Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like your clarification and guidance on a point of privilege. It has always been my assumption that members of the House have the privilege of access to and egress from this building as they see fit.

Can you investigate why it is felt necessary to have a bus at the front door of the main Legislative Building this evening at six o'clock to carry members 600 yards to the front door of the Royal Ontario Museum just up the road, see whether or not the privileges of the House are being infringed, and ensure that those of us who wish to take a brisk stroll through Queen's Park will have access to the Royal Ontario Museum and to the House when we return at eight o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether that is a point of privilege or not. Certainly it is news to me. I do not think there is anything to stop you from walking if you wish. I would think it is for those members who may be aged or infirm and would have difficulty in finding their way up there.

Interjections.

RESTRAINT ON DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Referring to yesterday's Hansard, I would like to quote the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), whom I was questioning with respect to some meetings between the Ontario Medical Association and the government. He said, "I was not there, I am not privy to it and I cannot answer."

Outside the House, it is my understanding, in a quote attributed to the Treasurer from Canadian Press wire copy, he said, "Mr. Davis and Health Minister Larry Grossman are the only two involved in the talks," although he is "kept informed."

The Oxford definition of "privy," even though this government is trying to ban them, is "admitted to, as to one sharing in a secret (to a conspiracy), or a person having a part or an interest in any action, matter or thing."

I think the clear implication is that there were two different impressions left on two different occasions within a very short space of time. I am sure the Treasurer would not want inadvertently to leave the impression he has misled anyone either in or outside the House; he would want to clear up that situation right now.

DEATH OF GLENN GOULD

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, may I make a brief statement on the untimely death of Glenn Gould.

Canada has lost not only a world-renowned musical genius but a warm, witty and inventive raconteur, writer and producer of fascinating documentaries. His radio and television programs were invariably unique, intriguing, controversial and, indeed, challenging. As well as performing and composing music, he established a reputation as one of the most brilliant and lucid writers on musical topics.

While he has sometimes been described as eccentric and erratic, he has even more frequently been called an unprecedented genius, a remarkable intellect, a force for innovation and change in music and a warm and witty human being.

Glenn Gould's monumental interpretation of Bach's Goldberg Variations remains an all-time musical classic, and the more than 80 albums of Gould recordings that have long been a vital part of many music lovers' record collections will doubtless continue to be enjoyed and sought after for years to come.

His death brings an enormous sense of sadness and loss. His talent and fascinating personality have been a source of pride to all Canadians during his all too brief lifetime. His recordings will undoubtedly ensure his immortality for music lovers the world over.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate my own colleagues with the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

Those citizens for whom music is an important part of their lives have probably lost someone who was almost like a member of their own family. I can recall, when I was very young and was first experiencing classical music, attending concerts by Mr. Gould before he stopped doing them. I have listened to Mr. Gould's music for literally hundreds of hours over the course of my life, and I feel a deep personal sense of loss at his passing.

As a citizen of Toronto, I think I can say that my fellow citizens and I mourn the passing of our most distinguished citizen. We were graced in this city for a period of time to have a genius living among us. We will not forget his memory and we will continue to cherish his music.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would like to join in the sentiments that have already been expressed by this House.

There is no question that Glenn Gould was a world-renowned and brilliant musician, and certainly his loss at this very early age is a tragic loss for this country and for the world, and particularly the world of music.

I would certainly associate myself with the comments that have been made. I have listened to Glenn Gould many times. I have not seen him since his youth, when he and I actually went to the same school. He grew up in the Beaches area of Toronto, which is so famous and so well beloved by many people around here. He went on to achieve world renown in his field and he will be sorely missed by all of us.

I would extend to his family the condolences and heartfelt sympathies of the government and of all the members of this House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer, operating on the premise that as the sponsor of Bill 179 he either helped to write it or participated in its writing or, at the very least, has read it at one time.

The Treasurer said on September 30 that Ontario health insurance plan fees are not an administered price. I would refer the Treasurer to part III, section 26 of the bill, where it says:

"(a) 'administered price' means, (ii) a price, user charge or fee required, permitted or authorized by a public regulatory agency to be charged by another person."

I think it is important that we go on to the definition of a public regulatory agency, which means "any ministry, agency, board, commission or corporation established or controlled by the crown in right of Ontario which approves, establishes, regulates or requires particular prices, user charges or fees to be charged for any product or service."

We can see in this case that OHIP, under the Ministry of Health, is clearly a public regulatory agency and that the price would be the amount charged to OHIP by a doctor, according to the fee schedule, for performing a particular service.

The unavoidable conclusion is that the fees charged by doctors to OHIP for insured services to patients are a price permitted by a public regulatory agency to be charged by another person. Ergo, doctors' fees are an administered price clearly falling under the act. Why is the minister defying his own legislation?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has given his interpretation. I asked for a legal interpretation on premiums and fees and was told that fees are negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association. They are not set by a regulatory body, therefore they are not included.

Mr. Peterson: I trust the minister will go back to these lawyers who gave him this opinion. I ask him, even as a layman and taking all the legal advice he wants, to read the act, the words which are in front of him and which make it clear that OHIP is a public regulatory agency administered under the aegis of the minister.

He will see that the fees charged by a physician to OHIP for performing a service fall within the definition and clearly are caught under this act. I repeat, he is defying his own legislation, and I ask why he is doing that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is the same question.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the fifth time that this question has been raised, and each time for a very good reason, because the Treasurer has refused to answer it in a satisfactory or credible way.

I want to ask the Treasurer again how he can continue to pretend that OHIP is not a public regulatory agency when it says clearly in the act that it is any agency which "approves, establishes, regulates or requires particular prices, user charges or fees".

Is it perhaps some kind of carrot-and-stick game that the Treasurer is playing with the OMA in public, trying to pretend that they are not covered under the legislation, while at the same time others in the ministry are going into meetings with the OMA in which it is clear that they are covered under the act?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, arguments like this often end up before a judge. Laws are often interpreted in different ways by different lawyers.

To the first part of the innuendo in the member's question, that he asked the question five times because I have not answered in a credible way, this, in my opinion, would allow him, from his point of view, to re-ask any question on any answer at any time because he never thinks anything we say is credible.

Mr. McClellan: It was not an innuendo.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not realize it is his legislation? If there is any doubt about it, why does he not clear it up? Why does he not make it very clear that they are caught under this act? What possible excuse could he have, besides playing around with legalistics, that it may or may not be caught?

If I wished to accept a legal opinion, I think I would appreciate the opinion of my leader over that of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). He has a better record in court.

I say to the Treasurer, if there is any doubt about the legislation, it is his legislation and he should amend it to make sure that they are caught in this. What possible justification does he have to exclude them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they are playing on the words "price" and "regulatory agencies." First, I would suggest that it is not OHIP which sets the price. It is a negotiating team with a person in the middle and both sides negotiating. On the basis of that, OHIP is given a schedule of fees.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. On May 13 in his budget statement he said: "Because of these factors and actions, the Ontario economy should strengthen during the balance of the year. Employment by year-end should reach 125,000 over current levels.'

In fact, seasonally adjusted, there has been a decline in employment up to August of this year of some 95,000, so his figures are out in the order of 220,000 jobs. What is the government going to do to create those jobs by the end of the year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, would that I were always right. One of the great advantages of being in the opposition is that one is always right. We are not always right because we are given the task of trying to run the government and do the best we can.

That happened to be the best set of advice that economists in general were giving to me in May -- not just my economists, but economists from a number of other places. I wish it had been totally accurate.

I would argue with the Leader of the Opposition that the malaise in recovery of the economy of the United States, as well as our own, has obviously postponed that improvement.

I have told him before that I am working with the federal Minister of Finance and I hope very shortly I will be working with the two new ministers, the Minister of State for Economic Development and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to see what we can do. I believe we have found a degree of co-operation there that will help us resolve some of those problems as they must be resolved, on a national scale.

Mr. Peterson: I can understand the Treasurer trying to blame his economists. Ultimately, he is the one who decided which advice to take, he is the one who took it and he is the one who put that statement forward in his own name. He should not try to escape responsibility.

The Treasurer said on March 12: "We are at the very bottom at the moment. From here on the total growth will be quite commendable throughout the year." When he was referring to total growth in that statement, was he referring to total growth in unemployment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition seldom likes to recall the years we were right, does he? We made predictions in a number of years that were even exceeded. This is the first year so far we have been on the wrong side.

I do not know whether the fourth quarter is going to show the upturn we had hoped would occur in the third quarter. There have been very faltering signs that it will. There are still people telling me it will improve between now and the end of the year, but I must admit they are fewer in number than they were. I am as anxious as the honourable member to see that improvement.

We are working and we have taken steps. We have spent quite a bit of money in this province, over half a billion dollars this year, in trying to stimulate the economy one way or another, and stimulating the economy creates jobs. The fact that the economy has still gone down does not mean that our efforts were without reward or result. It just means there are that many fewer people unemployed than there would have been.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer will be aware that over 100,000 more people are out of work since his budget came down. The reality of the situation is that the economic problems in this province have deteriorated considerably since May 13. All he has called for at this point is a meeting of finance ministers across this country.

As the Treasurer of the province that is supposed to be the manufacturing heartland of Canada, what is he prepared to do right now, before we adjourn in December, in order to create jobs? Or is he saying it is solely the responsibility of the federal government and he is not prepared to bring in either a mini-budget or an economic statement or something that will create short-term jobs for this winter, which promises to be long and cold for 700,000 families in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would refer the honourable member back to the statements made on September 21 when the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I introduced the present bill. We then called upon the federal government to work with us, as the Premiers had done in August. We hoped that would be the route followed.

In the absence of that, we said Ontario was prepared to do those things it could do. I recognize the problems of the fast shuffles going on in Ottawa these days. I wish they would leave a minister there long enough to get used to a portfolio. It does happen that right now we are not able to get them to talk to us. In a week or two --

Mr. Wrye: That is a terrible excuse.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Do not say that, because it happens to be true. For nine months we have not been able to get the Ministry of State for Economic Development to talk to us because they did not know what their role was. One can deliver a baby in nine months; surely they can deliver a program in nine months.

We are intending to try to establish those contacts. I hope the member would accept the fact that it is better to work on a national scheme.

It is nice to see the Liberals reacting. Any time it hurts they get noisy.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the government could open up a lot more jobs if it would change the policy at Bruce B. There is a surplus of power there now. They are working overtime -- what the hell for for I do not know -- but they are employing a lot of people working 70 hours a week, drawing down about $2,000 a week in salaries.

They could go about changing the policy to make them work only two shifts a day instead of these fellows working overtime. One group came there in March and they are walking out with $50,000 to $60,000 by working 70 hours a week. More jobs could be opened up.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member does have a question I hope.

Mr. Sargent: Why does the minister not change his policy to change it from overtime to two shifts a day to open up more jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I see that the member has taken a new step in the economy drive by having a detachable collar on a brown shirt.

Seldom do I have a member stand up and complain about too much work in his riding or in his area, but he has consistently done that.

Mr. Bradley: You have not had one today.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I understood what he said. The fact remains, I would suggest my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) can probably answer the details better.

I suspect there are certain work agreements in place there that are being honoured at this point and I am not sure they can be changed.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the government wage confiscation program. Yesterday, in response to a question by myself, the Treasurer admitted that the government was abrogating contracts but said, "We are not taking wages away."

I now want to put to the minister this very simple question. Does he agree that his government is in effect going to rip up agreements that were signed by employers?

Let me put this example to him. I have in my hand a contract between Local 1565 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and Barton Place Nursing Home. The contract runs from January 14, 1981, to March 1, 1984. Does the minister agree that the 101 employees in this contract will have their agreed-upon wages taken away from them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said on other occasions in this Legislature, that regardless of what date might have been selected for the wage restraint package there would be collective agreements affected accordingly.

I would also repeat what I have said on other occasions in this Legislature and to the media. No one on this side of the House is comfortable about circumstances such as these, but these are very unique, difficult times and we have to worry not only about people who are working but also, to a much greater extent, about those people who are not working.

Mr. Foulds: I would like the minister, for all of his concern, to explain to me -- in this one example of 101 workers, 97 of them women, who will have about $154,000 of their 1983 wage package confiscated -- how this is going to create one job. How is that going to put people back to work?

Does he not understand that thousands of workers like these have made commitments based on what they assumed to be a binding contract and agreement? They may even have gone out and bought a fridge on credit; they need to meet the payments. They may have decided to send their children to college or university on the basis of the signed binding agreement.

What advice does he have for those workers who once believed that a signed contract, signed either in the private sector or by the crown in the right of Ontario, was indeed a binding agreement?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps I can use my own home riding as an illustration. We have over 4,000 hourly rated employees off work at Algoma Steel. In addition to that, the salaried employees, who also have an agreement, have now gone or shortly will be going on a work-sharing program.

They have had their wages frozen. They will not be getting any increase this year or next year. They have had their bonus plan taken away from them. These salaried employees who do have an agreement will actually be making 20 to 30 per cent less this coming year than they are at present.

Here is a circumstance where these people the member is referring to will still be getting an increase. I can give hundreds of examples where people will be getting no increase, will have money taken away from them.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I must advise our visitors in the gallery that they are here as guests of the assembly and they are not allowed to partake in any demonstration or any voicing of opinions. I would ask them --

Mr. Sargent: We need all the help we can get.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but I would ask them to please refrain from any kind of demonstration.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration the minister's first remarks about he and his colleagues not liking to bring in any kind of legislation like this, I would like to ask, keeping in mind his understanding of the fact that those on the low end of the wage scale have been most hurt by the high interest rates and the high rate of inflation, why he did not lobby more intensely within cabinet?

Why was he not more successful in bringing in a greater degree of protection for those who are earning below $20,000? The very niggardly amount of money would raise the salaries, I believe, 6 2/3 per cent.

Also, if there are going to be takeaways from employees, has he insisted that all of that money -- estimated anywhere from $480 million to $800 million -- be poured back into the economy to create jobs so that as Minister of Labour he does not become the minister of even greater unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to hide behind cabinet confidentiality and say I did not support the wage package. I did, and I do. As I said before, I support it only because these are very unique times. When the Anti-Inflation Board program came along that was fighting inflation in good times. Now we have to fight inflation in bad times. That is the big difference.

In response to the honourable member, I did lobby in cabinet for consideration to those in the low-income positions. That lobbying was obviously listened to and addressed in the final package because the minimum-level increase is up to $1,000.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister or any government member tell me how slapping these controls on the low-paid workers in the public sector has created or will create one job? That question has never been answered in this House.

Can the minister tell me how he, as Minister of Labour, is going to build up the trust that is necessary between his ministry and the labour movement when his government has just ripped up contracts it has legally signed? How is the minister going to put those contracts back together again?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This provincial government did address the matter of those in the low-income positions, unlike the federal government in its six and five program.

