The House resumed at 8 p.m.
ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.
Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:
Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;
Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener;
Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Oakville Young Men's Christian Association-Young Women's Christian Association;
Bill Pr20, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Townships of Shackleton and Machin under the name of the Corporation of the Township of Fauquier-Strickland.
BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and take part in the debate on the 1984 Ontario budget. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to have the opportunity to speak in support of this budget and the economic and social programs and policies that were stated in it.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), for tabling such an imaginative document. I believe it will assist the people of this province in their efforts to deal with the challenges, economic transformations and so on that are going to face us in the future. It will assist the people of Ontario in successfully exploiting the new opportunities that will be placed in front of us.
In expressing my positive views on this budget, I feel I am expressing not only the views of my friends in the Progressive Conservative caucus, but I am also speaking on behalf of a vast majority of the citizens and taxpayers of the province. We have before us a budget which looks to the future of this province and speaks to the aspirations of the people of Ontario.
It is a budget which, through its strategic investments in our human resources, an innovative approach to technological development, a commitment to the modernization of our industrial plants, and programs to encourage and reward entrepreneurial activity in our economy, will ensure that Ontario remains a dynamic player in the evolving post-industrial system.
Moreover, this budget includes programs that will significantly assist industries, such as agriculture, forestry and tourism, which have in the past generated tremendous wealth for the people of Ontario. This budget puts in place measures to ensure that our industries will continue to contribute to the wellbeing of the province.
It is a budget that continues and expands this government's long-standing commitment to prudent, sensible management of the public purse and to public sector restraint. In this fiscal year this government will again provide this province with the fiscal stability necessary to attract job-creating investments.
While the economic programs and policies of the budget may be of paramount interest to the public, the important social initiatives this budget will support must not be overlooked. Through the budget, this government has committed itself to programs that will involve the access of women to the labour market and help break the tragic and socially enervating cycles of welfare dependency that rob so many young people of increased opportunities. It will help improve the quality of life for the elderly and open to single parents those choices so many of us take for granted.
What has impressed me most about this budget, and what I believe has impressed the taxpayers of the province, is that it recognizes and respects the fact that there are limits to what the government itself can accomplish. This budget invites our local governments, universities, voluntary organizations and businesses to contribute to the achievement of our common goal.
Mr. McKessock: Go over what it does for agriculture again.
Mr. Stevenson: We will get to that. Yes, I will gladly go over what it does for agriculture any time.
This government, through the budget, has put in place the framework within which we can work together to ensure that Ontario's future will offer to her citizens the same range of economic opportunities and the same social generosity that have characterized her past.
To accept that there are limits to what a government acting alone can accomplish does not abdicate the responsibility on the part of government; quite the contrary. Government has a responsibility to lead people, but not to mislead them into believing it has the capacity to solve every problem single-handedly.
If government intervention in the economy could guarantee economic growth, then the planned economies of the eastern bloc would be the workers' paradise they try so hard to convince us they are. If deficit spending were the answer to every economic problem, the key to full employment, then we in Canada, the United States and in any number of western countries would be in economic heaven.
Mr. Stokes: You sound as though you are walking in with a balanced budget.
Mr. Stevenson: I will get to what the budget is going to do.
Mr. Stokes: C. D. Howe used to say, "What's a million?" You say, "What's two and a half billion?"
Mr. Stevenson: Just hold your horses.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: I know the member is so excited he can hardly wait. After what went on in question period today, I can tell how supportive he is and how empty it is to try to shoot down the budget. Anyway, we will gradually get to all the good things here.
That, of course -- and we are talking again about great deficit spending -- is not the case. Government intervention becomes counterproductive when the cost of intervention is the suppression of individual initiative, the loss of investment, the exploitation of the taxpayer and the creation of a dependent citizenry.
I do not believe the people of this province want the government to do it all for them. I do not believe the people of Ontario want the government to become a gigantic baby-sitting service. The 1984 budget demonstrates that this government, unlike some of the members opposite, I might say, is very aware of the factors that separate constructive participation from destructive interference.
The budget further demonstrates that, where necessary, this government is more than willing to commit the resources required to redress social and economic inequities. I believe the people, the communities and the industries of this province will work with this government to build our economic future. I have every confidence they will make the best advantage of the opportunity this budget provides.
8:10 p.m.
I am aware that my view of this budget and my confidence in the people of Ontario are not shared by some of my friends across the floor. To be frank, their reflex negativism is shown in the fervour with which they have mounted their favourite critical hobby-horses, and that is the source of some comfort to me. Were they ever to do otherwise, I would begin to fear that we on this side of the House had done something wrong.
I note there has been considerable speculation in the press as to whether this is a pre-election budget. When this question was put to the leader of the official opposition, he reportedly replied, "If they want to run, let us have an election on it." I felt that was a rather strange response. Less than a month ago, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) was accusing the government of blatant opportunism for considering a snap election.
While a snap election proved to be nothing more than some paranoia, I thought then that the leader, who last November told his party's annual conference that he would form a minority government after the next election, would have welcomed an early chance to cross the floor. Apparently they were not as eager as I thought. Actually, I would be quite happy to go to the people in the great riding of Durham-York on this budget.
The second reason I found the leader's response somewhat peculiar -- and I sort of agree with his response -- is that I feel it is quite a good budget and I certainly have no reluctance whatsoever to go to the people on a budget of this quality. I can only say in response that competence may appear unexciting, but this government was elected to provide sound, responsible and sensitive management of the province's affairs. We are not mandated to supply the opposition with any cheap thrills.
As for the third party, its leader has said of the budget, "It has a lot of ideas, our ideas, but no money and no substance." I will address the question of substance later, but for the moment I simply say to my friends in the New Democratic Party that, thankfully, the ideas in the budget are not their ideas. Our ideas have won us the trust of the people of Ontario and the privilege of serving as the government in this province. Their ideas have won them a position in public opinion polls so low that soon they will have to search for their position in the polls.
The opposition parties' views are not shared by many groups and individuals in the province. For example, the president of the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada has congratulated the Treasurer for holding the line on taxes, an opinion seconded by the president of the Retail Council of Canada. The director of research for the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada welcomed the government's $30-million assistance fund for his industry and estimated it could generate up to $300 million in investment. The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said he is very excited by the budget and described it as a bellwether budget, the kind one is going to see across the country.
Mr. McKessock: Let us get to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Mr. Stevenson: We are coming to that. We have a good big section. I would be quite happy to speak at great length about the agriculture system.
I regard the 1984 Ontario budget as the most significant budget in recent years. It lays out a blueprint of long-term strategic economic programs and investments that are the foundations on which the economic and social future of this province will be built. The budget introduces a range of comprehensive programs. While it would be impossible to comment on them all, I will single out a few specifically noteworthy initiatives of particular interest to the constituents in the great riding of Durham-York.
In the area of employment and job training, the severe international recession of 1981-82 created increased unemployment throughout the industrialized world. As all members are aware, young people were especially hard hit by the economic downturn. Youth unemployment rates escalated and the differential between youth unemployment rates and the general unemployment rates increased.
Last year there were more than 11 million young workers unemployed in 12 major countries of the Organization for Economic Co.-operation and Development, and the average youth unemployment rate stood at 18.5 percent. By late 1983, 42 per cent of the 12.5 million unemployed workers in countries of the European Economic Community were under the age of 25 years. In Ontario we also experienced an increase in our youth unemployment rate, with the rate climbing from a seasonally adjusted 12.4 percent in 1981 to 17.9 per cent in 1983 and to a peak rate of 20.2 per cent in April 1983.
Though youth unemployment in Ontario was high in 1983, it was on average two percentage points lower than the national rate. However, all members in this House rightfully regard that rate as being unacceptably high. Over the past two fiscal years, this government has committed more than $211 million to help generate some 193,000 short-term jobs for young people in the province. The government has also made a significant commitment to youth training programs. The 1983 budget, for example, supplemented the training in business and industry program and supported its new training programs.
As a result of government programs and the economic recovery, youth unemployment rates have moderated. Rates for the first quarter of 1984 are significantly lower than rates for the first quarter of 1983. While there has been some improvement, this government believes youth unemployment rates are still too high. In the speech from the throne which opened this session, this government made a commitment to expand its youth employment programs. Through this budget, the government has met that commitment. The budget establishes a $600-million, three-year strategy for targeted investments in youth training and experience and in retraining for experienced workers.
A big part of this strategy is directed to the $450-million Ontario youth opportunities fund, which will support 10 imaginative and innovative programs designed, as the budget says, to provide an opportunity for every young person in the province. As promised in the throne speech, our youth programs have been consolidated under one window and will be co-ordinated through Ontario youth opportunities and the youth commissioner, Mr. Ken Dryden, who was appointed today.
Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) did a good job at that when he had it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.
Mr. Stevenson: In the 1984-85 fiscal year, it is anticipated Ontario youth opportunities will invest between $160 million and $180 million in youth training and experience programs. I shall not review each of the 10 programs that will be supported by the $450-million youth opportunities fund.
Mr. Nixon: There is the member for Brantford now, bruised, sacked from the youth secretariat.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: While many of these programs are quite novel and have never been implemented anywhere in the country before -- this government took the lead in that -- they all have one thing in common. They are not a loosely connected, ad hoc series of stopgap measures.
