Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: At the beginning of question period, since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has the first opportunity to ask questions, it is very important that we have cabinet ministers available to give the excellent answers they wish to provide.

We understand that ministers have other commitments and from time to time they have to leave, but when it comes to the legislation that is before the House and the issues of the day, it seems to me that at least the headliners should be available for the Leader of the Opposition to direct questions to and for any supplementaries that members of the third party or other members of the House might have.

Having said that, I notice there are still a number of cabinet ministers who have not made their way into the House. Perhaps you could clarify for me what jurisdiction the Speaker has in terms of encouraging ministers to be here. I know that you, sir, as an individual member representing an individual constituency, would want to ensure that the issues of the day are discussed on behalf of your constituents. I would welcome a reply.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address that point of order. I think it is time the member opposite came clean with the House. There were at least 11 ministers in their seats at the opening of the House today. If the research of the members opposite is so inadequate that they do not have any questions for those of us who are here, or if they are so intimidated by the competence of the ministers who are present in the House, why do they not admit it?

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the point of order raised by the member for St. Catharines, I would like to bring to the attention of all members of the Legislature that, unfortunately, under standing orders, the Speaker has no --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There's a point of order here, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to that point of order. I am very disappointed in the response of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) on the legitimacy of the question that was put. Will you consider recessing the House until the appropriate ministers or all the ministers, if they accept their responsibilities to this assembly, are present in the assembly to answer the questions of the members of the opposition? I suggest that it would be appropriate and in accordance with parliamentary tradition that you now recess the House for 15 minutes to give the ministers an opportunity to be present.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we go through this little charade about once a month and we all know that --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

The Deputy Speaker: The government House leader has the -- what is the point of order?

Mr. Renwick: My response is that I do not ask the government House leader to commence his remarks on a serious topic by talking about a charade. Will he take his seat, please?

The Deputy Speaker: Order; member for Riverdale, please.

Mr. Renwick: I have never been ejected from this chamber before, and I do not intend to start now.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, member for Riverdale. I recognized you on a point of order. I would like now to recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will not change my remarks, because I maintain that I am not in any way treating this matter facetiously. It is a form of charade we go through once a month when someone gets up and criticizes the fact there are not enough cabinet ministers here to answer questions at any particular time.

My colleague pointed Out there were at least 11 or 12 cabinet ministers here for the opening. There are 16 cabinet ministers here at present. My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) held a very important press conference this morning which surely should have been substance enough for at least 10 or 15 minutes of questions.

I might say that if my friends feel there is something wrong with the way the question period is run in this House at present, I suggest that we all look at the British model. Perhaps it is time we considered giving notice before the House starts to the ministers to whom members wish to ask questions. If the members were willing to adopt some procedure such as that, which I submit in no way inhibits the democratic process in the British House, we would guarantee to have the ministers here for whom members say they have questions.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has been here in the assembly longer than I have, and he knows very well that the decision of this assembly was to depart from the parliamentary tradition in the United Kingdom about giving notice of questions and to rely on the government of the day to respond appropriately by having all their ministers in place at two o'clock for prayers and for question period, recognizing as we do that we are very seldom graced in this chamber on any other occasion with ministers of the crown once it is three o'clock and the orders of the day are called. Perhaps the government House leader would be prepared to respond to that question.

2:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: I think the member for Riverdale has had full opportunity to express his concerns. We have had ample discussion with regard to the problem at hand. I can only bring the members' attention to our present standing orders. I have no choice but to continue with question period.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In view of announcement of the Minister of Transportation and Communications of the interregional rapid transit strategy this morning, which involved, as he referred to it, lots of money, would the minister be in a position to make a statement to the House today outlining just what is involved in that so we do not take up the time of question period?

The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the minister did not indicate he had an opening statement prior to oral questions. I am afraid the member will have to leave that for question period, which will begin now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CLARK EQUIPMENT OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. I am sure he is aware he has created a great deal of confusion in the London-St. Thomas area by some statements he allegedly made last night.

There is a headline in the London Free Press today saying: "Shakeup of Firm Adding 800 Jobs in St. Thomas." I will quote the article: "St. Thomas stands to gain 800 full-time jobs, thanks to a full-time major reorganization of the US-based Clark Equipment Co." That's a major shot in the arm for southern Ontario' and could generate up to 2,000 other jobs, said Walker."

After the story appeared, Mr. Charles Kiorpes, vice-president and general manager of Clark Equipment Co. in Michigan, held a press conference at the Howard Johnson motel in London, at which he denied the minister's announcement. In fact, he said: "Who is Gordon Walker?"

He said: "The reorganization will only bring the current 340 part-time employees up to full-time status and if, and only if possibly, economic conditions improve over a period of time, 160 currently laid-off employees might be brought back to work."

Perhaps the minister would like to take this occasion to straighten out this confusion he has spread about.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion at all. As a matter of fact, I was authorized to release the information. It would appear that Mr. Kiorpes -- who on earth is Mr. Kiorpes? I guess he is the vice-president, but they seem to have a fair number of vice-presidents of that company.

Mr. Bradley: Like the provincial Tory party.

Hon. Mr. Walker: He may even be a candidate for us, for all I know.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No. He has not been appointed to anything.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We will remember that.

I met the two senior vice-presidents from Buchanan, Michigan, on Tuesday evening from five to six o'clock, as well as Mr. Gilbert, the president of Clark Equipment of Canada Ltd. They authorized me to release the information that had been the purpose of the discussion to date. The information was that a major consolidation of Clark Equipment Co. had resulted in the transfer of four major product lines to the St. Thomas plant.

Further, the transfer of production of the wheel dozers and large truck shovels to the St. Thomas plant could create up to 800 full-time jobs in the long run, both in the plant and for related contractors in the St. Thomas area. In addition, exports from the St. Thomas plant should more than double over the next five years to $700 million, a balance of trade improvement for that company. Fourth, there is a total restructuring program, of which the St. Thomas part is part of a $214-million program designed to make Clark world-competitive in several product lines.

I think the point that has to be brought out here very clearly is that this plant is showing a substantial growth. The member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) has been discussing this matter with me for some time now and we were involved in the question. The question really was, what will happen in terms of world rationalization? World rationalization occurred yesterday. It is regrettable that four plants in the United States are closed in the process, but from the Canadian point of view and from St. Thomas's point of view, it turned out to be successful at least in the retention of jobs. Some 330 jobs will be retained in the plant at present and that number will rise to some 560 or so, according to the information provided by these officers, who I have every reason to believe. The information that I provided, which I believe is absolutely correct, was substantially what they provided. Indeed, what I was authorized to release was word for word what was provided by them.

The fact of the matter is, the Leader of the Opposition should be asking, "Why is it so successful?"

Mr. Peterson: It is very curious that the minister took the time of this House some months ago to announce nine jobs in Elmira, albeit eight of them were for Japanese people, but he did not take the time of the House to announce this today. Perhaps it is because Mr. Gilbert, the president of Clark Equipment of Canada Ltd. in St. Thomas, said in a conversation today that the consolidation was taking place immediately and that he had no idea where the job numbers of 800 or 2,000 came from. He said, "How far we get into the 160 laid off will be totally dependent on the state of the economy -- hopefully by mid-year, depending on the economy."

The minister is getting very bad advice, I suspect, and he may want to check his research.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Peterson: Or is this just a cruel joke?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Is the Leader of the Opposition referring to his question, or is he referring to the fact that the information seems to be borne out that there will be a transfer of work from other communities into the St. Thomas plant and that they will be able to go as far as I have suggested?

I reported precisely what was given out and what was given to us in terms of the information. They may have difficulty in rationalizing some of it, possibly because two different officers were involved and different people were raising different questions.

The fact of the matter is that the company, which is foreign-controlled, has shown faith and confidence in the business acumen of Canada and of Ontario and has decided to expand that plant to the point where it will provide a substantial increase in employment.

The Leader of the Opposition should be looking at the positive aspect of this. Heaven knows, we have enough people going around talking about the negative aspect without having him do it as well.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, since this minister was appointed and said his role was "jobs, jobs, jobs," we have had three announcements from him on jobs. First, there were nine jobs in Elmira. Second, there was a possibility of protecting some existing jobs. Now we have the minister predicting that there may be some jobs. When is this government going to get serious and have a real job creation program to deal with the serious unemployment problem in this province instead of the Pollyannaish statements from this minister?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it behooves any of us to get into the job numbers game to show whether something should be something else or not. However, if the honourable member is inviting me to make some comments about the number of jobs that have been created, I need only remind him that he could look to the Ontario Development Corp., which has approved $105 million in loans and guarantees in the past while. Since the recession began, it has approved $105 million --

Mr. Foulds: When was that?

Mr. Cooke: That's why there are 700,000 unemployed.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Hold on; pipe down. I let the member ask his question. I allowed him to speak without interruption. I ask him to please give me the same benefit.

The fact is that the ODC has created direct and very lasting jobs to the tune of 6,728 documented jobs and 17,195 over a period of five years. If the member wants to get into the job numbers, I can list him all the job numbers he wants to have. He need only take a look at the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and he will see case after case of money being spent for job creation.

If he wishes to get into that, he is welcome to invite me into it. I do not think that is necessary; I do not think there is much value in him trying to attach all kinds of ridiculousness to the jobs created.

Mr. Peterson: The minister said he did not want to get into the numbers but he quoted the numbers. According to the London Free Press, the minister said the plant would go from its current figure of around 560 to in excess of 1,200 workers. "'The number of jobs attracted to St. Thomas will be phenomenal,' Walker said. He estimated the spinoff effect will generate 1,500 to 2,000 other jobs in the community."

Since Clark has not heard of these figures, where did the minister get them? The minister's credibility is on the line.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The figures came from Clark and they are the ones given by Clark, and I will stand anywhere and defy the Leader of the Opposition to prove me wrong. The fact is that the figures have come from there.

It seems some officer who may not have been a part of it has taken exception to some of the numbers, but the fact of the matter is what I have delivered to the Leader of the Opposition. I have told him the truth of the matter. I have told him what has been delivered to me. If he wants to refute that, I think he is on dangerous ground.

These are the numbers provided. The company provided the figures. The numbers relate to those jobs in plant and those jobs contracted for outside the plant, and those jobs in total will equal the 1,200 figure. As the vice-president of the Michigan company conveyed it to me, it will mean roughly 600 jobs in the plant and roughly 1,200 jobs in total.

The other question relating to the spinoff jobs is a separate question, and that is simply the formula we apply when any one job is created: it tends to create an additional two to three jobs in the community. That is the traditional answer.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I just say to the minister that I wish he were right. Every bit of information we have is that he is completely wrong. I wish he were correct. It leads me to my next question, to the Treasurer, who is in charge of overall economic policy.

The Treasurer is aware of the current figures, which show that we have 474,000 unemployed at present, up 89.6 per cent from a year ago; and 202,000 unemployed young people, up 79 per cent from a year ago. Total employment at present is down 174,000; in other words, that many fewer people are working than there were a year ago.

The minister is probably aware of the Conference Board of Canada report discussed this morning at its conference. I gather the Premier (Mr. Davis) is speaking there some time over the next couple of days.

One of the predictions, and I gather it is the conference board's official prediction, is that unemployment in this country will reach 12.5 per cent in 1983, starting this winter -- that is the best-case scenario -- and it could well go to 15 or 17 per cent. The minister is aware of the grim predictions as well as the grim statistics we are facing. What is he going to do about it? Is he just going to continue to dither, or when is he going to come forward with his plans?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not hope those things will happen. For some reason he seems very happy to see all these events take place, because somehow he feels he can put the blame on us and make us look incompetent. He is far too intelligent for that, and he knows it. He knows that we have been doing our part in Ontario and that we are going to continue to. I am delighted to say I will soon be seeing my federal colleagues, and I will soon be working with them on those plans.

Mr. Peterson: I have very serious difficulty with the minister sometimes blaming the feds and sometimes not blaming the feds, and sometimes electing to go alone and sometimes not. The minister said in his own budget of last year, and I quote, "Since the federal government has failed to respond with a decisive and comprehensive set of programs, the government of Ontario has decided to implement new job creation initiatives of its own."

Presumably, as a result, he brought in new job creation initiatives on his own in his last budget. Today we need them even worse than we did then. Today there is an even stronger case for going alone than there was then. We have established that there are some savings over budget with the minister's new restraint program. When is the minister going to put those to work to get people working in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the Leader of the Opposition has trouble with me in terms of my love-hate relationship towards Ottawa, we do not have too much trouble with him. At least he is on the record as saying the federal government is an albatross around his neck, that no Liberal government could get elected right now because of the incompetence of Ottawa. Those are the member's quotes, are they not? Those are the things he has said about his friends in Ottawa; he does not want to be associated with them.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the extent of unemployment now in this province, does the Treasurer realize the impact of the latest announcements in basic steel, which will have a multiplying effect right throughout our industry?

