Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House may know, a vigil is currently taking place outside this Legislature as a gesture of the very deep concern felt by many Canadians over the fate of Anatoli Scharansky, now in prison in the Soviet Union.

In 1978, Mr. Scharansky was sentenced to prison for 13 years. His only crime was to ask for liberty of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom to leave the Soviet Union to join his wife in Israel. In short, he is a prisoner of conscience, and the cruel and intolerable circumstances leading to his imprisonment, and indeed the very circumstances of the imprisonment itself, compelled him to commence a hunger strike last month.

Mr. Scharanasky's imprisonment and the conditions in which he has been forced to live are a fundamental violation of basic human rights, not to mention a violation of the Soviet constitution, of the Helsinki agreement and of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, all of which are supported by the Soviet Union.

I hope all members will join with me in sharing these concerns and in expressing sympathy with the cause that has brought members of our community to the steps of this Legislature.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise the House that an Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry has been formed and, along with my co-chairmen the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), we have assisted in the organizing of the vigil that is before this building today. There are now some 26 members of the Legislature and four other staff persons who have joined this group. I hope others will take advantage of this opportunity.

On behalf of the committee, the co-chairmen have sent today the following telegram to Leonid Brezhnev, chairman of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet Council:

"We, the Ontario Legislature Committee for Soviet Jewry, call upon the government of Canada to intervene on behalf of Anatoli Scharansky, to take all appropriate action to ensure his health, his safety and immediate release."

A copy of the same telegram was sent to the Honourable Alexander Yakovlev, ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to Canada, and to the Honourable Allan J. MacEachen, Secretary of State for External Affairs.

The committee will meet in a nonpartisan way from time to time to deal with particular prisoners of conscience. We hope that what we do will be of some small assistance to those who wish to live in peace and freedom and whose only crime is apparently to seek to do so. I welcome all other members who join with us, and I hope the efforts we have begun will be of some assistance in the future.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the co-chairperson of this committee, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who is not present in the House at the moment, I wish to say that we in this caucus are delighted to be associated with this nonpartisan effort, which is quite consistent with the resolution of the assembly that was passed a year or so ago, relating to the whole question of terror and suppression of civil rights among people in all countries of the world.

We welcome the opportunity to participate. We welcome the initiative that was taken and we will be participating, as occasion permits, in the vigil now under way.

RESTRAINT ON DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to correct the record. At our last regular sitting, on Friday, October 15, the Premier (Mr. Davis) is quoted on page 1035-1 of the Instant Hansard as saying, with respect to the inclusion of the medical profession in Bill 179, "I was here the first day the bill was introduced. His party" -- and he means the New Democratic Party -- "was calling for the inclusion of the medical profession." That statement is demonstrably false. The Premier is very fond of putting words in other peoples mouths, but he will look in vain for those words in that or any other issue of Hansard.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMONWEALTH GAMES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, not long ago, I stood before this House to speak to the Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. At that time I said that part of our continuing mandate would be to aid the development of talented amateur athletes and to provide for them the opportunity to attain national and international status.

Today I have the pleasure of informing the honourable members that our programs are bearing fruit, even beyond our expectations. As the recent Commonwealth Games in Australia proved, this province has produced athletes of spirit and intensity, desire and dedication.

Almost one half -- 42 per cent to be precise -- of the 185-member Canadian team who went to the games was made up of Ontario athletes. About three quarters of the medals brought home by the Canadian team went to Ontario athletes. Of the 11 Commonwealth Games records set by the team, a whopping 10 of them were set by athletes from Ontario.

2:10 p.m.

On behalf of the province and as Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I wish to congratulate all the participants in the 12th Commonwealth Games and particularly those from Ontario. In our gallery today we are honoured to have Kathy Bald, Brigitte Reid and Bruce Simpson, representing the Commonwealth Games athletes. I ask them to stand.

I am delighted these three representatives could be here today. Too often only the medal winners are accorded due recognition. I hope these representatives will express to the rest of their teammates that the people of the province appreciate and applaud the efforts of each and every athlete.

These people represent the epitome of our athletic participation in the province. They and many of their teammates will be honoured at a reception hosted by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario later this afternoon.

Athletes determined to compete at national and international levels embrace a demanding lifestyle. In one way it is akin to that of a politician: there is always somebody nipping at one's heels, willing and ready to take one's place at the first opportunity. Just as politicians must stay on top of their work to serve their constituents so an athlete must serve his body, sustaining it with an appropriate diet of gruelling training.

Through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation's various sports development programs, we offer opportunities for our citizens to undertake that challenge if they choose to do so. I am very proud to announce today two new initiatives in our sports program which will enrich those opportunities.

First, as all members know, this province fields a team of young athletes every two years to represent Ontario at the Jeux Canada Games. The 1983 Canada Winter Games are scheduled for late February in Chicoutimi, Quebec. Eighteen sports will be played at those games and, in preparation, young athletes across the province have been competing for a place on that team. Because of the great level of athletic participation in Ontario, the competition has been spirited.

To build on that grass-roots enthusiasm, my ministry will be bringing together already selected team members and potential team members in the last days of the year, December 28 to 30, for the Ontario Canada Games trials. The trials will involve about 450 athletes, coaches and managers and will provide an important forum for training for final team selection for some sports and for the building of the so-important esprit de corps. The borough of Etobicoke will host these trials. The ministry has committed $74,500 to fund them.

The second initiative I want to announce today is the rebirth of the Ontario Games. It is of particular interest today to know that it was the late Honourable John Robarts who, when he was Premier, opened the first provincial games, held in 1970. These games traditionally have been the first taste of tough competition for young athletes. So that we could thoroughly analyse their place in our program, we suspended these games for a few years. That analysis is now complete and we are certain that these games are important in our sports development program. They are a stepping stone on the road to athletic achievement.

I am proud to announce today that the first reactivated Ontario Games will be held next summer in the city of Sudbury. The province, through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, will provide $400,000 for the operation of the games. They will take place from September 2 to 5, and we expect some 1,745 young people in Ontario to participate in the games.

I wish to welcome here today the mayors of the two communities that will help us launch our new sports initiatives. In the Speaker's gallery are Mayor Dennis Flynn of Etobicoke and Mayor Maurice Lamoureux of Sudbury.

The province of Ontario and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation are proud of our athletes, and we are equally proud to have had hand in the development of their abilities. We will continue to strongly support amateur sport in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), I will direct my question to the Premier, who is no doubt aware of the very distressing news in the past few days with respect to layoffs and shutdowns in northern Ontario.

The Premier will be aware that 200 workers were laid off yesterday at Spruce Falls Power and Paper in Kapuskasing. He also will be aware of the news from Inco yesterday, announcing a three-month extension of its plant shutdown, affecting some 10,000 workers, and the even more distressing news that some 4,400 permanent jobs probably will be lost over the next five years.

The Premier also will be aware that Great Lakes Forest Products has announced a further shutdown of two pulp mills, affecting 1,760 workers, beginning on November 5.

He is also aware that across northern Ontario there are some 47,000 unemployed, and a large number are going to be running out of their Unemployment Insurance Commission payments in the very near future.

Can the Premier tell this House what his government's plans are to help these people over the winter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs is not here. However, as it relates to one of the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Natural Resources was part of some discussions in Sudbury yesterday, and I think he would be quite prepared to answer that part of the question and to perhaps offer some observations on the others, if that would be appropriate.

Mr. Peterson: I find it disappointing that the Premier cannot tell us about these things, but if he would like me to redirect, that is fair enough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can comment, but the Minister of Natural Resources was there, along with the federal minister, people from Inco and so on, and I thought the Leader of the Opposition would like to have as much up-to-date, definitive information as the minister could give. I am prepared to give the answer, but I forewarn him, I think the minister's answer would be more definitive. I thought the Leader of the Opposition might like that.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the temporary layoffs in the town of Kapuskasing and from time to time in other communities throughout northern Ontario. Because these are temporary shutdowns of these industries owing to market conditions, we have established a program under section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which, during the course of this year, has employed more than 4,000 workers in Ontario -- including approximately 1,000 in Sudbury, for instance -- on projects that are of great value to the province and to the Ministry of Natural Resources in the resources sector.

We intend to continue that program. We have the support of the northern Ontario federal representatives to continue the program as well as the support of Mr. Axworthy, the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Roberts, the federal minister with responsibility for the forest sector of our national economy, and Ms. Erola, who has some responsibility for the mining sector.

We call upon the companies that have announced those layoffs to participate as sponsors of projects under section 38. There is a lot of work to be done with respect to forest management in northwestern and northeastern Ontario, and we have the mechanisms available at this time to bridge those temporary shutdown conditions.

We believe this program has been effective and has provided some financial relief to the workers who have faced this situation over the year. We are confident, and in certain selected product lines of the forest sector we see signs that there is some increase in demand now and to come in the future.

Mr. Peterson: I hope the minister's optimism in certain selected areas is not going to overshadow his responsibility to deal with the question now.

We are obviously facing a very cold and grim winter. In addition to that, he is aware from the statistics and from what those companies are saying that the structural nature of some of these problems is going to go far beyond this winter.

The minister's response, it appears to me, does not go very much beyond having a few discussions and dealing with a very small percentage of the unemployed people, not only in social terms but also in terms of finding meaningful work.

I ask the minister to be very specific. Out of those 47,000 unemployed in northern Ontario right now, how many will he be helping with his program this winter?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I hardly think an $11-million contribution by the provincial government and something in the order of a $35-million contribution by the federal government to provide for 4,000 jobs is a less than meaningful contribution. It is a very important contribution to those 4,000 workers who have been assisted.

I reiterate, there is a program already in existence that does not make work; it involves important projects that need to be done to enhance forest management in northern Ontario. It is available now to every single company, worker and municipality in northern Ontario. It is there for their use. We think it does serve the temporary layoff situation and it has successfully served it in the past.

Mr. Peterson: Ask the mayor of Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: We've got 19,000 unemployed in Sudbury alone.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Right now, Sudbury has 1,000 workers who have been helped with meaningful work over the summer as a result of the section 38 program. I have not seen any other program suggested in any other jurisdiction that has matched the success that the Ontario and federal governments have had in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you proud of that record?

Hon. Mr. Pope: It's better than yours, my friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, given the boom- and-bust cycle we have experienced for a number of years in northern Ontario as a result of our almost total reliance on the resource sector, that is, where we process to the very minimum our mineral and forestry wealth in northern Ontario only to have it exported, and given the situation that the Leader of the Opposition has spoken of in the Sudbury basin and those involving the major licence holders, namely, Kimberly-Clark, Domtar, Great Lakes and Abitibi, does the government not see this as an opportune time to look very seriously at secondary manufacturing so that we are not totally reliant upon the export of unfinished or semi- processed products to the United States?

Given the attempted embargo by the United States on the imports of Canadian lumber, does not the government, and the minister in particular, as he comes from northern Ontario, see that as being necessary for the future to establish a realistic economic base in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Of course we do, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason we changed our government policy in the current year to provide for the construction of nurseries in the private sector in many small communities throughout northern Ontario. We have started in the districts of Timiskaming and Cochrane, and the honourable member is no doubt aware of the ad that appeared recently in the papers in his riding. We also started before that, at the beginning of this year, in the Thunder Bay area. They will provide job opportunities that did not exist before.

We have encouraged research into the use of poplar and other species of wood that not been used adequately before, with large volumes of old, mature timber available, and helped in the establishment of feasibility studies for waferboard and medium-density fibreboard plants --

Mr. Cooke: That's your response to a crisis.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What does my friend know about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Does he know where the growth market is right now for lumber products?

Mr. Mackenzie: What a joke -- a political and economic joke.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The member does not know what he is talking about; neither does his party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Van Horne: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier's attention. I am really disappointed, as we all are on this side, that he deflected the situation to his minister. He really should have taken it upon himself to prove that he is the Premier of the whole province and not just of those sectors that are doing well.

I have a supplementary to the minister: On June 15, his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs said that it is time for some sober thought about what elements can and should go into economic development for northern Ontario. He was referring to permanent jobs, not to the short-term, temporary stuff the minister has been throwing out to us, and to the people in northern Ontario, What is he going to do about permanent, long-term jobs for those people in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker. I know what the honourable member's policy is; he has stated it often in the Legislature. He would study it; that is what he would do. That is his proposal: he would study whether we should have long-term jobs in northern Ontario.

In the meantime, the Premier and the Treasurer set up the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee in 1980 and 1981, and that has had more impact on the development of the resource sectors and related jobs in northern Ontario on a permanent basis than anything those guys could ever dream up.

Mr. Peterson: He is a pugnacious little fellow, isn't he?

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. He is no doubt aware of the latest bankruptcy figures that have become available but, just to refresh his memory, I would like to tell him what they are.

In September, 324 Ontario businesses went bankrupt; that is an increase of 22.3 per cent over the previous month. For the year to date, business bankruptcies are up 34.3 per cent over 1981. Moreover, what is even more disturbing, the volume of liabilities is up 32.4 per cent from the previous month and up 167.3 per cent from the same month a year ago. Those figures speak to some very serious problems in our business sector, particularly our small business sector, in this province.

Will the Treasurer please tell this House what he plans to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill 179 probably will bring to a close a very long discussion about what this government is doing about that very matter.

I do not think it is coincidental that we have seen a drop in interest rates since government took a stand in this country. The Leader of the Opposition may think a drop from 19 per cent to 13.5 or 13.75 per cent is not important, but I want to say that is probably the most important factor influencing the survival of many small businesses in Ontario and in Canada.

I would say that is a response from the financial community to the wisdom of the combined efforts of a number of provinces and the federal government, led by ourselves, because I think ours was the first budget to come out with a request for a six per cent rule and we started it; we started it in May.

I can read the member's lips. He does not want his remarks on the record. He really does not want what he said on the record. It would be very embarrassing. His leader in Ottawa got into trouble by mouthing something like that from his seat too. I thought it looked very much like "Fuddle-duddle" when he was standing there.

Mr. Peterson: And it is absolutely true. The Treasurer is the one who took so long to get dragged into this program.

The question I should ask him is, if it is such a wonderful program that he has, why did he not do it months ago when we were calling for some action on the economy? But that is not the point. I will not waste my question.

