INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (continued)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, as I begin my contribution to the debate on this piece of legislation, I want to emphasize that I do this in a very serious vein because I consider this a serious intrusion on the basic rights of workers.
I received a copy of a letter written to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), dated September 17, by Local 2446 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, representing the workers at the senior citizens' home in Thessalon, a small town in my riding. I should emphasize that the people of Thessalon are not known for their radical approach to politics. For that matter, they are not really known for supporting anyone other than the Conservative Party both federally and provincially.
So it is really significant when we listen to the views of the people of that community, the workers who are affected by this legislation, when they write to the cabinet minister who is supposed to speak for labour. This is a comment they make: "The imposition of controls would only deny us our fundamental freedom, the right to free collective bargaining."
I am not aware of the answer the minister sent to the CUPE local or how he responded to that bold, very fair statement, which sums up the legislation we are debating today. In imposing these controls, this government, with its Liberal allies, is denying a basic, fundamental freedom in our democracy, the right of free collective bargaining.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Baloney.
Mr. Wildman: I hear the Minister of Revenue say "Baloney." Does he not believe that free collective bargaining is a basic right in our democracy?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: You don't recognize the reality of the times. That's the problem. That's where the baloney is.
Mr. Foulds: Basic rights are dependent on the reality of the times, are they?
Mr. Wildman: What really disturbs me even more than the legislation we are debating here in this House is the attitude that because of the perceived reality of the times we can, and I suppose the Minister of Revenue might say we must, deny basic rights. I do not want to overdramatize this, but throughout history we have seen some very serious moves done with the argument that they must be done, distasteful as they might be, because of the realities of the times.
I sincerely believe that once we move down that road, we have embarked on a very dangerous path that is open to many kinds of abuses. I am not accusing this government of attempting to deny freedom and democracy in Ontario or, for that matter, the Liberal government of wanting to deny that in Canada, but once we limit freedoms, no matter how small or how limited a group it is, then it is much easier to expand those limitations in the future.
We had this happen in 1975, when the federal government of the time imposed its anti-inflation package. I wonder whether it would be as easy for us today to have this kind of legislation imposed on us or on a small group, 500,000 workers in Ontario, if it had never been done before. Each time we do it, it is easier to do it again. It is something we should not treat lightly.
I must say I am most disappointed that the Minister of Revenue sees a basic right like collective bargaining, the right of workers to bargain collectively for compensation for their labours, as baloney.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Don't worry about all the rest of the people.
Mr. Wildman: The Minister of Revenue says, "Don't worry about the other people."
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Don't worry about the reality of the times. Don't worry about the unemployed.
Mr. Wildman: Again, I do not want to be provoked into being overly dramatic --
The Deputy Speaker: Well, avoid the interjections.
Mr. Wildman: It is hard to, Mr. Speaker.
I honestly believe that if we limit the freedoms of any small group, we are degrading the democracy for everyone. To say that we must limit the freedoms of this small group somehow to benefit the majority denies one of the basic tenets of democracy, and that is minority rights. Not only must the majority rule in a democracy, but the majority must be very careful to protect the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, it appears that Minister of Revenue does not understand that.
As I was preparing to participate in this debate, I was reminded of a debate we had in this House last December, which was one of the few times when there was unanimous agreement in this House. On December 14, 1981, the government House leader (Mr. Wells) introduced a resolution that was seconded by the then Leader of the Opposition and my then leader and supported by all three parties.
8:10 p.m.
Obviously that resolution dealt with a situation that was very different in quality from what is happening in Ontario today, but unfortunately it has some very important similarities. The debate last December dealt with the situation in Poland and the imposition of martial law in that country.
Obviously we are not talking about anything so serious here in Ontario. What we are talking about in Ontario is the suspension of free collective bargaining rights. And one of the things referred to in that resolution introduced by the government House leader was the "suspension of basic rights and freedoms."
In that resolution the government House leader argued that all of us in this House should support "the creation of a new form of society that will meet the needs of the people and respect the rights of workers." I wonder why it is so easy for the members of this House to support the rights of workers in eastern Europe but only so many months later to suspend those very rights in Ontario.
I recognize that in Poland a small minority governed in an authoritarian state, denying the rights of Solidarity and protecting its control of power in that country by suspending the rights of the majority; whereas in Ontario the majority, if we are to believe what is being said about the public opinion polls, appears to be acquiescing in the suspension of the rights of a small minority of workers.
The fact remains, however, that we are suspending rights for one, two or three years.
We are telling workers that their contracts will be determined for them by some czar named Biddell, who will not have to give anybody any reasons, and that they had better just be quiet and accept it.
We saw this afternoon how people react when those basic rights are suspended, rights that have been fought for for years, rights that it took the efforts of many people in western Europe and in North America to win: the right to strike, to join unions and to fight collectively for their rights.
I thank God that those rights are not suspended in our country by the force of tanks and jackboots. But does it make it any better to have those rights suspended by the force of law, whether that law is determined by a small minority, as it is in Warsaw, or by a majority, as it is in Ontario? I do not think so.
I want to refer to a couple of other things that were said during that debate. The then member for Hamilton West, speaking for his party, made a couple of comments that I think are important, as did my then leader, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).
The member for Ottawa Centre said at one point, "However much we squabble and disagree among ourselves, we are united in this province in believing in fundamental human rights, even in fundamental economic rights."
I hoped against hope when those words were spoken by my former leader that he was correct. I really did believe that the members of this House, no matter what their political stripe, believed in fundamental economic rights, that they would fight for those rights and that they would stand against any move to deny those rights. But not even a year later we see a bill introduced which denies those rights, the very rights all three parties said they supported and voted unanimously for in another country.
The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), our Labour critic, said in that debate, "We in Canada should not lose sight of the rights of workers ... " I wish we could remember that today in Ontario. We should never lose sight of the rights of workers, no matter whether they are public sector workers or private sector workers.
I resent the attempt that is being made by this government and its allies in the federal government to split the workers, to divide them and to say to those private sector workers who are out of work or who are in danger of losing their jobs, "Things are bad for you; so let's make it bad for the public sector as well."
I do not think workers who have fought hard for the right to bargain collectively and to withdraw their labour to try to press for an improved economic situation will accept the kind of divide-and-conquer approach being taken in this House.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: And hold the taxpayers who can't afford to pay ransom.
Mr. Wildman: I hear the minister without anything to do, the one who has nothing to do except ride in a limousine, saying: "Listen to the taxpayers. The taxpayers cannot pay. The taxpayers cannot afford it."
I do not think I am stretching the analogy too far when I point out to that honourable member that even in Poland the authorities say the reason they cannot continue with free expression and free rights for workers is that the country cannot afford it, that there are shortages in the stores and that there is not enough food. That is true; there is not. But those are the kinds of reasons they use for saying they have to deny the rights of workers: "We can't afford it."
