

When they got the letter from the then Minister of the Environment, saying they were going to get $969,000, they went ahead with their project. They had public meetings, they involved about 600 people who were in dire need of water and everything was fine. The Ontario Municipal Board had its hearings. There were a couple of things they inquired about and information was forwarded to them and they, in turn, gave final approval to the project.

The difference between $969,000 and $90,000 has got to be something other than an error. I am sure, as much as we have computers and experienced people working on many of these projects, that something else is wrong. The minister, I think, must be changing his regulations in midstream, because this was approved and everything was set to go. The contract came in at $290,000 less than the engineer's estimate; so the province would save 72 per cent of that, another $210,000 or $215,000. Instead of it costing the province $969,000, the $215,000 off that would bring it down to about $750,000.

They have failed to come to any agreement after meeting with the Rochester township officials. The minister refused to meet with the council; apparently there was an article in one of the newspapers which said the township may have to take legal action if the ministry did not approve the project, because the township has engineering costs of around $150,000 involved in this project.

I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment on April 29, 1982. He has not as yet agreed to meet with the officials of the municipality.

I cannot say too strongly how I feel when a minister of the crown signs a letter saying a municipality is going to get $969,000 and then tells it nine months later, after the contracts are all ready to let and all the engineering work is done, that it is going to get $90,000. I do not know whether that is the way the Treasurer runs his budget; it looks like it. That is just a carryover of what is going on in this government, and something has to be done.

8:20 p.m.

I hope the township of Rochester does not have to go to the courts to get this money, because it would probably take a couple of years, and fighting the province is not cheap. The municipality has a population of only about 4,000, and it could be very expensive for it. I want to bring to the attention of the House that this matter is of grave concern to us in my area.

Our expert on agriculture is here, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). He covers that topic very well, much better than the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). At least he knows which way the cow and the horse are going when he is out in the field. I will give the minister time to try to learn a little about what happens if one puts seed in upside down, whether it will grow or if it has to be set up straight. He will find that out, I am sure, over the next few months as he gets his feet wet as the new minister.

I want to say a thing or two about agriculture. I think we have some of the best agricultural land throughout Essex county. In my own riding, of course, we have excellent black land in the La Salle area where there is market gardening. But throughout the rest of the riding there is mostly what we call the Brookston clay, where we grow beautiful field tomatoes.

I am happy the minister has made an agreement with H. J. Heinz Co. to put in a new addition to its plant for handling tomato paste. That is something I talked about many years ago. On a couple of occasions, a predecessor of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Stewart, and I had some great, sometimes loud, discussions on that. He was a great Minister of Agriculture and Food. We have not had one that good since he retired. We are looking forward to the next election when we can have the member for Huron-Middlesex as Minister of Agriculture and Food.

This government is paying lipservice to keeping the small farmer in business. I have a friend who lives about four miles from me who has a chicken farm and does some cash crop farming. He has ducks and so forth. He has been going to the Windsor market for 30 years. It is real income for him, his wife and family. Now the province has come along with a rule that unless one has a licensed slaughterhouse, one cannot take any birds to the city market.

There was an editorial in the Windsor Star of Tuesday, May 11, entitled "Bureaucracy -- A Fox in the Hen House" It is rather good. The people who buy his chickens every Saturday -- he takes about 300 to market every week -- are the best graders and the best protectors of health there are. They would not keep coming back for 30 years if there was anything wrong with his products. I can tell members that. One time I went to that city market, and the buyers there knew and understood what they were buying. So it is really too bad.

I will read this: "Strange are the ways, and tortuous the thinking, of bureaucracy. Take, for instance, the latest pronouncement from the Ontario government. After July 5, poultry producers will not be allowed to market poultry not killed in a government-inspected plant. That means that you won't be able to go to the Windsor Market and buy fresh-killed poultry, as hundreds of consumers who like to buy their poultry fresh -- and from a producer they know and trust -- have been doing for years.

"It's another case of government helping the people, whether or not they want to be helped, and in the process increasing costs, squeezing out small enterprises, adding one more complication to life, and providing jobs and security for civil servants.

"There is nothing wrong with the idea of government inspection. It is comforting to know that what you buy for your table has been checked and graded.

"But once any idea is established, bureaucrats begin to fret at any departure from their rigmaroles. They don't want any exceptions. They don't just want control, but complete control.

"So the farmers who have been bringing fresh-killed poultry to the market for years, and have built up a clientele of buyers who know and trust them, are suddenly told to stop. Unless there's a government inspector officially on hand as every bird is killed, it's illegal to sell poultry at the market.

"The government does provide a way out -- but it is so awkward, expensive and annoying for both producers and customers that both could easily give up.

"Farmers can continue to kill and sell poultry on their own property. That means a trip to the country for each customer." That is the interesting part, and I am aware that the farmer can still continue to kill his poultry on his farm, but the purchaser or the buyer has to come out to the farm to buy it.

With the government's 30-cent-a-gallon tax now -- and the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) will be interested that I said "gallon" again -- they will like that, because the customer will be paying a big tax to drive out and get it. But how many people are going to drive out and do that? I could read the rest of the editorial, but it is just too bad, because again there is a whole business that has to close up.

We hear a lot about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, BILD. I think my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) calls it the "bilge" program. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Food to see whether he could help put in a slaughterhouse at a cost of about $50,000. It could have a dressing room for the vet to sit in while they kill the chickens. He could have a washroom and all the fancy things, such as a padded chair and probably a padded toilet seat. I thought I could help.

They say the BILD program would do wonders; so I asked whether it would be possible to get a loan to build this slaughterhouse. They said: "No. There is no money available; the well is dry." That is a real concern to those people who depend for a living on this. As I said earlier, the people who do the buying, the people who come to that market every day, judge and they can tell you whether the livestock was properly killed and whether it was proper before it was killed.

Mr. Stevenson: What did the poultry producers' marketing board say about that?

Mr. Ruston: What was that? Did the member for Durham-York want to give a speech? No, I guess not.

We do have more than just cash crop farming in our area, and we do have some beef cattle. At the November 1981 Royal Winter Fair, a young lady from our area, from Sandwich South township, won the Queen's guinea. She got a $250 cash prize, but her steer sold for $21,000. She is going to go to college when she finishes high school. Her name is Debby Nostadt. Her family runs a cash crop farm, and they have a beef feedlot and an adjacent butcher shop. They have a real operation there and they certainly know how to raise cattle.

This cross-breed was three quarters Limousin mixed with Hereford and Holstein.

Mr. Eaton: The Hereford part is good.

Mr. Ruston: How is that? Good breed.

Mr. Elston: Do you make $21,000 a head, Bob?

8:30 p.m.

Mr. Ruston: In the standing committee on procedural affairs this morning I was speaking about time limits on speeches. I am going over the time I was talking about in that meeting. However, I have no assurance the next speakers are not going to go over it; so I may as well take my time.

Mr. Mitchell: Sure, go ahead.

Mr. Ruston: In the last throne speech we had eight or nine days to go through it. Since I have been appointed whip of our party, I think I have gained the respect of all our members. I asked them if they would restrict their speeches to about half an hour so more of our members could get on during that eight- or nine-day cycle, but as soon as it went to the party to our left, some member would speak for two hours. Then one night the party to the left agreed to withdraw and allow us to catch up a little. We have 33 members. They really only have 21. Those fellows think they have 30, but they really only have 21.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member should speak to the budget debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: Anyway, one night they agreed to withdraw their speakers and allow us to get three or four speakers on. We had two speakers go on in a row with half an hour each. I had them on like a time clock. Then the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) got up. He was going to take half an hour, but he ended up taking an hour and a half so we really did not gain anything.

The Acting Speaker: I would appreciate it if the honourable member would tie this back into the budget speech he is making.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to --

Mr. Wildman: You are just trying to budget his time.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I guess you were not in the chair before six o'clock. I really covered a lot of the budget then. I would not want to be repetitive because you would probably call me to order. As you are aware, the budget speech covers anything that has to do with spending money, so it does give us a wide-ranging --

The Acting Speaker: You were talking about spending time and I would like you to talk about spending money.

Mr. Ruston: As I mentioned about mortgage assistance before the supper hour, our plan was to provide help for small businesses and also for farming, as well as for people with homes who were in trouble because of high interest rates. We were disappointed when our bill did not go through with the minority government two years ago. The first and third parties went together and voted it down, much to our displeasure and I am sure to the third party's displeasure now. I am sure if they had it to do over again, they would vote for that mortgage assistance program.