Particularly disturbing to me are the bankruptcy statistics in the retail and wholesale trade sector, where they are up 15.8 per cent from last month and 22.2 per cent over a year ago, and where the liabilities are up 23 per cent over last month and 124 per cent from a year ago. What we are finding is that his revenue projections are down $137 million over his budget projections as a result of retail sales tax.

Clearly, the Treasurer's budget had an influence on these businesses going bankrupt; so what is he going to do about his misbegotten budgetary proposals that helped to contribute to these very serious bankruptcy figures in this province? He is part of the cause.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let us put things in perspective. Certainly, our revenues are down somewhat below those projected, because we happen to depend upon a number of sources, including transfers from the other level of government.

I would like to point out that the figure the member just gave me is less than one per cent of our budget. I would like to ask how many people in this province have maintained their revenue in small business or any other business within one per cent of projections?

I would also point out that at the beginning of the fiscal year we predicted cash requirements somewhere in the range of $2.1 billion. At present, we are predicting something less than $2.5 billion or around that. That is an increase of 15 per cent. I am not happy about that.

I guess the member somehow has some magic ability to run this province that is not evidenced in Liberals elsewhere, because the federal Liberals are up 350 per cent in their cash requirements since they brought their budget out.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the Treasurer's attention that in previous answers he has indicated to us that his now famous tax holiday was supposed to help many small businesses in this province.

Is the Treasurer aware that his tax holiday is affecting only one quarter of the 240,000 small businesses in this province, and that it is not helping one bit those kinds of businesses my leader just referred to which have their backs against the wall and which are now going into bankruptcy because they are not making any profits and therefore cannot be taxed anyway?

Given these circumstances, given this number of small businesses with their backs against the wall, could the Treasurer tell us how he and his government can continue to justify putting twice as much money into bailing out an American company, Suncor, as was put into the budget supposedly to help Ontario small businesses?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I know when the member was a director of education he had a very good basis in small business. I certainly realize it is superior to mine. When that is where I have spent most of my working life, I obviously would not understand the problems of small businessmen at all and the member, the fount of all knowledge, would. That is the kind of knowledge he has taken upon himself.

I can tell him he does not know much about small business. He does not know a good many of them are making profits and are able to reinvest or pay off their loans with that $250 million of tax we gave back, because it is working.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier and I would ask him not to deflect it to one of his cohorts.

The Premier is aware of the announcement yesterday of the further layoff at Inco and the further deterioration of the situation in Sudbury. What long-term plans has he (a) to diversify the economy in the Sudbury basin, and (b) to provide permanent jobs, not the 1,000 jobs his Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) is so proud of, when there are 19,000 or 20,000 people unemployed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. I recall some time ago when Sudbury was faced with a rather serious economic crisis he attended the same gathering I attended. It was called Sudbury 2001, if memory serves me correctly.

This government committed rather substantial funding to a local group to develop other alternatives for the Sudbury basin. We made it abundantly clear to the community in Sudbury, and that same position is maintained today, that we are more than prepared to assist in any attempt at diversification.

The member fully appreciates it is not possible for government unilaterally to move the manufacturing sector to the Sudbury basin or to anywhere else in this province, but we have taken certain initiatives. We hope the resource sector centre that is going to be developed in Sudbury will provide some incentive.

It is also fair to state to the member that this government, in terms of other parts of northern Ontario, has made and will continue to make a very serious effort to see if there is not some area of diversification, but I think we all understand that the basic resource in northern Ontario will still be in the resource sector.

The problem that exists in Sudbury quite obviously relates to the international nickel marketplace. I know the member does not like me to say this, but that is quite factually the case. It is not an area where, in terms of the supply of nickel, the production of nickel or the sale of nickel, while the member asking the question has a solution, except perhaps the nationalization of the nickel --

Mr. Martel: That's Gordon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just say it is the member for Sudbury East's idea. It is abundantly clear the solution he has advocated for years would not alter the present international situation with respect to the nickel markets.

Mr. Martel: I might suggest to the Premier that since 1978 and the meeting we were at, 5,000 people have left the Sudbury area. I would ask the Premier, since his government has not acted on any recommendation from its own committees with respect to the nickel industry -- for example, refining in the Sudbury basin -- since he has ignored the select committee report of 1978, since his own cabinet committee on one-industry towns, with his Treasurer as chairman, did not make a recommendation, and my understanding is it did not even bother to meet, since there have been two emergency debates this year already on this matter without any answers forthcoming, and since nothing but short-term jobs have been created, given these facts and his failure to respond, is he willing to order Inco to commence operations in January?

Will he establish a nickel trading agency that will stockpile nickel until the international market turns around, with the cost of stockpiling shared between both senior levels of government and taking an equity for that assistance in the corporation? Otherwise, there is no solution to the problems in Sudbury in the short term.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member and I are not going to agree on his last suggestion. I appreciate the sincerity with which the suggestion has been put. It is not unique, it is not the first time that suggestion has been made.

Our considered point of view is that it would not in fact be helpful. It would not solve the problem either in the short or the long term.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in response to me, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) indicated that a solution might be to have another study. There has been a variety of studies into this problem of single-industry communities in northern Ontario and we have heard nothing back.

As recently as January of this year, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) called for a joint study group to look into special problems of communities dependent on the mining industry for their economic health. Now we hear the Premier reply that part of the problem stems from the international market. We have heard comments about the need for a nickel trade agency.

Is the Premier going to ask his various ministers who have suggested these studies and obviously not worked on them, to present to this House in the immediate future some results from the work of these ministries?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness the honourable member should know that in fact the ministries have been working and have produced some results in some communities.

I recognize it is always difficult to appreciate some of the positive aspects because of the magnitude of the problems. Taking Sudbury as an example, I would say the situation in Sudbury does relate to the international demand for nickel. There is no question about it. I do not suggest his party is advocating taking over Inco, but that may be one of their suggestions as the weeks go by. If it is, I will be interested to hear from them.

I have listened to and read some material from the member for London North, and with great respect, when one lives in northern London it is very hard to totally understand the problems of northern Ontario and I have yet to hear any credible suggestion from him as to any definitive program whatsoever.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will be happy to know that I have some definitive proposals to put to him.

Does the Premier understand how his laissez- faire approach to the problem causes such immense destruction in family life and in the business community in Sudbury? Does he really understand that?

Second, does he really believe that Sudbury must forever be dependent upon on the international marketplace to resolve its problems?

I am going to send across to the Premier a document which my colleague the member for Sudbury East and I have put forth to the Sudbury community entitled, A Challenge to Sudbury. This proposal lays out some very concrete proposals, which the Premier seems to want.

Those proposals suggest there should be an integrated nickel complex in the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Laughren: This is the supplementary.

Second, that there be new programs in Sudbury involving energy conservation, food processing, the manufacturing of health care products and the manufacturing of institutional office supplies.

Mr. Martel: And mining equipment.

Mr. Laughren: Will the Premier please respond to each of the proposals in that document and act on them as well?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted, as I always am, to review any constructive suggestion coming from whatever source. I realize the document the member is sending over to me has already been distributed in the form of a news release and I am delighted to receive it after he has distributed it.

Mr. Laughren: I sent one to you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just saying I am delighted to receive it after distribution. I certainly will be delighted to pursue it. I think I can warn the member in advance there will be some suggestions where we will agree to disagree.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Westinghouse in Hamilton. He has been waiting, I know. Will the minister tell the House why, when tests in August showed workers at Westinghouse in Hamilton are being exposed to lead levels six times the maximum threshold limit levels, the work area has not been shut down and no protective actions have been taken for the employees?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the inspectors for the occupational health and safety division have been in with Westinghouse and working with the problems they have been experiencing.

Mr. Martel: The minister is aware this is the same plant we raised concerns about in May, regarding dangerously high levels of the solvent Solvesso. At that time his officials demonstrated incompetence in testing and enforcement.

In this case, the ministry ignored the consistently high levels of lead found by the company itself in April and August. In May, the minister's own officials tested for solvent and paint particulates. They ignored lead when they carried out their tests at that time. The tests were carried out when the paint with the lowest lead content was being used.

Why are the workers still being exposed after many months to lead levels, particulate levels and solvents that are dangerous to their health?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is not my understanding that the workers are still being exposed to high levels of lead. I do know there have been several inspections done and it is my understanding that the necessary orders have been issued and necessary actions have been taken.

Mr. Martel: My information is totally contrary to the minister's. His hygienist, Mr. Rajhans, told us that lead levels as high as those found in Westinghouse should constitute grounds for prosecution, yet his ministry has not even issued orders for ventilation yet. The Solvesso levels and the paint particulate levels are also above the threshold limit values and he is not taking any action to protect workers against the combined hazard of these three toxic substances.

Given this company's appalling record, will the minister not now move to charge them for their failure to engineer out those difficulties?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The files are being studied by the legal department and if there is cause for prosecution, prosecutions will be taken. At the present time, it is my understanding, working with the company, that the necessary steps are being taken to protect the workers.

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney General, if I can get his attention.

The Attorney General may be aware of certain allegations made by the former president of the criminal lawyers' association in Ottawa about certain police officers in the province lying while giving evidence under oath. That was the allegation that was made. He will surely also be aware of certain other allegations that have been made, some of which he is presently investigating, and more recently the situation involving Mr. Proverbs in Toronto.

Yesterday there was a front-page story in the Ottawa Citizen listing a number of allegations involving accusations by defence counsel and judges involving police officers apparently lying under oath.

My question to the chief law officer of the crown is, given these circumstances and these very serious allegations, which I am sure he will admit seriously undermine the administration of justice, is he satisfied that the present process of either disciplining or laying charges against police officers, should there be breaches of the Criminal Code, is adequate to deal with this serious problem?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the story in the Ottawa Citizen. The journalist from that newspaper spoke to me on the telephone on Friday and I discussed it with him for quite a few minutes. I also read certain press reports and statements attributed to Mr. Wakefield, the president of the criminal lawyers' association in Ottawa.

My response has generally been that I think it is one thing for individuals, particularly practising lawyers, to make specific allegations and suggest they should be reviewed. It is another thing to make a general allegation, as was attributed to Mr. Wakefield, that it is very common for police officers to "lie in court."

I characterize those comments as quite irresponsible because they basically amount to a sort of blanket condemnation of law enforcement in this province, whereas I happen to believe the cases where it can be established that police officers may not have told the truth are relatively rare. That it might happen at all is, of course, always a matter of concern, particularly when it happens in relation to a police officer, but in any human institution there are individuals who disappoint the public from time to time.

Obviously, I have also suggested it may just be that certain defence counsel have a vested interest in making blanket condemnations of law enforcement in this province because it may be they want to influence the minds of potential jurors who are going to be assessing the credibility of police officer witnesses from time to time. I just suggest that as a possible motive for some of these general and rather vague statements.

Getting specifically to the point the member raises, which is what should happen when there is evidence of a police officer not telling the truth, I am again answering the question in the context of some of the questions asked me by this journalist. I assume that is what he is writing about. It was suggested these cases are not treated seriously by the crown attorneys and that, where there are on occasion clear breaches of the perjury sections of the Criminal Code, these are not being dealt with in the criminal courts but are simply referred to the police force involved for proceedings under the Police Act.

I said to that gentleman, and I repeat to members of this Legislature, as far as we are concerned the policy of the Ministry of the Attorney General is that if police officers are in breach of the Criminal Code they will be prosecuted. That is the policy as far as my ministry is concerned. I am sure the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) would agree that is the policy his ministry accepts in relation to the administration of police forces.

If there are cases where it is alleged there is strong evidence of a breach of the Criminal Code in this area by a police officer and a prosecution does not follow, I would welcome any comments about these specific cases rather than general and vague statements.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Roy: As a matter of clarification, I do not think anyone would make a sweeping allegation that most police officers who come into court lie under oath. But it is a fact that if one or two instances happen, it is one or two instances too many.

I repeat to the Attorney General, given the statements that have been made in the press and the situation as pointed out, for instance, in the Proverbs case, given the latest circumstances raised by my colleague the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) recently, the Goldman case, and the comments by the presiding judge about police officers lying or not telling the truth under oath, given all of these circumstances and given the fact that --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Stokes: Too many "givens."

Mr. Roy: That member is hardly the one to talk. He makes a speech every time he gets up here. For a former Speaker, he is not setting a very good example.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unduly cross with you but the Attorney General gave a very lengthy answer. I have to pick up on that. In the cut and thrust of debate, I have to get back at him.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Roy: Please, Mr. Speaker, do not interrupt me any more. Given the fact that very few charges have been laid on the initiative of crown attorneys because of their very special relationship with the police -- they are working with the police all the time -- and given the fact --

Mr. Speaker: Having said that, question please.

Mr. Roy: No, I have not said that yet.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Roy: Given the circumstances that presiding judges have made serious comments about that and yet in all of these cases no charges have been laid, would not the Attorney General --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: The NDP members are getting a lesson in asking questions and they are very happy, are they not? They should just sit back and listen. I am being interrupted on a very important topic.

My question to the Attorney General is simply this: Given the fact that the system does not work, does he not think it is time he established a procedure by which to look at these allegations because sometimes the provisions of the Criminal Code are not adequate to deal with this? As the chief law officer, does he not think he should establish a procedure to look at this situation and take proper measures to deal with the allegations, whether true or unfounded?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There were so many interjections I have forgotten most of the preamble. I wonder if the honourable member might repeat the first part of his question.

Our policy is that police officers are treated the same as any other citizen when it comes to a breach of the Criminal Code. That has been the practice. Let me give the member one example. The member says the system does not work. In a very well publicized case not too long ago, two very senior and respected police officers were party to preparing a false affidavit despite exemplary records that stretched over 20 years in each case.

They had good reason to believe the suspect they were interrogating in the case was the appropriate suspect, and they prepared this affidavit. They were prosecuted vigorously and convicted, obviously with very significant adverse influence on their careers.

Mr. Roy: That was an exception.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That was not an exception. That is just an example of what the policy of our ministry is.

EMPLOYMENT IN SAULT STE. MARIE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that last week, on the same night he stated to the Sault and district labour council that wage controls would create a better climate in our economy, one where we would all learn to restrain our demands, the city's economic development advisory board presented a report indicating a frightening unemployment rate in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma districts of about 31 per cent, perhaps the highest in the country outside of Sudbury?