Mr. Nixon: We are just trying to help the member's speech out a little bit.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham-York has the floor.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Stevenson: They represent a co-ordinated, comprehensive response to a serious problem and are designed to assist those of our young people who most need help in the labour market and to provide the youth of Ontario with the opportunity to acquire the skills and experience they will need to participate in the labour force.
It has been noted by some critics that many of our youth programs will depend on private sector participation for their success. This, in my view, is a major strength of the strategy. It is the private sector, not the public sector, which creates jobs in this province. Between 1975 and 1981, for example, 97 per cent of employment growth in Ontario was in the private sector.
The private sector is ideally positioned to assist this government in finding employment and training opportunities for young people and in equipping young workers with marketable skills and meaningful experience. I have every confidence that business people in Ontario will respond positively to the Treasurer's invitation to help build a secure future for the young workers of the province.
Now I would like to move into the programs for small business.
The private sector generates by far the greatest number of new job opportunities in this province. This government has always endeavoured to implement policies which will maximize job creation potential in the private sector. In particular, this government has been very conscious that it is the small business sector which creates most of the new jobs in our economy.
As has been noted in this House on other occasions, the small business sector creates jobs at about twice the rate of big business. In Ontario, the small business sector creates more than two thirds of all new jobs in our economy. From 1975 to 1982, small firms which were less than two years old created 18.5 per cent of all the new jobs in Ontario.
In 1982, to help the small business sector cope with this recession and in an effort to stimulate employment growth in that sector, this government introduced a two-year tax holiday for qualified small businesses in Ontario. In our 1983 budget, this corporate income tax exemption, which in its first year had returned to the small business sector some $250 million, was extended for an additional year.
In the 1984 budget, this government has again acted to assist the small business sector in this province. New small firms will be exempt from Ontario corporate income tax for the first three years of incorporation. This is a measure which will provide an estimated $45 million annually to the small business entrepreneurs.
The small business development corporations program, which has provided more than $70 million in grants and tax credits to enterprising Ontarians, has helped some 488 small businesses raise more than $200 million in capital and has allocated $25 million to encourage investment in the small business sector.
Small businesses, which are often the most innovative and risk oriented in our economy, will also benefit from the technology diffusion training program and the $10-million enterprise growth fund.
I believe most members will agree that providing the people of this province with secure, well-paid jobs and with new employment opportunities ultimately depends on the existence of a vital, competitive private sector.
Through programs such as those introduced in the 1984 budget to assist small business by restraining the size of the public sector and by reducing the burden of government on our economy, this government will ensure that the private sector in this province will be able to adapt successfully to the economic transformations.
All too often the relationship between governments and the private sector is one of suspicion and antagonism. I am sure all members of this House have had conversations with business people in their ridings who have expressed the view that no sooner do they build a better mousetrap than the government comes along with a better mouse.
That is certainly not the case in Ontario. As in the past, this government in its 1984 budget demonstrated it is anxious to work in partnership with the business people and the entrepreneurs of Ontario to build a secure and prosperous future for the province.
Now I want to deal with the agricultural area.
Mr. Nixon: It is too bad there is not a farmer over there to be minister.
Mr. Stevenson: Actually, we have an exceptional minister right now who is doing a very good job.
As a representative of a riding in which the agricultural industry is the important economic factor, I was naturally pleased to see that the 1984 budget increased the allocation to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food by 16.3 per cent over last year.
Mr. Ruston: They are just cooking the books.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: This increase is some $47 million; it raises the budget of the ministry to $335 million and represents the largest proportional increase awarded to any line ministry in the 1984-85 year.
Mr. Nixon: You must think farmers are stupid if you think they will buy that noise.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: Critics have argued that the size of the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is indicative of the fact that this government is indifferent to the future of the industry in this province. This is not the case. Certainly the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is small when compared to allocations to the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education --
Mr. Nixon: Or anything else.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: We will get to "or anything else" if the honourable member would like. However, in the areas of health and education, we pay the operating costs of these ministries, in the hospitals, schools and so on. We do not pay the operating costs of every farm in the province. We do not have the funds from the agricultural industry coming through government coffers before going out to the farmers; I have never heard any farmer in my area suggest we should.
Also, critics often conveniently overlook the fact that expenditures by the line ministry do not represent the total amount of funding and support the government provides for agriculture. Total government funding from all government sources provided to agriculture amounted to more than $450 million.
The increase awarded to the ministry this year indicates that the government strongly supports the Ontario farmer and is very aware of the contribution which our $11 billion agrifood industry can make to the future of the province.
Mr. Nixon: Agriculture gets less than two per cent of the budget.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: Agriculture gets about three times what the Ministry of Industry and Trade gets. This government has led the development of a very innovative private sector and a very innovative industrial sector; it is one of the most up-to-date in the world.
The actual amount of funding or the percentage of the budget is not at all a significant factor. The important factor is whether the industry itself is well funded and whether the money that is put there is efficiently used. As one from an agricultural area, I certainly believe that in a time of restraint the government is doing quite an adequate job of funding that particular industry.
Mr. Nixon: They get $40 million more from the tobacco tax.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Stevenson: As any member familiar with the industry will know, farming has become a very capital-intensive industry. The initial investment required to start up a farming operation today is very significant. For this reason, young farmers wanting to start their own operation welcome the $9 million allocated to the beginning farmers program. I am equally certain they will put that money to good use.
This government's commitment of $62 million over five years to support the new Ontario red meat plan will certainly assist efforts to rationalize that sector of the industry and ensure that Ontario producers remain competitive in the North American market.
Mr. McKessock: When is that program coming out? When are the details going to be announced?
Mr. Stevenson: Very soon. There are discussions with the industry representatives now, as I am sure the honourable member is aware, and some imaginative programs will come out of those discussions.
Personally, I believe the most significant initiative announced in the budget which affects agriculture is the government's declaration that it is committed to the establishment of a national agribond and will work with the federal government to set up such a plan.
In recent years, there has been growing concern in the industry about the instability of the cost of credit to farmers. This concern has been fuelled by rising interest rates and a deterioration in the relationship between debt servicing requirements and net farm income.
This government has taken the lead in introducing programs to help farmers with credit difficulties and in proposing programs to stabilize farm incomes. Examples of those programs would be the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program and the tripartite stabilization program.
I am convinced that the agribond program, if it is to work effectively and achieve the objectives for which it would be established, must be a national program.
First, a national program is needed to give access to and attract a large pool of fresh capital required to provide long-term farm credit at a stable, affordable rate. Second, a national program would ensure that equitable conditions would exist for the industry in each province. Third, under a national program, the tax cost of the agribond program would be shared between the two levels of government.
The agribond program offers a viable alternative source of stable agricultural credit. I am pleased the government has come out in support of the agribond option, and I urge all members concerned about the future of the farm industry to contact our federal counterparts with the aim of gaining their support for this program.
The third major area I want to speak about is the tourism area, which is another significant economic factor in the great riding of Durham-York and around Lake Simcoe and Lake Scugog.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: An excellent minister.
Mr. Stevenson: The ministry is led by an excellent minister, who has visited the great riding of Durham-York on many occasions.
It is often noted that the tourism industry is one of the fastest-growing in the world and may be one of the largest by the year 2000. The industry is an important one in Ontario and last year generated some $6.5 billion in revenue in the province.
Through this budget, the government continues to provide support for the tourism industry, which is a major employer in our province. The accommodation tax rebate program is but the latest in a series of programs this government has introduced to support the development of this industry.
Tax incentives to the tourism industry advanced by this government in the period 1975 to 1982 cost the taxpayers of this province $159 million in revenue. That was money well invested in a growing and increasingly important sector of our economy.
I now want to refer to the community economic transformation area of the budget.
While the overall economic outlook for the province is quite good, this government recognizes there are communities which, owing to a combination of factors, have been harder hit than others by the past recession and will have a more difficult time adjusting to the forces of that economic change.
It was to help those communities that this government established a $20-million fund to support community economic transformation agreements. As the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer I will be responsible for co-ordinating negotiations with our communities on transformation agreements.
These agreements will no doubt prove to be a valuable link between the provincial government and the local and municipal authorities, and will ensure that funding is directed to those areas where it is most needed and would do the most good.
I look forward to meeting with and hearing from community leaders interested in taking advantage of this program. I am sure that working together we will be able to better the economic prospects of these areas.
The 1984 budget sets forth a sensible, responsible and responsive economic agenda for this province. It introduces a great many new programs that will help the people of this province derive maximum benefit from the economic transformation.
Thanks to sound management of the province's finances, the government will be able to pay for these programs without any major tax increases --
Mr. Haggerty: That is not what Darcy McKeough said.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: -- increases that would have undermined the potential for economic growth. It is a budget that reduces the provincial deficit and guarantees that the financial stability and integrity of the province are maintained.
It is a budget that presents a realistic economic forecast for the province during the coming year, a forecast that, as some members may know, was largely confirmed by the Conference Board of Canada projections issued today.
Mr. Gillies: Good projection the Treasurer made.
