Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-26 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding I would ask all members in the assembly to join with me in welcoming a group of legislative interns from British Columbia who are in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

STUDENT VENTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the honourable members important news on a highly successful employment initiative of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development. I am speaking of the student venture capital program, which is designed to encourage entrepreneurial activity among our young people.

Student venture capital offers interest-free loans of up to $2,000 to students who wish to plan and operate their own summer businesses. The program is cosponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. This cosponsorship is an excellent example of government and private sector co-operation.

During the program's first eight years of operation, the number of businesses grew slowly but steadily from 37 in 1973 to 151 in 1981. However, in 1982 there was a dramatic rise in business ventures to 424. I am delighted to report that, because of the vigorous work of the secretariat and the students, the number of businesses in 1983 more than doubled again to a grand total of 876.

Even with the higher volume of loans and the increase in the number of businesses, nearly 87 per cent of last year's loans have been repaid. This is an enviable record and a credit to the students and the program sponsors.

Student venture capital is really a low-cost program; the average cost per participant is less than $500. In addition, an evaluation of last year's program showed that 42 per cent of the businesses hired at least one employee, thereby helping further to alleviate unemployment during the summer months.

This year I am pleased to state that to date we have received nearly 600 applications, which is 65 per cent more than at this time last year. I am confident the secretariat will reach our goal of supporting 1,100 summer businesses through student venture capital. I also look forward to seeing new and innovative enterprises such as those that have been developed by our young people in past years.

The variety and originality of the student businesses has always impressed me. Types of businesses have included house painting, dancercise lessons, landscaping, fast-food retailing and computer software design. For example, last summer in Muskoka, 22-year-old Paige Sillcox started a business by baking cookies in the kitchen of her parents' cottage and selling them locally. Her student venture capital experience was so successful that, upon returning to school this fall, she hired five full-time employees to carry on the business. Miss Sillcox owns two delivery vans and now sells her "Cookie It Up" products to Holt Renfrew, Ziggy's, Eaton's and the Kitchen Table. All this was from a summer with student venture capital.

In Toronto, three partners set up a home carpet cleaning company and were so successful they have now landed contracts for commercial buildings. In London, one young woman hired 20 others to knit Icelandic wool sweaters, hats and mittens which were sold on consignment to stores in Welland, Stratford and Fonthill. These are a few examples which demonstrate how worth while this program is for our young people.

Word of the tremendous success of Ontario student venture capital has spread to other provinces. Representatives from other provincial governments have been in contact with my secretariat for consultation in designing their own programs. Saskatchewan is planning a pilot project, while British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have fully operational programs modelled after our own.

In addition, there have been inquiries from Quebec, Alberta and the Yukon about starting a similar program. We can be proud of the fact that Ontario has taken the lead in developing this youth employment initiative. I would like to add that my predecessors in this secretariat have done their share in making this a success. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to bring my colleagues up to date on the secretariat's student venture capital program.

VARIETY CLUB BIKE-A-THON

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If there are no further statements, I would like to announce that I will be riding in the Variety Club Bike-a-thon on Sunday. I have had a pledge from the Liberal House leader for 50 cents. I have had pledges from others for considerably less, mainly on that side of the House. The Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) has offered a cardiac service all along the west-end route.

I would like to ask all members if they would be interested in giving to a cause that will not only raise money for Variety Village, which is a very worthwhile cause, but also succeed in tiring me out for at least a day and possibly many more hours than that.

I would invite them all to take the pledge per kilometre. It is 32 kilometres. I hope to be able to make the entire route and I look forward to receiving a pledge from all the members of the Legislature and from those in the gallery as well. If anyone wants to give me money, the phone number is 763-5435.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good cause. I will even allow you to contribute if you care to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, replying to what is a questionable point of order by the leader of the New Democratic Party, his being tired out for a day will not alter the political fortunes of either himself or the party. I say that very kindly.

Mr. Rae: The Premier is so kind.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He can bike all over the province and it may not make any difference.

I would be delighted to participate on the assumption that when the Premier or others on this side of the House become involved in these very worthwhile endeavours, as we do on occasion, the member for York South will show the same degree of generosity. I am referring to any modest involvement or contributions I or members of my family in Brampton might make. They are far more athletic than I am. I assume the member will be ready to participate fully.

In understanding that, I will be delighted to -- I would love to see him bicycle for 32 kilometres. It will be instructive and healthy for him, and he may even learn something in the process.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier going to contribute or not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said, subject to those understandings I would be delighted to join in.

Mr. Conway: I thought perhaps the Premier would take the leader of the third party off to an opera or an art gallery.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Minister of Energy concerning the disturbing announcements today at Douglas Point. I do not believe the minister is anywhere in the precincts, although he is expected.

Mr. Ruston: There he is.

Mr. Conway: He is on his way.

My question for the minister concerns the announcement made a few hours ago at Douglas Point that Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. will not be restarting that prototype 200-megawatt reactor in May. The reason stated is it is no longer an economically viable operation in the opinion of AECL.

Will the minister advise this House of the views of his government on this critical matter? Over the past 25 years a program of nuclear power development has been developed in this province whereby Ontario Hydro, together with AECL, was going to operate one or two prototypes for technical and research purposes, on the strength of which the continued operation of major commercial reactors at Pickering and Bruce would be judged.

Does the announcement today that AECL and Ontario Hydro are going to discontinue the traditional operation of Douglas Point not fundamentally contradict the whole nuclear power development of this province over the past 25 years, one which was built on the ongoing operation of prototype reactors at Rolphton and Douglas Point?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the deputy leader of the opposition, one point I want to stress is that the Douglas Point reactor is the property of AECL. It is operated by Ontario Hydro. They purchase the electrical energy from this operation at a cost that is approximately equivalent to the cost of operating the Lakeview generating station.

It is my understanding that AECL has determined that the economics of a continued operation at Douglas Point do not justify extending that arrangement with Ontario Hydro. It has considered the various costs involved in that operation and has reached this decision based strictly on economics.

At the same time I want the honourable member to know that Ontario Hydro is prepared over the next seven to eight months to discuss alternatives for the Douglas Point situation with AECL. Whether Hydro would become a part of all of that operation or a part of that operation will be determined over the next seven to eight months.

Mr. Conway: Is the minister then saying that he and Ontario Hydro are actively considering the ongoing and traditional operation of Douglas Point, accepting that, like Rolphton, it has an important ongoing function as a prototype?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I would not want the member to be misled. What I am saying is Hydro is actively considering the alternatives for the continued operation of a part or all of the Douglas Point reactor, not as a prototype but as a commercial unit.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, after 17 years of operation, AECL has decided its plant is no longer economical. After 12 years of operation, the Pickering plant in good measure has had to be shut down for extensive repairs costing more than it cost to build the first two reactors at Pickering.

Does the Minister of Energy not feel the announcement today confirms the need for an inquiry in this province into the economics of nuclear power? Every other jurisdiction in North America is looking hard at what it really costs to go the nuclear route exclusively, as Ontario is now going. Does the minister not think these messages are coming in loud and clear that perhaps we have to look again at the cost figures, particularly now since AECL has said it cannot afford to run the Douglas Point unit?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing the leader of the third party said. Ontario Hydro is not moving exclusively to the nuclear option.

Mr. Rae: Seventy per cent in the next 10 years, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Seventy per cent of the output will likely come from nuclear by the time the Darlington station is completed; 50 per cent of the capacity of the system will depend on the nuclear option.

Mr. Rae: The government has mothballed the rest of the system. It has got the rest of the system down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I cannot agree with the leader of the third party. I think AECL, in conjunction with Hydro, in putting the Douglas Point operation in place --

There seem to be a lot of distractions here, Mr. Speaker. I am having difficulty in concentrating.

Mr. Speaker: There is a private conversation going on. I think you have handled that supplementary very well, and we will have the final supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether or not the announcement by AECL today about Douglas Point has any bearing on the ongoing relationship and operation that Ontario Hydro and AECL both have at Rolphton? Will this announcement today at Douglas Point have any impact on the ongoing operation of Rolphton NPD-2?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the honourable member's concern about the operation at Rolphton. At this time I have no reason to think the two are related at all.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier this afternoon. He is in such a good mood.

I would like to ask him why the advertising expenditures of his government are being allowed to increase uncontrollably when all other sectors are forced to operate under the limitations imposed by his restraint program. In 1982, ads in the media were allowed to increase by almost 25 per cent; last year they increased by a further 17 per cent, and that is just for media costs and does not include the other associated costs.

When the government is limiting increases in transfer payments to municipalities, welfare payments and public sector wage settlements to five per cent or less and has exhorted the private sector to do the same, how can the Premier possibly justify these increases of 25 and 17 per cent, almost 45 per cent over the last two years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member fully expects me to justify it to his satisfaction and I know he will be reasonable as he listens to these figures. They are subject to some correction.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The real figures are higher?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. My understanding is -- and this is subject to correction -- that advertising for the government in the calendar year 1982 was $15,068,400; and there may have been a few cents, I am not sure. In the calendar year 1983, government advertising was $15,292,300, which is an increase --

Mr. Cunningham: Absolutely not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a second.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member for Rainy River wants the answer; I know the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) cannot understand it.

If the member for Rainy River will bear with me, according to my calculations, that represents a 1.5 per cent increase in government advertising.

In the calendar year 1982, the Ontario Lottery Corp. spent $10,916,700; in the calendar year 1983, it would be $12,546,900, which is an increase of roughly 14.9 per cent. If one combines the two figures, one gets seven per cent, to round it off.

I think that in the government's internal program our commitment to advertising has come within the guidelines we have expressed. I have difficulty, because I am not a marketing expert, in terms of the lottery --

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, yes, you are.

Mr. Wrye: You take the polls.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not pretend to be a marketing expert. If the member consulted with the chairman of the lottery corporation, as I know he would be delighted to do, the chairman would explain to him that there is something of a direct relationship between the amount of advertising done for lottery programs and the numbers of tickets that are purchased.

I know it is simple to combine the two, but I want to make it abundantly clear that in terms of the government advertising of Ontario food products, which the member to his immediate right supports both philosophically and geographically, certainly in his own constituency -- he is not Liberal-Labour, so he must be to the member's geographic and philosophical right; while it is simple to combine them, if he takes out government advertising, my figures indicate 1.5 per cent.

I can give the member a list of those areas about which we are informing the public. He can quarrel with some of them perhaps, yet I do on occasion read the odd column written by some of his colleagues where they take the odd bit of credit for some of the government programs we are so properly implementing.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I will accept the Premier's offer. I would like to get those figures, because neither the standing committee on public accounts nor the Provincial Auditor has been able to find out how much the government spends on advertising. The fact of the matter is that it spends more per capita in Canada than does any other private enterprise or government in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Just send it over. I have not asked my supplementary yet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member can place his supplementary without any comment or editorializing, we will hear it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: My supplementary is in two parts. How does the Premier justify the figures he gave us when in the standing committee on public accounts, which was dealing with this matter, the auditor showed the advertising figures overall to be in the neighbourhood of $30 million? The auditor suggested they might even go as high as $70 million if we knew what the government was spending.

How does the Premier justify any increase in the advertising budget when at the same time the Ontario career action program is underfunded by some $5 million, funding for provincial parks has been so restricted that some are actually beginning to deteriorate, and the special services at home program, which enables developmentally handicapped children to remain at home with their families, will see a reduction for some of the cases from a $10,000 maximum grant per family to $3,000 per family?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member likes to represent his constituency. I may be wrong, but I recall him sitting there when the northwestern chambers of commerce had been in to see the cabinet. He has been there and he has enjoyed those meetings. I know it always galled him a little when they said such nice things about the government, but we always tried to include him in those.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier should hear what they tell me in private.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know what they tell the member in private, but I also know that he did not stand up and object when they said great things about Minaki.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, the member did not even stand up and object when his brother was at the opening of Minaki, extolling its virtues.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does this have something to do with the question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The chambers of commerce come to us from northwestern Ontario and urge that this government spend more on tourism advertising. The member has heard them say it. It has been part of their formal resolutions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My recollection is -- and these are rough figures again -- that of the $15 million or whatever the figure is, say for 1983, roughly $11 million is for advertising the tourism industry in Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Whether it is $7 million or $11 million, it is a very large part of it. If it is $7 million, it is close to 50 per cent and if it is $11 million, it is more.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member that most people, including his chambers of commerce, have said to us that they get more by way of return because of this advertising than otherwise would be the case.

The member has a critic on his side of the House who has been urging larger expenditures for government advertising of tourism. I just ask him to consult with his critic in this area and let me then decide just who is reflecting Liberal or community party policy.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, but I have a rough list here. If we took out the lottery expenditures. we would be in about 16th place amongst all the private sector and governments in Canada.

I have to tell the member that his brother's government, whether led by Mr. Turner, Mr. Chrétien or Eugene Whelan, still will be spending some $53 million. Does the member see where they have allocated another $22 million in the past two or three weeks for the very same subject of tourism?

I say to the member, please do not say to us that we are spending more than anyone else, because that is not factually the case.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sure the Premier knows that Ottawa cut its advertising expenditure by almost three per cent last year.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The members opposite certainly have a selective sense of humour. They listen to the biggest mumbo-jumbo from the Premier for 10 minutes without laughing.

Before every provincial election, two things happen in this province: the amount the government spends on public opinion polling at taxpayers' expense goes up and the province's advertising expenditure goes up. In 1980-81, the year before the election, the spending on public opinion polls went up from $430,000 to $609,000. We on this side know the government's public opinion polling goes hand in hand with the advertising costs in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Will the Premier give us a commitment that in this year's budget -- whenever the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) gets around to bringing it in -- there will be, at the very least, a holding at a zero increase for advertising and public opinion polling in the province, if not a decrease?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What the member is really asking me to do is to say that with tourism, for instance, if we in our wisdom were to determine that another X dollars spent would return more than that to the economy of this province -- that is what his party's critic argues; that is what the critic says --

Mr. Eakins: You put the tax on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have listened to what the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) has said, and I have read what he says, and he has said to this government that we should be spending more on advertising the tourist industry. I do not challenge the member, but I ask him, if he has not said that, to tell me so.

Mr. Bradley: It is this kind of advertising we are talking about -- a quarter page.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier to cast his mind back to 1974, when Ontario was a lowly 36th in ranking with respect to advertising in Canada at a figure of $2.6 million. In 1975 -- I wonder what year that was -- Ontario jumped up to number nine with an increase in expenditure to $6 million. It fell back in 1976 to number 23 and then jumped up again in 1977 to 13th with $6 million. In 1980, there was a quantum leap to $17.7 million and number six, which is the position Ontario has proudly held in the rest of the country since then. Today it is at $27 million, an increase of 933 per cent since 1974.

How can the Premier possibly justify that kind of increase at the same time as he is cutting back and restraining everybody else? The only people he is letting loose are his PR men, his consultants and the advertising agencies that work for the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not checked the figures being used by the honourable member. I would just go to the latest year, 1983, where once again -- and I am subject to some correction -- there was an increase of approximately 1.5 per cent over 1982. The member can debate that figure, but that is my information and I assume it is relatively accurate.

If the member is suggesting the Ontario Lottery Corp. in its judgement -- and these moneys come out of lottery proceeds; it is no imposition upon the taxpayers -- should not be increasing its commitment to advertising to promote this fund-raising technique, then he should say so.

I just want to quote to the member the budget suggestions from his colleague to his geographic and philosophical left. He says: "Raise the levels of full OHIP premium assistance to at least the Statscan low-income cutoff line, extend the partial assistance and advertise the program broadly." Would the leader of the New Democratic Party have a word with the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston)?