It is strange when the members of this government seem to have the kind of blinders where they can look at what is a terrible, heavy-handed authoritarian approach in another country and say, "That is wrong. We don't support it. We want to stop it," but then they risk the same thing happening in their own jurisdiction. I wonder whether they really do not understand.
The then member for Hamilton West said a number of things in that debate. I would like to quote just a couple. He said, "All of us are aware that the events in Poland are not the fault of the labour movement or of the people but are the signs of the failure and bankruptcy of a system."
I submit that the economic mess we are in here in Ontario and Canada today is not the fault of the workers or of the people, whether they be farmers, small business people, unionized workers or unorganized workers.
8:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Davis: What about the economic policies in France under the Socialist government there?
Mr. Wildman: The Premier interjects and says, "What about economic policies in France?"
Hon. Mr. Davis: You are talking about Poland. Take a look at France.
Mr. Wildman: I am quite willing to deal with that, and I will later.
It is interesting. The member who just spoke toured with the Premier of France not long ago, because he hopes the Socialist government in France will save the auto industry in his community.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I sincerely hope you agree, because the members of the United Auto Workers in Brampton share my hope.
Mr. Wildman: I am certainly in support of --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Continuing with the debate. The member for Algoma has the floor.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, when I look at this debate, which took place in December 1981, and I talk about the situation we have today with Bill 179, I do it in a very serious vein. I am not trying to overdramatize our situation in Ontario. But there are analogies, and important ones, that I think should be pointed out.
I do believe the statement I took out of context from the then member for Hamilton West applies to Ontario and Canada today. The economic problems we have in Ontario and Canada today -- the unemployment, the bankruptcies, the high interest rates -- are not the fault of the workers, public or private sector. In a way they are signs of the failure and bankruptcy of the system we have in this country today.
The then member for Hamilton West said also, "To pick on Solidarity is surely a thinly disguised attempt by the Polish regime to prop up a failed regime and an unproductive system."
I agree with that in the Polish situation, just as I believe the attempt to pick on a small sector of the work force in Ontario and Canada today is a political move by this government and the federal government to try to disguise the fact that they have no answers to the economic problems we face in the country today.
It is an attempt to deflect the blame, to give the public the impression that we are doing something. It may not do anything in terms of resolving the economic problems, but at least we are doing something. We find some scapegoat. a whipping boy, in the public sector unions. They are not popular -- we all know they are not popular -- just as politicians are not particularly popular, and they should not be, with our economic situation today.
It is most irresponsible to say: "Because that group is not popular and because we are not popular since we are not doing anything, do not know what to do, or are unwilling to do the things we think really should be done, we will pick on them and give the public the impression we are doing something, anything. They are not popular; they won't get much support."
We opposed it in Poland, all of us. While I said there are differences, and important differences that I recognize, I do not think we should accept the diminution of workers' rights anywhere, especially in our own backyard.
Mr. Piché: Two minutes.
Mr. Wildman: The member for Cochrane North says, "Two minutes." We gave him a lot of time because we wanted him to deal with the legislation.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: All he did was attack the Premier.
Mr. Wildman: All he did was get up and attack the Premier for getting rid of the jet.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Disgusting. We were ashamed.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, be very careful. Jack Stokes was also in support, only he was 10 years late.
Mr. Wildman: That is true. But we gave the member for Cochrane North as much time as we could, because we wanted to hear his first speech and to see whether he could actually get on to the topic. I think he did in the last two sentences of his speech when he dealt a little bit with restraint as it pertains directly to the bill rather than just talking about the jet.
What does this bill deal with? We all know it deals with collective bargaining. It is a bill that profoundly intervenes in the collective bargaining process to the point where a union, despite what the Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) have said, has no real meaningful role at least for a year and perhaps for up to three years, depending on which group of workers we are talking about.
With the introduction of this legislation, there is no real incentive to bargain anything. To argue that they can bargain nonmonetary issues when the monetary side of the package is already decided for them by an outside party is to demonstrate a convenient or unbelievable lack of understanding of the collective bargaining process.
Interestingly enough, the bill also says that nonmonetary items can be changed, but it points out that arbitration will not be allowed. As the right to strike is denied, there is no system for resolving disputes, even in nonmonetary issues. It really remains to be seen whether there will be any attempt to resolve nonmonetary items being dealt with in any meaningful way.
All the members of this party have described this bill as draconian. We find that it is setting up some kind of czar who is going to be able to rule on collective agreement compensation packages, as they are referred to in the bill, without giving any reasons or any descriptions, without even holding any hearings and without any right of appeal. I wonder how anyone who really believes in protecting the rights of the workers, as we said back in December, can defend that kind of legislation.
Even within this legislation, which singles one small group out of the work force and which says, "We are going to treat you in a certain way; we are going to take rights away from you that are enjoyed by every other worker," there are inequities. Not even all those 500,000 workers are treated in the same way. Some of them will be under control for one year, some for two years and some for three years. We can see the serious inequities that is going to produce within the public service.
We have no explanation from the other side as to why this is being done, except to say, "Well, we want to be flexible. We want to allow for a transition period," and so on. In fact, it produces more inequities than it resolves. I find it completely unacceptable that we would have a piece of legislation before us that says one individual is going to be able to make decisions that will affect the incomes of many families in this province without having to hold any hearings and without having to give any reasons, who can just make arbitrary decisions and order them to be done.
8:30 p.m.
Under this legislation, this individual will be able to determine not only how much certain obvious members of the public sector are going to be able to earn, but will be able to widen that range to determine what other groups will come under his purview, again without giving any reasons.
As I said earlier, the Premier has tried to argue there will be a continuation of labour- management negotiations on a range of nonmonetary issues. The Premier neglected to say that under this legislation there is absolutely no requirement for the employer to bargain on any kind of item. Obviously, only if management and the union agree will any item in a collective agreement be amended. There is no requirement for the employer, whether it be the provincial government, a municipality or what is called a parapublic sector employer, even to talk to the employees.
I want to talk for a moment about my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) who is the member in the cabinet responsible for workers' rights. I started my remarks by referring to a letter sent to him by the CUPE local in Thessalon. Some of the members in the House may know that lately the Minister of Labour has been in some controversy over the issue of equal pay for work of equal value.
The minister has argued that this measure, which has been long overdue in this province and in this country, could not be introduced because of the economic situation, and that beleaguered employers -- I think that was the word he used -- could not afford to bring in equal pay for work of equal value at this time in the economic life of the province.
In other words, I suppose what the Minister of Labour was saying was that women should pay more than men should pay for the economic problems in this province. As if that were not bad enough, the Minister of Labour has had the gall to say in the local media in Sault Ste. Marie that, while he does not like the denial of collective bargaining rights for unionized workers, he thinks it is necessary and that it is required at this time in our economic life.
He then goes on and uses the excuse that there are many people laid off in the private sector, such as at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, and that those people who are working are feeling insecure about their jobs but that people in the public sector have job security. Somehow this denial of collective bargaining rights which he says he objects to is justified because people in the public sector have more job security.