That report indicated the number of people registered at the local Canada Employment Centre has grown from 4,580 in August 1981 to 14,213 in August 1982, an enormous increase of 210 per cent. In view of these figures, can the minister tell us what specific projects he is recommending to the cabinet that the provincial government carry out to bring immediate relief to the Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma districts this winter?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should refer the honourable member to an article I read in the Toronto Star last week, as a response to his comments about my remarks at a labour rally in Sault Ste. Marie last week about the wage restraint package.

I noticed Mr. Nelson Riis, the federal New Democratic Party financial critic, has come out in support of a control program. He said, "These are extraordinary times requiring extraordinary measures." It seems to me that is the exact same thing I said in Sault Ste. Marie that night, but instead of saying "extraordinary" I said "devastating" times requiring serious measures.

I would say it is not just this side of the House that is interested in the wage restraint package. Apparently some cousins of the members opposite are also very interested in controls.

As far as the question regarding exact proposals for Sault Ste. Marie is concerned, I do not have to apologize at all for any concern for the circumstances in Sault Ste. Marie. The member is certainly not alone in the worry that every citizen of that community has for the plight and the circumstances in Sault Ste. Marie. This government is studying proposals to provide assistance wherever possible to all parts of this province, including Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has indicated he is concerned. I wonder if he is specifically concerned about the recent announcement by Algoma Steel of an indefinite postponement of its expansion program, and the persistent rumours in the community of a complete shutdown of Algoma's operations for one or two months this winter? If he is concerned about that, is that where it ends?

In other words, is the minister saying this is what the people of Sault Ste. Marie and area have to accept, in the spirit of learning to accept less from our economic system? If that is not his position, is he prepared to recommend specific job creation programs and interest rate relief programs to his cabinet colleagues in order to stimulate the economy of the Algoma district in particular and Ontario as a whole?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In response to the member, of course I am concerned. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to translate his concern into an unequivocal statement in this Legislature right now that he is in favour of taking every dollar that is to be saved through the restraint program his government has proposed and transferring it into job creation programs that will help the people of the Algoma district, of the Sudbury district, of Windsor and of all the other areas that have been hit by double-digit inflation now up to the 20 or 30 per cent level?

Is he personally in favour, and will he argue in cabinet, to spend that money on job creation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to make that kind of a statement at this time.

3 p.m.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the removal of the radioactive soil from the Malvern area of Scarborough.

The minister is aware that Bill 174, the Malvern Waste Removal Act, may come up for debate later today. When this bill was introduced in July, he was reported to have stated that a site for the soil would have been chosen by the time the bill was debated. Yesterday, I called an assistant of his in the ministry and was told that a number of sites were being investigated, but when asked what sites were being considered his special assistant's only statement was, "No comment."

Would the minister kindly inform this House what site or sites are being considered and when the soil is expected to be moved into the designated location?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first, I think it is important to correct the record. I do not recall having said -- I might have, but I doubt it very much -- that by the time the bill was debated a site would have been chosen. Certainly, I indicated at that point that a number of sites were being looked at as possibilities. That continues to be the case.

With respect to specific sites, obviously the member knows what some of the specific sites are. Any others that might be under consideration would first be discussed with the members in whose ridings they might be located, and they would explored with the local authorities before I would discuss them publicly.

Mr. O'Neil: The minister talks of the freedom of information act and all these other things; surely he and his cabinet colleagues and people within his ministry must have a definite idea or must have zeroed in on one of these sites. Because of the dictatorial powers the minister has under this bill in that he does not have to go to a hearing, but yet can take away a lot of the powers of the citizens in particular areas, I think it is about time the minister opened up and told this Legislature and the people in this province just what the favoured site is, when it is proposed to move that waste and whether it is going to be before the end of the year.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously, I am committed not only to the freedom of information but also to the freedom of the public to have access to correct information before it happens to get distorted. That, I think, is a higher commitment than the one the member is mouthing at the moment, frankly.

I could hypothesize, and if I were even to hint at a particular site today the member would be the first person off the mark to try to create opposition before there was an opportunity to discuss it with local residents and many who might have an interest in the particular location. The simple answer to the latter part of the question is no, I do not have any favoured sites.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear that the minister is not going to make an announcement beforehand. Does he not think it is putting the cart before the horse to pass this kind of legislation before naming a site? Will the minister not withdraw this legislation unless he is prepared to name a site where this soil is going to go? Surely he has things backwards. He is going to play on the fears of the people in Scarborough and other areas, who do not know where he is going to come down.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, again, I think the simple answer to that is no, it is not putting the cart before the horse. Presumably the reason the legislation before the House is to provide for the appropriate legislative authority to meet the needs of the people of Scarborough in removing the soil from that site. There is some question as to whether the appropriate authority now exists. That may yet be challenged in the courts. It is my understanding that if the courts are going to review this legislation then it is preferable that the legislation be dealt with by the House first. I suppose that is not essential, but it is preferable.

Certainly, it has never been the practice of this government, nor will it be, to act in any heavy-handed way to deal with such a sensitive issue. I am just astounded that the member could accuse me of ever having any heavy- handed intentions. I am such a gentle and delicate individual.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of the Environment stated in this House at one time that this soil was relatively safe, why is it being moved?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants a simple and forthright answer, I would still say to the best of my knowledge from all medical evidence available, the soil is safe. I suppose the simple reason for moving it is to protect the mental health of the residents of Scarborough.

REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) in his capacity as the administrator of the Residential Tenancies Act. It is now three years since this act was passed by the assembly and well over a year since the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the constitutionality of the Residential Tenancy Commission established by that act. Can the minister advise the House whether he has met with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) with respect to introducing a revised residential tenancies bill to replace the act, part of which was declared unconstitutional? If so, when can we expect to see that bill in this House?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing those areas of the act which were deemed unconstitutional and the Attorney General has been looking at them as well. Our staffs have had some conversations and he and I will be meeting in the near future to discuss them.

The member should know, as I am sure he does already. that there are differences of opinion about whether some sections of the bill should remain in a separate Landlord and Tenant Act. Some members of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, when I met with them some time ago, indicated some preference to leave them in the Landlord and Tenant Act. In any event, the Attorney General and I will be reviewing the whole issue because there are some important concepts in that bill, parts of which were struck down, which I think we have to address. I hope that will not be in the too distant future.

Mr. Philip: I wonder if the minister can comment on one part of that. Is he aware that according to the Metro Tenants Legal Services, which is connected directly with the organization he just mentioned, illegal rent increases are regularly discovered? Is he aware that one of his own rent review commissioners, the head of the Etobicoke office, estimates that approximately only 10 per cent of illegal rent increases are actually caught? Why has the minister been so slow in at least introducing a rent registry system so that landlords who constantly violate the law and raise rents illegally can be caught?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have no idea if there is any accuracy about predictions of illegal rent increases. Certainly, if they are occurring, they are areas that have to be addressed. The member will not find any argument from me about that. The rent registry is also an area that was in the previous bill and one that we will have to look at as well when we contemplate new legislation in this area.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, many of the applicants appearing before the rent review board are getting very sizeable increases, sometimes between 50 per cent and 100 per cent. Does the minister plan on placing some limit on those increases or, perhaps, plan to freeze the amount of the increases they can get at six per cent or some other limit? Or does he intend to permit the increases to range as high as the figures I have mentioned without his government doing anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope the member for Waterloo North is speaking from fact and not from fiction. As he will know from having read last year's rent review report which was tabled in the House, the average rent increases throughout the province were in the neighbourhood of 15, 16 or 17 per cent.

I think it does not do the member, or the public, any service to use figures he cannot verify. If he has evidence of rent review decisions that are in large quantity, as he has indicated, in which increases of from 50 per cent to 100 per cent were awarded, I think he should produce it. We all know that there are some landlords who have asked for large increases, but I want to know if he is talking from fact about decisions which have granted those increases. I do not have that information available to me. If the member has it, he has an obligation to this House and to the public to present it.

3:10p.m.

In general, let us also not overlook the fact that most of the increases that are occurring today -- and I do not think there is any argument among those who wish to speak about it honestly -- are a result of increases in energy costs and financing charges. People who think about it thoughtfully understand it. None of us like it. The member knows, as I know, that the bill he concurred with some three years ago did not allow any consideration or pass-through of profits unless there was some deficit position the landlord could prove. He knows we are not talking about passing through any profits. We are talking about passing through legitimate costs. If the member has information to back up the statements he has made, I would like to have it and the public should have it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Liberal-Labour Party shaved its beard.

STRATEGIC LAND USE PLANS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) in regard to nonresident crown land camping and his strategic land use planning program. Since the minister has indicated that by the end of the year he wants to put his SLUP program into place and thereby, whether he likes it or not, place a great many restrictions on Ontario residents, what is he going to do about the commitment his predecessor made to me almost four years ago, and which the minister reconfirmed when he took over that position, to restrict the use of crown land by nonresidents, who have been having a free lunch on us all these many years?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the member for Rainy River has raised this point before. First, I disagree with him that the strategic land use plan will in any way restrict the activities of residents in northwestern Ontario or any other part of Ontario. It is not the purpose of the land use plan. It is a guideline that serves as a point of information for residents to have reference to, to follow some of the land use decisions that may or may not be made in the future with respect to our resources under existing legislation.

The honourable member is quite right. On a number of occasions he has raised the issue of the use of crown land by nonresidents and the problems that is causing in northwestern Ontario. We have begun to address that issue with the proposal for the moose-hunting season that we developed over the last few weeks, and which has been announced, indicating that nonresidents must have an Ontario base in order to receive a hunting licence. I think that indicates the direction in which we are going: to try to ensure that nonresident use of our resources results in maximum economic impact for the tourist industry and the residents of Ontario.

In terms of a general crown land recreational policy, I believe that matter will be decided and announced some time in mid-October at the convention being held in Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, since there are many unresolved issues connected with the strategic land use plan, since there is legislation promised but not yet in place in the Legislature that directly affects the application of this plan, and since the minister has undertaken to receive commentary past the August 31 cutoff deadline, at least from some areas, will the minister not accept the fact that finalizing the strategic land use plan at this time is grossly premature? It is putting the cart before the horse. Will he not now leave the door open for public commentary until some of the legislation is in place that directly affects it and some of these matters are resolved?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am aware there is some conflict in many parts of Ontario with respect to specific resource uses, conflicts between private land owners and recreationists. I am also aware that the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has spoken enthusiastically in favour of some elements of the strategic land use planning program. These conflicts have existed for as long as the resource allocation decisions have been made. These conflicts have existed between private land owners and recreationists for as long as people have used our streams, lakes and trails for recreational use.

The land use planning program has been going on now for 10 years with many elements of public participation built into that process, and I have absolutely no intention of delaying the land use planning process beyond the end of the year.

PETITION

ONTARIO HYDRO ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 33(b), we, the undersigned, petition that the annual report of Ontario Hydro for the year ending December 31, 1981, be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Watson for Mr. MacQuarrie, Mr. Piché for Mr. McLean.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. R. F. Johnston, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announcement by Inco Ltd. yesterday, October 18, extending the shutdown of its operations to April 4, 1983, and cutting its Sudbury work force by 15 per cent, in terms of the misery this will bring to thousands of Sudbury families, the very severe dislocations it will cause in the business community and the public sector, the lack of any program from any source to help the Sudbury region recover from this latest setback and the failure of the government to initiate action on any of the options available to this Legislature to alleviate the problem.

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to advise all honourable members that the notice of motion was received in time and complies with the standing order. I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the third time this session to move an emergency debate on the economic conditions in the community of Sudbury. It is probably unprecedented that any member would have such a dubious honour in one session.

Put simply, the economy of Sudbury is in a state of collapse. It should not be possible for an entire community to be put on hold for virtually an entire year. That should not be possible in Ontario in 1982. The announcement yesterday means that a shutdown that began last June will be extended to April 4, 1983, a further three months.

Do you have any idea, Mr. Speaker, what it means to families who have been unemployed for that length of time, since June, and who have managed their affairs with the expectation that, come January, things would get back to normal? They expected to start to bring home an income again, to go to work every day. To have that expectation and to have managed and planned their affairs with that in mind and then to have it all dashed by the announcement yesterday is simply unacceptable.

3:20 p.m.

Do you have any idea, Mr. Speaker, what it means to the business community in Sudbury? They have been clenching their teeth and hanging on by their fingernails to get through the Christmas season, because of the disastrous economic conditions in Sudbury, in anticipation that in January things would get back to normal. Now that will no longer be possible. The shutdown is extended to April 4, but it will be longer than that before any funds start coming to the private sector.

I wish members of this chamber could come and sit in my constituency office on any given day of the week and listen to the people who come into the constituency offices in the Sudbury area and talk about their problems.

Miners who have been mining for 25 and 30 years come in with a handful of unemployment insurance cards that are supposed to go back, and they do not know how to fill in the cards. They suddenly feel that they are stupid. They feel there is something lacking in themselves when they cannot cope with these simple computer cards. First, the cards are not simple; and second, it is outrageous that we should put working people through this, which is absolutely no fault of their own.

Despite the two previous emergency debates, absolutely nothing of substance has been done by this government. The present unemployment rate in the Sudbury area is somewhere between 32 per cent and 40 per cent.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) talks about 1,000 workers being employed. Pardon me, but large charge; we are not very impressed by 1,000 people doing part-time, make-work projects in the Sudbury area. If one asks those 1,000 people whether they are glad to have those jobs, of course they are, but let us talk about the vast majority of people who do not have jobs in the Sudbury area.

We presented to the Sudbury community, and I sent a copy to the Premier (Mr. Davis) today, a document entitled A Challenge to Sudbury, in which I and my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) laid before the leadership of the community some very specific proposals to deal with rebuilding the Sudbury economy.

It is no longer enough to implement make- work projects. The decline in the Sudbury economy is substantial and it is long term. In 1972, there were approximately 18,000 hourly rated employees at Inco. Now they are saying that within five years there will be somewhere between 7,500 and 8,500 workers.

It is time we replaced rhetoric with action, because rhetoric is all we have had from the government so far, and what we would like to do this afternoon is to lay before this chamber these very specific proposals.

If there was an emergency a month ago, there is more of an emergency now. If it was an emergency a month ago, it is an emergency now just as it might be two days from now, when the government thinks that perhaps we should be having a debate. We are saying it is an emergency right now, and we really must have that debate today. Unless we can debate in this chamber what the alternatives are, then the government simply gets off the hook, commissions more studies and does virtually nothing of substance.