In regard to the agriculture industry, I mentioned the problem a couple of small farmers have here. Our biggest problem in Ontario now in cash-crop farming is that commodity prices are so low on soybeans, corn and so forth. We are familiar with farm prices as they go up and down. I suppose it is something farmers get used to and they roll with the punches. I am sure most members are aware that corn prices are about $1 a bushel less than the actual cost of production and soybeans are about $2 a bushel less. We have deep problems with those.

Of course, I understand we have not had rain in Essex county for three or four weeks, but we cannot blame that on the government. We do not intend to. I am sure someone will take care of that before too long and will stop the wind from blowing. I have a number of things I could go on with, but I have had my one hour.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

Mr. Mitchell: Which one?

Mr. Jones: Don't fight over it; there will be another time.

The Acting Speaker: Inasmuch as the member for Algoma sat down and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) is still standing, I recognize the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was a brutal battle but I am still standing.

Mr. Ruston: Maybe we should have a motion on which one should speak.

The Acting Speaker: I can tell that the member for Algoma defers.

Mr. Van Horne: The one who is more handsome.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Don't be sexist.

The Acting Speaker: We are talking on the amendment to the amendment to the budget.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was, in particular. So far, I do not think I have strayed from the topic.

Because of the great interest in speaking that has been exhibited by other members of my caucus, I will try to stay within the arbitrary one-hour limit that has been set by the member for Essex South.

Mr. Ruston: Essex North.

An hon. member: Whatever.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is true. It is "whatever", isn't it?

We have had two budgets of late, one provincial and one federal. The people of Ontario are reeling from the double whammy of the Tory-Liberal approach to economic recession in the province. At the federal level we have the policies of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. MacEachen which have brought us high interest rates, which have brought bankruptcies and the loss of mortgages to the fore and which are causing a great deal of hardship for people around the province.

We do not hear too much about that from members of the Liberal Party here in the House. One wonders, when is a Liberal not a Liberal. A kind of riddle comes to one's mind when one is a Liberal in Ontario, I would think. Or, when one is a Liberal after a MacEachen budget, one sometimes stops wanting to be a Liberal.

Mr. Ruston: Just remember what happened to Blakeney.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As far as I know, Mr. Blakeney was not a Liberal. The price of good policy is what he ended up with; although that is another matter.

Mr. Elston: We didn't lose a single member after the last election. That's more than you can say.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hesitate to get into the Saskatchewan disaster, but we will remember that the Western Canada Concept Party, or whatever it is called, almost garnered more support than the Liberal Party. It only failed by one percentage point. Together, they got seven per cent of the vote.

The provincial Liberals, who are indeed the federal Liberals and should not be allowed to try to make the distinction, are responsible. They are part of the Liberal machine that has brought us high interest rates, that has brought Reaganomics to Canada with their massive effect on the industrial heartland of Ontario.

What have they done, substantively, to deal with what we should do in Ontario? They have said that there should be no tax increases, but we should increase services. They do not point the finger of blame at their federal Liberal counterparts. As I understand it, in the doctors' dispute they said, "Larry, pay them whatever they want, but let's get rid of the dispute."

In a time of recession, I do not know how we can increase services and not increase taxation without increasing the deficit, which is the third option the Liberal Party has decided is not possible. They are dealing in a fairy-tale land of, essentially, trying to fool the public by criticizing only and by not offering any solutions; and especially by not taking any responsibility for what the federal wing of the party on my right has brought upon this province.

I would like to say that my party has not taken that approach to the budget. We came forward with our suggestions about a week before the budget was brought down by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Although my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) does not have the vast resources of the Treasurer's department to support him in developing a budget, nor the capacity for the double- and triple-checking that is necessary to dot every "i" and cross every "t," we were able to give a fairly comprehensive view of where we would go.

It is true that we made some choices. We said we do not want tax increases; in fact, we talked about tax cuts with regard to health premiums. But we understood that in the interventions we were suggesting we would be increasing the deficit. We did not back away from that. It would be unreal to believe that we were not doing it, but we looked upon it as a major investment in our future.

Mr. Gordon: Bankruptcy.

Mr. Mackenzie: Not that much more than yours.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exactly.

The provincial government has gone part-way along the way. They have raised the taxes and the deficit. They have come up with the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Gordon: You would double it.

Mr. Chariton: Not much more than yours.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Not that much more than the government's deficit. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), who announces things a week after other members from the Sudbury basin on a regular basis, will know the government's deficit was not what was anticipated.

Mr. Gordon: You mean our deficit wasn't big enough?

Mr. Mackenzie: Your credibility is not very good. I wouldn't say too much.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) was perhaps encouraged to run for the Conservative Party because of all that talk about a balanced budget, that notion about responsible government not creating deficits. He must be sorely disappointed because what a huge deficit. I am not blaming him for it. We would have created a deficit ourselves in order to invest.

I want to focus on just one area of this budget for my speech tonight. The choice that has been made by this government is essentially to come out with a budget for winners, a budget that says, "Give the wealthy more." My God, I am reminded of the last election where the Marxist-Leninists had the slogan, "Make the rich pay." What we have developed here is just the opposite. Their class analysis of Ontario, which I would never have presumed to be accurate, has been shown to be accurate in this budget.

The emphasis in this budget is on giving to those who have, believing that somehow giving to those who have will assist those who have not. That is the essential premise of this budget, allowing the pass-through of funds to the doctors as being acceptable in our society. Doctors should be able to gain, in this next year alone, a $12,000 increase on average, according to the Ministry of Health estimates -- a $12,000-a-year increase.

At the same time, in this wonderful blue book, there is not one word about senior citizens; not one word about a guaranteed annual income system for the disabled; not one word about family benefits recipients; not one word about general welfare recipients. But there is a hint and there is a threat in there that they should not expect an increase up to the cost of living.

I asked the Treasurer: "Is your threat, on page 17, directed to more than public servants? Is it directed as well to these recipients?" On page 17 of the budget it says, "I now serve notice to all recipients of provincial funds that they should not count on future funding at or above inflation rates." In response, the Treasurer said, "No," and I was pleased.

I rose then on a supplementary and asked the Treasurer, "Are you then saying that you will make sure these people, who are living below the poverty line," -- I will come back to that -- "will be given at least, if not catch-up like you said the doctors needed" -- these poor welfare recipients of our society, the doctors, they needed catch-up -- "will you at least give the welfare people and the family benefits people an understanding that they will get cost of living?" He said, "No." He would not guarantee me that. That tells me his threat is directed at them, just as surely as it is at the people who work in the hospitals. There is a nice irony, is it not? The hospital workers are recipients of funding.

Mr. Jones: You are giving your own interpretation of his answers.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I point out to the parliamentary assistant that this is a directive from the Treasurer to all those who are administering institutions and organizations that receive provincial funds. When they go to bargain with their employees, they can wave page 17 at them.

Mr. Gordon: We saw what happened in Saskatchewan to the hospital workers.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough West has the floor. Your mild interruptions are becoming not mild.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the hospital board, the children's aid society, the school board, the municipal council can turn to page 17 of the budget and say: "See? The Treasurer is telling us we do not have to give you an inflation increase for this year. When we go to bargain, you, the workers, are going to have to pick up the costs of the recessionary budget we have been given by the Treasurer. That is our mandate, that we should not expect money to be passed to us, and therefore you guys are going to have to take less than inflation."

To say that this is not a directive to those boards and associations around the province is foolhardy. Of course it is. It is the most blatant statement of instruction to those boards that I have ever seen in a budget. So the workers, then, are asked to bear the brunt.

I want to try to paint a picture of what our society is at the moment.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: You are.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you, Bruce.

My income, as anybody who reads Toronto Life will know, besides those members who happen to know that I do not have any other employment but this, is $40,000 a year, give or take our nontaxable section. I am a well-paid individual in this society, in my view. The games we are playing with that six per cent cut to make us look as if we are making a major sacrifice are so damned hypocritical in our society that I just cannot believe it. We were offered, and members all know it, nine per cent from the election.

Mr. Gordon: Did you earn your six per cent?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am not going to play games with it, Jim, like your friend from Brantford.

Mr. Pollock: We haven't even got the six per cent yet.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough West, do you have the floor?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The commission indicated to us that they thought we should get nine per cent on just the taxable section and no increase at all on the nontaxable section. The Treasurer seems to be making this big statement about the cutbacks we are going to take as an example for the province by saying that we will get only a six per cent increase. A six per cent increase on our salaries, yes, but also a six per cent increase on that nontaxable part. And now I understand he is even waving around the idea that on the other emoluments which certain members in this House get there should be an additional six per cent. What hypocrisy!