If the Minister of Labour is just playing along with the argument that has been used by the Treasurer and others on the government benches, in an attempt to divide the work force and to play one worker group off against another, it does not speak well for him as Minister of Labour, or for the government he represents.
Also, the argument itself is hollow, when one considers that by imposing wage controls, this government, as my deputy leader pointed out today in question period, is cutting back on wage increases that have been given to women in the public sector through a freely negotiated contract in an attempt to try to make up for the difference in wages for the clerical staff.
This legislation will impede the ability of women to make further inroads in areas where they are behind already. Yet, this minister can get up in the House, as he has done today, and, in response to an interjection, say that he did not have anything to do with the legislation.
Is that not interesting? A minister of this government can actually claim that he did not have anything to do with the government legislation. My deputy leader said that maybe he was probably right. I hope that is not the case. I would hope that he would have had something to do with it, it being a major piece of legislation that affects the rights of workers.
Surely the Minister of Labour had important and significant input into the development of that legislation. If he did not, then in my view he is a very ineffectual minister. If he did, it is even worse, because if he did have input into this legislation, and we still have the inequities we have, that either means he is not very effective, or it means he does support this legislation, despite what he said publicly in Sault Ste. Marie.
I regret very much that the Minister of Labour is not scheduled to speak in this debate. It is beyond understanding. How can a minister who is responsible for collective bargaining, for facilitating agreements between workers and their employers in this province, not want to speak in a debate about the denial of collective bargaining rights for workers in the public sector?
To give them their due, the Treasurer and the Premier have been here throughout the debate, or off and on. One or the other has been here and they have listened to the debate. But the Minister of Labour has not been here one day during the debate.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have listened to this gentleman and several others from that party who have stated that the Minister of Labour has not been here. The Minister of Labour has been scheduled on a regular basis and has been here perhaps more than anyone else on this side. I really think the member is a little off base.
Mr. McClellan: He may have been scheduled, but he has not been here.
Interjections.
Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege: Will the Speaker instruct the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) for the last time that it is not parliamentary to say "Stop lying" in this assembly?
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have been here for almost the whole of this debate. The Minister of Labour may have been here once or twice but he has not been here very much.
The minister has been leaving almost every time after question period, and the point is I do not care how much he is here, but he damned well should be speaking in this debate and he is not on the schedule. If the chief government whip can tell me that the Minister of Labour is going to speak in this debate, fine, but he cannot because the Minister of Labour does not have the guts to speak in this debate.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Back to Bill 179.
Mr. Wildman: I wonder what the chief whip thinks of a member who will say in Sault Ste. Marie he does not support the denial of collective bargaining for workers and then does not participate in a debate that does exactly that.
Mr. Piché: Apologize to the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: It is not I who should apologize. I suppose one of the advantages of this legislation is that the Minister of Labour will have very little to do over the next year or two.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: What has that to do with the bill?
Mr. Wildman: The member knows exactly what it has to do with the bill. What will the Minister of Labour's conciliators be doing? What is his staff going to do for the next two years? It will be a sort of paid holiday for those people. I would like to believe that at least some members of the staff of the Ministry of Labour will not enjoy that kind of a paid holiday.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: Is that what your former leader is taking? A paid holiday to go to school full-time?
Mr. Wildman: That member is a great one to talk about paid holidays. What does he do? What does he do in the cabinet? What does he have to do? At least the Minister of Labour has to get up and answer questions in the House every day or every other day about labour issues. That minister in the cabinet has absolutely nothing to do. I think some day we should get up in question period and say, "What does that member do?"
Hon. Mr. Davis: Go ahead. Ask me tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. I will be delighted to tell you. It would be more revealing than some of the questions asked recently.
Mr. Wildman: I wonder how the argument used by the Minister of Labour about security in the public sector stands up when one looks at the problems which, say, teachers have with declining enrolments and the number of laid-off teachers in the province. I wonder if laid-off teachers would agree that public sector employees have far more job security and therefore they can stand this unpleasantness.
Mr. McClellan: They are contract workers.
Mr. Wildman: I want to get to them next. Before I deal with them, can I also ask whether it is fair for a government or a Minister of Labour to argue that the public sector can take wage controls, when one considers that lack of funding for various agencies, whether hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the mentally retarded, is causing staff shortages and the work speedups that go with them? It does not speak very well for the Minister of Labour to say that people have to do more work because of the lack of staff, and that therefore they should get paid less because they have job security.
Also, for that matter, if we find that part of this restraint package lowers or limits transfer payments to the municipalities, and they start laying off workers, what does that do to the argument about security in the public sector?
For a moment I would like to speak about that other group that is conveniently ignored by Management Board and the ministries of this government when they start listing the numbers of public sector workers and government employees in the province; that is the contract workers or so-called casual employees. I am always leery about speaking of this group. Every time one raises the plight of the casual employees in this House, it seems someone in Management Board comes up with a scheme to try to cut off their employment, rather than providing them with the pay and benefits they deserve.
There are two so-called casual employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources in my riding who, for 20 years, have worked for that ministry approximately nine months out of every year. Those are the two worst examples I can point to, but there are many others -- people who have worked for seven, eight and nine years for the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and other ministries. Yet they are called casual employees. They do get some of the sick benefits now; they did not before. But they do not get any pension benefits.
Every year they are scared to death wondering whether they will be called back after their layoffs, after they have been on unemployment insurance; yet the Minister of Labour says public sector employees have security. I do not suppose he really knows much about the casual employees of this government. If he did, I would hope he would try to do something about it.
Now that I have raised it again, what will probably happen is someone in Management Board may come to the conclusion: "We had better not have these people working year after year for the government. We had better hire someone else rather than the experienced individual." This is despite the fact that a few years ago the former Deputy Minister of Natural Resources admitted in committee that the ministry could not operate without the experienced, so-called casual employees who were hired every summer, because if new workers were hired, so much time would be wasted in training them every summer that the ministry would not get out of them the work it required.
That is one of the blackest marks on the personnel policy of this government I can think of. If those people are required year after year, they should be treated as employees and given the benefits they deserve. They should be given the security of tenure, the job security the Minister of Labour thinks they have.
We have been treated to what I think is a despicable argument, that because some people are laid off and are out of work, we should go and talk to those people to find out what they think of wage controls in the public sector.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you making an argument to have them in the private sector as well? Is that your answer?
Mr. Wildman: If the Premier had listened to the beginning of this speech, he would know I am appalled by and completely opposed to these denials of collective bargaining rights for anyone.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought the logic in your case was to have them in the private sector.
Mr. Wildman: No, I am just dealing with the lack of logic of this government in the arguments it has been making. One of those arguments has been that because people in the private sector are being laid off or are insecure, they would support controls for the public sector. The Treasurer made that argument the other day in question period.
At any rate, I did talk to one of those individuals. Actually, I did not go to see him; he came into my constituency office. He was a 20-year-old unemployed man with a grade 12 education. He was laid off in mid-September and he came into my constituency office because he was having difficulty getting unemployment insurance benefits. I will not go into that.