Let me say in conclusion that the Ministry of Labour represents both organized and unorganized labour, both employed and unemployed labour, and right now the number one priority we have is the unemployed labour force.

2:30 p.m.

HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Treasurer about the prices in the health care field. Is the Treasurer aware that Blue Cross premiums are rising by as much as 65 per cent this year? Is he aware that the implementation of the so-called business-oriented new development program in April of this year set a new policy allowing hospitals to set their own market prices for private and semi-private beds and to increase the number of beds as a means of raising revenue? Is he aware that the 250 hospitals in Ontario have increased their prices for these beds by an average of 25 per cent since that time? Are these bed prices administered prices, and will the government be controlling them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the actual percentages are something I could not attest to. The member said 65 per cent, and for the sake of argument I will accept that figure. I assume he is correct and has taken the time to check it.

That is an insurance program, and it reflects the costs of the service. I think the member would accept the fact that people using semi-private accommodation these days either have purchased insurance to cover it or are seldom the people whom the program was designed to cover with the maximum degree of coverage, i.e., those people who could not afford anything at all out of their own pockets. We still provide the bulk of beds in the public hospitals, as I understand it, at no cost at all. I would suggest to the member that most hospitals, when there has not been a public ward bed available, have waived the semi-private cost for patients who did not elect to go into semi-private care.

Mr. Foulds: Aside from the misconception that the Treasurer has indicated in his answer, because he is allowing OHIP fees and charges to increase, does he not understand that the increased hospital bed prices are the reason given for the subscriber fees to such insurance plans as Blue Cross to increase, that their increases took effect on June I of this year and that in one category of their subscribers, including over 200,000 people, the overwhelming majority of whom are over 65, the increase is 65 per cent?

Is the Treasurer aware that Blue Cross does not see the need to hold down the prices because they do not fall under the provisions of the government's price restraint program? Does he think that a widow who is a senior citizen living in Toronto and who has had her rates increased by 56 per cent just for extended health care costs is not in need of having the prices held down?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I find some inconsistency in the honourable member's questioning. He usually stands up and complains bitterly because doctors are permitted to opt out and because somebody may, at his own discretion, have to have an extra charge.

The system provides no-cost care for those who want to have it. If one elects to have other services over and above the basic services, one can insure for them or pay for them. We have made a decision to give the hospitals some incentive to keep that money for services they see as necessary at the local level. The member cannot be for one and against the other.

Ms. Copps: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does that delivery of service include a change in price from zero to 90 cents per day, which is being charged in some Toronto hospitals for the use of a telephone by some patients who cannot even speak on the telephone?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, again, a telephone is a service that is installed in your room if you wish to have it. You do not have to have one.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, this is as mysterious as the question about the OHIP fee schedule.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Is the Treasurer not aware that fees for preferred accommodation are set by the Ministry of Health and therefore fall under the purview of section 26 of the administered prices section of Bill 179? Not only that, is he not aware that the Blue Cross premium increases, which take place in order to cover the increase in the fees for preferred accommodation, have to be approved by the superintendent of insurance, an official of another ministry of his government? Surely he cannot pretend ad infinitum that everything to do with health is excluded from his so-called anti-inflation program.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I go back to the basic point, Mr. Speaker. Those are services people elect to have over and above the basic services.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, and I wish to remind him of an anniversary. On September 29, 1981, just a year ago, the minister announced the establishment of a task force to draft a position paper with accompanying legislation on the subject of freedom of information and protection of individual privacy.

At that time, the minister promised a white paper by December 15 and expressed a desire to hold hearings throughout the winter and spring. On December 17 the minister stated, "I want to assure members that this paper is near completion and will be introduced early in the new year."

It has been a year since the minister established that whole operation. Where is the position paper and when will he be putting it before the House?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, first, it is important to point out that I indicated I would produce the paper by December 15 in reply to the question by a newspaper reporter asking when I expected I would be able to present it. I replied that I was aiming for December 15. It is my intention not only to produce a paper, but to produce a piece of legislation this fall.

Mr. Breithaupt: That task force was apparently somewhat silently disbanded in April, and we have that December assurance that a list of indexes for personal information would be held by the ministries. When we called five ministries, only one of them knew of the index and had a copy in its library.

Can the minister advise us when we are going to see draft legislation? Has it been on hand since April, and if it has not been dealt with by cabinet, why not?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: There have been a number of drafts in terms of the legislation. As can be imagined, this is a very complex area of law. It involves 26 ministers, and I have attempted to consult all of them. I have redrafted the legislation on many occasions. There is a draft that presently exists and that I hope will receive final approval in the very near future.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister not agree that the reason he is having difficulty in bringing forward freedom of information legislation is that there is not a commitment on the part of the government to bring it through? Would it not be correct to say now that the minister's major task as it has been given to him is to delay introduction of any legislation like this until after the 1984 election?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, my answers are no and no.

LIMITATION OF IMPORTS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) today gave as one of the Premier's justifications for public sector wage controls the situation of increasing job insecurity in the private sector. My question to the Premier concerns one of the causes of that job insecurity and how his government could directly address it.

I have here with me two products of the Gray Tool Co. of Brampton, a company the Premier well knows and a company that classes itself as the largest tool company in Canada. Both these products are clearly marked "Gray Canada" and have the half maple leaf symbol of the company. In fact, both products are made in Taiwan, as are many of the company's other products.

Is the Premier not aware that this is the kind of contracting out to foreign sources of supply that leads not only to job insecurity but to an actual loss of jobs in the private sector?

Will his government respond to the situation by doing three things: introducing legislation requiring that all imported products be clearly marked as imports; introducing legislation to establish a policy clearly limiting government purchasing of such products; and, finally, admit that no matter how forceful the government's attack on wages, it will do nothing about companies like Gray Tool Co. which import goods we can produce right here in this province and nation?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am probably not as familiar with that company as is the honourable member. I do know that it is located in that great city of Brampton, along with many other great industries.

I think the member asked me three questions. First, will we, as a government, ensure that every product being brought into Canada is labelled as an import? If one checked the jurisdictional rights of this province to require that, I think one would find that that is probably impossible.

I might also point out there may be several fields of endeavour where one would not want that to happen. I think of the automotive sector. I am not sure that in every case the member wants a "Made in USA" sign on a car that comes in here because I guess our neighbours would reciprocate by having a large "Made in Canada" sign when the vehicle is made in Windsor and travels over to Detroit, particularly from the Chrysler plant where, with the rather larger vehicles today, they have been working longer shifts than they have been in some other parts of the Chrysler organization in Michigan. That is brought to my attention by the governor of that state on occasion.

Mr. Wrye: You didn't support Chrysler.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who did not support Chrysler'?

Mr. Wrye: You didn't.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections,

please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just love that sort of interjection. We have supported Ford. We have supported the new diesel plant. The members opposite have been critical of it. The only time they come is when we open the plants; then they sit there and take all the applause. They are there then.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I do not think he answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was getting around to the Perkins-Massey diesel plant. Members opposite opposed that. I will make a prediction for them --

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: I regret that the Premier did not answer the rest of the question and that he answered the first one wrongly. The constitutional authorities say, although it may have been delegated by the Premier's wishes to the federal government, the province does have such authority to designate the products that are sold as to the country of import.

I have with me a catalogue from Gray Tool Co. I want to send a copy of one page over to the Premier. It has marked on it those products that are no longer made by the Gray Tool Co. It was given to me by Mr. Dave Ryan, who was a seven-year employee of Gray and who found the situation so reprehensible that he quit in protest against such practices.

The Premier will note that it shows pliers, hammers, crescent wrenches, vise-grips, pipe wrenches and sockets. A shipment of 243,000 sockets came into Gray Tool from Taiwan on Thursday of last week. More than one million sockets have been imported in the past year. Employment has gone down from 160 to 150 in the past year. At Haun Drop Forge Co. Ltd. in Welland, which is owned by Gray Tool, employment has gone down from 55 to 25.

Will the Premier explain what steps he intends to take to tell Gray Tool and other companies like it that they are part of our economic problem and that they can no longer take our market for granted?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not discussed this with Mr. Gray. I must confess that I do not know Mr. Gray very well. I may have met him. I am sure I have; I would be surprised if I had not. I would be delighted to discuss it with him. But I will tell the member what part of Mr. Gray's answer will be --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is just the way they destroyed SKF.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I will tell the member what part of Mr. Gray's answer to me will be, and it will be fairly simple, that in a rather competitive marketplace he can purchase these at a much lower unit cost than he can produce them here. I am sure that is what he will say.

I say to the member for Welland-Thorold that is part of the problem facing the economy of this country and, with great respect, that of the United States. That is one of the difficulties we are trying to come to grips with, and some of the member's tirades and philosophical positions do not help in the resolution of that problem one whit, I should tell him.

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Premier says he does not know anything about this. May I remind him that the president of the union, Mr. Tom Vardy, phoned six months ago for an appointment to bring this to his attention but has never received a reply up to this time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I did not say I did not know anything about it; I said I did not know Mr. Gray very well, if at all.

Ms. Copps: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I can appreciate the fact the Premier may state he has very little control over the private sector. In view of the advertising his own government has undertaken to urge Canadians to buy Canadian, I wonder if he can explain to the members of this House and to the people of Ontario why his own Ministry of Correctional Services in the municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth was recently serving peaches, to be eaten by prisoners in the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre, that had not been grown in the Niagara fruit belt of southern Ontario but had been purchased in South Africa?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the honourable member asked me this question because the member's party has a Confederation dinner coming up on October 29, and I have received an invitation from Mr. Cohon, the chairman of that dinner, to establish greater communication between the Liberal Party of Canada and the business community.

I would suggest that, while her leader will not go, although I understand that in spite of his criticisms of the prime minister of Portugal he was at the dinner for the prime minister last evening, she should talk to her leader and have him talk to his brother to have him explain to the other ministers of the crown from Ontario that --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- it is time the federal government did something about the importation of food from offshore. That is where the responsibility lies, and it is time the Liberal Party did something about it.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDER

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have recognized the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Kolyn: The Attorney General and, indeed, this House will recall the events of last May when Gary Alexander McCorkell, a suspect wanted by the Metro Toronto police in connection with the sexual assault and attempted murder of a child living in my constituency, fled to the United States.

Since then Mr. McCorkell has been indicted by a Tennessee court for the aggravated rape and kidnapping of a 10-year-old boy, a crime allegedly committed in August. Mr. McCorkell, who was previously convicted of child murder and paroled only seven months before the alleged May incident, is presently fighting extradition to Canada to face that charge.

Given that Mr. McCorkell said in a recent interview that he was unprepared to go back out on the streets when paroled, and given that he remarked, "If there is a chance of attacking another boy, I prefer to be locked up," will the Attorney General consider a review of parole laws for individuals such as Mr. McCorkell and specifically tighten parole procedures so as to prevent this heinous crime from ever happening again?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lakeshore well appreciates, this is a matter that the federal government is looking at very seriously. The federal Solicitor General has stated that he welcomed a recent court challenge that was launched by the National Parole Board, which did not want to release some into the community by reason of the danger they believed this individual represented to the community. It would appear that these laws, which are undoubtedly of concern so far as dangerous offenders are concerned, are under active review by the federal government.

I might say that in our role as the provincial Attorney General we have launched a number of successful applications to declare people who fall into that category dangerous offenders. We have been successful in a number of these applications, which means that these people cannot be released into the community until they have satisfied a board of doctors or psychiatrists that they are a reasonable risk.

Mr. Kolyn: Can the Attorney General inform this House if present laws guarantee that Mr. McCorkell will remain locked up for as long as his sickness prevails? If not, will he consider such laws?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As the honourable member appreciates, and he has already indicated so, there is a warrant out for Mr. McCorkell's arrest. Extradition proceedings are now under way in the United States to return him to face trial in Canada. There are some state authorities in the US who want him to face trials there before he is returned to Canada. If he does return to Canada, he would be a candidate for dangerous offender proceedings.

FRANCO-ONTARIAN SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier understands and appreciates that as a result of the latest decision by his government, led by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), to scuttle all major changes to representation on school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area for adequate and proper francophone representation up to 1985 -- there will be no changes until 1985 -- a leading member of the Franco-Ontarian community here in Ontario has stated that all Franco-Ontarians should boycott all committees, all co-operation and all consultation with his government.

There is such frustration in the community that l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the major Franco-Ontarian association, has said that from now on, in order to achieve justice and fairness in representation on school boards in obtaining proper French-language education, it is going to take this government to court, pursuant to section 23 of the Constitution. Would the Premier care to comment on these developments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with some of the information the honourable member has been referring to. I can recall a very short time ago meeting, along with the Minister of Education, my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and others, with representatives from ACFO and several other Franco-Ontarian organizations. They met with us in response to a request I made of them in terms of developing certain tentative proposals for the administration of the Franco-Ontarian or francophone part of the educational system.

As I recall, and I am going by memory, I pointed out to them at the outset that the government was reluctant to see what was their initial suggestion to us, the creation of another school system. That was basically what they were requesting; that is, French language boards started out initially as sort of an experimental or pilot project in the Ottawa area. I think they understood the logic that if the principle was sound there, because one cannot relate it just to numbers the principle would also have application in other parts of northeastern Ontario and perhaps in Essex county, etc.

I asked them to explore the possibility of some other sort of approach. They came in with a report.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. I did not interrupt the member. If he is going to take this question seriously, let me try and explain it to him.

We met with them at some length. We had assessed the report very carefully and we felt there were some administrative and educational problems inherent in their recommendations. I acknowledge that the unfortunate part is that this was being discussed and was coming to a head at the same time as the November elections, which makes it rather difficult, but I was prepared to set some time frames. I think I suggested in one of the responses that it be by the end of December -- the minister can correct me if I am wrong -- and if we could reach some measure of agreement, we could have a draft bill which would then define the policy. We would have this ready for some form of public discussion or consideration by ACFO and the other organizations involved in this issue by, I think, some time in March or April.

That is my recollection of the discussions and that is what I have communicated. I understand there is frustration on the part of some people, but we are trying to find a workable solution, something the administration of the school system that is publicly acceptable. It is not an issue we are taking lightly, but I say with the greatest of respect that it is not the easiest issue to resolve. They have a commitment from me and from the government. We are prepared to put certain time frames on it and come up with a draft bill related to the school system. I think the date I used, and I am only going by memory, was some time in March or April.

Mr. Roy: Does the Premier not understand, and certainly this will be confirmed by the minister, that each and every member of that committee was clearly under the impression that these changes would take place and be ready -- and that commitment was made tacitly by the Minister of Education -- for the fall elections of 1982?