With almost 4,000 out of a work force of 9,000 out as a result of the layoff announcements in Sault Ste. Marie, with almost 3,000 out of a force of 11,800 out at Stelco, and with more than 2,100 out of a force of 11,000 out at Dofasco as of the latest announcements, does the Treasurer realize we are talking about a 25 per cent layoff ratio in basic steel, which will then have an effect right through the economy?

What is the Treasurer doing in terms of creating jobs and protecting jobs in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, if the honour- able member thinks I get any joy out of those figures, I do not and he knows it. The fact of it is I said in my budget that obviously I had to deal within the limits of the authority, power and influence that I have as a Treasurer and that Ontario has as a province. We believe that Canada too has to deal within its limits.

The member and I know that those basic industries suffer from a number of problems. One, export markets have dried up; two, foreign steel is being dumped in this country. I think the member will agree with that.

I have a basic belief that we should be protecting the jobs of Canadian workers, be they in the auto industry or in the steel industry, by as many retaliatory measures as we can take at this difficult time because other countries are not playing fairly by us.

Given all that, the member also knows that it will take a general improvement in the economies of North America and Europe before any major improvement will take place. We are doing our part in that. We still happen to have one of the best records for overall responsibility of any government in that process.

Mr. Peterson: I note with some interest the Ontario Business magazine, where there is a rather Lincolnesque picture of the Treasurer on the front. The quote that I find most interesting is from one Bob Kennedy, a former Toronto radio station news announcer, who was employed by the Treasurer's ministry in February 1982 to handle communications. Referring to the Treasurer, he said, "He is a born leader."

When is the Treasurer going to lead on this issue, the most fundamental crisis in this province today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition chose his quote so selectively. Why did he not choose some of the quotes of the Liberals in Muskoka -- the Miller Liberals -- who are in that magazine? I happen to get all the votes of almost all the Liberals in that riding because I have shown leadership in that area.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister feel that someone like Marie Mitchell of Woodbridge -- whose rent has just been increased by $1,284 by the Residential Tenancy Commission and who earns $6.40 an hour, or $13,312 annually as of December 1, 1982 -- contributes, by her excessive income, to Ontario's serious economic problems of unemployment, high inflation and high interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has been raising those same types of questions now for several days in this Legislature.

Mr. Mackenzie: He is talking about real people.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is right, he is talking about real people. There are real people being seriously inconvenienced. They are being seriously shattered by the economy as we know it today: by layoffs, by plant closures and plants that will never open again. At least the lady to whom the member is referring has a job and will be getting an increase in pay. The majority of people today are not going to be getting increases in pay as generous as that in the year to come.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Minister of Labour seriously consider that a nursing aide with a total income of $13,000, which had been negotiated by her union, is receiving a generous income and a generous wage? Does he think she should be grateful to him for rolling back her wages by at least $456 a year when she has had her rent increased by something like $1,200?

Does the minister think it is fair, just in simple terms, that she had her rent increased by 31.7 per cent by one agency of the government; that the government rolls back her wages and that another agency, the Ontario Housing Corp., has not been able to find low-cost housing for herself and her 14-year-old child?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Of course I do not feel that the salary being quoted is a generous salary or even a salary that anyone can subsist on these days, certainly not at that figure. However, perhaps I can put the point I am trying to make this way: there is another alternative to holding the salary line. Maybe the other alternative is layoffs. I would far sooner see modest increases for those who are working than see a litany of further layoffs.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House what impact he believes the five per cent limitation on the wages of such low-income earners would have on the economy? How does he believe that limiting the wage increases of those who are spending every nickel they get in salaries right now is going to help get the Ontario economy moving again?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in coming forward with its wage restraint package this government did address the problem of those in the lower income categories and did arrange for minimum increases of $1,000.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Mitchell was not able to attend the Progressive Conservative fund-raising dinner party the other night at $200 a plate, at which the Premier (Mr. Davis) talked about the need for wage restraints.

Can the minister explain why Marie does not deserve the 12.2 per cent increase that her union negotiated and the government has rolled back and in fact broken, but does deserve the 31.7 per cent rent increase that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) refuses to do anything about?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the circumstances the member describes are sad ones indeed. On the other hand, if the member wants to talk about housing, here in Ontario there is more subsidized housing available than in any other constituency on the North American continent outside of New York, so I think the province is certainly doing its best in that respect.

TEAR GAS TESTING

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). Can the minister tell us how the Ontario Provincial Police, who were testing tear gas at the Armbro gravel pit near the village of Caledon, could have been so impervious to public safety that they inadvertently managed to gas 350 children and staff at Caledon public school one and a half miles away last Thursday, September 30?

Can he tell us whether the OPP as a matter of course notifies the Ministry of the Environment when it is going to undertake such testing with toxic substances?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the OPP and certain other groups, such as fire departments, that are engaged in training programs are not normally required to notify the ministry on each and every occasion when, as in this case, they might use tear gas, which is normally and even in this circumstance a relatively harmless substance with no long-range ill effects; or when, as in the case of the fire department I suppose, they might use test fires for the purposes of training. So the answer to the latter part of the member's question is no, it is not normally required.

In this case, as in others, the police would be following their normal training manuals. The staff are knowledgeable in the handling of this gas. In this case the unfortunate variable that gave rise to the problem was the fact that the weather conditions included a low cloud cover and an inversion, I believe, which did not allow for the ready dispersal of the gas, as they had expected. As a result, it was carried into the schoolyard under foggy conditions, and it did cause some minor irritation of the students. There are no longer-term ill effects as a result of that.

I might, perhaps in anticipation of the next question, tell the member I have requested a full report from my staff, and staff has also been in communication with the police. I will be reviewing with the Solicitor General any measure that we can take to improve the situation and avoid this kind of event in future. I would point out there is probably no way we can guarantee that something like this will never happen again.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the serious and unfortunate consequences -- 350 children were sent home ill, experiencing sore throats, running noses, inflamed eyes and severe headaches, and 50 of those children were subsequently out of school the following day -- can the minister tell us why it took four days for the OPP to acknowledge responsibility for the incident and acknowledge that the substance causing the symptoms in the children was tear gas; and thus for four days caused the children and the parents involved considerable suffering and anxiety; whereas if, on the Friday, they had publicly acknowledged their participation and identified the substance, the mere flushing of the eyes and outside breathing could have alleviated a good deal of that suffering?

Can he explain that delay; and can he tell us if he will insist that when any police force, fire force or other agency of this province undertakes such tests in future, the medical officer of health and the ministry will be notified in advance to warn them not to conduct tests in foggy conditions when there might be an air inversion?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I indicated, I am awaiting a full report from the staff who were involved from the early stages of this. We were notified, I believe by the school, of the circumstances and of the reaction of the students. Initially it was not known what the cause of the irritation was.

In the absence of a detailed report, I do not know precisely when the police acknowledged their involvement. I am certainly confident there was no effort to hide it. In fact, it was not long after the involvement of my ministry, in checking out what the cause of the irritation might be, that it was discovered it was related to the police training program.

I have seen a letter that was sent by the principal of the school to the parents, acknowledging the co-operation of the police and my ministry in dealing promptly with the matter. So I do not know whether the delay the member is referring to --

Mr. Foulds: On the Monday after.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Do not forget there are weekends in between Fridays and Mondays. Normally that is the case, except for politicians.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Just calm down, Michael. The allegation your colleague made was that there was a delay in acknowledgement of that. The point I am trying to make is that there was not.

He says the letter went out on Monday. I am not sure of the day, but if it were on Monday then presumably the appropriate information had been made available certainly prior to Monday, or the letter would not have gone out then. Once I have the full report, I will review it and I will consider what possible improvements might be made.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should be informed that there are no weekends for parents either. They end up being parents seven days a week.

Can the minister tell us what the investigation now entails, and whether the ministry is considering laying charges against the OPP as a result of this incident?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the honourable member understands that my reference to "weekend" had to do with such things as delivery of mail and in fact the students are not in school so they cannot take letters home to their parents. That is the practical problem in delays from Friday until Monday.

I know that parents are parents for seven days a week, even though I do not happen to be one myself. There are certain self-evident truths that really do not require your explanation. What was the second part of your question?

Mr. Charlton: The charges.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously that would be a matter to be determined once the full details are available to me for review. On the basis of the information I have at the moment, there is nothing to indicate that the police acted negligently or failed to take normal safety precautions. The weather conditions were a very significant factor. I reserve judgement or decision on whether that ought to be pursued until I have a full report.

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of the fact that radioactive wastes from the US Manhattan Project are stored on property adjacent to the SCA site in Lewiston, New York, and close to the Niagara River. However, is he aware that the US Department of Energy is now considering an expansion of this site and establishing a regional radioactive waste disposal centre which will accept radioactive wastes from New York, Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts to this site?

Has the minister's task force on the Niagara River been informed of this proposal? What steps would the minister be able to take to protect the river from this new threat which is being posed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my information is rather limited at this time since, to the best of my knowledge, the report the member refers to is not yet a public document.

I understand what has occurred is that consultants were retained by the American government to make recommendations on the future of that site. I must say I am speaking not with the benefit of having seen the document but with the information I have been able to glean up to this point, mostly from press reports.

I believe the consultants have submitted a report to the federal government of the United States and that, among the options the consultants have suggested for consideration, there is one similar to what the member has described; that is, that the site be used for storage of radioactive material.

I have asked my staff to obtain information through their normal channels of communication with the Americans, and also to pursue with our federal government through diplomatic channels the specifics of those recommendations so that we have the benefit of seeing those and expressing to the Americans our deep interest in knowing what they are considering on that site, because we have a keen interest in the future of that site in view of its location.

Mr. Kerrio: The government has been a watchdog of the Niagara for the 40 years it has been in power and in that time the river has become polluted beyond anyone's expectations to the point where now it is a poisoned body. Does the minister realize that on November 20, 1980, I informed his predecessor of the existence of radioactive wastes and extremely explosive TNT adjacent to this SCA site and at that time the minister stated, "It is obviously a matter of grave concern to Ontario"?

Given the concern expressed at that time, will the minister ensure that proper channels of communication are established between all of the Great Lakes states? By having that kind of co-operation with those states, Ontario could be informed whenever such proposals are being discussed. That may be the way we could have some control over what happens on both sides of the border and not have additional threats posed to the drinking water in the Great Lakes system, especially at Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As the member is well aware, we have established some very good lines of communication with the Americans with regard to the Niagara River. We have the ongoing Niagara River task force on which four governments are represented, the federal and state governments from the US and the provincial and federal governments on this side. There has been a free exchange of information through the aegis of that task force.

What is different in this situation, as I understand it, is that this consultant's report was commissioned by the US federal government and to the best of my knowledge the state government in New York may not even be privy to its contents. It is my understanding that the information became available through the pirating of a copy of the report through the media, which subsequently alerted us to at least one option that apparently has been recommended.

I can assure the member I will pursue a copy of the report as soon as possible. The pursuit is already under way and I hope to get it soon. I will encourage a free flow of information on this as well as all other matters. Communication is not a problem.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is already considerable concern about leakage of radon gas from the ordinance work site, both by air and water, and in view of all the other problems we are confronted with on the American side of the Niagara frontier, will the minister table whatever information he gets so we can have access to it as well and assure us that he will oppose any proposal that considers any further risk to leakage through the ground into the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, at this point I do not know whether I will be getting a copy of that report. I cannot be certain of that yet. Certainly any information I have will be information that I intend to share.

As far as future directions are concerned, obviously I will take every step necessary to protect the interests of Ontarians in the quality of the air and water, not only in the Niagara River area but elsewhere in the province.

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Given that 14 per cent of general welfare recipients are in public housing and that the vast majority are out of the private housing market, given that the present shelter allowance and subsidies guarantee single employables 100 per cent of rent costs only up to $75 a month and those of a mother with one child 100 per cent only up to $130 a month, and that the formula otherwise guarantees that rents above those rates will be picked up at only 75 per cent of cost, does the minister not agree that the formula is grossly unfair and out of touch with real rent costs in the private market today? Is he not basically asking these people to take money from their food allotment and from other basic needs in order to pay their rents?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member wants to know if I am going to make an announcement today about rates. I will be having something to say about social assistance rates and other programs in the very near future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I did not think that was my question. Perhaps I can ask for an answer on a specific question.