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The Premier knows perfectly well that is an outrageous comparison. The increase that has taken place since 1974, even when crown corporations and the expenditure by lotteries are excluded, is 397.2 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: At the same time the Provincial Auditor said, "For various reasons, the government's reporting systems did not accurately disclose total advertising costs."

How can the Premier and his government possibly live with themselves when they are increasing their public relations budget at the same time as jobs are declining for young people and older people are living in poverty because they do not have the ability to provide for themselves and their families? The only spending that is going up in such dramatic terms, 933 per cent in the last 10 years, is for advertising and public relations. What kind of statement is he giving us about the quality of government in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I fully appreciate that the member is trying to distort the figures. No one is going to argue that the information from this government has increased. I know the member sent me a list, but in percentage terms, the bulk of the money has gone to the advertising of Ontario as an attractive place to be in terms of tourism. The member may not like that, but that is where the bulk of the money has gone, including the increases. We think, in terms of the economic return to the province, it is a well-justified expenditure.

The economists can advise the member to the contrary, but it is intriguing that about every province in Canada has done the same, every state of the union is doing the same and the countries in western Europe are doing the same because they recognize tourism is a very basic part of their economic development. The member may not be interested in tourism but we are.

I would also recite some of the other programs which the member would call advertising and public relations. That is totally ridiculous. What is advertising or public relations with respect to the Ontario career action program?

The member talks about youth employment. He does not want us to communicate with the youth of this province about some of these programs, such as the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. He does not want us to notify the seniors of the province about tax grants for seniors.

Shop Canadian was a part of our expenditure. I thought the member, of all people, would be somewhat in support of that. Another one is support of fitness. The member himself has become a fitness freak in the past few minutes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Half an hour.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In the last half hour.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are half right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Treasurer tells me I am half right. Is the member opposed to the promotion of physical fitness?

I will go on to the question of the youth secretariat and foster parenting. Surely the member is not opposed to that communication with the public.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was a very full answer, Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, I have not got around to drinking and driving yet.

Mr. Speaker: No. But I think it was done very well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wanted to mention drinking and driving, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that the effectiveness of our tourism advertising is being offset by the high taxation of people coming from other countries and other jurisdictions than Ontario?

For instance, since 1981 the number of tourists from the United States has decreased because of the high taxes, the ad valorem tax, the ripoff on Highway 401 on gasoline prices, the cost of food, the provincial tax and other associated costs.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that is a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is, Mr. Speaker, and I want to answer it if I may.

Mr. Speaker: All right: continue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is an excellent question, because I assume from it that the honourable member has not challenged my statement that he in fact has promoted the idea of more advertising for tourism. Is that fair?

Mr. Eakins: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. What the member is saying to me is that the promotion for tourism is offset by certain tax regimes in Ontario.

Mr. Eakins: I do not blame it on tourism; I blame it on advertising.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. The member is saying to me that certain costs are offsetting the tourism program. I am not saying for a moment that the tax regimes here are identical with the major areas that draw tourism from our perspective, such as the northern United States and perhaps even the mid-Atlantic states. I have raised this with some of the people involved in the industry.

If the member were travelling by automobile to the United States -- which I know he does not do, but let us say he were going to New York City by the normal route taken by most tourists -- and if he calculated very carefully, with the Canadian dollar at 78 cents, the differential between what is paid here for gasoline and what is paid there, plus the tolls on the New York State Thruway, he would find the costs would become relatively comparable.

There is not an American tourist who comes to this country who, once he comes across the border, pays anything close to what he pays for the use of the major throughways in the United States. I point this out as being one of the equalizing effects.

I should also say that while one can always argue tax regimes in terms of attractiveness and what they get when they get here, the visit is well justified with a 78-cent dollar and whatever it is they pay in taxation.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I agree with the Premier that the supplementary was relevant. However, since you ruled it irrelevant, what right does the Premier have to carry on that way following your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: It was not a case of the Premier overruling me. I said I did not think the question was a proper supplementary. The Premier asked for the opportunity, recognizing it was not, to reply to it and bring it into the context of the question.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I will not touch that one. I would not think of touching it.

As the Premier knows, this House has been sitting for five weeks. The government has been literally spinning its wheels. There has not been a single measure for young people undertaken in this Legislature. There has not been a single measure introduced for older people. Up to the present time, there has not been a single measure introduced to face up to any of the major problems facing the people of this province.

I would like to ask the Premier this and challenge him to do it: Why does he not adjourn the House, let us do our work in our constituencies and call us back when he is ready to do some serious business for the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants to --

Mr. Wrye: Is that a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought for a moment the member was going to issue me another challenge, but he did not have the nerve.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Premier. It has to do with the fact that there continues to be an enormous challenge facing the people of this province: to provide full equality between men and women.

I would like to ask the Premier how he feels about the fact that in the Stratford factory of Canadian Fabricated Products Ltd., where 82 per cent of the workers are women, most of whom are working at highly skilled industrial machines sewing the interiors of cars, those workers earn 24 cents less per hour than the sweeper in that plant despite the skills required in their job.

In addition to asking the Premier how he feels about that, I wonder why his government has consistently and persistently refused to introduce legislation requiring equal pay for work of equal value in Ontario, which would end that kind of inequity.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to caution our visitors in the gallery that no participation and no demonstrations of any kind are allowed. If there is any further participation, I will have to clear the galleries.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really would have thought that would have been the initial question of the member for York South. This morning we had --

Mr. Rae: Sorry to disappoint you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just assumed it would. I assume he puts priorities on his questions.

Mr. Laughren: You can tell the Speaker what to do.

Mr. Rae: You can tell the Speaker what to do; you cannot tell us what to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, of course not. I would not presume to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member is obviously doing well enough on his own, from my perspective. I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we had presented to us this morning what I thought was a thoughtful and constructive brief from a group of women who had joined with or were part of a delegation led by Mr. Pilkey, the head of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

The member is not quoting from the synopsis that was read to us, but the total brief of a particular situation. I think the women who were present this morning fully understood that I was not, nor were any of the ministers who were there, familiar with the particulars in the full brief. The brief was presented to me some very few moments before the discussion.

I thought it was a very constructive, informative presentation. It was quite thoughtful. I said, in general terms, that I felt there really were very few differences in terms of the objectives they were stating, that Mr. Pilkey was stating and that we as members of this House, members of the government, would feel in terms of the general objectives.

I was not in a position to give any commitment this morning and I did caution them there may be differences in points of view as to the methods we will use to achieve those objectives. I am not in a position to comment on a particular situation within the brief.

They referred one or two other matters to me. I must confess I was surprised at one particular reference they made that I found quite disturbing. It is something I could not accept in terms of it happening, but I cannot comment at this point on the individual references within that more substantial brief.

Mr. Rae: The Premier had the courtesy to talk about priorities. I would like to say we are here in this Legislature, which is more than we can say for his seatmate the Deputy Premier, the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), who was not even here today to listen to the brief, after it had been arranged two months ago that he would be here to hear the brief.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Rae: That is why we are here asking these questions. He was not even here to listen to them. The Premier knows that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a matter of personal privilege: I feel badly that the leader of the New Democratic Party would make those observations. I explained, not in detail, nor shall I, that the Minister responsible for Women's Issues was not there. He regretted it, but he was away with some reason.

To suggest that the member for Brock, who in my view is one of the most conscientious, sensitive individuals in this House, intentionally was not present this morning, I think is doing him a disservice and, quite honestly, doing the leader of the third party a disservice in the process.

Mr. Rae: I would be interested in knowing exactly what privilege it was that the Premier was speaking to in relation to himself.

If the Premier wants examples, he has had examples with respect to inequalities between men and women countless times in the Legislature. If he wants to hear examples, we can give him dozens, and we have given them in this House. The government has never responded adequately to those examples.

At Carleton University, a secretary who requires a grade 12 education, secretarial training and three years of related experience is earning $6.50 an hour after probation, whereas a truck driver at the same university is being paid $8.79 per hour. He needs to have grade 10, a class D licence and some truck-driving experience. That is a tremendous inequality between those two people.

Why is the Premier not prepared to introduce legislation which would allow a process by which those workers who feel themselves to be aggrieved and feel they are being treated unequally would have some place, a court of reference, where they could go and have those grievances arbitrated?

Why has the Premier consistently refused to give them the kind of standard that would allow them to get equal pay for work of equal value in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this was raised but I cannot recall the specific university. Was it Carleton? There is no question that the member has used certain examples. What I was commenting upon were the specific examples in the brief. I confess I have not had an opportunity to assess the specific examples that were cited in the brief presented to me this morning.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Premier goes by the old adage, "It's better in the Bahamas." That may be one of the reasons he is not available to be with us today.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Ms. Copps: None the less, the Premier is basically trying to hide behind the smokescreen that he has not had the opportunity to read the Ontario Federation of Labour brief today.

My supplementary is quite simple. First of all, the Premier, presumably through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), has had the opportunity to review very extensively the Ontario Public Service Employees Union brief which was presented to the standing committee on social development last January with respect to the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. His own record and the government's record is abominable.

The Premier stated in the House that at the meeting today he expressed concern about specific cases of injustices that occur to grocery store employees with respect to the wage differential between cashiers and stock clerks, and the change of responsibilities that are sometimes entailed in their jobs but for which cashiers are not paid the same as stock clerks.

I wonder if he could make the commitment, based on his previous answer to the leader of the third party, that he and this government will in this session introduce legislation to make sure the concerns about which he has personally expressed some concern here today are addressed? He is concerned about the stock clerks and the cashiers. Will he bring in legislation to make sure that situation will be addressed in this session?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a debate with the member. My recollection is it was not a differential between stock clerks and cashiers. I may be wrong, but my recollection is there was a differential between clerk A and clerk B. I can be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that was the terminology used by the individual from Brockville, I believe it was, who made this point.

I think in discussions there is a feeling the present amendments before the House could resolve that particular problem. I cannot guarantee it, but there was some discussion relative to that.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rhetoric in the throne speech about the government's determination to advance the just interests and rights of women and to improve women's rights and opportunities in the marketplace, how can this government continue to refuse to implement equal pay for work of equal value and mandatory affirmative action, both of which all of the women's groups who were in the lobby in the Legislature today agreed are absolutely essential to improve women's rights and opportunities in the marketplace?

Did the Premier make any commitment to those women to withdraw the present equal pay sections in Bill 141, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, and to bring in mandatory affirmative action which will have proper monitoring and proper encouragement for firms to implement mandatory affirmative action programs, to enable women to move up the employment ladder and into nontraditional jobs and to overcome the unfair exploitation of women in the job ghettos?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Beaches-Woodbine knows exactly what I said to the delegation that met with us this morning, but in case she does not know, I will try to paraphrase what I said.

The meeting started at roughly 11:15 a.m. We met until 12:40 p.m. or so. There were two or three issues that were raised in the brief that we did not have enough opportunity to explore to a greater extent; and one or two that gave me great concerns that probably do not involve, shall we say, legislation even, such as the question of sexual harassment. I thought their presentation in the brief was very necessary. We just did not have a chance to explore what other things might be done.

What I said to the group was that I think we share many of the same objectives; I cannot say in total. I could not guarantee to them there would not be some differences of opinion as to how we might achieve those objectives. The group that was in to see me quite obviously believes, as an example, voluntary or educational programs related to affirmative action will not work. They are suggesting it has to be made mandatory. That is their point of view and I respect it.

2:50 p.m.

I would say to the honourable member, and I think they would reiterate this, that in a very important discussion of about one hour and a half I made it quite clear it is not my position to make a commitment at a meeting of that nature. I told them that before they left.

I also told them their brief would be very carefully assessed by the government and by the ministers; and we would not only assess it carefully, we would also be dealing with it in terms of the general objectives they outlined. I hope I have paraphrased what I said to them at the conclusion of the meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I ask the co-operation of all honourable members not to carry on private conversations within the chamber, please.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue which is particularly relevant in view of what the Premier (Mr. Davis) has said about tourism in Ontario.

I want to draw the minister's attention to the government's market value assessment program which has frozen Marineland's $20-million expansion plans and may force the entertainment park out of business and out of the country. Assessment has increased 70 per cent this year, leading to a potential tax increase of 87 per cent. The main reason for the increase is that the roller-coaster ride and other equipment were assessed as buildings rather than manufacturing equipment.

Marineland this year is spending more than $3 million on advertising which draws tourists to Niagara Falls and other parts of that area. The average stay of a tourist in Niagara Falls is 40 minutes; the average stay in Marineland is five and a half hours. This has a major spinoff on the hotel and restaurant business because the park inspires people to stay overnight.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Epp: A study done by the local tourist association in Niagara Falls in the late 1970s credits 43 per cent of the hotel rooms sold in Niagara Falls to the attraction of Marineland and its advertising.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Epp: Now for the question. How could the minister condone putting an innovative entrepreneur out of business who has built a dream without one penny of government assistance? Will he intervene to have this assessment reduced?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Waterloo North for that question. I was wondering when his question would come, in view of his travelling road show there.

Surely he is not serious when he suggests this government is putting Marineland out of business. He knows the history as well as I do. This assessment was requested by the city of Niagara Falls. The council finally approved the impact study, and at a council meeting it asked that market value assessment be brought into being. Through his studies and hearings, the member might also determine that although some assessments did increase, others went down. Perhaps the member should bring in both sides of the story.

In answer to the question --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Does the member want to hear the answer? I am taking it seriously. He is not taking it seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the outset, I want to tell you that Vincent Kerrio Jr. voted against having market value assessment in Niagara Falls, and I also have to tell you, sir, it was because he was protecting what we consider the rights of many entrepreneurs in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Kerrio: I wonder if the minister is aware that in addition to Marineland, where 80 permanent jobs and 400 seasonal jobs are going to be jeopardized -- and Marineland is being enticed to go to the other side because the Americans are willing to provide land for its expansion, which is now being stalled.

The minister was kind enough to receive a delegation from Niagara. I hope he will hesitate to answer "No" too quickly, before he goes back to cabinet and perhaps finds out he might get his colleagues to change their minds about this particular market value assessment.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: In addition to Marineland we have E. S. Fox where the former Minister of Energy boasted about having work. We have Oneida Community Plate, Washington Mills, Niagara Block and many more businesses threatened by this increase in taxation.

Mr. Speaker: And having said that.

Mr. Kerrio: This is a very important issue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure it is, but would you please put the question.

Mr. Kerrio: This is the question. These people are going to be put out of business. I am sure they made an appeal to the minister that should have him go back and talk to his colleagues. I hope the minister might reconsider some kind of special involvement because many entrepreneurs are threatened -- the people who made this country. Will the minister go to his cabinet colleagues and see if he can do something about this special issue in Niagara Falls?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the member for Niagara Falls is quite correct in that I did entertain a delegation, including an acting mayor at that time. I have been in continuous touch with Mayor Smeaton of Niagara Falls; in fact, I am meeting with him next week.

The proper procedure for Marineland -- and it has the right to do this -- is to appeal its assessment to the Assessment Review Board. That is one thing it can do.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I wonder if the honourable member would like to hear the answer. He asked the question; he should listen for the answer.

An hon. member: He does not want to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I guess perhaps that is it. He does not want to hear it.

The other alternative, which council in Niagara Falls has already dealt with, is the option of phasing in that assessment. They voted against that as well. I am just wondering --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Do not confuse me with facts; is that it?

I do not know what I can do at this point. I was very specific. The council has requested in three resolutions that this be done. They have the option of appealing to the Assessment Review Board. They have the additional option in Niagara Falls of phasing in this assessment if that is what they wish. They have indicated a desire to do neither of those things.

The gentleman -- I believe Mr. John Holer -- from Marineland did have that opportunity to apply. I do not know whether he has appealed his assessment or not. I think the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) should be finding that out in his hearings.

