Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, you will be very interested in this point of privilege, as an individual who is concerned about the fact that certain members of the news media were able to get hold of the government's statement ahead of time. I read an editorial in the St. Catharines Standard on September 18 of this year, before this House was convened, which said they had a copy of a speech by the Premier (Mr. Davis) in which he was going to say that he was going to sell his jet.

I think it would be worthy of an investigation on your part as to how the editor of the St. Catharines Standard was able to get hold of the Premier's speech as privileged information before the members of this House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. As a point of privilege that will go down as one of those efforts that did not get past the Chair.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday in the standing committee on social development, a question with respect to the core programming committee was asked by the opposition.

The Acting Speaker: It does not sound as if the member is leading to a point of privilege that is to be dealt with in the House.

Ms. Copps: It is a point of privilege referring to the Hansard for that particular day's committee.

The Acting Speaker: No. I am going to rule the member out of order even at this early point.

Ms. Copps: Can I not correct the record, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: No, not in this House for a committee.

Ms. Copps: I am not allowed to correct the record for the standing committee on social development?

The Acting Speaker: The member can check the committee record. We will start with oral questions.

Ms. Copps: Can I not correct the record? Mr. Speaker, may I not correct the record?

The Acting Speaker: Where the member can correct the record is in the committee.

Ms. Copps: The committee is part and parcel of the structure of this House. I am simply asking to correct the record.

The Acting Speaker: It is through the committee that the member corrects the record. There will be opportunity within that committee of the House to do so.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I can correct the record in the House or in the committee. I would like a ruling on that.

The Acting Speaker: I have ruled, and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition for his first question. There are enough members here for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could refer me to the particular statute upon which you make your ruling so that I might enlighten my own mind?

The Acting Speaker: I will refer the member to the section following question period.

[Later]

The Acting Speaker: Just one comment regarding the question of privilege, section 84 of the standing orders would give you the rationale for the Speaker's ruling.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAND BANKING

Mr. Peterson: I want to thank my colleague for the first-class effort she put up on my behalf, Mr. Speaker.

We will just have to do the best we can with what we have. It is not easy. However, let me ask a question of my friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I note with some interest his apparent change in policy, enunciated in a committee of this House yesterday, with respect to the government policy on land banking. Is it now his intention, having recognized the folly of his ways -- such as the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been wasted and the well over $100 million a year in interest that these land banks are accumulating as the government continues to hold them with no productive use -- to divest himself of these land banks completely? What are his plans? How is he going to get rid of them? How much money is he going to lose in the process?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the Leader of the Opposition was in the committee yesterday, along with members of his party who were asking some of the questions, he would know the answers already.

Mr. Bradley: Tell us now.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, we will tell the member. Just settle down for a moment or two. Do not be so anxious. The answers may not be the ones the member wants and, indeed, maybe they are the same as his political position. I do not know.

Frankly, I did say yesterday under questioning that we certainly had a substantial land bank held by the province of Ontario. It had been acquired in a great number of communities such as Kitchener, Ottawa and various other locales in Ontario in anticipation of some expansion and necessary requirements for housing development.

Obviously, the economy has not gone in the direction that would be advantageous for holding that size of land bank. Let me assure the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that even though we as a government in this province, on behalf of 8.5 million people, do have substantial land holdings we are not in a much different position from those in the private sector.

Look around at some of the financial reports today in relationship to some of the major development companies in Ontario and in Canada. They are in a like position, with massive land holdings with very substantial deficit factors to their shareholders, as we have to the 8.5 million shareholders in Ontario.

It is our intention, as things develop and the opportunity presents itself, to dispose of the land at the market position. We have succeeded in doing that in various locations in the province.

10:10 a.m.

As I mentioned yesterday in the committee, we have already sold off a fairly substantial land holding we had in the Borden farm area in the city of Nepean just outside of Ottawa. We have had other bids on lands we happen to own and we have disposed of them.

We have some very expensive land holdings in Malvern and we are disposing of those over a period of time. I want to make it abundantly clear to this House, as I did yesterday in committee, that we are not putting our land on the market at a fire-sale price.

Whatever profits or losses we experience will only be determined at the end of the day. The Leader of the Opposition is in the business world. He knows very well one cannot project one's losses at a halfway point. One can only understand what one's losses will be at the conclusion of the sale program.

Mr. Peterson: The minister must be aware that this whole program has turned out to be a profound embarrassment for him and his predecessor. Because of the very high interest cost that was accumulating, he changed his policy two or three years ago so that the Ontario Land Corp. would no longer be charged interest. Instead, it would be charged back to Treasury which originally bought the land, because the government knew it could never make money under ordinary accounting principles, i.e., charging the interest to the land accumulated.

The minister is aware that the government has $19 million invested in Oakville, $11 million invested in 3,000 acres in Cambridge, 1,500 acres in Hamilton costing over $31 million, $16 million invested in Milton, $20 million invested in Whitby, and $280 million invested in Pickering. That money is all gathering interest every day.

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should hear about this. We have told him before it was abject foolishness. The government should have started to divest itself a long time ago. If the minister is embarrassed, that is his fault, not my fault.

In Ottawa, the government has over $13 million invested in 5,000 acres. In Townsend, it has $47 million invested in 13,000 acres and is still trying to force-feed that community and losing money on a much grander scale there. In Cayuga, it has $36 million invested. In Edwardsburgh, it has about 10 million, all accumulating interest --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Edwardsburgh is not in my area of responsibility.

The Acting Speaker: Could we have the supplementary question?

Mr. Peterson: It is in government hands. Why does the government not move with some dispatch? Why does it not recognize the folly of its ways and recognize that if it sells sooner rather than later it will be in a position to cut its losses, because it is losing more every single day?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The market will digest only what the economics of the day can afford. Cadillac-Fairview, as a major development company in this province, in this country and, indeed, in North America, has said very clearly it would like to get out of the housing development industry.

It has very extensive land holdings in Mississauga and a few other jurisdictions. It has not put its land on the market at a fire-sale price and we do not intend to do so either. Cadillac-Fairview will wait until the market turns around and we will do the same.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don't think Mr. Matthews is going to do it either.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, there are very few of them.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Matthews is a Tory and he is not too bright either.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He is bright enough to have made a few million, I understand. The Leader of the Opposition would know it better than I because of his relationship with him.

I think if the leader of the official opposition would look, when he talks about the interest clock on our holdings having stopped, we have tried to put ourselves in a position similar to the private corporate sector which takes out its capital through a share-sale position, thereby not incurring interest on new land purchases. That is one of the reasons the private sector, other than for taxes and some other costs of administration, has been able to hold land costs at pretty well a standstill position.

We are trying, as far as possible, to follow a similar pattern, to keep our lands within a reasonable cost range for future production and use in the development of housing or whatever the potential happens to be for that land. I am not embarrassed by the fact that we have it any more than the private sector is. Certainly, if we had our choice now we would dispose of it at book value at least; that is not possible under the economic conditions that prevail in the marketplace today.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has stated fairly clearly that it is his intention to sell off these properties, how will he deal with those massive amounts of property the government owns in the North Pickering site? They were expropriated, and by some people's definitions the fact that they were expropriated precludes the concept of selling them off to the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not exclude it at all. The member knows very well that it does not exclude it, because it was always the intention of this government to eventually develop a new community in the North Pickering project. Indeed, those lands will come under the planning and zoning of that community and that region. They will then be subdivided and developed in a pattern similar to that of any other new subdivision or development in the private marketplace of Ontario, so it is not the case that we are restricted from the sale of it.

If the member had been here yesterday at the beginning of the session he would know I said very clearly that a number of acres of land held by this government in the Ontario Land Corp. in the Pickering project will eventually go out of our ownership, not for sale but back into conservation and a few other public crown corporations for the preservation of those lands that are on ravine situations and so on.

Those lands will not be sold, but they will be kept outside of the land corporation. There are other tracts of land, the member knows very well, within that project that are for long-term farming purposes for a buffer around the area we happen to have acquired. Some day in future there will be a new community there and we will be at an advantage to be able to sell it through subdivisions, through blocks for development by the private sector.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has gone through so many rationalizations on these purchases, from new cities to farm lands to hybrid poplar trees for energy experiments to waste disposal sites, and the list goes on and on. The best minds in the government are applied to the process of rationalizing these originally stupid decisions that have been made.

Now at least, I gather, the government has announced a change in policy and is going to sell off that land as it sold off the jet. I give the government credit. They are a little late to see the truth of these matters, but occasionally they come around. Now the minister is trying to justify it by saying, "The private sector is just as stupid as we are and it has lost money."

I do not care whether they charged interest to those projects or not. It is still accumulating interest. The taxpayer is paying interest on those. The longer the government holds them the more interest we will have to pay. Why not move with some dispatch to get rid of this profound embarrassment, or else we are going to keep reminding the government how really foolish they have been over the last 10 years.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all. I think the Leader of the Opposition should go back and review the situation of this government, because I think he has got things a little confused. We have not had a change of policy. It was obviously our --

Mr. Peterson: You did not change your view of the jet either, did you? You rationalized that one; you never changed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) will tell you a little bit about the jet if you want to hear from him.

If the leader of the official opposition will look back, it was always the intention of this government to eventually move all those lands back into the market system, either under our development --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Chuckle if you wish. The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) sits and chuckles at the improvement we have had.

The Acting Speaker: The minister will answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was always our intention to move the land back into the marketplace. I admit, as any other private organization would admit, that the period of time it will take will be somewhat longer than we had originally intended.

While the leader of the official opposition sits here talking about our land banking policy, we set out with land banks to try to capitalize on some new developments that could take place in the province. While he sits talking about disposing of land banks, his friends to the left want to talk about retaining and developing further land banks, which I do not agree with.

We bought the land at the right price. It will be put on the market at the opportune time to help in the economic development of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Go back to some of the speeches of your own party.

Mr. Peterson: Why do we not read some of your speeches about the jet if you want to read old speeches?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never made any speeches about the jet.

Mr. Bradley: You were too embarrassed to do so.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. New question.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity to ask his next question. Do not be provoked.

Mr. Peterson: He is provoking me. Tell him to settle down. It is Friday morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is it true that you won the demolition derby?

Mr. Peterson: It is true. Speaking about that, why would you sic your ministers on me to try to wipe me out? That shows what kind of small guy you are.

The Acting Speaker: Is that the Leader of the Opposition's question?

Mr. Peterson: You failed there, and you will fail any other time you try. I had a little higher view of you personally.

10:20 a.m.

The Acting Speaker: I assume that is not the Leader of the Opposition's question. To whom is the Leader of the Opposition addressing his next question?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has not yet asked his question. Of whom are you going to ask it? Begin with your question.