8:50 p.m.
Here, we have an individual who does not qualify for unemployment insurance, so we got him in touch with the welfare agencies, and he is getting $266 a month from welfare. This man's rent is $200 a month, so he has $66 left to pay for his food and whatever entertainment, clothing and other expenses he has. So if the argument the Treasurer and other members of the government have used is correct, this individual should be in favour of wage controls in the public sector. He was desperate; he did not know which way to turn. He cannot find a job, and he does not have enough money. This man said to me, "Cutting other people's wages is not going to give me a job." And he is right.
That is what this government has missed. Through some sort of metaphysical process, they would like everyone to believe that by cutting wages for the public sector somehow they are going to produce jobs for a man like this. Well, it does not produce a job. The fact that his neighbour, who happens to work for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- actually, this man's neighbour works for norOntair -- is going to end up with less money next year than he might have expected does not give this man a job; it does not do a thing for him. So if this individual is anything like other people, I do not think the government is going to be successful in hoodwinking people into believing that by cutting the wages of its employees it is somehow going to help the people who are laid off in the private sector.
As I said in the beginning, the implications of this bill extend far beyond the immediate question of whether the program is economically justified. We are seeing a government that is ripping up collective bargaining contracts that have already been settled and preventing true free collective bargaining from taking place in the province. The law as we have known it has been negated. There will not be any arbitration process, and the rights and economic situation of many groups in this province will be left to the will and the whim of one person, and perhaps to the cabinet.
The principles that have been worked out and developed over the years for dealing with industrial disputes are being replaced by executive orders, by an individual or by a board that can meet in secret and make decisions without giving any reasons or explaining anything to the public. Does this not sound somewhat similar to what we argued against in Poland? This is indeed a denial of civil liberties. If governments can easily tear up public sector contracts and replace them by executive order, what is to stop them from doing that to other workers? What does the other bill we are going to be debating after this one mean for other workers in this province?
Mr. Renwick: You mean the one we will be debating in November.
Mr. Wildman: Yes.
Mr. Cooke: Of which year?
Mr. Wildman: What does it mean? What can we expect to happen to those workers?
I suppose the other argument that has been raised to justify this legislation is that somehow we are going to control prices. At least, this is what the government would like people to believe, that this is not a one-sided approach to deal just with wages in the public sector but that we are also going to control two types of prices: those administered by the government and also private-sector prices. You hear many people say, "Well, if they could only control prices, I would not necessarily object to control of wages." We hear that argument a lot. So this government came in and said: "We intend to do something about prices." But when one looks very closely at what is intended for prices, one really understands who this government serves.
First, with the administered prices, we have already heard in question period that the OHIP premiums are not to be included. Today the Treasurer admitted what he would not admit before when the question was raised by the Health critic for this party, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), that in fact OHIP premiums would be exempted and they are not an administered price. So we have the situation where there is an enormous increase in the largest fee charged for families in this province at the very time that we have been told that certain workers will only be allowed a five per cent or, in some cases, a nine per cent increase. It is hardly evenhanded.
It really becomes obvious who this government serves when one looks at the private sector prices and what is being proposed there. I suppose we could not have expected very much from a Conservative government or, for that matter, from a Liberal government in Ottawa, when one looks at the arguments that have been used by the corporate sector when talking about wage controls and price controls.
We have had the spectacle of Ian Sinclair, who, I understand, in 1981 was compensated for his labour at the rate of $556,228, saying he is wholeheartedly in favour of wage restraints but the corporations must restore their balance sheet and not have their price decisions controlled. Is he not on the six and five committee? Is he the chairman of the six and five committee, the corporate friends of the Liberal government? He said: "Yes, we are in favour of wage restraints. That is what is needed in this economy. But no, we cannot allow corporate price decisions to be controlled because the corporations must restore their balance sheet."
I think there are an awful lot of workers in Ontario and Canada who would like to restore their balance sheets when it comes to the end of the month or when it comes to looking at their mortgage payments. We can control their wages, but we must not touch the corporate balance sheet.
The price system is set up with Ian Sinclair's admonitions in mind. We have seen that all costs, other than profits and wages, can be passed through as increased prices -- things like taxes, interest rates, cost of goods and services and so on. The wage component will be limited to five per cent -- and we are talking here about the Ontario Energy Board -- and the part of the price that relates to profits will be limited to a five per cent increase on return on common equity.
The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) spoke just before six o'clock and argued that if the farmers in his riding could be guaranteed five per cent this year, they would be happy -- five per cent over what they made last year.
Mr. McKessock: Happier.
Mr. Wildman: Happier, all right. I know that farm prices are down and that farmers are having a difficult time right now especially with high interest rates. But I wonder why the Liberal Party accepts the fact that this price monitoring approach, when it deals with something like Union Gas, will guarantee at least a five per cent profit, and yet it does not do the same thing for the farmers? Why on earth are the Liberals supporting it, at least those Liberals who represent rural ridings?
9 p.m.
Mr. Piché: They will support anything.
Mr. Wildman: I think that is true. That is why they are supporting you.
Furthermore the system that is set up to monitor prices says the regulatory agencies will have all sorts of appeal procedures. They can appeal to the minister, who can go to the cabinet, who can deal with the board. We do not have any appeals procedures on the wage side. At least the Anti-Inflation Board in the mid-1970s had an appeals procedure. Why is it that we have appeals procedures for prices but we do not have any appeals procedures for wages? That has never been explained to us.
All we can conclude with respect to prices is that the program's impact on regulated prices will be minimal, that the program as it is applied remains completely discretionary and that most prices that are supposedly controlled by the program will be left almost completely exempt. The prices that matter most to the ordinary working person are left completely out of the program. I think even the Liberal members who are most concerned about the prices at the farm gate would agree that food prices in the supermarkets do not bear a great deal of relation to what is being paid to the farmer and that they should he controlled.
Shelter costs have been climbing, largely because of interest-rate increases. Health costs are going up because of the Ontario health insurance plan. Of course insurance rates are going up and gasoline prices are going up. None of those things are going to be controlled; in many cases they are not even monitored, so I do not see how the government can argue there is equity in this thing.
Mr. Bradley: Cut out their ad valorem gas tax.
Mr. Wildman: One of the things my leader has advocated is getting rid of the ad valorem gas tax. He has also argued that the price of gasoline should be frozen.
Mr. Epp: Who is your leader? Jim Foulds? Bob Rae? Michael Cassidy?
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, we are a collective. When one looks at this program as it relates to the federal program there is a sad irony when one realizes what is actually being done by the government, whether it be federal or provincial, to try to influence the private sector. One of the arguments for this program at both the federal and the provincial level is that it will be an example to the private sector and they want it to spread to the private sector.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: It is interesting that one of the things the Liberals have talked about a great deal, as we have in this party, is the fact that this government really does not believe in restraint itself. Although it got rid of the jet, much to the consternation of the member for Cochrane North -- and the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) -- the fact is that this government has invested $650 million in 25 per cent of an oil company and has also invested a further number of millions in a Trillium Exploration Corp.