Does the minister understand the gravity of the situation for people in the private housing market at the moment? Even if we take 80 per cent of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. rent averages, a mother with one child in most major cities in Ontario is paying 55 to 71 per cent of her total income for a two-bedroom apartment.

In Ottawa, where there is a vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent, that means a mother is spending about $125 out of that $256 for food and other needs. In Metro, where there is a 0.6 per cent vacancy rent, she would be paying about $126 out of that $256.

Does the minister not agree this is basically forcing mothers to take food out of their own mouths and those of their children in order to pay rent? Is it not time we adjusted the basic premise of this formula?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I thought I answered that the first time around. I will be having something to say about it in the very near future; and it will not be the 20 per cent, $237-million package the member wants.

METRO TORONTO BILL

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education about probably the biggest issue to hit education in Metropolitan Toronto for some time. I have on my desk, as members of Legislature will see, the briefs that have been received by members of the standing committee on general government. There were a large number of them and a large number of representations made.

Now that she has listened to the representations that have been made to the committee and has received petitions, letters and telephone calls, most of them in opposition to Bill 127, would the minister be prepared to give an undertaking to the House today to withdraw that bill?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Since so many of those who appeared before the committee were in opposition to the bill and expressed a concern about what they consider to be an assault on local autonomy; and since those presentations, I would say, represented a good cross-section of people in as well as outside of Metropolitan Toronto, does the minister not recognize that the implementation of this bill will engender the kind of bitterness that surely she wants to discourage or avoid in education in Metro?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the member that his question was, would I give a commitment today to withdraw the bill? My answer was a simple no, I will not give that commitment. My hearing and my sensitivity are equal if not superior to the member's. I heard all those presentations when I was in attendance and read the remainder. They are being seriously considered.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, could the minister also tell us if she is as sensitive to and if she is taking into consideration as seriously the representations that the committee was told had been made to her by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and her other colleagues in the cabinet who have indicated to some of the deputants who appeared before the committee that they are opposed to this Legislation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, I did not hear what the question was.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps that is an indication of how well she listens in the committee. I asked if the minister would take as seriously as they do the representations that have been made to her by her colleagues, such as the Attorney General and other members of the cabinet, who have indicated to deputants who appeared before the committee that they were opposed to this legislation.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As in all circumstances, the opinions of all members of caucus have been most seriously considered.

UNIVERSITY ACCESS FOR HANDICAPPED

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities about the most vulnerable group in our society, namely, the handicapped, with respect to higher education.

Two years ago her ministry, in the spirit of the International Year of Disabled Persons, approached the universities pressing them to undertake to accommodate the handicapped in their buildings, facilities and programs. Last spring the Council of Ontario Universities' special committee on the handicapped sat down with ministry officials on this subject with highly unsatisfactory results and left quite baffled as to the ministry's intentions. That stalemate still exists.

Will the minister comment on this incredible situation and reassure the House that she still places a high priority on the needs of the handicapped in gaining real access to higher education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, access to higher education for the physically handicapped has been and continues to be a priority of the ministry. We shall continue to do our utmost to ensure that a larger number of those who suffer from physical handicaps are provided with the opportunity for post-secondary education.

Mr. Allen: The minister will pardon me if I am not entirely reassured. The funding cutoff for the audio library for the visually handicapped at Trent University and the standoff that now exists between her ministry and university officials lead me to conclude that the ministry would rather see this whole matter collapse of its own weight or somehow lose itself in the tangle of ministry-university relations.

I have some correspondence in my hand. The Council of Ontario Universities earlier this year wrote to her ministry asking if -- given the tremendous expenses of physical reconstruction and so on that is entailed in this kind of an operation for the handicapped -- her ministry would not consider giving some assurance that appropriate funds would be included in the normal grant system.

It was not asking for special earmarked funds, but for funds included in the regular capital grants and operating grants. It also asked the minister for reassurance that increased Ontario student assistance program funds would be available specifically for the handicapped to assure the universities that they would have access to the university system. Most immediately, it wanted to inquire whether the ministry would sit down with its officials to join in a hard-headed survey of the actual needs and costs entailed.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Allen: The question is this. Would the minister not consider --

The Deputy Speaker: One question.

Mr. Allen: The question essentially is whether the reply that came forward was not a disgracefully patronizing, and even tauntingly threatening, reply inasmuch as it stated that earmarked funding, which was not asked for, would represent a major departure from current policy? It went on: "The council should consider whether it advocates such a form of intervention. If the council does, we would appreciate hearing a statement to this effect." Is that not a disgraceful reply? In the light of this, is the minister really serious about the handicapped?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I guess patronization is in the eye or the ear of the beholder only. There was no such intent whatever. There has been ongoing discussion about this matter. I have not discussed it with university officials per se, but it is a matter that has been discussed from time to time with the presidents of the universities and with chairmen of boards.

We in this province are concerned about the post-secondary education of physically handicapped young people, and people who are not so young as well. If we had not been so, we would not have provided additional funds for the Trent audio library to fund a service that was begun by the university as an ancillary service, in the usual form of an ancillary service, and that has pleaded from time to time for additional funds.

We are attempting to help the audio library to find the appropriate structure for its ongoing viability and shall continue to work in that way. I do not think any of those with whom I have conversed within the university would consider that any of the discussions or any of the communications we have had have been patronizing.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to cut through the convoluted question and the even more convoluted answer. While the discussions may not have been patronizing, they certainly were fruitless. I think the minister is very well aware that the university has chosen at the end of the next school year to terminate this program.

She has applied a special grant for this coming school year. At the end of that year the university is prepared to terminate the program. The minister is very aware that blind students across Ontario use this program. Will she guarantee funding after the next scholastic year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if that was a straight question, I hope I never hear a convoluted one from that member. We have made attempts to assist that university in the past, have done so again this year and, as I said, we are working with them to establish --

Interjection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There has been an annual threat to terminate the service. This is one more. We are attempting to help the university to find a structure that will ensure its viability for all post-secondary students in Ontario with that kind of handicap.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION ADVERTISING

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Given the fact that the minister has committed $850,000 of Ontario taxpayers' money to the get-out-the-vote campaign, would he indicate to this House whether he did a cost-benefit or feasibility study before he committed the money; and secondly, how he plans to analyse the results after November 8 to determine whether the expenditure of $850,000 was effective or not?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, an association in which the member and I both have a great deal of confidence, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, representing 838 municipalities in this province, recommended to this ministry for one or two years -- maybe longer -- that we should get into a province-wide campaign to get out the vote at municipal election time.

The discussion with AMO and its executives and members went on for some period of time. I indicated in August when I spoke to AMO that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing were undertaking a joint program to sponsor a province-wide, get-out-the-vote campaign. Members have heard the ads, I am sure, on both television and radio.

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is another organization that I think we all have a degree of understanding and respect for. Whether we agree with its position all the time or not, it has expressed views and has also said in more than one brief to this government -- and I think on occasions to the member's caucus -- that a province-wide campaign should be sponsored to get out the vote at municipal election time. With that type of interest and desire, my ministry, along with Education, put together a program I think will be very effective.

As to how to measure it, I suppose, as I said to the press the other day, that in any advertising program one has difficulty knowing whether one is reaching the market or has stimulated the market. As the minister representing the government, if the vote goes up, I suppose I can say the program will have been extremely successful. If I am asked what it means if the vote count or the percentage happens to remain the same -- and there are a lot of things that have to be put into the calculation to know whether the percentage does or does not remain the same -- I suppose I could take the other positive attitude and say very confidently that if we had not had the program, it might have been somewhat less.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, who is now so concerned about getting out the vote, where his commitment to bringing out the vote was last year when his government called a general election in the height of winter? I would like to ask him why we did not hear his outrage about the timing of the York South by-election, which I am sure this minister knows conflicts with the municipal advance poll and will certainly confuse the voters whom the minister is saying he is trying to reach.

Given that the minister has made the comment that amounts to saying "If I win, I win; if I lose, I still win," why does he not simply admit that this campaign is really a fruitless, selfserving propaganda scheme by his own government? When is he going to follow what he has asked Ontario citizens to do and start practising some restraint?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will not try to answer the question in relation to the general election. It is one in which we all thought the percentage vote was high in this province. I trust the by-election that is taking place in York South will have a very high turnout on behalf of the people looking at the right-wing philosophy of this province.

As for the latter part of the member's question, let me suggest to him that we have a clear indication that there appears to be some difficulty in his thoughts, that he is afraid the program might be positive and get a very substantial turnout at municipal election time. I am not. I am one who believes we should be encouraging as many people to exercise that franchise as possible to give the mandate to municipal governments which spend some $12 billion.

I am not afraid of a large turnout at municipal elections. It appears the member is.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable in a restraint period that the government has this expenditure for this kind of campaign. Does the minister have a special wrinkle for continuing this campaign into those areas of the province where there will be no election November 8, where it will be by acclamation? Is there yet another campaign to be unfolded even though there is no election?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the question really deserves no answer. But let me suggest that there is a second opportunity in the campaign, if we look at it in a very positive fashion, and that is what this ministry has been looking at, the opportunity not only to get people out to vote but also to get people who might want to offer themselves for candidacy in municipal elections.

MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Treasurer. The minister is no doubt aware of his government's participation with the federal government in a million dollar advertising campaign on housing. This campaign boasts -- and I quote from the campaign literature and from the television ad -- "plans to cut mortgage interest rates on new homes."

Would the minister now agree that there is no such plan by either the federal or provincial government to lower or cut mortgage rates? Why does the government participate in an advertising program that falsely builds up people's hopes by offering something that is nonexistent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think I should refer that to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I want to say very clearly to this House that we achieved something in the advertising program for the first time in this country.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member would like to ask the question and answer it with his own stupid thoughts. I would ask him to sit just for a moment.

We are participating in the $8,000 renter-buy program with the federal government. For the first time we have succeeded in getting the federal government, the provincial government and the private sector to co-operate in an advertising program to try to stimulate the economy of this province in the construction and purchase of homes. I think both the federal government and the private sector are to be complimented.

Let me try to clear up the price. Those fellows over there throw figures around just to suit themselves. This province committed itself to $350,000, the federal government to $350,000 and the private sector to $150,000 in the advertising program to promote and sell homes in Ontario and to get people to move from rental accommodation into ownership.

Let me go back to the second part of the question. The member asks about the federal government's interest writedown program. At the time of his budget in June, Mr. MacEachen indicated very clearly that he was going to have a blue-ribbon committee look into the potential of having some interest writedowns available on mortgages, and he set up the committee. Apparently, there has been a report presented which is not likely going to recommend that position to the federal government. I do not know it as yet, but that would seem to be the indication.

This province has never indicated, and I as the minister reporting for Housing have said I would not indicate to this government, that we should get into an interest writedown position on mortgages.

The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the time for oral questions has expired. I made some allowance to extend question period because of the opening points of order.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister did not answer the question as to whether or not there was, as the ads claim, a plan to cut mortgage interest rates on new homes.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will have to reserve that for tomorrow's question period. The time for question period has expired.

I would like to point out to all members that I have noticed during the asking of questions that many questions contained two or three parts. I hope that does not become a tradition of question period. We will move on to the business of the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. T. P. Reid, first reading of Bill 182, An Act to amend the Election Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Election Act in a number of ways. First of all, the term "British subject" as a basis for voter or candidate qualification in an election is removed. All voters and candidates must now be Canadian citizens.

3:10 p.m.

The chief election officer is given authority to set standards for convenient access to polling places by physically handicapped persons. The bill provides, in so far as is reasonably possible, all polling stations should be, and all advanced polls must be, accessible to the physically handicapped. Such persons are permitted to name voting proxies up to and including the day of the election.

The political affiliation of candidates would be shown on the ballot. Campaign material is prohibited from being brought into or placed near a polling place on election day. The procedure for establishing the qualifications of a voter whose name has been omitted in error from the polling list is extended to all polling subdivisions, rather than simply rural subdivisions. Finally, the restriction that limits a person to assisting only one blind person in voting is removed.

This is the same as one I introduced five years ago. I hope it will especially be considered by the 30 members of the House elected since then.

The Deputy Speaker: Might I have the unanimous consent of the House to revert back to petitions. In my haste I overlooked petitions.

Agreed.

PETITION

TAX ON FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, last spring I introduced a petition of 6,400 names respecting sanitary pads and tampons. Since that time 500 additional names have been sent in. I present an additional petition of 547 signatures of people who want the seven per cent tax removed from these products.