We are saying it is time for some very substantial action to be taken. We have some very concrete proposals to make to the government. We think they are serious, and we think they are practical. We urge the members of the government party and the members of the official opposition to support this motion for an emergency debate.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, again I rise to support the motion of the member for Nickel Belt for an emergency debate. It is abundantly clear to me, and it should be clear to everyone in this chamber, that the situation in the Sudbury basin is not unique and singular in the north but, rather, is a symptom of the situation right across northern Ontario.

The motion of the member for Nickel Belt makes reference to the misery that the announced extension of the shutdown will bring to the thousands of Sudbury families. It makes reference to severe dislocation, and it makes reference to the lack of any program to accommodate this latest setback.

Time and again during this session and over the past five years, from the time I came into this chamber in 1977, we have heard of the problems of northern Ontario, and we have heard of the problems of Sudbury. They have been studied in various ways, shapes and forms. For example, a select committee studied the situation and made a variety of recommendations to this chamber. It urged all levels of government to investigate and develop a program of industrial diversification in the Sudbury area. That was the number one recommendation. It goes on to make reference to needs in other parts of Ontario.

But I submit to members that between that time and now we have had very little more than Band-Aid programs put on a situation that obviously requires major medical treatment, if not major medical surgery. Very obviously, this government does not have any idea of what it should do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Van Horne: Earlier today in the chamber we saw a situation that I think is rather symbolic. The first question this afternoon from my leader to the Premier was passed on by the Premier to the Minister of Natural Resources. At that point the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) was not in the chamber; so the question could not be put to him.

When one sees the ball being bounced around like that, one has to ask, which is the lead ministry in this government that is taking some responsibility? Who is grabbing hold of the reins? Who is running with it? And what we get in response we can find only in words uttered in the various ministers' speeches: "It is being studied" or "It is being referred." Nothing specific is happening, aside from the few dollars that are being put into temporary programs.

The member for Nickel Belt referred to specifics he would like to see put in front of the House this afternoon. The last time I spoke on this issue I indicated that our party also had some specifics we could offer and, as a matter of fact, have offered as solutions. None of them has been acted on.

The north is tired of being studied. The north needs long-term plans for what have been long-term problems. It is time that the people of northern Ontario saw something more than the Minister of Northern Affairs running around like a St. Bernard, handing out his little drops of revival juice to those in need to Sort of get them going for the moment. They need something more than St. Bernard treatment: they need to see a leader in this province; they need to see some direction.

The job situation is deplorable. What happens to the people who no longer have jobs and, beyond that, who no longer have unemployment insurance? How many are on welfare? How many are moving out of the province? What is happening to industries other than the mining industry?

The situation is serious, it demands the attention of this House, and I again am pleased to support the motion of the member for Nickel Belt.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first of all, my friend who has just spoken asked, "Who is taking the leadership in this matter?" I submit to him that many people are taking leadership, and one of the basic premises this government has always operated on is that the leadership should come from the local area to involve all levels of government.

It is my understanding that the regional chairman, Tom Davies, has formed a committee that has already talked to the members on that side, to the members on this side, to the federal minister, who is the member for Sudbury, and to all those people in the community. The purpose of that committee is to come up with some long-term, reasonable achievements. This government stands ready to co-operate and work with Tom Davies and the people of Sudbury to come up with some long-term, reasonable achievements.

3:30 p.m.

My friends will ask, what is the proof of that statement? The proof of that statement is that two and a half years ago when the Sudbury area was in difficulty, this government co-operated to provide jobs in Sudbury under the leadership of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), the former mayor of Sudbury.

[Applause]

Mr. Martel: Is that why 5,000 people have had to leave the Sudbury area?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Don't tell me about that nonsense.

Mr. Stokes: You were just applauding the fellow from northern Ontario who hasn't got the intestinal fortitude to get up and speak in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, 5,000 people have left the Sudbury area. Let the government House leader tell me about the success that illustrates.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I remind the member for Sudbury East, in regard to the note he sent to me earlier, I would not want history to repeat itself on this date.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As part of that program, two and a half years ago or shortly thereafter, it is also my recollection that this government funded, to the tune of about $600,000, a group called Sudbury 2001, of which the member for Sudbury East and the member for Nickel Belt are members of the board of directors. Perhaps they could tell us about some of the programs that group had in mind for the Sudbury area.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How much are you paying in welfare?

Mr. Cooke: What's the unemployment rate today?

Mr. Martel: You gave the cheque, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You approved it.

Mr. Martel: No, I didn't; I never did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have very patiently debated this subject. No one in this House will deny there is a very urgent and real problem in the Sudbury area. No one will deny that all levels of government want to solve it and that all levels of government are working towards that end.

We have debated this as an emergency matter twice already in this House. If we were just going to be dealing with some fairly trivial piece of legislation today, perhaps it would serve our purpose well to debate it here again, but we do have the windup of an important debate scheduled.

I submit that we have debated it in the past, and as we are all dedicated to solving the problem, I can tell my friends having the MPP for Sudbury in this caucus is worth 15 emergency debates.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

Rule 19(b) suggests that when two or more speakers rise to speak the Speaker shall call upon the member who in his opinion rose first in his place. I thought I saw the member for Sudbury standing in his place to speak to this motion.

Mr. Speaker: I didn't see him.

Mr. Martel: I move that he be recognized.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I refer the honourable member to standing order 34(a), which says:

"One member of each party may represent the views of that party." The member for Algoma.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With the co-operation of the government House leader, I wonder whether he could explain why it is not an emergency today but it was a month ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Did he not hear the question? It is a legitimate question.

Mr. Speaker: That is not his determination to make, I must point out with all respect.

Mr. Laughren: He can say one thing one time and another thing the next.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened with great interest to the comments of the members of all three parties. As all the speakers acknowledged, there have already been two full debates on the Sudbury situation during this session under standing order 34(a). I agreed to the second one on the basis that there appeared to be sufficient difference to allow it the benefit of the doubt. However, I now feel the subject has been well covered. The recent announcement is not sufficient to merit an additional debate, which in my opinion can only be repetitious. I therefore rule the motion out of order.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The rules require you to rule whether the motion is in order and of urgent public importance. I ask you to rule on both portions of the motion.

Mr. Speaker: I will be happy to. I want to advise all honourable members that I did indeed recognize the urgent importance of it by allowing the two previous debates. The importance has not diminished in any way, shape or form. I acknowledge that. As I said before, the reason I am making this ruling is that the debate cannot help but be repetitious.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I draw your attention to the rule as it is stated under 34(a), that you do not make any determination on the matter of whether it is in order or of public importance until such time as representatives of each of the parties have spoken for up to five minutes. You are now required under the rules of this House to determine two things, whether the motion is in order and whether is it is of urgent public importance. I am asking you to make both portions of the ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I guess the honourable member did not hear.

Mr. Cooke: We heard, and you are sitting on the fence.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sitting on the fence. I ask the honourable member to be quiet and listen. In actual fact, I have ruled the motion to be out of order and not of urgent public importance because I have already allowed the two previous debates. In my opinion, this debate could only be repetitious and nothing would be served by it. Therefore, I rule the motion out of order.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You leave me no alternative whatsoever but to challenge your ruling.

3:55 p.m.

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

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 62; nays 46.

4 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONCLUDED)

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.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it has been agreed that the time for the three windup speeches on Bill 179 will be equally split this afternoon. Could we ask the table to keep track of the time?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose Bill 179 and to ask as seriously as I can all members of the Liberal and Conservative parties to reconsider their support for this bill. The legislation before us today is one of the more dangerous and despicable pieces of legislation that I have seen in the short seven years I have spent in this House.

The bill before us removes from several hundred thousand public service workers in Ontario for a period of one to three years basic and fundamental rights to free collective bargaining won over an awful lot of years of effort. Many members in this House probably do not realize that it is not very many years ago when it was a criminal offence in Ontario for workers to organize collectively.

To hospital workers, cleaners, correctional workers, children's aid workers, policemen, firemen, nursing home workers, workers in homes for the retarded, teachers, workers in homes for the aged, psychiatric workers, gardeners, ambulance drivers, mental health workers, librarians, day care workers and many more, this bill simply says: "You do not have the same rights as doctors, lawyers, businessmen and private workers. You are not equal. We, the government of Ontario, are deliberately removing your rights. We are sorry to have to do it but we are doing it.

"We are breaking contracts arrived at by two parties bargaining in good faith. We are removing your right to strike" -- something else that was along, hard battle for many workers -- "We are removing your right to arbitration." The bill also says, "Big brother is going to decide what you are worth and you have no right to appeal."

While the government professes regret, it singles out public service workers as the target and, therefore, as the culprit for the economic problems we are facing in Ontario today. The bill not only clobbers these workers but at the same time tries to impose on them a major guilt trip for the province's troubles.

Surely there can be a no more insidious, undemocratic and unfair broad-brush attack on so many thousands of public servants. Not since the federal War Measures Act have we seen as much direct power over as many people concentrated in the hands of government to the direct detriment of the people affected. Surely, no member -- and I ask the members of the other two parties who believe in fundamental democratic principles to think about this -- can agree to such a complete and arbitrary denial of the rights of one sector of our work force.

Whether it likes the analogy or not, what this government is doing is similar to what is being done in Poland except that we are not using a gun and are not banning unions totally. We are, however, saying: "You have no rights. We are tying you up for one to three years, but we are doing it with legislation because we are a democracy." It is sick legislation and should be treated as such.

I smiled at the little debate on the problems of farmers the other day. This bill treats the public service worker even worse than this government now treats farmers. The farmers are taken for granted by the Conservatives now, and have to justify increases in the farm-gate price of their products. The same Conservative government, however, puts no restrictions on the big buyers or chains. Nobody makes them justify the add-ons or increases in their prices. It is not hard to see who has become the most powerful friend of the Conservative Party in Ontario.

The public service worker does not have the opportunity to try to justify his needs, however legitimate they may be. In most cases they are either rigidly controlled or, in some cases, wage increases already negotiated for another year are rolled back. The unfairness, the double-standard hypocrisy is evident in many ways. I had intended to give a few comparisons but the time is short.

Workers are aware of the increases granted in the salaries paid to top officials of companies in Canada. The following figures do not include their pension arrangements. The salary of Mr. Grandpré of Bell Canada went from $514,000 to $626,000 in his most recent yearly increase in salary. That of Hiram Walker executive William P. Wilder went from $314,000 to $404,000. The salary of Mr. Armstrong of Imperial Oil increased from $408,000 to $480,000; that of W. F. Light of Northern Telecom, from $348,000 to $516,000; and Rio Algom's Mr. Albino had his salary increased from $269,000 to $396,000.

4:10 p.m.

I do not have time to cover it, but we also had an idea of what happened in one of the areas, admittedly more federal, but where we have recently dished out another good dose of assistance out of the public Treasury. I am talking about Dome. We find there was a 100 per cent increase in salary for the president of Dome, according to documents filed in the US before the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a 53 per cent increase in the salary of the vice-president, just before we bailed them out; and so on down the line.

One begins to wonder at the double standards in our system. A piece out of the Financial Post this week has a couple of little paragraphs that are interesting. The good news is that the 1982 management salaries averaged 13.7 per cent more than 1981, a full one per cent increase in management salaries. In the finance and general industry categories, increases are in the range of 19 per cent, 15.3 per cent, 15.7 per cent and 16.2 per cent. Those are the kinds of increases we have.

Let us compare that with what we are giving to public servants in Ontario. Let us take a look first at our own employees, members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, working for the government of the province. There are 52,324 of them and they receive from a low salary range for the 4,300 in the general operations category, an average of $17,157 a year, to the highest ranges for the 4,300 working in the scientific and professional classifications at $28,000 a year. I do not think that is too high, but that is the highest average classification.

There are 5,500 in administration services at an average of $27,615; and 5,538 working in technical services at an average salary of $23,635. Those are the high levels among the 53,000 employees we have. Incidentally, those are the figures for the end of current contracts they negotiated, which in some cases are going to be affected by the rollback.

These salaries are based on the December 31, 1982, to December 31, 1983, expiry of their contracts. If we eliminate the top 25 per cent, or 15,398 employees in the three highest categories, professional, administration and technical, we have about 37,000 left who will average $19,000 at the end of their current contracts. These are the people this government is using as cannon fodder in its so-called war on inflation. There are almost 37,000 workers averaging $19,000 a year, if they retained their present earnings under contracts negotiated in good faith.

Some of these people, such as 10,000 clerical workers at an average salary of $10,000, and 7,000 office services workers at an average salary of $19,000, at December 31, 1983, stand to lose as much or more than $1,000 a year because their contract will be rolled back from 11 per cent to five per cent.

Who is this government trying to fool by what gross and distorted hypocrisy? I listened to the leader of the Liberal Party tell us that the legislation should cover everybody, not just the public servants. He said it was not long enough; I nearly fell off my chair when he also said we should have legislation in place even in the catch-up period so nobody could try to catch up at the end of this one-year to three-year period. My God, we know whose side they are on.

Let us take a look at teachers. We know of the Peel arbitration award of 12 per cent -- that 12 per cent drove the Premier (Mr. Davis) up the wall, and the university faculty award of 18 per cent also seemed to be unacceptable to him from what we hear. I want to remind this House that approximately half of the 106,000 teachers in Ontario have signed contracts. The average salaries for these professionals who are teaching our children are: elementary public, $30,800; high school public, $36,500; Roman Catholic separate school, $32,400.

The Premier's anger at the arbitration awards I mentioned might have been more honest and carried more weight if he had shown as much anger at the doctors' award of 42 per cent over three years from a base average of $90,000 to start. It seems to me he let his class bias show more than just a little.

Further, the trend of increases for teachers and the relationship to inflation is very interesting. I have to put these figures on record. In 1978, the percentage on-grid increase for teachers, and they seem to be one of the culprits of this bill, was 6.88 per cent. The total compensation worked out at 9.5 per cent and the inflation rate in that year was nine per cent; so they gained a half per cent on inflation in 1978.

But in 1979 the on-grid increase was 5.93 per cent, their total compensation gain was 8.6 per cent and the inflation rate was 9.1 per cent; so they lost it in 1979.