Mr. Bradley: A socialist in disguise; you're right.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: You wanted us to buy more.
Interjections.
Mr. Wildman: I found out recently the federal government has made an interesting deal with Suncor, the company this government purchased 25 per cent of.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: You wanted us to buy 51 per cent; be consistent.
Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.
Mr. Wildman: The federal government just recently --
Hon. Mr. Davis: That's exactly what you said, 51 per cent. I'm just reminding you of what you said.
Mr. Wildman: I do not like to cause family quarrels between the Liberals and the Tories.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Don't worry about our family; look after your own.
Mr. Wildman: The federal government recently made a deal with Suncor. In return for Suncor keeping the six and five program for its nonunionized employees, it is going to receive enormous tax breaks from the federal government. Suncor will voluntarily agree to price increases that will only maintain historic profit levels. But these turn out to be, when one looks at 1981 profits, almost double the average of profits in other companies and other sectors over the last five years.
We see this government participating in a situation where the private corporations win both ways. They agree to limit their employees to certain lower wage increases and, in exchange for that agreement, get tax breaks. They win on both sides.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Bud, you will never understand it.
Mr. Wildman: Oh, I understand. It just makes me sick.
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, you do not. I say that respectfully; some things you do but you don't this one. Have you checked your teaching certificate lately?
Mr. Wildman: To be fair, I cannot blame Suncor. First, it gets this government to invest when it cannot find another buyer. Then it gets this government to put up the money for Trillium because it has not been able to find another buyer, so it can get further tax breaks. Then it persuades the federal government to give it further tax breaks so it will be able to fail to increase the wages of its employees. I cannot really blame Suncor. They sound like pretty good politicians -- better politicians, certainly better economists, than the present government.
I started by saying these are draconian measures that are denying the rights of workers. I recently saw a picture which dealt with the demonstration of public sector employees the day this bill was introduced. In this picture, in the very front row -- and it is significant when one considers who the Minister of Labour is in this province -- there is a sign. It says: "Sault Ste. Marie: Think about it. Are wage controls fair? Why is it always the workers the government dumps on?" Why is it? It certainly is not Suncor.
I would like to turn now, not just to dealing with what this legislation does to workers, but to deal with the arguments that have been raised for this legislation as being necessary to deal with our economic problems.
These kinds of measures have not worked before. They did not work with the Anti-Inflation Board. They have not worked in other countries. Certainly the measures we have seen in the Polish situation have not gotten that economy going again.
Hon. F. S. Miller: They're Socialists.
Mr. Wildman: Don't tar me with the Polish government.
Mr. Shymko: Don't you tar this government with Poland either.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: I did not. The member for High Park-Swansea was not here at the beginning of my speech.
Interjection.
Mr. Wildman: He was not here at the beginning of my speech. I was very careful --
Hon. Mr. Davis: You are very fortunate he was not.
Mr. Wildman: I wish he had been. Maybe he would have heard --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma will get back to the bill, please.
Mr. Wildman: I said at the beginning of my speech that I recognize major and significant differences between what is being done in Canada and Ontario today and what has happened in eastern Europe. I said that at the beginning of my speech.
Mr. Shymko: I am glad you do.
Mr. Wildman: I also said there were unfortunate similarities and there are. In Poland there is a minority that controls power, denying the rights of the majority. Here we have a majority denying the rights of a minority.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Even your mathematics happen to be wrong.
Mr. Foulds: Oh, you admit you have a minority government; you have minority support in the province.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Bud, I have to assume mathematics was not your discipline in high school.
Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Algoma.
Mr. Wildman: I know the Premier does not take this situation very seriously.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I take it seriously, but I think you are wrong.
Mr. Wildman: That is fair. I would not expect him to agree with me.
Mr. Speaker: Back to the bill, please.
Mr. Wildman: I would like to talk about some of the reasons that have been put forward, in some ways even more by the Liberal members than the government members, as arguments for this bill. They have been talking about the terrible economic mess that we are in -- saying these kinds of measures are necessary to resolve those problems.
In the letter I quoted that was written to the Minister of Labour, the public sector workers from Thessalon said:
"We oppose wage controls because of the economic hardships it will cause us. Comparisons taken from surveys show that we in the public sector are not overpaid in comparison with those in the private sector nor have any wage increases received differed greatly. The imposition of controls is unfair and discriminates against us."
9:10 p.m.
It has been said that it does discriminate against a certain group of workers but these kinds of discriminatory measures are necessary because of the serious economic problem we have. I listened to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) this afternoon quote some figures from the Economic Accounts Bulletin that is published by this government. He pointed out that Ontario's gross provincial product and expenditure registered only 0.4 per cent growth in the first quarter of this year. After an adjustment for inflation, the GPP continued its downturn for the third consecutive quarter, a drop of 2.2 per cent in the last quarter of 1981.
While most of the components of the GPP have declined over this quarter, he said that because of this serious economic problem we needed some kind of action. To be fair to him, he said wage controls by themselves were not enough and certainly wage controls in the public sector were not enough. I think he wanted wage controls throughout the economy. He, along with other members who have used this argument, have not been able to explain how wage controls of any group are actually going to turn around the decline in the gross provincial product.
The bulletin says gross personal expenditure on consumer goods and services slowed by 0.8 per cent in this quarter, down from 2.8 per cent in the last quarter of 1981. The weaknesses existed mainly in the expenditure on durables and semi-durables. Retail motor vehicle sales, for example, were down substantially in the first quarter of this year after a brief rebound in the last quarter of last year. Retail sales of household furniture and appliances also decreased after recording significant growth in the last quarter of last year.
How are wage controls in the public sector going to do anything about retail sales? If this is being introduced as a way of resolving our economic problems, how on earth are they related? It seems to me that when one is going to take away wages from any sector of the economy, one is likely to have lower retail sales, not higher.
The slump in total business investment expenditure worsened in the first quarter of this year with a dip of 5.9 per cent, which was the third quarterly decline in a row. Total business investment fell to about the same level as it had attained in the same quarter a year earlier. The fall in business investment was widespread in all three components. Business investment in plant and equipment declined 6.8 per cent in this quarter and expenditures on nonresidential construction and machinery and equipment were down substantially, seven per cent and 6.7 per cent respectively.
Again I ask the Treasurer, how is limiting wages going to turn that situation around? How is it going to produce more investment by the business sector? That the demand is down so much now is the reason we do not have the investment we need. Cutting wages is not going to increase demand. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot pointed to those figures and said we needed wage controls because of those figures. He did not explain how one was related to the other. I do not think he could.
In my part of the province to the end of August we had recorded a 44 per cent increase in the number of bankruptcies. That was more than 200 above the whole of last year. More than 100 bankruptcies occurred in northeastern Ontario in August alone. The federal department which publishes those figures has stated, "The worst is yet to come." This is one of the indicators that we are in the worst and deepest economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Obviously bankruptcies are related to high interest rates and the lack of demand. I doubt that controlling wages is going to do anything about that though.