Mr. Stevenson: The rate of growth from the conference board was actually greater than that used by --
Mr. Gillies: It was about 0.1 per cent higher.
Mr. Stevenson: That is correct; 0.1 per cent.
Mr. Gillies: That is pretty close.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham-York has the floor.
Mr. Stevenson: It is a budget that has put in place policies and programs which will ensure that the prediction that Ontario will lead this nation in economic growth during the coming years is fulfilled.
For all these reasons, this is a budget that deserves the support of this House.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, it feels kind of expensive to get up and speak on this budget. I understand we are spending $5,700 every minute in interest on our deficit; so it is mounting up pretty fast.
Anyway, I have been around here for 16 budgets, and it has been interesting to see what has happened. When Mr. Allan was here as Treasurer, he did not have deficit budgets. I think it was Mr. McKeough who, instead of having a deficit, started using a number of words for it. One was "shortfalls." What was the other one?
Mr. Nixon: "Net cash requirement." That was a nice one.
Mr. Ruston: "Net cash requirement." It was very difficult for a fellow who was running his own little hardware store or a farm to come down here and hear the government talking about how its net cash requirements were lacking. We just could not have kept on doing business if we had had that kind of net cash requirement in comparison.
This year, though, the name of the budget itself is difficult enough to accept. My first reaction to it when some reporter asked me the other night was that it seemed to me a con artist was making out this budget, because it is called "economic transformation."
8:40 p.m.
I did not get too many grades in any school in particular -- I am an expert in most schools -- but "economic transformation," in my opinion, can be used in a number of ways and this government holds the record for doing that. It uses whatever it thinks it can get away with each time. Whether it is "net cash requirements" or some other term, the government is going to use it to confuse the people.
One thing we should all recognize is that this government is increasing taxation in this budget, which I have here in my hand, by at least $1.64 billion. After the budget the other night, the newspapers said: "This is great. There is no increase in taxes. This is a great government, great budget." Yet they are going to collect an extra $1.64 billion if the Treasurer is correct in his guess. My guess is he is going to be halfway out in left field, if not all the way out. If his estimates are correct, his taxes are going to increase by $1.64 billion. That was more than the total budget for the first couple of years I was in this Legislature.
Mr. Eakins: What would Les Frost say about this?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ruston: I wonder that those in the government act that way. They try to con the people into thinking they are great managers. I would not want them managing the building of a dog house, buying the lumber and putting it together. It would be like the case at the Pentagon where somebody was charging $900 for a 75-cent bolt. Those fellows across the way would be the last persons I would want to ask to do any bookkeeping or work for me.
The interesting part of this is they estimate the personal income tax will go up by $1 billion. In most cases, that comes out before the person gets his cheque. In my area, at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors, they are busy now and there are a lot of people paying a lot of income tax, but they will be surprised when they figure it will be increased by $1 billion over all of Ontario, providing the Treasurer is correct in his estimate.
There is another increase. Two or three years ago they took off the corporations tax for small businesses under a certain amount. This year that is going back up $330 million. The retail sales tax will be going up, but not by so much; only $200 million or $300 million.
The gasoline tax is going up $44 million. To give an idea of how this government spends money, I will quote from Table 25 of the Ontario Motor League report on Ministry of Revenue estimated motor vehicle gasoline tax revenue: in 1979, $538 million; 1984, $976 million. The gasoline tax bill was brought in after the March 19 election. We can all remember when they brought in that bill. It had the ad valorem tax on it. The government put that on to confuse the people because today very few people understand what ad valorem is. Thank goodness I learned that in sixth grade in public school. Most people have forgotten it.
Since June 1981 when that bill was brought in, there has been an ad valorem tax on a gallon of gasoline. We will go back to the gallon. I see the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) is here. He does not like the metric system. I understand he has been telling a lot of people we should not have the metric system, and going into Quebec and so forth, but he thinks it is great that Ontario and Quebec are having this fight over tomatoes. I have a feeling the gas tax then was 22 cents a gallon. Today it is 33.5 cents a gallon. Over three years that is a 50 per cent increase. The Treasurer calls that restraint. I do not call that restraint.
We would not mind so much that they were doing this if the money was going into roads, but the sad part is that in many of the municipalities the road system is deteriorating terribly and it has done so over the last couple of years. It is not the fault of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). If only he had a little power in cabinet. He is a very good minister of highways. He understands his department. When one goes there with people from one's area, they are well received. It is only a matter of minutes and he understands the road system and knows where they are located. He is well versed in his job, but he has no money. Somebody is not giving him the money. I suppose if one goes and buys an oil company for $650 million and does not have any money, one cannot build roads.
Mr. Kolyn: Sell Petro-Canada.
Mr. Ruston: Yes, the window on the oil business.
The tobacco tax is an interesting one. I do not smoke, but I see the government is estimating it is going to collect $40 million more in tobacco taxes. To think that the tobacco tax in the province is $120 million more than the agricultural estimate itself, yet the government hesitates to help agriculture.
Mr. McKessock: More like $200 million.
Mr. Ruston: One of my colleagues says $200 million. I was being moderate.
The government keeps saying there are other ministries that do send some benefits out to agriculture and that does happen in some cases, but the strange part is we are collecting more tobacco tax than the whole Ontario agricultural budget.
I was talking to a former Minister of Agriculture and Food the other evening at dinner. Everyone would know William Stewart, who was the minister for a number of years and well respected in the farming community. If this government does not get a better Minister of Agriculture and Food before the next election, it had better get William Stewart in here because otherwise the government is going to be done. That is all there is to it. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) is just not in the right field at all. They say a farmer is a man out standing in his field. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is not a man out standing in his field.
Mr. Eakins: He does not have a field. He stands on his front lawn.
Mr. McKessock: Or on a paved street.
Mr. Ruston: Another area of increase is in the Ontario health insurance plan premium. As members well know, OHIP premiums are being increased. They are going up $121 million. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario profits are going up $34 million -- we always like to say "sin taxes," whatever one wants to call them -- on liquor and beer.
I have a great deal of feeling right now about this government and to a lesser extent the government in Ottawa, because this government takes much more out than does Ottawa. When a working man can hardly afford to go into a hotel and have two or three glasses of beer after a day's work, there is something wrong with our economy.
There is nothing wrong with the economy except that the government is overtaxing such things as that. I am not afraid to stand up here and tell the government so. A lot of people cannot afford to take their family out, pay $15 for a dinner and one thing and another. Maybe a person likes to go in and have a bite to eat and a couple of glasses of beer. The government is taxing beer so much now that a lot of people even have trouble doing that. It is time it stopped.
The trouble is that people see this new budget as having no increase in taxes on beer, liquor, tobacco and gasoline, but it has the ad valorem tax which was passed by a majority government and took away the right of an individual member to stand up and vote for or against the tax bill. That is the democratic system that the government has dared to take away from us, the very democratic system that built our country.
I was taught 45 or 50 years ago that taking away the rights of the elected person to vote taxes in was a blight. Only an irresponsible government would do that. The federal government has done the same thing. Of course we know the governments work together in almost everything, but these rascals in this government picked up the ad valorem tax and put it on all those sin taxes so that it does not have to raise the tax in any one year. It just keeps sneaking it on without anybody even knowing about it. I think that is most unfair.
8:50 p.m.
I would be interested to see if the Mother of Parliaments has ad valorem taxes on those same items in Great Britain. I must have someone look into that. Being the great democratic country it is, and one that we look towards at times, I certainly hope it does not have them. That is something I must find out.
Vehicle registration fees are going up by $39 million, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario fees, licences and permits by $15 million, other fees and licences by $17 million.
According to my figures, without a calculator, that comes to $1.64 billion. In addition, the government has done nothing to help the agricultural industry in Ontario. The government's day of reckoning is going to come. Agriculture has to be the most basic and important industry in Ontario, but since William Stewart left the government has ignored the agricultural economy of this province.
The Treasurer got up and talked about the great youth employment program he has. On the face of it, it certainly looks good, if we had not already seen some of the things that were put forward in other years. Most of them are rehashes; some of them a little more. They put them in a three-year or five-year program and keep holding off doing them. It is too bad.
Today the Treasurer introduced Mr. Ken Dryden, whom everyone knows as a very high-profile individual, well thought of in the communities. I have read a number of articles about some of the things his father is involved in.
A person in our area has joined in the venture of assisting people throughout the world in some places where they are destitute and have no place to stay. They are packing articles of bedding and so forth. It is not a food program, but it is something they are doing that sounds very wonderful. I know of a person from Kingsville, Ontario who joined that group and made a trip to India and other countries. They pass out kits of bedding material, so at least children have a place to lie down at night and can cover themselves.
It bothers me to think the government with its so-called programs hires some high-profile, well-known person to do it, so people expect a great deal. Someone said today Mr. Dryden will have to stop an awful lot of pucks from flying at him from the communities if something is not done pretty soon regarding employment and the young people of Ontario.
Another item that was not even touched on is the 3,100 units of housing for low-income people. Such a small number is not even worth mentioning. We must have housing for people who cannot afford the places that cost so much to rent or build. We must have more housing of that type. There is really nothing here at all.