Mr. Gordon: Well, put a motion before the House.

Mr. Mackenzie: You will have a chance to support one this week.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those people who have, in my view, in this society; I am one of the people who have benefited well from this society; I do not need extra help to have it then somehow trickle down to other people in society. But there are many in our communities who have standards of living that are unacceptable to me and should be unacceptable to every member of this House.

While we have a budget that aids the wealthy we are in fact stretching the gap between the wealthy and the poor in this province. We say it is all right for the doctors to get what they are getting, a $12,000 increase this year, but I want members to juxtapose that with what a person on welfare is getting. I want them to think about it, because we all can think about this just as some money we are giving away to people and how much it is costing us.

A single recipient of family benefits in this province in 1982 receives $278 a month to live on, a total of $3,336 a year, and we have just approved that the doctors should get $12,000 extra this year on top of what they already make. Four times what these people are living on the doctors will get in an average increase this year, and there is not one word in this blue book about that basic injustice; there is not one word in this book which says that those people deserve protection, that in times of recession we protect the poor, not give to the wealthy.

There are not just a few of these people; there are perhaps 500,000 on assistance and maybe more who are living well below the poverty line in Ontario. If you are a disabled person, single, you receive $364 a month to live on in Ontario. That is a total of $4,368 a year. I would just like every member in this House to think about what it would be like to live on that much money.

If you own a home, think for a minute about what your mortgage rates are. On just my mortgage, I pay three times as much per month as that person receives. That is how I have benefited from society. I have the capacity to throw money into my housing to that degree.

8:50 p.m.

What does it mean for a person in the city of Toronto who is receiving $278 a month and wants to go out to find rental accommodation? I would remind the members that not all the poor are in Ontario Housing. According to the estimates of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) for this year, 40.1 per cent of the people receiving assistance are living in private rental accommodation in this province.

What does that mean if one is a poor person living in Toronto receiving $278 a month? It means that as of last April, if one were going out to look for an apartment in Toronto, the average cost would have been $276 per month. That is almost exactly what they are receiving in family benefits.

Any of the members who are from Metropolitan Toronto know that price of $276 has escalated enormously over the last year. It is hard for me to understand, when I go through the figures for people who are living on public assistance in this province, how we rationalize these various amounts.

Why is it a single general welfare recipient receives about $40 a month less than a single family benefits recipient? What is it about that person's basic needs in society that says that individual only needs $2,756 a year to live on? That is an unemployable on general welfare. If one is employable, one is offered even another cut of $22 per month. If one is employable, living in Windsor, not sick, has been on unemployment and it has run out, and one is still looking for work, they say: "Well, forget economic reality. You are eligible for work, therefore we will cut off $22 and that will be a real incentive for you to get out and find yourself a job. You only need $2,592 to live on in Ontario in 1982."

Why is it that a senior citizen on guaranteed annual income supplement receives $515 a month or about $6,188? I do not understand why we have this range of poverty we have decided to impose on the poor in this province. This budget has done nothing to redress either the inequality or the injustice of those people being required to live in Ontario at those levels. Those levels have not even kept up with inflation for the last number of years. Those people have been falling farther into poverty as the wealthy get wealthier.

A mother with one child since 1975 has lost 23.4 per cent against inflation. A mother with one child under family benefits has lost 14.8 per cent against inflation. Even a Gains-D single person has lost 16.2 per cent against inflation. The Minister of Community and Social Services has recently added in women between 60 and 64 and raised them up $40 a month, an act of supreme generosity. In this province, 1,600 people have had some kind of redress, but basically the 500,000 who are on levels below poverty have been losing against inflation.

We all have different notions of what a poverty level is. I have just tried to talk in terms of the dollars those people receive because we can argue all night about whether a poverty level is accurate or not.

But I think it should go on the record when we think about this family benefits recipient who is receiving $3,336 year in this province that the Statistics Canada rate for the poverty level, the basic amount of money that a person needs to get by on today in Ontario if he is living in a large city like Toronto, is $7,303. Quick arithmetic shows that those people are 40 per cent below a poverty line established by Statscan and accepted by the National Welfare Council.

A family of two is expected by Statscan to need $10,585. Well, a mother with one child in Ontario on family benefits receives $5,676 on which to raise that child in the province. Maybe they live in regular rental accommodation, maybe they are lucky enough to be in public accommodation, but probably as many as 40 per cent are not. A general welfare mother -- again this wonderful discrepancy -- is expected to get by on only $4,812.

While we give out in this budget the biggest single tax break we have given out in many a year in this province to business --

Mr. Mitchell: And that's good.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I said "while we do that" and that's our priority, and if you have been here from the beginning, Bob, you know I am saying there is no mention of the poor in this.

While we do that, giving again to the successful small business -- I think that is important to say the "incorporated small business"; several small businesses in my area that need assistance are now running off and making lawyers rich by getting themselves incorporated in the next month or so, so they can rush out and apply for it -- while we do that and while we start adding the sales tax to things that affect the poor far more than they affect you or me, we have not done one damned thing in this budget to redress the fact that people are being expected to live and raise children in the province on that pittance. To my mind that is shocking.

The press seems to have attacked this budget because it is a puppy-dog budget; we are taxing the puppy-dog and the delivery on pizzas. I agree that this is outrageous, that it is ludicrous; but, my God, the fundamental inequity of this budget is that it does not say one damned thing about the poor. Basically, in my view -- and I say this sardonically -- it is saying that money is wasted on the poor. Why bother giving it to them? Give it to the wealthy. They will help us get out of the economic mess that the federal Liberals -- to make a small distinction -- and the Tories over here have put us into. Let the poor wait until we get out of it; let the poor sit idly by.

Well, that strikes the very foundation of why I am a Socialist; that strikes at my very fundamental sense of justice. There is something damned wrong with a government that in these times, understanding the costs, the pressures and economic stress on families in this province, has not done one damned thing for the poor yet has given a huge tax break to business and has said to the doctors, "Take your money and run."

I guess that is what we expect with a majority government. To be fair, it is not what I expect of certain elements in the Conservative Party. It is not the kind of response I would expect from a concerned government in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen the consequences of poverty in Ontario first hand, as many others have, but I have never seen them as graphically as I did last autumn.

The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I, acting on a tip and not knowing whether it was real or not, went to the city hall garage in downtown Toronto to look in the stairwells. We were told we might see some people sleeping there.

9 p.m.

That night we saw 22 men curled up in the stairwells, lying on blankets of newspapers, curled in the foetal position, in the middle of the night. It was an eerie experience. It felt as though one was invading their privacy. And you said to yourself, "My God, is this what is going on in the underground, things that we do not see in this plush-carpeted chamber, with the pages waiting on us hand and foot" -- and doing very well too. We do not see it, but it is there.

We came back and made an issue of it. There was shock around the province. The response at city hall was to make sure they left the doors open so that in the winter the cold air would come down the stairwells and make it impossible for anybody to sleep there. The police started to lock up anybody who lay in front of the big exhaust fans at city hall, which was another place where we found people sleeping.

Luckily, there was a positive response: All Saints Church said it would open up its facilities to people during the week. In January, I went down to All Saints Church. I saw what was an incredible thing to see in Toronto which, I am sure, most people would not anticipate occurring.

We have many hostels. Those hostels were all full; they were all underfunded, but that is another matter. On the floor of All Saints Church there were more than 300 people sleeping. Some of them were on pallets of a cloth material that was provided by the church, but most were sleeping on the hardwood floor, in their stocking feet, with no blankets to cover them. An average of well in excess of 200 people a night were there for that full winter.

There is real and abject poverty in this province. Surely, if there is any reason for government, in the form of those noninterventionists over there, it is to make sure that people do not suffer in this society. If one wants to come down to just basics, the least one can do is to try to keep people from suffering and being hungry.

There is a report out today, which I have seen only peripherally, which says that in our hostels in Toronto there are about 270, as I recall, ex-psychiatric patients. There are also many more, as was reported by the member for Bellwoods, who are not admitted to our hostels because they are too hard to manage. There are no facilities in the city to handle those people.

In a grandstanding move yesterday, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) decided to give $1 million to create 74 new beds, I think it is -- is that right?

Mr. McClellan: Actually, it is only 60 new beds.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Only 60 new beds.