Mr. Peterson: He has accused me of not wearing my seatbelt. My car was standing idle in the parking lot. They did not even give me a running chance. If it had been two moving cars I would have said fair enough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Your party has been standing still for generations.

Mr. Peterson: It is the only way they have a chance, when we are sitting there.

The Acting Speaker: You have an opportunity to ask one question.

Mr. Peterson: He is provoking me. The Premier does a lot of silly things on Friday mornings, does he not?

The Acting Speaker: Please do not be distracted.

ADVISORY COUNCILS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. In her speech to an Ontario advisory council, why did she use such intimidating language with these people? Why did she say to those people, "Your mandate does not include reviewing proposed government legislation or policy unless I specifically refer it to you for your advice"? The minister is aware that she offended a number of people. Why would she take that kind of high-handed approach with the council?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I do not know to whom the honourable member has been speaking. I have a very good relationship with all members of all the advisory councils and I am not aware of anyone taking exception to those remarks.

Mr. Peterson: I am referring to the speech she made to the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens saying exactly what I said. She told them they had no mandate to review proposed government legislation or policy. Yet the terms of reference of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens in the original order in council are to review current policies which have a bearing on ageing and the economy. Is she just trying to get them out of her hair? Are they being embarrassing to her? Why is she not using them to their full capacity?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think the honourable member is really reaching for something that is not there. I have the greatest of respect for each and every one of those advisers on those councils. I have used them whenever possible. I was just pointing out to them that it is not the policy to give them proposed legislation -- all kinds of legislation -- but we have asked on many occasions for them to review any proposals we are bringing forward.

I do not understand all this concern about expressing to them what is clearly their mandate. I have been finding total acceptance from the chairman and all those members. I have had no problem at all. I think the member is trying to raise a red herring that is not there.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am just wondering if it is true what I heard through the Liberal researchers today -- that the minister spent the summer at the Margaret Thatcher school of management practices?

The Acting Speaker: That does not really fall into line with the question that was asked.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Can he confirm to the House what three of his Treasury officials have confirmed to our research department, namely that a study of provincially administered prices was used by his ministry in preparing his price review legislation and program?

Could he also confirm that a list of what Ontario considers provincially administered prices was prepared and a list of the trade unions whose contracts would be affected by the legislation and the wage control program was prepared? If he will confirm that, as three of his officials have told us, why did he not make that available in the compendium of information when he tabled Bill 179?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member realizes that we always instruct our staff to be as helpful as they can when he phones for questions. We do not run a closed shop. The very fact that he has this information shows that. If a piece of paper is not attached to a compendium, and there are many that could be, we make information available as fast as we can should the member want to have access to it.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Treasurer explain why our research director -- after trying to get those documents since the tabling of the legislation and after being led to believe by ministry officials that it would be coming yesterday -- was told yesterday, "The decision has been made not to give you the information"?

Since the implication was that the decision came directly from the Treasurer's office, can he tell us what information he is hiding and is afraid to table in this Legislature or give to the opposition parties so they can discuss this legislation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I sense that the material the member is talking about is the kind of material that is readily available. He has a very good research staff. If I wanted to know the unions, I could find them out faster from him than from my own ministry.

The Acting Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: It's not the final supplementary.

The Acting Speaker: The Liberals do not want to ask a supplementary, so it will be the final supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Make it good, Ross. This is the last one.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know about that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Bellwoods has the floor.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer have a list of the number of collective bargaining agreements that will be rolled back by Bill 179 by virtue of the fact that these are two-year agreements, the second year being within the control year, and can he provide us with that list?

Can the Treasurer tell us whether on that list there might be approximately 100 Canadian Union of Public Employees agreements, principally in the municipal and school board sectors, which contracts extend into the control years in the second year and will be rolled back?

Can he tell whether each of those will be on the list and whether there are others on the list? How many contracts altogether are going to be abrogated or torn up and the legally signed second-year agreements rolled back to five per cent?

Will the Treasurer give us that list, and will he give us as much information as he can right here and now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I saw the list the acting leader is speaking of. He should keep in mind that I have been kept relatively busy and occupied with the debate, so it is not always easy to get to me for a decision on some of these things when I am sitting here instead of in the office.

However, that list did not have any of the information the honourable member is talking about: it was simply a list of unions that for one reason or another bargain in the public sector. It did not say whether they had contracts that were being changed in their second year.

I am sure that information may exist somewhere, but I will be quite honest: if it does, I have not seen such a list at any time, nor would it necessarily have come to the Treasury's attention. More likely, it would have come to the attention of the Management Board or the Civil Service Commission.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Does the minister remember that in his meeting with the Equal Pay Coalition on August 27, he informed more than 20 representatives of labour and women that he would not be implementing his legislation on equal pay for work of equal value? Can he confirm that he told the meeting, "At times when the economic climate is not good, you have to take care of business first"?

Did the minister also say that even though everyone understands and supports the need for equal pay, he still would not implement it and he could not even get his amendments before the cabinet for consideration?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not make those comments.

Mr. Foulds: At that meeting, did the minister indicate to Mary Cornish, the chairperson of the Equal Pay Coalition, that his ministry or his government had done an extensive study of the cost of implementing equal pay legislation? Will the minister table that information in the House and make it public?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that we had done an extensive study. I referred to the Gunderson report which was tabled in this House last spring.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been quoted as saying that legislating the concept of equal pay for work of equal value would amount to the straw that would break the camel's back for business.

Can the minister inform this House what evidence he has for this position, that merely introducing fairness in pay for women is thereby dooming business to failure? Taking into consideration that this government did nothing on this issue during the business boom years of the 1970s, when, according to the minister, would be the proper time for the introduction of such legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, what I said at that time, among other things -- and we had a very good meeting and good conversation and good dialogue -- was that I had a choice. I could say, "Yes, we are continuing to review the circumstances and we feel strongly about this matter and eventually we will be coming forward." And I could send them away and probably I would not hear from them for another year.

That was one choice, the political one, so to speak.

Alternatively, I could say: "I can be frank and honest with you and indicate that I do not feel the atmosphere at this time is right or appropriate for introducing legislation that is not in existence anywhere in the United States. It is in existence in Canada only in Quebec and in those companies that are administered by the federal government and we have not yet had any real experience. We have not yet been able to deal with the experiences of the Quebec legislation or with the federal legislation. In view of all of those things and the fact that the work place is in a very fragile condition these days, it would be very difficult to bring forward legislation of that nature."

Mr. Foulds: The Conservative government has professed that it was very difficult to bring forward Bill 179; yet it was able to do so.

Can the Minister of Labour explain his inability to bring forward legislation that would make equal pay provisions a reality in this province, at least, and can he tell us if his ministry did any study of the impact of Bill 179 on the wages of working women, for example, those in the civil service? Did he know that the impact of the bill would be to roll back the wages of 15,000 women in the clerical and office category in the civil service? If he did know, why did he allow the bill to go forward in the shape that he did? Did he not care or did the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) overrule him?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe it is misleading to cast this argument in terms of equal pay. Bill 179 expressly provides that section 33 of the Employment Standards Act -- that is the equal pay section -- has primacy over the numerical wage increase limits that are stipulated in the Inflation Restraint Act. The Inflation Restraint Act does not distinguish in its terms between male and female employees and is therefore neutral in its application.

ABITIBI-PRICE WAGE CUTS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question that was asked on Monday by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) in respect to the Abitibi-Price operations in White River.

The honourable member is not here so perhaps I could ask the deputy leader of the third party if he would like me to present this now or hold it until Monday when the honourable member will be here.

Mr. Foulds: Now. Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the member for Algoma raised a question concerning Abitibi-Price and its new agreement with the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union at White River. I can appreciate the concerns of the honourable member. This is a community in his riding, and not too far from my riding, that has had many problems notwithstanding this latest one which would be quite disastrous.

I inquired into the matter further in an attempt to determine the background of the company's request for contract concessions. I talked with officials of Abitibi-Price, including the president. It appears that the company has taken the position that since it has incurred substantial losses at its White River operation, it is therefore asking the union to forgo scheduled wage increases over the remainder of the term of the current collective agreement.

The company has apparently advised the union that some concessions of this sort are necessary in order to preserve the White River operation. I have learned that in the period since 1978, when this plant first started to operate, and not including their startup costs or their capital costs, their losses for operation only total $17 million.

The member for Algoma indicated in his question that the plant was inefficient. The information I have received, and which I only pass along, is that while it did have problems at the beginning, it is now considered to be as efficient as any similar operation in eastern Canada.

The honourable member also indicated that this plant was built with government funds. I would state respectfully that this is not completely correct. The capital costs, exclusive of startup costs, were $16,543,000. The only government money in there is $1.26 million which was a Department of Regional Economic Expansion grant.

I would not want to prejudice the position of either party by passing judgement on what appears to be a very difficult situation. Under the Labour Relations Act, a collective agreement can be amended during its term only by mutual consent. There is nothing within the law, to my knowledge, that prevents an employer seeking concessions during the term of an agreement. At the same time, there is nothing in the law that requires a union to agree to such requests. In other words, it is up to the union to decide whether amendments to the existing agreement are necessary or desirable, given the circumstances of the particular case.

If either party to a collective agreement believes the conduct of the other side amounts to intimidation contrary to the Labour Relations Act, as suggested on Monday by the honourable member, there are procedures by which such allegations may be examined by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. The facts in my possession would lead me not to believe that any improper conduct has occurred. However, it is for the board to consider any complaint it may receive.

No one takes comfort in economic circumstances which give rise to requests to reopen collective agreements. My hope would be that the parties to this particular agreement at White River can resolve their mutual problems satisfactorily for the benefit of the employees involved and I intend personally to continue to press the senior officials at Abitibi to enter into the discussions on that basis.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment with respect to Monday's announcement about the planned intervention in negotiations with Hooker Chemicals concerning their S area dump. The minister realizes that another Canadian group, which includes Pollution Probe and Operation Clean Niagara, with technical assistance from Environment Canada and legal assistance from US lawyer Barbara Morrison, will also be intervening. These people have a wealth of information from their activities with respect to the Hyde Park dump site, a case in which the minister and his ministry did not get involved in an active way at all.

Given that the Ministry of the Environment is not working with this group, and given that the minister will be making separate presentations, does he not fear that two separate Canadian interventions could cause contradictions which could nullify any benefit a single intervention might be able to gain for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no. The reason I would say no is, first, the group to which the member for Huron-Bruce refers, as I understand it, will request intervener status not exclusively as an Ontario group but as an affiliate of the Ecumenical Task Force which is primarily an American-based group; therefore, there is some question as to whether their voice will speak primarily for the Ontario concern or not.