The person I quoted as saying that Franco-Ontarians should boycott all further discussion with the government is none other than Gisèle Lalonde, a Conservative candidate in the provincial election of 1977 and a confidante and strong supporter of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. She has clearly stated that the government is not to be trusted, that it has deceived them and they are no longer to co-operate with it.

In view of this frustration, does the Premier not think it is time that he change the Minister of Education? Does he not think he should send her off to do something less sensitive and replace her with someone who has a better understanding of and is more sensitive to the aspirations of the Franco-Ontarian community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get around to that last observation because I am always delighted when members opposite try to reorganize the cabinet for me. Elmer Sopha was far better at it than any of the Liberal members sitting in the front benches. It always gave me an opportunity to reorganize the front bench of the Liberal Party, but there are such slim pickings there at the moment it is impossible to do. Those were great days.

Mr. Breithaupt: There are no slim pickings because of René.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Kitchener is very vulnerable. He should be careful.

One of the unfortunate things was that Gisèle was not at the meeting. She was the former head, as the member knows.

Mr. Roy: I believe Gisèle.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not arguing with her at all. I think she is a very intelligent lady. Certainly she had the intelligence to select the right political party, there is no question about that. I hope when Gisèle has had an opportunity to discuss it with the minister and myself she will understand the problems we experience.

Sometimes the members of the opposition parties accuse us of not listening to others. Certainly this is a sensitive issue for the Franco-Ontarian community, there is no question about that, but we also have to involve the school system generally. That report was circulated to various school boards, teacher organizations and trustees. They were seeking from us an opportunity for a further reply to that report. I have listened to some members opposite who say we do not pay any attention to these representations. I can only say I would hope Gisèle will reassess what is a personal point of view.

My expectation is that we will be meeting with ACFO and others on this issue before the end of the year. We told them the consultation process would be completed by the end of the year and we felt we could have a draft bill available fairly early in the spring. I hope that timetable will be followed.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the delays have now ensured that no electoral change in the representation of Franco-Ontarians on school boards can take place until late 1985 for the 1986 year, will the government in the meantime in the course of the next few months act by legislation in order to strengthen the power of the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario so it can back up recommendations coming from French-language advisory committees to boards of education'?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I sent a letter but perhaps the honourable member has not seen t. If he talks to some of his friends, if he gets away from the university back to his riding some day, he should ask them about it. He will find that point 4 in the letter made specific reference to that particular point when I told them this was under consideration. The member should check with them, visit with his constituents, and he might find out that is the case.

3 p.m.

RIGHT HOUSE CLOSING

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Was the minister given any advance notice, either by the Canadian management of the operation or by its head office, Mercantile Stores of New York, of the decision to close one of Hamilton's oldest department stores, the Right House, in business since 1893, which will result in the loss of another 179 jobs in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter within the past few days advising me of the closing.

Mr. Mackenize: I ask the minister whether he and his government do not now see the danger to retail operations, when there has been a very high level of bankruptcies and many of them may be operating close to the line, in this restraint legislation we now have before us. For example, it will take more than $12 million in purchasing power out of the city of Hamilton and well over $400 million out of Ontario from the pockets of ordinary people. usually low-income people, who need to spend every cent to live.

Has the minister done, or is he prepared to do, any kind of a study or projection to indicate what the results of this restraint program might be in the effect on many small or marginal retail operations in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think that is a reasonable request. It is a matter we should be reviewing and doing a study on. I will be pleased to look into that.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the minister take the closing of the Right House as final proof that the bus strike that crippled our community in the past few months was a very serious one and not simply "no problem," as his advisers and people from the region advised him? Right House is the first. We may have others to go, and the government has done nothing to try to help the people in the community of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Baloney.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is balderdash.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What have you done?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was the strike on while you were in China, Sheila?

Mr. Bradley: At her own expense.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the honourable member try to tie the two things together. The problems of that company --

Ms. Copps: There was a strike for four months in downtown Hamilton. Can you not see the connection?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Did you bring a rickshaw back from China?

Mr. Bradley: She paid her own way there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not think there is anything I can add to a question of that nature. This government did everything possible to resolve that dispute in the best interests of all the parties concerned.

STUDENT LOANS

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Is she aware that at present the banks in Ontario are discriminating against students and their parents in northern Ontario? The students who attend Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology in Kirkland Lake have to travel as far as North Bay, Sudbury or Timmins to get a student loan through the Bank of Montreal because the bank has set up referral centres to make it more difficult for them.

Is the minister aware that many of these students were unable to work this summer in the north and that many of their parents were laid off? Is she also aware that the Toronto-Dominion Bank is discriminating against francophone students in the north because it will not give them loans unless they have had accounts with these banks for at least six months?

Is she aware of these facts and is she ready to go to the federal minister, Gerald Regan, or to the banks and talk to them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member is fully aware of the fact that no student in northern Ontario or in any other part of Ontario has any major difficulty with the banks in acquiring an Ontario student loan.

I believe the matter that has been raised by my colleague is the Canada student loan, which is negotiated between the office of the Secretary of State of the federal government and the banks at the federal level for all of Canada.

It is my understanding that because there has been such a favourable interest rate for the Canada student loan, the banks are suggesting that the interest rate should be raised and that they are using certain tactics to try to persuade the federal government to renegotiate the basis of the Canada student loan.

We have informed the Ontario Federation of Students, because we heard from them about this one year ago, that we have also communicated with the staff of the office of the Secretary of State on several occasions on behalf of students across Canada, asking that he please ensure these harassment tactics are reduced or eliminated.

It is not just the students in Ontario who are suffering. This is happening to students from coast to coast in Canada. It is a matter that should be resolved very rapidly on behalf of the increasing number of students requiring student assistance through the Canada student loan.

Mr. Gordon: The minister really is telling this Legislature that the banks, now that they have finished with many of the home owners and the farmers, are going to put the boots to the kids in this country. The young people are the future of this province and this country; there are very many of them, and we cannot allow the banks to put them to the wall.

I would like to see the minister convene a meeting of the Ontario cabinet, the education ministers from the various provinces and the banks. Will the minister do that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In this month, October 1982, the ministers of education of Canada will meet the fifth Secretary of State in four years at the federal level. We shall most certainly express to Mr. Joyal our extreme concern about this matter. We would be very pleased to meet with all the representatives of the banks across Canada, but we feel we really should do that in company with the Secretary of State, who is primarily responsible for this program.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, has the minister had any feedback as to whether there is any direct relationship with the income of the families of those students who are having the most difficulty with the banks?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, in Ontario the problem may not be quite as difficult for students from low-income families as it is for their counterparts in other provinces, since those students can apply for and receive the student grant program under the Ontario student assistance program. In many cases that may preclude the possibility of a large loan.

We have information about the level of family income for those students who qualify for the grants under the Ontario student assistance program and I can tell the member, as I have told him before, that about 75 per cent of those students come from families where the total family income is at or below the Ontario mean.

While the Ontario situation is important, we must realize that the problem is perhaps more serious for students in other parts of the country where this grant program is not available. Many of the students in those areas are probably being hit harder than are Ontario students.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, in view of the genuine concern expressed by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) about the treatment of students by the banks in Sudbury, and in view of his suggestion that one of the options concerning problems in the resource sector might be nationalization of Inco and Falconbridge in the Sudbury area, is the minister now going to consider nationalization of the banks in view of the fact that the member for Sudbury will not get any donations from them in the next campaign anyway?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Sudbury, and his concern is extremely genuine; he has communicated with me directly about this problem as well. I do not believe that at any time he suggested the banks should be nationalized. I believe what he suggested was that we should have an intensive conversation with the banks in the hope of persuading them to act in a more appropriate fashion.

PETITION

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by some 3,400 people which says:

"In view of the dramatic recovery made by terminal cancer victim Stephanie Kusan directly attributed to the will of God and treatment given by Dr. S. R. Burzynski of Houston, Texas, we the undersigned demand the following action be taken at once by your ministry:

"(a) That this more humane and effective method of treating cancer be explored more fully and that this treatment be made more available to all Canadians afflicted with terminal cancer who cannot otherwise be treated in Canada; and (b) that the Kusan family be given full financial assistance to cover all medical expenses and surgery to ensure Stephanie's complete recovery."

That petition is for the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), and it has 3,400 signatures requesting those two forms of action by the minister.

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. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I was about to conclude some of my preliminary remarks but, fortunately, I had a period of time to consider them overnight and it may be that it will be necessary to deal in a preliminary way with some of the matters referred to in Bill 179 before moving on to the substance of the bill.

However, my esteemed colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) had asked me about the chart I had -- and it is always difficult to describe a chart for the purposes of Hansard -- which indicated a correlation between the downturn in the popularity of the Conservative Party in Ontario and the economy.

I have that chart here. Needless to say, one can see the dips. The dips coincide with the downfall in the fortunes of the Conservative Party just as when the economy was on the rise, it indicated an upturn in the fortunes of the Conservative Party.

Some people may think that is a rather Marxian interpretation of the fortunes of the governing political party. But it is no coincidence that the economic affairs of the province were at a peak in 1971, and it is no coincidence that they were at their nadir in 1975 when the Conservatives just about lost the government of the province.

The economic affairs of the province recovered to a certain extent in 1977, and members will recall the alacrity with which the government assessed a slight dip in the fortunes of the province and called the 1977 election for no reason other than their assessment of the economic fortunes of the province.

Then, when one comes to 1980 and sees the difficult assessment that the government had to make, they noticed a slight upturn in the economy headed towards the early part of 1981. Their forecast showed that very shortly thereafter that disastrous events would occur -- which did take place -- and, of course, we had the winter election.

I was talking about the commitments of the Premier (Mr. Davis), the ones he observes and the ones he does not observe. Immediately the time had expired when he observed that particular commitment, that he was going to be in office into the fourth year, we had just got into the fourth year when we were out on the hustings, because the forecast of everybody was that the economy was going to enter into a very disastrous period of decline.

I suggest to the government that, even with the impetus of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and his known interest in historical events as they relate to the fortunes of the Conservative Party, unless the economy recovers in 1984 or 1985, regardless of the 200-year celebration in 1984, this government will disappear. As I pointed out yesterday, a number of governments have been subject to foundering regardless of their political complexion because of the economic destabilization that is taking place worldwide.

I knew my colleague the member for Renfrew North would be interested in this diagram. I am sorry the rules of the House do not permit it to be reproduced in the papers of the House.

Perhaps some members thought there were a number of loose ends yesterday in the preliminary remarks I was addressing to the assembly, but in the short time available tome I would like to summarize briefly some of the questions I left to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Whether the Treasurer will answer them or not I do not know. As I said yesterday, being an avid reader of the statements made by the Premier of this province, particularly when he is speaking to his confreres, I would like to refer to some of the matters that require a response in this debate.

I refer particularly in the first instance to the matters he dealt with when he spoke to his colleagues the Premiers in Halifax on August 25. I am going to go seriatim by page and not in any particular order of importance, but perhaps the House will forgive me if I emphasize some points that appear to me to carry more weight than other points in the matters I want to raise.

I want to know from the Treasurer exactly what the Premier meant by this paragraph:

"Our first priority must be to create and sustain jobs. In this regard the sharp increase in youth unemployment demands even greater allocation of public funds to job creation for young people. The recent federal budget provided little incentive for job creation in Canada. I believe fiscal room can and must be found for this essential activity."

My first question in the preliminary questions I want to leave with the government is, what is that series of programs or activities that the government is going to undertake, considering the drastic increase in the percentage of unemployed youth between the ages of 15 and 24?

I put those figures on the record yesterday; I need not put them on again as they relate to the province. It is sufficient to say that the level is now in excess of 16 per cent, and everyone knows that on any realistic assessment it is substantially more than that in the province at present when we take into account those who have given up looking for work and those who are underemployed within that age group.

This is a major question we want to have answered if the government seeks to use that in any way as a method for justifying the iniquitous bill that is before us for consideration.

3:20 p.m.

Then on page 6 of this statement to his fellow Premiers, the Premier has this to say about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade:

"Canada and other trading countries will have an opportunity, with the meeting of GATT trade ministers in Geneva this November, to recover momentum in trade expansion and to work towards the development of acceptable mechanisms to enable temporary restraint of imports when legitimately necessary. In the meantime, the federal government should give continuing attention to reforming legislation on imports to prevent unfair foreign competition in our own domestic market."

I want the Treasurer to table in this assembly what are the background papers that the government will be using with respect to the whole question of GATT and particularly with respect to the relationship of trade with the United States as it has been affected by the United States Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and the immense number of nontariff barriers that are erected against the exportation to the United States of goods of Canadian manufacture.

I will come back a little bit on the question of foreign investment. It is interesting to note in his speech that on page 6 he refers to a series of recommendations he will be making to the federal government on trade and investment.

He lists those proposals in the appendix to his address to his fellow Premiers. Those recommendations about increasing trade and investment opportunities are innately self-contradictory. They do not complement each other and they will not assist in any way in solving the basic and fundamental questions related to the recovery of this economy and the creation of the jobs that are required.

I asked yesterday, and I repeat it again today so that it will not be lost, what is the meaning of the following statement, which is repeated not only in his address to his fellow Premiers but also in the statement he made to this House on September 21? I want to have an elucidation of this very cryptic method of stating the contribution that will be made by this so-called isolated action of the government in its punishment of the public sector and the public sector employees.

"In this regard, I repeat my call" -- and I am quoting from the Premier's statement -- "for public sector expenditure restraint. Reduced government demands on the capital market also will contribute to reducing pressures on interest rates. Public sector cost reductions can be passed through to the private sector in the form of lower increases in taxes, user fees and charges for government services. These reductions alone will have a significant impact on the performance of the consumer price index and will contribute to reduced inflation in the private sector."

He saw fit to repeat that in this House. It means little, if anything, to anyone who understands even elementary economics. There is no indication whatsoever that that kind of action will produce the kind of effects which he prophesized it would produce.

More important, from the point of view specifically of Bill 179, is this covert attack on the arbitration system of this province. Whether or not there is a right to strike, everyone knows that during the existence of a collective bargaining agreement the process of settlement of matters in dispute is ultimately by arbitration. I hope everybody understands that. I also hope I am correct in that broad and rather sweeping statement.

I also want to know what the government means when it introduces this kind of statement and makes it before all of the other Premiers by the Premier of this province:

"I have recommended, and I continue to believe, that governments should give immediate consideration to incentive measures that would encourage employers and employees in the private sector to adopt forms of compensation that are linked directly to their own industry's productivity and profit performance. In the public sector the role played by the arbitration system in perpetuating the inflation cycle should be reviewed."

If I could, I would put that in italics, because it is the first indication I have heard that the government is considering some form of drastic action about an essential component of the freedom of association and the right of employees to organize in trade unions and in other organizations to protect their common interest.

I want to know what they intend and what they mean, because if they mean what I believe they may mean, I want them to know that this battle, which we have joined on this bill against them, is nowhere near its end.