Mr. McClellan: No; 20.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am being corrected again. It is even less than that. I am credulous. Only 20 new beds.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Forty.

Mr. McClellan: That is separate. The $1 million will create 20 new beds, and there is an extra allocation for 40 beds.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): We are moving right along.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Twenty and 40 are 60. The member was right the first time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: At any rate, no matter whether it is 60 or 20, I am saying that we have hundreds of people in Toronto at the moment who have no place where people will accept them.

There are rent registries in Toronto for people looking for accommodation in the regular rental community. Last fall, the average price for one room with a shared kitchen was $50 a week; I am not out if I say $210 or $220 a month. For a person on general welfare that leaves some $30 or $60, depending on which level one is at, to live on for that month.

But it was not even that easy. What we discovered was that in 50 per cent of the cases, landlords who had those kinds of low-cost rental accommodation available would discriminate against men under the age of 65, ex-psychiatric patients and women with children; the people who were in greatest need were not allowed in. And we have a budget that does not contain one word about creating new housing for the poor and does not address the fact that public housing in general in Toronto had 30,000 people on waiting lists as of last fall.

One can read this as carefully as one wants. One will not see the creation of any new public housing. One will see some verbiage about the home rental construction concept, but we know that has created no more than about 300 places for subsidized housing in Toronto in the past year or so, with a waiting list of 30,000. I cannot believe anything but that this government is totally out of touch with the reality of this province; that it is tinkering with the system, throwing money at it, hoping it will trickle down and help.

Mr. Jones: We are trying to make the whole economy better. If the whole economy is better, the people you are talking about as part of that society will be better off.

Mr. Mackenzie: Better for the 10 per cent you were talking about.

Mr. McClellan: The parliamentary assistant was ordered not to speak by the Premier this afternoon. He should follow that advice.

The Acting Speaker: No. He was ordered not to answer questions.

Mr. Jones: That was a different set of orders.

Mr. Ruston: You were muzzled, were you?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was good advice, though.

Mr. Ruston: Mugged in the halls of power, is that what you call it? That's what Jim Taylor called it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As we let the heckling subside, I will continue.

There surely must be some understanding by this government that one cannot just give money at the top and hope it will reach these people. There are people who are destitute in this province.

We have a Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) who does not want to be a bleeding heart, as he said the other day in the House. God knows, we are in desperate need of a bleeding heart over there. If it is not the responsibility of Minister of Community and Social Services to take the message I am talking about tonight to the cabinet, and say that should be a priority, then I do not know whose job it is.

I do not know whether I can find the news clipping, but I remember it vividly, about his response when the figures came out on poverty levels in Canada and on people who were living in hunger. He said: "Bring me one hungry person. Show me somebody who is really having difficulty getting by at the moment."

That is one approach to take, and I think an occasional right-wing back-bencher should be allowed to express that kind of reaction, but for the Minister of Community and Social Services to think that people are not hungry when they are trying to raise a child on $5,676 a year, or to think that people are not sleeping in the cold when they are receiving $2,756 a year as an ex-psychiatric patient, for instance, is surely despicable at the very least.

Who is going to speak for these people? There is no sign at all of any Red Tory influence over there. There is no sign of any influence by the Minister of Community and Social Services or his predecessor, who is now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton).

Where is the famous influence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on the cabinet? Has the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) disappeared since Bill 7 went its rough route? What has happened over there that they have nothing to say about the poor, that it does not even cross their consciousness, when they are making the major economic statement of the year?

If I seem aghast and incredulous, it is because I am. We will be pushing hard on a number of fronts in the next little while in the House to try to expose what the government has left out, to try to push the minister at least to give people a raise soon.

9:10 p.m.

I guess we should be expecting the Workmen's Compensation Board increment pretty soon, should we not? Normally at this time of the year all of a sudden they come forward and dish out the bucks sort of on an ad hoc basis. I guess we should expect that. Maybe if we put pressure on, they will come through with some money as well for family benefits recipients, guaranteed annual income system for the disabled recipients and general welfare recipients, but it will be an afterthought. It is not in the original thought. It is not in the blueprint, so to speak, for Ontario that this is.

What are we to expect? Should we expect a rollback in Ontario health insurance plan premiums so the working poor in this province get benefit? I am talking about public assistance recipients at the moment, but the minimum wage in this province works out to about $140 a week or $7,280 a year.

Yesterday in estimates, I was saying in my view that since the minimum wage was below the poverty line and below almost every other province's minimum wage in the country, that was the responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services. He told me the working poor were not his responsibility; he was not to be concerned with the working poor, which I find to be just an incredible statement.

Are they going to get any redress from the extra taxation the government has put on them? This whole business of taxing denture cleaners is virtually obscene, in my view. It gives no extra money at all to senior citizens. Not one cent is mentioned in here as going to senior citizens. Then behind the scenes, the government taxes things seniors use, understanding that is going to take away from their present income because it is adding a tax that was not there before. I do not think that is clear.

They now will have to pay a tax on a magazine if they want to read a magazine. There is, of course, the puppy dog phenomenon. If they buy a pet as a companion, they will have to pay for that with a tax.

Mr. Pollock: It's a luxury.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I suppose it is a luxury, a pet for a senior. Is that what was said by the member, that for an older person who is left alone, for instance, when the husband or wife dies after a marriage of many years, buying a pet is a luxury? I think that is what he said.

Mr. Riddell: What about a dog for the blind? Is that a luxury? Have you ever thought of that?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In my view, it is not a luxury.

Prepared foods will now be taxed. If a senior wants to leave the apartment and go for a walk downtown, and stops in at the small greasy spoon, the neighbourhood restaurant, that senior now will pay a tax on the sandwich and coffee or the sandwich and tea that he never paid before. That is an extra burden on those people. The government is not only not mentioning and not giving them money but also in an insidious fashion it is actually taking away from their income.

It really is not worthy of this party that has stayed in government for 40 years. The Premier rightly says the government has been quite astute in the way it has fostered the vote of the elderly around this province, but I do not think this is doing it any good with those people. The government cannot take them for granted. The government just cannot presume that they will stick with them through thick and thin.

I agree that psychologically the elderly have perhaps an even more highly developed sense of sacrifice than the average citizen and that they will see it as part of their duty as people who have lived through the Depression, etc., to tighten their belts a bit --

Mr. Wildman: To help the younger people.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: To help the younger people in the new age. I agree that is a good psychological thing the government has got going for it as it adds its taxation to them in this budget, as it does not add to the property tax grant to assist them, as it does not add to the sales tax grant to assist them. I agree that the government has that working for it but, my God, it is unjust. Why should somebody who is receiving $5,000 -- I forget the figure I used now -- $6,188 for a senior citizen?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: $6,000 plus, plus, plus.

Mr. Wildman: Who are you kidding?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You don't even know what they get.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We can argue the pluses back and forth, okay?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Plus $500, plus $50, plus $60, plus another $50 if they are married, plus free drugs, plus free OHIP coverage.

Mr. Wildman: That might bring them all the way up to $8,000 maybe.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I appreciate the intervention by the minister. I have refrained from taking the package of additional things that seniors and other groups get and showing that if one adds those in they do bring the groups closer to the poverty line. I regret not having done that; perhaps I was making this too stark a contrast. Let it be very clear, though, that a single senior with all the added benefits that have been listed is still getting approximately 10 to 20 per cent below any accepted poverty line. Most of them will get the $500 anyhow, as the minister very well knows.

Mr. Breaugh: George defies them to get his money.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is true. He has certainly made it difficult for them to get it. It has been an ingenious --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It makes them appreciate it more.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes, I think it will work on that basis again. If one can just draw it out and extend the period of time they wait, they appreciate it so much more at the end of that waiting period.

Mr. McClellan: If they have had to make 15 phone calls, they are just overwhelmed with gratitude.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is right. They are really very pleased with the program.

Mr. McClellan: He can't even give money away.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnson: I do not want to belabour the point -- what am I saying? I do want to belabour the point! I want to say that in the next number of weeks we intend to continue to raise this in the House. We intend to continue to draw people's attention to the fact that the victims of this budget are the poor, that the beneficiaries are those who have. We intend to travel the province. We intend to try to push the government's bills out to standing committee and get people in to talk about them.

We intend to embarrass the government members with their own document until they finally move away from it, and if they do not move away from it they will stand rigid at their peril. People will remember this kind of budget, just as they remember MacEachen's. MacEachen's budget has not gone away, as members well know.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It hasn't done anything.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exactly. And it would be wise if the government were to take at least one leaf from his book and consider some adjustments to this thing.