I did a little checking in my own area with regard to housing Units. We are in a semi-rural small town with some bedroom communities serving Windsor. Even with the very limited number of housing units we have in the county of Essex, there are 71 people on the waiting list. The housing people tell us there are hundreds out there, but they do not bother applying because they know they cannot get the units. They are just not available, so people are not applying for them. Even in parts of Essex North, in my own riding, senior citizen housing units are in very short supply and there is a long waiting list for them. Family units are just not available at all.
One of the towns in my area went on a plan in which, if I remember correctly, all the money came from the federal government to finance a 24-unit apartment complex which Ontario Housing Corp. administers. It is a very small village, but it took a lot of persuading to get approval for it, especially through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. They kept saying there was no need for it, but it is filled up now and has a waiting list. I think 25 per cent are on a rent-geared-to-income basis and the balance are on a standard rental basis.
It is turning out well. That might be the only alternative. They formed a nonprofit corporation in the township. They built this complex in the little village where there was a sewage disposal system, etc., so it is working out well; but we have to have more senior citizen family housing.
One thing about building housing units is that practically 95 to 100 per cent of all the supplies and appliances are Canadian material. That creates a lot of employment. It is a shame the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), who has been very derelict in his duties as minister responsible for housing in this province, has not done his job in looking after that.
However, the main thing I want to stress to the members here is the increase in taxation. The Treasurer stated in his profile of the budget that he is expecting unemployment to stay about the same, yet he expects income to increase by nine per cent throughout the province. I do not know how he can expect to get $1.64 billion more. It is going to be difficult for that to happen.
On the other hand, he is proposing a deficit of $2 billion next year, but I am predicting the deficit for next year will be $2.6 billion. Interest rates have gone up in the last couple of months in the United States and Canada. Our prime rate now is holding at about 12 per cent.
One talks to people in the automobile industry who are selling cars. When interest rates on a personal loan go up to around 15 per cent, the buyers start to get very itchy and wonder what is going to happen. With mortgage rates going up, they become afraid.
We are going to have to make sure that youth 17 to 24 years of age are put to work in the next six months, and not have it go on two or three years.
I do not want to take any more time. I want to stress that this budget is a scam as far as I am concerned. When the government is going to collect $1.64 billion more than it did last year it is not cutting taxes. It did not raise them much, but it is going to collect them through the ad valorem system. I want to repeat again, I think that is the most unfair form of taxation in the country. The members elected here, whether they are on the opposition side or the government side, must be responsible for the money that is collected. They must be responsible to the people when they vote for or vote against that tax.
9 p.m.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) for his speech, which was concise and substantive.
When I was listening to the Treasurer on Tuesday, I thought of the problems I face in my riding, which is a small part of Ontario but, in a way, represents a microcosm of the province. I thought of the problems I deal with every day. These are the problems of people who are unemployed or older people who are in despair because they cannot find a job because of their age. They knock at every door and cannot find a job.
I was thinking of the senior citizens who cannot cope with the taxes they have to pay on their properties. They are put in a very tough situation because they can hardly survive on their meagre pensions. I was thinking of the working people who can hardly afford to send their children to day care centres. I was thinking of the injured workers who are receiving very inadequate pensions and of the hundreds of pensioners who have been receiving a cut in their guaranteed annual income system payments in the last two months because of increases in the federal pension and in the federal guaranteed income supplement.
Will the Treasurer respond to the real needs of the people of my riding and of the people of Ontario? While the Treasurer was reading his budget, I thought he was doing an excellent operation in public relations. That was proved the same day and the next day -- not any more today and quite possibly even less today -- by the reaction of the press, which was impressed by his incredible barrage of new acronyms, new names, new programs and the announcement of new funds that have been provided for the next century.
As far as my constituents and the other constituents who are in the same predicament are concerned, they are worth nothing. The Treasurer, as I have said before, has done a great PR operation. He said, "I have not increased the taxes for the people of Ontario," and everybody is supposed to be happy about that.
There is only a minor item, the increase in the Ontario health insurance plan premiums. The Treasurer informed us that is unfortunate, but it affects only a small part of the population. It does not affect the majority of the people in Ontario, especially the working people whose premiums are paid by the employers. He forgot to tell us they are paid by the employers, but they are part of the package employees negotiate with employers, so if the employers pay the premiums, the workers get less money in their wages.
With respect to property taxes, the Treasurer tried to be tough with the municipalities and the boards of education. He told them they had to restrain themselves. Restraint is the magical word. It is a word that has some appeal. When we are not affected directly, we think somebody else is abusing the system; so the government is on the right track when it says people should restrain themselves and not ask for too much. It says, "You should work, but your wages should not increase that much."
When we look at the budget we see that while inflation is predicted at 5.3 per cent for the current year, grants to the municipalities will be 5.2 per cent, a little bit less than the rate of inflation. The school boards will receive 4.5 per cent, almost one per cent less than inflation. For simple-minded people like myself and many people who do not understand statistics and the complex, slick mathematics of the Treasurer, if inflation goes up five per cent and we receive four per cent, this means that next year we will not be able to provide the same services unless we raise the property taxes.
During the next fiscal year the boards of education of Ontario will be put in the very tough situation where they will have to raise property taxes. We know property taxes are unfair. We know the people who can least afford it are those who are penalized more. I will come to this later on.
All they can do is cut the services. Experience tells us when boards of education have to cut services, they do not cut the core services. They cut what are considered to be marginal services. What are the marginal services? They are those services rendered to the minority groups -- English as a second language and heritage language teaching of a third language. In other words, they are the services serving the most vulnerable part of our community or our society.
With this budget the Treasurer is telling the people of Ontario, though not in an open way, "From now on, if you want to have the same services, you have to ask the people with low and average incomes to pay more property taxes or you have to penalize those marginal groups that do not represent the mainstream of the society in Ontario."
In the grant transfers we know there will be an increase of only 4.5 per cent for boards of education. For transit, it will be 2.9 per cent. For recreation, there is a decrease of 27 per cent; yet at the same time the government is telling us it is increasing funds to promote tourism in Ontario. I do not understand how this can be done because we all know that in a modern, capitalist society such as this if one does not make investments there can be no returns.
However, the Treasurer has performed a miracle in this budget. By decreasing investments in the recreation field, he tells us he will increase tourist activities and therefore employment in the province.
The same applies to senior citizens. Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were elected the same year as I was, you will remember that from 1975 to 1977 we in the New Democratic Party fought a very tough battle. We said the property tax system as it existed in Ontario was not only inequitable but was also unfair, especially for those people who could least afford it. We brought the example of senior citizens who were asked to pay a big portion of their property taxes in order to finance the education system.
9:10 p.m.
In the city of North York which I represent, 55 per cent of the property tax bill goes toward education expenses. We said it was inequitable. In 1967 the Ontario committee on taxation recommended that the system was unworkable because it had no relation whatsoever to the incomes of people who lived in houses and was not even related to the services provided.
More than 100 years ago the basis for property tax was that municipalities were providing services to citizens and boards of education were providing a service to the students; therefore, those who owned houses, those who were well-off in society, should pay for those services.
The Smith commission recommended in 1967, and unfortunately that was 17 years ago, that it was no longer applicable because in our modern society there is not a direct correlation between the service provided and the fee paid for that service. Therefore, he recommended we should find a more flexible system by which people should pay according to their ability to pay. He meant not only individuals but also corporations.
Ontario was a rural society 100 years ago. Today it is a large, industrialized society. The production of goods and the production of wealth has changed dramatically.
From 1975 to 1977 we fought that battle. We said it was inequitable that the government would ask senior citizens with a very meagre pension to pay for a service they did not even receive. These people receive pensions which are inadequate and below the poverty line by any standard -- by the social planning board standard, by the Statistics Canada standard, even by the provincial government standard. We felt it was inequitable that those people should pay for a service they did not even receive.
The Tories responded in the way they traditionally respond. They introduced the property tax credit for senior citizens. At that time they allocated $500 for homeowners and up to $400 for tenants. Since 1980 there has been no increase whatsoever in that grant, which means the people who were receiving $500 in 1980 are now receiving much less, if we consider that the inflation factor intervened in the meantime.
How does the Treasurer respond to that situation? With nothing. He does not change that system at all. In fact, in 1984 senior citizens in Ontario will receive exactly the same amount they received five years ago, which means they are paying much more at a time when their pensions have not increased substantially.
I am not saying this as a member of the opposition or as a member of this party. Just a few weeks before announcing the budget, the Treasurer said we have to look at the pension situation because the system, as it is now, is unworkable and is inequitable because it is unbalanced and there are many people who are not receiving the pension they deserve.
The other problem is the problem of the unemployed. There are many people who are unemployed who, I think if we operate under this budget perspective, will find it very hard to find a job in the near future. The reason is that the Treasurer, despite the glossy budget that was presented to us and despite all the acronyms -- and I think I counted 10, and that was only for the youth programs -- comes to a very grim conclusion.
He says unemployment will be falling, but at the end of 1984 unemployment on the average will be 9.1 per cent, which is exactly the unemployment we have today. In effect, this means that people who are unemployed today will be very lucky if they can find a job in the next 12 months. Why? Because the Treasurer is condemning them to that situation and because he is not providing any tool in order to solve this very serious problem.