I expect a forthright statement by the Premier, or in his absence by the Treasurer, about what he means and particularly with regard to the comments of that minister of the government charged with responsibility for the field of labour relations, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). That, to my mind, is one of the most inequitable aspects of this bill, and I will come to that point somewhat later on in my remarks.

In his statement to the Legislature, there were two or three other matters that deserve synoptic attention and response by the Treasurer or the Premier, or by the appropriate member of the cabinet.

The Premier and the Treasurer obviously have been sold by Mr. Biddell, the chairman of the Inflation Restraint Board, on the proposition that you must not touch profits. Two or three weeks ago there was an article by Mr. Biddell, I believe in the Globe and Mail -- and I am only recalling it from memory -- in which he was reciting his experiences with the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa.

He wrote that he felt control of profits in any way, or anything that would indicate profits should be monitored, or anything that would indicate governments should have anything to do with the level of profits in corporations, was counterproductive. He put forward a very simplistic, traditional capitalist view of why that should not be so: profits are turning down at this point in time; the economic indicators clearly indicate that.

It is significantly interesting that when the profits of the corporations were at their peaks, nothing was done by government with respect to those profits, but now that those profits have declined the role of government in some way or another has nothing to do with it. We have this simplistic logic that when profits are really good we do not have anything to do with them, and when profits are down we do not have anything to do with them. But what we deal with is wages.

There is a little trick phrase that even my friend the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) used the other day. When the Premier refers to a national incomes policy -- and the member for Lakeshore picked it up -- he refers to that as a prices and wages policy. There is no prices policy. We in this party understand that.

The part of the bill dealing with wages is very clear, very specific, very draconian and very punishing; it takes up the greater portion of the bill and is the most unreadable part of it, which is always an indication that the government draftsmen want to say as politely and as unintelligibly as they can that they are hurting people.

In the part dealing with prices, we get very few words, no enforcement provisions and very little indication that the government has any heart or soul in the question of the control of prices.

I mentioned yesterday that a strange dialogue takes place between the ministers of the crown and members of this party when we try to put the proposition as to why corporations should have the pass-through of costs that are beyond their control but individuals cannot have a pass-through of costs that are beyond their control. However, that is the very simplistic statement I am given.

3:30 p.m.

I want the government to relate its statement about how the consumer price index will be coming down to the amazing figures I would like to put on the record of the House with respect to oil prices in Canada over the next four years as a result of the national energy program.

They startled me, and I am sure the House will be startled at the way these prices will escalate. When I am told that the consumer price index is going to moderate in some way, I am from Missouri; I do not believe it. I am from Riverdale, which is also sceptical of that kind of statement.

On January 1, 1982, conventional old oil, as defined in the Canada-Alberta energy agreement of September 1, 1981, was priced at $23.50 per barrel. That is based on the Alberta wellhead price, which is the pass-through price. In his didactic little lecture to my friends in this party when they asked this question, the Minister of Energy said, "Of course we have to pass it through; we have no control over it."

Everyone knows the escalation is scheduled as of January I and July I but I will skip the mid-year increases and just give the annual prices per barrel at January 1. They are as follows: 1982, $23.50; 1983, $29.75; 1984, $37.75; 1985, $45.75; and 1986, $53.75. This is the Alberta per-barrel wellhead price of conventional old oil as negotiated on our behalf by the federal government with the Alberta government.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is only if world prices go up. If world prices do not go up, neither do they.

Mr. Renwick: If world prices do not go up? There is very little to indicate that kind of a protection for the consumer. The member knows it as well as I do.

New oil is defined in the Canada-Alberta energy agreement of September 1, 1981. It commences at January 1, 1982, at $45.92; 1983, $53.06; 1984, $60.18; 1985, $70.23; and 1986, $74.08. There may be a clause which would indicate some amelioration, because there happens to be a glut on the world market at the present time. But those prices were not negotiated for the purpose of protecting the consumers; they were negotiated for the protection of the government of Alberta. The member for Wilson Heights is well aware of that.

May I finish off the summary of my preliminary remarks by referring to this statement: "The Ontario Management Board will be engaged in a series of reviews of the budgets of the cabinet in order to carry out this process of restraint. In keeping with these directives to significantly reduce our current fiscal account, Management Board is currently working with all ministries in order to reduce their operating budgets."

I, and I am sure everybody else in the House, read the article by Thomas Claridge in the Globe and Mail which indicated that this process had, if anything, just begun and, indeed, may not have begun. But it would seem to me that we are coming very close to having the Treasurer say that his estimates for this current fiscal year are being drastically revised.

We are at exactly the halfway point in the fiscal year. It would seem to me that a Treasurer with any understanding of the economy of this province would introduce a new budget into this assembly so that we could have a proper, up-to-date statement of the fiscal policies of this government in relation to this period in the economic decline of this province.

But no, the Treasurer will not even consider such a reasonable proposal. He would rather proceed on a piecemeal basis with minor steps as he proceeds with his attempt to fool the public that something basically is going to be done.

On page 21, we have the statement, "We are currently working on a further series of initiatives designed to generate further employment and stimulate economic activity." When is the Treasurer going to let the House know what those further initiatives are, as the Premier quoted them in his statement to the House on September 21?

There is a further statement by the Premier a few paragraphs later, saying, "The Treasurer is contemplating a range of measures for introduction this fall, barring any federal efforts to help us in this regard."

Those are the measures with respect to protecting the jobs and security of our citizens. Again, the government of this province simply says, "We leave it to the federal government and we in this province will act only when they fail," despite the fact that the Premier and his cohorts spend most of their time pointing out the failures of the federal government. What conceivable expectation does the Treasurer have that any of those actions will be taken'?

With those comments I want to conclude my immediate opening remarks. I want to move to one or two other areas of concern and importance, in my view, with respect to this particular bill.

I think there was a considerable degree of misunderstanding among many people about -- with great respect and apologies to Dylan Thomas -- the activities of the boys of summer which took place in August on the stock exchanges in New York and Toronto. There seemed to be some misunderstanding that in some way perhaps indicated that, in the Treasurer's phrase, we had bottomed out and there were hopeful signs, and the stock market was discounting, in terms of the price of shares, a bountiful future of the economy.

I want to indicate the kinds of statements knowledgeable people in the United States were making about that particular question. I quote View from Wall Street in the Washington Post on August 29. which states:

"It is important to remember that there is another, and less happy, side to this sudden change of the collective mind in Wall Street. Until this month, most people in the financial world had taken it for granted that, during the autumn, the American economy would begin to recover from the recession. That would mean more borrowing -- and soon the expansion of credit would collide with the tight limits that the Federal Reserve has set." The result would be, once again, rising interest rates. That is why the markets did not react immediately to the decline in rates in July and earlier this month. The experts considered it a mere blip that, within a matter of a few months, would be reversed.

3:40 p.m.

"What has changed? Within the past couple of weeks, the consensus has shifted among the economists who advise the investment houses and banks. They no longer believe that there will be any significant recovery before the end of the year. In particular, they notice that the July cut in income taxes does not seem to be having any visible effect on business. A statement to that effect by the most prominent of those economists, Henry Kaufman of Salomon Brothers, set off a torrent of trading last week. If there is no real business recovery in the months ahead, there will be no collision with the Federal Reserve's limits, and interest rates will stay low."

That may be good news for some people, but it is bad news for a lot of other people. I simply point out in a very cautionary way that the activity that was mirrored in the media about the intense stock market activity and bond market activity was because Mr. Kaufman and his colleague in another investment banking firm, Mr. Wojnilower of First Boston Corp., were saying the same thing.

Price interest was dropping because people were not borrowing any money because they do not believe the recession is over, and when the stock market activity was taking place people were putting their money in the bond market. The price of bonds went up because people were not prepared to believe there was going to be a significant recovery.

Indeed, there are some who are so politically realistic about the situation as to believe that after the elections this fall the full extent of the American slump, recession, depression, whatever we want to call it, will begin to be felt. We know the United States is a large country, but we cannot believe there are over 10 million people out of work there.

If I may, because I thought he said it a thousand times better than I could say it -- and I happen to respect him, although I do not know him; he certainly has a renowned name -- I want to quote from an article by Lester C. Thurow, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in the October issue of the New York Review of Books.

"If the country is to extract itself from the economic disaster now under way and to avoid future bouts of naked economics, it is important, however, to understand how Reaganomics came to be the law of the land and why it is still the law of the land despite its evident failure. We are going to have to extract ourselves from Reaganomics even though we cannot extract ourselves from President Reagan, since it is doubtful that the economy will survive two more years of Reaganomics in view of what has happened in the first two years." I subscribe to that view and I am no economist.

I referred yesterday to the speech of the chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada in which he says that if one attacks inflation as the prime evil, which is exactly what the Treasurer does despite the lip service paid by the Premier every now and then to jobs, and couples that with restraint in government, one gets nothing but unemployment and depression.

If I can perhaps relate in some way to the kind of solution that the chief executive officer of the largest bank in the land is talking about, I would like to do so very briefly. This is what I mentioned yesterday about the "long night's journey into day," and this is his solution to the problem. He talks about Charlie Brown and a children's rhyme, "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me; I am going down to the garden and eat worms."

He was not talking about himself; he was talking about Canadians. When things are really going awry in Canada, the government blames the people. That is the solution. The people are to blame; nobody else is to blame. It does not matter what it is, it is just the people.

So he comes along, finally, with his significant statement, if I can only find it. He explains, of course, that the vital and crucial problem is inflation. Then he goes on with this kind of strange rhetoric: "Remember, the country is not out of business. We are still very much in business." The "in" is underlined; I do not know why he could not have chosen to emphasize that himself. "The trick is to make sure that we get 100 per cent of productive value for every dollar spent."

Now listen to this: "We must streamline, consolidate, automate, eliminate, defer or cut programs, services, work, procedures, products and jobs -- in other words, a complete re-examination of how we do our business. But we still have to do business. There are customers and markets to be served. If we control or cut costs properly, obtain improvements in productivity, the companies in the country will all be better off."

Do the members recognize what the combination is? It is not people, government and business; it is government and business against the people. If you do what he says, the unemployment in this country will reach even further disastrous heights.

I do not understand how, when he then turns to an area he knows nothing about, he talks about the restraint of government and how we must cut our programs, how we must cut all of the public services in order that we, too, can in some way share in the wonderful future that is ahead.

I wish I could say it was my line. It was applied to one of President Reagan's speeches. I would apply it to the Premier's statement, to the chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank. The statement of the Treasurer and his gnomes is the Sydney Carton speech at the end of A Tale of Two Cities. He does not know what kind of world it is, but let us get there one way or another.

As members can see, I can build up a considerable head of steam about my concern over the inadequacies of the government policies that are reflected in the bill before us. Talk about a Johnny One-note program. We have one bill before the assembly that is supposed to be the guiding light, the beacon, the star on the horizon for the way in which Ontario will recover economically and provide the jobs that are required.

What does the Treasurer say at the end of his statement? My colleague the deputy leader of the party referred to this in a release. The Treasurer gives two other reasons, but I am not going to bother about those aspects of it. "The demonstration effect, signalling an era of lower wage settlements to the private sector." That is what this bill is apparently about. It is a signal. We are being asked to pass a signal to the private sector.

He goes on: "Of all those effects the third one may be the most important, because the problem this country faces today is as much rooted in psychology as it is in economics. Canadians seem to have set an inflationary expectation that is very hard to unlock. I do not pretend to know what the exact key to it is, but my job as Treasurer is to take this black art of economics, look at the theory, look at my perception of human behaviour and then meld them together into a policy.

3:50 p.m.

If that is not a prescription for chaos I do not know what is. And I say to the government, the sooner the Treasurer is changed -- at least it will be similar to the Gallup polls that we hear. People do not have any confidence in those who are not in power but they are rapidly losing their confidence in those who are in power.

I say to the House that the sooner the Treasurer resigns his portfolio the better. I would venture a prophecy. I doubt if he will present the budget in this House next spring. It is quite unlikely that he will. He will retire as others have retired when they get their priorities wrong. He will have done his job, the job he is expected to do, protect the magic triple-A rating of the province. That is all he is there for.

I hope he can find a triple-A to pack in his little bag and take with him when he leaves to put up on his wall with some suitable motto, "Je me souviens de triple-A" or some such other motto.

Mr. Cassidy: Frank Miller's cross of gold.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Why do you not give him one in gold, solid gold -- silver then?

Mr. Cooke: I would not speak, George. Whenever you speak it does not make sense.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Well, I am so used to listening to you, that is why.

Mr. Renwick: Maybe. Mr. Speaker, I have two other areas and I am not quite certain in which order to proceed. Since I may have tried the patience of the chair in not referring directly to Bill 179, I will now refer to that bill if I may.

I said in my opening remarks that I would get to the question not only of the inequity of the bill but its illegality and its unconstitutionality, the breach of international law involved and the breach of the Charter of Rights which is now the Constitution of the province.

Of course, it is a little more than a lawyer addressing a problem in the Legislature. Usually it does not matter to any great extent where the law and politics meet, and we all joke about the lawyers who stand in the House, with their greater knowledge of the law because of their legal training, and talk about legislation and so on. You cannot escape it that way.

I am going to talk a little about international law, about international treaties, international conventions. I am going to talk a little bit about the Constitution of the country, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadians and about fundamental rights guaranteed in that charter.

I am going to say to the House -- and I hope over the heads of the House members, to those who advise the public service unions and all of the unions of the country -- that this bill is an assault by this government on the labour movement in all its aspects. I have tried to touch upon this little covert phrase of the Premier about the arbitration system. I have tried to indicate some of my concerns about the inequity. My colleagues, day after day, by questions to the appropriate ministers, have been trying to draw attention to the inequities of the bill.

I am going to say that this bill is challengeable in the courts. I am going to say it is my judgement that the argument I will put before the House is one deserving the serious consideration of the House. I am going to say to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that he must stand in his place and defend the bill here against the attacks I am about to make, because if he cannot defend it here, he cannot defend it in the courts of the land. It is just that clear.

It is all very well for the Premier in his opening remarks to tell us what we have always known, that a wage and price control scheme is within the legislative authority of this Legislative Assembly. That, of course, is specifically in the statement of the Premier to the House.

I think, sir, I should perhaps quote that particular section. It took some members of this party a little while to extract that admission, and I was quite pleased to say that finally such a trite statement is now accepted by the government and by the Premier as part of the law of the province. In his statement of September 21 to the assembly, the Premier stated that there was no question the Attorney General had indicated very clearly that a program of wage and price restraint in the province was quite within the constitutional power of the province.

Let me start back and work up to the argument that I want to put to the House and why I am anxious to deal with it, both at some length and with as much care as I can bring without pretending that I stand in a court where a more measured form of presentation would be permitted.