In 1980, 7.26 was the on-grid increase, 9.6 per cent was the increase in total compensation and 10.1 per cent was the inflation rate; so they went behind in 1980.

In 1981, 8.57 per cent on grid, 10.6 per cent in compensation and 12.5 per cent inflation rate; they went way behind.

In other words, these terrible villains in the Premier's eye were already, in 1979, 1980 and 1981, below the rate of inflation, which is supposed to be one of the reasons for this bill. Once again the policy of this government is punishment, pure and simple. If it is not, then it is clearly a deliberate attempt to undermine and destroy free collective bargaining in Ontario. The Conservatives seem to want a docile, depressed and defeated work force.

I could not help taking a quick look at a bulletin put out by one of the teachers' groups that dealt with the Auld report. It makes the very point I am making. A couple of the comments in here are very clear. It says:

"It was alleged that public sector wages were leading other sectors of the economy" -- this is out of the Auld report -- "setting the pace for private wage inflation as well. Detailed studies since the end of the AIB have uncovered little truth in these assertions.

"During the imposition of the AIB, public sector wages were on the average controlled more than those of the private sector. With the exception of the second quarter of 1981, private sector wage increases have exceeded those in the public sector in Ontario.

"The truth of the matter is that even with the higher settlements in the last three quarters of 1981, public sector wages are roughly five to six per cent below those of the private sector."

They go on to make a number of recommendations that I think are significant and deal with this problem.

I do not know what this government wants, whether it is to return to the pre-union days when labour was a commodity industry could command on its terms, in its time frame and subject to the whims of its friends in management. If it is, as far as I am concerned it is never going to happen again, and I do not care what steps we have to take to prevent this from happening in Ontario.

Let us take a quick look at the Service Employees International Union. We find another very interesting and sad story. There are 35,000 members in this union. Once again at the low end of the salary scale, 2,300 workers in 33 nursing homes received the magnificent award of $2.15 an hour in October 1982 to raise them to an average of $15,951 a year. A year down the road that is what they will be getting: $15,951.

A further 8,148 workers in six locals that bargain for 46 hospitals have been given an 11 per cent increase that expires on July 30, 1983. With this increase they will make $17,170 a year. They get zapped with five per cent in the year following that.

What in God's name, I ask all government members, have these thousands of hardworking, dedicated hospital workers and nursing home workers at $16,000 and $17,000 a year got to do with inflation in Ontario?

What about day care workers? I met with some of them Saturday morning in my constituency office. Their starting rate is about $8,200 out of the Mohawk course. The majority are making $10,000 or $11,000 maximum, and they are affected by this legislation. What have they got to do with inflation in Ontario?

What is going to happen to women in our province with this bill? The wage restraint bill affects women directly in at least two ways. It will affect a large number of lower-paid women -- many of those I talked about in the government, service employees, hospital unions -- by controlling and reducing their wages. The bill will also have a direct effect on affirmative action programs, reducing still further their already limited effectiveness because of the limit on wage increases and the handcuffing of their unions.

There is currently a gap in earnings between men and women workers in this province of $6,271 a year on average. Wage controls seem to be an easy way for the Tories to help their business friends, who voice the strongest opposition to equal pay for work of equal value. Right or wrong did not enter into any of the arguments we got, either from business or from the government, nor did the fact that the women may have been able to perform the work equally in any of the jobs outlined and were certainly worth as much. The additional cost was the only and the final line we got in the arguments.

4:20 p.m.

This bill ends for the time being efforts to achieve any parity. Worse than that, it will probably increase the gap as near as we can figure by about $300 a year. This is going to come about as a result of the five per cent limit and the number of workers affected who are women.

Let me repeat, the control of the wages of thousands of lower-income workers, many of whom are women, means using Bill 179, in effect by the back door, to put an effective stop to equal pay for work of equal value and to any real progress through affirmative action.

It seems to me it is just another example of the loss to workers, similar I think to the points outlined by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) through the notwithstanding power in this particular bill.

I had wanted to deal with teaching assistants but I just do not have the time with the limitations that are imposed upon us. I want to point out very clearly that the legislation is unfair, it is heartless, it is cruel and demeaning and, to make it worse, the charge this government is clearly levelling, the charge that somehow or other these people are part of our problem of high inflation, is untrue.

I say to the Premier, they are not guilty. I say to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), to the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), that they are not guilty. I would dearly love to know where the latter minister has been in all of this debate. I have not heard him speak and I have to wonder at the kind of presentations that were made in that cabinet on this issue.

I say to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and to all of them, these workers are not guilty. I say to all the members of the cabinet and to all the aspiring and the has-been, back-bench Tories, they have exercised their spleen on innocent, hardworking, essentially low-paid workers in their own and in the public employ.

They have found them guilty and have sentenced them to broken legal contracts and the loss of fundamental basic rights. They have arbitrarily controlled their wages and conditions, and they have got the wrong party in the whole exercise. By the name of all that is decent and just, and if there is any Christian charity at all, they should take another look at this bill before it becomes law in Ontario.

This double standard is not going to be lost on the low-paid workers of Ontario. This government, like the Reaganites in the United States, seems to be hell-bent on a shameless rush to be onside with the establishment and industry in this province, especially when times are tough and there are already pressures on working people.

The gap widens and Conservative and Liberal members do not seem to be bothered by it at all. I have difficulty understanding it. I suggest with genuine regret that the young unemployed, the young recently established in communities buying homes, probably with heavy family and mortgage commitments, and the older workers with pride who have never before in their work history known the uncertainty and fear sweeping the work place in Ontario today, are not going to take this brand of bad medicine lying down. Those members are in for trouble in Ontario.

I have to ask a couple of questions. Why has the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the Labour critic for the Liberal Party, not been one of the speakers on bill? Why does he refuse to go to the open-line talk shows in Windsor that want to challenge him on this issue? Does he or does he not attempt to represent workers in Ontario?

Why has the Minister of Labour not been involved in this debate? What is this bill going to do to the future of collective bargaining in Ontario? I would like to ask him one specific question, repeating a question he was asked by a young, laid-off steelworker at the big meeting in Sault Ste. Marie.

That young worker got up and asked the minister if he would tell him how these controls imposed on all these low-paid public servants were going to help him as a steelworker laid off in the Algoma Steel mills because that company was not selling steel. It was not selling steel because people could not buy cars, refrigerators and appliances. Reducing still further the wages of all these low-income people who spend every cent of their income sure was not going to help him get a job back.

He wanted to know the minister's response to that and the minister did not have a response. It is not just the public servants; what is happening in Ontario is getting through to the private sector as well.

One cannot deal with this question without taking a look at what is happening in our economy generally and at some of the alternatives that are necessary. One of the major tragedies of this province, and I think we have to spend more time taking a serious look at it, is the extent of the branch plant disease we are suffering from. We are effectively losing control of the manufacturing sector in Ontario, and I personally fear that after that it will be the resource sector.

The extent and effect of the branch plant economy has been well documented and exposed to some public scrutiny. It seems to be hard to get these governments moving. We have a lousy record in research and development, and much of the blame in the private sector lies with the restrictions imposed on branch plants by their parent companies. We are not encouraged to seek export markets in many branch plants and, indeed, in some we are expressly forbidden to export because the market is the prerogative of the parent company offshore.

The legislation controlling, covering or seeming to cover these kinds of situations in this province -- the whole question of shutdowns, branch plant operations, notice and the unilateral action of the multinationals -- is almost totally uncontrolled in Ontario. The lack of government authority that could protect both the workers in the province and the resources, both human and financial, was all too clearly outlined in many of the cases before the plant shutdowns committee.

Once again, if we had the time it would be useful to make some of the arguments that were made not by us but by the companies that appeared before us. I do not think there was ever in history a more clear-cut example than the Bendix case, which came before that committee on plant shutdowns, where the Canadian boss himself, no less, made it clear that they had been in business 41 years, that they had made a profit in 40 out of the 41 years, that they had a trained and effective work force and that he expected to make even more money -- the 400 workers at that plant and the operation -- in the years to come.

Then he gets a wire from the head office of the corporation in the US that simply tells him he has two weeks as manager, not to close the plant down -- they gave him a little bit of time to do that -- but to justify why he should not shut down that plant, because by using the total productive capacity that was available in the American plants they could make more money. He said to us, "Even as the Canadian president I had to wire back and agree, because I know as a responsible corporate officer of this company that yes, they could make even more money."

It did not matter what we were doing to 400 workers. It did not matter that they were making a profit. It did not matter that we are now importing that material. We did not have one iota of strength to stop it or a piece of legislation that would give us any clout in Ontario whatsoever.

The case of SKF -- and I do not have time to go into it -- was even more horrible, because in it there was a deliberate five-year plan by the company to remove the profitable small-bearing assembly runs to offshore plants and switch to the repair work and the larger-bearing assemblies that were not nearly as profitable and then to start saying, "Hey, this company is not making money."

We had no say in the product rationalization that was going on, but they were able then to use effectively the argument that they were not making quite enough money and that they were therefore going to shut the plant down; and they did. As I recall, some of the basic production went to Philadelphia, some to Brazil and some to France. But we lost another plant. That is happening with plant after plant after plant.

There was a devastating piece in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, October 9, 1982, entitled, "Machinery Sector Powerless Against Imports." It said: "Canada's heavy electrical industry is well developed and technologically able to meet any world competitor. It has been labelled by government as a key element in the country's economic growth over the next two decades. It is also dying on its feet.

"Canadian companies cannot sell in other major producing countries except the United States because those markets are closed," something I was referring to earlier. "But it is also difficult to make sales in North America or the Third World because the secure and profitable home markets of competitors are used to provide subsidies on export sales.

"Domestic legislation and government procedures are powerless against the inflow of foreign equipment at cut-rate prices. 'We are being forced to compete in our own country as if we were in a foreign country.'"

Then there is a very telling statement here. This was said, incidentally, by David Armour -- not a New Democrat, as far as I know, but the president of the Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers Association of Canada. What does he say? He said:

"Between 1971 and 19S1, industrial figures show that of some 30 orders for steam turbine generators outside the nuclear industry" -- something we used to produce most of in this country -- "only two went to Canadian companies."

I could go on with True Temper: I could go on with Walmer Transport, which we have not yet raised in this House. There are a number of other cases, such as the examples my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) raised in this House, of materials and tools coming in and being repackaged -- which makes them Canadian products -- and jobs are lost. We import $43.7 million worth of wrenches, for example, another tool, most of which used to be produced in this country. It does not make any sense.

4:30 p.m.

Not many years ago, we canned more than 70 per cent of the peaches and tomatoes we eat in Ontario. We now can less than 30 per cent of the peaches and tomatoes we eat and we have shut down 30 odd canning plants. We have lost 2,300 jobs; that's the figure on the canning plants from Canadian Canners alone. It does not make any sense.

When are we going to start saying we are ready to subsidize, we are ready to put into effect a program of selective self-sufficiency? When are we going to start saying that some of the things we can make we should be making in this country, and start putting people to work with some of the money we are putting out rather than, in effect, shoring up hunks of iron. And we always get shouted down if we raise the fundamental question, because there usually are jobs involved. When are we going to start doing some serious and immediate planning that will put us back into the field in areas we should be in, in Ontario and in our country?

In all too many cases, we advance Canadian money, guarantee a Canadian market, assist in all possible ways the further takeover of Canadian resources -- and that is a subject in itself. The Foreign Investment Review Agency is not worth the powder to blow it to hell but it is the one and only agency we have, and both Liberals and Tories want to weaken that agency. We do not have anything that takes a serious look at what is happening in terms of this sellout. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is the chief culprit, I think, in making the constant plea that if the government listens to the members of the New Democratic Party it will scare away foreign investment. That is the crappiest argument I have heard in my life. We are selling the control of our industry in this province.

We do not have to look far to see some of the figures. The service account in investment income in this country, interest, payments out -- and this is largely because of foreign control -- in 1981: $4.9 billion; payments in -- this is Canadians who have invested outside of the country -- $384 million; for a deficit of $4.5 billion. Dividends: $3,191,000,000 going out because of this foreign-invested capital, and $1,247,000,000 coming in; or a deficit of that year of $1,944,000,000. Miscellaneous income, royalties, management fees, whatever: $5,530,000,000 out; $1,690,000,000 in; for a deficit of $3,840,000,000.

We have a deficit, because of what we have allowed in terms of foreign investment in this country without the controls, in that one year alone of $10,314,000,000. If we add that to the manufacturing deficit of $21 billion, we have an outflow of $31 billion. The only thing that saves our hide today is that we are still shipping out vast quantities of raw materials, but that road is going to end pretty damn soon. We cannot continue to have this blind faith in foreign capital. We have to take a look at selective self-sufficiency. We have to take a look at those things we can do well, that we have done well in the past, and all the ramifications.

If we get into some of the food products, we are also going to have to say to the chain stores that they will have to stock on their shelves with 50 per cent Canadian-grown peaches and tomatoes. It may take us a couple of years to get back into the business, but we sure as hell better start getting back into the business. The same applies to machinery or steam turbine generators or whatever the case is, that we can do well and should be doing well in this province.

I would like to spend a minute or two, but I guess I do not have time, on some of the definite suggestions we have made. They follow along the lines of the plea I have made not to rely totally on this kind of import capital.

To wind up, when the public service unions met with the Premier of this province in the spring they had what they took for a commitment from him that wage controls would not be imposed on public sector workers. One of the leaders of the public service union told me that this was about all the good that had come out of the meeting.

I am sorry to have to tell this House that I said to him, "Surely you do not believe the Premier." I am not proud of that, but I told him that. "I am certain," I said, "that he does intend to introduce controls, and I personally would not place very much faith in his word to you."

Do members know what he replied? That leader of one of the major unions in this province, somebody whom one of the Tory members has already described to one of my colleagues as the most dangerous man in Ontario, said to me that he felt he had to accept the Premier's word at face value, that until proved otherwise, the Premier was a man of his word. That is exactly what he said to me, and it was a bit of a put-down because I had spoken so strongly about it.

I suggest to the Premier and his colleagues that they have made a fundamental mistake, not just because their decision is a wrong one -- and it is a wrong one -- and not just because it is a mean and hurtful decision -- and it is -- but because it also says that the word of the Premier and of the government of Ontario is not to be trusted.