The Deputy Speaker: In my haste it would appear we also missed motions.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, you were not hasty, they were tardy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, listen, I am sure that all members would like to hear this motion since it affects us all.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that this House adjourn tomorrow, Friday, October 8, and stand adjourned until Tuesday next, October 12, at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

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. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, as you can see there is a consensus at least in this, that the House -- the Tories, the Liberals and the New Democrats -- wants to hear my speech.

Mr. Conway: A consensus in the House and on the bus.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, on the bus, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk can tell the members.

Mr. Nixon: I can verify that.

Mr. Di Santo: The other night I started debating Bill 139.

An hon. member: Bill 179.

Mr. Di Santo: Bill 179. I tried to explain the reasons why the government belatedly had decided to join the federal bandwagon with its own restraint program and to give the untold reasons why the government thinks that at this time it can impose this program, which is selective, which is arbitrary and which punishes one single group in our society without suffering any consequences.

The only consequences the Tory government is interested in are the polls. It must have taken its own opinion polls because it spends $40 million a year to check what the reaction of the public is to almost everything so that, as good leaders, they can provide from the polls the leadership the public wants.

Most likely also on this occasion the government has taken its polls and it has probably come to the conclusion that by singling out public servants and other public employees it would not suffer at the polis. Last Sunday the Toronto Star gave us a bit of the reaction of public opinion. It said that in Metropolitan Toronto there is overwhelming support for the six and five control of the federal program and, by implication I think, also for the provincial program.

However, if the government is convinced that it can get away with this program, I think in the long run it will suffer the consequences and will be wrong. Members know that this type of program is effective if it is limited in time and is pretty general. It is a medicine that no one wants to swallow but it is accepted for the common good. I never understood exactly what that expression means, but it is accepted as being for the good of all citizens.

Controls must have a positive effect. They should cure the whole problem and help solve the economic crisis, which is the major symptom of the problem. The government has chosen to attack one aspect, inflation, and not on a general basis but selectively by taking one sector of the wage earners in this province, the public servants. Most likely that will not help to fight inflation or help to create jobs. Above all, that will not help the people of Ontario and the people of Canada to come out of the recession.

Even though members may hear all the members of the Conservative caucus, the ministers, those who are able to articulate any thought at all, repeating the clichés that have been prepared by the staff of the Treasury and public servants who are paid by the taxpayers of Ontario to make the Tory caucus look good, even though they have tried very hard to justify and to rationalize this program, I think that deep down they know it will not work.

3:20 p.m.

Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Davis) was speaking to some 2,200 supporters of the Progressive Conservative government, who paid $200 each to attend the party's annual fund-raising dinner at Harbour Castle Hilton Convention Centre. I assume that the great majority of those 2,200 people were those hospital workers, nurses, workers for the municipalities of the province and caretakers in the public schools who were joyously joining the Premier and the cabinet to help raise the fortunes of the Conservative Party by paying $200 a plate. And, of course, they went there to express to the Premier and the government their support for the government axing their wages.

Yesterday the Premier said something very important. He said he could not quarrel with the contention of the New Democratic Party that the controls will not produce a single job in Ontario immediately. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) has asked me to repeat that. I think it is very important and I want to do so. I am quoting from today's Globe and Mail, in which it is stated that the Premier said "he could not refute charges by the Ontario New Democratic Party that the controls won't produce a single new job in Ontario immediately. But he said that over the long term the restraints will diminish the pressure on inflation and on capital market and will have reduced expectations by example."

Later on I will come to this and explain why this statement, which has been repeated time and again by the Premier, and by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on September 23, that restraints will diminish the pressure on the capital market, is a myth, is totally untrue. For the time being, let me tell the assembly that the Premier recognizes that there will not be one single job created by the program, even though he puts the caution that that is only "immediately."

The 489,000 people in Ontario who were unemployed at the end of August must have rejoiced at hearing the good news from the Premier, that there will not be one single job for them in Ontario now, but in the future, in the fullness of time -- that very dear expression the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) used so often when, in her capacity as Minister of Labour, we asked her when she was going to introduce the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act. She said, "in the fullness of time." Yesterday, the Premier, along the same line of thought, said that in the fullness of time inflation will be reduced, the market will not any longer bear the incredible burden of the government requiring funds and, therefore, for some mysterious reason he did not explain to the 2,200 faithful, the economy will start going up again.

We all know that things do not work that way. We know that if we want to solve the problems of the economy, if we want to come out of the recession, we must have a plan in mind, we must decide what we want to do and we must infuse capital into the economy if we want the economy to rebound.

That is not an extremist Socialist approach; it is recognized by everybody. As late as last week, even the Economic Council of Canada came out with the same revolutionary proposals: let us cut taxes, let us increase the federal budget and let us create jobs. But for this government only the parochial interest of the Conservative Party exists, and since it was encouraged by the federal poll that shows there is support for the policy of restraint on the public sector, it decided it should join in, but not on the private sector.

I think there is genuine discomfort among the Tories, the federal Tories and the provincial Tories, because they realize, after all, that Canadians may be a very patient people and may take everything that comes from bad governments like this one, but at some point in time they may say, "That's enough." Probably they say it in their private conversations. They probably hear it from their own friends at the Albany Club. Let us try to show there is some fairness because if we do not touch at all the private sector, if we curb only the wages of civil servants and we leave income from companies totally unrestrained, then the people will eventually say that is unfair.

The Premier last night, in a speech that probably the members of the Conservative caucus heard and applauded, said, "The private sector's assessment of its role in these difficult times is a responsible and sensible one." I assume, by implication, that assessment of the role in these difficult times by public servants of this province and all the other public employees is probably irresponsible and nonsensical.

The Premier said yesterday, in his first major public speech since he slapped the five per cent control on public employees, "The government can't see one group singled out if we do not have the support of those of you with responsibility to the private sector." One would expect the next line of the Premier's speech would be, "Therefore, we expect you will join the program. We will legislate you as well." But, no, the Premier cautioned the private sector to be more responsible and more sensitive.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Di Santo: I did not want to interrupt the Minister of Education, because Mrs. Stephenson is so witty.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: My name is not Mrs. Stephenson. If he wants to say "Ms." that is fine. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member should refer to you by your office.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege: I fully accept your recommendation that the ministers must be addressed by their titles, but personally, when I address the member for Riverdale, I can say the member for Riverdale, Mr. Renwick. I said "Mrs. Stephenson" with affection. I did not mean to be derogatory.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. You have the floor to continue your presentation on Bill 179.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: I am old-fashioned, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps later in my speech you will allow me a digression on the relationship between members of the Legislature on opposite sides.

The Acting Speaker: No. I would prefer that the member continue his presentation on Bill 179.

Mr. Di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will restrain myself and go back to the bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Stop interjecting on the interjections.

Mr. Di Santo: I am always reluctant to challenge the rules of the House. They are rules we impose on ourselves collectively and are our only mechanisms to express our points of view and our policies. I am more interested in challenging the policies of the government. I think your advice is timely, Mr. Speaker, and I want to go back to discussing the bill.

Yesterday, at a dinner of 2,200 Conservative supporters who paid $200 each for a fundraising dinner at the Harbour Castle Hilton, the Premier said something that really bothered me, because it is in line with what the federal government is saying about Canadians. It is an abdication of responsibility and of the duty of leadership the government should provide to the people who elect it.

The Premier said he might be accused of sounding mid-Victorian. One may observe -- and certainly the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is having the thought -- that in his modesty, the Premier is thinking of himself in historical terms, the continuation of some great historical figure, and that is why he compared himself to Queen Victoria and not to the daily reality, which is much more vulgar.

The Premier said he truly believed people have to learn that the economy can produce no more than they are willing to put into it. This is sound, solid common sense, which I wish the government would use when it deals with its own business.

He went on to say -- and this is what really bothered me -- that a large part of the difficulty is that people are more inclined to complain and blame others for their problems than to work together in a spirit of co-operation.

A few weeks ago the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Jean Chrétien, made a speech in the same vein, saying that Canadians are a nation of bitchers. Of course, there is no evidence that Canadians are a nation of bitchers, because if these controls had been imposed in any other country in the democratic west, in an industrial nation, one would have seen a very strong public reaction, not only by the people singled out, the civil service, but also by the general public. One also would have seen the trade unions reacting very angrily, because one cannot attack one group in our society and expect it will rejoice that one is cutting its wages and lowering its standard of living.

In Canada, nothing happens. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the people are saying that controls are very good. Not only that, they would like to see their own wages and salaries reduced. The federal government, through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, dared in a public forum to accuse Canadians of complaining and of being bitchers. I think that is really too much. One cannot crucify 500,000 people and expect they will applaud. They can get away with it because we have a type of structure in our society such that power is in the hands of a very few people and there is no equilibrium at all.

The Premier talks of working together in a spirit of co-operation. The Minister of Education said the other night that we should reach a consensus. The Treasurer said that there should be consensus on the policies of the government. If they want a consensus, they should ask the co-operation of the people from whom they expect the consensus before they make the decision. They cannot come into this chamber and point-blank impose controls on 500,000 people and then expect their consensus. They expect consensus from people and political groups in our society that may have legitimate and different views on how to run the economy of the province.

If we had a different type of setup in our society, the Premier would have asked for a consensus before imposing any restraint. In France, where our friend President Mitterrand has imposed four months of controls --

Mr. T. P. Reid: And he is a Socialist.

Mr. Di Santo: He is a Socialist, yes. I want to remind members that he is a Socialist. He imposed four months of controls after having consulted the trade unions and after having set up a committee of trade unions, patronat, employers and government. In that instance, they have an extremely detailed timetable. They said after four months the inflation rate would come down to seven per cent. The workers and all the employees, even if reluctantly, must have said, "Okay, this is a medicine we must swallow and we will." That is how one reaches a consensus. That is how one can ask people to co-operate collectively, not this brutal way.

Even though it is done through this process by a debate in the House, this way resembles very much a dictatorship type of imposition on people which we can try to delay. In fact, that is what we are doing in this debate. We are trying to make the people aware that these types of policy are the wrong ones for Ontario and that we will not let the government recall the assembly to impose this arbitrary bill, shut the House again after a brief discussion and then declare it is business as before. That is not the case.

3:40 p.m.

My friend the member for Riverdale spoke quite eloquently when he took part in this debate. While I recognize my shortcomings, I wish as I speak that I could offer, not the same contribution but the same influx of enlightened ideas to this debate. However, I cannot. I recognize that. But the ideas that the member for Riverdale brought to the attention of this House finally have been taken up by some people in the media and now are being discussed.

Last year we had a great debate on the Constitution and on the Charter of Rights, which we have framed in our offices. The member for Riverdale suggested that before imposing this bill on Ontario, the government perhaps should have considered whether it was a violation of the Charter of Rights. I do not know whether that is the case but, if the bill is passed, I hope the government will be convinced that it is by our strong opposition and that of the people who are affected. If this bill should be considered to be in violation of the Charter of Rights, then the government will have made an incredible mistake.

Mr. Renwick: They have made an incredible mistake.

Mr. Di Santo: The member for Riverdale says that in fact they have made an incredible mistake, and I trust his doctrine and his knowledge.

Leaving aside the legal aspect, I want to tell this assembly and the member for Riverdale how I would feel if I were one of those 500,000 people who have had their contracts broken by the government, although they acted according to the law of the land when they signed those contracts after having gone through their negotiations and having come to an agreement with their employer. Just because of a decision by the government, not one of the contracts signed will be honoured any longer; only the will of the government will prevail. Even though from a legal point of view the Supreme Court will probably say there are no grounds for recognizing that this bill is a violation of the Charter of Rights, in moral terms I think it is a violation of the rights of citizens who, when they signed their contracts in good faith, trusted the government to respect those contracts.

From an educational point of view, think of the disruptive effect of this bill when we go to our schools and tell the students, "The law is supreme and must be respected," but the government of Ontario can violate that law. This is the basis for anarchy, and the government is doing this for purely opportunistic reasons.

Yesterday the Premier said that the private sector must consider some restraints because it is, in his words, "both responsible and sensitive." I suppose he has in mind that civil servants are both irresponsible and insensitive. I think all the members who were at the $200-a-plate fund-raising dinner for the Tories --

Mr. Renwick: Will my colleague permit a question, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order or a point of privilege?

Mr. Renwick: No, it is not a point of order. I was just asking as a matter of courtesy whether my colleague the member for Downsview would permit a question.

The Acting Speaker: No.

Mr. Stokes: There is ample precedent for that.

The Acting Speaker: In that case, carry on. It is most unusual.