Mr. Epp: On a point of privilege: The minister is well aware that this equipment is being assessed as buildings and not as equipment. He could change that category if he wished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oshawa with a final supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would consider one of two options. One would be that, where there are obvious distortions in the process as in the case of Marineland, there would be some direct intervention by the minister himself to see that distortion is taken out of the market value assessment.

Failing that, would the minister provide a mechanism whereby a municipal council that did ask for market value assessment could change its position in subsequent years when it saw obvious distortions and unfairness created by market value assessment and have it removed?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I think we are now speaking about the Newcastle area. The history of that area is much the same as the Niagara Falls situation. I have met with delegations from Newcastle on the matter. I am always ready to talk to delegations if there are some suggestions they can make.

I do not know what else I can say to the member. I cannot give him any magic solution, apart from the same answer I gave the member for Waterloo North, that the council supported or presented this resolution and passed it on three occasions, including an occasion in front of 700 ratepayers, which the member will recall well. They have gone ahead and have not considered phasing.

I have to point out, notwithstanding that, the experience has been only about six per cent appeals, many of which are appealing assessments that went down. I wish the member could explain that to me.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister knows by now that 34 workers at Villa Colombo have been laid off one week earlier than expected. The minister knows the reason they were given for the layoff, because my leader asked a question two weeks ago. It was supposed to be to save money. The company that is getting the contract for the work is telling the public it will pay the workers the same amount of money.

3 p.m.

Does the minister not think that an institution such as Villa Colombo, which has been built by the Italian community, where the workers not only work but also do voluntary work and have therefore, established a special relationship with the residents, should somehow be accountable? Also, in view of the fact they received public moneys from this government, should they not show the books and let us see why they are making such a cruel decision?

Does he not think that at this late hour he should meet with the board of directors and the workers and try to have the board of directors reverse this decision, which has been criticized by the majority of the people in the Italian community in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that is being described by the honourable member. In fairness, though, I must respond to it in the same manner in which I responded to his leader's questions. The whole matter of contracting out in nursing homes is currently before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and will be dealt with by those procedures.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that many of the 34 employees affected by this layoff or severance are women who are widows or single parents supporting children. I spoke with some of them on the informational picket line they had a couple of Saturdays ago and heard of their desperate need for employment at decent wages to support their families and to pay their rent and mortgages.

Will the minister consider the fact that this switch to contract labour, during the life of a contract particularly, will mean that many families affected will have to go on welfare, at increased cost to the government and maybe at no saving at all to Villa Colombo if they are going to pay them the same wages? Is he also aware that the mental and physical health of the residents will be affected because they have developed a relationship with these employees over the years and they consider this their retirement home?

In view of the serious effects of this kind of contracting out on both workers and residents, will the minister consider legislating a job security clause during the life of a contract as part of the Labour Relations Act in order to protect workers from contracting out without notice?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker. the circumstances the honourable member has described in respect to Villa Colombo can be matched by various other nursing homes across this province, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not say this to try to lessen the impact of the circumstances; I just say that the same tragic circumstances that have been described have occurred elsewhere.

Again, my next comment is going to sound harsh, and it is not meant to be, but there are contracts between nursing homes and their unions where there is a noncontracting-out clause. This is something that can he addressed at the bargaining table in future negotiations. At the present time, as I said earlier, the matter is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TORONTO ISLANDS HOMES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs pertaining to the situation involving the residents of the Toronto Islands. I know he has had the carriage of this matter for a number of years, but it may be he would like his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) or one of the other ministers to answer.

Now that the Divisional Court has decided that Metropolitan Toronto has ownership of the structures, the houses themselves, in spite of the fact that residents of the islands have built the homes, maintained them and paid taxes on them these many years, is the minister considering an amendment to what was formerly Bill 191 that would provide for the safekeeping of the islanders against the kind of rents that would force them off the islands, an amendment to accomplish the aim established in the principle of that bill, which was intended to maintain the islanders for 25 years, and supported by the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the principle of that particular bill, it was that the island community would be preserved and continued, at least until some time after the year 2000, for 25 years. There was another principle and that was that everybody should pay his way. In other words, there was some feeling that people were not contributing a reasonable rent for the properties or paying taxes, etc.

Mr. McClellan: Was this part of the original plan? Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Rae: Get up on a question of privilege, Larry. Come on, get up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I don't remember this, Larry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those two principles, not just one of them but both of them, were accepted by everyone in this House. They were that the community should be preserved and that people should pay reasonable rents there, and so forth.

About this particular situation which has now arisen, I think there are two things that must happen before any of us comment on it. We would like to read the Divisional Court decision and we would also like to see if anyone is going to appeal it.

Mr. Nixon: There are those who believe the minister and his colleagues more or less left this time bomb ticking in Bill 191. I have tried to convince those people who are interested that the minister and his colleagues were very sincere, which I believe, in their endeavours to protect them against the depredations of Metropolitan Toronto, particularly the chairman and his cohorts, who have it as their aim to sweep those people out of the island community.

If the minister would simply give his undertaking that, as far as he and his colleagues are concerned, they do not intend to allow the islanders to be forced out of their homes by unfair high rents and back rents which, undoubtedly, if charged at the level that has been threatened, would force them out, then I am sure they would be satisfied. Could the minister not give that undertaking on behalf of his colleagues, particularly the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) at this time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The only assurance I can give my friend at this point is that we were very sincere in bringing forward the legislation. After a great deal of work and much discussion, we felt we had a piece of workable legislation that adhered to the two principles I just enunciated. I still believe that if people of goodwill on all sides will sit down, they can work out all those matters and sustain that community under the legislation this House passed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in the notion of preservation of the community, will the minister not agree that we were talking about the community as people -- not just the buildings but the people who are there -- many of whom have paid a lot of money for those homes? Will he not assure us today, given that he has to read the judgement, that at least he will be open to some kind of process which will protect those people's capacity to stay so they will not be gouged by the kinds of rates that are being talked about, which could force a number of them to leave even though they have invested a fair amount in those homes up to this point?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say anything more than that I will read the judgement and I will see if it is going to be appealed. If Metro and those people with whom they are dealing in the city of Toronto and others would sit down in good faith, I still believe this could all be worked out within the parameters of that bill.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It concerns Willson Nursing Home in St. Thomas, something I have communicated with the minister about and have raised in the House before.

The minister must be aware that this home went into receivership in November 1982, that the licence has been turned back to the Ministry of Health and that the beds have now been given to Caressant Care.

Is the minister aware there are two major concerns? The first is that Caressant Care is not respecting the union contract which now exists and all the employees who have held this home together and maintained a satisfactory quality of care are losing their jobs when Caressant Care takes over.

Secondly, if the minister is not concerned about the workers, is he at least concerned about the residents of the nursing home who are not only going to have to move into a new nursing home, but are going to have to deal with all new staff, which will be very disruptive and very disorienting for many of the residents and will have a very negative effect on their lives?

Will the minister not agree that he should intervene to guarantee and protect these jobs and protect the quality of life for the residents of Willson Nursing Home?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge I do have a responsibility to ensure the quality of care of the residents in any of the nursing homes that comes within the jurisdiction of the ministry and I would certainly take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that. I would not interpret my responsibility or mandate to extend to the area of issues relating specifically to labour relations since that clearly comes within the mandate of one of my colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

4:10 p.m.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented its report on standing orders and procedures and moved its adoption.

Mr. Treleaven: As the members know, the procedural affairs committee is a consensus committee rather than a voting committee, and this report has been unanimously agreed upon. Certainly, every member of the committee did not get everything he wanted, but through compromise it was unanimously agreed upon. Might I also point out that this is the culmination of one year's work by the committee. I would urge the assembly to debate the report as soon as possible.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Gillies from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the city of Peterborough.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. Kerr, first reading of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT

Mr. Roy moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 46, An Act respecting French Language Services in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth or seventh time I have introduced this legislation. I find it interesting as I look at my colleague the Minister of intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and the minister in charge of French language services. He will recall that when this bill was originally introduced and debated, it was accepted by the House. Subsequently, the Premier (Mr. Davis) imposed a veto on the bill, saying such legislation would not be accepted by the House.

Ironically, slowly and surely the government is adopting the position I proposed in 1978. Just last week the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs proposed legislation to guarantee services in social services. His colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has just passed legislation guaranteeing services in the courts. We are making progress. In spite of the edict of the Premier in 1978, we are proceeding to adopt exactly what we proposed and had accepted in this House in 1978.

M. le Président, certainement vous voulez que je dise quelques mots en français sur cette législation-ci. Maintenant ça fait la sixième ou la septième fois que je présente la législation qui garantirait des services en français par voie de législation. Et même si en 1978, où l'Assemblée avait accepté d'une façon unanime cette législation-ci, le premier ministre (M. Davis) avait imposé, si vous vous le rappelez bien, son veto.

Et même depuis qu'il a imposé ce recul, ou cette confrontation, ou cet arrêt de ce genre de législation-la, ça n'a pas empêché de faire du progrès; et on voit que tranquillement et à petits pas, le premier ministre et le gouvernement, le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales (M. Wells) et le Procureur général de l'Ontario (M. McMurtry) acceptent les grands principes de cette législation-ci. Et tranquillement on fait du progrès dans certaines législations, qui garantissent les services en français dans la province. On fait du progrès; on ne le fait pas assez vite, mais ça avance.

Je voudrais mentionner aussi qu'aujourd'hui j'ai présenté une résolution en même temps qui garantirait ou insérerait dans la Constitution les services en français qu'on a déjà présentement. Alors je suis convaincu qu'en faisant ses commentaires mon collègue le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales sera parfaitement d'accord avec cette initiative.

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend the Time Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend daylight saving time by two months per year so it would begin on the first Sunday in March and go until the first Sunday in November, whereas nowadays it begins on the last Sunday in April and goes to the last Sunday in October.

Since we have four months of daylight saving time after the summer equinox, after June 21, this bill would give us four months of daylight saving time before the summer equinox by adding the months of March and April. Thereby, it would make sunshine available to people in the province, which is particularly appropriate and needed, given the cold winters and the feelings people have as we come out of winter and wait for spring in the months of March and April.

3:20 p.m.

The proposal in this bill has gained wide support at the municipal level across Ontario in the past year. Ottawa-Carleton and the city of Stratford have all passed similar resolutions. When the city of Toronto and the city of North York canvassed opinion among municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario passed a motion last November endorsing a move to extend daylight saving time by two months a year as per the provisions of this bill.

The city of Toronto, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the city of Stratford have all passed similar resolutions. When the city of Toronto and the city of North York canvassed opinion among municipalities and talked to all the municipalities in the province, they found that 80 to 90 per cent of the municipalities that responded favoured the extension of daylight saving time,

They favoured it, I believe, not just because of the savings in energy and hydro costs, although these are important factors, but also because of the improvement in the quality of life for us living here in this northern jurisdiction, where we do suffer from short days in the wintertime and even in the spring.

This bill would ensure social gains, including fewer traffic accidents, a higher quality of life and something approaching a half billion additional people-hours of sunlight every year for the people of Ontario.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 48, An Act to establish Midwifery as a Self-Governing Health Profession.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the bill I introduced is a reintroduction of another bill because there was a mistake in the first one. Therefore, I would move that Bill 31 in Orders and Notices be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 278, 279, 280 to 285 and 291, and the responses to petitions presented to the Legislature, sessional papers 60 and 66 [see Hansard for Friday, April 27].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LIFELINE ACT

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time around for this legislation. It must be controversial and, if there is any heckling, we will not deal with the hecklers the same way as happened at --

Mr. Speaker: Before you start with your explanation, would you mind moving the bill?

Mr. Sargent: You want to do that again?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr. Sargent: You are wasting time. I have only got 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Your 20 minutes do not start until after the introduction.

Mr. Sargent moved second reading of Bill 32, An Act to provide for a Basic Residential Power Rate Applicable to the Essential Energy Needs of Residential Households in Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if there are any hecklers here, we will not deal with them the same way as happened at a Tory meeting where the speaker was expounding about land and about things going on, and some hecklers in the first row kept saying: "We want more land. We want more land." So the speaker put his eye on some of his bouncers and they came forward and grabbed the hecklers. One guy held him and the other guy kicked him in the testicles. He said, "Here are a couple of 'achers' for you." We will not deal with them that way this time.

This bill is a legislated proposal to provide a low, fixed, fair price for the amount of electricity a family needs for basics such as lighting, refrigeration and electrical necessities. This amounts to about 500 kilowatts per month and should cost about two cents per kilowatt. A user of 500 kilowatts would have a monthly bill of less than $10.

This is good legislation, not only for every member in this House but also for his constituents. There is an old saying that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. In view of the inflationary trend of today's living, this bill is very timely. I cannot think of anyone who would not support it, except because of party lines.

This bill will not affect the average citizen, but it will help the poor, those on fixed incomes, the small home owners, the apartment dwellers and low power users, because they will get a real break.

Since 1971, when the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) took over as first minister, Ontario Hydro's budget has tripled and its long-term debt has gone up by 153 percent. In the past six years Hydro's average rate to residential units has shot up by about 90 per cent, including this year's increase. It has almost doubled in six or seven years.

I understand the studies regarding rate increases are before the Ontario Energy Board, but now they are stalled and will always be dealt with in that fullness of time we hear about.

Across the province -- an area about five times the size of the state of Texas and with a population of about eight million, including about two million families -- at least one million families are having a rough time. Hundreds of thousands of our people, including senior citizens on fixed incomes, are subsidizing commerce and industry by paying higher rates for electricity, and they have been doing it since the time of Sir Adam Beck.

Sir Adam Beck first gave us hydro, which belonged to the people. He made Ontario Hydro Canada's most successful experience in socialism. He promised cheap electrical power. In 1910 he said we must deliver power to such an extent that the poorest working man will have electric lights in his home. We all know that Hydro has met that challenge magnificently. Its low rates and efficiency have been the envy of the world, but shortly before he died in 1925, Sir Adam Beck took one of his employees aside and said, "Remember what I am telling you: There is no cause to raise hydro rates, so watch what happens after I am gone."

Ontario has been watching what Hydro has been doing with varying degrees of horror and dismay. Now it has a budget that is one third that of the province and goes ahead with this seven per cent annual growth in power supply with 40 per cent power surplus, or reserve capacity.

This great power system belongs to the people of Ontario and no one group has the right to say the rich and powerful should control the rates. Whether or not they do, the fact remains that up until this day the residential apartment owners, the small home owners and those on lower incomes have been subsidizing industry and business. This is a fact, as I will show in a few moments.

This bill, called the Lifeline Act, is before this House for the fourth time. I would like to see the members do something about it. The present policy in Ontario still encourages people to waste power. For example, a prominent sportscaster in his large Thornhill home has four television sets -- including three colour sets -- a dishwasher, two stereos, a heated pool, a washer, a dryer, power tools and total air conditioning. His monthly hydro bill is only $32, because hydro rates are geared to give the big user a better deal.

In the city of Toronto, the first 50 kilowatt-hours cost 10.46 cents per kilowatt, 5.29 cents per kilowatt for the next 250 kilowatt-hours and 4.8 cents per kilowatt for the balance. In Owen Sound we pay six cents per kilowatt for the first 50 kilowatts and four cents per kilowatt thereafter. The old age pensioner does not use power for much more than boiling a kettle and making a little toast. He is subsidizing the people in air-conditioned mansions.

3:30 p.m.

Ontario Hydro rates jumped by 50 per cent in the last four years. That increase in cost to residential customers using 750 kilowatts runs about $70 a year. The price of electricity is rising so dramatically it now threatens to price itself beyond the ability of many people to afford it. Because Hydro is locked into a $25-billion program, the increases in power rates by 1990 are projected to add another $300 to one's electricity bill.