Bill 179 is a bill which contains a number of clauses. The important part of the bill relates to part II and to subsection 6(1), which states, "This part applies to the compensation plans of employees employed in or by" and then lists all of the various aspects and agencies that can be considered within the public sector of the province.

The guts of the bill is to apply to employees. I say that is an assault on the employees because it is an interference, unjustified in our society, by the government in the right of freedom of association. When one looks at other aspects of the bill, one finds the very serious concerns which I have expressed right within the definitions which are available.

I am not going to quote all of the sections but I am going to refer to them. The subsection which I just quoted refers to compensation plans. "Compensation plan" is defined in the broadest possible terms and includes all collective agreements as well as other forms of agreement. "Collective agreement" is then defined in a very extensive way to mean four or five things, meaning usually the collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act, and in addition to that, the agreements under the Fire Departments Act and under the Police Act, and then goes on to extend it even further.

What we have is a bill which is applying to collective agreements. That is the guts of the labour relations system of the province. That is what we are concerned about. That is why we are standing in our place fighting the bill.

What does it do with respect then to collective agreements? I refer to subsection 8(1). I am not going to deal with all of the exceptions and the lawyer's language that was necessary in order to make it comprehensive, but it states, "Notwithstanding any other act" -- it lists two exceptions -- "every compensation plan that is in effect on the 21st day of September, 1982, shall be continued without change to and including its scheduled expiry date."

That is the first intrusion by the bill on the collective agreements entered into in good faith between the parties to those agreements in accordance with the laws of this province as we understand it.

4 p.m.

We know enough about that clause, notwithstanding any other act," to understand that we are setting aside any number of statutes in order to give force and effect to this clause, which extends collective agreements that are in force on that date, September 21, to and including their scheduled expiry dates. That is the first intrusion.

What is the next one? The next one is the extension of those plans, and that is included in section 11 of the bill. Then in order to cooper up the whole matter, we have these clauses: "Not-withstanding any other act or any agreement, any provision of a compensation plan to which this part applies" -- and of course that includes by definition, as I stated, all the collective agreements -- "that provides for an increase in compensation rates in excess of the limits set out in this part on or after September 21, 1982, shall be of no effect." We have just obliterated from collective agreements in the province and made of no effect certain very specific and clear agreements that have been entered into between the parties to those agreements.

Then in section 19 we have this: "A provision of a compensation plan to which this part applies" -- again I interpolate that it applies to collective agreements by definition -- "entered into or established at any time is of no force or effect to the extent that it provides for an increase in compensation rates that would bring compensation rates to a level that they would, but for this act, have reached." That is another lawyer's way of saying the same thing in reverse.

It is quite clear that this assembly is being asked by this statute to intervene in the collective agreements that have been entered into with respect to the relationships of employer and employees in the public sector and, because of the extended definition of "compensation plan," with respect to every contract of employment in this province related to the public sector other than those that are included in collective agreements.

I ask members whether or not we in this assembly have the right to do that. I ask members to seriously consider whether, if we do have the right, we should be exercising that right. I cannot believe that we would have before us a cute bill that has all of the legal jargon with its implications so totally hidden as this bill has.

What is therefore excluded'? All the processes of the machinery of arbitration and all the processes of the machinery related to all the matters covered under the collective agreements are brought to a complete halt. There is no place for the system to operate. In addition, this is a back-to-work bill. It is a back-to-work order that we will be passing against, I believe, the strike by the public health nurses in the Niagara region. This is a bill ordering them back to work.

In addition to that, this bill provides, in those parts of the public sector that are governed by collective agreements in which there is a right to strike, a prohibition against the right to strike and, as I have said, it is a total abrogation of the processes of arbitration for those unions that do not have the right to strike. That is what we are being asked to set aside.

Then we are asked to authorize a board by a person not known to us, a Mr. Biddell. I happen to know him. I guess I have known him in the business world going back now some 30-odd years. I have worked with him.

In his particular field of specialty, which was the reorganization of bankrupt companies, he had no peer, but he does not have the kind of understanding or the kind of capacity or knowledge to deal in the field of public relations with the work relationships between the public sector and its employers. He has no capacity in that field, no knowledge, no skills, no ability. I would suggest if he were called here before a committee, perhaps if this bill ever does get out to a committee, it may well be that Mr. Biddell's views of the world in relation to employers and employees and how the collective bargaining system works would be of interest to members of the assembly.

What are we doing with him'? We are making him chairman of a board. What is the board? The board is under part I. It is the Inflation Restraint Board. He is going to be the chairman, we are told. There are a number of powers given and the provisions are set out in section 2 of the bill establishing that board. I am not going to read those they appear in countless bills but I am going to refer to subsection 3(4) of the bill. I am going to read it in extenso:

"The board may, in its discretion where it considers it desirable to do so, hold a hearing and where the board does so, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies, except that, whether or not the board holds a hearing, the board is not required to give reasons for any final order, decision or determination made by it, but notwithstanding the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or any other rule of law, the board is not required to hold any hearing before making any order, decision or determination that it is authorized to make."

Even in the areas where the board is entitled to hold a hearing with respect to collective agreements and the compensation plans under those agreements, or the compensation plan between any person and any employer in the public sector, we can see that there is a total denial of the right to what we call in law natural justice. Natural justice may sound a complicated term. It is not a complicated term. Lawyers have managed to spell it out into a great number of rules. The minimum rules of procedure to reflect natural justice are set forth in the statutes of this province.

Let me say, just as simply as I can, what natural justice means. We will then see as we go on later with this argument the kind of -- I do not know what to call it -- what is it that people add on when they keep explaining and explaining things? It is used in literature a lot. I cannot remember it at the moment, but if it happens to come to me I will refer to it.

The Deputy Speaker: Appendium?

Mr. Renwick: Something better than that. It is elucidation. It is the minute study that people make of a single phrase and they write and write. I do not know what it is.

Let me get back to the classic statement that anybody can understand of the House of Lords in 1911 in the case of the Board of Education versus Rice. I am not asking members to remember the jurisdiction of the court, the name of the court or the date. The principle of natural justice was stated exactly this way in that case. This is by Lord Loreburn, who was the Lord Chancellor at that time.

"In such cases the board of education will have to ascertain the law and also to ascertain the facts." That is the lead-in sentence. "I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."

4:10 p.m.

I cannot find a more succinct way of saying what natural justice is when one is talking about a decision which is going to be made by some kind of a tribunal. I am going to repeat that. "I need not add that in doing either" that is, ascertaining the facts and ascertaining the law, 'they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything."

"A court of law has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the determination either upon law or upon fact." That is, of a duly constituted tribunal. "But if the court is satisfied either that the board have not acted judicially in the way I have described, or have not determined the question which they are required by the act to determine, then there is a remedy by mandamus and certiorari."

What did we do? After the police bill, immediately before I arrived in this assembly, the first session of the parliament that I joined later on in the year the police bill was before the assembly. the government was in great serious difficulties. That was back in the spring of 1964. Immediately thereafter they appointed the commission under the former Chief Justice of the High Court, the Honourable J. C. McRuer. There was volume after volume designed to make certain that in the statutes of this assembly the right to the principles of natural justice was accepted by everyone. That was the course which was followed.

There was report after report; there was amendment after amendment to every statute to provide for the minimal rules of natural justice. We passed the omnibus statutes of this province to give effect to that, and the act is the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

I am not going to read this book. However, I am going to show how the principles of natural justice have been elucidated over a period of time, and they apply to every board that has to decide anything. They do not happen by statute to apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board because the labour relations board is a self- contained statute which has its own procedural steps which adhere to these particular rules.

They apply to very many others. The procedural requirements of the minimum rules are as follows: notice of hearing; contents and form of notice of hearing; service of notice of hearing; impartiality of members of tribunal; information to be furnished to parties before hearing; procedure at hearing: oral hearing; order of proceeding at hearing; nonappearance of party; hearing in public; counsel for parties; rights of parties; power to summon witnesses; protection of witnesses; evidence at the hearing: material evidence; proof of authenticity; introduction of evidence; adjournments; recording of evidence; maintenance of order; power to prevent abuse of tribunal's processes; procedure after hearing: making decision; material upon which findings of fact required to be based; legal grounds upon which decision required to be based; decision in writing; reasons for decision; notice of decision; record of proceedings; and it goes on. One could go on at great length.

In any event, that is what we tried to do in this assembly. We tried to ensure the principles of natural justice in the light of that history. There are other members of the House who can vouch for that. I am not exaggerating what was done. It is all there. In the light of all of that work which this assembly has done, in the light of the Premier's statement and the statement by the Treasurer following that, we are faced with a bill which has the provision which I have quoted, and I am going to quote it again in the hope that the implications of the section will be more apparent to the members of the assembly.

I say again that this is where the law and politics meet, only we make the law. And we, in this party, are not going to be a part of the process by which that law is made. I quote again subsection 3(4) 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. "The board" -- and what board is that?; that is the Inflation Restraint Board -- "may, in its discretion," and it does not even leave it at that; it goes on to say, "where it considers it desirable to do so, hold a hearing and where the board does so, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies, except that, whether or not the board holds a hearing, the board is not required to give reasons for any final order, decision or determination made by it, but notwithstanding the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or any other rule of law, the board is not required to hold any hearing before making any order, decision or determination that it is authorized to make."

We are being asked to pass that section into law, despite the whole of the traditions of the society and despite months and months of constitutional debate about fundamental freedoms. I cannot believe it. Members can say I am biased; they can say I am a lawyer, they can say that somehow or other I was brought up in a school of law which believed in something called justice, justice meaning a certain kind of regard for other people's interests. That is all.

That is not the kind of regard that tramples into the ground the long-sought for, fought for and won procedural protections of people who are employees, collectively united for the purpose of carrying out their common lawful purposes. That is what it is it is about, and this is what the government is asking us to do. I simply say to members of this assembly that they will be making the most serious mistake this Legislature could possibly enter upon if they make that mistake. It will be challenged, it can be challenged and it shall be challenged.

I would make that argument were there no Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution, and I would make that argument if there were no international conventions to which this country and this province are bound, related to the right of people to organize in trade unions.

There is a second argument and I would like to make it. I would like to make it just as clearly as I can. One can be certain that the traditions in our courts, arrogant as we are about how good we are about protecting people, would find this argument legally impeccable but judicially in a very real sense unacceptable because of the traditions of our bench. It will take lawyers far better than I to persuade the bench to accept the next portion of the argument, but I am going to expect it. I am going to expect that some day a court would accept this argument without the assistance of the charter of the Constitution of this country.

Just before I go on to the second aspect of the argument I am developing in the assembly, let me talk a little bit about the statutes and the provisions of the statutes which we are abrogating -- suspending, abrogating, breaking, intruding upon, wrecking, whatever phrase you want to use -- in intruding upon the fundamental freedom of people in this society in a way I never anticipated we would be called upon to deal with.

I do not pretend to have looked at all of the statutes which are affected by this bill. I know very well that it would be impossible. It would be almost a lifetime's work to deal with every agreement and every authorization affected by this bill, but let me just simply quote one paragraph from a memorandum which I have. It says: "The bill subjects employees in the broadly defined public sector in Ontario to wage controls for at least 12 months. In all, some 500,000 employees are affected, as are 2,700 collective agreements and 50 labour organizations, to say nothing of those thousands of employees who do not have the protection of an organization or a trade union to be of assistance to them."

4:20 p.m.

In any event, I looked at some of them. I actually got out the one statute because it is one that still continues to horrify me, and that is the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act. This is a bill that talks about the people at the lower end of the economic scale. We do not bother to deal by statute with the doctors at the upper end; we deal with them simply by executive negotiations under an abdication of authority that should never have been granted by this assembly to the executive.

The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act is a bill that has bothered me ever since it was enacted. It provides for arbitration, and even the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act very clearly sets out the process of arbitration, which replaces the right to strike. Let me concede -- God forbid that anybody should quote me -- that one could say that they should not be entitled to the right to strike, but they are entitled to the right to arbitration as the substitute for the right to strike.

This is the method and the process by which it was agreed that the arrangements between the hospital workers and their employers in all of the hospitals across the province would be settled, and it provides for the appointment of a board of arbitration. In the board of arbitration the procedures are pretty well standard. It goes on for some considerable time: "The chairman of the board of arbitration shall fix the time and place of the first or any subsequent hearing and shall give notice thereof to the minister, and the minister shall notify the parties and the members of the board of arbitration thereof."

Then there are the various procedures with respect to the processes of arbitration and how the board of arbitration shall act in all matters that come within its purview. This statute, this "notwithstanding any other act," sets that aside, poor as that statute may be. Perhaps I will not have to refer to that again, and I would ask the page to put it back behind the Speaker's dais if he would.

I looked at the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, chapter 108 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, setting out representation rights, setting out again in some detail all the processes of negotiation of agreements, of mediation and of arbitration. In sections 10, 11 and 12 all the processes of the arbitration procedure are set out in detail. They are the methods by which two sides deprived of the right to strike reach agreement in good faith about these legitimate areas covered in their collective bargaining arrangements, of which one of the prime ones is compensation. That bill is abrogated; that bill is suspended; that bill is trampled on, or whatever you want to call it.

I looked at the Public Service Act. I had to search a little bit for this one, but I had to find out where the Ontario Provincial Police were governed. The Ontario Provincial Police have a special section in the Public Service Act that deals with their negotiations. As the minister knows, it has been accepted in the province, and I think widely accepted, that police are an essential service, and very rarely have they been granted the right to strike.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Public Service Act set out a process by which the Ontario Provincial Police arbitration committee is set up, a negotiating committee is set up and the association of members of the force is set up. Again, we have in detail the process and the procedures of arbitration related to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Police Act governs all of the municipal and other police forces in Ontario. In part II of that act the same kind of process is established, respected and revered in the province as a method of dealing with those procedures. In section 28 and following the Police Act, the same detailed provisions are set out under the heading, Bargaining and Arbitration. Because the police sometimes are overlooked in these kinds of discussions, I think it would be appropriate to read into the record the Police Association of Ontario resolution of August 19. I am reading a letter addressed to the Premier, executive council and members of the Legislative Assembly from the Police Association of Ontario, Mal Connolly, administrator:

"Please be advised that at our recent annual general meeting of the Police Association of Ontario, held in London, Ontario, the week of August 9 last, the following resolution was unanimously adopted by way of motion:

"Whereas the representative delegates of the 17,000 police officers in Ontario meeting in congress in London, Ontario, wish to go on record as being unanimously opposed to the federally recommended imposition of wage controls on provincial and municipal public sector employees;

And whereas the singling out of public sector employees as the scapegoats for our failing economy is grossly unfair to loyal public employees and is no less than perpetrating a fraud on the Canadian people;

Be it resolved that we urge you as our elected representatives in the province of Ontario to resist this federal farce and address the real problems facing the citizens of Ontario and the rest of Canada, such as unemployment, violent crime, interest rates, failing businesses and the growing lack of confidence in our elected officials to lead."