Mr. Van Horne: If it was that bad, George, why did you copy it?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We would never copy that stuff.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I note that the Minister of Revenue was asked why he copied it. I presume it was on the recommendation of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne); as a good Liberal, he probably suggested it would be just the thing to do.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: He is not a Liberal.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is he not a Liberal too?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was sure he was a Liberal.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is the member from London North a Liberal? I get confused about who the Liberals are these days.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Maybe he's Labour-Liberal.

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Remember Laurier? There was a Liberal we could all be fond of, right? If we go back far enough, we will find one we all feel good about.

Starting from the base of Laurier, and Mr. Laurier's budget, perhaps, if one wants this to be in some sort of context --

The Acting Speaker: I would not mind hearing more about this budget.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: All budgets are connected, and so is the derivation of the "Miller dollar." The "Miller dollar" cannot be separated totally from the Diefenbuck. I think it was the Diefenbuck, was it not? I just want to get that accurate.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: The Diefenbuck was good for Canada in the long run.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the long run the Diefenbuck was good for Canada, I am told by a Minister without Portfolio.

I get very confused by the Liberal position on this budget. I would have thought they would have thought this was a tremendous companion piece to the national budget they have given us all. That is why we mentioned so often in the no-confidence motion put forward today by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) that it is the Liberal policy of high interest rates that is the wonderful companion piece to the blue book.

It was a wonderful approach, and I am surprised that we do not have more Liberals standing up and saying how important it is that we follow MacEachen's lead and that they are pleased with the way the provincial government has learned, for instance, that the home mortgage program the feds came through with is now such a good idea and has been attracted, I presume, by the persistent harangue of the Liberal Party here in Ontario --

Mr. McClellan: Liberal Party?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Liberal Party, yes.

Mr. Breaugh: Is that parliamentary? Can you use that kind of language in here?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Should I ask for a clarification?

Mr. Breaugh: I think so.

9:20 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if I use the word "Liberal" to speak about the people to my right and about Mr. Trudeau and Mr. MacEachen, will I be out of order?

The Acting Speaker: I suppose that depends whether you use a large "L" or a small "1."

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I think the Speaker's advice is good. The Speaker is telling me that the "L" on the Liberals we see in the House is diminishing; it is disappearing. Is that what you were suggesting, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Why do we not carry right along with the budget that is before us now?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am fascinated by the Liberal approach to the budget. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who is rumoured to be the leader of the Liberal Party here --

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Who? Where does he come from?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: God only knows. I hear he is not well tonight, which is a shame. He has not spoken passionately -- I would not give him credit for that -- but he has spoken about poverty here in the House. Yet I have not heard one recommendation from the Liberals here that shows they have any solutions for the poverty of people in this province. They have not said whether they would raise the poverty level, as we have said, or raise incomes up to the poverty level, as we have said.

Mr. Elston: Do you have a solution? Your party rejected you and turfed you out. Your party does not want your solutions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We have many suggestions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: This must be bothering you guys tonight.

Mr. Speaker: You seem to have a magic effect.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There seems to be a burr under the saddle, as it were. I do not understand how the member for London Centre can rise in his place, call on the government to give more money to people who are poor as I have been doing today, and then also say we have to lessen the deficit and we cannot increase taxes. It is just so much --

An hon. member: Liberalism.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Liberalism -- with a small "l" and a large "L."

Mr. Speaker: Now I know where it is coming from.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Now you understand the difficulties I have been causing. I have to thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruston: Your time is almost up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My time is almost up.

Mr. Elston: They don't want you in that party, Richard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I say to the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) that as someone who is not accepted by my party, I am enjoying my position here in the front row and I am feeling more comfortable than he obviously anticipates I should. The wisdom of my party in rejecting me as leader will probably show itself in the fullness of time. At least that is what my mother says. She is a good Liberal, both federally and provincially, if the members can believe it. I admit this freely. I try my best. In fact, I got a letter from her the other day saying her Socialist tendencies were coming out.

In my speech tonight, I am talking about people who are living at rates of income that should be totally unacceptable to any member of this House. Any member who tries to think about what it is like to have only $278 in one's pocket to pay for rent, food, clothing and transportation will understand that this budget is totally inept, heartless and stupid. Is that unparliamentary? I hope not. I have learned some good words.

I hope that in the next number of weeks, as we debate this budget, the government will come to its senses and address the problems of poverty. I do not need to lay those out. They should be clear to every member in this House. I hope it will address these problems directly, correct the gap and add the three or four pages that address specifically the needs of the poor which should have been in here and which I presume have just been left out by some mistake at the printers. It will say to the people of Ontario that it understands it has a responsibility to see that no one suffers because of poverty in this province.

If the government does not do that, we will vote on our no-confidence motion and the members opposite will carry the day because of their numbers. But we will ram the fact of their priorities down their political throats for the next three years, and they will see the results of them during the next election. People will respond to a new government, an NDP government that will have the courage to protect those who need protection in times when it may not be easy to do so.

The members opposite will suffer for it. It is the poverty of their ideas and the poverty of courage over there, in a time of recession, that has caused them to come forward with this kind of budget. It will come back to haunt them if they do not change it soon. I will do my part, as will other members in my party, in constantly reminding them of how they have failed. I hope they will respond. If they do not, they will face the consequences.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) is next.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: You are going out of order.

Mr. Cunningham: I believe I had the floor.

Mr. Speaker: No. We go in rotation. The member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Cunningham: He wasn't here. He is never here. He is not even there right now.

Mr. Speaker: He is obviously there and he is standing.

Mr. Riddell: How long do you wait for a member to get in here?

Mr. Speaker: As long as I have waited for you.

Mr. Riddell: You haven't waited for me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank the members opposite for their cooperation. I am honoured to be able to speak in response to the budget our Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) presented to us last week. We all appreciate the tremendous research and thought that must have been put into the preparation of the budget.

Coming in the difficult times, as all honourable members know it does, the Treasurer's budget is a clear reminder that this government is capable of addressing our problems clearly and precisely in a responsible manner.

The problems that confront us, as the members opposite well know, are not confined to Ontario. As the Treasurer indicated on budget night, the entire industrial world has been trying to deal with the immense problems of energy shocks, slow growth and inflation for about the past nine years. Because Ontario engages extensively in international trade, the economic troubles of our trading partners have also had serious effects on our business dealings with them.

It is interesting to note that we are still better off than our neighbouring states and provinces. Last month, for example, Ontario's unemployment was 8.8 per cent, but the Canadian average was much higher. So was that of the United States; in Michigan, for example, it was more than 16 per cent despite Reagan's policies.

In the United States, the administration is engaged, as we all know, in a ruthless campaign to stamp out high inflation. The weapon that is being used is a high interest rate policy. That policy is having serious effects far beyond America's borders -- effects not only on this country nationally but also on this province. Canada, Europe and the rest of the international community have had to react to this in a responsible, effective and, unfortunately, difficult manner. The unfortunate high interest rate policy of our own national government has created problems for many businesses and many governments, including our own, throughout this country.

9:30 p.m.

Interest rates in Canada are more than three times -- three times, I recall and repeat -- the average of what they have been over the last 15 years. But before any substantial international economic recovery can occur, interest rates in the United States must drop. However, US politicians are currently wrestling with the issue of a massive budgetary deficit and will have to solve that problem first.

Until this situation is resolved, our economy will not be able to perform at its full potential no matter what expectations or hopes we may have. It is, therefore, important for us to make sure that when the expected upturn does occur, our capacity for growth in Ontario will not have been seriously damaged. This is where our budget plays an important role through its measures to:

1. Create jobs. This is priority number one by comparison to Mr. MacEachen.

2. Assist new home buyers.

3. Stimulate long-term economic development through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development Program.

4. Provide a major incentive for small business.

5. Show leadership. I point out we show leadership, which unfortunately is lacking from Ottawa, through private sector restraint.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you can see a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

9:36 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: There is a quorum present.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it is appropriate the record should show that the party which called the quorum has two members present and there are two members of the third party as well.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, there are four members in the seats of the Liberal Party; I do not think the minister should get up and mislead the House.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out to you that the government party with its 70 members can maintain a quorum in this House. That is its responsibility.

Mr. Shymko: Let the record show there is one Liberal member and one NDP member sitting there and there are 17 on this side; what sanctimonious claptrap.