The figures I have are current as of today. From 1971 to 1984 the total rate increase has been 338 per cent. The rate increase this year is proposed at 9.1 per cent. The average residential electrical use in Toronto is roughly 825 kilowatts per month or 4.7 cents per kilowatt. That is $38 a month or $456 a year. But the average charge to Ontario Hydro's major industrial customers is roughly 2.9 cents per kilowatt.

Balance this: If an Ontario householder who uses a small amount of power accidentally left on a 100-watt light bulb for a year, he would have to pay $76 for that mistake. However, a large user such as Stelco, Dofasco or Union Carbide would pay only $22 for the same mistake. At a time when energy conservation is an urgent priority, it seems foolish to reward people for using more electricity. That is exactly what Ontario Hydro is doing through its antiquated declining block rate structure, which charges small users proportionately more than bigger users.

It is most important that we face this issue now. Lifeline is a proposal of rate reform to provide relief for low users of electricity. We are talking about poor people, whose use of electricity is lower than that of higher-income groups. Studies reveal that whereas 5.2 per cent of the income of a low-income person goes for power, only one per cent of the average earner's income goes for power.

Another group that has low energy use and would benefit from lifeline is the elderly. They, along with those on mother's allowance, are part of the larger group that is generally a low user of electric power, such as apartment dwellers, etc. Members of the government party, I suspect, will try to find some way to block this bill. They would not do it if every one of their constituents knew about it. Among his constituents, every member of this House has 2,000 or 3,000, or maybe thousands more, in the elderly group of people. What we are talking about is equity. Because of their smaller living quarters and the generally small family size, people in this group would benefit from lifeline.

In effect, a rate structure should act to reward, not penalize, low users. The result is that the larger users, who impose the greatest cost on this system, are now receiving these expensive kilowatt-hours at low, declining block rates from Hydro. Thus commerce and industry have been receiving a subsidy all these years at the expense of the low residential users.

I believe there is an urgent need, because of inflation, to reconsider our patterns of growth and consumption. It is no longer feasible to expect a utility rate structure that will charge small, low-income users seven cents per kilowatt-hour, large affluent users three cents per kilowatt-hour and an industrial user between one and two cents per kilowatt-hour.

A lifeline rate structure would seek to redress this situation. I will grant it is not the most perfect solution, but I think it is the best we can come up with at the present time. A number of US states are currently using this approach. Ohio adopted this system last month. It has been very popular in California and other markets.

Lifeline can help meet the immediate short-run needs of the consumers caught in the grip of spiralling price structure and offer a first step towards the development of a more equitable rate structure.

This will end inequity. The poorest spend proportionately more of their income on electricity than any other income group. Lifeline ends this inequity by causing large users to bear their fair share of the cost of generation and distribution of electricity. As far as conservation is concerned, this will encourage conservation. In other words, the less one uses the less one pays.

I submit, as an elected representative of the people of Ontario, it is the duty of those of us who sit here to establish a policy for the local hydro commissions.

Lifeline is a broad pricing issue on which this Legislature is empowered to provide proper guidelines to achieve more responsive and responsible rate-making policies.

I have got the wheels down, and I am coming in for a landing, but I want to say that objections notwithstanding --

Mr. Watson: Don't hit the tower.

Mr. Sargent: I am waiting with interest to hear what the opposition will have to say about this.

Mr. Robinson: You are the opposition; we are the government.

Mr. Sargent: I do not have the research facilities they have. This is my own research, so it is not the hottest in the world, but I know the system works in other places and it should work here.

The low-income householders and the fixed-income elderly householders in the members' ridings are dependent upon electricity to maintain health and home. When the price of electricity rises to a point where it begins to consume a big share of their income, the lifestyles of our people are threatened.

In the minute I have left I would like to say that the experts tell us human beings have been around for some 800 lifespans. In the first 650 lifespans, we lived in caves. There have been some recorded communications only in the last 70, we have had the printed page for only the last six lifespans and only in the last two have we had the electric motor, the electric light, the automobile and radio. In the last lifespan we have developed television, penicillin, jet planes, satellites, radar, heart pacemakers and artificial hearts, nuclear power, the computer, and that is a short list.

At a quick glance, our lives have seen the most remarkable progress, making McLuhan's global village a reality, at least in a technical sense. We are still having difficulties learning to live together in this global village, and overcoming these difficulties will be the challenge of the next lifespan, not this one. It would seem to me that a basic simple premise such as I am talking about is a must today.

3:40 p.m.

We have a key role in making this society work here, and I suggest this is good legislation. It guarantees an amount of electricity that can provide for the basics of life at a reasonable rate. Beyond that low rate, a signal is given in the form of a higher rate to all those desiring more electricity. If one wants to use more power, one must pay for it; the choice is yours. This will not affect the average citizen or the farmers a bit.

It is a concept designed to distribute energy to people in a fair manner. I do hope members will see their way clear to support this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has three minutes and 46 seconds remaining of his time.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill, in principle at least. I think it deserves support by all sides of the House.

There is no question that there is a trend, certainly across North America, towards at least a flattening out of the rates regardless of consumption. In the situation in which we find ourselves today in this province, in this nation and across the world with regard to the need to conserve energy, it makes all kinds of sense that we take a look at the principles involved in the rate structure. I think it is possible that after this has been approved by the House and gets into committee, as I am sure it will, we may propose an amendment or two to this bill; but we are going to support it at this time.

This bill does two things, it seems to me. It ensures that residential consumers are not going to pay more than any other type of user of hydro; it ensures that a householder who uses only a small amount of electricity does not pay a much higher rate than those who use a lot of electricity, and that those small users of electricity will not pay more than the large commercial or industrial users.

Both of those disadvantages -- the small consumer of hydro now paying substantially more than the large user, whether it be a residential user or a commercial or industrial user -- are very much in evidence at the present time. In my home municipality of Thorold the customer pays 5.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 250 kilowatts per month, and the remainder of the electricity the person uses costs 4.25 cents per kilowatt-hour. In the city of Welland, the other municipality I represent in this Legislature, the first 250 kilowatts per month cost 6.3 cents per kilowatt-hour and the remainder are at 4.13 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In the case of Thorold, a small consumer pays in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent more than a large consumer; in the case of Welland he pays about 50 per cent more than a large residential consumer.

Rural hydro, of course, is much worse, and that is something over which Ontario Hydro has direct control.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. The government does not.

Mr. Swart: I am talking now about a rural rate, the highest of all, which of course most of the rural people pay. The first 250 kilowatt-hours per month are at 11.8 cents per kilowatt-hour and the balance over that is at 4.46 cents per kilowatt-hour; 2.5 times as much for the small consumer as for the large consumer of hydro.

Mr. Wildman: And the government could not persuade Hydro to change that.

Mr. Swart: By any measurement this shows a very real injustice in our society. What it means, of course, is that conservers pay more: you are being penalized for conserving energy. It means residents pay much more than industry, and of course we all know the rural customer pays 15 per cent more in any event -- Hydro calculates it that way -- than the urban consumer of electricity. So there is no question of a tremendous injustice in the present rate system in this province.

We need this bill, too, because there is no control at the present time over what the consumer pays. There is no really effective control at all. When it comes to the bottom line, Ontario Hydro is autonomous in setting its rates. Any control by the Ontario Energy Board has become almost a joke. When there is a hearing, the Ontario Energy Board can only recommend; it cannot make the decision. It is normal that nobody is there representing the residential consumer. The major power consumers have some people there at the hearings; the municipalities and organizations have people there at the hearings; but the consumer who pays the bill has nobody there to represent him.

If we had a public advocate in this province, as they have in most cases in the United States, the consumer would be getting a better break. But the government of this province does not believe in that kind of fairness. So the Ontario Energy Board sits and hears all the information and arguments put forward by Ontario Hydro but does not hear the other side of the question, the consumer's side of the question, at all. That is probably one of the reasons the residential consumer's rate at the present time is so high -- because the Ontario Energy Board simply has not heard the consumer's side of the story.

I have already mentioned that the Ontario Energy Board, in any event, does not make the final decision. Ontario Hydro can do as it likes in the end. On two occasions recently, it has just simply rejected what the Ontario Energy Board recommended. In 1983, for the 1984 rates, Ontario Hydro asked for a 9.7 per cent increase. The Ontario Energy Board said, "All you need is a 6.3 per cent increase," and they charged 7.8 per cent in any event. They instituted that kind of an increase.

What followed the 1981 hearing for the 1982 rates was even more bizarre. Ontario Hydro asked for an increase of 8.6 per cent. The Ontario Energy Board said, "You need only a 6.5 per cent increase." After that, Ontario Hydro implemented a 9.6 per cent increase -- more than it had asked for in the first place.

We need this kind of bill to legislatively put some reins on Ontario Hydro so that it does not gouge the small residential customer of hydro. We need this kind of legislation because of the irresponsible capital expansion of Ontario Hydro, which will continue. Hydro seems to be still bound and bent to go ahead so that by 1992 it will have built enough nuclear reactors to have a debt of something like $40 billion. Even though every other electrical jurisdiction -- and this has been said in this House over and over again by my leader and others -- has decided nuclear is an uneconomical way of producing electricity, here in Ontario we still barge ahead.

If we put through this kind of bill, it will mean the consumption of hydro will either lessen or will increase at such a slow rate that probably even this government will not try to justify all that tremendous expansion of nuclear generators in this province.

I have to say here, because it is true, there is nobody in this House or in this province who has had a better handle on the needs and the follies of the government's plan with regard to Ontario Hydro than Don MacDonald. He warned years ago that we are overbuilding. The older members of this House will remember this. He said, "You are not going to need that." Now we find Ontario Hydro, through the "talking" furnace and all kinds of other ways, is trying to sell hydro, and through the rate structure we have at present it is trying to encourage more use of hydro, because it expanded and has 40 or 45 per cent overcapacity at the present time.

3:50 p.m.

Now they are saying to the people of this province, "You are going to have to pay for that in the rates." Worst of all, they are saying to the small consumer of hydro: "You are the one who is going to have to pay the highest share of that, the biggest percentage of it. You are going to have the highest rate of all. You, a citizen who has decided to conserve energy, to be a good citizen, are now going to pay that high price."

I hope this bill goes through. I suggest to the government members to take a good look at this bill. It will come to committee. The members do not like all parts of it, but the principle is sound and let us pass this bill.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on the Lifeline Act, the subject of which has been under discussion for a number of years.

I have a personal recollection of a predecessor to this bill because I was sworn in as a member of this Legislature on October 31, 1978. I heard a lot about the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and on November 9 had the opportunity to listen to that bill and the comments he reread so well today from that date. I know we have a standing order that says a member cannot come in with the same thing in the same session, but I guess we do not have one that says one cannot do it two or three sessions after.

I appreciated those comments and remember them, even down to the folder that was distributed at that time. I notice he has the same folder he distributed then. I suggest a few things have changed, but I realize the member does bring it forward in good faith and I commend him for doing so because he believes in the cause. He is actually a little more socialist in this cause than in things he is usually noted for, but it is a cause for socialism.

I do have some difficulties with the legislation the member is introducing. It takes a shotgun approach to a problem that should be aimed at a specific segment of the population, as the member said: the low-income family. It appears to me the high-income earner with low electricity consumption would also benefit from this legislation.

The first difficulty I have is the question of the need for this type of legislation in Ontario because of the electricity costs here. I can understand the need for assistance in New York City where the electrical bill for the first 1,000 kilowatt-hours used in a month is C$176, or in Boston where it is C$134, or in Los Angeles where it is C$83, but in Ontario the average municipal residential bill as of January 1 this year was $47. This average electrical bill is among the lowest in North America.

I would also like to point out this type of special rate was suggested in periods of spiralling electrical prices. The member would be interested to know the price of electricity in Ontario really has not risen, when inflation is taken into account, since he last introduced this legislation. The prices of crude oil and natural gas, however, have increased in real terms by 51 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.

For his legislation, the member could have picked another product or service such as oil, which has increased over the past few years at a much faster pace than inflation and where the low-income earner has really suffered. I would point out that I would not put the cost of electricity in that class.

Even if we were to assume there is a need, is this the proper vehicle for income redistribution, in particular in Ontario?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I say it kindly, but what the hell is the comparison between oil and electricity? There is no balance there at all. When one wants to get the lights, one does not turn on the oil burner. If one wants the toaster to work, one does not turn on the oil burner.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Watson: Interesting, but apparently not a point of order.

We have in Ontario a power-at-cost philosophy, and should we mix power at cost with social price-making or rate-making? I have my doubts. The Ontario Energy Board rejected this type of rate structure for use in Ontario after two years of public hearings. The member referred to the fact it was going on. For the benefit of the House, I remind him that study has been completed since he last presented the information.

While it is interesting to note that none of the many participants at the hearings actually advocated the lifeline rates, the question of subsidized energy use was looked at as an option for pricing electricity.

The Ontario Hydro study team that looked into this type of rate structure found that other forms of redistributing income, such as energy stamps or tax credits, appeared to be better for meeting the social welfare goals than a lifeline electricity rate.

Mr. Kerrio: When did it put those into effect?

Mr. Watson: They are not in effect. It is what the Ontario Energy Board recommended.

These types of assistance help low-income householders with the bills of other energy forms which, in most cases, are larger than electrical bills due to space heating requirements.

The study team also found that lifeline rates are not consistent with cost-based rates. Cost based rates, as I understand it, have been used for many years in Ontario and are designed to recover the costs incurred by each class of service without subsidy to any other class. The lifeline rate as proposed bears no resemblance to cost-based rates because lifeline rates are set below the cost of service for basic amounts of electricity, and other classes of customers would have to pay the freight for the home owner, whether of high or low income. An industrial plant or a store, for example, may, as a result of increased prices, increase the cost of living to the low-income family.

Cost-based rates are also designed to charge each customer the cost he or she has incurred no matter what the electricity use is. The variable costs for electricity generation, and the transmission and associated costs, are currently billed at a single rate for any consumption. The first higher step in the rate structure is included to pick up specific fixed costs of metering, billing, collecting and other costs that every customer causes a utility no matter what the electricity use is. Again, the lower-use customer, whether of high or low income, would be subsidized by the higher-use customer.

In its deliberations, the Ontario Energy Board had real difficulties with the lifeline rates, as I do, and after careful examination the board came to these conclusions:

Income redistribution programs were not appropriate rate-designed goals, but were the function of government through social measures such as taxation, welfare assistance or business grants and loans.

Electricity rates should be based on a fair allocation of costs consistent with the objectives of fairness set out by the board, broadly defined as equal treatment of equals based on cost-tracking.

An increase in the rate levels resulting from rate structure changes will undoubtedly result in some hardship for individual customers, but it would be imprudent to depart from a rate-making process based on the cost of supplying power and plunge into the maze of value judgements that underlie "perceived equity."

The board therefore recommended, "That rates not based on the cost of supplying power be rejected by Ontario Hydro and municipal utilities."

I have some other concerns concerning this specific legislation. For instance, what about the rural retail customers serviced directly by Ontario Hydro? Those customers, as I read the legislation, seem to be left out. Only the municipal utilities are mentioned. There happen to be about 550,000 residential and farm customers across rural Ontario who would not benefit from these rates. Are there no low-income or elderly people in this segment of our population? I think there are.

Finally, how do we calculate this rate? I wanted to get some idea of how these rates would compare to those charged to customers today. As to the residential rates for 1974 and 1984 for Owen Sound, for instance, which is a municipality in the member's riding, given the rate structure, there are at least three different ways I can see to calculate the rate for the basic user, and each will come up with significantly different results.

4 p.m.