Mr. Renwick: I simply want to ask my colleague whether this is the fund-raising dinner that the chief of police of Metropolitan Toronto attended for the Conservative Party?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I am taken off guard by my colleague and I cannot respond. I pass that question to you; if you feel in your wisdom you can answer somehow, I will be glad to defer the answer to you. I am not implying you were there last night, Mr. Speaker, because I have no way of knowing that. You were there? Well, I did not know that.

Mr. Philip: You don't look like somebody who would have $200. There is more money in computers than I thought.

The Acting Speaker: We are dealing with Bill 179.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I think this is all part of Bill 179, because the Premier yesterday, in his speech to the 2,200 people who attended the fund-raising dinner for the Conservative Party at $200 each, said that expectations are important and are part of our psychology.

I do not mean to be malicious, but perhaps those 2,200 people who attended the dinner yesterday may have a small doubt in their minds and may wonder whether in a time of restraint wasting $200 on a dinner is not a slap to the people on welfare, who have just $58 a month to spend on food, as my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) demonstrated in his fast last month.

I want to go back to Bill 179, because it is very important to me. I was saying that yesterday at the dinner the Premier warned the private sector. He imposes control on the public sector, but he warns the private sector. We understand the reasons. We are all adults and we know how things are in Ontario. We know that is a smokescreen, because we know this government will never touch the private sector, because the ideologues of the Conservative Party are freer to express their opinions when the Conservatives are not in power than when they are in power. When you are the government, you have certain restrictions on yourself. When they are not in power, they say what they really think.

What do they think of the imposition of controls on the private sector? Let us go to the source and see what the Conservative finance critic in the House of Commons, Michael Wilson, said. He said the Premier was wrong in calling for federal wage and price controls in the private sector if voluntary restraint does not work: "Davis is right to slap a five per cent ceiling on public sector employees in his curbs package -- and they refuse it -- but wrong to assume that controls on the private sector may be needed at some point, Wilson told the Star yesterday."

3:50 p.m.

And then: "'The problem is not the private sector; the problem is the public sector, in the government sector,' he said, referring to inflationary wage and price hikes. 'To impose a program of across-the-board controls on the private sector reduces its capacity on that side of the economy to pull us out of the recession we are in.'"

"The MP for Etobicoke Centre said, 'Government's most important objective is the creation of jobs, and the last thing the government should be doing is holding back the private sector when so many companies are already in a position of lost profits or low profits.'"

I think this shows exactly where Conservative thinking is: Do not touch the private sector. Give them all kinds of incentives, give them all kinds of tax deferrals; but slash the public sector. I think that in this, apart from a philosophical approach, there is also a great deal of prejudice and ignorance, because if we look very carefully at what is called the private sector, we will see that it has not been the bright spot of this society in the past and it certainly is not now.

We know very well how the economy of this country is shaped. We know very well how the private sector operates. We know very well that our economy is dominated by foreign corporations, that we have an incredible network of branches of foreign-owned companies that make decisions for us and that the so-called private sector is largely not a sector of entrepreneurs but an army of executives who make no decisions, follow orders and in many instances do not risk anything on their own.

I also want to say without regret that in many instances we have seen that whenever the private sector finds itself in open waters competing with other nations, it falls apart and is incapable of competing. When they are in trouble, what do they do? They call on the public sector. Look at what happened to Dome Petroleum last week. Look at what happened to Massey-Ferguson. Look at what happened to a number of major industries. Look at what happened to the pulp and paper companies. Millions of dollars were given to Massey-Ferguson, because on the one hand they preach the virtues of the private sector and condemn the interference of the government in the business of the nation, but whenever they are in trouble they cry and come to the government, and the government comes to their rescue.

In fact, I think it is objective to recognize that the Canadian private sector has been able to flourish in Canada for many years mostly because historically we had a very high tariff barrier. Anyone would have been able to operate behind that barrier, because they have a huge country with virtually no competition and an incredible natural resource sector, almost infinite. In those conditions I wonder who in any capacity would not have been able to flourish.

But when they come to compete, then we really see what the private sector does. We know what happens in the world market: they are unable to compete. Look at the electronics industry. In the past few years some Canadian firms have been able to develop an industry.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may, out of respect for my colleague, I fail to see a quorum.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

4 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, it makes me absolutely happy that more members are willing to listen to my speech. Even though I am saying things that may hurt our friends, the members of the Conservative Party, because of the positions they take and how they operate, because of caucus solidarity, because of personal reasons --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask a reasonable question. Could I ask who moved the motion for a quorum?

The Acting Speaker: That is not relevant to the debate at hand.

Mr. Kerrio: Is that not a valid question?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Downsview has the floor. I do not accept that as a point of order. The member for Downsview will carry on his presentation on Bill 179.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, thank you. With your indulgence, may I remind the member for Niagara Falls, who is an absentee quite often from the work of this chamber, that the member who called for the quorum is the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who is sitting in his seat --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Di Santo: -- and is also very anxious to listen to my speech. I wish the member for Niagara Falls was interested.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Downsview has the floor.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would say to the members that we are in the midst of a very serious debate. The member for Downsview has the floor. I have asked the members several times to maintain decorum.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I am a team player but I cannot make a speech in a choir. I need some attention and some concentration because we are discussing a very important problem, and it is very difficult to co-ordinate ideas when conversations are going on in the chamber. I appreciate the Speaker's sensitivity.

Before being interrupted, I was saying that the Premier recognized yesterday that this program will not create one single job. He also warned the private sector to join in a self-restraint program that was undefined because we know very well that the government will never -- and am not suggesting it should -- touch the private sector because the Tory philosophy, as expressed by the finance critic in Ottawa, Mr. Wilson, is that the private sector must not be touched.

That reminds me that even if there is some confusion in the language between the provincial and the federal Tories, it is not just an accident. It is part of the inability of this government to come to grips with the real problems we are facing. In fact, while the Premier yesterday recognized that this program will not provide one single job, yet the Treasurer, who is responsible for this bill, even though in a skilled but not very convincing way he has tried to justify the bill, said in response to the announcement yesterday that the federal government may be thinking of some job creation programs, "That's a good thing if it is done jointly by the provinces and the federal government."

As I said before, according to Statistics Canada, the seasonally adjusted figures for the end of August show we are faced with 489,000 people who are unemployed. How do the people of Ontario react? One day the government says, "We need to restrain the wages of the public employees so that we can fight inflation," or, as the Premier said yesterday, create a climate by which investment and the forces of the market will be at work again.

Although the Premier recognizes that with this program not one single job will be created, at the same time the Treasurer recognizes that the reason is to create jobs. Not so the federal government. As we know from how things work, the federal government's job-creating program is not something written down in chapter and verse, but is an idea that will be worked out. When that will be, nobody knows. Perhaps they will set up a task force to study the feasibility of a job-creating program. Perhaps they will create a commission. We do not know. Perhaps there will be a need for a further conference of the first ministers, the premiers and the Prime Minister. Perhaps there will be a need for a conference of the finance ministers. We do not know. It is just an idea.

In the meantime, what can the 489,000 people unemployed in Ontario at the end of August expect from the government? That is what we are discussing. We are discussing leadership, not expediency. As I said before, we know what this government program is based on. It is on the hope that the people will accept the program and therefore the government will be off the hook for a while. Then if there is an upturn in the economy, it will still be up in the polls. In 1985, thanks to new polls taken from now until then, the government will create some new acronyms. At that time there will no longer be BILD, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, but there will be something else, and the people will flock to the polls and re-elect the Conservatives forever.

I think they are wrong. Right now what we are facing is a different type of crisis. Everyone recognizes that. Even the economists in the Globe and Mail and in the Star recognize that we are not now faced with a typical cyclical recessionary period as in the past. We are faced with a structural crisis that needs a new approach. if we want to create the conditions to rebuild the economy, if we want to create the conditions for -- what is now an abused word -- recovery.

From the point of view of pure expediency, even in its own interests, for the government to introduce this legislation, Bill 179, which curbs the wages of the public servants, is wrong. We know very well why the federal government introduced its own restraint package. We know very well that Senator Keith Davey published a red book for all federal Liberal members in which he explained that the six and five package, the restraint program on the federal public service, had one objective only, to rebuild the fortunes of the Liberal Party. In fact, I have not seen the red book of Chairman Keith, as Maclean's Magazine called him, but we know very well what the contents of the red book are.

4:10 p.m.

We know exactly what Senator Davey said. He said: "The six and five strategy touches several positive nerves in the public conscience -- the Prime Minister's rededication to a strong economy. Canada finally has a chance to get itself together. If we do not co-operate now, we are all in trouble. Everyone can do his or her bit. In fact, the government has opted for some political hardball. Therefore, it must work. It will work if the posture is one of permanence in these times of crisis."

Then he said: "Notwithstanding all the efforts of the government, however, if the program is not being forced on the political side, the Liberal Party will not reap the maximum benefit it could. The key is to sustain the momentum well into the fall. We must create the impression of economic progress, i.e., the budget is working." Then he goes on to say that the ministers must speak in terms which signal a Liberal crusade against the recession, stress the team approach, etc., but give the impression of economic progress.

I think it is tragic if the government of Ontario, in enforcing the same program, started from the same point of view wanting to reach the same goal. If they really think the public accepts this program now, we do not know what the feeling will be four or five months from now, say next winter, when the unemployment rolls have increased, when more people are out of work, when unemployment insurance benefits have run out for many people. We are told by the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration that 500,000 more people will be affected by the end of December. We do not know at that point what public acceptance of this miserable program will be.

For now we know what the polls are saying and what the people in Metropolitan Toronto are thinking, according to last Sunday's Toronto Star. But if the government thinks that by imposing this program it can solidify the fortunes of the Conservative Party in Ontario, I think it will be proved wrong. I think they probably knew before drafting Bill 179 that Keith Davey had given his red book to each federal Liberal member of Parliament and knew what the goals of his actions were.

If they really think they can give the people of Ontario an impression of economic progress by imposing Bill 179, I think they are facing a very serious disappointment because the bill will not help to solve one single problem we are faced with. It will not help one single unemployed person among the 489,000 unemployed in Ontario and it will not create one single job. That was recognized last night by the Premier himself.

If political expediency was the basis of the federal plan, and probably the provincial plan, there must also have been other reasons why the governments of Ontario and Canada decided to impose controls only on public servants. If that is the case, what could the reason be? We know that our analysis, as Socialists, is dismissed by the government and by the commentators in the news media.

Mr. Kerrio: Maybe you are wrong. Did you ever think that?

Mr. Di Santo: My friend the member for Niagara Falls says I am wrong; maybe I am.

Let us see what none other than Gerald Bouey says. He was speaking to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is not a Socialist crowd, a civil service crowd or a workers' crowd, but all most respectable Canadians, dressed in blue or grey. He said, "Rising prices are still a matter of great dismay." Then he said he recognized that mortgage costs were up 23.9 per cent and were higher last month than they had been a year earlier, that gasoline prices were up by 18.9 per cent, car insurance by 30.2 per cent, local transit fares by 22.6 per cent and energy prices by 17.6 per cent.

It is ironic that when we talk of controlling prices, the Premier, as he often likes to do, says, "The free forces of the free market are slowing all over." We can then justify why prices should or should not or can or cannot be controlled. But when we are talking of mortgages, we know very well they are not the result of those abstract forces in the free market, they are the result of the public policy of the government of Canada.

When we talk of gasoline prices that increased by 18.9 per cent, we are not talking about the forces of the free market; we are talking about a price imposed on the citizens of the country by the government. Whether it is through an agreement between the governments of Canada and Alberta, or whether it is through the legal robbery by this government by its ad valorem tax on gasoline, it is a price imposed on citizens by legislation in Parliament through a decision of the government.

4:20 p.m.

When we are talking of car insurance costs that increased by 30.2 per cent, we are talking of administered prices that are regulated entirely by the government. When we talk of the price of energy, we are talking about prices imposed by the government. But then look at what the Premier of this province said when he was asked, "Since you are curbing the wages of the public service, will you also curb Hydro rates?" In reply, the Premier indicated, "The province is unlikely to impose a six per cent ceiling on Ontario Hydro rates in this next year." I am quoting from the Star.

The paper said: "'Hydro is in an entirely different position than Bell Canada, the federally regulated company Ottawa is restricting to rates of six and five per cent over the next two years,' Davis said in an interview yesterday. 'Hydro is a nonprofit corporation. If Hydro spending is not met totally from its revenues, it has to borrow.'''

This is the greatest discovery of the century. Probably the Premier does not understand that if a family cannot get enough income, then either it has to borrow or it has to suffer the consequences. That applies to individuals and it applies to the incomes of the citizens; it never applies to the friends of the Conservative Party.