Be that as it may, I am supportive of their role in all of this. I have met with them and I encourage them to continue their efforts. I would not discourage them.

10:40 a.m.

I do believe in my ministry, however, and I have a mandate on behalf of the people of this province to protect their interests in environmental concerns such as this. I would remind the member it was only one short year ago when he and others on the opposition side of this House were damning us for lack of involvement. Now that we are involved the tendency is to start following the party line of certain environmental agencies which would like to see us stay out so they can handle the whole thing; now we are being damned for becoming too involved. I think it is important we keep the mandate --

Ms. Copps: Not what he said.

Mr. Bradley: Not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, all right, but a press release came out this week; if the member has not seen it I will send him a copy of it.

I am not interested in getting into any kind of battle with any of the environmental groups. We have a common area of interest in this and I believe, in spite of what the member says about certain others having greater expertise, that the expertise that is vested in and rests within my ministry is second to none on this issue.

I would also point out that, in setting up the Niagara River task force, we have funded it so it can call upon expertise from the private sector. We have done so with the hydrogeological expertise we have relied on for our report. We are making our information public. It is available to the member. I tabled it in the House the other day. Has he seen any such information from the other groups?

We have different strategies and different approaches, but our goals are the same and we recognize we share a common interest. I will not be deterred in discharging my mandate because certain elements in our society may feel there is a potential for some difference of opinion among hydrogeologists.

I do not happen to believe there is a single right answer. Certain people who are perhaps more motivated by ideology than towards achievement of results may wish to believe they have the only right answer. I do not believe that exists and I think the more involvement there can be in terms of hydrogeological expertise --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- which can be brought to bear on this question, the better the result is likely to be. You are welcome, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the minister's conveyance of his philosophy of the end justifies the means, no matter how one gets there. I guess that may be something his party believes in.

Is the minister not concerned that if he receives intervener status, when he gets into these secret negotiations he will be taking part in these secret negotiations based on information obtained from a company, Geological Testing Consultants, which is a sister company of a firm, Geotrans, which was engaged by the Hooker company with respect to its Love Canal work? Both those companies are subsidiaries of an American firm, Intera Environmental Consultants.

Is he not concerned that he may jeopardize the position of the other Canadian group when he gets into these secret negotiations without being able to air in a public way the types of negotiations and the types of agreements he is reaching behind closed doors, and that if he becomes a signatory in these secret negotiations he will throw away some of the possibilities of the legitimate intervention by these Ontario groups?

The Acting Speaker: The minister will give a shorter answer than before.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, with great respect some of these questions require rather lengthy answers.

I sometimes really wonder what motivates those people because they place all this emphasis on secret negotiations as if we are seeking to engage in something that is clandestine. That is balderdash. The fact of the matter is --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Just calm down for a moment.

The fact of the matter is, if the member understood the American system in which we must participate if we are going to participate at all, that is an important part of the process.

Mr. Elston: That's all I want you to do, work with them instead of against them. You refused to help them technically with the Hyde Park site.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am quite willing to work with them. I have never refused to work with them, but I am not going to abdicate my responsibility as a minister of the crown and of Ontario and turn it over to someone else who does not have that mandate.

The simple fact is, coming back to the member's emphasis on secrecy, that is an important part of the process. By participating in that we will have access to a lot of information to which we would not otherwise ever have access.

During the course of that negotiation, if we are able to participate, we may very well be able to play a role in shaping the kind of abatements and containment measures that are determined in any agreement. That does not mean we will necessarily be party to the agreement if it does not meet our requirements, and it does not preclude our participating in the issue at a later date if it goes before the courts.

I think the point that should be learned from Hyde Park is that because of the strategy that was followed there, the participation was withheld -- it was a different form of participation, actually, it was as an amicus curiae; but they moved in at the court stage with very little success because there had not been the involvement at that earlier stage. In order to change any agreement that is reached at the court stage in the American system you almost need a neutron bomb to do it. Therefore, I think our strategy is by far the wiser of the alternatives available to us.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us what legal advice he has received about the possible results or ramifications down the road for further legal actions should he sign the agreement that is reached through these negotiations? Presumably the minister will not sign unless it is satisfactory or appears to be satisfactory at that point. What legal ramifications are there for future legal actions over the S area if the minister becomes a signatory to that agreement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that is really very hypothetical at this stage. First of all we have not been granted intervener status at this point. If we are granted intervener status, I have no way of knowing what the direction of those negotiations might be and whether that might or might not lead to our being a signatory to any agreement.

Obviously, we will be very cautious in our approach to any commitment that might be made at that point in signing any agreement. But I want to emphasize that if we do enter into such negotiations, we will do it in good faith. I think that is fundamentally important to the process. The appropriate time to examine the question of any possible impact on future proceedings in the courts or otherwise relating to the S area would be once we know what the course of the negotiations is. It would be entirely speculative at this point.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications on the impact of the five per cent solution on the motorists and transit users of this province. Can the minister tell the House how the five per cent solution will affect the hundreds of thousands of motorists who drive four-cylinder cars and are facing a 60 per cent increase in their plate fees next year, and the hundreds of thousands of motorists in northern Ontario who are facing a 140 per cent increase in their plate fees next year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, those plate fees were established by the budget last May and they will remain as established by the budget.

Mr. Samis: So in effect, the minister is telling us that five per cent does not apply to them.

Could the minister also explain to the transit users of Ontario, especially those beyond Metro Toronto, whether by applying the five per cent solution to the GO Transit system but not to other transit systems he is not in effect creating a two-tier system whereby transit users in this province who do not have access to GO Transit will be totally unprotected -- if there is any protection at all -- by the five per cent guidelines, whereas those in the greater Metro area will have the benefit of that five per cent guideline? In effect, is the minister not creating a two-tier system for transit users in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: You get two tiers from the fact that you have two-tier trains.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My colleague the Minister of the Environment reminds me that we do have two-tier trains on GO Transit, so naturally we have a two-tier system. No, I do not believe we are creating a two-tier system at all.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question asked by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), could the minister tell us if he consulted with the "Preserve it, conserve it" Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) before increasing the price of licence plates on smaller cars and reducing the price of licence plates on bigger cars, thereby increasing the consumption of energy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the honourable member that this was not my decision; it was a budgetary matter that falls under the rightful jurisdiction of my very capable colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Whether he consulted with "Preserve it, conserve it," I do not know.

10:50 a.m.

WINDSOR PACKING

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if he does not go away. I wonder if the minister would bring the Legislature up to date on the situation at Windsor Packing, as to whether the people who shipped cattle are going to collect under the new program because it is kind of a test case. Can he generally tell us how many cattle have been shipped or are likely to be covered under that case?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, maybe it would help if I gave a general rundown of the situation.

Ms. Copps: Make a statement.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You already tried once this week to give a general rundown.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I tried to give a rundown earlier in the week and it did not work.

Mr. Bradley: Now you are trying to run down the clock.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But now the member knows I am serious.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Grossman is serious. He is going to use a bulldozer on you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, he is going to have something done on you without benefit of anaesthetic.

The Acting Speaker: The minister will answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the company in question was issued a licence on August 31 for the program which took effect on September 1. It was a licence conditional on them supplying the minister with a substantial bank letter of credit, which they agreed in writing to produce. On September 21, the company went into voluntary receivership. Of course, I am sure we were notified that night or the first thing the next morning, soon after they did that.

We put investigators into the field, and at this point we have knowledge of five complaints of nonpayment for cattle shipped to this firm. Our investigators still in the field are gathering further information on the extent of the nonpayment problem, because obviously we want to be sure we have full knowledge of anybody who could have been affected.

I should tell the member there is a possible problem which will have to be resolved by the board which administers the fund in that apparently some producers, notwithstanding the prompt payment provisions of the plan, were offered and accepted in early September cheques postdated to the end of September for cattle shipped at that time. That may be a problem and I think members should be aware of it. It will have to be resolved by the board.

Also, I should add that since commencing our investigation last week it appeared to us that there may be -- and I have to underline may be -- some financial irregularities in connection with this receivership. To err on the side of caution, I directed the ministry staff to ask the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate.

Mr. Watson: There is concern in our area about the possibility of that plant reopening or operating again. I understand equipment is reasonably good from that standpoint. Is there any possibility that it will operate? Does the minister know? Perhaps I will phrase it this way: will the minister do everything in his power to see that a packing plant in southwestern Ontario will be reopened, if possible?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact Mr. Farrell, who is the chairman of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board, telexed a message to me in the last 48 hours expressing that same concern. I am sure that is reflected by constituents of the member and other members in that area.

I would emphasize to the member that at this point the plant is in receivership. It has not, at this point at least, filed bankruptcy. Certainly, we will be concerned to do everything we can that is reasonable to ensure that the balance of the market is maintained for beef and hog producers.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, when these dealers and processors apply for a licence, it is my understanding they have to submit a financial statement or letters of credit. If that is the case, how did Windsor Packing get a licence to operate under the new program, if it is on such shaky ground?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, the company in question was issued a licence conditional on providing a bank letter of credit, which it agreed in writing to provide at the start of the program. We discussed that, I believe, when the member came to see me about this in my constituency back in August when we went to a very palatial restaurant for a cup of coffee.

The member was concerned, as were the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and others, that at the start of the program we maintain a viable market, which meant that in certain cases judgement required that we have some conditional licences. Now, obviously, we have been following up on the handful of conditional licences that exist. During the month of September, we have been following up on all of them to get those letters of credit in place. I think we are down to six or seven about which we are going to have to hold hearings as to whether the licences should be denied.

The Acting Speaker: New question.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, if you remember, there was a question started on the government side. The two questions went by. The Liberals got a supplementary and the Speaker allowed this party to have a supplementary as well. So I would like to ask a supplementary on this question.

The Acting Speaker: Oh, very good. I will allow the member his supplementary and then come back to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he is aware that within a couple of weeks before Windsor Packing went into receivership, it paid off its debts owing to a company called Paco Meat Purveyors, which is owned by Ann Cohen and Betty Pazner, the wives of the two owners of Windsor Packing; C&V Freezers, which is owned by Sid Cohen and Betty Verk, one an owner of Windsor Packing and the other one a sister; Windsor Casing, owned by René Pazner, a daughter of an owner of Windsor Packing; Northern Sun Trading owned by Pazner's sister; and Deli Pro here in Toronto owned by the sister of one of the owners?