This government has shown, as I have said, that it can respond to the needs of the people of Ontario, whether they be young people, farmers, businessmen or just people interested in buying a home.

Mr. Wildman: There wasn't a thing in the budget.

Mr. Riddell: What does he know about farming?

Mr. Shymko: The truth hurts. I am being heckled. It hurts.

Mr. Riddell: You probably plant eggs and expect them to hatch.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How's the harvest in the Ukraine?

Mr. Shymko: As I said earlier, if the honourable members opposite allow me to continue, preparing a budget for these difficult economic times is an immense challenge, but a challenge which the Treasurer has met, in my opinion and in the opinion of those on this side of the House. We must also realize that work on the budget was made more difficult by another factor. That factor is the following. This is what I have to say in the other official language so that the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) can understand.

Notre gouvernement doit aussi faire face à de sérieuses coupures budgétaires dues à la décision unilatérale du gouvernement fédéral de réduire les paiements de transfert. Pendant l'année 1982-83, ces réductions coûteront à l'Ontario près de $287 millions et au cours des cinq prochaines années il en coûtera presque $1.9 milliard. Cette réduction de $5.3 milliards en paiements de transfert aux provinces affectera probablement d'autres provinces plus que l'Ontario et parmi ces provinces, le Manitoba puisque nous avons joui au cours de la décennie écoulée d'une excellente administration financière, laquelle a permis à la province de l'Ontario d'être plus en mesure de faire face à la situation actuelle. Nous voyons ce budget.

Néanmoins, je voudrais rappeler les honorables députés de l'autre côté de cette chambre que, même pour l'Ontario, ces coupures se produisent à un moment où le gouvernement fédéral semblait indiquer qu'il n'y aurait pas de telles réductions de paiements de transfert.

Dans le domaine du financement des programmes établis, l'Ontario, par exemple, recevra $70 millions de moins qu'elle recevait l'an dernier. Les contributions pour la formation professionnelle des adultes ne seront pas du tout augmentées et il en sera de même pour les contributions fédérales pour l'expansion du bilinguisme. Le programme de subventions aux services communautaires sera réduit à $2 millions au lieu de la somme de $58 millions allouée l'an dernier.

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: This is the respect we have from members opposite when somebody tries to speak in the other official language. They do not want to hear French in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you please just get on with the speech and not debate.

Mr. Shymko: I am trying, Mr. Speaker. J'essaierai de continuer.

Après plusieurs années de mauvaise administration budgétaire, le gouvernement fédéral a décidé qu'il voulait réduire son propre déficit et a alors pris des mesures pour faire en sorte que les provinces paient pour leur mauvaise administration à Ottawa.

En dépit des coupures en paiements de transfert, les dépenses fédérales ont augmenté de 16 pour cent comparé à l'augmentation de 11,6 pour cent annoncée par le trésorier dans son budget en Ontario. Il est évident que le gouvernement fédéral a ignoré totalement les recommandations de l'Ontario que notre Premier ministre a présentées à la conférence des premiers ministres de l'économie parmi chaque premier ministre de chaque province du Canada.

Je voudrais ajouter que dans le plan de relève économique de l'Ontario, le Premier ministre proposait que le gouvernement fédéral et les gouvernements provinciaux devraient réitérer leurs engagements à adopter une politique de restriction de dépenses afin de combattre l'inflation. Cependant, on ne peut pas dire qu'une augmentation des dépenses de 16 pour cent reflète une politique de restriction de la part du fédéral.

To those honourable members who may not have understood what I said, I would like to point out that the federal government has cut the established programs financing from $2,044,000 to $1,979,000. It has cut -- and this is where members from the New Democratic Party should take note -- community services contribution programs from $58 million to $2 million. Adult occupational training is frozen; bilingualism development is frozen; Indian welfare services are frozen; other federal payments are frozen. That is the federal record; let it be shown. It is in the manual. We have recently seen --

Mr. Brandt: They did not read that part. Did the member read that part?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: We have recently seen the representatives of the federal government claim that co-operative federalism in Canada is dead, that the provinces have been too greedy, and that Ottawa simply cannot afford to pay any more.

The words of the Prime Minister of Canada on this matter have been printed in the Treasurer's budget for all to see, particularly those on the other side of the House who have chosen to ignore these very serious remarks and continue to ignore them. It is easy to shout about federal bashing at this point, and I am not trying to bash the federal government. I am just pointing out the truth. There is no fed-bashing at all, especially when one is either an appointed or a self-appointed hatchetman, hatchetperson or apologist for the federal Liberal Party, examples of which we have seen on countless occasions in this chamber. But that does not make our criticism any less valid, as the members know.

Mr. Gordon: Absolutely.

Mr. Shymko: Absolutely not. That criticism is simply that the comments made by Prime Minister Trudeau and his colleagues are simply not valid.

The truth of the matter is that the provinces, Ontario included, have been anything but greedy and unreasonable in their dealings with Ottawa concerning transfer payments. They have been anything but greedy. It is the Liberal administration in Ottawa that has acted unilaterally and with blatant disregard for the long-standing Canadian traditions of co-operation and consultation.

Mr. Riddell: Go back into French. You did much better then.

Mr. Villeneuve: You couldn't understand it.

Mr. Riddell: I liked it better.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: They can't take it. In recent years the provinces have not demanded more and more funds. Rather, they have tried to convince the federal government to honour the agreements that had already been entered into for almost 10 years. The federal government's argument that it was bearing an unfair share of program costs is simply wrong. The amount of federal transfers to the provinces has not risen to the point where Ottawa is no longer able to fulfil its responsibilities.

Even the Liberal-dominated task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements in its report to the House of Commons last August concluded, "There does not exist a long-term, structural mismatch between the revenue capacities and expenditure responsibilities of the federal government." It continues: "It cannot be claimed that the capacity of the federal government to raise revenues has reached a structural -- as opposed to a political or discretionary -- ceiling." That comes from a federal-provincial task force report.

It is only necessary to compare the increases in federal budget spending and the increases in federal transfer payments to see that the point Ottawa is trying to make is inaccurate. For example, when we examine the last decade, the evidence shows that other federal spending has been growing faster than transfer payments. The members opposite know that quite well.

For example, between the 1972-73 fiscal year and 1976-77 fiscal year, federal budgeting spending went up by 162.3 per cent. By comparison, the value of federal transfer payments to the provinces only grew by 116.5 per cent. Transfers were restructured in 1977, as we all know, and since then federal spending has grown by 55.4 per cent until last year, but transfers grew by only 51.3 per cent.

Mr. Haggerty: Would the member repeat that? I did not quite get it.

Mr. Shymko: There may be some audio problems with some honourable members. I really cannot provide any medical assistance for their hearing problems but I will continue.

9:50 p.m.

Given such facts, it makes little sense for the federal government to reduce spending by cutting the agreed growth of transfer payments at a time when it has clearly been shown that the real problem lies with massive spending increases in other areas.

Mr. Mackenzie: Like Suncor; or like $700 million for the doctors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: If that member had had his way, over $1 billion would have been put into Suncor. At least we are reasonable. We are taking a quarter of it. Talk about spending. They would take over Inco. They would nationalize every industry in this province.

Mr. Mackenzie: If we did, we would have some control over them. That's more than you will ever have.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a very strong feeling that is not part of your speech.

Mr. Shymko: Nor are the interjections part of my speech.

I could provide additional proof of what I said but I will instead refer those members opposite who are still sceptical to the reports of the Auditor General of Canada for the last few years. I will not go on to the additional examples.

Established programs financing has been with us since 1977, but the entire issue of transfer payments goes back much further, to the war years. In 1941, in recognition of the need for a strong central government to provide wartime leadership -- and we are talking leadership -- the provinces agreed to refrain from collecting personal and corporate income taxes until one year after the end of hostilities. In return, the federal government would pay a "rent" to the provinces to compensate for the loss of these revenue sources.

We volunteered to make that sacrifice. All provinces entered into these tax rental agreements. After the war ended, all provinces except Quebec and Ontario renewed their agreements. In 1947, voluntarily, Ontario renewed these agreements. All the provinces except Quebec joined again in the agreement in 1952 and 1957. Quebec had set up its own personal income tax system, as members know, in 1954.

This is history. The members opposite should learn some history and read some history before they make insinuations and allegations of irresponsibility against this side of the House. Study some history first.