Given the Ontario Energy Board recommendations and the difficulties I have commented on arising from this bill, I think there are more efficient ways of bringing relief from the cost of energy to those with low and fixed incomes. I do not think we should mix social assistance, as this bill attempts to do, with the power-at-cost philosophy that has been in Ontario over the years and was confirmed recently by the Ontario Energy Board.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member and I recognize now with pleasure the member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That is very kind of you.

The story of Ontario Hydro has its very beginnings at Niagara Falls. The story of Beck, H. G. Acres and some of the famous names in electricity conjure up the visions of that huge project that lit the lights across Ontario.

I was given some documents that go way back to its inception. The private sector actually started the development at Niagara. The original agreement was made by Colonel Albert D. Shaw and others, and it was afterwards incorporated as the Canadian Niagara Power Co. on April 7, 1892. It granted the company an exclusive licence to take water from the Niagara River above the falls for the development of power, such licence to be for 20 years with renewal for four 20-year periods, or 100 years in all.

From that start by a group of people who got together and were going to develop this as a private enterprise after the turn of the century and the start of developing hydro, Sir Adam Beck came on the scene. To his credit and to the credit of some others from what was then Berlin, now Kitchener, we began to develop power mainly to send to the city of Toronto. That is generally what the first hydraulic power was all about.

It may seem that I am digressing for a moment, but I will fit this into the picture of my friend's lifeline presentation today. In the very first instance when they built huge hydraulic plants and began to distribute power across this great province of ours, people were encouraged to use electrical power, and for a very good reason. After those huge works were put in place, Hydro began to say: "Hydro is yours. Use it."

That particular philosophy at that time was most valid because, after the installation was made, that huge volume of water -- some 200,000 cubic feet per second that float over this great falls -- was going to be put to work for the people of Ontario. When someone turned on another light, started another motor or did whatever one did in those days to use electricity, all it meant was that the gates opened slightly more and that great fuel the good Lord Himself had provided kept the wheels turning.

So we can see that it did not cost one more penny when we used more power. The rates were structured at that time, not much after the turn of the century, and they were encouraging people to use that great potential at Niagara, as they continued to do for a good number of years until the economy expanded to the point where we supposedly had to go to other options. In fact, we did not have to go to those other options to the degree we have or as early as we did.

Had good management prevailed at Ontario Hydro, as it did in that first instance with the hydraulic generation at Niagara, we would have begun to use load management, the conservation theory and many other ways to conserve our electrical generation; we would have put installations wherever possible across the province. Having done that, we might then have gone to thermal and nuclear.

On that basis, the point I am trying to make is that now when we demand more power from the system, we have to put on more fuel. The rate structure has not changed since the very earliest development of hydraulic power.

The member suggested we were wrong in talking about helping people with low or fixed incomes in this fashion. He is forgetting Ontario Hydro is an investment, supposedly on behalf of the people of Ontario -- the users. It is one of the great social benefits for the people. Ontario Hydro itself, in expounding the virtues of hydro and this huge monster it has built, even suggested it should participate in job creation. It has begun to perform functions that more appropriately should have been performed here in the Legislature. It has decided it should participate by helping certain areas, without being asked to do so.

At this point, putting forward a lifeline bill which would give the small and fixed-income users a special rate might also encourage people to conserve electricity. We would then be moving in the direction in which we should be moving in this modern society.

Government members get up and make foolish comparisons with the price of electricity in New York. Electricity at the top of Kilimanjaro would probably be 50 times as high, but I do not think that is any kind of comparison. They neglect to compare Ontario's electricity prices to those in Quebec, British Columbia or some of our sister provinces where prices are lower. They continuously boast about how great the price of power is in Ontario by comparing it to other jurisdictions.

I do not understand what that is all about except for political expediency. If I were sitting on those benches, I suppose I would be enticed to use those same arguments. I may not, but I would think I would be prone to do so from time to time if the opposition members got up and put forward something that made a lot of sense.

I really hope members on the other side will support this bill. I am sure we will not take half-page ads and spend $20 million to $30 million to tell the people of Ontario that the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) put forward a bill which would enable the low users to be able to afford a little bit of electricity -- somewhere in the numbers he has described here -- in the 500-to-750-kilowatt-hour range.

I would think all members on this side would allow the government to take full credit -- except for a little assist from opposition members -- for doing something really worth while with Ontario Hydro, which has done little else but build a huge empire for those people in the Hydro building.

Other matters should be brought into focus here. To justify what we are talking about, I do not think it would cost the other users a thing to help the small user. I do not think the people who heat and air condition their homes, heat their swimming pools -- those who could be more economical -- would object if we were to help the fixed-income people at the other end by giving them what the member for Grey-Bruce has described as a lifeline quantity of electricity.

In its rate structure Ontario Hydro would be well advised to fire its 120 public relations people who are trying to justify everything it is doing and to take that money and supplement those people who could use that small amount of power. Ontario Hydro has that number of people putting ads in the paper and speaking at conferences to justify what it is doing.

4:10 p.m.

If it were running an economical, well-managed corporation, it would not need 120 public relations people and all kinds of advertising to convince the citizens of Ontario it is doing a good job. I think Bell Canada has eight or 10 people. Other large corporations do not nearly approach the number of people out there that Ontario Hydro has expounding on its own virtues. If Hydro were to take those people and give them more meaningful jobs, put them to work and at this juncture help those people on fixed and low incomes who should be helped with the lifeline idea of the member for Grey-Bruce, I am sure the good thinkers in this Legislature would support this bill 100 per cent.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the concept put forward by the member for Grey-Bruce. I noted with interest other members were somewhat critical that he had used the same words to support the same concept as he did last time. I find that a little strange. I always thought if there is a fault in the Liberal Party it is its inconsistency from time to time. When one finds someone being as consistent as the member for Grey-Bruce, he stands out like a rose in a manure pile. He should be lauded for his consistency and persistence in trying to take a relatively simple concept and ram it down the throats of the government members.

They should not have any great problem with this. He is a singular person who has on his mind a concept that is straightforward and simple enough even for most of the government members to understand, but they refuse to do so. They should be criticized for abusing it. That is not fair. The member for Grey-Bruce is a straightforward kind of guy. He has put forward a straightforward idea. I do not see why they are dilly-dallying around the edges of this. They should say yes or no.

What he has proposed in this legislation is probably an idea that does offend government members somewhat because they seem to have adopted a policy of making the poor pay. I do not know how they got to this position. I suppose some of them are old Marxist-Leninists and have forgotten how the slogan goes. He is simply saying, "Why does the government not attempt to give the poor a break?" Unfortunately, the poor and the working poor are growing in numbers. It seems quite logical to take that wonderful organization called Ontario Hydro and use it as a vehicle to provide some small measure of assistance.

We are not talking about a $12-billion program as we are with Darlington where Hydro is committed to a rather fantastic nuclear project. We are talking about something much more modest than that. We are talking about giving people at the bottom end of the economic scale the use of a supposedly publicly owned and controlled facility such as Hydro and providing them with electricity in their homes at reasonable rates. On the face of it, that is perhaps too straightfoward an argument, but that is precisely what the bill proposes. It makes it eminently supportable.

I listened to some of the previous speakers say the Ontario Energy Board and others consider this concept to be a redistribution of income. That is malarkey, quite frankly. The members on the government side do not do anything about redistributing income except perhaps the large work they do with the Ontario Lottery Corp. There they tax the poor to make the rich even wealthier. That is a disgusting approach to take.

This is not a bill to redistribute income, not by a long shot. It is simply a measure that asks, "Would it not be a sensible thing to take a publicly owned corporation and have it provide electricity to the poor and working poor of this province at reasonable rates?" That is a fairly logical thing for an agency such as Hydro to do. Hydro could surely stand a very nice, neat, clean and simple public relations program such as this. That would stand it in good stead.

In my area and many others in the province, Hydro is having a bit of difficulty these days justifying its expenditures and its building of plants that keep breaking down, justifying how it cannot get its act together so that a project such as Darlington goes from $4 billion to $12 billion, justifying how it has such great difficulty in setting up a construction schedule.

Hydro ought to be on its knees looking for ideas such as the lifeline idea. It could scrap a few of its television advertisements if it decided to provide a service at reasonable rates to people who need that kind of help. Quite the contrary, the Ontario Energy Board in its deliberations went into this long gobbledegook argument about cost-related provision of services. Those of us who have watched how Hydro functions know that it has nothing to do with cost relations. That is the last thing on its mind.

As a matter of fact, when it provides energy to large consumers, large corporations that use a lot of electricity, the keynote seems to be, "How do we get those who need our help the least the cheapest rates?" The latest routine they are into in my area is that Ontario Hydro is going to help the world's largest, most successful corporation get its hydro at cheaper rates. I am sure General Motors appreciates the fact that Hydro is helping it get electricity cheaper. In a year when General Motors is probably going to finish up with at least a 50 to 60 percent increase in corporate profits, I am sure it understands the value of getting the electricity into its production facilities cheaper this year than last year.

They know how to do that, and I am sure they appreciate the government's help over there, but I know this much, too, that they do not need the help, they really do not. Yet the poor of this province who really do need help are not even getting a look.

What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. If this government can find ways and means of providing a reduction in electrical rates to the world's most powerful corporation, why can it not accept this simple concept for others? Is that too much to ask? Is that an unreasonable request to make? I think not.

I do not know why it is when it gets to the bottom end of the economic order, all of a sudden Hydro gets very aware of cost-related provision of services, while at the upper end of the scale it does not give a damn about it. They are quite happy to entertain ideas from big users of electricity on how to get their rates down. They are quite happy to entertain concepts from General Motors of Canada on how to get their costs down. Why are they not equally happy to listen to the poor and the working poor who need a little bit of help with their electrical rates as well? Is that such a difficult concept to get through? Is that such a mind-boggling program? I think not.

The member for Grey-Bruce has once again put in front of the Legislature a straightforward notion that would do somebody some good, and it is beyond me why the bill has met with such really confused arguments about income redistribution and cost-related provision of services in other jurisdictions and how they charge for it.

I am interested in how California does this, how Ohio does it and how Maine does it, but I thought in this Legislature we were destined to talk about how Ontario functions and how Ontario Hydro functions. It seems to me our prime concern ought to be how a corporation which has a mysterious relationship with this government, but none the less a relationship, provides its electricity and how it charges for its rates.

It seems to me the member for Grey-Bruce is on the money. He has identified an area where we could do something that would help some people. Once again I keep hearing arguments from the government side of the House that they do not want to do it. I do not know why that is. Maybe they cannot cut ribbons around this kind of stuff, I do not know. Maybe they would have to put a trillium on the lifeline.

Maybe the member did not spend enough money on his little brochure where he attempted to explain it. I know he did not spend $25 million advertising the program, but that does not make it bad. I know it is a relatively straightforward idea most of us can understand, but that does not make it bad. It does not always have to be that complicated a piece of business.

We do not always have to take a public opinion poll to tell us what to do. We do not always have to do marketing. We do not always have to do all the advertising to convince people out there that this is a great place to live and grow, to preserve and conserve things. It seems to me this is a concept that is worth considering.

I want to get to a couple of other things which bother me just a bit. At this hour on Thursday afternoons, this is precisely the kind of concept private members' time is designed for: a straightforward piece of business, not too complicated, something that is well within our jurisdiction, something that provides the members here with a nonpartisan occasion, an attempt to do some good for some people.

4:20 p.m.

I know on previous occasions members have threatened to block this kind of legislation, to say it is outside our jurisdiction, that private members should not take this kind of initiative. I would put to the government members who will be around, I hope, for a vote later this afternoon that this is an opportunity they ought to seize.

Hydro is really getting kicked around the block, and quite rightly, for its performance record. It needs a little boost to its image. Second, the poor and the working poor of this province could use a little help and this bill will do it. Third, it seems to me we are long overdue for an occasion when private members' hour is used productively, when a member proposes a unique idea such as this one which will help some of our citizens and which involves some of the workings of this government.

I ask all members on both sides to look at this idea on its merits. If they do that, they will join me in supporting the member for Grey-Bruce and vote for the lifeline legislation.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in any new proposal to further this government's objectives of fairness and equity for all Ontario citizens. I believe that was the honourable member's motivation in reintroducing his bill on lifeline power rates. For that reason, I feel he should be commended. However --

Mr. Breaugh: But.

Mr. Barlow: Here it comes.

However, some of the assumptions this bill is founded on are questionable at best. At issue is the premise that lifeline rates will benefit low-income earners while increasing amounts charged to higher-income earners. The lifeline rate concept, which originated in the United States, assumes that low-energy users are low-income earners and vice versa. Studies in both the United States and Ontario cast doubt on the validity of this assumption.

To illustrate my point, let me draw on the experience of some of our southern neighbours. In certain states, such as California, lifeline rates have been implemented. Other states have given serious consideration to the implementation of such rate schemes. However, it is notable that no North American jurisdiction has introduced any lifeline rate since 1976. Most recently, a 1982 Utah study showed that while 90 per cent of those families with incomes of less than $10,000 a year would benefit from lifeline rates, about one third of the higher-income customers would also benefit.

More important, two econometric studies in Oregon and South Carolina found income to be one of the least important factors in determining electricity consumption. Factors such as average family size, type of family dwelling and the nature of the heating system used were all far more important in determining electricity consumption than income level.

A regression using 1974 data from Ontario residential customers reveals a similar pattern. It showed that income is not very significant compared with variables such as the type of residence and whether they have freezers, dishwashers, clothes dryers and all other modern conveniences.

Another regression using Ontario data from 1975 and 1976 indicated that of households consuming more than 12,000 kilowatt-hours per year, 13.4 per cent earned less than $6,000 per year. This clearly suggests not all low-income customers are low-energy consumers and thus they would not benefit from lifeline power rates.

With today's energy-saving technology, this will become even more evident. Devices such as microwave ovens are designed to save electricity. However, their high purchase price puts them out of the reach of most average- and low-income families. This means high-income families that can afford microwave ovens will decrease their energy consumption and, accordingly, gain from the lifeline power rates.

Average families would be penalized, because they have to use more electricity to run their conventional ovens. Such schemes could well be called Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor and giving to the rich, unlike what I think is the intention this bill is designed for.

Farmers are another important group that would be unduly penalized by lifeline rates which increase the price of electricity as consumption increases. While farming families are among the lowest earners in this province -- I do not think that will be questioned -- their occupation or livelihood puts them among the highest electricity consumers in the province.

Obviously, as the representative for a major farming community around Cambridge, I am very concerned about the negative effect Bill 32 would have on the income of farmers. Unquestionably, the provision in the legislation would lower the incomes of a group whose members are already among the lowest earners in Ontario.

My position is further supported by a Tennessee Valley Authority study completed in 1977. Its results indicated that a hypothetical lifeline rate would have produced higher electricity bills for 26 per cent of low-income consumers and reduced bills for 49 per cent of the high-income consumers. With due respect to the member for Grey-Bruce, I submit this is not the intention of his bill.

I have further reservations about the legislation currently before us. The administrative problems that would arise from the provisions of Bill 32 would put even the most competent administrator in a horrendous quandary. There would be significant difficulties in determining what constitutes a basic amount of electricity under the proposed amendment to clause 37(a) of the Ontario Energy Board Act. It would be an arduous process for the Ontario Energy Board to determine a basic requirement for electricity in a way that is both simple to define and to bill and fair to the customer, whose requirements may vary because of such factors as family size and type of residence.

Furthermore, the review process required by this same amendment would be an administrative nightmare. For instance, public hearings would be required on the definition of essential functions and rates for 320 individual utilities, which would have to be set and ruled on by the Ontario Energy Board.

I should comment on one of the items addressed in the member's brochure. The question asked is, "Who would pay the cost of the lifeline?" The answer says, "Studies show that the residential customer class have been subsidizing commercial/industrial users."