When we in Ontario read the statistics, we find they are probably not very impressive. Whether it is two per cent, three per cent, four per cent or 30 per cent does not mean much; but in human terms we are talking about employees of plants that are shutting down and will never be reopened.
I can give an example that was raised only two days ago by my leader. CCM went into bankruptcy in 1982. That company will no longer operate in Ontario; so for those workers there is no prospect of being employed in the same industry any longer. Camco, a company that operated in Ontario for 30 or 40 years, has been shut down because of the organizational rationalization, as they say, of the international operation of CGE. That plant will not reopen again in western Ontario.
Statistics do not tell the whole truth. Just last night a couple in their early 50s came into my office. They told me they had worked for 24 years at Camco. Last year when the multinational decided to rationalize its operations in Canada and transfer the operation to Hamilton, they were offered an option: go to Hamilton or quit. Since neither husband nor wife is a driver and since they found it quite awkward to go to Hamilton, they decided to stay. "We worked so many years with the company. It is probably time to stay in Toronto and find another job," they said. They now regret this decision.
After one year and three months they have not been able to find any job at all. They told me, and I quote them correctly: "We have been there more than 20 years. We did not know what the world outside was. Now we are knocking on doors. They look at us and some of them do not say anything, but others tell us we are too old and there are no jobs for us."
They showed me their savings account, and they have just a little bit over $26,000. They told me: "We have worked all our lives and this is all our savings. When they are finished, what will happen to us?"
How does the Treasurer respond to them? Just nothing, zero. He tells them that unemployment is 9.1 per cent on May 16, 1984. The average for 1984 will be 9.1 per cent, which means they will be in exactly the same predicament.
9:20 p.m.
This is not the only situation I can speak of. I can tell members of hundreds of cases of immigrants who have lived all their lives in Canada working in the construction industry who now find they cannot get a job. There were two people sitting in the gallery this afternoon. I would have been happy if they had been here tonight. They have been unemployed for more than two years and no longer have unemployment insurance benefits. They refuse to go on welfare because of their pride. For them it is a tragedy. What does the Treasurer tell them? He tells them unemployment in Ontario will be 9.1 per cent for the whole year, which means there will no prospects of their getting jobs.
If we look at the rosy prospects the Treasurer projects in his budget about the construction of houses, he tells us that while in 1983 we had 54,900 houses started, in 1984 we will have 58,000 houses started. Even if we take this figure for what it is, we know very well that unemployment in the construction industry is extremely high right now, and we will not solve the problem of unemployment in the construction industry with 3,100 more housing starts. If we go to any of the hiring halls in Metropolitan Toronto, or anywhere else in Ontario where there are even worse situations, we will see how many people are unemployed and on waiting lists with no prospect of finding jobs in the foreseeable future.
What does the Treasurer tell these people? He tells them there will be an increase of 3,100 houses in 1984. How long does it take to build 3,100 houses? That is just a couple of subdivisions; it is peanuts. It does not take into account a very important fact that this government supinely accepts.
In recent weeks, probably after the budget had already been printed, there has been a very fundamental change in one factor that has a very great influence on the housing industry: the increase in interest rates and the increase in mortgage rates that has followed. In the last two or three weeks, we have seen an increase in mortgages. The opinion of all the experts tells us not only that there will not be an increase but also that there will be a decrease in housing starts in the next month. The Treasurer does not respond to that problem either.
As I said before, I do not know which PR firm he hired to write the budget and to create acronyms, but he tells us the government has finally come to the conclusion that it has to get involved in research and enterprise. I thought the expression traditionally used was research and development.
In an effort to create a new illusion, the government tells us we have to talk about research and enterprise now. What does the government tell us? For the next year, it will spend something like $10 million, and $30 million in three years, hoping the private sector will come in, co-operate with the government, help in the new university research and take advantage of the new research incentive fund.
I find this to be quite ludicrous. We have thousands of people unemployed. We have young people who cannot find jobs. The government promises them it will create programs in the future to face that problem. We know we have people coming out of our universities who will not be able to find jobs because there are no research jobs in our industry; that is not because of conditions that are just temporary but because of the structure of our industry.
We in the New Democratic Party have been saying repeatedly, year after year, that we will not have research and development in the traditional industries because we have a branch-plant economy that does not require research and development in Canada.
Everybody understands, even the kids understand, that if you are an international or multinational corporation, you do your research and development where you are located. When you use the products of your research and development in the branches and you bring back the profits and revenues, then you will also bring back the part that relates to research and development.
I think the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, even though he was one of the persons most responsible for how the auto pact evolved, I want to tell the member for Brant etc. -- I will not say all the other names -- said that in 1980 we paid $360 million to the automobile industry in the United States in terms of research and development for what was used in Canada in designing and applied research. Therefore, since we have a branch-plant economy, we do not have research in Canada.
When we went there last winter, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) showed us something with great pride. We actually met some of the people who at four o'clock in the morning, at 48 degrees below zero, were trying the new General Motors engines in Kapuskasing. That is about all that goes on in research in Canada. There is a building in Kapuskasing with 40 people who try engines when the temperature goes to 40 degrees below zero.
There is no research and development. Therefore, for the 156,000 young people who come out of university, there is little chance that they can get jobs in research even though they have been trained for that at university. For the government to tell us it will allocate $10 million for three years, and that will help to solve the problem of research and development in Ontario -- or research and enterprise, as the Treasurer says -- is absolutely ludicrous.
9:30 p.m.
If we had a press gallery that was more analytical, and I do not want to be nasty to them, its members would say this is absolute drivel. As I said before, the Treasurer in his budget does not respond to any of the very serious and basic problems we have in our province. He does not say anything about the mining or forest industries, where we have very serious problems.
The Treasurer relies very heavily on agreements with the federal government. When the election comes, the government will tell us it is the federal government's fault that the forest industry is going down the drain, but it does not do anything about it. It does nothing about the mining industry, and the resource industry in general, even though everybody understands it is a depleting commodity.
If we do not process our resources in Ontario, a time will come when they will be scarce. We are already facing a very serious situation in the nickel industry. There will be other places in the world where it will be cheaper to extract minerals and we will be left with nothing.
In the case of Sudbury, employment opportunities are shrinking year after year. We hear of thousands of people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Since Sudbury can be considered a company town for all purposes, there are no other prospects for employment. Thousands of people will be left without help and without the possibility of being re-employed.
What does the budget do for those people? It does absolutely nothing. The Treasurer tells us he will set up some sort of new organization, new agency, new test company, some sort of nonprofit organization, but with regard to money allocated to face those problems, there is absolutely nothing.
The government spends a lot of money in advertising. I was not surprised at all yesterday when I was reading the Globe and Mail, the very day after the budget, to see a very big ad which said the government will exempt home owners from any increase in taxable assessment if they undertake renovations and additions where there are senior citizens.
I thought perhaps I was naïve. Perhaps many people who are not affected will say the government is doing a good thing. I do not know how much it will cost, even though we know last year the government spent more than $27 million for advertising. Many people think perhaps the government is doing the right thing. But what is the government doing?
The government is saying that if home owners renovate a house in which senior citizens reside, they will not have their assessment increased. That speaks to the problem I have been talking about before; this government is talking in cosmetics. It is talking about words, but it does not face the real problem.
The real problem in property taxes is that the assessment system is wrong. The government does not say it will correct that problem; it says it will not increase the assessment. There are many countries in the world -- and I can give the members a whole list of countries -- where not only do they not increase the assessment if a home owner undertakes renovations, but also he is exempted from paying taxes because he contributes to the heritage and the wealth of the country.
The government of Ontario believes that by giving that small exemption, which in dollar terms is quite negligible, it is doing the senior citizens a great favour. That is not so. I suspect the government is actually spending more money on its advertising campaign than the senior citizens will save in terms of exemption from increased assessment.
The Treasurer is convinced he can get away with anything. This is proven by the fact that there is a number of ministries whose allocations have been reduced. Later I will talk briefly about the Ministry of Energy, for which I am the critic.
I will mention the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which was also mentioned today by my leader. Its allocation is down by $21 million from 1982-83. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation budget is down by 9.2 per cent from last year. The Ministry of Environment spending is down by $19 million, or 5.8 per cent. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations budget is down by 15 per cent and so forth.
While the ministries' budgets are down, there is one item that is constantly increasing: the province's advertising budget. It has gone from $2.6 million in 1974 to $27 million in 1983. In 1974, Ontario ranked 36th among all advertisers in Canada; it was sixth in 1983. If we continue this pace, we will soon be second after the federal government.
From 1974 to 1983, the increase in the advertising budget was $24,542,808. This means an increase of 933 per cent, while the inflation rate during the same period was 122 per cent. I do not want to tell the members any more because it is repetitive and because we have said this many times, but whenever we ask for any increase in social benefits or an increase in benefits to injured workers, the government is there to tell us that we must restrain ourselves, that it is impossible to have increases that match inflation because there is not enough money and because we are going through hard times. When we come to government advertising there is no restraint at all: 933 per cent in nine years.