We see a situation where consumer demand and purchasing power are at such low levels it is having devastating effects on many small and large businesses, but by controlling public sector employees, we are doing the equivalent of taking away the average industrial wage of 20,000 workers. In other words, this bill would have the same effect across Ontario that the closure of Inco is having in northeastern Ontario.
As a result of the lack of demand, the lack of business investment, the decline in production, we have the highest unemployment in Ontario and Canada that we have ever experienced since the Second World War. In Ontario we have a real unemployed level of about 689,000 people. Between August 1981 and 1982, unemployment in Ontario increased by 84 per cent. Every day in the month of August -- as my colleague from Hamilton East has pointed out -- another 935 Ontario workers became unemployed.
We are in a serious economic situation but I defy anyone on that side to explain clearly how controlling the wages in the public sector is going to put one of those people back to work. What we really need is action to deal with the unemployment in this province. We have not had anything from the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker). He did get up in the last session and crow about nine jobs in Elmira.
An hon. member: He talks about saving them.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Wildman: That is right. He got up on September 28 and made a speech about International Harvester, General Motors and Massey-Ferguson. He talked about all of the jobs, but if one looks at it very carefully he is talking about jobs that are already in existence. He is not talking about new jobs.
The fact is this kind of program will not work. Inflation, which we are all concerned about, is not caused in this economy by excess demand. We are not in a situation where we have too many dollars chasing too few goods. We are not in that kind of a situation where prices are going up because there is a tremendous increase in demand. We have the opposite. Demand is going down. We are in a situation where industries are only working at 70 per cent capacity on average. So it is nonsense to argue that our inflation is demand-oriented.
To say we are going to control inflation by cutting wages is to ignore the fact the inflation we are experiencing is not being wage-pushed. When one compares private sector wages to public sector wages one has to realize that public sector wages have not differed greatly from private sector wages.
Mr. Shymko: Tell us about the Socialist philosophy in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: I am only aware of one Socialist government in this country and that is in Manitoba.
Mr. Boudria: One too many.
Mr. Wildman: In that province there are measures being taken to deal with the real problems in the economy.
Mr. Speaker: Now back to the legislation, please.
Mr. Wildman: I will. One of the arguments the Treasurer has used --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are having difficulty with your colleagues.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wildman: The Treasurer has used a lot of arguments to try to justify what he is doing. One of the arguments he has used is that there has been a tremendous increase in public sector employment, especially in education and health, and for that reason we need control.
Obviously we have a serious unemployment problem. Somehow the Treasurer argues that because we have an unemployment problem we have to limit the number of people in the public sector, which is increasing. In other words he seems to be saying, rather illogically, that we deal with unemployment by increasing unemployment.
One of the other arguments he uses is that he wants to signal low wage settlements to the private sector. In a situation with the numbers of unemployed there are in this province one does not have to signal through low wage increases. The market this government likes to talk about so much is controlling wages in the private sector. It is controlling the number of jobs that are available. The public sector has not led the private sector in wage increases since 1977. It lags behind.
One of the other arguments the Treasurer has used for this legislation is that restraint in the public sector will free up money, help to fight inflation and ease the pressure on interest rates.
Mr. Boudria: Lowering the expenditures would go a long way.
Mr. Wildman: That is what he is talking about, basically.
The suggestion that this government has somehow created too great a demand on the capital markets ignores the fact the Treasurer himself and the Premier on many occasions have boasted that, other than Ontario Hydro, this government has not been borrowing on the private capital market. That is strange.
As we have said, the arguments used for this legislation are invalid. The arguments used in the past remain as invalid today as they were then. The system just will not work. The reason it will not work is this program does not even address the main problems in the economy. They are unemployment, interest rates, energy rates; the cost of energy and the cost of money. This program does not address any of those.
The Treasurer has tried to argue that, in some indirect way, controlling expenditures in the public sector will affect interest rates and interest rates will come down. In our view, this program ignores the basic problems we have. We are in an economic crisis, with record unemployment, bankruptcies, business failures, plant shutdowns and an 11 per cent increase over a year in the lack of use of capacity.
The conventional wisdom used in the business community that is accepted by this government is that the magic solution for this is to cut the public sector, thus leading to cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting the power of unions and cutting wages. The belief this will somehow increase the share going to capital and then give capital the freedom to resolve our economic problems is ridiculous.
We do not argue that we do not have high inflation. Inflation has to be dealt with, but in cutting demand by restraining wages the government is not going to deal with the lack of demand that produces unemployment. We also do not argue that we should be ignoring government deficits; the question is not whether we should deal with government deficits but how we should deal with them.
This government says the way we deal with government deficits is by cutting. We believe what is needed is an aggressive approach by the government to try to get the economy going again so we then do not have the heavy demands on the public sector that unemployment produces, such as the welfare payments that are draining and are an unproductive expenditure of public sector funds.
We need an approach that will deal with the structural problems in our economy, which we have talked about many times in the past; that is the lack of research and development and the high foreign ownership in the economy that has been advocated by Liberals since the Second World War, ever since C. D. Howe. We believe those actions must be taken if we are to deal with our economy.
9:30 p.m.
My leader has put forward a very positive program for dealing with our economic problems as an alternative to this short-sighted approach by the Liberals and Conservatives. We believe we should be creating and protecting jobs. I will not list all the measures he has proposed but a number are of particular interest to me and I want to deal with them very briefly.
We believe we should be dealing with the housing crisis and creating jobs by producing far more rental units than this government is even interested in looking at. We are interested in retrofitting to produce energy conservation and in using local public works to produce jobs in the short term.
In the long term we believe we should be moving aggressively to develop the machinery industry and import replacement. We have talked at length about the need to develop secondary manufacturing in our part of the province. I wish the member for Cochrane North would deal with that, rather than talking about a jet that is not even produced anywhere near northern Ontario.
Mr. Boudria: We need the air ambulance.
Mr. Wildman: That is what he calls it.
Unless we deal with interest rates, we are never going to be able to turn the economy around. Other provinces and other governments, no matter what their political stripe, have dealt with the problem. Other Conservative governments have provided interest rate assistance for their residents, not only to deal with the problems being faced by home owners, businessmen and farmers but also to stimulate the housing industry and to provide jobs. If it can be done in other Conservative provinces, why can it not be done in Ontario?
Obviously our farm community needs assistance, as does our small business sector, but the current economic policies being followed in Ottawa will just continue the cycle of bankruptcies and layoffs unless this government takes up the slack.
We believe we should be increasing, rather than limiting, the purchasing power of the people of the province. One way we could do this would be by rolling back the unfair tax increases that are taking money out of the pockets of the people -- the sales tax increases and the ad valorem tax on gasoline. Obviously this would hurt the government's revenue picture, but we believe a more equitable approach would be to tax people with taxable incomes of more than $40,000 rather than limiting wages. This would increase the revenue available to this government to deal with the economic problems in the near future.