In checking with Ontario Hydro. I understand that in setting their rate structure, the levels Ontario and the municipal utilities follow are a number of rate-setting objectives. The main one is that the rates should be based on the fair cost of service to supply these customers. Therefore, to the extent practicable, the difference in rates charged various customer classes is attributable to differences in the supply costs. So it would not offset the way the member visualizes it.

There is nothing in the bill to ensure that low-income earners would definitely benefit from lower power rates. Moreover, there is no substantial evidence to show that the lifeline rates are an effective and desirable means of achieving social equity. Therefore, I suggest that lifeline rates, an idea the member for Grey-Bruce previously referred to as the brightest concept to emerge from the energy crisis, is now a light that is gradually burning out.

For these reasons, I cannot support this proposed legislation.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the light will be burning out in a lot of things unless we get some heart over there on the part of the government, and I say that very sincerely.

The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) said no lifeline states had been added since 1978. Ohio came on stream two weeks ago; they introduced the lifeline legislation and passed it in the Ohio Legislature. There are other very successful states I could name. Every one of us here has 2,000 or 3,000 people in our ridings who will be affected by this, and I think that is very important to all of us.

The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) stated that his party suddenly is greatly concerned that this will not help agriculture. I did not know the government had concern for the farmers, but if it does and if its members like this legislation, it could put amendments to this bill on behalf of the farmers by some tailoring of the concept.

The most important thing to realize is that the average residential customer is paying about $38 a month or $465 a year while industrial users in Ontario today are paying 2.9 cents. A case in point: A low power user who accidentally left on a light bulb for one year would have to pay $76 for that mistake, but Dofasco would have to pay only $22. The small guy is paying four times what Stelco and Dofasco are paying. It is unconscionable that the honourable member would defend that.

There is one other point. In Toronto, for example, it costs $10.46 for the first 50 kilowatt-hours. The billing for large corporations is about 4.84 cents on average. The residential rate is double the industrial rate.

In closing, I want to thank you for the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) for their very intelligent input into a very important subject.

STRATEGIES FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Mr. Allen moved, seconded by Mr. R. F. Johnston, resolution 12:

That this House recognizes that some 1.5 million jobless constitute a serious moral as well as an economic crisis and hereby endorses the economic and social reform program proposed by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in the document entitled Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis.

Further, this House urges the government of Ontario and the government of Canada to proceed immediately with legislative and policy enactments which will implement the five specific short-term strategies outlined in the document, namely:

1. Unemployment rather than inflation should be recognized as the number one problem to be tackled in overcoming the present crisis;

2. An industrial strategy should be developed to create permanent and meaningful jobs for people in local communities;

3. A more balanced and equitable program should be developed for reducing and stemming the rate of inflation, shifting the burden of economic restraint to upper-income earners and increasing taxation on investment income and corporations;

4. Greater emphasis should be given to the goal of social responsibility in the current recession, ending cutbacks in social services, maintaining adequate health care and social security benefits, and above all, guaranteeing special assistance for the unemployed, welfare recipients, the working poor and one-industry towns suffering from plant shutdowns; and

5. Labour unions should be asked to play a more decisive and responsible role in developing strategies for economic recovery and employment. This requires, among other things, immediate steps to redress the historic exclusion of labour from an ongoing role in effective industrial decision-making and ownership in the work place.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve four or five minutes at the end for commentary and rebuttal, should I have that amount of time left at the end of my remarks. You will be able to judge that quite readily by the clock.

It is very important that this Legislature have the opportunity to discuss so notable a statement on the economy and the ethical questions that relate to it as was delivered to this nation early last year by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops have drawn us back to fundamental questions by focusing debate over the economy on whom the system serves, both in terms of who gets the product and how the work is accomplished. They make two ringing affirmations which they couch in the phrases "preferential option for the poor" and "priority of labour."

In the course of my remarks I am not going to address equally all the strategies outlined in the motion. There are a number of speakers in this debate, and they will be contributing their own remarks, their own wisdom, their own evaluation to that strategy overall and to the items listed there and which the bishops recommend to us.

However, I will be primarily addressing the fifth item with regard to the place of labour in the work place and in any economic decision-making in our economy. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) will address the problem of poor social security benefits and what have you as part of that strategy. My colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will be addressing the process question: the significance of the debate over an issue like this, how we get into it and how we should carry it. I hope others will address, in their own ways, the other strategies as they feel moved to do.

These central themes of the bishops' statement, a preferential option for the poor and the priority of labour, are the keys to their concept of a viable economy geared to and motivated by human need on the one hand and organized according to an appreciation of the significance of human work on the other. They are fundamental to and pervade all the other recommendations and proposals in that statement, and therefore they have drawn the bulk of the commentary that the statement has had in the public domain.

The statement, I remind members, has been endorsed by all the major denominations in Canada, such as the United, Baptist, Presbyterian and Anglican churches. It also reflects a long-standing tradition of social criticism in this country which, while it has been a subdominant theme, none the less is one that bears reflection, especially in times of crisis like ours, and which provides an alternative style of organization of the life and labour of this country.

Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis, as produced by the Catholic bishops in question, was not an unprecedented document from them. Much of the press comment was to the effect that this was unprecedented, a new statement, something of the order that we have not heard before with regard to the relationship of religion and economic issues in Canada.

However, their Labour Day statement of 1975, entitled A Northern Development -- At What Cost? which began a cry for justice that rings out today for native peoples and which addressed the whole problem of energy demands placed upon the north and upon native societies, led the bishops back into an examination of the nature of the industrial society and its voracious demands.

From that point, a series of statements moved towards the document I am referring to. There was From Words to Action, in 1976. There was A Society to be Transformed, in 1977. There was Unemployment: The Human Costs, in 1980. Those documents together carry all the freight, all the burden and all the remarks that are contained in the Ethical Reflections document.

It is not, therefore, a hastily conceived document in response to a temporary employment crisis of 1982. Nor, I hasten to say, is the document, or that series of statements by the Catholic bishops, a document or documents that stand alone in the history of Canadian Christian criticism of the economic and social order.

4:40 p.m.

My mind carries me back to 1918, in the wake of the First World War, when the Methodist Church declared that nothing less than a complete transference of the whole economic life from the basis of competition and profits to one of co-operation and service was laid upon the country as the objective of economic developments from that point on. The church had not only a fairly comprehensive social program but also a structure of economic organization to propose at that time.

In 1933, the Montreal Jesuits charged that capitalism treated work and workers as commodities and led to undue wealth in the hands of the few. They went on to say that neither physical nor social nor spiritual needs could be met by a system of production that set producers against producers and owners against workers.

Almost decade by decade, one can move through Canadian history over the last century and a half to find statements as notable as these and of the same order. I am reminded of the Presbyterian merchant in Hamilton, Isaac Buchanan, who was the originator of the idea of the preferential tariff system in Canada at the time of the 1858-59 depression. He urged that the commercial stagnation of the time was due to the high priority given to rich men's property -- namely money, capital and interest rates -- and the low priority given to poor men's property, namely labour and wages.

Buchanan's comment, 130 years later, seems a reasonably perceptive if somewhat simple observation on our present discontents and the way in which we have addressed ourselves to the problems of unemployment, inflation and the distress in our economy in the last two or three years.

When Moses Coady, the greatest maritime Catholic of all, organized his fishermen's cooperatives in the 1920s and 1930s, he stated the bishops' point when he declared the greatest challenge of our time was to overcome the fundamental error of capitalism in separating men and women from the control of their own work.

The post Second World War prosperity papered over but did not solve that basic problem. Nor did the subsequent years really readdress the distribution of wealth in Canada. For example, when I saw a recent graph in the Toronto Star which detailed the income levels of various sectors of Toronto, I was reminded just how variable wealth is in this city. Some parts of this city have residents with average incomes four times the level of some other parts. This surely has to be a matter that gives us great concern, as it did the bishops.

In a time of economic dislocation, when the central issues are raised once more of the place of work and wealth in our economy and in our society, it is important to attend to what the bishops are saying, as the latest exponents of a long tradition in Canadian history which views the problem of labour as central to the issue of the economy and the issue of justice.

The statement aroused a good deal of comment, and not least of all a fair bit of criticism. For example, we read headlines to the effect that "Trudeau Rejects Bishops' Criticism," "Bishops Rebuked by MPs" and "Bishops Not Correct, Business Leader Says."

On the other hand, we read thougtful articles by people such as Michael Valpy in the Globe and Mail and comments, for example, by Michael Pitfield. Speaking in London, at the University of Western Ontario, he said labour relations has never been as high a priority in our country as one might expect. To this day, one wonders if organized labour is accepted as a meaningful player or simply seen as an unavoidable impediment.

In fairness, it must be said the bishops did not intend to outline in detail an alternative economic system. Their concern was to initiate -- indeed, to renew -- a dialogue around some very central propositions. For example, they questioned whether our economic system is either morally sound or an efficient service of people's needs when it places the maximizing of profit before need in motivating economic activity, or when it leaves savings, investment and capital accumulation so completely in private hands, either individual or corporate.

Is the economic system sound or an efficient service of people's needs when it excludes labour from any significant decision-making role in individual industries and work places and in the economy as a whole, or when it degrades and makes obsolete the skills of workers by an ever more sophisticated technology, or when it shows relative lack of concern about social and environmental costs of industrial production, or when it makes marginal poorly placed groups in our society, such as some sectors of the small business community or single-industry towns or some sectors of the farming community, not to mention the working poor, those on welfare and those who are handicapped in a variety of other ways.

They argued that it was not morally sound or efficient in an economy to cater, as is the case in Canada, to multinational corporations whose priorities are not heavily Canadian, or to allow capital the freedom simply to seek out the cheapest labour pool and the freest arena of operations.

The bishops' political and business critics charged the bishops with general naïveté and with a lack of realism and of economic knowledge. It is not surprising, perhaps, that political leaders, smarting under a pointed rejection of inflation restraint programs, should react with terse indignation.

Businessmen belaboured the bishops as though the latter knew nothing about profit and loss, the necessity of capital, the nature of investments, supply and demand and the workings of the international market. These, interestingly enough, are precisely the same criticisms made of major church social statements in the last 90 years. One reads the critics and wonders whether they have taken time to absorb them or what the bishops are saying, and who indeed is naive or unrealistic, as that language was used with respect to the bishops.

The point, however, is not to take potshots in turn at the bishops' critics, but rather to say that the bishops are not economic innocents. They have their own pipeline into social problems in our communities; they know at first hand, not only directly themselves but through their many priests, the problems unemployment has created.

They also know that capital is the basis of the contemporary economic order in an important respect. They simply wonder why, since capital is the product of a combination of diverse forms of labour, over time its ownership and direction fall to only one party of the industrial process.

They know that savings, interest and profit are a necessary part of an industrial order, but they dispute whether private and corporate appropriation of profit and interest is the only or necessarily the best way of generating savings and directing investment.

They know that in Japan it is a highly competent panel of civil servants, for example, that efficiently directs investment. They know a new technology can be superefficient and eliminate repetitive labour, and they do not criticize it for that, but they are concerned that there are almost no initiatives in this country to point technologically displaced workers to a new future. Even more, they raise the basic question of the very meaning of work in our changing economy. Work has, after all, been the very core of human identity throughout history and no one has yet provided a very convincing portrait of the way in which a leisure society would work.

As computerization and robotization progress, the bishops ask, should we not now be seeking to create labour-intensive industries where distinctive human creativity can flourish? Must the history of work, they ask, be simply the story of the deskilling of individual workers and the debasing of a class?

With all their concern for the centrality of labour and the dignity of creative work in the process of producing goods and services, the bishops and those of us who broadly agree with them find it puzzling that ideas of economic democracy, of codetermination and of worker ownership should find such uncongenial soil in Canada and, in particular, among our industrial leaders, or why they should meet so often -- and it is dismaying that they meet so often -- a depreciation of the significance of labour.

For example, a recent Ontario Institute for Studies in Education poll asked groups of employers and members of the public whether, if given the opportunity to organize a work place, they would organize it on the basis of problem-solving work or on the basis of routine labour. It was rather astonishing to discover that the large corporate executives of our country -- and a large number of them were polled -- said routine labour, whereas the public and small business said on the basis of problem-solving work; a derogation, a depreciation of the labour entailed.

Yet we know that at the SAAB works in Sweden, where workers are organized in work groups on a problem-solving basis, in actual fact they perform much more sophisticated operations than the computer could direct.

4:50 p.m.

We look at the publication, Learning a Living in Canada, which was produced by the federal Skills Development Task Force of the House of Commons, and what do we read there with respect to the attitude of employers to investments in human resources of the nature of paid educational leave? "In spite of the overwhelming evidence in favour of investing in people, employers as a whole tend to ignore the long-term value of human investment. Investment in people requires a trust and commitment by both the employer and the employee. Investment in plants and equipment, however, is easiest to engage in and simplest to manage."

The point is, one distances oneself from the very people who are the major players in the economy as far as the provision of work is concerned, and tries to replace them as much as possible with capital, with machinery.

One could look, for example, at the status given to labour leaders in public opinion polls. These leaders are a certain measure of the dislike the Canadian public has for an adversarial system on the basis of which our economy is organized. Yet the public obviously blames those who most clearly represent the disturbances which breakdowns in industrial relationships occasion for everyone. People blame the non-owning partner because he is the one who has to play his part in public, and he cannot retreat behind the scenes quite so easily. It is easy to exploit him in that process.

Surely the time has come for us on all sides to begin exploring the long road to restoring working people's control over their working lives. The problem is not that workers are unable to manage or that they will make erratic, unmanageable or unwise demands. For example, if I may cite it, there is the famous Mondragon Industries in northern Spain which runs purely and entirely on the basis of worker ownership and worker direction. They have done so for 40 years. They employ thousands. They have sales in excess of $375 million. They run sophisticated research laboratories, schools and a banking system.

They are owned and managed entirely by workers who staff the boards of directors and run the thing as heads of operations on a rotational-term basis. The income spread that is allowed in that industry is only three times from top to bottom. No person may make more than three times the amount of the lowest-paid worker. The industry is 35 per cent more efficient than any comparable industry in Spain.

May I conclude with the remarks in a recent papal encyclical -- which the bishops, in turn, lean upon -- in which the Pope describes the qualitative difference of the labour component in production and directs us very strongly to the rights which remain unfulfilled for labour in the economy. He urges us towards an economy where, as he states, "On the basis of his work, each person is fully entitled to consider himself a part owner of the great work bench at which he is working with everyone else."

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again this afternoon to address the omnibus resolution currently before this House. The member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) certainly raises many issues which should be and, in fact, are being addressed by this assembly and the government of Ontario.

Unquestionably, the high level of unemployment in this province is a serious problem which must be dealt with constructively. It would be difficult to find a member who is not concerned about unemployment and its undesirable repercussions. But I am somewhat confused as to how the New Democratic Party proposes to deal with the issues at hand. The resolution currently being debated urges the government to implement five specific short-term strategies.

I must remind the member for Hamilton West that on March 19 of this year, he and his leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), along with his colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), issued a statement saying that short-term strategies and solutions were inappropriate. The document, entitled Make Ontario a Province of Opportunity Again, stated:

"Tinkering reforms, nickel-and-dime initiatives, make-work, and cheap gestures like hot lines and short-term jobs in institutions already undergoing government-sponsored cutbacks are not the answer. As long as we fail to recognize that unemployment and skills-training programs of our young people are systemic, we will continue arranging and rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic." It goes on to say. "There are no quick fixes."

I submit to this House that our honourable friends across the way do not know the bow from the stern of the Titanic, nor port from starboard.

The New Democratic Party cannot even decide whether individual, specific short-term strategies are the most appropriate avenue for addressing the current problems of inflation and unemployment in Ontario or whether a more comprehensive long-term strategy is more beneficial to the province. Until the members of that party can decide such issues among themselves, surely they cannot expect this Legislature to consider their contradictory proposals.