Examples such as this, more than anything else, undermine the fundamental trust and goodwill of people. A bill such as this raises cynicism and distrust among the public towards our cherished democratic institutions to a destructive flashpoint. It is a dangerous example to set. Actions such as this denigrate basic religious, moral and ethical values, and certainly the political system, and make a mockery as well out of the work ethic of people.

It is game-playing of the worst sort by this government. It is game-playing that is now taking advantage of the fear and despair of ordinary working people in Ontario. It is unworthy of any government. It is unworthy of this government of Ontario. It cheapens this government, the Premier and the cabinet.

I am sorry to be so vehement, but that is exactly where we are. I ask that the government seriously consider withdrawing this bill and taking a look at some positive alternatives and not make a negative, hurtful attack on a group of people in Ontario. I repeat my appeal to the Liberals and the Tories at the beginning of my remarks to take another look at this bill in one hell of a hurry and not to let this travesty of justice proceed through this House.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks I am sure all members present will want to join me in welcoming a very distinguished, former member of this House who is now discharging his parliamentary obligations in the nation's capital, the federal member for Hamilton Mountain, whom we are delighted to have with us here today. Ian, not only do we miss you, but some of us scarcely recognize you.

I want to stand and conclude the second reading debate on Bill 179 on behalf of my colleagues by indicating, as my leader did some three weeks ago, the support of our caucus for this particular initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: Just before you begin I want to remind you of the time limit of approximately 40 minutes.

Mr. Conway: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thirty-four minutes. I am sorry.

Mr. Conway: I have endeavoured over the past 20-odd days to be in the House to hear as many of the speeches as was possible. I listened with interest, as I always do, to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and to the Premier (Mr. Davis). I thought the intervention on Thursday, September 23, by my colleague the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), the leader of this party, was exceptional.

4:40 p.m.

I listened to the comments of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), and I will be referring to those briefly a little later on. I listened to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and to the rather lengthy intervention of the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo). I listened with great interest to the strong words of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), who speaks on these matters with great feeling and conviction, particularly as they relate to labour.

I had intended to have a little more time than it appears I have as a result of earlier activities here this afternoon, so I will try to touch quickly upon many of the aspects of the speeches.

I was particularly interested in rereading the Premier's speech on the opening day, Tuesday, September 21, when he invited us to acknowledge this is a critical opportunity in which we must not "shirk our responsibility."

I was particularly struck by, and I want quickly to touch upon something the Premier said on page 15 of his opening statement: he said, "I think the record of this government on restraint is a sound one."

I just want to say that I know all members who were in the House the other day who listened to the very eloquent words of the member from Brant would be the first to agree that the profligacy of the government when it comes to expenditures continues apace.

Just this past week, as the member from Brant indicated, we have seen more government money spent on that great dream city designed by John White, as the member for London South (Mr. Walker) will know, on which the Conservative government has for the past 10 years spent literally millions of dollars, apparently bad millions after good.

I want to indicate the record of this government with respect to the management of its finances. I know the very distinguished member from Glengarry will want to listen carefully when I simply and quickly cite the funded debt of Ontario over the period of the Premier's hegemony.

The funded debt of Ontario in 1972-73 stood at $6.3 billion. Ten years later it stands at $19.4 billion, an increase of 208 per cent. The interest on that debt in this fiscal year is in excess of $2 billion. This means that for every household in this province the debt levy of the funded debt of Ontario is in excess of $720. That ought to say something about the record of the Conservative government when it comes to restraint.

For example, we know that this year the government of Ontario intends to spend $40 million advertising itself. I have to wonder, to what kind of restraint does that speak? When the Premier stands in his place and proudly beats his breast saying, "I think the record of this government on restraint is a sound one," I wonder how the soundness of that logic fits in with a funded debt that is now nearly $20 billion, a burden that is crippling many people in this province.

I want to comment quickly upon the speech of the provincial Treasurer who has just left us for a moment. He made two speeches, actually. I was particularly struck by some of what he said the first day, Tuesday, September 21. Quoting from the first page of his text: "I want this House to know that the legislation I will introduce today on behalf of the government is not an attack on any one sector."

Let me repeat -- keeping in mind what the member for Hamilton East said about what he had indicated six months earlier -- the Premier indicated then and the Treasurer spoke on behalf of the government on Tuesday, September 21, that this legislation was not an attack on any one sector. It gets even more interesting when a line or two later he said, "We are simply asking that sector" -- meaning the public sector -- "to moderate its wage increases."

A paragraph later he said the first piece of their package is, "the imposition of wage restraint in the public sector." It seems to me the Treasurer flagrantly contradicts himself within three paragraphs of the opening of that speech.

I want simply and quickly to review the current economic situation. I know many members will understand we have before us what is truly an extraordinary measure.

Might I quote someone one who has taken the position that an equitable price and incomes policy ought to be proceeded with on a national basis before Christmas? This is because, in the words of the honourable gentleman, "These are extraordinary times requiring extraordinary measures." It was not the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party or the leader of the Progressive Conservative government in this Legislature who said those words. It was the distinguished finance critic of the New Democratic Party of Canada, the member for Kamloops-Shuswap.

I have listened with keen interest to the views of my friends opposite, and it has been quite a load of virtue and piety that we have been burdened with by the attitude adopted by various parties in this debate. I have very carefully surveyed the literature and the landscape in this province and elsewhere.

Mr. Martel: Well, Bill Wrye says you are going to vote against it on third reading.

Mr. Conway: I will not bother the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) with the views of the New Democratic Party member from Brantford which are at some considerable variance from those expressed just moments ago by the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: We are not even talking about the same House.

Mr. Renwick: How are you going to vote?

Mr. Martel: It is a draconian bill, but you are going to vote for it, aren't you?

Mr. Conway: I will not bother the member for Riverdale, or the member for Hamilton East who just finished lecturing us about the national economic problems, by mentioning that --

Mr. Martel: Does the member want it both ways? "It is a bad bill, but we are going to vote for it."

Mr. Conway: -- last Wednesday, I think it was, in Vancouver, Mr. Ian Waddell, NDP energy critic, won leave from the British Columbia court of appeal to challenge the government of Canada's decision to increase the export of natural gas to the United States; or that 24 hours later and 700 miles across the Rocky Mountains, the New Democratic Party leader, in Calgary before an assembly of oilmen, said it was the position of the Alberta New Democratic Party that it would be in the interest of the country to allow those gas exports to take place. I simply cite those examples to indicate that when it comes to the issues of political flexibility and ideological fluidity, the NDP in this country and in this province ought not to be too anxious to lecture any of the rest of us.

Mr. Nixon: They are fluid, all right. It depends on their audience.

Mr. Martel: How are you voting? Terrible bill.

Mr. Conway: The member for Sudbury East inquires how I am voting. I said at the beginning that I will stand in my place and, moments from this time, I will vote for this bill.

Mr. Martel: Terrible bill.

Mr. Conway: It is certainly not a perfect piece of legislation.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would suggest that the honourable member please speak to the chair.

Mr. Conway: I will, Mr. Speaker. I see that I have excited the enthusiasms of my good friend and honourable colleague from Riverdale who has in a very interesting speech -- as he is able to do far better than I will ever be able to do, not being a member of the bar -- drawn our attention to a variety of his concerns about the legal quality of Bill 179.

I was interested in what he had to say. And I remember the efforts of the New Democratic member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the distinguished deputy leader of the party, when he stood in this House days ago and very dramatically ripped a piece of paper in half, and said, "This is what the government is doing in this particular matter."

I was struck, because like the member for Hamilton East I have recently read the Financial Post. I read an interesting observation by Professor Mark Gold, who on that particular subject is quoted by a professor of law from Osgoode Hall here in Toronto. "Says Professor Gold, 'There is an emotional and moral allure to the notion of unfairness in a government tearing up contracts, but I doubt whether this has any legal substance.'" Perhaps there is a difference of opinion which the courts at some point in the very near future will have to deliberate.

I agree with Mr. Nelson Riis that these are exceptional times. It hurts me greatly to realize that there are now, seasonally adjusted, something in the order of 500,000 Ontarians officially out of work. The data indicates that in my own community of Pembroke fully 1,000 more people are looking for work today compared to a year ago.

Mr. Martel: And what is this bill going to do for them?

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Conway: As a member who represents a constituency with a very high proportion of public sector employment, both at the national and local levels, I like to believe that I am as sensitive to the views of those people as any honourable member to my immediate left. And I respect the members opposite for their very strongly held views on this subject; on this matter, as with others, I like to believe we have an honest and legitimate difference of opinion.

I well remember, as I look and see my friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) in the gallery, some years ago when we talked about the pressures under which those of us in eastern Ontario functioned in the political world. Maybe I had better not say any more than that because I do not want to unduly excite the member for Cornwall in so far as the debate on the NDP official policy with respect to minimum wage is concerned. I will not do that, I will leave him be. I just want to say that sometimes we have genuine differences of opinion.

Like Nelson Riis, I believe when we have this kind of economic malaise and underutilization of our plant capacity, and I am not going to bother with the recitation of the data, when we have unemployment running at rates that were quoted in this House this afternoon in communities like Sudbury, all of us must be very sensitive to the fact that these are not very ordinary times.

It has been made very clear to me in my part of this province that the community at large expects some leadership from government and understands that in these circumstances to work in the public sector by and large is to enjoy security. I live not far from Ottawa. If there is one happily isolated and insulated community in the middle of this terrible recession, it must be Ottawa. I feel an obligation --

Mr. Cassidy: Nine per cent unemployed, 9.4 per cent unemployed. That's a Liberal view for you.

Mr. Conway: I listened to the member for Ottawa Centre, as I always do, with great interest but I have to tell him that I think most of the economic indicators show that the national capital region has been less buffeted by this economic downturn than places like Windsor, Chatham and elsewhere.

Mr. Cassidy: You think 9.4 per cent unemployment is tolerable. Is that right? That is exactly what the member said. He says unemployment at that level is tolerable.

Mr. Conway: I do not say that at all. I am saying that like the federal leader of the New Democratic Party, I accept that there should be a public concern about the state of our national and provincial deficits. I listened at great length to member after member in the NDP rise and say, "Talk about inflation. Tell us about interest rates."

I am no great economist, but I do stand in my place and say that I see a direct relationship between a $3-billion provincial debt, inflation and high interest rates. I defy any member of this House to indicate that there is not a linkage. No less a person than the federal leader of the New Democratic Party says we have an obligation to be worried about the state of the federal deficit. I rather agree with Mr. Broadbent that we should be concerned about that. Governments running those kind of deficits are not helping the burden of inflation very much by drawing so much money out of the capital markets. At another time I certainly would be interested in pursuing with my friend the member for Riverdale how he sees no connection between those.

I have watched the Premier with great interest over the past number of days in this House. As I later confessed to some of my colleagues, given the special nature of the session, I was particularly concerned and rather annoyed last week with his rather irregular and visible jocularity. He was having a jolly good time. I remember him distinctly saying on Thursday, "Oh, would that there were some penetrating questions."

I just want to focus very quickly on the role of this particular Conservative administration. I was hoping I would have some time to take the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) page by page and step by step through the lovely blue-covered promise of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, outlined amid much public service supported fanfare that winter day in early February 1981.

I was really moved when I read those passages just the other day for preparation of this particular speech, but I note that since the promise of March 19, 1981 -- that election, as members on the other side will recall, to a large extent focused on the very serious economic problems that faced this province. Most of the Tories went around saying: "Oh, that flattering nabob of negativism, the Leader of the Opposition. You know, being le français, he doesn't understand the dynamic of Ontario. He really is just being too down and too gloomy and too despondent. We have a program that will give great hope to the people of this province for the 1980s."

Seventeen months after that, there are 212,000 more Ontarians out of work than there were then. I hope the member for York East and his colleague the Treasurer will consider that, for those several thousand people, the promise of 1981 has been the performance of a government yielding that kind of unemployment in the following year.

It has not been unemployment for everyone. This government has had a job creation program. They have found a job for Morley Rosenberg. They have found a job for Omer Déslauriers. They have found a job for Gary Harron. They even have found a job for Sally Barnes and Fred Ross, and they have found a job for Ted Brown. They have kept the promise to their chosen friends. It is unfair for members of the opposition to say, generally speaking, that this government has no job creation plan because, with specific reference to its friends, there has been a job creation program. The transparent and pathetic quality of the same was to be read on the front page of the Toronto Daily Star some months ago.

Mr. Bradley: The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Mr. Kennedy: Sally had a job.

Mr. Conway: The member for Mississauga South reminds me that Sally had a job. Well, she has a new job; and a job has been created, as I understand it, for Fred Ross. Can members imagine it, a job created in Kingston by the government of Ontario for liaison purposes? My friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) reminds me that, about three months ago, Jodi White. the former aide to Mr. Clark, was put on a provincial salary in Ottawa. I think the salary was something in the order of $35,000 a year, including expenses. What was her job? According to press reports, it was to keep Queen's Park informed about goings-on in the national capital region.

I have been critical of the performance of the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), of the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), of the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), of the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) and of the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie) -- I think I have got the five Tories in the national capital region -- but I have never been so critical as the Premier and suggested we need somebody in Ottawa paid $30,000 a year to report back, presumably in a way that the very powerful Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs (Mr. Bennett) and his four other --

Mr. Stokes: What about the $175,000 the feds are using to send their civil servants to France?

Mr. Conway: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the former Speaker would be the first to draw attention to the rules of the House. I followed with much interest his earlier performance today, and I respected him highly for that. But the government has had a job creation program, there is no question about that, for the friends who were invited to --

Mr. Stokes: So much for Liberal restraint.

Mr. Bradley: Run federally, Jack.

Mr. Conway: I do not want to begin to recite the best of the post-Schreyer cleanout in Winnipeg, but I could quickly mention a number of happenings there. The former chairman of Manitoba Hydro comes to my mind, and he might make Ed Clark look like he was travelling in style, New Democratic Party style.

5 p.m.

Well, I am going to be a little controversial and say that the NDP may not be the best ones to be involved in this debate about inflation because, after all, they began this 32nd Parliament arguing the case of how 21 was 30. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that their legislative allocation is as lurid an inflationary example as one will find anywhere in this House.