I would like to ask the minister, combined with the fact that he licensed them under his new program, which is supposed to signal the financial stability of these companies -- and there seemed to be no prior warning that this company was going to go into receivership -- is this information not grounds on which this company should be forced to open up its books and justify the closure of this plant, causing the loss of 150 jobs, and its effects on other companies? Two other companies have gone into receivership, I believe in Toronto, as a result of this problem. Does that not warrant a full investigation of what prompted this receivership with Windsor Packing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not hear part of my original answer to the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). It was to the effect that when we began our investigation the staff reported to me some concerns. I will not go into what those concerns were here, because as a result of the concerns expressed about the background to this receivership I directed my staff to ask the OPP to investigate, and that is under way.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on how to save some money as part of his restraint program. The Treasurer will recall that in April and June of this year I asked him questions about the money that had been squandered on advertising. One of the departments in his own ministry indicated that last year he spent over $40 million in advertising, much of it political and not including Ontario Hydro or the lotteries.

In view of the fact that the Treasurer has introduced a restraint package into this House, is he prepared, today, to give an undertaking to the House that he will drastically cut his advertising budget by perhaps as much as two thirds, and thus indicate to the people of Ontario that the government is seriously prepared to show significant restraint, the same kind of restraint it is asking of the public service?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and I, through our deputy ministers and staff, have been looking very carefully at all government spending, including spending on advertising. So far, efforts have been reasonably successful. Certainly, I would tell the member that we are looking at every possible way to save money, including on advertising. Whether it will come to one third, two thirds or 80 per cent, only time will tell. I suggest that as incomes drop, and as costs for certain programs such as welfare go up, we have the obligation to try to keep the total spending balanced and that will mean cuts.

11 a.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer also prepared to give an undertaking to this House he is going to cut back significantly at least in the amount of money the various departments of his government spend on polling in the province -- from the Gallup poll or whatever company they get to do this polling research? Are they prepared to cut back drastically in that? It is another fringe item of spending, if one asked the people of this province.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member may have an advantage on me. I have not seen the Toronto Star today, but I suspect they have a poll coming out very shortly, from what I hear, and it is not going to cost the member or me a cent.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question once again of the Minister of Labour and I want the minister to know it is a serious question. Given the abrogation of contracts negotiated in good faith in the public sector and given the sweeping and dictatorial powers turned over to Mr. Biddell under Bill 179, can the Minister of Labour inform this House what authority remains in his hands with respect to public servants and their contracts?

Will he tell the members of this House how this bill squares with the principle as enunciated in the preamble of the Labour Relations Act? It says, "Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employees and the trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees ... "

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the honourable member I accept that question as being a very serious one. I think, however, it should be directed to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) since negotiating with the public employees is done through the Civil Service commission with him.

The Acting Speaker: I think the member for Hamilton East may need to repeat the question for the Management Board chairman.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will say to that minister also it is a serious question. Given the abrogation of contracts negotiated in good faith in the public sector and given the sweeping and dictatorial powers turned over to Mr. Biddell under Bill 179, can the minister inform the House what authority remains in his hands with respect to public servants and their contracts?

Will he tell the House how this legislation squares with what I certainly thought was one of the laws of Ontario, that is the Labour Relations Act, and the principle enunciated in the preamble? That is, "Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of the employees ... "

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a different philosophy about this bill between the party opposite and the government who felt a need to do something to assist in these difficult economic times. The honourable member knows that within the limits set in that bill there is the opportunity to negotiate the monetary items within the ceiling and we expect to be doing that with the union in the months ahead.

Mr. Mackenzie: Just the other day the Treasurer accused our deputy leader of exaggerating the restrictions on the right to collective bargaining on nonmonetary items. Will the minister clearly outline the provisions in the bill, and these were referred to by the Premier (Mr. Davis), that allow the workers to bargain on nonmonetary items -- that is work load, health and safety or grievance procedure?

And with the extension of the contracts and the setting of the wage ceilings the government has set on them, what requires an employer to even so much as answer a letter from the union requesting a meeting on nonmonetary items? Will the minister outline the provisions in the bill that give us any rights whatsoever to negotiate on nonmonetary items?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Maybe the honourable member did not hear me, but I did not say anything about bargaining nonmonetary items. I mentioned the monetary items up to five per cent.

The Acting Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

ADMISSION TO GALLERIES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that there were, I believe, four members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in the galleries today who had tee-shirts on. They were allowed into the galleries and they were not causing any problems. One of them happened to leave in order to use the washroom and then was not allowed back in because apparently there had been a ruling that anyone who had a tee-shirt on would not be allowed back into the public galleries. I then offered to have the individual come into the members' gallery to view the rest of question period and was told by the Sergeant at Arms this was not possible and that these people were not allowed in the members' galleries, either.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are getting to the point of ridiculousness as to who can get into the public galleries and who cannot.

The Acting Speaker: After yesterday's incident I think the House has a special responsibility to the members within the House, and if people are going to be in the galleries we certainly want tee-shirts at a minimum. But if they are declaring some kind of message, the Sergeant at Arms has been instructed to at least maintain --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I have the floor. The Sergeant at Arms has been instructed to maintain a sense of control over who is going in. In the first place this morning it was hoped that people would not be allowed in the galleries who were carrying messages on their tee-shirts, so the Sergeant at Arms is at least following the guidelines for the safety and wellbeing of this House.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to know who set the guidelines. Second, I would like to know what difference it would make when the Sergeant at Arms and the security staff indicated to this individual that she could return if she took off her tee-shirt -- which, by the way, was covered by a jacket; it was impossible for this individual to remove her tee-shirt. I would like to know who set these guidelines and how anyone could dream up such ridiculous guidelines when these people were causing no problem whatsoever in the galleries and were allowed in the galleries in the first place.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I have responded to the point of privilege and --

Mr. Foulds: No.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of privilege, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Can you tell me how my safety is threatened by someone in the gallery wearing a tee-shirt with the letters that spell "OPSEU" on it? What demonstration takes place when someone wears such a tee-shirt?

The Acting Speaker: I feel the Speaker will be following this up, but the honourable members must realize that as I am in the chair today I share the concern of the whole House for our wellbeing and our safety. After yesterday's experience I think we want to be extremely careful that there be no continuation of such demonstrations. The fact is that those yesterday were wearing certain kinds of tee-shirts trying to carry a message. I am very concerned about our wellbeing here. This is the House of the Ontario Legislature; we will continue on with the order of business.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, surely the message on the sweater is "I belong to a free trade union." That is the only message when you have "OPSEU" on it. It is not carrying any demonstration, any statement of political purpose or otherwise. It is ludicrous. It is the same damned reaction we had when people wore "I support MOM" a couple of years ago, and they were not allowed in this House, either. This is ludicrous.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you would exercise the same judicial power if someone came into this gallery wearing a tee-shirt with "Preserve it, conserve it."

The Acting Speaker: We are now ready for the next item on the orders of the day.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like you to refer to the standing order that gives the Speaker the authority that he has and you have assumed. As I read standing order 7, it says: "All strangers may be excluded from the House or any committee thereof on a motion properly moved and adopted by the House or the committee, as the case may be."

The Acting Speaker: The chair --

Mr. Foulds: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. May I finish?

I do not recall any motion being made by this House at any time excluding people from the gallery wearing tee-shirts with the letters "OPSEU" on them.

The Acting Speaker: The chair has a certain prerogative in looking after the wellbeing of the House. I will not debate this further. The chair has ruled, and I will now go to the next item of business.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just comment on the point of order.

The Acting Speaker: Is this the same point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: How long is this kind of McCarthyite witchhunt going to continue, Mr. Speaker? You have now determined that anyone carrying evidence that he or she belongs to a particular organization is going to be excluded from the chamber while we are debating this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will resume his seat. We have dealt with this issue. We will deal with the next item of business.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I believe my prerogatives as a member are affected.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Is it the intention of the chair to instruct the security staff to begin asking people, as they seek entry to the gallery, whether or not they belong to a particular organization? Apparently such organization is now proscribed --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member really has not understood the position the chair has taken for our wellbeing in this House. Having dealt with this issue, I would like now to go to the next item on the order of business.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do this regretfully, but we cannot accept the precedent that you arbitrarily decide who will be ejected from the public galleries by virtue of the fact that they are wearing an insignia designating their free trade union. I must challenge your ruling.

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker: Inasmuch as we were just finishing question period, I have allowed the television camera to stay on because we have not started the next order of business, unless there is any objection.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was upheld on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Henderson, Hodgson, Kells, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Timbrell, Villeneuve, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, Mackenzie, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Newman, Peterson, Philip, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Swart, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes, 43; nays, 30.

The Acting Speaker: May I make one comment to the House? The Speaker will be making a statement on the whole issue of galleries and demonstrations next week. He plans to make that statement early in the week, and it will, I hope, attend to some of the questions that are being raised.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might indicate -- and I assumed that all members would be aware of this because all parties were involved -- that the House leaders of the other parties and I did meet with the Speaker for a half hour yesterday afternoon to discuss the events that occurred yesterday afternoon -- the safety of the House, demonstrations in the gallery, precedents that had occurred and so forth. The Speaker indicated to us yesterday afternoon he was going to make a full statement in the House, with precedents, about matters we had been debating and voting on. He indicated it again when the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) stood up last night and asked, but he could not do so today because he was going to be away.

The House should be aware that all parties have been concerned about what has been going on. We are concerned about the integrity of this House, the safety of the members and the ability of this House to be able to carry on its discussions. The Speaker, of course, is charged with these responsibilities, and he is going to give a complete report, as he indicated to the three House leaders, some time next week.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Shall we proceed to the next order of business?

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people who attended that meeting along with the government House leader and the House leader for the New Democratic Party. What seems to be emerging is that one of the precedents to be looked at in terms of the tee-shirts was the precedent of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) who, when he was Speaker, made a ruling related to people wearing tee-shirts in the gallery.

I think all parties would agree what we are interested in is maintaining order in this House. We cannot entertain demonstrations in the public gallery of the kind we have seen in the past few days. Our vote against the ruling today is not a vote against a person, but a vote on a principle. The principle is we feel it is permissible for people to wear tee-shirts as long as those tee-shirts do not carry a political message.

It was in that light we voted against the ruling because we feel that wearing the name of a union on a tee-shirt is not a political message. The ruling made the previous day involved a political message on a tee-shirt. That is the difference between the two circumstances.

Ultimately we may be in a situation where the entire matter must be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs for its consideration. It may have to decide how we will conduct the business of the House in light of there being people in the galleries who feel very strongly and sometimes emotionally about issues that have come before the House.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I was not part of the discussions that took place yesterday although it was my clear understanding that the Speaker intended to make a statement today.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No.