Speaking to the chamber of commerce in Ottawa, to that respectable crowd, Mr. Bouey said: "Well, we had no choice. Since cutting pay demands was the easiest thing to do and was the only thing we could do easily, that is why the government opted for curbing the wages of the civil servants and the wages of the other public employees." This proves to me that there is a total lack of direction on the part of the government in the way to fight for economic recovery. They are totally lost, faced with a situation they never had to face in the past.

I came to this country some 15 years ago today. I am glad to announce that the plane that took me to Toronto came in at five o'clock, half an hour from now, 15 years ago on October 7, 1967. When I came to Canada, like many other people, I came to a country with immense natural resources, with an immense territory and in which I think many people feel there should not be restraints in physical terms.

I know, Mr. Speaker, since you are a very learned person and have travelled widely abroad --

Mr. Samis: All the way to Pickering.

The Deputy Speaker: Oshawa.

Mr. Di Santo: In your visits to European countries you have seen that the cities are built in a different way because there is not so much space and houses cannot occupy lots as big as ours. Actually, the whole lot is occupied by the building itself. In Canada we do not have that problem. We know we have an immense reserve of territory and immense natural resources. Therefore, we feel unrestrained. Today this bill goes against that way of thinking, that way of being ourselves in our country. This is another reason I think this bill is an unnatural emission of a way of thinking that is contrary to the history of this country.

Interjection.

Mr. Di Santo: My friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) suggests that it is certainly an anti-Conservative bill. We know the stomachs, if not the brains, of many members of the Conservative caucus are boiling. I know what pain many of them will have when they have to vote for this bill. I think of the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), a free enterpriser who is against interference in the private sector. How can he vote for this brutal interference in the free bargaining process that is part of the process that is accepted also by free enterprisers? This bill is opposed to the way of thinking many people in Canada have been brought up with.

If the bill was only introduced for political reasons, it could be understood. In fact, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce felt the need to remind the federal Liberals that if they were using the six and five solution for the benefit of the Liberal Party, then perhaps the private sector would not be as supportive as it had been when the program was announced. I remember very well the night the program was announced, the chairman of the chamber of commerce, Mr. Sam Hughes, saying how elated he was because the public sector had been axed and how the fortunes of the Canadian economy would flourish because of that decision.

We know very well there were political reasons for the introduction of the program. The reasons were outlined, before the program was announced and before Bill 179 was introduced in the Legislature, in the Toronto Star by a conservative commentator, Jack McArthur. He asked: "Should wages be controlled by law while prices are left largely uncontrolled or at least less controlled? Should companies be freer than workers to try to raise their incomes to keep up with inflation?" Then he said: "We cannot be sure because, judging by Ontario's venture into partial wage and price control, it is hard for government to admit it. We cannot be sure because the province talked a good fight about pressure, but it is likely that the program will be tough on wages and soft on prices."

Jack McArthur was writing before the bill was introduced, before the government had announced its program of restraint, while the government had three months from June to decide and while the Premier was at his cottage cutting grass and thinking about the economy of the province. Even then Jack McArthur thought the program would be hard on wages and soft on prices. He said:

"As we talk about the six and five program, the province wants personal incomes to rise much more slowly than inflation. That is the only quick way of making much impression on rising prices and costs. In contrast, there is probably little concern about putting the heat on prices and corporate profits. In fact, Ontario no doubt" -- and I want to emphasize this -- "wants industry to believe that it has no real objection to higher profits, but it must at least pretend to slap some kind of price controls on provincial agencies and companies regulated by the province and to half imply that other companies also should restrain themselves. This gives the appearance of being in parallel with the five per cent limit imposed on the pay gains of provincial and municipal employees."

Chairman Keith Davey said, "We must create the impression of economic progress."

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Mike Cassidy wrote much more interesting memos about rent control, but that is another story.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, does the member for Renfew North (Mr. Conway) wish to raise a point of privilege or something?

The Deputy Speaker: No, he was just interjecting.

Mr. Conway: I have to speak after you; so I want to get the benefit.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, my friend is not noted for brevity himself. He must bear patiently with me and wait until six o'clock or maybe even later. After supper we can start again refreshed, and by 10:30 I can invite him for a drink.

In the meantime, as this a very important bill, and I suffer very much when I am interrupted, because it is very difficult for me to concentrate. Mr. Speaker, I know you will appreciate that the approach of the government is so confused that to try to rationalize and justify what they have done and to try to understand why they have done this is very difficult. It is a difficult task for anyone, and especially for me.

Interjection.

Mr. Di Santo: Every interjection costs me a growing pain, because I have to reorganize my way of thinking.

Chairman Keith Davey said, "We must give the impression of economic progress." According to Jack McArthur, the program that the provincial government has introduced must at least pretend to slap some kind of price controls on provincial agencies and half imply that private companies also should restrain themselves. As he says, "This gives the appearance of being in parallel with the five per cent limit imposed on pay gains of provincial and municipal employees."

There is no sense of justice, of fairness or of honesty; the government's approach is just to give the impression, to pretend and to half imply that other companies should also restrain themselves.

In his speech to the 2,200 faithful Conservatives who participated in the $200 fund-raising dinner yesterday, the Premier warned the private sector that it should consider putting restraints on itself. He did not say, "I want you to restrain yourself and cut your prices the way we are cutting the wages of the public employees." He just gave the impression and half implied that the companies should also restrain themselves.

On one hand we have this arbitrary legislation that axes the salaries of public servants, and on the other hand we have this dishonest approach that tries to convince the people that the private sector is also bearing some of the burden when the policy-makers are convinced that this will not happen. In fact, I wonder what they say in their private conversations at the Albany Club. Do they say: "How can we best deceive the public? The public wants controls; so let's give them the impression that we will also control the private sector, that the private sector will bear its fair share."

Mr. Philip: I wonder if this Speaker paid $200 for a veal cutlet the other night.

The Deputy Speaker: No comment. This is not question period.

Mr. Philip: He doesn't look like somebody who would have $200 either.

Mr. Di Santo: Jack McArthur goes on to say:

"Put your money on this. However the policy is dressed up for the public, Premier William Davis wants to be sure he doesn't frighten businessmen. He feels that would hurt us all by scaring off new investment, new production and new jobs. This 'probably' false front of price control and guidelines makes the Ontario program confusing and less than honest in its presentation."

These are not my words. These are the words of a conservative commentator who thinks the same way as members of the Conservative Party, who belongs to the same school of thought, who goes the same way and rejoices with them when the fortunes of free enterprise are booming. He says Premier Bill Davis wants to be sure that he doesn't frighten businessmen; however this policy is dressed for the public, he does not want to scare his friends.

Price control is a false front and the guidelines make the Ontario program confusing and less than honest in its presentation. We know that. That is why we are here and why we are making a concerted effort in this debate. That is why we want the public to realize that this is not an ordinary bill, hastily introduced and debated and then shelved. This is a very important government policy decision contrary to the interests of the majority of the people of the province, not only the 500,000 people affected by the legislation. Therefore, the public must realize we are faced with an arbitrary government.

To quote a person I usually do not quote, the controversial candidate in Broadview-Greenwood, Peter Worthington, this is a democratic dictatorship. This is the result of a dictatorial governmental decision which will affect people while denying them recourse. Before the last election, the Premier never mentioned he would introduce controls.

As late as last spring he said: "As long as I am Premier of Ontario, I will never impose controls because they are not necessary, because they are discriminatory. I will never impose controls on civil servants." That is what the Premier said and, of course, we now have this legislation. And that is why people like Jack McArthur, a conservative writer, say that this program is less than honest.

4:40 p.m.

Jack McArthur goes on to make what I think is a very interesting comment. He says: "It would be better, if politically dangerous, to explain why prices don't need curbs this time around." I think he is right. If the government came to this assembly and to the people of Ontario and said: "Listen, prices do not need curbs at this time." For what reasons I do not know, but probably the government should have some justification in view of this piece of legislation, the government could have at least justified its actions by saying, "We think that prices do not need controls for many reasons." And then they could find excuses. They find excuses every day; I do not have to make up excuses for them.

They could have said the world market for resources is soft, nickel is not selling, iron is not selling, raw materials are not selling, pulp and paper products are not selling, and therefore there is no need for controls on prices.

But they did not even try to justify it. They are trying to deceive the people by saying, "We will control some prices," which I know we will not buy and they know we will not buy it. They only rely on the people, because they have a very low opinion of the public of Ontario. They really think people are gullible and that this bill is a disguised way of controlling prices. They know very well that the people will not buy that, because prices will not be controlled.

Jack McArthur says what in his opinion could have been the government's justification for saying publicly that they did not think it was necessary to control prices at this time. He says the reasons are, according to him, falling profits, prices having levelled and the world market. Then he says: "The truth is that Premier Davis and almost anyone interested in economic survival wants profits to rise from their abysmal lows. That demands that any legal prices have to be, shall we say, flexible."

I do not know whether the Premier thinks profits can rise by curbing the wages of 500,000 people in Ontario, by saving $420 million; which as members know will be the optimal result of the bill if everything works according to the forecasts of the Treasurer and the people in his ministry.

I do not believe the problems of the economy in the province are that simple; I believe the world is much more complex. If profits are down, it is not only because wage increases have been too high in the past, because historically we know very well that wages in both the private and public sectors have not increased in the same way as inflation in the past five years.

We know very well that we have problems in our economy that are not cyclical; they are problems that are structural. We have a crisis in the automobile industry which has nothing to do with wages. We know very well that the last contracts at General Motors and Ford were settled at way below the inflation rate. We know very well that last year when Chrysler was on the edge of bankruptcy, the workers made a concerted effort and helped to refinance the company.

We know that the crisis in the automobile industry is not a crisis that has been brought about by increased wages. On the contrary, it was the price structure which resulted from the greed of the American manufacturers who have dominated the market for so long, virtually without competition, and by the way they treated the consumers in the North American market.

The American car manufacturers thought they would dominate the market forever and could impose any kind of junk on the consumer and that the consumer would buy. When they were confronted with stiff competition from European, and then increasingly from Japanese, car manufacturers they did not know how to react. Now they are trying to retool their factories and are faced with the very tough proposition that it will take a long time to reconvert the old industry.

All that has nothing to do with wages. Therefore, if the government and the Treasurer think that profits will rise immediately by curbing the wages of civil servants, they are wrong.

Jack McArthur made some predictions on how the government would behave. He wrote, "It seems there will be no high-powered campaign to persuade uncontrolled companies to volunteer for no more than five per cent." We know that. We know that while the government is spending huge amounts of money in its advertising campaigns for everything and anything under the sun, inviting people to vote, inviting people to buy products that are not made in Canada -- even though the campaign is supposed to be a buy-Canadian campaign -- it will not wage any campaign to persuade its friends.

Then McArthur explains how it controls some government agencies and regulated companies to be operated by a cabinet committee instead of the anti-inflation body created for the administration of this bill. We understand why. I will explain why the government has chosen the route of putting a committee in control of government agencies and regulated companies: it is so that the operation will be run in the secrecy of a cabinet room where the public will not know why the decisions are made; and they will be handed the final resolve in the hope that nobody will complain or react to whatever decision the government makes.

Finally, he says: "Some of the alleged five per cent ceilings on price increases may be much more than that. Corporations will be allowed to pass on certain rising costs by adding whatever is necessary to their prices, if the market permits."

They get special freedom to try to keep up with inflation. We know that. I do not think we needed a Jack McArthur to tell us that the government always operates that way. It will allow the companies to pass on the hidden costs to the consumers.

4:50 p.m.

The Premier said Hydro must have that freedom, because otherwise it has to borrow on the market. We know what happens with rent review, that incredible farce that has been imposed on the tenants of Ontario. Landlords can pass on to the tenants every possible cost. If you have ever been at a rent review hearing, Mr. Speaker, you will know that you would think you were reading one of Kafka's novels. Usually, there is a group of tenants who are, in many cases, not experts, not knowledgeable about the act. They know only that the landlord has requested an increase of 27 or 30 per cent in their rent; or as in a case in my riding, on Trethewey Drive, a 57 per cent increase. They think the law provides that they must pay only a six per cent increase. The member for Oshawa agrees with me.

Mr. Breaugh: Of course.

Mr. Di Santo: They go to the hearings, they are confronted by landlords, accountants and lawyers who try to make the case that the landlord can pass all kinds of costs on to the tenants. What happens to tenants who have seen their building sold and resold several times in the last few months? They do not understand why, all at once, there is a fever on the market for their building.