I say this to the Premier in his absence, but in the presence of my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock). The Premier says, "I want really penetrating questions." I appreciate the global conditions and the national factors over which a government in Ontario would have no direct or immediate control, I am fair-minded enough to grant that in the first instance, but if the Premier wants penetrating questions he can begin with the questions that were put to him in his office and on the grounds of this building by the good people of Bancroft who were thrown out of work by the action of this government or, more accurately, by the action of one of its principal emanations, Ontario Hydro.

The Premier, in his search for a penetrating question, might recall the penetrating questions put to him by the 390 miners who were thrown out of work in the town of Bancroft by virtue of the actions taken by that Ontario crown corporation. I will not stand in my place without thinking of those people who were brought here by my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough --

Hon. Mr. Walker: That's a lot of nonsense and you know it.

Mr. Conway: I say to the Minister of Industry and Trade, the Premier has come in here, jokingly wondering where the penetrating questions are. I submit to him in a very parochial way --

Mr. Wrye: All you got was nine jobs.

Mr. Pollock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the member for Renfrew North that the people who bought the uranium from Ontario Hydro included two crown corporations. One of the buyers was from Germany, one was from the Saskatchewan government and the third was Eldorado Nuclear, a crown corporation of the federal government.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to thank the members who indicated another member had a point of order. Now, back to Bill 179,

Mr. Conway: I appreciate the intervention of the member for Hastings-Peterborough, but what he said is rather different from what he was quoted as saying in the Toronto Star some weeks ago. At that time he was quoted as saying, "I would have to say they let down that particular mining firm and that particular area."

In fairness to the member for Hastings-Peterborough, I know how hard he worked to convince the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and the Premier. But, as he said then and will want to agree privately now, this Premier, in search of penetrating questions with respect to rehabilitating this deeply troubled Ontario economy, did not answer the good people of Bancroft, not only the 390 miners and their families but also, I dare say, dear Father Henry Maloney, whose name was perpetually invoked by the first minister. These people travelled back to the hardwood hills of north Hastings wondering what kind of answer and what kind of redress there would be from the man who has stood repeatedly in this House in recent days in search of penetrating questions.

The Premier can go to the great town of Bancroft if he wants to find penetrating questions that have not been answered by the very people who have done very little to solve the basic problem there.

When it came to dealing in a generous way with the uranium interests represented by Mr. Stephen Roman, the attitude of this government was decidedly different. I believe the people of Bancroft are entitled to precisely the same consideration, as a minimum, as the Roman interests.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like you to speak on Bill 179.

Mr. Conway: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the introductory statements, particularly that made by the Treasurer --

The Deputy Speaker: You haven't even mentioned the bill in the past five minutes.

Mr. Conway: The bill deals with the whole matter of economic policy, Mr. Speaker. It is the centrepiece of this government's so-called recovery program.

Mr. Cooke: This is a really heavy speech.

Mr. Stokes: It's Tory circumlocution.

Mr. Conway: I listened for seven hours to the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and, while he is a dear friend of mine, I am not about to be lectured on circumlocution by anyone over there after this second-reading debate.

As my leader indicated, and as subsequent Liberal spokesmen have drawn attention to, we have very serious reservations about the bill as it is written. We are going to vote for second reading so that this bill can go to the committee at an early opportunity, so that there can and will be public input and so that, with our participation and the participation of interested public groups, it might be improved.

As we move into committee to discuss the merits of the government's restraint program, the Liberal caucus will be serving notice that we intend to move a series of amendments aimed at improving the equity in this bill, which we see as being inequitable in many respects.

I rose in my place and indicated to the Premier (Mr. Davis) that it was absolutely unacceptable to us that the doctors, the province's single largest income group, are going to be exempt. Notwithstanding the fact that they draw down something in the order of $1.3 billion in public dollars, they are going to be exempt while hospital orderlies are not. I find that to be a very serious shortcoming. We want to move in the committee to amend this bill to improve the equity, which we do not believe is as full and complete as it might be.

Similarly, we are concerned that the Inflation Restraint Board under Czar Elgie is not nearly as proper as it might be. I am reminded by a government minister whom I shall not name that it might be Comrade Elgie to some over there, but we will leave aside with the old labour amendments, the so-called Elgie-Martel Concord Act, which sent the right wing into quite an orbit.

We do not believe that the Inflation Restraint Board as it is constituted here is nearly as public or as proper as it can be made to be. I find it very interesting that the first thing they want to do with it is exempt it from their own Statutory Powers Procedure Act. We do not think that is a very proper course of action.

We want to indicate that we will serve notice of amendment in the committee. We will be moving to include doctors and their fees as part of this anti-inflation program. We do not think the notching provisions are adequate, and we will be moving amendments to improve that component.

We also will be proposing to remove those measures that act unfairly to reduce pensions for those nearing retirement.

We want to allow for the right to strike or to seek arbitration over nonmonetary issues. Similarly, we want to allow for the right to strike or to seek arbitration for the unsettled 1981 contracts. We want to allow for similar treatment -- merit increases -- for those in all salary ranges. We want to ensure that union and non-union workers are treated alike in determining increases under the program.

We want to place some teeth in the price side of the bill by ensuring that cost pass-throughs and profit increases are not automatic. We certainly think that is what is so wrong with the current rent review program, and we know that it is within the competence of this Legislature and its standing committee on administration of justice to give much greater effect to that aspect of the bill.

5:10 p.m.

We are of course in no way satisfied that this bill is as evenhanded in the interests of equity with prices as it is with income. It is very imprecise and, in my view, calculatingly soft on the price side. As the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) will know, if there is not seen to be tough price control, he will run the same risk the Anti-Inflation Board ran when its course was complete. The analysis was that it was much tougher on incomes than on prices.

In the interest of equity, he is going to have to be far more evenhanded. He is going to have to indicate in the committee that he is prepared to include Ontario Hydro and that he is prepared to say, "Yes, we will control government costs." I mean the big-ticket items. It brings little comfort to know one's park permit is going to be held to five per cent when Ontario health insurance plan premiums or hydro bills are not.

The good people of Willowdale, Cochrane and Grimsby see through that kind of sham for precisely what it is. They are prepared in these tough times to give the government an opportunity to intervene, as it will do with this bill, but they want an assurance that what it says about equity and fairness is what it does.

They want an assurance that the government will control the most powerful lobby at work in this jurisdiction, the good friends of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) in the Ontario Medical Association, that it will control OHIP costs and not allow a 17 per cent increase to take effect and that, with one of the big-ticket items, it will control Ontario Hydro and involve those people in the five per cent limit.

Notwithstanding the geniality of the minister in charge, we are particularly concerned about the almost unheard of discretionary powers he is allowed. Donald Gordon would be envious in his earlier incarnation. I would have thought that in 1982 the minister, as one of the very few over there committed to open government and freedom of information, would be very concerned about the amount of discretion and the amount of privacy that is afforded.

In a constructive and conciliatory way, facing these extraordinary economic circumstances, the Liberal caucus will go forward in these areas and in others to reform this legislation in the hope that, together with other aspects of job creation, research and development initiatives and a host of other things, we can do what the 1981 election campaign promise of the Conservative Party has not done: put this province and its economy on the true road to a better tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, most of my caucus colleagues have heard me explain and support this bill; so I am really out to prevail upon the members of the New Democratic Party to change their position.

At the outset, I apologize to the two members opposite who have spoken in conclusion on this bill. I had hoped that we would have been discussing this yesterday. I had a couple of rather important commitments I had to keep today, but I have been given a brief summary as to what was said by both speakers.

I also listened with interest to the summation by the deputy leader of the "community" party of Ontario. I was delighted to hear his observations. I will not go through the litany of job creation programs which I understand he referred to. However, he is a student of history, and if he would go back to the days of Mitch Hepburn, as the member for Brant-Haldimand-Oxford-Norfolk or whatever his constituency is can do, he would find those really were days of new job creation in Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Speaking of history, I read David Lewis on --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand, and I have great respect for David, but no author I know of is totally objective. Some authors are better than others, but no author I know of is objective. Listen, the member's colleague two seats removed is writing a book at the moment -- at least, I think he is writing a book -- and I intend to read it with great interest. When is it going to be published?

Mr. Nixon: You may need bifocals.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I do not need bifocals yet. Is it going to take that long to produce the book?

Mr. Nixon: What do you mean they aren't what you need?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is not a question of need; sometimes it is a question of want.

Mr. Conway: I bet Ed Havrot up in Timiskaming --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would not be raising Timiskaming if I were you.

Mr. Conway: Listen, to see you with Ed Havrot up in Timiskaming warms my heart.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, I never apologize for the company I keep. Quite obviously, the honourable member does not apologize for the company he keeps.

Mr. Conway: How are things in the Ontario northland, anyway?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think things in Timiskaming are fine, obviously.

However, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at great length, first because there is not a lot of time and second because I am operating under some modest handicap. Members opposite will not think it is a handicap. I shall be relatively brief and try to deal with it in as unemotional a fashion as I can.

I think I can say at the outset that this legislation is not a bill this government enjoys debating in this House or seeing passed by this House. I say that quite sincerely. I do not recall any piece of legislation -- in my time in government, at least -- that has had the degree of discussion, consultation and soul-searching that went into not only the actual provisions of the bill but also the decision to move in this direction.

I say that not out of a sense of regret or a sense of sorrow but out of a recognition that we are living in unusual economic circumstances where some activity by governments was required. I will not go back very far in history to trace the birth and ultimate finalization of this bill except to outline to the opposition, and particularly to members of the New Democratic Party, one or two of the other options that were available to us.

I guess the basic reason for the introduction of this bill really relates to the concern of this government and of the general public about inflation. It is a concern that all of us sense, that inflation in this country is fundamental to our economic wellbeing and that certain initiatives had to be taken. They are not comfortable; we do not enjoy it. But, as I explained to my cabinet and caucus colleagues, none of us was elected to this House for the sake of enjoyment, and there are those occasions when we in positions of responsibility must do some things that are not totally pleasant for us in a personal sense.

The legislation is partially directed towards the creation of an environment that really relates to inflation, which, I would say to the members of the New Democratic Party, is still a fundamental concern and one that has led to a good part of the economic difficulties in which we find ourselves.

I said at the outset, many weeks ago, that our preference was for a national program. I do not say this with any regret. I accept the realities of this country, which are that the public sectors in the various provinces of Canada are different, the traditions are different and the ways of approaching things have been different.

I did explore with the other Premiers the possibility of having a national program of public sector restraint and, of course, before going to Halifax I sensed that there was no real likelihood of that emerging. I feel bad about it just because I think it would have been more acceptable if there had been a so-called national program where there would have been some similarity from one part of this country to the other, but that was not to be.

5:20 p.m.

I think it is fair to state that I did canvass the other Premiers as to their reaction to a national program that would have impacted upon all Canadians and not just the public sector. Once again, it did not surprise me that all the other Premiers indicated they did not support it philosophically. Some of them sensed there was no need for it. So as to any possibility of there being a national program, it was obvious to me at least that it was not going to happen in August.

I have not changed my point of view. I am not totally comfortable with a bill that impacts upon thousands of Ontarians in the public sector with a sense that some of them feel that in terms of equity they are being prejudiced against. That is not the intent of the bill, but I understand the arguments that some make relevant to that issue. Part of my answer to that relates to a decision by this government that probably on balance it would be preferable if the private sector, as one might define it, were to react to the present circumstances in a voluntary fashion.

I did canvass very carefully the press conference and the statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in mid-August, as I recall. I believe his preference was for a comprehensive program that would have included the private sector within the province.

Mr. Peterson: A national program.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know he said a national program, but as I read the reports of the press conference -- I was not invited; so I was not there -- he indicated he would support a provincial program as well. I will be very frank with the honourable members -- there are no secrets -- we canvassed that at great length.

It is fair to state that in our discussions with the union leadership, they rejected controls in both the public sector and the private sector. There is no question that this was their point of view, and that point of view has not altered.

It is also fair to state that in discussions with the business community, they were obviously opposed -- most of them but not all of them -- to private sector controls within a single provincial jurisdiction. There were a few who felt that perhaps it was ultimately necessary but who, like ourselves, were going the route of hoping to provide, perhaps through this legislation and other actions, some measure of example for the private sector.

If I had been asked in July whether I had expectations that this would work, my answer would have been less enthusiastic than it is today. I am not totally convinced yet, but I think there are some encouraging signs. There are some contradictions. There are some settlements we have seen take place that are obviously above the guidelines, but there is some indication of some move in the private sector towards the general levels we have established.

When we explored this option, we assessed it very carefully. In fact, we had three options: the bill that is in front of us, a bill that would include the private sector, and the option of doing nothing. There was a fourth one which I will outline to members in the hope that there will be some understanding by the New Democratic Party as to where that option would have led us.

The member who spoke for the opposition party pointed out one of the problems contained in any program; that is, in the field of price. During committee we can discuss the route we have decided to adopt. I am not going to say for a moment that it is totally acceptable, because it is a very difficult area if one does not wish to interfere with some aspects of the marketplace. It is not a simple area, and I appreciate the remarks of the member when he points out his concern.

During committee discussions I hope there will be an opportunity, not only to explain or to defend, but also to get some understanding from the members opposite as to the practical approach we are taking in this legislation. In our view, it is workable. That does not mean it will be easy, but we think it is practical and an approach that can be implemented.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, one reason we rejected, for the moment at least, the more comprehensive approach involving the private sector was that it could not include federally chartered institutions -- we all know that -- to determine price. I think if we had moved into the price area there would have to have been a far more comprehensive approach to price. We would have had great difficulties with commodities coming from western Canada and from eastern Canada in terms of administration or practical effect. It left us with some real doubts about whether this program would be effective.

My position has not altered. I have always been concerned about the equity but at the same time I feel that a single provincial program for private sector controls probably is not practical. It is something we would consider as part of the national program. I guess all of us hope -- I use the word "hope" -- a federal program will not be necessary.

I want to trace once again one of the other options. I know this is very hard to explain to the people in the public sector. I have a very genuine sympathy with some of the concerns they have expressed. Another option we could have pursued and one that has been pursued by some other jurisdictions with somewhat different approaches would have been to deal with the Ontario public service alone.

In other words, we could have legislated, as they have done in some places, the Ontario government service. That would have been easier for us in terms of the numbers of people affected. It probably would have been less controversial to the members of this House. The option then that was open to us, or one that we would have had to pursue in all equity and all responsibility, was to move in the area of transfer payments.