We believe we should be fighting inflation in those areas that hurt ordinary families the most. We should be dealing with energy costs, such as hydro, home heating oil and gasoline prices. We should be dealing with rents and supermarket food prices. Most of all, we should be dealing with health costs and other kinds of insurance. We in this party are committed to banning extra billing by the doctors, and we believe this government should be taking action in the automobile and home insurance fields. We believe that cutting back public sector wages will do nothing to deal with these commodities and the inflationary pressures that ordinary families are experiencing.
I started this presentation by pointing out what I see as the most unfortunate similarities between the situation in Poland and what is happening here. I believe that this program, which is supported by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, is a serious blow to economic democracy. The already limited ability of working people to exercise control over their lives is being further limited by this government and by the government in Ottawa.
Mr. Shymko: What about the government of Quebec, your Socialist friends? Would you accuse them of the same thing?
Mr. Philip: You call the Quebec government Socialist?
Mr. Wildman: They are not Socialists. I wonder whether the member for High Park- Swansea (Mr. Shymko) has looked under his bed lately. He may find a Socialist there.
Mr. Shymko: Why don't you take a better look at the government in Quebec?
Mr. Wildman: We know who is Socialist in this House. The honourable member cannot tell the difference between a Communist and a Socialist, much less --
Mr. Shymko: You're the one who can't tell the difference.
Mr. Wildman: I know that a true Socialist does not limit the rights of workers.
Mr. Shymko: You are insulting this society, this country, your own colleagues and all the members sitting here by making that stupid comparison.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, surely my colleague has the floor.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is correct. The member for Algoma has the floor.
Mr. Wildman: I understand the genuine emotion that is being expressed by the member for High Park-Swansea, and I do not want to denigrate that in any way. As I said earlier, I recognize that the member did not hear the first part of my speech, in which I dealt very carefully with what I saw to be the differences as well as the unfortunate similarities.
[Interruption].
The Deputy Speaker: We have an interjection from the galleries. I would hate to have to clear the galleries because of one person's interjection.
Mr. Wildman: I will accept the comments of the member for High Park-Swansea in the sincere, although I think mistaken, way he makes them. I really believe we should deal with what is happening here in Ontario and in Canada, and I challenge the member for High Park-Swansea, or any other member of the Conservative or Liberal parties, to argue that what we are doing here is not denying the basic democratic rights of the public sector workers in this province.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, there's a stranger in the House.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, there is somebody in a white sweater making a noise in the gallery. I think he should be ejected.
The Deputy Speaker: This has to be the first time a member in the public gallery has caused more disruption than guests in the gallery.
Mr. Bradley: He's practising for after the next election.
Mr. Boudria: Are you joining your leader?
Mr. Philip: No. But on November 8, he's joining us.
Mr. Boudria: Don't be too sure. He may come in third.
Mr. Breaugh: Bet all your money on that Nunziata guy. Sell the farm.
Mr. Philip: You can't plough anyway --
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, they are interrupting.
The Deputy Speaker: I see that; your own colleagues too.
Mr. Wildman: I want to make clear that, as a Socialist, I am not opposed to economic controls in principle. However, as has been said by many people, it is most unfair and discriminatory to put wage controls on one sector of workers while not doing it for others.
It is also most discriminatory and unfair to put wage controls even on all sectors of workers when we do not control prices. What is most tragic about it is that it will not work. Not only is it unfair and discriminatory, but also it will not work. A pragmatist might say, "I don't care about the principle; I am going to do it because it will work." But it will not.
We are treading on very dangerous ground when we say we will deny the democratic rights of certain workers for whatever end. I call upon the government and the Liberal Party to consider very carefully what they are doing, perhaps to re-read the debate in December 1981, and to say that we must protect the democratic and economic rights of all workers, of all people in our province, and not to do as was suggested by the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), to deny those rights because somehow that is going to help the tax figures.
9:40 p.m.
I believe we must defend those rights. That is why this party is categorically opposed to this legislation and will not support it. We will not use the kind of convoluted arguments that have been used by those on our right in saying they support it but do not support it. We are quite clear: We are against this legislation. We think it is morally and ethically wrong. We also think it is wrong because it will not be effective.
Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on Bill 179, an act to restrain inflation. I want to introduce perhaps another perspective on the restraint program. I know those of my colleagues who have spoken have given many different sides of this issue.
I want to speak on two themes tonight. First, I wish to support and promote support of the restraint program, as it is supported by the rank and file out there in our constituencies. Second, I want to speak on the philosophical boost that the restraint program will provide to the economy of our province and, indeed, of our country.
First of all, the rank-and-file support is out there and is growing. The riding of Cambridge, as I think everyone here realizes, is particularly hard hit by unemployment, which is in the range of 20.5 to 21 per cent. Those who are unemployed out there certainly are concerned about the inflation problem. Among those who know so well the painful realities of the recession there is very broad support for this program.
Our friends across the floor, the Socialists, mentioned the support they have. They are opposed to this program. But when they bring out the different segments of this program that they are opposed to, I wish they would have the opportunity to talk to some of the people I have talked to.
For instance, Mr. Kellar, who called me on Monday morning just before I left the office to come down here to Toronto, said his only complaint about the restraint program was that it does not go far enough; he said there should be no increase at all. He is a mechanic, he has been out of work for 24 months and he is unable to get any work. He is concerned about restraints and inflation. He feels there definitely should be no increase allowed to anybody employed in the public sector.
I cannot agree with that. I believe we have to treat the public sector just as fairly as we possibly can, but this is one area over which we as employers do have some control. We can show restraint to the private sector by imposing this sort of program on the public service. After all, the five per cent program is only for one year in most cases; in some cases, certainly, it extends beyond a year, but for most public sector employees it is just for a year.
I had the opportunity to speak on Tuesday night to the Kinsmen's Club of Preston. A number of those very young guys are involved in business and some of them are working in the labour force as blue-collar workers, some as white-collar workers. There was a whole spectrum there -- there were even public sector employees there -- but there was not one dissenting voice in the hour and a half I spent with them. They all felt it was a necessary program to show some leadership, and they were pleased our government is showing that leadership.
Mr. Wrye: What leadership? What about jobs?
Mr. Barlow: Jobs? We are getting to the jobs.
Mr. Wrye: When?
Mr. Barlow: Allen-Bradley Canada Ltd. in Cambridge, one of our major employers, sent me a telegram on the morning of Tuesday, September 21, when the program was announced, and I will read it: "The executive of Allen-Bradley Canada Ltd. commends you on your stand and heartily endorses your courageous action in imposing the restraint program. Be assured that we will support the formula on a voluntary basis."
Mr. Bradley: I guess so.
Mr. Grande: How much does he earn?
Mr. Barlow: It is a company, a corporation. It is a corporation that has people on short time; it has a work-sharing program. Its employees would be glad to be at work earning their regular salaries. They are not looking for an increase; they are looking for weekly salaries.