You can understand, Mr. Speaker, why people who believe in the association method used by the police in settling their disputes are so concerned. I do not know what action they are going to take. I heard a news report that they may be considering some form of legal action, and I wish them well. I hope that somewhere along the line they may find the remarks I am privileged to be making now in this House to be of some assistance to them.

I move on to the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. We spent a long time in this assembly on what was Bill 100 and is now chapter 464 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario. It is a long process of voluntary binding arbitration. It deals with the appointment of the arbitration board and its impartiality, with its procedure and structure and with the methods designed to protect the rules of natural justice for the people whose rights are before it for decision. That act is put away.

We also have, as the members will recall, the final offer selection process. An education commission was to act as a mediator in the course of those various agreements. Section 52 of the act states, "Unless an agreement otherwise provides for the final and binding settlement of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of the agreement, the agreement is deemed to include the following provision."

It then provides for the whole question of the appointment of arbitrators to make those decisions. That language is taken from the Labour Relations Act. This act was part of the hallowed tradition of that act, but it, too, is abrogated, trampled upon, set aside, suspended, or however one wants to describe it, all in the name of some misguided policy of officers of the crown who have no knowledge of the law, its tradition and the rights of people and no sense of the natural justice of things hut believe that inequity can he enshrined in law. I will have no part of it.

4:30 p.m.

The Labour Relations Act in section 44 equally provides the same kind of provision. I ask each member of the House some time to search out the act and read the process. It says:

"(1) Every collective agreement shall provide for the final and binding settlement by arbitration, without stoppage of work, of all differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged violation of the agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.

"(2) If a collective agreement does not contain such a provision as is mentioned in subsection 1, it shall be deemed to contain and there are the time-hallowed words of the appointment of an arbitration board.

This, as the Premier of this province said to the other Premiers, is what requires a review. I want to know what that review is, because in two lines that is the attack on the whole of the processes that we in this party stand to defend. I hope when the time comes to vote upon this bill that other members of the assembly will join with us in that.

There is another act, the Fire Departments Act. The firemen are not often thought of in these terms, but they are also persons who have been recognized as providing essential services. This act provides for arbitration instead of the right to strike for the settlement of matters in dispute between any particular fire department and the association of firemen in the public service. We are being asked to set that act aside.

Those of us who read the bill and those members who perhaps will have occasion to read the bill in the next several weeks, while it continues to be a matter of agitation and concern in this assembly, should ponder a little bit when they come to the phrase, notwithstanding any other act," or that other beautiful legislative draftsman's clause, "notwithstanding the Statutory Powers Procedure Act or any other rule of law."

How arbitrary, damaging, inconsiderate, illegal and contrary to our traditions can a bill be that comes before this assembly disguised in some way as an Ontario economic recovery program when it is nothing but an assault upon the public sector employees of the province and directly -- and I do not say indirectly -- on the whole of the trade union movement, public and private, in the public sector and the private sector of the province?

Why are there no wage controls being proposed for the private sector? Because they are already being punished by the private capitalist marketplace, that is why. They are hoping the time has come when they will not have to intrude. They would never intrude on anything other than the relationships between working people and their employers.

Many times in this assembly, when we talk about workers who are organized, we forget the others. What is the signal my friend the Treasurer is giving to the employers in the private sector with respect to the employees who have no protection in terms of an organization to which they can turn? What protection do they have? Up to five per cent? No. Down five per cent? No. That is where the punishment will work its way through this society.

Even in trite economic terms, it will destroy the capacity of the kind of consumer society we have to meet the legitimate expectations of people. The capacity of people to participate will be severely reduced because of this misguided attack that is being made by business on the working people of the province, supported and provided with leadership by the government of Ontario.

Because I have made one argument in which I tried to illustrate the extent of the devastation which this bill is providing, I want to move now to the question of the international covenants to and by which Canada and this province are bound.

When the human rights bill was before us, I spoke at some length about the two charters of the United Nations because in the preamble of the human rights bill we paid particular obeisance to the international convention's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That started the whole concern in the international sphere for private individual rights in 1948. We must think something of it in this province if we refer to it in the much-lauded Human Rights Code we passed not so long ago.

Article 20(1) has this to say, and I quote it in full, because from this a great deal of other matters flow: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." That is where it starts. Again, it is simple. One does not need a lot of lawyers to elaborate on it, but we will watch and see how that elaboration took place.

That is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which we pay some kind of lipservice. For those who may be particularly interested in it, I made some comments about it as long ago as December 9, 1980.

Since that time, the cause of human rights has worked its way through the United Nations assembly and Canada has become a party to two covenants. In 1976, even though the covenants themselves were passed in 1966, Canada became a party, this province became a party, because it was joined by Canada as it negotiated these matters and Ontario is bound by this convention.

In the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, article 8, this convention says:

"1. The states parties to the present covenant undertake to ensure:

"(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;

"(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade union organizations;

"(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;

"(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.

"2. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the state."

I will come back to that provision.

"3. Nothing in this article shall authorize states parties to the International Labour Organisation convention of 1948 concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such a manner as would prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that convention."

Canada and this province are bound by the International Labour Organisation convention of 1948 concerning freedom of association, known as ILO convention 87, to which I will come shortly.

4:40 p.m.

In the international covenant on civil and political rights, as distinct from cultural and economic rights, we have in article 22:

"1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

"2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in the exercise of this right.

"3. Nothing in this article shall authorize states parties to the International Labour Organisation convention of 1948 concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that connection."

If I may, I want to refer to the International Labour Organisation convention 87, to which reference was made in each of those two international covenants, because it may well be the first occasion that it has been referred to.

I want to emphasize that this convention is binding on the province. I want members to understand that. Not only is it binding on the province in lawyers' terms, but also the government of Ontario has attorned to the jurisdiction of the committee of the International Labour Organisation which deals with the settlement of matters that come up for dispute under it, and I will refer to that briefly in a few minutes.

Let us not think that this is some ethereal matter we are discussing. In 1982, the decision was made on a submission made by this government with respect to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and therefore this convention is binding on the government of Ontario.

I want to quote this convention because, as I say, it contains a number of provisions. It has some 18 articles. I do not intend to read the 18 articles. I intend to read those that appear to me to be of significance for the purposes of the argument I am putting -- indeed, it is more than an argument; it is a matter of deep concern and a matter that must be debated in this assembly.

Convention 87 is the convention concerning freedom of association and protection of the rights to organize which came into force on July 4, 1950. I am not certain of the exact date when it came into force in Canada, but it was very shortly thereafter and has been recognized ever since.

This is the convention that recognizes its paramountcy over the two other conventions from which I quoted.

"The general conference of the International Labour Organisation, having been convened at San Francisco by the governing body of the International Labour Office and having met in its 31st session on 17 June, 1948;

"Having decided to adopt, in the form of a convention, certain proposals concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, which is the seventh item on the agenda of the session;

"Considering that the preamble of the constitution of the International Labour Organisation declares 'recognition of the principle of freedom of association' to be a means of improving conditions of labour and of establishing peace;

"Considering that the declaration of Philadelphia reaffirms that freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress';

"Considering that the International Labour Conference, at its 30th session, unanimously adopted the principles which should form the basis for international regulation;

"Considering that the general assembly of the United Nations, at its second session, endorsed these principles and requested the International Labour Organisation to continue every effort in order that it may be possible to adopt one or several international conventions;

"Adopts this ninth day of July 1948 the following convention, which may be cited as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948.

"Part I: Freedom of association.

"Article 1: Each member of the International Labour Organisation for which this convention is in force undertakes to give effect to the following provisions.

"Article 2: Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization.

"Article 3: (1) Workers' and employers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. (2) The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

"Article 4: Workers' and employers' organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.

"Article 5: Workers' and employers' organizations shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and any such organization, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers."

Articles 6 and 7 I need not refer to.

"Article 8: (1) In exercising the rights provided for in this convention workers and employers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land. (2) The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this convention.

"Article 9: (1) The extent to which the guarantees provided in this convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations."

Then in Part II: "Article 11: Each member of the International Labour Organisation for which this convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organize."

There are a number of miscellaneous provisions, and I want now to turn from that convention to the kinds of contents that are included in the right to freedom of association and the right to organize in trade unions.

I have before me the report of the Committee of the International Labour Organisation on the Freedom of Association, Convention 87. I refer to case 1071, Complaint presented by the Canadian Labour Congress against the Government of Canada (Ontario).

The Canadian Labour Congress presented its complaint in a communication dated July 6, 1981. The government " -- of Ontario -- " sent its reply in a communication of January 25, 1982.

Canada has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

It goes on to refer to the allegations put forward in the complaint, that is, with respect to the inclusion of the ban on the right to strike of nonessential services in the public service. It refers to the complainant's case, to the government's reply and to the committee's conclusion. I will quote one paragraph, because it illustrates very clearly the point that is being breached by the legislation in front of us.

"Firstly, the committee would point out that this case is similar to an earlier Canadian case, examined in November 1978, concerning public service anti-strike legislation in a different province." I believe it was Alberta. "Accordingly, the committee would recall its reasoning in that case: that while recognizing that freedom of association does not necessarily imply the right to strike in the case of all public officials, whenever that right is denied adequate guarantees to safeguard fully the interests of the workers thus deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interest must be provided. These guarantees include speedy and impartial conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties can take part at every stage and in which the awards are binding in all cases on both parties. These awards, once they have been made, should be fully and promptly implemented."

4:50 p.m.

Let me repeat what we are being asked to abrogate. We are talking about the public sector of the province. We are talking about the areas in which the right has been withdrawn by statute to strike in accordance with recognized principles under the international convention:

"Accordingly, the committee would recall its reasoning in that case: that while recognizing that freedom of association does not necessarily imply the right to strike in the case of all public officials, whenever that right is denied adequate guarantees to safeguard fully the interests of the workers thus deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests must be provided. These guarantees include speedy and impartial conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties can take part at every stage and in which the awards are binding in all cases on both parties."

That is being withdrawn and abrogated, suspended, set aside, trampled on, whatever one wishes to say. That is a very precise and concise legal argument. This bill withdraws that. I am saying to this House that, in the absence of any other provision of the charter of the country -- to which I will come in the moment -- there is an arguable case that can be put before any court in this land that this legislation is in contravention of this convention, which is binding on Ontario and to whose jurisdiction the province attorns by having participated as late as this year in the proceedings before the committee designed for the purpose of expressing the guarantees and the content of the term "freedom of association."

My second argument, therefore, is that this assembly is being asked, in this bill, to simply ignore. There is a significant legal tradition in the judiciary of this country that it would be a difficult argument to put; but it is no longer a difficult argument to put, because we now have a Charter of Rights. I want to express this part of the argument in two or three different ways.

Let me refer, first of all, to the guts of that strange argument that went on in Ottawa, where some of the provinces wanted to have nothing to do with a charter of rights because the sovereignty of the Legislature would be infringed.

I admit that without the charter I could put the argument that I could put, and I would not anticipate that I would necessarily win in the court of law, but the argument should be put. I say now that with the passage of the charter, the argument not only can be put but also must be put. I call on those who will be representing various sectors of the labour movement, and those interested in the constitutional law of the province, to intervene in a court proceeding to make certain that effect is given to the charter, which was passed with such fanfare by the Premiers and the governments and passed into law on April 17.

In referring to that, I want to simply state what the Premier of this province said when he reported to the assembly on November 6, 1981, after the accord was reached which finally came into effect when the formalities were processed on April 17 of this year, when the Queen of Canada gave assent to the bill. The Premier, speaking in this House on Friday, November 6, 1981, at page 3265 of Hansard 91, dealt at some length with the course of the negotiations and what was going on. He said, "We also reached a compromise with respect to the fundamental rights." The fundamental rights are the rights set out in section 2 of the charter. I will come to that and read it in a few minutes.

The fundamental rights are what we are talking about. We are talking about legal rights, which are very important, and democratic rights, which are equally important. We are talking about the fundamental rights enshrined in section 2 of the bill. The Premier said: We also reached a compromise with respect to the fundamental rights. That was one I hoped would be in" -- and this is typical of the Premier's style of speech -- "the non-notwithstanding approach along with legal and equality rights."

What he was trying to say was that he hoped that fundamental rights would not be subject to the so-called notwithstanding clause or that wonderful phrase, the "non obstante clause." He said: "That was one I hoped would be in the non-notwithstanding approach along with legal and equality rights. A number of provinces will not take the notwithstanding approach. There were those in the group of eight who, my guess is, will accept fundamental rights as a matter of course."

Later, he goes on: "I emphasize that right also contains with it the necessity to put in a sunset provision" -- that is, the notwithstanding clause -- "so no Legislature can do it in perpetuity. It automatically comes up every five years so that the conscience of those legislators, at that time, will have to be tested as it relates to the social attitudes in their provinces. I am an optimist and my prediction is it will not be many years before the fundamental rights will be part of the entrenched part of the charter in this country as a matter of course."

The Premier was very clear, and he was speaking for all of us, when he said that he would never invoke the notwithstanding provision that would permit him to pass laws in this assembly which would encroach upon the fundamental freedoms, one of which is the freedom of association.

There is in this bill no "notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms" clause; so he cannot argue that. He cannot say that he is doing it notwithstanding that charter, therefore, he must argue for it and defend it in terms of the charter as it applies to this province. I submit that it must be done and that it has to take place on the floor of this assembly.

Why is it important? Because the constitution of this province is in our hands, not in anybody else's hands. It is trite law, very little understood but very trite law, that this assembly's power is in section 92 of the British North America Act, or whatever the appropriate section may be under the Canada Act. I might say that it is rather difficult to lay hands on a copy of the Canada Act. I have asked senior legislative counsel if in the next volume of the statutes he will include the Canada Act so we will know what the constitution of the country is, if he can find a copy of it, to make certain that it is the correct one.

"In each province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say, (1) The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, of the constitution of the province..

There are some limitations because of certain democratic rights, but the constitution of the province is in our hands, in this assembly's hands. I recall the constitutional obstruction I ran into when we were arguing that the premium under the Ontario health insurance plan was a tax and that a tax could be imposed only by this assembly. We got a legal opinion to say that is perfectly true but when you passed the statute allowing the delegation of that authority so that the OHIP premium could be established by regulation, you had amended the constitution of the province.

That is the kind of authority that happens. Every time we pass a statute we will be dealing with the constitution of the province. That is why I say in the sovereignty theory of our country and in its judicial tradition, no matter how strongly I might feel about the first submission I made with respect to the rights of natural justice, this assembly could trample upon them if it saw fit to do so. We would not. We would fight any bill that did that, but it would be difficult in a court of law to sustain the argument.