Mr. Boudria: Were you not here last night?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, I was here at 10:30 p.m. and I heard what he said, but it was my understanding from the meeting there would be a statement today.

At any rate, I think there has been a series of very serious misunderstandings with respect to some of the precedents of this House. For my part and that of my colleagues, there is nothing in the precedents of this House which empowers anybody to throw a citizen out of the public gallery because he is wearing the insignia of a trade union.

I would like to pick up on the suggestion made by my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). He suggested the matter be referred to the procedural affairs committee or, alternatively, that it be referred to a joint discussion of the three House leaders and their assistants, and the Speaker and his assistants, before a final report is made back to this House.

I fear that unless these misunderstandings are cleared up very quickly, the business of the House is not going to go anywhere.

The Acting Speaker: I thank all honourable members for the comments that have been made and I can assure them the Speaker will take this fully under advisement. We are most interested in seeing the House proceed with its work.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, let me just add to what I said earlier because I think it should be quite clearly understood that we are not against certain types of clothing being worn in the gallery. As my friend in the Liberal Party pointed out, one of the precedents we looked at yesterday was that of the member for Lake Nipigon who, when he was Speaker, did eject people who were wearing tee-shirts.

There may have been some political message on some that are worn and there may not be on others. Certainly this is a line that has come to the fore and is being drawn. We are not opposed to anyone wearing a tee-shirt in the gallery as long as it is not a definite political message or some attempt to stage a demonstration in this House.

In view of the discussions we had yesterday, the searching of the precedents and so forth, we felt that until the Speaker makes his statement based on the precedents we should uphold the ruling of the Speaker at this time. When we have the full statement we can then consider whether sending it to the procedural affairs committee for a full discussion by members of this House is the right thing to do. If so, we would support that. But let us hear what the Speaker is going to say in his statement next week.

12 noon

SACRE COEUR SCHOOL RENOVATIONS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to correct the record concerning a statement the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) made yesterday in this House in reply to a question I asked her.

Mr. Epp: I think you got Bette's attention.

Mr. Boudria: I think I got her attention, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said: "The ministry has in fact been informing the board that there was a problem for more than 10 years. It is time that board took action."

I contacted that separate school board this morning and they informed me that they were the ones who had been contacting the ministry all these years without getting any proper attention from them. The minister said the following in reply --

The Acting Speaker: Could I suggest that this was something for question period rather than at this point?

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, this is not a matter for question period. I think the minister owes an apology to the Prescott and Russell Roman Catholic Separate School Board for some of the statements she made in this House yesterday.

The Acting Speaker: May I suggest to the honourable member that he can correct his words in the record but he is not in a position to correct someone else's words in the record.

Mr. Boudria: I would again invite the minister to correct the mistakes she obviously made yesterday.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, may I just rise on that point? It is my factual knowledge that indeed the first report about this school was made to the board in 1959 by the fire marshal in the area. There have been frequent visits and discussions from the regional office by the representatives of the Ministry of Education pointing out that there were simple procedures that could be carried out to correct the problem.

Unfortunately, this has not been done and I stand by the statement that this has happened on many occasions over the past 10 years. It is unfortunate that it has not as yet been accomplished. The ministry has stood ready to be of whatever assistance it could be to the board in doing that, even to the point of sending the chief architect of the ministry up to give them advice about it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying about 15 hours ago, and I am sure the members will have forgotten, I want to say briefly that last night I was making the argument that the inflation rate is down. It has been going down steadily this year. The projections are it is going to continue to go down.

On the front page of the Globe and Mail I notice the report from the Economic Council of Canada says, "At best, the government's wage restraint program will lower inflation only marginally." They are talking about the federal program, not the provincial program. If there is any basic message in their thrust it is, "Ease off on the restraints because the economy is in such terrible shape."

I said yesterday that the economy and the actual recessionary pressures are the best and most effective anti-inflationary forces in society today. I take the example of the recently concluded negotiations between General Motors and the United Auto Workers, as well as Ford and the auto workers. They did not need any six and five package to restrain them or to tell them that times were tough and they had to be realistic on both sides. They did not need any five per cent ceiling.

Both the union and the corporation acted out of their own self-interest in this matter, and I would point out they settled in both cases without a strike. I would presume the same will happen to Chrysler, although those negotiations may be a little more difficult.

I am saying that the public sector, like the private sector, is not unaware of what is going on in the real world in the trends in terms of the economy and the recession. In short, the government has failed to prove its case and to make an adequate case that these controls are needed in Ontario at this time.

I emphasize that when inflation was 13 per cent they were not even talking controls whatsoever. Why are we facing them today, some 14 months after inflation hit the 13 per cent figure? Why did they dither all summer if they thought they were all so important?

The only conclusion one can reach is that these controls are not motivated by the inflation rate, because it is going down. They are motivated by the Gallup poll which, as I said last night, shows in all realistic terms controls are popular for a variety of reasons. We know the motivation for these controls is political and not economic.

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail several days ago on the comments of several economists, including Lorie Tarshis, who said that public sector wage controls would not work and would be counter-productive. There were also quotes in that article from Morley Gunderson and Frank Reid of the University of Toronto Centre for Industrial Relations. The article says, "Both said there is little evidence to support a widespread belief that public sector wage settlements have been an important factor in the recent inflation.

"Professor Gunderson said his own studies have shown that public sector employees have had only a slight wage advantage over private sector employees and that exists mainly among lower-paid and female workers. He said, 'I don't think a school of thought exists anywhere that public sector controls are the answer.'" The professor goes on to say "he suspects the federal and provincial programs were politically motivated and timed to make them look successful. Whether or not public sector controls were needed, 'It looked good,' he said." I wholeheartedly concur with that.

It is interesting to note that no attempt was made at any sort of price and income policy or voluntary restraints. I know that is not the perfect answer and does not work in all cases, but I would point out that such an approach has been tried and used with varying results in England, Germany, France and other countries.

But no attempt was made here to try the voluntary tripartite approach. I know there are all sorts of problems in that approach, but at least it is an alternative. I suspect it was not explored because the polls show it is not popular. People do not think it can work, they do not really understand it, whereas six and five or a magic figure of five per cent is simple, understandable, direct and easy to sell.

I also make the point that we can have restraint in a society without mandatory controls and legislation. People are not stupid, they are not unaware of the difficult financial situation facing us. I think that applies to both the public and private sectors. If there ever was a showdown, we know civil servants do not have the right to strike in the first place. If any group made unreasonable, unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky wage demands, public opinion would be firmly behind the government.

I can think of an example on the other side of the Ottawa River when the transit and maintenance workers of the Montreal transportation commission, Commission de transports de la communauté urbaine de Montréal, challenged the government. Public opinion was overwhelmingly behind the government. When it put the legislative screws to that group, the government had massive public support because the wage demands were out of sight.

Most members of unions have become surprisingly resigned to the idea of lower expectations, lower increases and lower settlements. Most people are rather insecure right now and worried about their jobs. Even the psychological climate in society today is not conducive to any form of major confrontation. It is just not there. Even the civil servants in Ottawa in their protest rallies and demonstrations are amazingly tame, subdued and lacking in fire and brimstone for a group that is affected directly.

Another reason I am against this bill is that I dispute the argument that inflation is the greatest problem facing our economy. I do not deny we have an inflation problem and that wage settlements can be a factor in the inflation rate, but in the current circumstances I would argue there are more important forces and factors behind our inflation situation.

The first and most obvious one is high interest rates. They have a devastating effect on small business and on the economy in general. Everybody knows high interest rates are inflationary. They drive up the cost of all sorts of things.

Second, we never talk about the energy agreement between the federal government and Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is built-in inflation in Canada. We know prices will go up every year at least twice at the wellhead level. That excludes the profit level and the dealer level. We have built-in inflation in terms of the energy component of our society.

Third, there is the question of imported goods over which we have absolutely no control whatsoever. Trudeau always likes to argue that Canada is at the mercy of the world economy and that with Reaganomics somehow we have no choice. We just have to import the Reaganomic solution and adopt its monetary policy. If any of that is true, then this bill is totally irrelevant to that cause of inflation and will do absolutely nothing.

There has been a lot of publicity in the news lately about Dome Petroleum and the whole Dome empire collapsing. I suggest that in the last two to three years, the tremendous amount of corporate borrowing that has been going on for the sake of takeovers, mergers, etc., has had an inflationary effect on our economy. Once again, this bill will have absolutely no effect on that whatsoever.

12:10 p.m.

I point out there are four factors right there that cause inflation in Canada and this bill has absolutely no relevance and no impact on them whatsoever.

As I said, I recognize inflation is a legitimate problem. I simply do not accept it is our number one economic problem. I do not accept the notion that if we somehow lick inflation everything else will sort itself out. Prime Minister Trudeau is always arguing that economic recovery is somehow just around the corner if we can get our inflation rate down. Seemingly this government has bought that argument.

Our problems go well beyond that and it is absolute folly to reduce it to that level because it leaves out all sorts of other crucial factors that underline the serious economic situation we face.

I believe it was last Friday that Don McGillivray, the financial columnist of the Montreal Gazette, had an excellent article on the state of the economy and I would like to quote parts of it because I think it is right on the mark. He is talking about this obsession with inflation as if inflation is the number one problem facing our economy.

He says: "The whole world is in recession, according to this line, but Canada is weathering it better than most countries.

That is simply wrong.

"We are doing worse, not better, than other countries."

He talks about some figures Statistics Canada brought out last Wednesday: "'The recession in Canada, which has reduced production by slightly over six per cent since its onset in mid-1981, has been the steepest among the major industrial nations.'

The complacency of our economic leaders on these matters is dangerous because Canada's industrial base is disintegrating while they attempt to fight a one-front war against inflation.

"And this deterioration will continue to threaten our future whether the inflation rate is brought down to six per cent or zero per cent.

"Euromoney is a distinguished economic monthly published in London. Each year, it rates the performance of countries according to economic measures. The latest such rating was published in the September issue ... And where does Canada stand? First? Seventh? Tenth?

"We are nowhere near as high as that.

"Canada ranked 35th last year, on the basis of overall economic performance between 1974 and 1981.

"This year we fell to 40th place.

"That was on the basis of economic performance between 1974 and 1982 including our steeper recession this year.

"Such countries as West Germany, Japan and the United States are, of course, far above Canada on the list. But so are such countries as India, Malawi, Indonesia and the Philippines.

"Canada's neighbours in our part of the list, the countries immediately above us in economic performance, are Mexico, Belgium and Syria.

"The reason for our lowly status is interesting. It is not inflation, the factor that dragged Mexico down to our part of the list.

"Mexico's inflation performance has been worse than 64 other countries.