If we had a little more critical press gallery and if we did not have a press gallery made up of people who are waiting for government jobs, perhaps the people of Ontario would have been informed at this time.
9:40 p.m.
The three assumptions upon which the government based its budget, that it is an economic transformation budget, a budget without a deficit and a budget without substantive tax increases, are not true even from the government's perspective.
As I said before, there has been an increase in the OHIP premium, but there have also been hidden tax increases in the tobacco, gasoline and motor vehicle fuel taxes. We will pay $44 million in gasoline taxes, $41 million in tobacco taxes and $60 million in motor vehicle taxes.
What is more offensive is that while the government is pretending to put the lid on municipal and board of education expenses, it is forcing them to increase property taxes, which is a most inequitable form of taxation.
Despite the fact the government is telling us the activity of the government will not be reduced, we have a reduction in expenses for many ministries. We do not know at this time, and this is the important thing, in which areas those cuts will take effect. We do not know if they will take effect in the areas of policy, research and development, social development or personnel, although the government boasts it can now do a better job with nine civil servants for 1,000 citizens than it did with 11 a few years ago.
In the Ministry of Energy, for which I am the critic, the government is actually proposing a cut from $119 million in 1983-84 to $116 million in 1984-85. This seems to be a minor cut of only $3 million but the areas that seemed to suffer in past cuts were alternative and renewable energy projects and energy conservation. These areas were given only $41.59 million in 1983-84, down from $54.7 million in 1982-83. This is a $12. 8-million decrease, or a 23 per cent decrease in funding.
For many people perhaps this does not mean much, but if we look at the role of this ministry, and I am glad the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) is present at this point, we will see the ministry has only one role and that is to involve itself in the area of renewable energy and conservation. As far as the production of energy is concerned, we know the minister and the ministry, and I do not think it is his fault, are totally powerless because the czar is Ontario Hydro.
In an Ontario Hydro publication --
Mr. Piché: How do you spell "Hydro"?
Mr. Di Santo: I am surprised the member for Cochrane North would ask that question because we know what spelling mistakes he made just recently. I will not comment on them.
Mr. Nixon: I think we had better have a little more detail about this.
Mr. Piché: The only mistake I made was to say Bob is going to Ottawa on the 14th.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gillies): Order. The member for Downsview has the floor.
Mr. Nixon: I want to know what spelling mistakes the member made.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Please ignore the interjections and continue.
Mr. Di Santo: I know the member for Cochrane North is interested in energy. For almost three decades of his life, his big project was to reoperate the Smoky Line Train in order to promote tourism in northern Ontario. The government has never given him the funds; not even the Treasurer in this budget. This was his big electoral promise, "I will give you the Smoky Line Train," and he explained to me all the things about the Smoky Line Train.
Mr. Nixon: He messed up his career when he left the Liberal Party. His father will never forgive him.
Mr. Piché: That is right. I was going to support Chrétien in Ottawa.
Mr. Mancini: Tell us about the Smoky Line Train.
Mr. Di Santo: The member for Cochrane North once talked to us about the Smoky Line Train. I can yield to him if he wants.
In the fall 1983 issue of Canadian Public Administration, there is an article by L. Graham Smith. He said:
"In 1981, the Ministry of Energy's total staff was 126, organized to deliver three main programs: conservation and renewable energy (CARE)" -- Tory acronyms are fantastic -- "conventional energy and strategic planning and analysis. Electrical power is a component of the conventional energy program. Budget figures contained in the ministry's 1981 annual report revealed that the conventional energy program received under seven per cent of the ministry's annual budget" -- this is also true for the following year -- "compared to the nearly 70 per cent or $23.4 million spent annually on the CARE program.
"Clearly, the major focus of the Ministry of Energy is conservation and the development of renewable energy resources. By comparison, minimal emphasis is placed upon electric power planning and respondents to this study indicated that the minister's staff 'in essence, leave Ontario Hydro untouched.' With respect to electric power planning, the ministry's role can be characterized as one of monitoring Ontario Hydro's actions and, in the words of one respondent, 'attempting to influence not what they do, but how they go about it.'"
In other words, 70 per cent of the budget is spent on conservation and renewable energy. With this budget, the Treasurer is reducing the very function of the Ministry of Energy, which is the only function the ministry performs, by $12.8 million or 23 per cent. For anything else, for the production of energy, for what is called strategic planning and analysis, for the production of conventional and nuclear energy, the ministry has no role at all.
9:50 p.m.
We know very well that in 1984 Ontario Hydro will have a net requirement of $2.4 billion, which means a sixth of the total budget of the province. The Treasurer has nothing to say about it, and the Minister of Energy has nothing to say about it. Probably he would like to say something about it.
Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Oh no, that is not true.
Mr. Wildman: You would not like to say anything about it?
Mr. Di Santo: Of course he would, but how could he? The government is totally subservient to the options that Ontario Hydro has set for itself and the government is not prepared to do anything about them.
Mr. Wildman: You are just a minion of Ontario Hydro.
Mr. Di Santo: Yes. Even worse than that.
The government tells the boards of education, "We will give you a 4.5 per cent increase in 1984." It tells the municipalities, "We will give you a 5.2 per cent increase in 1984." He is unable to say anything to Hydro; he is unable to tell Hydro that if it wants to pursue conservation, it has to change its approach totally. We know very well -- everyone knows -- that Hydro is unable to conserve at this point because there is a surplus and that is why it is promoting energy sales.
How much do members think Hydro is spending for its advertising budget? Just $3.4 million, which is exactly $400,000 more than the Treasurer took out of that ministry. That tells members what a pitiful situation we are in.
There is no economic planning in the province. There is a situation in which the government is a captive of this monster that is Ontario Hydro, and the government does not respond to economic or social problems. I did not mention the social housing problem; I did not mention the problem of day care centres.
I heard the Treasurer boasting on one of the radio stations that he is human, that he has a heart, because he is creating 1,500 day care places in Ontario. I would like to tell the Treasurer, without using statistics -- because for me statistics do not mean very much -- to come any morning of the week along Keele Street anywhere from Lakeshore to Steeles, stop at every bus stop and see how many mothers are carrying their children at five o'clock or six o'clock in the morning to their relatives or to a family or to an older woman because no day care centres are available.
I would like to tell the Treasurer to come into my riding of Downsview and see how many single mothers cannot go to work and are blamed for being on welfare because they cannot afford a day care centre and there are no subsidized day care centres. I would like to ask the Treasurer to come into my riding so he understands that 1,500 spaces are pitiful, are peanuts, for the needs of Ontario.
As far as subsidized housing is concerned, the Treasurer should look at the figures on the waiting lists just in Metropolitan Toronto and he will realize how many people are in the most intolerable situation.
I received a phone call today from a single mother who is living with her uncle and two children in one bedroom. For that person there is no prospect whatsoever to get shelter in the foreseeable future because the Treasurer has not allocated any money at all. Since 1975, not one new shelter has been built in Metropolitan Toronto for people who need it.
I think the government should have looked around for alternative avenues. Ontario Housing is not the only acceptable model. There are other solutions that have been adopted in other countries. But this government refuses to engage in that field even though the need is enormous.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying this budget will probably last only the space of a morning. In a few days nobody will remember what the Treasurer announced in this House. I suppose there will be an incredible barrage of advertising all over the province. We will have ads on television, radio and in the newspapers, but there will be nothing of substance.
At the end of the year, the unemployment rate will be 9.1 per cent, according to the Treasurer's figures. That is assuming domestic activity increases by 4.7 per cent and personal income increases 8.9 per cent. If that does not happen because of the economic situation that is evolving at this time, we will have a much more serious situation. Employment will be much higher and many of the social problems will be more serious than they are now. This operation will end up as a tragic joke the Treasurer has perpetrated on the people of Ontario.
I know the government thinks it can get away with anything in Ontario because it thinks there is no reaction out there. It thinks the people will absorb and accept everything. But I think that is not so, because some situations are becoming intolerable. The employment situation is not the temporary type of situation it used to be; the type that would be overcome when the economic cycle changed.
Now we have very serious structural problems. There are people who will be unemployed and will be very angry. They will not forget what this Treasurer has done to them.
There are problems with pensioners who are faced with increasing property taxes each year. In North York this year they have increased by $100 to $110. They cannot afford to keep their houses. For them it is not a temporary problem, not a transient situation. It is a permanent situation that will affect them all their lives.
There are young people who are unable to find a job and who will not be able to find a job in the foreseeable future if the Treasurer's predictions do not come true. For those people this budget is a hoax. For those reasons we will vote against it. We hope the people of Ontario will understand exactly what a con operation the Treasurer has done on all of us.
10 p.m.
Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) on his contribution to the debate this evening.
I want to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for granting me the privilege to speak at this time, a time when my colleagues and I are anxious to commend the Treasurer on his first budget, a budget that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has called creative and responsible, one that has obviously stumped the opposition.
It will be a benchmark for all Treasurers and Finance ministers in these difficult times. The Treasurer has done what the pundits said was impossible. He has provided the blueprint for a significant reduction of the deficit without increasing taxes, and he has managed to do that while adhering to the government's commitment to restraint. That is quite a feat.