5 p.m.

When we come to the second argument -- that is, the question of the importance of international labour convention 87 and its force of law in Ontario -- again I would say, because of the theory of sovereignty of this assembly and the judicial tradition of the province, they would have argued their way, in some Jesuitical, priestly legal approach, to the point of view that somehow or other we were not in breach of the international labour convention or the other two conventions to which I referred, but that somehow or other we had done it in our own particular British way and trampled on and suspended the right of the public service of Ontario to organize and had assaulted the very guts of the meaning of trade union organization, the meaning of "trade union" as a concept of freedom of association, in the way in which we are being asked to do so by this bill.

I would like to turn to the third argument, which is an irrefutable argument. It is an argument that will stand argument in the courts by the best lawyers in the land if they care to put it, and it will exercise the judicial capacity of the bench of this province, in whom I have a reasonable degree of confidence at the Court of Appeal level in certain of the judges, and it will exercise the ingenuity, the skill and the ability of the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who ultimately will have to be the arbiters.

But there is another place for this to be arbitrated and that is right in this assembly. Are we passing a law that is in breach of the Constitution of the country? Are we passing a law that is in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the citizens of the country? Are we passing a law that is unconstitutional?

Are we intruding on or daring even to come near to intruding on the kind of freedom of association that is an essential part of the democratic society in which we live? My submission is that this bill offends the charter and the fundamental freedom of association and that there is no justification for it under section 1 of the charter. I will come to that.

I am indebted to have been tracked on this, because as one of the strange things I do from time to time I wrote away earlier this year to get a copy of the Canadian Human Rights Foundation, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, report on a conference on freedom of association, which happened to have been held on April 2, 1982. Little did I know when I wrote away for some of the information about it that I would be standing here so soon talking about the guts of what they were then saying.

Some of the leading lawyers in the country in the field of their professional capacities participated in that conference and they recited what I have recited here today. They recited article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They recited article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They recited article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

They recited all those and referred to the primacy of International Labour Organisation convention 87, which I have referred to as being paramount to those and as having primacy over those international conventions; and they related it to the province of Ontario and to the Constitution as it was then passed.

Perhaps if I can find the appropriate provision of the summary of the argument that was put, and I am only quoting one part of the summary of the convention, "It is essential that workers deprived of the right to strike be compensated by the creation of other mechanisms for settling their differences with the employer."

I quoted the particular section from the recommendations of the committee on the submission made by the Canadian Labour Congress and by the government of this province with respect to the issues under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act which deal with them. So let us make the distinction.

Let us assume for the moment that they moved to take away the right to strike for those unions in the public sector which had that right. They would have had to substitute for it -- if it were possible to support such a move on the basis of essentiality of service -- arbitration procedures.

What have they done here? They have taken away the right to strike from unions that had it, and have substituted nothing. And what the unions without the right to strike had in substitution for that right, they have now taken that away. So what have they left? They have absolutely nothing to protect them in the society in which we belong.

We can pretend it does not mean that and leave it to the Attorney General to come in and speak to the issue before this assembly, because when we look very clearly and distinctly at what the charter says -- let me just refer to it. Members will recall that the government has not invoked the "notwithstanding" clause. We will recall therefore that we are left with the right of freedom of association. We will recall that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides in section 2:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience in religion, (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication, (c) freedom of peaceful assembly and, (d) freedom of association."

Each of them is co-equal, each of them stands on its own and each of them is a fundamental right. That is not to take away from the importance of democratic rights and legal rights elsewhere in the charter, but the word "fundamental" means what it says: fundamental, the foundation, the guts of this society, what a democratic society is all about. That is what fundamental means. It has to do with that. It is the structure without which the democratic society does not exist.

I hope some members of the assembly will understand what this bill before us in this assembly has done. I want to refer, again to get it out of the way, to section 33, where we had that eternally-to-be-damned compromise which, of course, is not involved in the argument because the government has not invoked it. It says:

"That parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an act of parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the act, or a provision thereof, shall operate, notwithstanding a provision included in section 2."

The government has not invoked that; therefore, the government must stand on the charter and the government must be able therefore to justify. In section 1 of the charter, we have this clause:

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

There are a lot of things in that which lend themselves to legal argument, and I do not intend to go on very long. It does not say "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society." It says, "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

What are those limitations? Nothing I have heard in this assembly from the Premier, the Treasurer or anybody else has convinced me that you have put before us a law which can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, as a reasonable limitation upon the freedom of association. It has not been put before us.

5:10 p.m.

I say to the government, the Premier, the Treasurer, and particularly to the lawyers in the government and to the man responsible for the law of the province, come into this assembly and demonstrably justify this bill as an essential reasonable limitation upon the fundamental freedom of association guaranteed to each citizen of this province by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If he cannot do it here, he cannot do it anywhere else. If he does not do it here, he will be blown out of every court in the land. It is just that simple and that clear.

He may say, "Oh, that is a lot of legal argument." It is not legal argument. I come back to where I started. This is the cutting stone where law and politics meet. Accept this law and he will accept any encroachment on fundamental freedoms and it will be challenged.

I repeat what I said. I could not have put forward a submission with such confidence as to the correctness of the cause for which I stand had we not had the charter which now forms part of the Constitution of the country. I invite any and every lawyer in the assembly to participate in an analysis of that argument to determine whether or not we should be so foolhardy as to accept that this is demonstrably necessary in a free and democratic society.

What are the grounds? Always the same -- public security, public order, public health, public morals, protection of the rights of others. There are no others. Those are the only things one talks about if one is talking about the limitations which could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I put the argument as well as I am able. I do not intend to elaborate on that aspect any longer. I had hoped a book, now in the hands of the publishers, would have been out. A day or so ago I happened to notice the advertisement for it. It deals with the whole question of the charter. It is by a lawyer I respect, who used to be an assistant deputy attorney general. He is now in private practice and is highly regarded. Mr. Morris Manning's book will be out soon. It will touch upon some of these topics.

I say that we in this assembly have responsibility for these fundamental rights. There will be any number of cases in the courts with respect to legal rights. One reads about them every day. There will be problems particularly of the criminal bar. They are important for the protection of the liberty of the subject. That aspect of the Charter of Rights will be honeycombed with arguments and cases.

It will be some time before all of the arguments are settled. The arguments about impaired driving, onus of proof in drug trafficking cases and whether or not one can be fingerprinted, all of these matters essential to the freedom of the individual in the eyes of the law and in our system of justice.

But the area of fundamental rights is peculiarly within the purview of this assembly as far as Ontario is concerned, of assemblies across the country and of the House of Commons at Ottawa. It is peculiarly our responsibility, our duty and our obligation, because in books on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms produced as years go on, one will not find much on fundamental things, because they are fundamental.

If we, in a sloppy, slipshod, unknowing, unwitting, stupid manner, were to allow this bill before us to pass into law, then I would feel, in a strange way, like Donald MacDonald when he sadly said, when making his announcement about his resignation, "This assembly is becoming irrelevant."

I feel that way about it. I call upon the government and simply say to it that it cannot have it this way. Regardless of the state of the economy of this country, the state of the policies of the government, the state of conditions in the world, the state of the workings of the economy, whatever it wants to do, whatever deterioration has set in, there is no justification at any time for encroaching upon the fundamental freedoms of people in a free and democratic society.

I would like now, if I may, to turn to another aspect of my comments about this bill.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Are you not finished yet?

Mr. Renwick: When are you speaking?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Whenever you want me to.

Mr. Renwick: Whenever I want? I do not have any authority over you.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Whenever you want.

Mr. Renwick: All right. If you roll back the assessments in my riding, I will let you speak in this assembly.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You do not want your people to pay their fair share, one way or the other. I am glad you have that on the record. All those who will pay less and --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I want to start this comment on the Constitution with the Premier's remark on it. I quote from the Premier's statement of September 21 in the assembly. All he has to say about the law, even though he was the one who negotiated this Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all he could think about was the strange world of the economy as written by the Treasurer. That is all he understood. He could not think of anything else.

Of course, as he is wont to say, he only practised law in Brampton for a few hours one day before he came into the assembly. What law school he went to I do not know. Who taught him? He probably took a correspondence course. He said then, "From a strictly legal standpoint, there is no question that the province of Ontario has the authority to impose mandatory wage, price or profit controls on all sectors within this province, except those industries within the federal jurisdiction."

There is no question about that aspect of it. It did not cross his mind, however, to indicate that there was a very real question about whether he, as the head of a government, could introduce into the assembly a bill that encroached upon and destroyed the freedom of association as one of the fundamental rights in the charter.

Even I think I have been speaking for some time. I have a file here, Bill 38, Debate on Second Reading. I was denied an opportunity to debate on that, so I thought possibly some part of that material would be relevant to this debate. I am not certain whether I will use it. I have another one called Politics in Crisis. Even I do not understand the title, but it has a number of interesting documents in it. Should I be irritated in any way I could probably read some of them.

The Deputy Speaker: I will endeavour to keep all members restrained.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Then I have Bills 179 and 180, which have a series of memoranda that perhaps will be more appropriately dealt with when we are either outside in committee or in committee of the whole House.

I have a file here called Balance of Payments. That is the one to which I now want to direct my attention so as to pick up the loose threads that were left in my preliminary remarks, when I was going through the litany of the various headings that the Premier speaks about so often when he makes these omnibus addresses and touches upon every aspect of the economy.

That is the revolving door theory which you have caught, Mr. Speaker. I was not going to use that term again. I very seldom repeat myself, but now that you have raised it, yes, it is the revolving door theory.

All of those threads come together in one place. It is not so difficult, though it is rather an elusive topic, but it is one that has to be dealt with and it is the one that puts the lie to every one of the recommendations of the Premier supported by the Treasurer with respect to trade and investment.

Those questions that I tried to raise related to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, international trade and to exports, all of those matters are of very real importance and significance. Perhaps in my closing remarks I could elucidate upon my understanding of our difficult problem.

I am going to refer to the Canadian trade balance, and when I say "trade" I am not restricting it to the sense of merchandise trade. I am talking about the overall current account of Canada with the rest of the world and what has happened over the years.

If one had to find a specific and particular reason among all the others that were involved in my finding my way into the New Democratic Party it was what began as long ago as 1960 and has continued ever since: that over the years we have been totally dependent on importing foreign capital to make up for the balance on the current account of Canada with the rest of the world. It is that simple.

We have managed to maintain a reasonable balance in merchandise trade with the rest of the world, although it has had its ups and downs and it has had its deficits and soon. But we have never been able to deal with the payout from the country for services which have had to be paid for because of our dependence on foreign capital for the growth of the country, and because we have always had a deficit -- which is increasing in alarming proportions -- we have always had to call for foreign investment.

One cannot get away from that argument because that is what is costing us the life-blood of our economy. The scheme of the Treasurer and the scheme of the Premier will not come to grips with that problem. It will not go away by blaming Ottawa for the failure of leadership, nor by saying that the federal government must put in a national economic recovery program.

Until each of the provinces recognizes that the gut problem of our economy in Canada is the need for foreign investment on an endlessly increasing basis, until we deal with the structural problems involved in that deficit, until we get away from the suggestion that we must have foreign investment and therefore our triple-A rating must always be kept untouchable, we will never be able to have the kind of country and the kind of economy we want.

I want to emphasize again, when pejorative terms are cast about I am not talking about an isolationist policy any more than I accuse others of a continentalist policy. It is a policy which says the very simple thing that Canada as a nation, to have dignity and standing in the world and to be able to negotiate in a tough league, has to come to grips with that problem.

That problem is enormous. It is so great that until each government looks at it, we will never solve in isolation productivity, jobs, interest rates, inflation, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Foreign Investment Review Agency or any of that litany. None of them will be solved until we come to grips with the deficit on the current account of Canada with the rest of the world. All of it impinges on everything that we do.

The argument the Premier has been making about interest rates is a relatively simple one. He made it before the Premiers. His only argument was that interest rates were not coming down at the same rate they were coming down in the United States, that the spread between our rates and the American rates was a different and greater spread than it was when interest rates were high. That was his argument.

He cannot win that argument because if we have to attract foreign investment in order to meet the deficit on current account for the country, we have to have an interest rate that will attract investment and that is what the Bank of Canada has been doing. Instead of the interest rates being somewhat under and the spread between US and Canadian rates slightly below what they were when they were going up, as a matter of deliberate policy they have now widened the spread. Why? Because foreign investment is necessary for the country. Why is it necessary? Because we will not deal with the structural problem involved in the deficit on current account.

What is the extent of that deficit, what is happening to it and what are the components of it? I am indebted, as I often am, to the legislative library research service for updating information on some of those figures I wanted for this particular debate. I am talking in millions of dollars, so if members will remember that, perhaps they will have some sense of my understanding of this problem.

The Canadian balance of international payments for the period from 1978 to 1982 goes something as follows. I am not going to use the 1982 figures because they are based only on the first quarter returns and extrapolation of those figures would lead to unnecessary argument. I happen to have the quarterly figures.

The balance of international trade on the merchandise account was positive: $7,351,000,000 in 1981 as compared to $4,007,000,000 in 1978.

On the services account -- and I am going to come to that because that is what is causing a problem we have to deal with. If we do not deal with it, we, in concert with the federal government and the sister provinces in the country, will never be able to create the kind of Canadian economy that is essential to the survival of the country.

In 1981, the deficit on the services account was $14,258,000,000, by coincidence not quite twice what our surplus was on the merchandise account. In 1978, our deficit on the services account was $8,992,000,000, again just a little bit over twice our surplus on the merchandise account.

So it is the services account which is of immense significance if we are to understand what we have to do in order to correct the economic ailment of the country. It happens that the control of the major segments of the economy, what in other lands is known as the control of the commanding heights of the economy, disappeared overseas -- mainly to the United States but also elsewhere -- during the 1950s.

This first came up as a serious problem of debate, marred as it was, unfortunately, by the personality clashes between the then Minister of Finance of the Conservative government, the Honourable Donald Fleming, and the then head of the Bank of Canada, James Coyne. Apart from the personality problems of that time, there was the fundamental recognition of the road that Canada could have taken yet did not take, a way in which this problem could have been coped with at that time but was never dealt with.

5:30 p.m.

So, for all of our expectations for the country, we have a current account deficit in 1981, taking into account certain other items that are involved in it of $5,346,000,000. That is our current account balance with the rest of the world. Our actual deficit on services was the approximately $14,258,000,000 to which I have referred.

I want to concentrate for a few minutes on the question of the service deficits. In 1978 we had service receipts of $9,931,000,000, we had service payments of $18,923,000,000 and a deficit on the services account of $8,992,000, an increase over the preceding year of 20.7 per cent. I am not going to repeat the figures for 1979 and 1980. Suffice it to say that there was an increase in the 1979 deficit over the 1978 deficit of 8.3 per cent.