"But only 23 other countries have done better than Canada in fighting inflation ... Canada's great weakness has been its poor economic growth.

"We rank 57th in economic growth in the past eight years.

"And we are slipping daily even from this dismal position as the deliberately induced slump eats out Canada's economic vitals.

"So we have the anomaly that this country's economic leadership concentrates completely on an area where we haven't done so badly and complacently allows that fight against inflation to undercut our already poor economic growth prospects.

"This slump will end. All slumps do. But world recovery will not restore Canada to the position we occupied in the late 1960s when only the United States had a higher per capita output.

"The way we are going, we'll all come out of this as a fringe nation, a permanently depressed country eking out an existence as the dependent northern extension of a struggling American economy. While our economic leadership assures us that all will be well if only we can push the wage rates down and beat inflation, profound structural changes have caught up with this lucky country.

"And chanting 'six and five -- six and five'" -- or in Ontario, "five is the answer, five is the answer" -- "isn't going to drive those changes away."

I would hardly call Don McGillivray a raving Socialist, a left-winger or even sympathetic to the NDP, but I think he is right on the mark in his assessment of the situation. There was a Statistics Canada report recently which says our economy trails that of all big nations. There was a good article by David Crane, who is the economic editor of the Toronto Star. The headline was, "Productivity is the Problem." I will quote just a few paragraphs.

It says: "The six and five anti-inflation program of the Trudeau government, along with the various provincial counterparts" -- and imitations -- "should help accelerate a decline in inflation that was already under way, but our political and business leaders will be making a big mistake if they assume that a successful fight against inflation is the answer to all our economic problems.

"The restraint program is not a real cure; it is more like an aspirin which provides relief. The underlying problem in Canada's economy is our poor productivity performance. We don't use our resources -- people and their skills, machinery and money, research and innovation -- effectively enough.

"We have poor labour-management relations and too many strikes. We have government rules that discourage competition. We neglect research and innovation. We do a bad job of developing skilled people. The quality of management in business and government is inadequate."

Then he goes on to quote Jim Brown from Woods Gordon, who says, "We are all experiencing the growing spectre of unemployment, but no one is identifying the real cause: competitive weakness in the marketplace." Brown stresses:

"We see a stagnation in growth over several years and a downward trend in productivity in this province, Ontario, the heart of industrial Canada. Yet no provincial minister in a position to attack the central problem appears to be interested in providing vocal and visible leadership."

Then he goes on to talk about our growth record in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as one of the worst. He talks about how Canadian manufacturing had the poorest productivity performance of all, "with the absolute value of output per employee in 1980 some 23 per cent below the OECD average." There again another person identifies the problem. It is not inflation but productivity and the structural situation we are in.

Now let us deal with the five per cent solution being offered us in this Legislature today. With respect to the various inflation factors I mentioned earlier -- namely, interest rates, energy prices, corporate borrowing, the cost of imported goods -- let us make it clear that this program, like the six and five program, will have no effect at all, no impact whatsoever.

It is extremely important to bear in mind when you have a program of this sort that to have any credibility whatsoever you have to have some concept of equity built into it. I quote from Aubrey Jones, who is the chairman of the British Prices and Incomes Board, and this is in the business section of the September 25 edition of the Globe and Mail: "Equity lies at the root of the incomes problem. Without commanding a sense of equity no incomes policy can survive. This is the dilemma of an incomes policy and potentially its Achilles' heel."

Peter Cook goes on in the article to talk about various things. He says: "The 1969-70 exercise did nothing at all to arrest inflation. And although controls in 1975-78 had a clear impact on wages, they did not halt the upward march of consumer prices."

He goes on: "First, it is doubtful whether a program that aims only at public sector wages and at some regulated prices can work well. While restraint may make some headway in the current tough economic environment, there have to be doubts about whether it can break an ingrained inflation problem.

"Second, the question of equity and fairness has to show up in relief on the prices front. Opposition is bound to grow if prices do not come down to the level at which wages are being restrained, and that implies a substantial decline in retail prices that is going to be very difficult to achieve. By taking dramatic action they have created the expectation that the results will be equally dramatic."

He goes on to explain that our expectations are obviously far too high in that respect.

Strict controls are being imposed on the 500,000 public and parapublic employees in this province, but what about the price controls? The five per cent figure is only a guideline, a statement of principle; it is not mandatory. We all know that utilities and government ministries can pass their costs through, and, as I found out this morning with respect to transportation, they can totally ignore it.

We have the case of hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, owners of four-cylinder cars who will see their licence plate fees go up by 60 per cent next year. This is the government that is saying, "We are imposing a five per cent price guideline," yet they violate it themselves. The people in northern Ontario face a 140 per cent increase next year, but this is all in the context of the five per cent guideline, of course. We all know about the Ontario health insurance plan increase as well.

Then you go to the private sector: Consumers' Gas. My deputy leader has referred to the example last week in the business section of the Globe and Mail, where Lord Darc got all sorts of publicity for referring to the fact that they would restrain themselves to four per cent; then the fine print told us the ultimate price increase to the consumer would be somewhere between 13 per cent and 19 per cent.

We had the case of OHIP: a 17 per cent increase. When we take the OHIP situation and the cost of licence plates, this is the government itself violating and making a mockery of its own five per cent guideline. How can they expect to have any credibility out there if they do not even follow it themselves? The reality is that we do not have price controls at all, and the way the act is written they will never happen.

12:20 p.m.

There was an illustrative experience in Ottawa. Statscan came out with a study that was quoted in the Financial Post comparing goods and services that were under federal regulation with those that were not: "The study shows regulated prices increased 17.7 per cent from April 1, 1981, to April 1, 1982, while unregulated prices rose 9.1 per cent. In the same period, the consumer price index rose 11.3 per cent."

As the author of the article says, "It is likely that another study will soon appear from the Department of Finance raising questions about Statcan's conclusions, if any articles ever come out again on the whole thing."

There we have a case of regulated prices rising at a higher level than unregulated prices. For example, Via Rail announced it would restrict its price increases to six per cent, but if we look at what it has announced already this year, added on to the six per cent it has announced for the remainder of the year, there is a 28 per cent increase in prices. This, in the year of six and five? What a farce.

I would like to compare very briefly the Ontario wage control package with that of other provinces. Manitoba does not have any formal controls. It was able to reach an agreement with its public service for an average 10 per cent increase graduated to raise pay for those at the lower scale and to give less to those at the upper scale. At the same time, to protect consumers, it introduced a freeze on hydro rates, transit fees, tuition fees, and it provided a fairly generous program of mortgage interest subsidies to home owners.

In Saskatchewan, the PC government has completely rejected the six and five approach. It said it would grant increases to its public service at one per cent below the inflation rate, which means civil servants in Saskatchewan are eligible to receive increases of upwards of 10 per cent; 9.6 per cent if we take the latest monthly figures. That is almost twice as generous as what Ontario is doing. It is interesting to note that the PC government of Saskatchewan eliminated the retail sales tax on gasoline and set up an extensive, probably expensive, mortgage assistance program for home owners.

BC, which has a Conservative government calling itself Social Credit, was able to work out a reasonably flexible new agreement with its public service that allows employees, especially at the lower scale, increases of between six and 13 per cent and restricts the higher-paid employees to increases of three and six per cent. As well, it has a program of mortgage relief for home owners.

In Conservative Alberta there are no formal controls on unionized civil servants, only on nonunionized sectors. Again, relief is provided for home owners under a mortgage relief program.

Here in Ontario, we have the magic figure of five per cent to which everybody must bow, no mortgage relief program whatsoever for home owners, no freeze on hydro rates, no real freeze on tuition or transit increases, and all that on top of tax increases contained in the budget that amount to between $150 and $300, and a 17 per cent increase in Ontario health insurance plan payments. Obviously this program is the most unfair if compared to other programs in other jurisdictions in Canada at the provincial level.

Beyond the question of price inequities, I think the single most blatant inequity in the program is how the doctors are being treated. I suspect if one went out on the street today and asked people questions about the program, they would ask, "How come the highest paid group in our society is not brought under the heavy hand of this program when all sorts of people, whether they are garbage cleaners, social workers, maintenance workers, or you name it, are brought under it?"

I know the standard defence is: "Well, they have a collective agreement. They signed a contract. The contract must stand." It really must make people wonder when one standard can be applied to the powerful elite in society and somehow those who are not powerful, those who are not the elite, at the lower end of society, can have their contracts torn up and rendered meaningless. I dare say if one went out on Yonge Street or any other street in Ontario the public would regard this as the single greatest inequity in the program presented to them.

Another reason for opposing the program is the powers given to the board. They are more arbitrary than those given to the Anti-Inflation Board. There are no hearings provided, no written submissions permitted, no collective bargaining encouraged, no appeals permitted, etc. It is an extremely arbitrary board.

Because of the simple problem of time and the fact I have to catch a train in the next 25 minutes, unfortunately, I will omit my remarks dealing with the actual content of the bill. It will be a great disappointment to my colleague the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) who feels deeply disappointed he will not be able to hear that portion of the speech. Leave it that we know the control mechanism is arbitrary and unfair.

Mr. Di Santo: The train can wait.

Mr. Samis: Not for a back-bencher, it does not; only for the front-benchers.

Another reason I am against the bill is that it places the whole burden of restraint on the public sector employees in a certain sense and lets the government off scot-free. We all recognize that times are tough. The wage bill is an important component of any government's cost but it is far from the only one. There are at least five other areas where I suggest the government could save money.

First, I would declare an immediate freeze on the Darlington nuclear project. The costs have skyrocketed from an initial $3 billion to somewhere around $10 billion. I would not be surprised if by the time the project is completed we hit the $20-billion figure. I gather we are moving from $10 billion to $11 billion already. The project is turning into a financial nightmare and its whole justification is questionable at best. It is time to rein Ontario Hydro in and make it subordinate to its ultimate bosses, the members of the Legislature. In the meantime, we need an immediate inquiry into the Darlington mess.

Second, we should halt the Trillium adventure. I find it difficult to put an exact price on it, but somewhere between $30 million and $100 million, between direct and indirect cost, could be saved on this. The Suncor adventure was bad enough, but now to perpetuate it with the Trillium adventure is equally unacceptable to the people of this province.

Third, I am sure the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) would agree that we could reduce the government's advertising budget by at least 50 per cent and in the process save somewhere between $15 million and $25 million. I would suggest that people are rather fed up at being pummelled with "Preserve it, conserve it" by radio, TV and newspapers now that the election is more than a year and a half behind us.

Fourth, I would suggest that we reduce the number of outside consultants by at least 50 per cent. We have a civil service; what are we paying them for? Why do we continue to rely on outside consultants, most of whom are highpriced in the first place?