Significant also is the manner in which his budget addresses the many other areas of concern, especially those of jobs, youth, seniors, businesses big and small, and agriculture.
The budget clearly demonstrates the ability of this government to deal in a comprehensive and realistic manner with the challenges facing a society undergoing fundamental and far-reaching economic and social transformation. Unlike the prophets of doom and gloom assembled on the other side of this House, this government has proven itself capable of sound and prudent management designed to continue Ontario's responsible economic tradition.
While I join my colleagues in praising this new flat-line approach in dealing with today's difficult economy, I also note and support the Treasurer's optimistic view of the future of this province over the short as well as the long term.
Coming from an area that has considerable dependence on the tourist industry, I was pleased to learn of the efforts and changes the Treasurer has proposed to aid that hardpressed section of the economy. In addition to the accommodation rebate for out-of-province visitors, incentive is provided for employment for young people in this industry. Up to 25,000 jobs are seen as the potential of this aid program that will provide $100 per week towards their salaries.
While this form of assistance is wonderful in itself, may I humbly suggest it may not be enough. Despite the planned visits of the Queen and the Pope, the outlook for tourism is not bright. In my area in eastern Ontario, where we have three international bridges and are most cognizant of the paucity of US visitors, I am told it is the Canadian traffic going to and from the United States that keeps the bridges as busy as they are.
Mr. Haggerty: They are going over to buy cheap gas.
Mr. Nixon: They need a lot more French-speaking customs people there.
Mr. Haggerty: Even turkeys are cheaper over there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. Runciman: The honourable member is quite correct. Normally, it is prices that attract the US visitor to Canada. The cost of a visit to Canada, despite the value of the dollar, no longer offers an incentive for the millions of average working Americans who used to come here annually. Involved is the cost of accommodation, meals, liquor and gasoline, to name a few.
The budget has provided the financial aid to create jobs and encourage tourists in so far as accommodation is concerned. We must await the results of these welcome incentives and be prepared to expand the program to include tax reductions if necessary to make a visit here more attractive to that great majority of Americans who take their holidays by car.
We have 70 million Americans within a hoot and a holler of Brockville and the big question is, how do we get them to come back in the numbers in which they used to come? I suggest the answer can be found in northern New York, where many Canadians go on visits simply because it costs less despite our devalued dollar. We have to help our tourist industry become more competitive.
It is my privilege to introduce into the House some of the matters and concerns which affect the lives of the people in Leeds county. I believe my constituency occupies a central place in the development of this great province and, in fact, a central place in the development of our nation.
I am sure members are aware that the portion of Leeds county fronting on the St. Lawrence was one of the original eight townships established by Governor Haldimand following the American revolutionary war. Leeds county, along with its neighbours to the east, as well as Kingston, Prince Edward county and the Niagara area, formed the small seed from which this nation launched its expansion westward in the last century, which between 1867 and 1906 saw this province grow into its present shape.
I can say with some authority that my people, with the distinguished company I alluded to earlier, form a good portion of the spiritual heart not only of Ontario but also of Canada. Add to this the fact that Leeds county encompasses within its boundaries some of the most beautiful scenery on the continent and we have a tremendous potential.
I suggest that in this bicentennial year, the 200th anniversary of the arrival of settlers in Leeds county --
Mr. Nixon: I used to go down there looking for Liberal votes.
Mr. Piché: That would be good material for Chrétien, because he will need new material very shortly.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Runciman: Mr. Speaker, that would have been a tough search, and I commend the honourable member for his efforts, although obviously they were in vain.
Mr. Kolyn: That is why he came back.
Mr. Runciman: I mentioned the bicentennial year. I am suggesting that this government review the potential which awaits our development in this area of the province.
The geography and history of Leeds indicate that perhaps one of the greatest assets we enjoy is our tourist industry. We appreciate the benefits which Providence has bestowed upon us in this area, but we must take these benefits and develop them to the fullest.
Currently our tourist industry suffers from a number of restrictions. First, let me say the industry itself is in a state of evolution. Historically, the tourist industry in Leeds, and I suspect throughout most of Ontario, was based on the sport of fishing. Thanks in great part to the prudent actions of this government in past years, policies executed by the Ministry of Natural Resources, we still enjoy this option and bass, pike, muskie and pickerel are still there waiting for us. Whether the angler visits the St. Lawrence, the Rideau or many of the inland lakes, the fish are still rising.
The experience of our resort owners over the past couple of decades has indicated a significant change in the tourists. No longer does the typical tourist come to eastern Ontario in search of sport fishing; essentially he comes for entertainment. Fishing lodges must successfully complete the metamorphosis into tourist resorts, and it requires imagination, courage and the resources to complete the metamorphosis.
I suggest this government could take a leadership role in identifying the possible directions, providing advice, organizational leadership and resources.
In my view, the province could take greater advantage of one of the most advantageously situated tourist locales in the world, the strip of land extending from Brockville on the east to Kingston on the west, encompassing an area that is unequalled in its potential to attract and satisfy visitors. I suggest this recreational area extending from Brockville to Kingston be developed as an area and sold in this manner throughout the continent and abroad.
10:10 p.m.
Members of the House may recall that last year I released a report on the armaments industry in Ontario, prepared for me by the legislative library research staff. That report outlined in detail the extent of Ontario's involvement in Canada's defence production industry. The study also outlined a number of options on how Ontario could benefit from opportunities in this field, thereby creating many new jobs for the province.
Although I neither recommended nor endorsed in any way any of those options, they were very quickly designated by many in the media as my proposals. The New Democratic Party was quick to label me as a warmonger, among other things, especially that champion of sincerity, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). Of course, that member was also quick to add that it is quite all right for three industries in his riding to produce defence-related materials. There is nothing hypocritical about that, is there?
Then, a week after I was roundly condemned by the third party, guess which party introduced a resolution calling on the federal government to give a certain riding more defence equipment business? That is right, the New Democratic Party and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). There is no hypocrisy in that party.
Since I began looking into the defence production industry well over a year ago, the one thing I have run into at every turn is hypocrisy. The third party's position on my study versus their actions in encouraging such industries for their own ridings is just one example, a case in point. When I released my report last year, I also made a recommendation that was either ignored or conveniently overlooked by the instant critics. The report clearly spelled out the significant extent of defence production currently carried out in Ontario -- 246 companies with some 50,000 Ontarians toiling in the industry, ranging from tires for armoured personnel carriers to the guidance system for cruise missiles.
What I suggested was that we attempt to get a handle on this industry by establishing a policy for defence production in Ontario, a policy that would spell out what types of production we would like to see take place in this province and detailing ways and means of assisting the industry to develop acceptable product lines and to exploit acceptable domestic and foreign markets.
The policy should also clearly spell out the kinds of things we do not want to see Ontario associated with. At present we do not appear to have any hard and fast policy in this area; instead we seem to want to look the other way and pretend the industry is not there. As a result, we are undoubtedly missing the boat with respect to opportunities to produce products and exploit markets that would be overwhelmingly acceptable to the vast majority of Ontarians and would create thousands of new jobs.
By ignoring reality, we are at present encouraging, through silence if in no other way, the production of products that many would find offensive. I say it is time to come out of the closet, throw away the veil of hypocrisy, determine what is right and what is wrong for this province with regard to defence production and then encourage and promote what is right and discourage what is wrong.
To move on to another subject, the petrochemical industry is important to Ontario, as it is to my area. Thankfully, in the past few weeks relief has come in the form of a lowering of the price of gas used to manufacture many types of chemicals. Canada now exports more chemicals than it imports, a dramatic reversal accomplished in just 10 years.
The problem is that the producers' profits plunged from $426 million in 1980 to losses of $129 million by 1982. During the past two years I have been able to add my small voice in an attempt to make the plight of the industry known to government and to suggest a remedy, the lowering of the price. The lower price for gas feedstocks announced recently augurs well for the petrochemical industry, an industry that now accounts for 60,000 jobs. I want to compliment the Minister of Energy for his efforts on their behalf.
As the members may know, the agriculture industry has historically been a mainstay in Leeds. It goes without saying that agriculture has always been and will continue to remain a major force in Ontario's economy. In the recent past this government has recognized the hard times faced by farmers. We know farmers in this province have been caught between rising interest rates and increasing inflation, yet stable if not declining prices for farm commodities.
During the hard international recession from which Ontario has just emerged, thankfully not too scathed, the government introduced programs designed to assist small independent farmers, programs such as the farm adjustment assistance and the beginning farmer assistance programs. These programs reflect this Progressive Conservative government's concern about such key traditional sectors as agriculture. More important, this budget reflects the government's continued commitment to agriculture.
As my colleague the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) mentioned earlier today, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has received the largest percentage increase of any ministry in this government. It will receive a budget increase of 16.3 per cent for this fiscal year. This funding will go to enrich and initiate agricultural programs designed to assist farmers in this challenging period of transition.
While the farming community is steeped in the tradition of commitment to hard work on the land, it must also keep up with the massive agricultural advances in this province and in this country. It is only by keeping up with modern technology that we will be able to maintain our place at the forefront of the world's agricultural industry.