I think if we had gone the route of legislating only Ontario government employees and then said to the hospital system, the school boards and the municipalities that we would not legislate with respect to the employees of those organizations, but we would have a transfer payment figure that would be consistent with what we were attempting to achieve -- and I think that would also include probably a mill rate limitation in order to make it effective, because there would be no point saying that the transfer payments would be X per cent but the mill rates would be allowed to go up X plus Y so that we would be transferring the responsibility -- in terms of actual money or actual restraint it would not practically work.

That was a very attractive political option for us. It would have been much easier for us to say to the Peel Board of Education: "We are not going to interfere with your contractual obligations with your profession. We are going to give you X per cent. We know full well that figure will not meet your obligations in terms of the salary component of your budget. You will not be allowed to increase mill rates beyond a certain per cent during the restraint period. You sort the problems out."

If we had done that, and it was a very politically credible option in my view, to the hospitals, to the school boards, to the universities, to the municipalities, particularly to the hospitals, universities and colleges where they had no access to mill rate, I would say, with great respect -- and I would say this to Mr. O'Flynn if he were here, and to the head of the Ontario Teachers' Federation or any other public service union -- that would have led to degrees of inequity far beyond anything contained in the bill.

What would have been worse? It has happened in some provinces. It has happened in every state of the union in the public sector when they went this route, either through municipal bylaws or municipal activity. It would have led to a substantially reduced public service work force. There would have been no alternative. I say with great respect to the member for Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), his school board would have had no choice but to limit its programs which, in turn, would have limited the numbers of teachers.

Mr. Cooke: It is called the Henderson report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has nothing to do with the Henderson report.

Mr. Cooke: That is what you did in 1975.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, it has nothing to do with the Henderson report. It would have been a responsible approach by this government that would have transferred the tough problems to the municipalities, to the school boards, to the hospitals and the universities. I say, with respect, that would have led to a substantially reduced work force in the public sector. There would have been no alternative. That would have been easier for us.

There were some moments when I asked myself: "Why take on all this grief? Let us just do the Ontario public service, and say to the school board in Rainy River or in Brampton: 'This is all you are going to get. You cannot increase the mill rates beyond such and such. You sort it out.'" Without fear of contradiction I can say that would have led to severe dislocation with those boards and agencies and would not have had the degree of equity --

Mr. Renwick: It would have been quite irresponsible of you to have taken that course or even to have considered it.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to the member for Riverdale, until such time as he understands that there is not a bottomless pit, that the economy is in some difficulty, to say to us that we would not have to do this is wrong.

Mr. Renwick: It would have been quite irresponsible on your part.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. It would not have been an irresponsible option at all. I think it would have created more difficulty. It was one that was urged upon us by many sectors. I tell the member there is a bit of a contradiction. You put that proposal to some of the public service unions, and we would have been totally within our rights to do that, totally responsible in doing it.

I recognize that by this bill we as a government have assumed the responsibility that, if we had gone the other route, would have been that of the local municipalities, school boards, university administrations and the hospitals. We made that a conscious decision. I just point out, and I hope the public sector unions understand, what it would have meant with respect to employment if we had gone that route.

I want to deal with some of the myths that have developed in relation to this legislation. I do not quarrel for a moment with the idea that it interferes with the traditional bargaining process. There is no question. I am not going to argue for a moment that it does not. But I do not accept the statements made by the members of the New Democratic Party that it singles out people at the low end of the scale. Read the legislation carefully.

Mr. Renwick: You heard the figures this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I have some figures as well. I know this is not that palatable to the member. If we look at some of our own provincial employees -- and I am not going to say these salaries are fair or equitable, because any program of this nature recognizes the existing salaries -- I am fully aware there are some who in their view, and I think on the basis of equity, are probably not receiving as much as they should. I will not argue that with the member for Riverdale.

But even if there were to be normal negotiations in 1983,1 think the expectation would have been eight or nine per cent at the maximum. I do not want any misunderstanding. I said to Mr. O'Flynn that while the legislation refers to the $750 and the $1,000, from the standpoint of the government of Ontario, we are talking about the $1,000 limitation; we are not talking the $750 for our own employees.

There are a number of people in the employ of this government at a $10,000 salary -- and I am not going to argue whether or not it is enough; that happens to be the existing figure -- which means that, in 1983, under this legislation they will receive a 10 per cent increase. I say with great respect, no matter how competent the negotiators may be, with this legislation we will be within one or two points of what might have been negotiated in the bargaining process.

I listened to some members in the NDP say how we were taking X number of dollars out of the system. There is no question that a certain amount of money that would have been flowing from the government of this province will not be going to a specific number of recipients in the public sector. But I would remind NDP members when they say the province is "taking money out of the system" that the government gets it in only two ways: through taxation or through borrowing.

I know the position of the NDP is to borrow everything we need. I have listened to them for years. But I point out something else that will perhaps relieve their concern. If we had to increase the money we take out by way of taxation, which we were not considering as part of this program, that would have taken purchasing capacity from a much broader group of taxpayers.

A good portion of our transfer payments goes to the municipalities and school boards. If this program has the effect we anticipate, it will lead to a stabilization in mill rates. Who pays the taxes? Who pays real property taxes? A lot of people, including people in the public sector. If the mill rate increase is affected by this, then those members cannot effectively argue we have taken that much money out of the economy.

I know a little about purchasing habits as well. The five per cent figure may be two, three, perhaps four points under inflation in 1983, with some expectation that it will only be three. Is the member saying to me that at the medium income level, knowing what they are going to be paying in income tax, getting three points below that which they might have anticipated is realistically going to affect their consuming habits? I have to tell him that is utter nonsense. It will not. It will not impact upon the consumer in terms of the public sector.

It is not taking that money out of the economy. That is a myth he is perpetuating. I understand where he is coming from, but he just happens to be factually wrong. That is not the first time he has been wrong. It is not the second time he has been wrong.

Mr. McClellan: We will just wait and see.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, certainly we will wait and see. I am a patient man, but I have to tell the member to look at the figures realistically. Look at some of the averages. Look at the averages of the secondary school teachers in this province. Is the member telling me that with the average secondary school teacher now earning in the neighbourhood of $36,000 per year, because of the differential between five per cent and what they had expected to get -- perhaps nine or 10 per cent, and when they are paying tax on that it becomes perhaps a 2.5 per cent difference in what they had expected to get -- the average secondary school teacher is going to postpone some consuming purchases?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What about the day care workers? What about hospital workers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the member he is all wrong. It will not.

I noticed with some interest the head of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation is supporting the New Democratic Party leader in his campaign in York South. I have to tell the member that he cannot make those figures wash with the average person in this province.

Mr. Philip: You will find out November 4.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure. I know what they will think and I know all the things the NDP is saying in York South. I understand it all. I understand it all and I will not get into some partisan observations I could be prompted to make.

Mr. Cooke: You are never partisan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I never am. At least I am somewhat more fair-minded than the member for Windsor-Riverside. That is one of the myths I hope he will try to explain as we meet with the representatives of the public service.

Mr. Renwick: That is a reality. It is not a myth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not a reality. It is not a reality. I will argue strenuously with the member for Riverdale that this restraint program will have no negative impact in terms of the purchasing postures, or whatever term one may wish to use, of the vast majority of public servants in this province.

Mr. Cooke: The vast majority, especially those on lower incomes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I gave the member the figures at the low end. He should get out his slide rule. Take our last agreement that was made, for some of them in the $8,500 category -- the two agreements, I guess, that actually have a two-year impact -- and calculate what the $1 ,000 does. We are very close to the agreement itself. The member has never looked at the agreements. He does not know what he is talking about, which is one of the great problems he always has in these debates. He really does not.

We have to understand something else. This government is not saying this particular bill is a solution to the problem.

Mr. Martel: Deal with high interest rates and inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is quick to criticize, but why does he not give some modest degree of credit for some of the joint programs that are going on as having some modest impact on interest rates? He has not raised interest rates in the last three weeks because they have been going down.

Mr. Martel: That is because the Americans are letting them go down. It had nothing to do with you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My guess is Bob Rae is going to have to go and get some of his material reprinted in York South because the interest rates have come down.

Mr. Martel: It is because Reagan wants to win the Senate elections. When the Senate elections are over, away they will go again. You have no control over it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, sure. Oh, come on, he is always a pessimist, always a pessimist. Always be a bit of an optimist.

Mr. Martel: He has a federal Senate election going on and you know it.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I see. The member is so cynical as to say the only reason interest rates are going down is not because the rate of inflation is going down in the United States, not because the rate of inflation is going down in Canada, but because the head of the Federal Reserve Board in the US is playing games because there is a congressional election going on.

I just do not happen to be that cynical. I do not happen to be that cynical. I have to say those fellows thrive on cynicism. I understand that. That is their be-all and end-all. Some of us are not.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Conway: I read Morley's letter.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do not get me started because I could go back through the member for St. George and a lot over the years. Do not talk to me about trades and draft choices. Those people cannot represent total purity. Ask the member for Haldimand-Oxford-Norfolk and whatever.

Mr. Nixon: The member for Haldimand is here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whatever; we do not represent this legislation as being the total answer. No one is making that statement and we should not assume it. We are genuinely of the view that --

Mr. Nixon: A little sensitive on that point.

Mr. Kerrio: He has every right to be.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has said that right from the beginning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sensitive to everything. I am sensitive to the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and all the statements of great affection and wellbeing I get from him every time we chat. I understand.

Mr. Kerrio: That has nothing to do with politics.

Mr. Roy: You said, "Morley, that is not true, we are going to put you on the Ontario Municipal Board."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want me to start in on him? I shall. No, I will not today, but I can go back in history a little bit too.

Getting back to the main point, we are not suggesting this is a solution to the problem. We have urged upon the government of this country that there be a national co-operative program for what we have phrased "economic recovery." I have said this in the House before and I will repeat it: I was disappointed, and that is a modest way of describing my feelings, when the former Minister of Finance and the present Prime Minister said they would not meet with the provincial Premiers to discuss co-operative economic issues. I say with great respect to the Prime Minister of this country, that is --

Mr. Conway: They remember what happened to Joe Clark.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say to the honourable member, a year ago we sat down with the first minister of this country and all the Premiers reached a consensus on another issue. I left that meeting with some expectation that perhaps a crossroads had been reached in federal-provincial relations.

I went back in February and I found the member's federal friend so defensive and desirous of political credit, "We do not want to give any money unless our minister can go and make the announcement and unless there is a red and white sign up in front of the University of Toronto." I was offended. I have never seen such a partisan view on the part of a national government.

It was a sort of trench mentality and I guess that is the reason the government of this country is not yet ready to sit down. That is the solution, not in terms of the definition of the program, but in terms of conveying to the people of Canada that the political leaders, whatever their political stripe, are prepared to sit down together, to discuss constructively and to assess carefully the various suggestions emanating from all parts of this country.

I do not think it has to be confined just to politicians. Because they have had this voluntary group headed by Mr. Sinclair travelling and talking about restraint, I have urged the Prime Minister to have a task force made up of business, labour and government to find motivation for economic recovery. It has been a one-sided program.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has made it clear, as I have, that this is a part, an uncomfortable part and unpleasant part of what we as a government feel is essential. We do it out of a sense of responsibility. We do not do it out of a sense of enthusiasm.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can be as cynical as you like, Albert --

Mr. Roy: You know you were polling for this. Don't try to stand there piously.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When the member has nothing constructive to say, he has to take out his frustrations in his usual cynical sense. I understand that. I have sat here and listened to him for many years and he has not had anything really meaningful or constructive to say in the economic field since becoming a member of this House --

Mr. Roy: That's right and your candidate in Brussels has a lot to say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- on the law, some, but in economics the member would be doing us all a great service to continue the practice of law so we can tax his great income. That is what he should be doing for us as he does every Monday and Friday.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt him. He should sit down. I am not paying any attention to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: Let Morley be the judge; ask Morley.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I renew what I said at the outset when this bill was introduced. We do not --

Mr. Peterson: Don't be cynical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who is cynical? I am not a cynic.

Mr. Peterson: You are cynical because --

Mr. Conway: We can live with Allan Grossman and John Yaremko, but Morley?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can get into a few other examples so the members opposite should be very careful. I say that to the Leader of the Opposition, because I have a long memory and I know a little history.

I finalize my observations on the very simple statement, not plea, to the members of the New Democratic Party. It is great for them to oppose this. I understand that. It is a matter of principle. But I hope they will at least show a degree of leadership when they explain to the public service and the heads of the unions that this is not a simple bill for government. It will provide a real measure of employment security that other options would not have provided. It does not take out of the economy the hundreds of millions of dollars suggested.

It is as equitable a piece of legislation as can be made. It is responsible; it is taking the right direction; and it is one that, while I do not like it, I support out of a sense of responsibility, not just to the public service, but to the eight-million- plus people of this province, whose economy at this moment is being impacted. We think it is right. We think it is responsible. I say to the members of the Liberal Party we appreciate their support. With great respect, they can conduct --

Mr. Sweeney: What did the polls say?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Liberals are far more sensitive to polls than we are. That is correct. Do they want me to tell them the efforts they went to to get a certain pollster? Do they want me to tell them all they have done in the polling area in the past three months? Do they want me to tell them what their leader has been up to in terms of that? I must tell them we are pure when it comes to the activities of the Liberal Party of Ontario. I say that to Brother Sweeney, because it happens to be factually correct.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to all honour- able members that the bells will ring for a maximum of 30 minutes on this vote. That is according to the standing orders; it is a prearranged vote.

Some hon. members: Five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

5:50 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. F. S. Miller's motion for second reading of Bill 179, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Boudria, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones;

Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Roy, Runciman, Ruston;

Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Renwick, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.

Ayes 89; nays 21.

Ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 57, I would ask the House to waive the five-day period.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the consent of the House?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With the consent of the House, I would like to revert to motions.

Agreed to.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice hold two weeks, approximately 33 hours, of public hearings regarding Bill 179, sitting tonight, October 19, 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.; on October 21, 26 and 28 from approximately 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and from 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.; on October 20 and 27 from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and on November 1 from approximately 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., with public participation ending on November 1; that normal clause-by-clause consideration of the bill start on November 2, 1982, with sittings Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at the times set out above; and that after clause-by-clause consideration is finished, the bill will be reported to the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

October 19, 1982