Fifth, and I emphasize that this will be a personal suggestion, I would favour selling off the Suncor shares altogether. I realize we would do so at a loss but I see no sense in us perpetuating our involvement in this colossal waste of public funds in the first place when that money could be used to create thousands of jobs and help get portions of our economy moving, especially the manufacturing sector.

Sixth, I would drastically reduce the number of boards and commissions in this province. I think we are grossly overgoverned in this respect. Many of them are used as receptacles and resting places for political hacks, defeated candidates and such.

Those six measures would have at least the same, if not a greater, impact on the causes of inflation at the provincial level than any five per cent freeze. At the consumer level, our party has offered a series of proposals to aid consumers. If we are going to have restraint, let us see it at the consumer level and not just the government level.

Due to the time factor, I will go through these very quickly. We have talked about an eight-month freeze on hydro and home heating prices; a freeze on the gasoline tax; taking away the ad valorem concept altogether and a six-month freeze in retail gasoline prices; an extension of the Rent Review Act to cover buildings built between 1976 and today; tougher controls in the passing through of costs for refinancing; a ban on extra billing by doctors; an inquiry into the increased insurance premiums in Ontario and an effort to get the federal government to rescind the decision to give Bell Canada a premature rate increase and a $70-million to $90-million windfall.

There is an alternative to the five per cent solution. It is fair to say this party has provided one dealing with public expenditure and for the consumer components of the cost of living. As I said before, there can be restraint without mandatory controls if there is the will and the leadership to do it. Obviously, there is no will and no leadership on that side to try the voluntary approach. They have taken the most simplistic approach possible -- the five per cent freeze.

12:30 p.m.

My final reason for opposing the five per cent solution is that there is no provision in the bill for job creation. At the premiers' conference in Halifax, the Premier (Mr. Davis) was reported as saying, and I will quote from an article in the London Free Press of August 25 under the headline "Davis Wants Jobs, Not Just Wage Limits" as follows:

"The federal wage and price restraint policy is a one-dimensional answer to Canada's economic problems which fails to create employment, Ontario Premier William Davis charged today."

Further on in the article it says, "The need to get people back to work is the top priority facing Canada's politicians, Davis told the reporters." That is what the Premier of this province said.

What does he do when he gets back here to Ontario and calls us back in this special session? He provides no jobs whatsoever beyond those for Mr. Biddell and his coterie, none whatsoever for people who are unemployed. In fact, it is probably a realistic prediction that this bill will mean fewer jobs in Ontario as a result. We are reducing purchasing power, which means fewer goods will be produced, fewer goods will be sold and inevitably staff will be laid off, whether in stores or factories, because of the decline in purchasing power in Ontario resulting from this bill.

A wage control program without a job creation program is like the Tory party without a Big Blue Machine or Harold Ballard without his beloved Maple Leaf Gardens. Wage controls are debatable enough in themselves, but when we have 600,000 unemployed in this province and record layoffs, plant closures and business bankruptcies as well as predictions for an even worse winter ahead than last year, it is almost indefensible to introduce legislation like this without a meaningful job creation program.

Our party has outlined a series of alternatives for job creation but, because of the time restraints, I will not go into details. Both our deputy leader and our financial critic went into considerable detail as to our policies in terms of the public sector, whether with regard to housing, energy conservation, retrofitting, economic stimulation at the municipal level, Autocan, food processing, a crown corporation for mining machinery, forest pollution abatement, increased refining and processing of natural resources, development of secondary industry in the north, reallocation of some of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development money that we have, partnership programs for community-based economic development, financing for the new partnership fund or various measures for job protection.

They have also outlined programs that would aid consumers in terms of interest rates, rolling back some of the unjust sales taxes in the last budget, raising money through a two per cent surtax on people earning more than $40,000 and a surtax on the banks to pay for some of the job creation programs, reintroduction of succession duties on the top three per cent and reintroduction of the land speculation tax. They have talked about measures dealing with trimming waste in government as well.

I think we have attempted to present a balanced program on where we would spend the money, where we would take it from and how we would use it.

In closing, again because of the time restraints, I want to reiterate my basic position. The government has failed to provide a convincing case for the need for controls. The proposed controls will not deal with the basic sources of inflation. The controls, in terms of prices, are an absolute farce. Inflation is already on the decline and will continue to decline for the upcoming 18 months, if not the next 36 months, as predicted by most economists. The recession is a far greater and deeper problem facing us than is inflation.

Job creation, as the Premier said in Halifax, is our top priority. He was right on that. But this government proposes virtually nothing in this respect. Restraints may be necessary in some aspects, but mandatory, legislated wage controls on only one segment of our society are unacceptable and unproductive. On that basis, I intend to vote against this bill.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be able to stand up here today to make a few comments on Bill 179 and Bill 180 and why we should support them, as I certainly do.

First, I want to deal with Bill 180. It is a very short bill, entitled An act to authorize the entering into of an Agreement with the Government of Canada with regard to an Anti-Inflation Program. The explanatory note states:

"The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Treasurer, on behalf of the province, to sign an agreement with the government of Canada, to bring into effect in Ontario a national anti-inflation program if enacted by the government of Canada. The bill provides that such an agreement, if signed, would be subject to ratification by the Legislature."

The Premier (Mr. Davis), in his statement of Tuesday, September 21, stated: "We stated our position clearly at the first ministers' conference in February of this year, and we have repeated it on every available occasion since. We remain convinced that a national program of economic recovery, based on the objective of sustained growth without inflation, is both critical and possible for all Canadians.

"While Ontario respects that each province and each region has its own particular problems and potentialities, the absolute truth is that Canadians in every part of this country have experienced the effects of a recession that is nationwide. Ours is a national economy, highly integrated, with each part depending upon the others, and ours is a federal state where each jurisdiction depends upon the others to determine our national goals.

"So, while the individual efforts of provincial governments can and do have an impact upon our national economy, recovery in all parts of Canada can be engendered only by a program that embraces the whole country and in which all provincial jurisdictions act in concert with our federal government. Surely, these shared difficulties justify a national program that creates an equitable and stable framework in which economic recovery can be shaped.

"One central element in such a recovery package is a national incomes policy. A comprehensive program of wage and price controls for all Canadians would have several advantages. It would reduce inflationary expectations; restrain domestic cost pressures and improve our competitive position; spread the costs of combating inflation across a wide spectrum of society and demonstrate economic leadership at a time when consumer and investor confidence is at an all-time low in our country.

"More important, such a national program would contribute to maintaining the strength of the Canadian dollar. This would in turn allow for a lowering of our domestic interest rates. As such, it would aid significantly in restoring business confidence, in increasing international trade and, most important, in restoring the thousands of jobs already lost through the vagaries of the current federal policy.

"Therefore, I repeat my contention that to be truly effective, any program of control must be national in its scope and universal in its application."

I entirely agree with him, and I believe that, in time, Bill 180 will be implemented.

I wish now to go to Bill 179 and Ontario's contribution to the anti-inflation package. Before I go into Bill 179 in depth, I want to look at what other provinces are doing in regard to their anti-inflation programs. I have some background facts here on other jurisdictions.

With the exception of Ontario, all provincial jurisdictions have restraint packages that concentrate on limiting wages. Newfoundland, for example, has introduced a two-year program that is not legislated. Employees earning less than $13,000 will receive increases of seven per cent and six per cent. Those earning from $13,000 to $18,000 will be limited to six per cent and five per cent. Those earning more than $18,000 will be held to five per cent and four per cent.

These measures do not affect current contracts, nor do they affect municipalities.

Prince Edward Island has not announced a control program, although the current election campaign is focusing on less government.

Nova Scotia has no program for its unionized employees; yet for its 3,500 nonunionized employees, the government will broadly follow the six per cent federal guidelines.

In New Brunswick, no control program has been announced, but restraint is an election issue.

12:40 p.m.

In Quebec, a dramatic wage restraint program has been announced. From January I to March 31, 1983, public sector wages will be rolled back by 18.85 per cent. This will recover some $521 million that the government was paying the public service in the last six months of this year as part of an agreement negotiated just prior to the referendum. For the rest of 1983, the Quebec government has proposed a wage freeze on most of its public service employees. For the two years following, Quebec has offered all public sector workers, including civil servants, teachers, hospital staff and nurses, increases of five per cent and 3.2 per cent along with a slight cost of living increase for each year.

In Manitoba, no program is likely, although the government has stated that employees earning more than $35,000 should be limited to increases of eight per cent.

In Saskatchewan, effective September 30, wage increases will be held to one per cent below the inflation rate, which at present is 8.5 per cent in the province.

In Alberta, no control program has been announced. The government has suggested that settlements should be less than 10 per cent.

In British Columbia, a two-year program roughly paralleling the six and five program has been announced. It has some flexible features, such as allowing collective bargaining and tying future increases to inflation rates and productivity.

That is what some of the other provinces are doing. I believe Bill 179 will help combat inflation in certain ways.

We have heard from members of the third party about their concerns for the organized groups they seem to represent. I live in Etobicoke, and this week I was reading the Etobicoke Guardian. The provincial restraint program affects a lot of people in the borough, as members are well aware. A number of groups have been losers. Specifically, I want to deal with the trustees from our school board.

The article states: "Last month trustees elected to raise their $4,800 annual salary to $11,500, effective December 1. They proposed to up that figure to $12,200 next year and to $12,750 by December 1984. Most of the board's 13 trustees resigned themselves to the province's five per cent wage ceiling for public wages, saying they wished to co-operate with the government's plan for economic recovery."

I want to take a moment or two to quote some of the trustees as to what they think of the restraint program.

"Trustee Bill Williams said he 'felt badly' about the vetoed increases but had reconciled himself to the situation. 'If everyone else has to bear the load, I'll bear my share,' declared the ward I trustee.

"Ward 2 trustee John Campbell said he had 'no real reaction' to the situation. 'The provincial government has imposed wage and price controls to the private sector. The Etobicoke board will comply with those requirements,' he stated.

"John Tolten of ward 3" -- one of our trustees -- "said he laughed when he was informed of the government announcement, describing it as 'ironic.' 'After all the abuse the trustees had taken -- maybe rightly so -- and then through the stroke of a pen, it's negated,' he said. 'It's ironic we took a cut the year the restraint program came in ... I do not think the trustees will be part of a crowd protesting the restraint program.'

"Aileen Anderson said she supported the provincial government's decision to impose price and wage controls. 'I think that if the Ontario government has decided to restrain wages in the public sector, I would agree with their reasoning for doing it,' said the ward 4 board member.