In 1980 there was an increase in our deficit on the services account of 11.5 per cent over 1979. In 1981 we had service receipts of $15,247,000 and we had service payments of $29,505,000, which gave a deficit on service account of $14,258,000, an increase of 1981 over 1980 of 31.6 per cent.

As I said, I am not going to use the first quarter figures for 1982 because I think this would lend itself to argument as to whether or not one could extrapolate them for the whole of the year. Suffice it to say that I would like to analyse, if I could, the content of the service receipts component and the content of the service payments component to see where in that analysis our problem lies with respect to what can be done about the economy.

The components of our service receipts are interest, dividends, miscellaneous investments, travel, freight and shipping, and "other." All in all not a bad figure, not a bad balance with the rest of the world if it could be balanced by our service payments, but our service payments are quite out of kilter. It is not possible for us to justify them.

I want to refer, first of all, to interest and dividends. We have to pay interest and dividends on moneys we owe. I do not think there is any way we can avoid that. As time goes on, I think the dividend payments and interest payments may have to be dealt with by fiscal measures, such as the reimposition of the withholding tax, in order that we will retain some benefit for this country of the moneys that will go out.

I am not going to worry about miscellaneous investment. Travel takes its own course, depending on how we go, and I do not believe at this time that it is of necessity a serious problem. Neither are freight and shipping, and certainly the withholding tax is a relatively minor item. But there is another item called "other" in there, and that is the one which causes us our trouble. We are now paying out, in 1981, under the item "other" $6,092,000 in "other" payments. It is that "other" payment which is causing a major part of our inability to come to grips internally with our own problems.

The other aspects of it, the interest and dividends, certainly have their part, but that $6 billion is $6 billion that goes to other countries for royalties, for management fees, for professional services, for knowhow, all of which are matters that we have deprived ourselves of because of the nature of the control of the economy in other countries. Until we deal with that question, we will never ever reverse that particular flow. I do not need to go on at great length about it.

There was a fascinating article in the Globe and Mail on March 10, "Balance of Payments Deficit Reaches a Record High." It goes on to talk about foreign direct investment and that balance, which I have not touched upon and I do not need to talk about at this moment. An interesting quote was, "And an additional $8.4 billion simply vanished. A Statistics Canada official said, 'The agency has no idea where these errors and omissions went." One can see the way in which the account is managed so that we have an understandable presentation of the account.

The other factor is that one cannot get these figures broken down on a provincial basis. The fact of the matter is that the question of the payments out from this country are mainly payments being made from Ontario. Certainly, up until the oil expansion in western Canada, one could have said that the great bulk of the payments, the great bulk of the deficit position of the country, was owing to payments flowing out of Ontario. We, therefore, always have to come up as if it were a virtue by saying: "We have an open door to foreign investment. If we did not have an open door to foreign investment, we would be bankrupt on the world." That is the problem this government fails to deal with.

There are all sorts of articles that pop up every now and then, such as "Trade Deficit Is in Need of Candidates' Attention," "Nationalistic Medication of Economic Haemorrhage", August 25, 1978, dealing with this vexed question. It is not a difficult problem to understand. It is a difficult problem to understand why the government is not able and does not have the capacity to deal with it in a way which is acceptable in this whole area.

I have to deal with the business service payments simply because they have bothered me ever since I practised law and ever since I was engaged on occasion in drafting the kind of agreements under which moneys flow out of the country. Let me give the three reasons, apart altogether from the wider implications.

When the payments flow from Canadian branch plants to their foreign-based parents, the possibility exists for them to be artificially inflated so as to maximize tax benefits to the multinational. As a result, Canada may be losing out on tax revenue. The federal government does monitor this, but it is an open door for tax evasion.

The structure and priorities of the multinational often result in much research and engineering -- it is very understated -- accounting, computing, etc., being done outside of Canada. This not only costs Canada the cash value of these payments but also retards indigenous development of those skills. This problem is well known. The sums of money involved are very substantial and have a decided impact on the balance of payments. This has been recognized by economists and mentioned in several studies, but no full-scale studies have yet been mounted on this whole question.

5:40 p.m.

There is in this field the need for a complete analysis by the Treasurer, leading to possible, optional solutions through which Ontario could contribute to a restructuring of the economy so we do not have the drain that is imposed upon us by the past error of allowing control of the economy to pass from our hands, and permitting us, over a period of time, to so reduce those deficits that we would be able to avoid the need for such massive inflows of foreign capital.

I think there is a clear line of distinction between my party and the Conservative Party and, indeed, the Liberal Party, on this issue. There is no doubt we have heard every Minister of Industry and Trade, or whatever other designation the ministry may have had, from time to time talk about export promotion, about global product mandating and about the emphasis on exports as the solution to the problem.

We in this party recognize that exporting is a part of life in Canada and a very significant part of the economic picture to which we must pay attention. But there is absolutely no doubt that until we have a concerted effort at import substitution in Canada we will never be able to bring our merchandise account up to the kind of balance that will offset to a significant degree the deficit on the services account and, over a period of time, go a long way to eliminate that deficit. Import substitution means that we have jobs created in Canada. To the extent that we do it by way of exports, we are continually beholden to the multinational corporations.

One only had to sit with other colleagues in the assembly on the plant shutdowns and employee adjustment committee to understand the kind of factors that determined the decisions made by multinationals with respect to Canadian operations. Whether one agrees with them or not, the net effect is a loss to Canada. If members can believe for one single moment that a multinational corporation is going to agree in some way to permit Canada to global mandate a particular product in demand, I think they are whistling Dixie. I do not think it is possible to be that naive about the world.

The former Minister of Industry and Tourism, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), pushed this to a point beyond belief, if he could believe the Westinghouse Co., the president of which I think was the greatest protagonist of the global product mandating operation, at the same time that the Westinghouse Co. was engaged in breaking the labour laws of Ontario. That is the kind of respect they have for us. They were going to disperse their plants in order to destroy the union base in the Westinghouse plants. They got wrapped over the knuckles for it. We know that. But the kind of mythology about exports this Treasurer propagates in some way or other, that the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) now propagates and on which the former minister was a great salesperson is something I will never understand.

I also want members to understand very clearly that when boys like us start playing in the high-technology field without any clout before we have grown up, we are going to get hurt and hurt seriously. Already the electronics field is dominated in this country by imports. A very substantial part of that field is no longer in our control at all. The way we can grow up and are able to play in that game is to protect in a legitimate, positive and proper way the industries we have, to require the fabrication in Canada of the goods and services that can be sold as end products, and to get away from the thought that we in Canada can only assemble and warehouse and that we cannot create and make the kinds of end products that will serve our own consumer market as well as an export market in which we could then compete on reasonably equal terms.

If members can believe that a country such as Japan, having moved into the automotive industry and into the other appliance fields in the electronic fields, is not going to move into the high-technology fields in a way that we will always be the poor boy in the game, until we grow up, then I think the government is kidding the people of Canada. I think it is unable to protect our own industries.

This is where my remarks on Bill 38 would be appropriate because I have textile industries and shoe industries in my riding. They are labour-intensive industries and can produce products which can meet both in style and in quality any products from any part of the world, but they are being killed by the import policies of the federal government, aided and abetted by the policies of this government.

All of those areas are areas where this Treasurer has got to bring in some new imagination or get out and let somebody else bring imagination to the problems that we are going to face. All of it is involved with trade and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The man -- I forget his name, Mr. Grey, but I am not sure -- who is now in the employ of the provincial government was one of the main negotiators of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and knew that he was taking a defensive position.

Canada under GATT is moving to free trade at a point in time when the other nations it is dealing with are not prepared to move with it. Whatever the merits of free trade, there is no such thing as free trade between Canada and the United States, between Canada and the European Economic Community, and between Canada and Japan until such time as the nontariff barriers are dealt with.

I do not know, and this is why I kept bringing up the question, what Ontario's position is, now that it flubbed the first one in the original rounds of the GATT negotiations. What is the Treasurer going to tell the assembly is his position when he goes to Geneva? Is he going to Geneva or is he going to send someone else to argue our case for us?

Who is going to Washington to talk to Ambassador Gotlieb and his charming wife, about whom I read more in the press than I do about the economic problems of the country? Who is going to Washington to talk about the US trade agreements from the point of view of Ontario? Is Ontario going to be part of a formal delegation of people from the federal government and our sister provinces that will deal with these problems? Who is going to be in Washington to answer the unreasonable, improper and ignorant, in some respects, arguments which are being made against the policies of this country?

Why is it that I hear arguments put forward by the Treasurer and the Premier against the Foreign Investment Review Agency which are the identical arguments that are being put forward in the Congress of the United States? Whatever is it that allows us to think that those positions are positions which are for the good of Ontario and for the good of Canada?

I do not know what the answers are. I am simply saying to the Treasurer that I wish he would prepare and submit to the assembly an analysis of our balance of payments with the rest of the world outside of Canada, analysed on the basis of Ontario. I would then like him to look at it and decide how he will move in sector after sector to remove the deficit that we have on the account, be it on the merchandise account or be it on the service account in that particular sector.

When will he put before the assembly, excluding the distortion caused by the automotive pact and the trade under the automotive pact, what has happened to the other part of the manufacturing sector of Ontario? Why has it dropped a significant number of percentage points as an employer of people over the past eight or 10 years in Ontario? The percentage of the employed labour in the province in the nonautomotive manufacturing plant has dropped from somewhere between 30 and 35 per cent, I believe, to something like 25 per cent.

5:50 p.m.

When is the Treasurer, in conjunction with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), going to deal with the vexed question of the processing in Canada rather than the export from Canada of the raw resources of the country? Are we forever going to have a Minister of Natural Resources whose response in a shrill voice is to read a diplomatic communication from the government of Great Britain to the government of Canada about an agreement entered into between the Mond Co. and the International Nickel Co. in 1929 as a justification for a policy at this date? When are those things going to be addressed? When are we going to look at the forestry industry and what is taking place there in relation to the commitment by the government of moneys for the revitalization and restructuring of that industry?

Is there any way in which we can get this government to get off the hook on the question of having to be the ones who are urging us to solve our future by the import of foreign capital in disproportionate amounts that we cannot afford to service over a period of time? If it were to project the deficit on the services account for interest dividends and the other business services I have tried to speak about into the future, I think it would be terrified, even if it took the lowest gradient of that accelerated acceleration of those payments and even if it took the most optimistic view of the growth of the capacity of the country to sustain it.

One talks about government deficits. If there is one thing one can say about government deficits it is that the money is owed to people in Canada, by and large, and that the moneys that cause the deficit are spent in Canada and create employment and jobs and produce some momentum in the consumer society. But all that the money that comes from abroad does is to make us more and more dependent on those countries and those distant multinational corporations for things we should be producing here.

We can be certain that the research and development facility of this country would be grossly different and vastly better had we had the research and development that over the years we have paid the multinationals to do elsewhere. We can be certain that we would have jobs for the highly skilled graduates of our universities and post-secondary educational areas if we had had this kind of research and development in areas of explosive development of industrial and manufacturing growth. But we do not have any of those things.

One can say it is a litany of sad news. It is not a litany of sad news. These problems have been with us since 1960, but we have been talking about them and never dealing with them. I do not think it is very difficult -- to take Mr. Louis Rasminsky's remarks, I do not know how long ago, when he was governor of the Bank of Canada -- to say simply that "the view that Canada could not have enjoyed sufficient economic growth without this vast foreign investment in Canada, and that the Canadian standard of living would have been much lower if we had not had this vast foreign investment in Canada appears to me to be very questionable.

"The nature of our development might have been somewhat different, but I believe that a higher average rate of employment and more growth of total employment could have been maintained and that a production of goods and services in Canada could have been achieved with much less reliance on a net increase of foreign investment in Canada if Canadian policies had aimed at such a target in the past and could be achieved by Canada in the future if Canadian policies are in future aimed at such a target.

He goes on to elaborate on that, but I need not refer to it. He continues: "At a time of relatively high unemployment in Canada, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the continuing very large deficit in the balance of payments is not only disadvantageous in itself but is indicative of an excessive capital inflow as well as structural weaknesses in the Canadian economy which result in excessive aggregate spending in goods and services provided from abroad to the detriment of the production of goods and services of similar character in Canada.

"It is clear that the recent high levels of unemployment in Canada do not arise from a deficiency of total spending by Canadians, or of spending for capital purposes. A relatively very large fraction of our gross national expenditure has, however, been spent directly or indirectly on balance for imported goods and services and has to that extent failed to provide employment in Canada." One could go on at great length. The argument has been put many times over the years by many people who are much better able than myself to place that rather intricate argument.

I happen to have an absolutely magnificent paper, which I would be glad to lend to the Treasurer so that he could Xerox it and distribute it to all his bureaucrats in the ministry. It is a discussion paper on trade deficits and trade policy, in single spacing and in small type, entitled Manufacturing Strategy. It is 23 pages long. I do not ask the Treasurer to agree with each and every sentence, but the substance of the argument has never been better put than in this particular paper.

I paid tribute the other day to our research people who have worked in the field of economics -- not to make invidious comparisons with those who work in research in social, educational and justice fields. One of the persons who over the years has provided us with a great deal of the basic, fundamental knowledge that we share in our caucus on economic matters is Anne Martin, who is the author of this particular paper. She is very knowledgeable about questions related to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, investments and the balance of payment problem, along with David Robertson and Sym Gill, who have worked indefatigably in our research on Bill 179 since it was introduced.

Again, without making invidious comparisons with others who work equally hard in other fields as occasion requires, they have produced the sound arguments which we have put forward in this assembly on Bill 179 and which will, I hope, cause some thought in the government members, rather than just irritation, frustration and a little squirming in their seats, and may lead to a productive debate.

I am going to conclude because I have some canvassing obligations in Broadview-Greenwood when the House recesses at six o'clock. I know it will be a great disappointment to the members of the assembly who are here, but while I may be in my place at eight o'clock, I do not anticipate that I will be speaking in the assembly. I have a quote which I thought was appropriate to conclude my contribution to this debate, if I can find it. I very seldom write something out, but I wanted to write this out because it says what is wrong when we come right down to it.

"I believe it is possible to tell citizens the hard facts of life and get them to make sensible decisions, but doing that requires something that seems completely absent in the Ontario government: a sense of fairness. Sacrifices can be handed out, but only if they are handed out fairly so that no group feels that it is carrying more than its fair share of the load, and so that no group seems to be unfairly benefiting from the sacrifices of others."

That summarizes my contribution to the debate, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your patience and attention as I have tried to maintain the relevancy of my comments to Bill 179.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

October 5, 1982