In an excess of generosity, one Cadillac Fairview building was sold for $1. The tenants cannot understand why such a huge building is sold for $1. They go to the hearing and think the commissioner will ask them, "Do you agree to accept a six per cent increase, which is required by the law of the province?" They find that building, which was sold for $1, has been refinanced with a mortgage of $4.5 million, they think quite ingenuously -- ingeniously; ingenuously.

If I may digress for a moment, I had a conversation with my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). I asked him if there is a word in the English language that I do not know very well, "ingenuous." He told me there is a word "ingenious," but I really meant "ingenuous." That is what I mean today, even though my friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) is hinting that I should say "ingenious." I really mean "ingenuous."

The Deputy Speaker: Will you be deducting time off your speech, now that the member for Cornwall has interjected?

Mr. Samis: This is better than having a thesaurus.

Interjections.

Mr. Di Santo: As I was saying, tenants, naïve as they are, do not understand why their building has been sold for $1 million and refinanced for $4.5 million. All of a sudden they learn from the commissioner that the new owner of the building actually can add to their rent 85 per cent of the new mortgage. Then they realize what a farce it is.

When the legislation was passed initially there was a minority government, and when the Premier almost lost his skin in 1975, rent review was introduced to put some controls on rent. But now, after the reality of the March 19 election, it has become a farce and rents are going up every day. We know that the average increase in rents in Ontario has gone much above six per cent.

The same will happen with prices, not because Jack McArthur said it but because we know that the government, with its regulations, will find a way to allow companies to pass through all kinds of costs we are not aware of. These will surface, the companies will increase their prices and the government will not react because they know they have to protect their friends.

This is not all that happens with Bill 179. I mentioned what has happened with rent review, and I can mention the Workmen's Compensation Board. We do not know what will happen there. I was eager to hear from the government benches about the fact that the bill also provides that, by regulation, coverage may be extended to include employees of other public organizations or other compensation plans in the public sector. We have not yet received an answer as to whether the benefits of injured workers with temporary or permanent disabilities will be covered by this bill.

We are very familiar with the way the government operates in these cases. We have a law, and then in the administration of the law the government finds a way to protect their friends. That happened three years ago when the government wished to reduce company contributions to the compensation fund for injured workers. Our critic of the Workmen's Compensation Board at that time was the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella). He waged a valiant and powerful campaign against the Minister of Labour in an effort to get some justice for the injured workers, and the government appointed a commission to conduct a study.

After the study was finished -- and, of course, the government did not reveal the results until several months later -- the government reduced the fees paid by employers. If I remember correctly, and my colleagues can correct me if I am wrong, the government said there was no need at that time for any increase in company contributions because the actuarial position of the Workmen's Compensation Board was sound and they could afford to pay higher benefits without aggravating their friends.

5 p.m.

In fact, our so-called sound policy was revealed in the past few weeks when we were participating in the work of the committee on the Weiler report and the white paper on worker compensation. We learned that the Workmen's Compensation Board fund is in such bad shape that there may be a need for an infusion of public funds to supplement the fees paid by employers.

At this point I do not know whether Bill 179 will also cover injured workers and recipients of Workmen's Compensation Board benefits, but this proves what Jack McArthur was saying, that, as happened in the area of rent review, when the government comes to the determination that it has to protect some of its friends, it does so by regulations, by ways outside public control. That is another reason we are staging this strong opposition to the bill.

Incidentally, if the government is going to impose restraints on the benefits of WCB recipients, I believe it will be making an incredible mistake as well as perpetrating an incredible injustice. Mr. Speaker, you know better than I do that the minimum total disability pension is only $686 at present; that is for people who are 100 per cent disabled. You also know that the pension for dependent spouses is currently $492 a month. Without rent controls and with increasing prices for food, clothing and other goods, I challenge anyone to justify how a spouse can survive who in many instances has lost the family breadwinner.

I also challenge anyone to justify how it can be possible to impose restraints on this type of pension, which is recognized by everybody to be totally inadequate. Not only people on this side of the House and people in the labour movement, injured workers' associations, organizations and groups, but also Professor Weiler, the Ministry of Labour and several delegations that appeared before our committee, including employers' organizations, recognized that pensions to dependent spouses are totally inadequate and unfair.

Apart from the emotional implications, it is totally unfair to give only $492 a month to a person who has lost the breadwinner in the family and thus has had the family's financial situation totally destroyed because of an accident. It would be a grave injustice if this type of benefit were to be axed because of Bill 179.

I must write that number down, because I have the initial draft without a number. It is just a bill with no number: that is the reason I initially said Bill 139.

Interjections.

Mr. Di Santo: Thank you. Those numbers are most confusing at times. I want to go to the second part of my speech, but for the benefit of my friends --

Mr. Allen: And that is everybody.

Mr. Di Santo: -- and everybody, I should say that initially when I started talking I divided the speech into three parts. The first part was my understanding of the bill and how I understand the government's action. In the second part I will try to analyse how the government has rationalized its position and how it is justifying the bill. The third part will be why the government position is wrong, because it does not respond to the situation it is trying to correct, and therefore what our position and our alternatives are.

At this point I am going to analyse the reasons the government has given to us and to the public of Ontario for introducing Bill 179. In order to do that we have to go back a little bit before the bill was introduced. We have to go back to February, when the Premier took part in the first ministers' conference.

At that time the Premier made one of his statements, which was definite and unequivocal as usual. He said, "This government is opposed to the imposition of controls on the civil servants because they are discriminatory, they are unfair and we will not go for that." We remember when the Premier went to that conference. We remember when he went to a subsequent conference, when he went to Halifax, how enlightened his position was, what kind of leadership he provided with the positions he put to everyone.

I think this was summarized by Donato in one of his cartoons in the Sun, which portrayed the Premier of the province immersed in the smoke that was coming out of his pipe. The caption said, "Debts." That's the clear position taken by the Premier.

At the first ministers' conference in February, Ontario produced an economic blueprint. In brief, the Premier suggested his solutions, which were: first, reliance on megaprojects combined with infrastructure support in the anticipation of industrial spinoffs in Ontario; second, restraint in government spending and wage demands; and third, restoring investor confidence.

On the wage side of the equation, the Conservatives argued that linking wage settlements to increases in the consumer price index helps to spread inflation, and to break this link governments should give immediate consideration to incentive measures that would encourage employers and employees to adopt forms of compensation that are linked directly to their own industry's productivity and profit performance. However, on the investment side, they argue, the taxation of capital gains should be modified to ensure that only real gains after accounting for inflation are taxed.

5:10 p.m.

The immediate reflection on this position is that we can understand the Conservatives want to protect investments from inflation. They have said that time and again. Jack McArthur explained that in clear words in his article. They have to give the impression they are controlling prices. They want profits increased because they think that profits are very important in the economic development. It is their way of thinking, I understand that.

But they want to protect investment incomes from inflation. In fact, the Premier suggested that capital gains should be taxed only after having discounted inflation, while wages should not be protected from inflation. It is a little bit difficult to justify, even for the Premier in his smoky way of expressing himself.

When I was reading the economic blueprint produced by the provincial government for the first ministers' conference -- I must confess that even though they are not exciting reading I do read the documents produced by the provincial government -- I was wondering if the Premier would have come up with the same idea of linking the wages of bank employees to profits when the profits of the banks last year were 50 per cent higher than the year before.

Can you imagine the Premier of Ontario speaking to the Canadian Bankers' Association and saying: "Well, my friends, the wages of your employees should not be linked to inflation, because inflation is dangerous. They should be linked to profits and productivity. Since you increased your profits last year by some $1.7 billion, or 50 per cent, you should increase the wages of your employees by 50 per cent"?

That is a really ludicrous proposition when it comes from a government which historically was one of the leading governments in the nation, a government of a province which was simply the hub of the economy of the nation. The Premier knows very well that in past years wage increases in both the private and public sectors have been much lower than the rate of inflation.

If there is a justification for any employees to keep up with inflation, the justification is that the incomes of the people, of the citizens, are necessary for those citizens to buy the goods that are necessary to them: to pay for their houses, for taxes, for services that they use. Therefore, if inflation goes up too fast, in order to keep up to inflation they justifiably ask for an increase in their income so that their standard of living does not fall substantially.

We understand that. We also understand that in some exceptional circumstances we can ask the citizens to lower their expectations. But I cannot understand how the wages of workers can be related to two factors that are totally independent from them, that are absolutely out of their control: productivity and profit performance.

Productivity is dependent not only on the ability of the worker to produce goods but also on many other factors. It varies from one industry to another. For instance, Mr. Speaker, you know very well there are industries with very high labour content. In those industries, if we measure the productivity according to the simplistic way of thinking of the Premier, only in relation to the ability of the workers to produce goods, perhaps we will see that productivity in those industries is very low.

If we take the industry with high technological content, like the microchip industry or the nuclear industry where the product per person is extremely high, and measure productivity only on the basis of the ability of the worker to produce goods, then the productivity is extremely high.

In both cases we can have people making the same effort, or we can have a case where a worker who is working in a very high productivity technological industry is making much less of an effort than a worker working in an industry with a high labour content, such as the mining industry or the construction industry, and we will see that the productivity of that worker is much higher; therefore, productivity is not only the result of the worker producing goods or work.

Also, the Premier implies something that is very typical of Conservative thinking, disbelief in the workers and scepticism about the honesty of the workers working very hard. In other words, the Premier suggests, even if not openly, that unless the workers work harder the problems will not be solved. As I said before, productivity is not only linked to the ability of the workers to produce goods but to many other factors.

For instance, my friend the member for Cornwall knows there are textile industries in his riding that have been in existence for years. A few years ago we visited a clothing factory and I was absolutely shocked to see that company has been in existence since the late 1920s and virtually has not produced one single technological change in the plant.

What is the result? The workers can work as hard as they want, but when the companies come to compete with more modern industries, even in the United States, which was their traditional market, they cannot compete. Then they accuse the workers of being lazy, of not being productive, of having low productivity. This is a clear example that productivity is not the result of what workers can do with their hands, but a more complex problem.

We can see the same in the electronics industry. It is a sad commentary for those Canadian entrepreneurs who were able to develop a very sound microelectronics industry in the last few years, starting from scratch because there was no tradition in Canada and there was and is no public policy in support of research and development in the area to support investments in the sector.

5:20 p.m.

It is a sad commentary for those people who were able to build a sound industry. Now they are faced with the second stage, when they have to operate in not only the Canadian market, which geographically is a big market but it is still a small market when they have to operate in the world market, and they do not have the support they need because we do not have the instruments.

The public policy in Canada has been one that has protected the industry behind the tariff barrier in Canada but has been unable to inject investments into the export industry so that our exporters could operate in the world market and become competitive with other industries. In fact, we know that the Japanese, after having made gigantic steps in the automobile industry and the mechanics industry, are now directing their efforts into the electronics industry.

They are investing, in the next two or three years, some $500 million in research and development and export incentives, which, in an assessment made recently in the Canadian press, brings us to the conclusion that three or four years from now a number of our microelectronic industries that have flourished in the last few years will be faced with such tough competition they will be unable to compete on the world market.

At that point, I do not think anyone can accuse Canadian workers of being less productive than Japanese workers, or Canadian companies of having a lower productivity than Japanese companies. As I said, the workers are one element of the total picture and by singling them out, as the Premier did in his economic blueprint, and asking them to base their wages not on the inflation level but on productivity and profit performance, the Premier is proposing something that is unacceptable to the workers and the employers.

If we were to apply the same reasoning to the banking system last year, then all bank employees should have received wage increases of 50 per cent. That does not make economic sense at all. It is extremely difficult to justify the position of the government that says, "Okay, let us protect investment incomes, let us protect the incomes of the companies from inflation, but let us not protect the incomes of the employees from inflation."

I think that not only from an economic point of view but also from a human point of view it is difficult to justify asking people to lower their expectations and standard of living while at the same time the government builds a tower around the companies and protects their incomes.

I know why this is happening. In a perverse way Bill 179 is the final result of a design that is much wider, that goes far beyond the civil servants and the other public employees. Bill 179 is only one element. We know that in this country we are faced with a rationalization of the capitalist system. Both the federal and the provincial governments are asking the people to pay for that rationalization while at the same time they are protecting the interests of the big corporations, which will eventually come out of the recession stronger than before with the labour force weaker.

Eventually they will deal with the workers, when the recession is over, from a position of strength and will impose their conditions on the workers, which means lower wages and higher profits for the companies. Bill 179 is one of the elements of that mosaic.