I do have one concern related to agriculture that I would like to relate to the House at this time. In the past few years Ontario has come to know a problem that results in confrontations unknown in the days of our fathers and grandfathers on the farm. It has to do with drainage ditches. We now see people virtually up in arms as a result of policies put in place in recent years, policies that were devised with the best intent but policies that unfortunately have led to problems greater than they were devised to solve.
The problem arises from the institution of the system of petition drains. The nightmarish costs and delays that seem to bedevil petition drains are no more clearly exemplified than in some of the recent efforts in drainage projects in Leeds county.
One proposed drainage project, known as the Glen Elbe drain, has costs of $86,000 accumulated against it in engineering fees alone. There has not been a shovel of dirt moved, and there is no indication of an early start, but the controversy surrounding it has been swirling for two years or more.
Because of what is happening in rural areas today, new drainage works or cleanouts are very difficult to initiate or execute, yet without proper drainage and soil pH, all further technology may be applied in vain to the most productive land.
Drainage is a long-term project and does not have the publicity value of some other programs. But all the other programs, perhaps with the exception of crop insurance, would be wasted without it. The government is always being lambasted for Band-Aid projects and not taking a long-term view. Nowhere else can governments and agriculture get a bigger, long-term boom for the buck, especially in eastern Ontario, than through proper drainage.
Currently, the ministry has no control over how a mutual agreement drain is constructed. I have been told, and frankly I believe it, that the ministry may think it is not financing mutual agreement drains when it actually is. Land owners mutually agree to make their drainage project into a petition drain, qualify for a grant, and if there is no opposition, they are home-free, they think.
One project I have heard about is an example of what I am getting at. In Escott township in Leeds county, the land owners got a $1,200 quote for a ditch cleanout. They were persuaded to go the petition route. The engineering costs were $2,000. They got a $1,100 grant and had to pay $2,200 instead of $1,200. The government lost and the farmers lost. The same story has been and is being repeated all over the province.
The current hassle over drainage projects has almost put a stop to all efforts to clean out existing ditches or create new ones. The ministry needs to take a fresh approach to the program. I humbly suggest that an attempt be made to rekindle the ARDA spirit that awakened the drainage renaissance in the 1960s and 1970s and encourage farmers and land owners to work together instead of fighting and tearing communities apart.
I have some proposals to offer with that in mind. I have in mind a proposal I made last year to give the province's one-third assistance grant to mutual agreement drains as well as petition drains. Petition drains, as I suspect all rural members know, invite litigation, discord and fighting involving land owners, township councils and environmentalists.
Petition drains also require the services of engineers, which ups the costs 10 per cent to 15 per cent, and contractors bid higher when work is done by tender. If the ditch project fails, the petitioners may be saddled with engineering costs and no ditch.
In one instance in my area, land owners have been trying for five years to get a petition drainage project off the ground. They have been held up by one man and they now face costs of $30,000, and no ditch. Where does that leave the farmer caught in such a squeeze?
I would like to suggest that the government make mutual agreement drains eligible for a one-third grant. While admitting that all drains cannot be handled by mutual agreement, a goodly number could be, and that in itself would be good for most farmers.
10:20 p.m.
A little more than a week ago Ontario Hydro announced its preferred power corridor route between Kingston and Ottawa. Much of the recommended corridor passes through my riding. Although I have had insufficient time to arrive at any conclusions as to the wisdom of the recommendation, I do want to offer some observations.
Hydro's selection of what turns out to be the shortest and least expensive alternative has understandably left many people wondering about the authenticity of the public participation process. Was it just a charade? I sincerely hope not, but I want to advise Hydro it is going to have a tough selling job in parts of my riding in its efforts to convince people it was not.
Perhaps the most controversial element of the corridor proposal is the necessity for a crossing of the Rideau Canal in the Jones Falls area. This is one of the most beautiful areas in the Rideau system, and I do not think I can overemphasize the importance to the Rideau as a tourist drawing card. Any Hydro corridor routing, in my view, should not detract from major tourist-attracting features of the area.
Parks Canada is on record in its opposition to a crossing at Jones Falls. I am pleased to see the minister is here this evening, and I urge him to assess this proposal as it relates to Jones Falls and its impact on tourism, with a view to possibly intervening at the joint board hearing.
I have one final comment on this matter. Whatever route is finally adopted, I urge Hydro to give every consideration to providing job opportunities and economic benefits, albeit short-term, to the regions through which the corridor will travel. It was indicated to me last week this will not happen, and I urge Hydro to take another look at that.
Approximately two years ago, the Right Honourable Joe Clark made some proposals with respect to parliamentary reform, proposals which regrettably Mr. Clark and the federal PCs did not have the opportunity to implement. Those proposals could well apply to this House and this government and could provide a way, perhaps the only way, for individual private members, and consequently the public, to regain control of the public service, a control I believe is essential in a parliamentary democracy.
I do not intend to deal in depth with the reasons reform is needed. Suffice to say it boils down to the fact that, although we all wear the clothes of authority, only a handful of the members of this House have any real authority. Mr. Clark's basic proposal, one I strongly endorse for this assembly, was to limit radically the mandate and the control parties exercise over individual members of the House.
This would be accomplished by the government sitting down with the members shortly before a session begins or shortly after the throne speech has been delivered and saying: "Here are the measures that are of fundamental importance to the government. Here are the questions on which we will stand or fall. Here are the questions on which party lines will be enforced and the whips will be imposed." These questions should be in a minority. In other words, there should be a division of questions at the beginning of a session by a government into the fundamental questions of confidence on which its existence will depend and questions that can be addressed directly and independently by individual members of the House.
Mr. Clark indicated his faith in the collective judgement of the elected members of the House of Commons, and those members were allowed to express their judgements. I certainly have similar faith in members of this assembly. Adoption of this kind of measure would allow the House to work the way most people think it works. Matters that are not questions of government confidence would stand or fall on their merits. Most members -- and I emphasize most -- were nominated and elected because they have demonstrated good judgement or good intellect, but the system, by and large, prevents them from applying their talents.
If Mr. Clark's suggestion were applied in this House, it would have a profound effect on the public service. Instead of having to persuade a minister of the merits of a proposal, public servants would have to convince a diverse range of individual interested members of the provincial parliament.
That would reduce dramatically the prospect of measures being adopted without scrutiny. It would require public servants to go well beyond their normal rounds of consultation. It would give them the benefit of the advice of intelligent members of this House who would bring to bear their own good judgement and the concerns of voters they visit every weekend. It is a proposal I commend enthusiastically to the government of this House.
In this response to the budget, it is perhaps appropriate that I touch upon the topic of productivity. While the headlines in one of today's local papers cited an optimistic economic forecast for Ontario for 1984, I would like to propose a number of options the government might consider --
Mr. Piché: It must have been the Globe and Mail. Who else?
Mr. Runciman: -- as part of its overall strategy to maintain its economic leadership and increase industrial productivity in our province. I am referring, of course, to the topic of employee participation in profits, equity and decision-making, otherwise known as profit-sharing.
One of the greatest single challenges facing Ontario and Canada in general is finding the appropriate vehicle to realize a superior and continually rising level of productivity. Profit-sharing has the potential to become the best means for productivity improvement by involving employees more directly and responsibly in the activities of a company. Giving workers a share in profits, equity and decision-making can improve employer-employee relations and provide firms with an additional source of investment capital, and it could well lower production costs by reducing wastage, turnover and absenteeism.
In addition to improved productivity, profit-sharing can be a significant means of raising employee morale and would, I hope, lead to a lessening of the adversarial relationship between management and labour. I personally favour profit-sharing plans that are voluntary and available to all employees.
Stock option plans are particularly attractive because they encourage long-term interest in the performance of the company. Stock option plans also create a much-needed source of equity capital and contribute in a participatory way to the health of the economy.
I must make it clear that I am not advocating profit-sharing as a replacement for trade unions or as a substitute for regularly negotiated wage increases. Stock option plans, for example, could be either part of a collective agreement or outside that agreement. Unions should, however, re-examine their traditional opposition to profit-sharing, and business leaders should be encouraged to increase employees' stakes in their companies.
As I see it, the provincial government's role in employee participation in profits, equity and decision-making should be one of leadership and encouragement through the tax system. This government could play a major role in promoting the concept and in educating interested groups and individuals about the features and benefits of profit-sharing schemes.
Moreover, I would like to see this government consult with the federal government, management, labour and other interested parties, such as the Profit Sharing Council of Canada and the Business Council on National Issues, to determine how best to move in the direction of voluntary profit-sharing.
That concludes my remarks.
On motion by Mr. Runciman, the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the business of the House for the remainder of this week and for next week is as follows:
Tomorrow morning we will continue the budget debate.
Monday, of course, is the holiday.
On Tuesday, May 22, we will continue the budget debate in the afternoon and the evening.
On Wednesday, May 23, the usual three committees may meet.
On Thursday, May 24, as we have already changed the order by motion, in the afternoon we will deal with the estimates of the Premier (Mr. Davis), and in the evening we will have ballot items in the names of the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) and the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande).
On Friday, May 25, we will have second readings, and committee of the whole House if necessary, of Bills 54, 57, 67, 68 and 69.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.