Throughout this period of the late 1940s and early 1950s the federal government continued to enjoy the benefits of extensive -- and I mean extensive -- tax resources; the provinces, on the other hand, had problems in delivering high-cost social programs in fields defined by the constitution as provincial responsibilities. Provinces were finding it difficult to raise the funds required to meet ever-growing needs in health and, especially, post-secondary education.

Because it had the resources, Ottawa decided to apply these in a manner which would give the national government a say in establishing minimum national standards in service in those two areas. Just as easily, Ottawa could have transferred tax resources to the provinces, but it chose not to do so.

In 1959, a hospital insurance program was introduced in which Ottawa paid one half of approved hospital expenditures. The list of what was approved was limited but the provinces were unable to resist the prospect of hospitals at half price.

So, in the 1960s we saw the introduction of a medicare program where provinces were given one half of the national average per capita costs for approved programs. Already at this point in history it was realized that such a system did have built-in problems. The prospect of 50-cent dollars had caused other programs in the provinces to be bypassed even though they may have had a higher provincial priority than the program half funded by Ottawa.

So we go on. What do we see happening in 1967? In 1967 the federal government introduced a shared-cost program for post-secondary education. The federal share was either 50 per cent or $15 per capita. In all these cases --

Mr. Haggerty: The province wasn't doing its share. Ottawa had to get help from someplace.

Mr. Shymko: No one is fighting for credit here.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: No one is trying to get credit. We are establishing historical facts, I would like to point out to the honourable member, because what is happening today is misguided history.

In all these cases I stress that Ottawa had agreed to cover a specific share of the cost while certain conditions were met. However, by the early 1970s Ottawa began to realize that it had talked the provinces into programs with soaring costs, and ceilings were therefore placed on increases in federal contributions wherever possible. For example, post-secondary education funding was limited to 15 per cent increases in 1972 -- they started cutting in 1972 -- and medicare to 14.5 per cent in 1976-77, 12 per cent in 1977-78 and 10 per cent per year each year after that.

Mr. Haggerty: How much did you cut from the hospital grants in 1972?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: These unilateral cuts, these unilateral actions were in violation, in my opinion and in the opinion of the members of this House, of the original agreement and placed the provinces in the very financial difficulties they had sought to escape when they entered into the agreements in the first place. It is passing the buck. The Liberals do the cutting in Ottawa and then pass the buck and point out to the provincial government that they seem to be misers in delivering social services. A clever political trick; it is an old trick and we all know it.

Mr. Epp: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker: When the member speaks of passing the buck is he talking about the province passing the buck to the municipalities? Is that what he means?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order.

Mr. Epp: I thought so. Thank you very much.

Mr. Shymko: The member knows what I am talking about.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: I hope you are not cutting into my time when I am being interrupted like this, Mr. Speaker.

Established program financing arrangements were negotiated in 1976 for 1977 to 1982. They were negotiated for these periods with further arrangements to be made for 1982 to 1987. The three established programs -- hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education -- would no longer be tied to the earlier cost-sharing formula but would be tied to the growth rate of the gross national product. For Ottawa, the program would provide greater predictability and equality while the provinces would have more freedom, supposedly, to determine their own priorities.

According to the Prime Minister, continued federal participation in these three essential programs in the social development area would be based on five principles that he outlined during the June 1976 conference of first ministers. I would like to remind the honourable members opposite of those five principles:

10 p.m.

1. The federal government should continue to pay a substantial share of program costs.

2. Federal payments should be calculated independently of provincial program expenditures.

3. There should be greater equality in per capita terms among provinces with regard to the amount of federal funds they receive under the programs.

4. The arrangements for these major programs should be placed on a more permanent footing.

5. There should be provisions for continuing -- and I stress, continuing -- federal participation with the provinces in the consideration and development of policies of national significance in the fields of health and post-secondary education, areas of national significance to be continued.

The exact definition of the federal government's "substantial share" could not be nailed down, but it was understood that the provinces would carry the greater financial burden. This certainly does not sound like, nor has it ever been since the agreement was reached, a means for the provinces to make "exorbitant" claims on the federal treasury; absolutely not.

The only other advantage the provinces felt they would receive was that the established programs financing agreement would provide a long-term certainty of federal funding. It is true that Ottawa had also led the provinces to believe that the earlier cost-sharing provisions would be long-lasting, but in relation to the EPF agreement even the Prime Minister had spoken of the "relative permanence and stability of the arrangements." One looks at those cuts in EPF and it is called "stability of the arrangements."

It is no wonder the EPF agreement was hailed as a great step forward in federal-provincial co-operation. That is history, as we know. Unfortunately, this model example of federal- provincial co-operation hardly lasted two years before Ottawa again tried to cut back its transfers by establishing a two percentage point reduction in the EPF escalator. Provincial opposition proved to be too strong and at the time Ottawa turned to cuts elsewhere. It decided to do the cuts somewhere else as a result of pressure.

As a result, the introduction of the new community services contribution program was postponed -- I quoted a figure as to what happened to that program and the members have heard it -- resulting in funding problems for both provinces and municipalities, I would remind the honourable members, which had counted on the introduction of the program. The CSC program was to replace three existing federal support programs for water and sewage programs and also for neighbourhood improvement programs. The members will remember that.

The program was introduced in 1979, but then in the fall of 1980 the Liberal administration in its now customary abrupt and unilateral way cancelled that program to municipalities entirely. It is unnecessary to point out that, when this program was introduced, it was also promised to be a long-term program. Two years; they call that a long-term program; that is a federal Liberal definition of long-term programs.

At about the same time, the Liberal administration began what I would call its propaganda war. It tried to convince the public that the provinces wanted more and more of the federal treasury, while at the same time the provinces were underfunding health and post-secondary education. As if that was not enough, Ottawa then went out and claimed that, everything considered --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Is that a point of order, member for Windsor-Riverside?

Mr. Shymko: It hurts the honourable members.

Mr. Cooke: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering, in terms of my own concerns about debating at great length the budget of this Treasurer and the atrocious document it is, whether perhaps you could advise me if we are in the federal House or the provincial House. I know the member opposite was only there for nine months and perhaps he wishes he was there longer. I wonder if we could get back to this provincial budget. I know he wishes he could debate --

The Acting Speaker: I will accept that as a point of order.

Mr. Cooke: As a point of order, perhaps you could call him to order and have him debate this budget. Is it so bad that he has nothing he can say?

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: I would remind all honourable members that less than an hour ago the members opposite drew to my attention the fact that any budget anywhere was relevant to this debate. If the member for High Park-Swansea wants to bring some other budget of some other time and place relevant to the debate, he should equally be allowed to do so.

The Acting Speaker: The chair has the pleasure of ruling that the motion before the House is an amendment to the budget and discussion and debate should be aimed in that direction.

Mr. Shymko: What I am saying is directly related to the budget. I am referring to budget paper B.

Mr. Riddell: Right, the provincial budget.

Mr. Shymko: Why does the member not take a copy and look at budget paper B? I am referring directly to paper B in the budget before him. If he takes a look, he will see there has been a significant decline in the growth rate of federal transfers to the provinces, which has a major impact on the problems this budget is trying to rectify and answer. The member knows that.

Mr. Boudria: Talk about the retail sales tax. Talk about the tax on children.

Mr. Wrye: Talk about Suncor.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: I am directly referring to budget paper B. The figures which we see are those provided by the federal government itself. They show that cash and tax transfers rose about 11 per cent annually in the last five years. In the 1972-76 period, they had risen 16.8 per cent per year. In the five years prior to that, they had risen 21.7 per cent per year. That is more than proof that the Liberal administration cannot tell us they are not letting us down.

Of course, the Liberal administration's claims would have had more validity if they had honoured their election promises. It just goes to show that we cannot trust the Liberals. Sometimes we cannot even trust them to find their way into this chamber.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think in light of what the member just said, we do deserve some clarification when he was referring to budget paper B. I am not sure if he said A, but certainly he did mention B. I am wondering while he is doing that, if he is mindful of budget paper A which points out that at the same time the Bank of Canada was pushing interest rates to record levels as an offset to a huge outflow of capital from Canada which was weakening the value of the Canadian dollar, items such as Suncor in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: This can be clarified in your own presentation at the opportune moment.

Mr. Van Horne: He was not referring to that?

The Acting Speaker: The member for High Park-Swansea has the floor.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, are we carrying on a debate? Is this a dialogue?

The Acting Speaker: No, that is why you have the floor. You may proceed.