"Bob Ferguson, who did not support the proposed pay hike, also favoured the government's stand. 'I feel we have to be the same as everybody else,' insisted the ward 4 representative. 'It's a sensible piece of legislation to start with. Unrealistic salary demands directly contribute to inflation ... This could be the start of a more sensible type of economy.'

"Ward 5 trustee Clare Farrow says he has experienced 'mixed feelings' towards the deprivation of the proposed wage hike. 'I suppose when I weigh up the considerations and come to the bottom line, I'm content. I was not totally happy with the full increase. I'm happier with the smaller amount. Now that the government ceiling has been imposed on the public sector, I don't see why the trustees should be an exception."

These are some of the reactions of our members who were directly affected, and quite severely, as one can understand.

"Separate school trustee Michael Doyle, representing wards I and 5, believes it's a trustee's responsibility to support the government's policy. 'I guess if the country is trying to pull its way out of the economic situation, I will do my part to help,' he said."

I believe that represents most of the feeling in Ontario. Whether we like it or not, Canada has grave economic problems. We will all have to pull our share to get Canada moving again.

The economic circumstances in which we currently find ourselves demand action. We are experiencing unacceptable levels of unemployment. Layoffs and bankruptcies are eroding the confidence of our people, and our manufacturing industries are being particularly hard hit.

In response to the recessionary conditions facing our province, and in the absence of a much-needed national restraint program, our government has taken the initiative in introducing a restraint package to curb the pressure of government on the capital market. Inflation can be beaten. Ontario has set the example, and it is now up to the private sector and all governments in Canada to follow our lead.

Plainly and simply, we have a well-run province. Despite the recession, Ontario and Ontario Hydro have been able to retain their triple-A ratings.

Mr. Cassidy: What about employment? Where are the jobs?

Mr. Kolyn: We have another speaker here, and I am sure he will have his chance to expose his views to us.

As one recent example of what a low rating means, Hydro-Québec and Ontario Hydro borrowed on the European bond market in April. Hydro-Quèbec had to pay 16.5 per cent interest on its loan, but Ontario Hydro got its money at 14.75 per cent. When borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars, a difference of 1.75 percentage points can mean a substantial saving.

Mr. Cassidy: You're crucifying the people for a credit rating.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Kolyn: The fiscal integrity of Ontario is unparalleled. Since mid-1970, Ontario Treasurers have been committed towards spending restraint. On the other hand, the federal government has a double standard: while advocating restraint and allocating huge sums to spread its six and five message, it continues to be negligent with the taxpayers' money.

For example, Mr. Edmund Clark, a senior bureaucrat in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, is spending a whole year in Paris courtesy of the Canadian taxpayers. His paid educational leave, estimated to cost $172,000 for 12 months and $207,000 for the anticipated 15-month stay, is an outright abuse of public funds at a time when taxpayers are being asked to make sacrifices.

Taxpayers are also paying for a $7-million training program set up by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to recruit francophones and pay them $25,000 a year while they await permanent jobs in scientific and professional fields. A departmental memo urges managers to use "creativity, imagination and innovation in finding ways to absorb the francophone recruits."

What this means is that the federal government is paying all these people to float around until jobs are made available to them. Is this their way of practising restraint?

In this inflationary period it is the responsibility of every level of government to tighten its belt. Ontario's restraint legislation is obviously a notch higher than Bill C-124, the federal restraint legislation. It goes farther in its attempt to control the inflationary spiral.

12:50 p.m.

The Ontario program has broader coverage provisions than the federal program's. Basically, the federal program covers the public service, crown corporations and railways. The Ontario program covers the Ontario public service and crown corporations, plus workers in the municipal, health and educational sectors.

The clause prohibiting merit increases becomes effective at a lower income level in Ontario than in the federal program. Approximately 40 per cent of federal employees earning less than $49,000 will be entitled to an additional four per cent merit increase, thus making the six and five society resemble more closely the 10 and nine society.

This inconsistency has raised doubts about the credibility and sincerity of Ottawa's proposal. Carl Beigie, president of the C. D. Howe Research Institute, a Toronto-based economics research organization, argues as follows:

"What we are now seeing is a significant departure in government from the six and five spirit. The government is continuing to grant productivity increases to a large percentage of public servants even though there have been no productivity improvements in the public sector or in the nation itself for several years.

"As a result of Ottawa's inconsistencies, the inflationary circle will continue at closer to 10 per cent than six per cent. Also, many private companies attempting to seek clarification of the government's restraint program in an effort to implement something comparable have become confused and uncertain in the light of the federal 'extras' still being allowed."

Ontario is urging Ottawa to introduce a program of wage and price controls across the board. This will remove the inconsistencies between the private and public sector as well as giving our economy a fighting chance to recover. Ottawa, however, has turned a deaf ear to our proposals. Without national participation, our restraint effort will only have a minimum effect. We only hope that others will voluntarily follow Ontario's example. Already some provinces have introduced their own restraint measures.

Before concluding, I want to say that our government's restraint package has been most sensible and fair to our public employees. Our public sector has been most fortunate in escaping layoffs and other effects in a slumping economy. Surely it is reasonable that our public employees trade job security for lower wage increases.

Mr. McClellan: Don't forget to talk about the rollbacks. Didn't they tell you about the rollbacks?

Mr. Cassidy: What about the X-ray technicians? Where's their security?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kolyn: In asking our public sector to support Ontario restraint programs, we are trying not only to find a way to curb inflation but also to get our unemployed back to work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am caught at the last minute here. I did not expect to have the opportunity to --

Mr. Swart: Come on, you fellows, applaud your member.

[Applause.]

Mr. Boudria: I want to thank the honourable members for that warm round of applause.

As I was saying, I am somewhat surprised that I am being asked to commence my participation in this debate this afternoon. I was assuming I would do so on Monday. Nevertheless, I am very happy to have the opportunity to participate in this very important debate.

I want to say at the outset that I favour the principle of restraint. I believe we must lower inflation and we must lower expectations. More than that, we must lower expenses. But, even more fundamentally, we must reduce the waste we have seen perpetrated by this government in its expenditures. In dealing with Bill 179, that part of the equation has not been very well addressed.

I feel that the government, despite the fact that it has handled the legislation in a rather tight way to cover most of the angles, has not demonstrated the principles of equity in this legislation. One of the obvious ways in which the equity is not there is that the government has not demonstrated to us that it is willing to commit itself to fiscal policies in which it will stop wasting taxpayers' money on absolutely useless ventures.

If they can demonstrate to us that this is what they are willing to do, they should also demonstrate to the population of Ontario that they will use those funds saved by wise management and invest them in the area of social services and more particularly in general welfare assistance. That is one part of our society right now that is suffering greatly from the effects of inflation and high unemployment.

My leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), stated to us in the House recently that he would have preferred a plan that would have been all-encompassing. Our view on this was not generated by a public opinion poll or anything of the sort. We have been advocating that since the summer.

My first reaction after looking at Bill 179 was to ask why it took all summer to think of this. There does not seem to have been much thought put in it that would require from July until the day this was introduced on September 21 to come up with this kind of legislation. I am sure the government could have done so before. Perhaps they did wait for a favourable poll before deciding to introduce it instead of introducing it earlier and making it all-encompassing as I suggested.

I was speaking a minute ago about the fact that the government should demonstrate to us in Ontario that it is willing to cut expenditures. One of the things I have a little difficulty with is this famous party we are going to have in 1984. We are all sure that by pure coincidence it will probably not be long before the next provincial election. I am all for parties. I do not want anyone to think I am anti-party, because I am not that kind of person. But I have been reading a little of our history and I have been thinking of all kinds of famous dates we could celebrate.

The Quebec Act was signed in 1774, and that is basically what started the form of democratic government we have now in this part of North America. In 1791, we signed the Constitutional Act, which separated the country into Upper Canada and Lower Canada -- two distinct provinces. Upper Canada was designed expressly, according to British parliamentary government and traditions, to accommodate the influx of United Empire Loyalists who were coming in at that time. All this came as a result of the Declaration of Independence in the United States in 1776. There was another influx in 1789 after the US constitution. There were also the "late loyalists," who came after 1791.

All this confuses me as to why 1984 has anything to do with all those dates. I will agree that some loyalists came here in 1784, and I am not against them. But if we are celebrating the anniversary of Ontario, why are we not doing that in 1991, when we will have more funds, when we will not be in an election year, when we will be able to afford it and when we can relate it to a distinct incident that occurred in the history of this province?

That is what we should be celebrating instead of an arbitrary date picked by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) because that would be something for her to do.

I will read an editorial concerning this very topic in the Ottawa Citizen of September 28. This editorial is entitled "Bill Davis, Party Man":

"All patriotic Ontarians will want to applaud the provincial government's plan to celebrate the province's bicentennial in 1984 with a lavish party.

"After all, every school child knows about the significant event that occurred in 1784 -- it is fixed in their memories as surely as is the date the flush toilet was invented by Thomas Crapper.

"As we all know, 1984 will mark the 200th anniversary of the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada, as Ontario was then known. Or it might have been a few years earlier than that. Why quibble over details? On with the party!

1 p.m.

"Apparently some spoilsports surveyed by the province have suggested that 1984 seems 'somewhat artificial and contrived as an excuse for a bicentennial.' Some even had the effrontery to suggest there must be some ulterior motive -- political gain prior to an election.

"It is true that there will probably be a provincial election in 1985 and that the goodwill engendered by the bicentennial celebration might dispose some voters more favourably towards the government, but that is the purest coincidence. Really.

"As for the suggestion that 1784 is not a significant date in Ontario history, that is easily dealt with. We celebrated the centennial in 1884, didn't we? No more need be said.

"Some of those polled have expressed concern about the proposed $11-million cost of the celebration. Admittedly it seems like a lot of money, but look at it this way: it's barely enough to buy two water bombers. What would you rather have for your tax money: a couple of ugly, slow-moving airplanes or a good time?

"A few opposition Jeremiahs" -- I guess that is a reference to the folks on my left here -- "have alleged that the cost of the celebration is excessive at a time when public-sector salaries are being controlled and grants to municipalities, school boards, hospitals and other agencies are being pared to the bone.

"Nonsense, we say. Economic hard times are sapping the native good humour of Ontario residents. By 1984, Ontarians will badly need a good laugh. What better way to provide it than by blowing a wad of money on a good old- fashioned elbow wag?

"George Orwell knew instinctively that 1984 would be an important year in the history of mankind. If for no other reason than to prove that Orwell was correct, the party must go on."

The Acting Speaker: This would be a good opportunity for the honourable member to terminate the debate.

On motion by Mr. Boudria, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.

October 1, 1982