At least we on this side of the House have been able to balance the short-term and long-term imperatives of resolving the complex issues facing the province today while at the same time accounting for the many diverse factors that must be considered.

Time does not allow for any lengthy elaboration of the policies this government has already implemented to respond to the issues in the member's resolution. Perhaps a few brief examples will serve to illustrate this point.

For instance, the government of Ontario has introduced legislation and initiatives that recognize both unemployment and inflation as priorities. Moreover, each of these problems is being successfully attacked without jeopardizing progress in other problem areas. Let me draw on a few figures to support this position.

I regret my statistics cannot compare to the most impressive collection of statistics held by the NDP research office. After all, according to Orland French recently in the Globe and Mail, the New Democratic Party has the world's biggest file of statistics.

Mr. Allen: Do not be so humble.

Mr. Barlow: I am just quoting.

In Ontario, the unemployment rate in February this year declined to 9.9 per cent, down from 12.5 per cent a year earlier. That is a decline of 2.6 per cent, significantly better than the national drop of only 1.2 per cent.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are you going to deal with the resolution?

Mr. Barlow: I am sure the resolution deals with all this.

This government's record in creating conditions conducive to long-term job creation is also most impressive. We recognize permanent job creation will happen only in a positive economic environment. Through policies that have resulted in improved productivity, lower interest rates, government restraint and controlled public sector growth, Ontario is continuing to enjoy sustained economic growth and an increasing number of jobs.

In November 1983, Ontario had 196,000 more jobs than in the previous year. Moreover, those jobs have not been created at the expense of spiralling inflation. Last month's inflation rate stood at 4.7 per cent compared to 7.2 per cent in March 1983. Through legislation such as the Public Sector Prices and Compensation Review Act, passed by this House in the last session, the Ontario government has significantly contributed to the economic recovery. As our figures indicate, the inflation rate has declined dramatically. The year-over-year rate is now at the lowest point in a decade.

These are but a few of the many initiatives this government has undertaken to address the many priorities facing this Legislature. Through careful and thoughtful deliberation, we have been able to balance the imperative of the long-term and short-term strategies, and ultimately to design a set of policies that respond to the many issues and priorities specified in the resolution of the member for Hamilton West.

Because I believe this government has already addressed many of the problems, such as unemployment and inflation, in the best fashion possible, I am afraid I cannot support this resolution.

5 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is getting to be known as the hit man for the government party. That makes two measures this afternoon he has spoken on and found fault with.

I was rather surprised when the member for Cambridge referred to quick fixes because any thoughtful reading whatsoever of Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis will not find any quick fixes. As a matter of fact, what the bishops of Canada and of Ontario are clearly asking for are some fundamental changes.

First, they are simply asking that we talk about it. If I may quote one paragraph, they say, "What is required, in our judgement, is a real public debate about the economic visions and industrial strategies involving choices about values and priorities for the future direction of this country." Would any member disagree with that? Would any member disagree with the value, the advantage, of simply talking about the moral, economic and ethical direction in which this country is going and the effect it has on people? I would hope not. They are far from talking about quick fixes.

The member regales us with all the great things his government is doing in this area. The member is suggesting: "We cannot support this because everything is fine now, everything is fixed, there is nothing more to be done. Why should we concern ourselves with these petty things?"

On March 21 in Cambridge, the member's riding, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) made two statements. He said, "We are preparing to make quantitative estimations of the manpower and employment impacts of new technology in Ontario for the next decade." In 1984 we are preparing to look at a problem that we have been facing for the last couple of decades. That is how the government deals with this problem.

The Minister of Labour, as I said, speaking in Cambridge, the member's riding, went on to say:

"We will examine occupational and industry shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years. We will also attempt to include the occupational demands for the next decade." The government is just going to start that now? That is what we are asked to have faith and confidence in? Thanks, but no thanks.

There is nothing radical whatsoever about this document. May I quote from it once again and ask members to reflect on it? What are some of the options the bishops of Canada ask for? First, "Economic policies which realize that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich." Would any member disagree with that? I challenge any member to stand up and disagree with that statement.

Would members disagree with this: "The rights of workers are more important than the maximization of profit"? It does not say "more important than profits." The bishops of Canada, like the bishops of the world, are fully aware of the need for profit in industry and business. What they argue about is the maximization of profit so that the rights of workers are ignored and trampled. Again, would members disagree with that? I challenge any member to stand up and disagree with it. Members know they do not and cannot.

It goes on to say "that the participation of marginalized groups has precedence over the preservation of a system which excludes them." What do they mean by "marginalized groups"? The old, the frail, the ill, the low income, the children and the handicapped. Would any member say a system that excludes them should be retained and should not be fundamentally changed? I am not saying for one minute this government has not acted on some of those changes and, in fact, is not continuing to act on those changes. The former Provincial Secretary for Social Development, the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), knows well that of which I speak.

No one is suggesting no changes have been made, but surely there is not one member on the Conservative benches who does not agree that more changes are required and that there is a fundamental value priority which says more are required. That is what this asks for. Who can disagree with that?

What really appals me is when I read and hear the objections to these ethical reflections. All we see is nitpicking, crossing t's and dotting i's, trying to find some single little variance between this and what one of the papal encyclicals might have said in the past, some single little variance. Sure, there may be such. I do not quarrel with that, but that is not the point. That is not the issue of this document; that is not the issue, as I understand it, of the member's resolution. The issue is: Let us re-examine what we are doing and see if there is not a better way of doing it.

What are we being asked to re-examine? Unemployment. Is there any member in this Legislature whose community has not been devastated by unemployment, whose young people and older people have not been devastated by unemployment, whose young people have not lost any sense of the future, any vision of the future and any sense of their place in our society? Is there one member who has not met young people in their community and heard that story, heard that plea? Is there one member in this Legislature who does not have an older person in his or her constituency who has lost his job and wonders where he is going and what his future is?

We are asked to develop an industrial strategy that creates permanent and meaningful jobs for people. Who can quarrel with that? Sure, we can disagree about the way in which it is done, but can anyone disagree with the fact that it be done? We are asked to look at social responsibility in the area of social services, health care, education and training. There is nothing radical about that.

As a matter of fact, I noticed that just two days ago the Ontario Economic Council released a new study. What is the main thrust of their study? Bail out workers, not failing companies. The Ontario Economic Council, an agency of this government and funded by this government, says to put people first, and if we have economic problems, we solve those economic problems by helping our people, particularly by retraining them to face the future.

Sure, we are going to have new technologies. Sure, we know we are going to have to move into microelectronics, robotics, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing. We know that. We know we are going to have to compete with the rest of the world. We know we are going to have to manufacture goods at a price and of a quality that can sell on the world market.

5:10 p.m.

We also know we have a severe shortage of skilled people who are going to enable us to do that, at the very same time that we have between 160,000 and 170,000 young people unemployed in this province, young people I met when I travelled across this province a year and a half ago as part of a task force for our party, from Windsor to Ottawa and from Niagara Falls to Thunder Bay, young people who said: "Give us a chance. Give us an opportunity to be trained or retrained. Give us an opportunity to show we can contribute. Give us an opportunity to show we can stand on our own two feet." That is what this document is asking for, not the t's, the i's and the minor internal contradictions. That is not what is important.

I would hope my fellow members on both sides of this House would recognize the spirit and the moral message of this document. The vision of the future of this country, this province and of our people is contained in this document that we are voting on. Let us not forget that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a feeling of déjà vu of the disarmament debate when I follow that kind of speech, preceded as it was by that of the member for Cambridge. I have never heard such a picayune, partisan, mini-minded kind of response as that of the member for Cambridge to a major ethical and spiritual question which should trouble everyone in this House. It should be challenging each one of us to reassess how our system is working. It infuriates me because one has to put it together with the ostrich-like notions that everything is fine, that everything that could be done is being done, when surely in Cambridge, as much as anywhere else, the member has seen the pain our people are going through as we enter this supposed recovery.

I hope the other members on the government side will at least address some of the issues raised by the bishops. The member for Hamilton West has actually brought this most vital document to a debate here in the Legislature more than a year after it was brought forward. This is no time for small-minded approaches.

Over the last number of months since this document appeared, I have been struck by just how out of touch our whole political system is with our basic spiritual ethic. It seems to me we are schizophrenic as a society. We have an ethical base in the Judaeo-Christian beliefs that are stated here in economic and social terms by the bishops. Yet it has never been translated into our economic, social and political systems. We even run our political system on a basis which is designed to have people reassert where they are in society and reaffirm the status quo. They look to a 30-day period of electioneering where they demand of us as politicians to prove what we can do for them as individuals.

In that 30-day period and then in the four years in between, we have a total separation with the lack of press coverage of some of the moral and economic issues of the day. We have this incredible vacuum where people are not participating. They do not expect us to have any connection here in the Legislature with the kind of precepts we supposedly believe from what we have learned in our churches and synagogues across this country.

Is it any wonder that only 58 per cent of the people vote? Is it any wonder they have a "me first" approach to things and do not confront the incredible hypocrisy of our system? If we believe what we have been taught in our churches, we cannot allow the politics of abandonment and alienation and the disenfranchisement of the poor to continue. Yet we have done that.

The member for Hamilton West has put that squarely in front of us. He showed us what the bishops did and he said, "Let's reflect on how our system is working." Why is it we can we get up with a smug silly response, picking out the New Democratic Party policies here and there, rather than dealing with the issue of this crazy dichotomy in our society? This is a time for us really to reflect on it.

My own party started off with this linkage of Christian ethics and social and economic policy. There are times I think we have wavered away from that. We have not stayed as true to it as I would like to see. I am not ashamed to say that in this House at this time. One of the things the bishops did was confront people such as myself and those in my party with the need to reflect again about what the premises were from which we were working.

I would hope it would do the same thing for the members of the government party, and not just have them list off a group of statistics about how they were doing out there and how they have done all they can do.

We talked today about spending $25 million, or whatever it was, on advertising. Some of it was well spent, but I would suggest a lot of it was wasted. There is a lot of talk about building a domed stadium. We have given ourselves increases. We have given a lot of money to the doctors. We have a whole class of consultants developing in our society who are going around pretty well tax-free at the same time as we have more people living in poverty as a percentage and in total terms than we have ever had. Perhaps we have not had it in percentage terms but certainly in numbers at this point. We have whole new groups joining them. They are people who never thought they would be poor. We are abandoning them.

This motion talks about the whole question of single-industry towns in the north. When I was in Kapuskasing, I ran into a fellow who had been working in a plant there for more than 20 years. He was at the point of selling his house and moving south because there was no work for him. There were going to be more layoffs in the plant.

He was shattered and in spiritual despair, which came from the economic decisions we have been making and the kind of priorities we have allowed in terms of investment in this country. He met me at that meeting and asked me: "What can I do? I do not want to leave here. My children are still here, but they are going to have to move as well. We are going to be split asunder. We chose to live in the north and now that is going from us."

When I was in Windsor, Bishop Gervais told me about the breakfast programs for children multiplying across Windsor. He told me that on Monday mornings those children were taking double helpings of everything. This made the teachers and the priests wonder what they were getting on weekends. This was after the supposed recovery in Windsor, when the auto plants were all back in full swing and nobody really wanted to talk about poverty very much.

When I was in St. Catharines, a public health nurse came up to me and said: "In the school I was in today, I would suggest that 50 per cent of the children are malnourished. A lot of them are in need of dental care which their families cannot afford." We get smug pap instead of confronting our moral and ethical bases here as politicians.

I do not want to address this with a holier-than-thou kind of approach because I do not think there has been a government anywhere in the western world that has not allowed that kind of evaporation of the connection, the spiritual link, to what we are doing here to take place. I think all jurisdictions need to be confronted by this kind of resolution. It is not just the Tories; it is everywhere.

When this came out, I thought it was probably the most important document I had seen in terms of trying to talk to my constituents in a way that was not just the normal self-congratulatory fashion in which we do our riding reports.

Last fall I put out a riding report based on what the bishops had done. I put a series of questions in it that were not the normal ones, where one writes his own questions to get the answers he wants. Instead, I wrote down a series of the assertions the bishops had made.

I wondered if people would start to notice the contradictions in terms of the way they voted, the way they lived their lives, the way they would normally fill out questionnaires, as compared with the kind of moral and ethical questions being raised. I was positively overwhelmed, first, by the number of responses -- they went up by a few hundred -- and, second, by the nature of the responses.

One issue raised was whether or not the goal of serving the human needs of all people in our society must take precedence over the maximization of profits and growth. Of those who replied, 82 per cent said that was a concept they agreed with.

I would suggest to the members that has not been taking place in our economic policy. When one talks about the preference for the poor, that has not been taking place. We are giving more rewards in tax shelters and registered retirement savings plans to the wealthy than anything we are doing for the poor. We gave $270 million to 14,000 doctors last year in this province, while at the same time we split up $60 million among more than 230,000 poor people.

5:20 p.m.

We are not doing all we can do. I suggest to the government that all the member for Hamilton West is asking is that the members not come back with an ostrich-like approach and take partisan, picayune shots at the members on this side but ask, "Is it not time we re-evaluated how we are operating as a society and how we as politicians are playing a part in perpetuating this schizophrenia in the differences between our ethics and the way our society and economy is run?"

I hope to hear from the next number of speakers more in-depth thoughts on this in their reflections than we have heard up to now.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I say to my friend from Scarborough West that I do not necessarily wish to share part of the rebuke he offered dealing with a lack of sensitivity and a cavalier attitude towards this important document. I, for one, believe a group of learned and considered individuals such as those who offered this report did so with great sincerity and earnestness.

The results of their studies and deliberations, and the observations they have made about the social fabric of our country, are ones that require careful examination. I have no interest whatsoever in trying to slough off their report as something that is frivolous. I have even less intention of somehow trying to abrogate their right to make such a report.

I believe any group -- and we can be as crass as we like about it and say any lobby group -- in our society, every individual group, every community-of-interest group is well within its own bounds to sit down to study a problem from its perspective and to offer those findings for public consumption, whether it be directed specifically at government or at some other interest group in the community.

I think it was in that spirit that the bishops developed their report, made their report and obviously directed it to those groups in our society, the federal and provincial governments, that ultimately may have some greater measure of control over economic recovery.

In response, it would be equally cavalier of us to suggest how the church should conduct its affairs. Although I am sure there is not one member of this assembly who does not have some opinion on the ongoing direction of theology or organized religion, we do not necessarily offer those opinions in the high expectation that a church is going to run out and change its venue or change its course of philosophical direction because we as a Legislature direct it to. However, we would hope there would be a reciprocal exchange of that kind of opinion so others might draw benefit from the reports, one to the other.

I look at the five specific recommendations before us today contained in the resolution of the member for Hamilton West. Regarding the first one, directing that unemployment rather than inflation be recognized as the number one problem, I think it is entirely fair to say there is no one in this assembly who could possibly find otherwise.

In my constituency as in all others, on Monday nights, or whatever night we sit down to meet with our individual constituents, week in and week out we hear the tragedies in human terms; not in the dollar terms we hear here, day in and day out, and perhaps not as to programs designed to help large numbers that do not have the same face of humanity, but in terms of one by one we hear about the tragedies the economic downturn has created.

One of the groups I find it most difficult to deal with is not perhaps as catchy -- and I do not mean that facetiously -- as trying to deal with youth unemployment. In my riding, and I suggest in my friend's riding in Scarborough, we have real difficulty with major wage earners in the prime of their careers who suddenly find themselves unemployed.