Mr. Shymko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In all seriousness, Ottawa's claims would sound much more reasonable if the government had kept its 1974 promises to pay one quarter of the capital costs incurred by Ontario or its municipalities for buses, streetcars or subway cars, for example, or one half the cost of commuter rail facilities, or the entire cost of rolling stock for commuter rail services, etc. We have yet to see any significant action on the part of the federal government to live up to those promises. That is probably a dream that will never be realized.

In recent years, the federal government has tried very hard in a propaganda war to convince anyone who cares to listen that the provinces have allowed national standards to deteriorate and that only the federal government can ensure the maintenance of so-called standards.

10:10

Again, there are no facts whatsoever to back up the federal claims. Proof that the arrangement was working prior to Mr. MacEachen's last budget can be seen in the proposals for renewal made by the federal task force. The report stated, "We are agreed that the programs examined in the course of our work are serving vital social needs and merit undiminished support."

Another point the federal government wants to make -- and in this it has a valid argument, I must admit -- is that there is often too little visibility of federal funding; credit, as I mentioned -- I see the honourable member nodding his head -- has too little visibility.

I suppose it is all very well to complain they are not getting enough visibility, but the solution is a relatively simple one. If they want to put up signs or notices saying that the federal government is paying certain portions of this or that program, let them do so. I do not think Ontario has ever raised any objections on that point. To press the issue would be just to ignore the real problems resulting from the unilateral actions of the Liberal administration. The Liberal administration's actions certainly have been unilateral, as we all know.

In the October 1980 federal budget, the Minister of Finance announced that Ottawa would be looking for "significant savings" in transfer payments to the provinces. Having thus made its intentions well known, the Liberal administration then proceeded to do nothing in the way of providing concrete proposals for the provinces to look at.

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hate to interrupt this great dissertation, but I no longer see a quorum.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

10:16 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for High Park-Swansea may continue.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the Liberal administration's unilateral actions. I would like to point out that having thus made its intentions known, the Liberal administration -- this is following the 1980 federal budget -- then proceeded to do nothing in the way of providing concrete proposals for the provinces to look at. All that happened was that the parliamentary task force was established and that Mr. MacEachen put a $1.5-billion tag on the size of the cuts he was looking for.

The Economic Council of Canada also undertook to examine fiscal arrangements. Its report, like that of the parliamentary task force, was ignored when it came to established programs financing cuts. The federal parliamentary task force, with a Liberal majority, concluded -- and let the honourable members listen carefully -- a Liberal majority parliamentary task force concluded as follows:

"We are all agreed, therefore, that federal- provincial negotiations should be directed towards the goal of undiminished funding for both the health and post-secondary sectors, supported through EPF and the social security programs financed in part by the Canada assistance plan. Thus, we recommend no lessening or withdrawal of federal interest in the results of these programs administered by the provincial governments."

That was the unanimous conclusion of a task force run by the Liberal majority, but consisting of Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, all three parties. Therefore, how can we on this side of the House be accused of fed-bashing when a federal task force unanimously came out against the very measures which the Liberal administration had introduced? And the members on that side call us federal bashers.

While the task force embraced -- I will use some gentle and mellow words -- the concept of co-operative federalism, if there is still any left, the Liberal administration has rejected it in favour of an aggressive and hostile approach in its dealings with the provinces and with 8.5 million people in this province.

As we can see so clearly today, relations between Ottawa and the provinces have become strained -- I would say they have deteriorated recently -- over discussions on the Constitution, over energy and above all over federal transfers that are affecting the future of this province.

10:20 p.m.

After 10 years of mismanagement, after 10 years of federal Liberal mismanagement, 10 years of Trudeau mismanagement, of bankrupt economic policies, we can understand the federal government's need --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruston: That is right, 10 years right here. Ten years under William Davis. You have got it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex North will resume his seat.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, order. I am very pleased that the honourable member has resumed his seat. The member for High Park-Swansea has the floor, and I would ask all members to listen to this member, because each will have his turn.

Mr. Shymko: The truth hurts. Mr. Speaker, watching that 10-year record in Ottawa, we can understand the federal government's need to watch its spending, finally to realize that it has to make some cuts. After 10 years of a learning experience that had created tragedies and misfortunes for thousands of Canadians, we can certainly see that there are issues on which the national government must take a strong stand, and we compliment them for finally learning after 10 years of mismanagement.

But to embark on a deliberate policy of confrontation and unilateral action is, in my opinion and in the opinion of the members on this side of the House, harmful not only to all parties involved, including the parties opposite, but also to the wellbeing of the entire federal system and the entire nation.

The Treasurer's budget paper presents four steps that should be taken to improve federal-provincial relations. It took me almost half an hour to talk about history. Listen to these four steps.

1. The federal government should affirm its commitment to the negotiation process in federal-provincial relations, which has been the very fabric of our system and of this nation.

2. The federal-provincial discussions on program standards and conditions would have a better chance of succeeding if the federal government would join the provinces in communicating concerns in a way which does not erode public confidence in their programs. Public confidence; there is no confidence any more in governments following the trend of 10 years of bankruptcy.

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: The truth hurts. They cannot take it any more. They cannot look the truth in the face. We will probably end up in a few minutes with one Liberal member sitting and one NDP member sitting.

They cannot take it any more. We cannot take the federal policies of bankruptcy any more. We cannot take it, and we have to save this province, its 8.5 million people, because we cannot take it any more.

3. The federal government should rescind the out-of-date 1975-76 ratios used in allocating EPF contributions; just rescind them totally.

4. The time has come to reassess what constitutes a federal transfer under EPF so the confusing arguments which we have heard can be totally avoided.

Those are the four points. We are accused of being subjective, of not being objective in assessing this budget. I will be objective. I will not quote a Conservative member. I will not quote members on this side. I will not quote any minister. I will quote from the economic wire of May 14, 1982, regarding this very budget. This is what it says, "The Ontario budget presented last night was a balanced and temperate effort under difficult economic circumstances." It continues, "The budget addressed appropriate attention to fiscal stimulus while at the same time recognizing the need to maintain Ontario's fiscal integrity."

It continues: "The Ontario budget introduced last night offered a reasonable plan to assist the recovery of the provincial economy. The budget for fiscal 1982-83 is a pragmatic approach to rebuilding confidence and stimulating business activity under current adverse economic conditions." It says, "The Canadian economy remains firmly entrenched in recession and in the vise" -- and I mean vise not vice, as sometimes we do see it as a lack of virtue on the part of the federal government -- "of extreme high interest rates" -- recession and high interest rates, we are caught in the middle -- "and, Treasurer Miller has introduced an expansionary but tightly focused budget package which addresses the needs of the cyclically depressed Ontario economy."

If that is not enough, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: If the honourable member would adjourn the debate, there are some announcements from the government House leader. This could be an opportune moment.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Since we are in the House as a whole, the time has not elapsed yet. To make use of the time I would hope you would allow the member to go to 10:30 p.m. so we can then have more time later.

The Acting Speaker: The government House leader has a number of announcements.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, are you denying the member to right to speak until 10:30 p.m.?

The Acting Speaker: No.

Mr. Ruston: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, you have that authority.

The Acting Speaker: There were some announcements to be made. How is your time? How long would --

Mr. Shymko: I have not much to go.

The Acting Speaker: All right, fine.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached a point in this country where we must rebuild the process of co-operative federalism. The ever-increasing retrenchment in transfers that the federal government has displayed must be halted and the suggestions in the Treasurer's budget papers provide a starting point from which to build. It is up to our counterparts in Ottawa and the other provinces to make sure that we succeed.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it being almost 10:30, after listening to the comments --

The Acting Speaker: Just a motion, please.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I just want to make a couple of remarks. I would call the member's speech fed-bashing with not too much constructive criticism or many ideas for promoting Ontario.

On motion by Mr. G. I. Miller, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

Tomorrow, we will continue the budget debate.

On Monday, which is the Victoria Day holiday, the House will not sit.

On Tuesday, May 25, in the afternoon and evening we will proceed with second reading of Bill 60 and, if needed, committee of the whole House on Bill 60.

On Wednesday, May 26, the usual three committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, May 27, in the afternoon we will have private members' ballot items in the names of the member for Durham-York (Mr. K. R. Stevenson) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). In the evening we will continue with Bill 60, if any debate is still required. If not, we will continue with the budget debate.

On Friday, May 28, we will begin in the House in committee of supply the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

I might also remind the House that we will be sitting Monday night, May 31, to deal with legislation.

The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.