The fact that the government is very willing to axe the public employees, while at the same time it is very anxious to protect the interests of what it euphemistically calls the private sector, is proved by the latest events that have seen the rescue of the Dome Petroleum operation. We know that Dome had a huge deficit of $7 billion, and the government and the banks have rescued Dome.

Yesterday the chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said: "The common shareholders should get down on their knees and thank God that we came to an agreement. If we hadn't done this, their shares would have been worthless now." Then the Globe and Mail says, "In fact, Dome's shareholders should be joined on their knees by the shareholders of certain banks, including the one that employs Mr. Harrison." Mr. Harrison is the chairman of the Commerce. "Few home owners who lose their homes because they cannot keep up the mortgage will be so kindly treated."

Then it says: "Ian Sinclair, chairman of Canadian Pacific Enterprises" -- and the chairman of the federal agency monitoring the controls -- "and the government's top corporate ally in selling the six-five program, went to essentials when he said: 'In principle I would not be supportive of government overcoming the mistakes of lenders or of shareholders. Now in the Dome situation it may be a pretty good deal for the government; to pick up Dome at $2.50 a share seems to me like not a bad deal, and I was happy to see that existing shareholders were able to get in on the same basis as the government. Now, having said that, it simply is an interference with the normal operation of the marketplace, and in that sense I am sorry that it took place.'"

5:30 p.m.

The Globe and Mail said that few home owners would have the same treatment from the government. We know that. We know how many people are losing their houses because of interest rates. Bill 179 does not address this problem at all. But, regretfully, in the case of the private sector it is all right for the taxpayers of Ontario to infuse $500 million.

We have seen that time and again. When Chrysler was in trouble, the government stepped in; and also when Ford was in trouble and wanted to build a new plant. The members will remember that the then Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) tried to bribe Volkswagen to build a plant in Barrie. The government offered more money than they actually asked for.

We see the federal government going to the rescue of Dome Petroleum. Federal Minister of Energy Jean Chrétien felt it was important to say that Ottawa was forced to participate in the rescue but that the government does not want to control Dome.

This is the basic philosophy behind Bill 179 and the economic policy of this government. It is okay to spend public money to rescue the corporate bums of the nation. It is okay to rescue companies like Dome Petroleum, which last year anyone reading the Globe and Mail business reports or any other economic report would have gathered seemed to be one of the gigantic companies of this country, successfully merging with and absorbing other companies without any control at all.

In this country there is no control on investment. Capital moves freely and can go wherever the private sector decides it should be invested. But when they make a mistake, when the investment goes wrong, when Dome Petroleum is faced with bankruptcy, where does it go? Does it go to the private sector to be rescued? No; it goes to the public, to the taxpayers of Canada.

Mr. Haggerty: They were following the policy of Saskatchewan. They were doing that for years.

Mr. Di Santo: I suspect the member for Erie has come up from a deep sleep and was not following what I was saying. If he would have the patience to listen to me --

Mr. Haggerty: The member is driving me to sleep.

Mr. Di Santo: -- I will summarize my argument for his benefit.

I was saying that in this country investments are decided by the private sector. But when we are confronted with the banking system -- which is a typical example of what the economists define as an oligopoly; not a monopoly but a monopoly of the few. The Greek word "oligos" means "few." Therefore --

Interjection.

Mr. Di Santo: Does the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) want to make a point of clarification? No, he does not want to make any point. He will vote silently for this bill, even though he is against it. I know many people in the Conservative caucus will do the same. Really they disagree, because their philosophy is against controls, but no one will dare to challenge the order of the boss, and they will all vote supinely together, like a spineless herd.

If I can be helpful to the member for Erie, I was saying that investment decisions are made by the private sector, which uses the savings of Canadians in a way that is not at all controlled. In fact, capital is never controlled in this country.

Last year, Dome Petroleum was involved in several mergers involving billions of dollars. If the member for Burlington South was consistent, he would agree with me that in a free market, since last year Dome Petroleum made some decisions that went wrong, now they should suffer the consequences. I say they should not suffer the consequences, but he agrees that civil servants should be punished without any responsibility.

Mr. Kerr: The public will suffer if Dome goes under.

Mr. Di Santo: At this point, I fail to understand that logic. I do not understand how last year Dome Petroleum made wrong economic decisions and wrong investments, but the public should rescue them, the government should rescue them; while the public servants, having signed a contract with the government of Ontario, without being at fault should now be punished.

I wish that the voters in Burlington South could hear what their member is maintaining in this chamber, and I wonder how he could justify himself in any logical way.

Mr. Kerr: It's easy.

Mr. Di Santo: He is right. In Conservative terms, logic is not important; perceptions are important and do not follow logic.

That Dome Petroleum was rescued is bad, but it is even worse that faced with --

Mr. Kerr: It is ours.

Mr. Di Santo: It is not ours; the federal Minister of Energy said today, "We have no intention of controlling Dome Petroleum." That is what he said. It is on page 6 of the Globe and Mail, the editorial page.

But it is accepted that must happen. It happens all the time. When Chrysler was in trouble, it was rescued. It does not happen when a citizen is faced with the same situation. In fact, the Globe and Mail says pointedly that no home owner is treated like Dome Petroleum. If a person who bought a house five years ago was faced --

Interjection.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Burlington South, if he has to interject would he do so loudly so that I can hear him.

I can understand that he will vote for this bill even though he does not agree with it. But an interjection is not a statement of principles. He can at least interject loudly; he does not have to mumble interjections because nobody will condemn him for saying something during the debate.

5:40 p.m.

I was saying that Dome Petroleum was rescued and describing the way it was rescued, with the government making it clear that, "We will give you the money but we do not want to control you." I do not understand why. It is not normal practice. I have never seen anybody in the private sector investing money and saying, "We will invest our money, but we do not want to control you." It is normal, common practice that if one buys the majority of shares of a company, one acquires control of that company. But not the government; it must give the money and actually it must thank Dome for having made mistakes and having mismanaged and squandered billions of dollars. That is bad.

I have to quote a newspaper I usually do not quote because it gets to my stomach. We are talking of controlling the wages of people who make as little as $10,000, and people who work at switchboards for $15,000 or $16,000 as public employees. The Sun today says, "DomePetroleum, the beleaguered oil company that is now virtually government property" -- without being controlled, according to Jean Chrétien -- "after being in hock some $7 billion plus and threatening to send our banking system into receivership, is very generous to its senior executives.

"Its senior executives get raises that are mindful of the national budgets of some Third World countries. Imagine the president of this oil company that can't find oil getting a 100 per cent increase last year to $400,000 annually, plus fringe benefits that amount to an extra $100,000." That is a 100 per cent increase in a company that is bankrupt. "Some vice-presidents of the company got" -- more modestly -- "50 per cent increases, which amount to $150,000 to $180,000. Bizarre, yet typical of when government is involved in the private sector."

The Sun says it is typical when government is involved in the private sector. In fact, it is typical of this government when it gets involved in the private sector. We have seen that with Suncor, when the government bought shares but did not buy control of the company. We have seen this with Dome Petroleum -- and this is not to save a Canadian company, we know that.

The Sun says the rescue operation has saved the banking system from going into receivership, and that is the truth. The banking system made incalculable mistakes by lending money to Dome Petroleum and to other companies -- which were doing what? They were speculating on inflation because they thought the inflationary cycle would go on and on. Dome Petroleum last year acquired company after company because it thought they would prosper with inflation.

The banking system lent billions of dollars to those companies that were speculating on inflation. Now they are in trouble and now they come to the crunch. They are on the brink of bankruptcy for $7 billion plus. And what happens in this beautiful country? The government rescues the banking system, those who have made the biggest mistakes. The government of Canada comes to the rescue of Dome Petroleum, those who have been speculating on inflation. Then what do they want? They want the public service to be curbed, to take a pay reduction to help solve the problems of inflation. Is that not beautiful?

When the government talks of public acceptance of this program and relies on the passivity of the public, it does so with a guilty conscience, because it knows what it is doing is basically dishonest and against the interest of the Canadian people. In the long run it will show. In the meantime, they are selling a situation that in the short run will perhaps save them financially but will in the long run be detrimental to the economy of this country.

We have seen this on the horizon for the last three years. This province, which for many years has been the hub of the economy of the country, the toast of the nation -- because when Ontario was healthy Canada was healthy -- in the last two or three years has had the lowest economic growth rate in Canada despite what the government says and what the Treasurer says to justify the bankrupt policies of this government. We have been the last province in Canada.

Look, sector by sector, at where our strength has been in the past. The manufacturing sector is a total disaster. The government knows this very well. If it does not, I think it is totally out of touch with reality. They know that some Canadian industries disappearing from the manufacturing sector may not come on stream again. Many branches shut down because of rationalization by the multinational corporations will not come back again.

Seven or eight years from now, in 1990, when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade comes into effect, it will no longer be convenient for American companies to locate in Toronto. The tariff barrier will be lowered by 40 per cent. If the cost of labour and other conditions are comparable, it will be more profitable for many companies to produce in the United States and export to Canada. At that time, I will want to see what this government will tell us. We will be faced with an industrial sector that cannot be rebuilt overnight. We will be faced with an economy that will rely essentially on dwindling national resources.

Even national resources are not infinite or eternal. We know very well what is happening in the forest industry. We were convinced -- I must say I was -- that our forest industry was almost inexhaustible. It is a renewable resource, and we have such vast territories that we probably felt we would never see the end of our forest industry.

Mr. Stokes: Only if it is managed properly.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: But we know very well that it has not been managed properly. The interjection by the member for Lake Nipigon reminds me of the visit we made a few years ago in his riding to an area that was being cut at that time. A forester told us, "I do not care if there are people from the Ministry of Natural Resources, I think the management of our forests in Ontario is criminal."

I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I was totally shocked when I saw the way trees are cut. We know that methods of selective cutting are used in other countries with large forest reserves, such as the Scandinavian countries. I was also shocked by the methods used for reforestation. Now, after so many years of the mismanagement which has been referred to in the House frequently by the member for Lake Nipigon, the government comes to us and tells us we should proceed with reforestation.

I remember, I believe it was in 1977, what happened to the present Treasurer. The Premier had announced his reforestation policy and the Treasurer, then Minister of Natural Resources, said, "We will not replant one tree for one tree cut, we will replant three for one." Many people laughed at the time, but now we realize that the situation is very serious. The forest industry is another industry which will create very serious problems for the economy of the province a few years from now when Ontario will for the first time in history be an importer of wood. That certainly does not reflect favourably on the ability of this government to manage the economy of the province.

With this bill the government is trying to make us believe that if we curb the wages of 500,000 public employees in this province we will fight inflation. That is not true, of course. They know it is not true. They say we will help to rebuild the economy, that we will have recovery. I am convinced they know better than I that that is not true.

As I have already mentioned, the Premier said yesterday that not one single job will be created. The Treasurer recognized that yesterday when he said that joining in job creation programs with the federal government was a good idea. If it was not such a sad state of affairs, it would be laughable that the Treasurer, after so many months, has not a single idea on how to create jobs but relies on a program so vague that only God knows if it will ever materialize, or if it ever will be defined. Of course, he did not elaborate last night when he was asked.

How is it that when he introduced the budget he was so sure, he was so euphoric, that in the second half of the year there would be a turnaround in the economy? I wonder whether the Treasurer when he speaks on this bill will explain to us on what his forecast was based when he presented the budget in May. He said categorically that in the second half of the year there would be a turnaround in the economy. Of course, he was wrong then and, if history had ever taught us something, then the Treasurer would know --

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Has he lost his place? Is he going to start again?

Mr. Di Santo: I did not expect the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel to understand what I was saying because I know it is difficult for him to understand. He understands only the orders that come from his boss and he will faithfully vote the way he is told to vote.

I was saying that the Treasurer said last spring when he introduced the budget -- and the member may go into his office and read the budget -- that in the second half of the year there would be a turnaround in the economy.

Now, in the second half of the year, I want to remind the members that we had the last slam in the economy. We lost six per cent of the gross national product in terms of growth. We lost more jobs in the second half of the year than in the first six months of the year. The Treasurer was wrong then. I was saying if history teaches us anything, then perhaps the Treasurer could consider that, even with this bill, he may be wrong. Before we go ahead with the discussion, he should consider and withdraw the bill because this bill will not help to solve any problems.

After the dinner recess, I will attempt to prove to the Treasurer that the five reasons I understood were behind the bill, to justify the bill, were wrong. I will try to do that, but it being six o'clock, I would like to adjourn the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you just sit down. Are you going to continue on at eight? Fine. Why don't we just say you will continue on then. You do not have to move the adjournment of the debate as you will be back on at eight.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, I will be back at eight.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

October 7, 1982