Their unemployment not only affects them as individuals but also affects a much wider range. It has the much greater rippling effect of throwing a stone into the middle of a pond. It may affect their ability to participate and pay their mortgages regularly. The stress of it may cause marriage breakdowns. It certainly reduces their purchasing power.

It may extend beyond that. It may cripple the ability of their children who had always planned for a post-secondary education to pursue that route. It may ultimately lead to greater dependence upon the state, not just for one young person but for five, six, seven or more people all contained within one family unit. Not only does it place a burden on the state, but it also has a counterproductive effect of not creating any other employment because their job potential is gone, their buying potential is gone and the whole process becomes quite stagnant.

Somewhat off the line of the debate we are on today, I have taken that kind of proposal to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) -- and I am going to speak about the Treasurer and his budget consultation process in a few moments -- in the hope that he will recognize on my behalf and, I submit, on behalf of a great many ridings in this province, the very real need to address that particular social problem.

The second part of the resolution says an industrial strategy should be developed to create permanent and meaningful jobs for people in local communities. There is no one in this chamber who would oppose that as a concept. It is certainly one of the most fundamental ones. But I guess, in fairness, it is from that point on that my own view of things tends to go in a little bit different direction. I tend not to think of this as the resolution per se -- though of course that is what it is -- but rather as a part of the recommendations made by those learned men of theology who have offered their opinions and conclusions to us.

At a time of growing unemployment it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the problem is, and I am certainly cognizant, as the member for Hamilton West was in his remarks, of the need to continue to involve both organized labour and labour generally in the consultation process. This is a partnership; it would be folly for anyone to suggest that any one element in the economic society, in the economic picture, could remedy the problem.

It was not one element alone that caused the problem. It was certainly not caused by labour, it was certainly not caused individually by management, nor was it caused by the government itself. But only the three of us dealing in concert, I suggest again, are going to be able to restore an ongoing economic health, and we can only do that by creating both meaningful and important ongoing economic initiatives that will create full-time jobs.

I am certainly keen to have organized labour continue to have input into the process, but earlier today I was involved in an incident here, in the precincts of the assembly, that did something not to erode my faith in organized labour but to give me pause to reflect on exactly what its objectives are.

It was a very simple incident. I was not aware of it, or it slipped my mind because I had other commitments outside today, but I understand that the Ontario Federation of Labour, or others on its behalf, were in to see individual members today concerning the issue of equal pay for work of equal value.

As members will know, I had the opportunity to hear a good measure of that debate both in the standing committee on social development and in the standing committee on resources development over the past number of months. So while I think my position on it is known and is reflected in the votes we have had here, I may not have had the opportunity to meet with them.

I went to the bottom of the staircase, as we all do, to have pictures taken with a group of my constituents who happened to be Girl Guides. Not to my surprise -- and it did not bother me in the least -- two women who identified themselves as being from the Ontario Federation of Labour were down there with those Girl Guides, and they were explaining their point of view on the issue. I had no problem with that at all, and the young girls were quite interested in it, though they did not really know why they had been singled out for this opportunity.

I said to the representatives that I was certainly prepared to hear from them, but frankly they would not leave; they were not prepared to leave me to speak with my Girl Guides until I gave them my position on the issue. I wonder if that is really the way this kind of consultative process among all three parties is going to develop over the next little while. I truly hope not.

It is important, though, as we go on, that we do try to rebuild the kind of process and the kind of foundation for sound economy that we have always enjoyed in this province and that we are able to put it back together again in no uncertain way. The initiative we have proposed in the speech from the throne -- a major economic conference involving all segments of management, labour and the government -- I think goes a long way towards, and is liable to produce, some very positive results, all of which I think will not only please the bishops but also provide some new foundations, some new guidelines and some new directions for what we are doing here.

I am a little bit concerned about the New Democratic Party's proposal dealing with the 32-hour work week. I have to say -- not as a matter of government policy, of course -- that I wonder whether we are disadvantaging a larger number of people by restricting their work week and their opportunity to learn in order to try to help another group in society. Will there be a lot of losers or potentially a lot more people who end up with less than they have now?

I am convinced that the citizens of Ontario do not want to substitute the underemployment of many for the relative advantage of a few more. What we need is full and productive employment. That is a worn phrase in this House -- it is heard here day in and day out -- but I am satisfied that by working together we will once again be able to achieve that balance.

While I agree with the member for Hamilton West that the report before us today certainly has merit in it, and certainly there is merit in studying it, I am sure the parts of it that we as a government are able to support and enhance will go on and the very real crisis before us will be eliminated before too long.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate. I congratulate and thank the member who brought it about. I would quarrel with some of the economic principles, but there is no person here who would quarrel with the fact that we have 1.5 million jobless people. That is a very serious moral and economic crisis.

I address the point others have addressed as to whether the bishops are the proper people to bring this to our attention. People have criticized them and said that they have no business interfering with economics, that their job is to look after our souls and to see that if we do not have a good life in the present one, at least we have one in the hereafter.

Anyone who has said that has not spent much time reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, and studying the life of Christ, who came from a humble home. He was a carpenter by trade, and he was probably the greatest social revolutionary in the history of the last 2,000 years. There are others who have made a great impact, but the start of it was probably in Christ himself.

One issue that I think of as a great revolution today is women's issues. It was brought to mind today when we had a group of women coming around to our offices asking us about women's issues, especially the economic issues concerning women. To my knowledge, the first person who really addressed the problem of women was Christ when he addressed the problem of the woman at the well. Her lifestyle was not very well appreciated by the people at the time, so she had to come to draw her water in the heat of the day rather than in the evening or morning when the other women came to get their water from the well. Christ went to speak to her, and for that he was condemned.

Surely the people who carry his mantle and walk in his footsteps and those of one denomination who trace a laying on of hands right down from Christ himself -- those people are certainly well qualified to speak on this subject.

The system has served most of us not too badly in the past. We have come through a great period of advancement in social and scientific ways which has provided jobs for so many people. As terrible as the Second World War was, it led to a great many advances in science which we then used in our everyday way of living. All through that period we did rather well.

We are starting to run up against a lot of limits. We have to question whether we can proceed with the same system. Many of us would say we believe in that system. It is a sort of philosophy for us. We have to question whether we have run the limits of it. We are starting to run into some of the limits of our resources. Do we have the lumber, minerals, water and soil to continue exploiting the world as we did in the past?

We are running into limits in our social order because so many parts of the world have other orders that are foreign to ours. We have some very bad conflicts with those other orders. This leads us to the thought of nuclear war, which we debated here with feeling and fervour not too long ago.

We are also running into limits in our ability to comprehend all the changes coming about and the speed with which they come about. Previously, these changes came rather slowly. Today they are coming with such speed that one has to throw aside things believed in yesterday and make up one's mind for tomorrow to throw aside the things believed in today.

The area I know best, in which I have spent most of my lifetime, is farming. I would like to point out the difficulties I see arising in that area because of these problems we have. The matter of inflation is mentioned in the resolution. We have no other industry based so much upon capital. Our present rate of inflation brings about these enormous rates of interest, and farmers cannot generate the income to pay that interest. So all those people who in recent years acquired farms with fairly low down payments are realizing that unless there is some dramatic turn in the road, they are going to lose their farms.

I had a chap call me last night. He said: "I am right on the edge of bankruptcy. My bank has given me until May 1 before it moves me off the place. I have explored every avenue I can, and I am calling you to see if there is some final, last system you can recommend." I know the chap's situation reasonably well. I said: "There is nothing to do. There is just nothing I can recommend to you." He is down to the point where his equity in the farm is zero, maybe even below zero.

One does not have to be a genius to figure out that in an industry which in the best of times gives a return of about four or five per cent -- hoping for good weather and good prices -- one cannot have 100 per cent of one's equity borrowed and pay interest rates of 13, 14 and 15 per cent and come out of it, except to go further and further in the hole.

This resolution does touch on whether inflation or unemployment is the greatest problem we have. Unemployment is certainly a problem for unemployed people, but I suggest it also creates an insoluble problem for others. The point is that there is simply no easy solution. As the resolution suggests, we have to start to rethink all the basic concepts of our economy and how we are going to come out of it.

Thirty years ago, about 20 to 25 per cent of the population was engaged in the production of food. We have changed that over the years by taking advantage of all the technical items that have come along. We have used money instead of people, and this is now showing up in our province. We have capitalized our farms, we have enlarged our farms and we now have only about four per cent of the population working on farms. At what cost?

5:40 p.m.

One of the costs, as I have mentioned here many times, is the overworking of soils. Just this week, our agricultural representative in Kent county made the assessment that we had lost 35 per cent of the winter wheat crop in the county. It is the second of these in the last three years. It has been an area of the country that one would say was a very heavy and reliable producer where disasters such as this are not too common, but they seem to be coming now year after year.

Driving around, as I did looking at these farms, we find the water is draining from them.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. McGuigan: There are many other items of interest to do with the environment of our farming that are now coming home to us, just as these items of our economy are now coming home to us. I hope all of us can put our minds to it, throw away some of the set pieces we have and deal with the new realities.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with those members who are supporting the resolution before the House this afternoon. I think it is a very important milestone in the history of the country when we have an opportunity to debate this kind of report and these kinds of reflections.

The statement by the bishops has been a matter of considerable controversy and I want to talk a little about the process. I want to begin with a quote from the Toronto Star of New Year's Eve, which was quoting this statement by Gregory Baum, who happens to be with us this afternoon. He said in this article, "This is a risky, courageous stand by the bishops."

That is probably true. On reflection, how sad a day it is when we think the bishops of the church in Canada would have to gear up their courage to talk about the ethical side of unemployment when it is seen to be a unique and starkly different occasion for church leaders to talk about the immorality, obscenity and cruelty of unemployment.

In my youth, I spent a lot of time with Jesuits. One had to kind of hang loose around the Jesuits because they did have a tendency to kind of give you a kick in the rear so they could pour a little religion in your left ear.

Mr. Ruston: Maybe you deserved it.

Mr. Breaugh: I probably did.

One thing they taught me was that the poorest kind of religion is the religion that is left in a church on Sunday morning. If it does not have enough guts and gumption to get out of the church and into the streets, homes, factories and the places where people work, it is a useless, hypocritical exercise. If it does not give one some moral value that makes one a little bit different every day of the week, not just on one morning of the week, it does not do anybody any good.

It seems to me, by their actions and words, those Jesuit priests taught me that one needs to do things with one's religion. It is not a passive thing. It has to be a part of one's life every day. It makes one sometimes say and do things that ruffle the status quo, but that is the history of the church, that should be the history of religion and that should be a living history.

That should not be what we read about in the Bible a long time ago or what we learned in Sunday school or catechism classes. That ought to be how we live our lives. Surely if one wants to challenge the credentials of the bishops and say, "They are not economists and they do not know about how industry works" and all this, that and the other thing, the one measure one has to give them is that they are religious leaders, trained and schooled in that field. Their thoughts and reflections on things such as an economic crisis have a great deal of validity.

It seems to me this nation owes them a great debt because they did, as Gregory Baum said, take the risk. They did the courageous thing. They entered into an area which is difficult for religious leaders to enter into, something often seen to be the domain of the political leaders or the economists, but I think they have an obligation to take that risk.

When they did that, I am sure they knew people would call them names. They must have known that since religions began one pays the price when one talks about one's religious beliefs. When one applies that to the status quo, one is almost always grinding against the current economic order. I am sure they were not surprised that people called them Marxists and everything under the sun. As we have seen in this debate this afternoon, people refused to deal with their statement and decided to call them names for a little while. That is a shame, but I am sure they were not surprised by it.

For example, Orland French in his little column on the statement said, "The most stunning reactionary response has come from within the church itself, from Emmett Cardinal Carter, Archbishop of Toronto."

I do not want to be too harsh on His Eminence, but that puts him in the category of those, like the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), who said in effect they should run away and play with their rosaries, they should not talk about these things, they should light a candle or burn a little incense, but do not deal with the reality of unemployment, do not attempt to offer some constructive reflections on what all of this means. The cardinal should know that if he is going to take the red robes into that swamp they are going to get a little dirty around the edges, and he will run that risk.

I think all of us have an obligation to say they have begun a process here that we need, one that has resulted in a debate here this afternoon, in municipal councils, in labour councils across the country, in academic circles and in nonacademic circles, and that is to talk about how obscene it is to sit around with 1.5 million people unemployed and neglect totally all the pornography that is associated with unemployment -- not just the physical stuff that people have to do without goods and services, but the mental anguish that is caused by all this. That is properly the role of a religious leader.

So they began a process that made people think about the current economic order; that made people think and talk about what we might do to alleviate some of this pain and suffering; that made people say, I hope, that religion is not something which happens on Sunday morning, it is something you carry with you, not on your sleeve but in your heart and in the way you approach economic problems of this kind.

The process is not a smooth one and I am sure the bishops have on occasion probably wished they had not quite ruffled so many feathers on the way through. But I think in their hearts they know this is the job of a religious leader. It is not to tell a population how to order its business; it is to point out that there is an ethical side to all this unemployment stuff.

The things that governments do cause a crisis in a whole. One of the most obscene things you will ever see is someone who has paid the price in an industrial plant for 30 years, who all of a sudden is turned out to pasture and cannot cope with it, as well as the stress it causes within the person's own life and within that little family entity.

I think we all owe the bishops a vote of thanks because they had the courage to suck it up and to talk, in language I would not use obviously, about those kinds of problems and to make this nation stop for a moment and address itself to all the things that are in their statement. I do not think they pretended for a moment to provide us with a panacea; but I think they did their job as religious leaders, and that is to point out that there are really serious ethical questions in the middle of this economic crisis.

I support them in their statement and I support the resolution that is before the House this afternoon.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, may I thank my fellow members for having given time and thought to the resolution I laid before them. I hope others, even though they did not participate in the debate, took time to read the statement which I circulated in their mailboxes, especially if they had not had the opportunity to do so before.

May I say especially that I appreciate the forcefulness of the remarks of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney). Indeed, there is a central spirit in this document that I hope does carry forward into our deliberations in this assembly.

But I would say also there is a rather critical sticking point that is just somewhat beyond the measure of a vague thrust of spirit. The sticking point, of course, is that over 170 or 180 years of an industrial revolution, somehow or other the whole structure of capital and machinery, the means of production, according to our bishops, has been lodged with one particular group and another group has not had a very significant purchase on the way in which it has been used, even though it has impacted heavily on the lives of that group.

The bishops call us back to that significant division, which is the fundamental alienating point that divides people in our society, and I hope that will be the measure we will use in the way in which we address the economic issues as we move into the time in which we address the budget and economic questions in this Legislature.

5:55 p.m.

LIFELINE ACT

The House divided on Mr. Sargent's motion for second reading of Bill 32, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Conway, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Epp, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock;

Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil;

Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Treleaven, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Ayes 35; nays 48.

STRATEGIES FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 12:

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Birch, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pope, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Treleaven, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman -- 39.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in addition to what is shown on the business paper for tonight, we are going to deal with the six third readings before we go to the bills that are already indicated on Orders and Notices. We will do the six third readings at 8 p.m.

On Friday, April 27, tomorrow morning, we will debate the two reports of the standing committee on public accounts.

On Monday, April 30, we will debate the two reports of the standing committee on social development on family violence, one on wife-battering and one on child abuse.

On Tuesday, May 1, in the afternoon and evening, we will do legislation, second reading and committee of the whole House if necessary on Bill 44, followed by committee of the whole House on Bill 141.

On Wednesday, the usual committees may meet.

On Thursday, May 3, in the afternoon, there are private members' ballot items standing in the names of the member for Durham-York (Mr. K. R. Stevenson) and the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).

In the evening of Thursday, May 3, we will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of lntergovernmental Affairs, and we will continue those estimates on the morning of Friday, May 4.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.

April 26, 1984