It is rather ironic that there are some 500,000 people unemployed in Ontario at present. There is an equal number who are after --
Mr. Wrye: And that's your government: 500,000.
Mr. Barlow: I thought the honourable member was supporting this.
I am sure any of the unemployed would be glad to take over some of the public sector jobs if the public sector employees chose not to use them.
I said I had two points. The philosophical boost that I feel can come out of this program is twofold. It can be divided in two. One would be the restraint that will trickle through the inflation program directly by limiting government expenditures and prices. A second point for the short term would be restraint; it would also lessen the tax burden. Simply put, that would mean restraint implies that fewer expenditures mean less money to raise. At the same time, that would mean in effect taxes would be lowered; so there is a tax-lowering incentive here in this program.
Other indirect effects will result from the program of restraint. These are more subtle and longer-term in nature. Restraint will break the stranglehold that inflationary expectations has on our economy at present.
The perception of a combined and continuing inflation must be purged if this decline is to be dramatic and permanent. I point out that restraint will also strengthen the confidence of the economy of Ontario. To members of the business community, this means they will be able to retain some profits if they can hold back on the demands of their employees.
I am sure the employees in the private sector are willing to go along with this overall restraint program. They realize work is not there at present. We are going through a very trying period; they know it. This will create jobs.
Mr. Cooke: How will it create jobs?
Mr. Barlow: It is going to retain jobs, and the honourable member knows it is. It is going to retain jobs in the private sector. It is going to retain jobs in the public sector.
In effect, the government must deal with the reality of inflation as well as its image. It is through these longer-term effects that inflation's persistence will be successfully challenged.
I have a few notes on jobs.
Mr. Cooke: Let's hear them.
Mr. Barlow: The member knows as well as I do that this government in its budget of May 1982 built in some $171 million for short-term job creation programs. We have done this in the following ways. I know that members over there know, but I think I should read it into the record. I think people should be aware of the programs that have been going on and that are going on at the present time.
9:50 p.m.
There is $10 million to help the universities and colleges with repairs and capital expenditures on their buildings and plants, in order to create jobs. These are jobs that were required but they were brought on stream now to assist the unemployment problem we have facing us today in Ontario.
The farm improvement program: $11 million.
Mr. Breaugh: How many jobs there?
Mr. Barlow: I am talking dollars; the member knows the figures on the jobs. For the co-operative employment fund, $15 million; and $35 million to local governments to assist them. Cambridge received $65,000. There were $35 million for the local governments. For road projects: $60 million to advance some of the programs involving our highways and byways in this fine province.
[Interruption].
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I would ask the guards to please clear all the galleries.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I am going to ask for all the galleries to he cleared right now.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have had this recurring problem of disturbances in the gallery. There is not a member here who would argue with the right of the Speaker to maintain order. But surely there is a distinction to be made between maintaining order and clearing all the galleries and I do wish he would take that into consideration.
The Deputy Speaker: I want to point out to the honourable member that indeed over the evening what has been taking place is that a few people leave and, as they leave, they make comments. Of course everyone looks at that on the basis that, well, the people who are leaving are making comments, so it is all right. But it would seem to me that there was some kind of plan or approach for certain groups to be leaving, and as they leave they shout out comments to the gallery. That was my approach on the matter.
Mr. Breaugh: Briefly on the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: There is a right for the public to attend this parliament and to watch --
lnterjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oshawa has the floor.
Mr. Breaugh: I am not making an argument about the fact there is a precedent around here that the public in the gallery are requested not to make any demonstrations of any kind. I have no argument that when a demonstration occurs, the security guards, under the instructions of the Speaker, will solve that problem. My objection is to have the Speaker, the guards and anybody else presume that because one person says something in the gallery, all the galleries should be cleared. I really think that is unfair and uncalled for. It is unnecessary in creating a problem that is not there.
Mr. Speaker, you just said you thought there was some great plot, that as they leave, they would say things. I think that is an unfortunate assumption for you to make. I would suggest you do not have a lot of grounds for that.
Just to sum up, Mr. Speaker, there is not a member in here who objects to quelling a disturbance in the galleries. That is just fine by every member here, but I have to put on the record that I personally take great exception to the notion that everybody has to leave because one person or two or three people do something they should not do. I think that is clearly wrong.
Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I will continue by saying that there are a number of programs in effect to help stimulate and create jobs in this province. It is a commitment of our government to get Ontario back to work, to get the unemployed back to work. I think it is necessary and this is one small piece of legislation that is going to assist in that long-term move. I am convinced the restraint program will get Ontario back to work.
Now I would just like to sum up by --
Interjection.
Mr. Barlow: Well, as I said, I will sum up; just listen to this if you did not hear the first part.
The rank and file of this province, not the militant people we have heard -- I am certainly not putting all the public employees in one sector; there is no question about that. There are only a very few who cause the problems in any segment of society, but the citizens out there who are unemployed and the ones who are employed and facing a winter of not knowing whether they are going to be working for the whole winter, those people are willing to back this restraint program in any way they possibly can, so that in the short and long term we are going to find dwindling inflation, lower taxes and a strengthened confidence in Ontario's economy.
As representatives of a citizenry facing an economic crisis we must support this program by analysing the sizeable achievements we can make and articulating them to the province, which welcomes leadership. Our government has shown this leadership and will continue to work on behalf of a recovery that is both attainable and close at hand.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo --
Mr. Epp: Waterloo North; as you see, Mr. Speaker, I am from the north, too.
Hon. Mr. Baetz: That's right.
Mr. Epp: The minister knows where Waterloo is. He was born there, was he not? His father was a great Lutheran minister.
Interjection.
Mr. Epp: He loves to come to Waterloo, because the air is fresh, the crops are green, the grass is cut and the trees are trimmed.
Hon. Mr. Norton: That is because the Minister of the Environment is doing such a good job.
Mr. Epp: Except in Elmira, where we have Uniroyal and where the Ministry of the Environment is not doing its bit. Is that not right? Uniroyal is trying to do its darnedest, but the ministry keeps on interfering.
The Deputy Speaker: You have not even mentioned Bill 179 yet.
Mr. Epp: Now that you mention it, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to address my remarks to Bill 179, otherwise known as An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province. That is the short title.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our party supports this bill in principle, but we obviously have serious reservations, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has indicated from time to time.
The program is inequitable in many instances. The wage restraints apply only to those employed in the public sector. We believe, and it has been emphasized a number of times, that in order to have some kind of equity in the province and in the country this principle should be applied right across the board; we should not limit it only to the public sector.
We also believe that because wage increases are limited to only five per cent for all public-sector employees, those at the lower end of the income scale -- mostly women, but also men; those people serving as clerks and secretaries -- will no doubt be hit harder by these restraints than those in the upper wage strata. In other words, somebody who gets $70,000 or $80,000 in the provincial civil service and receives a five per cent increase obviously is not going to feel the pinch in the way the person who is making $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 is. In fact, the increase that some people in the upper strata will receive is almost equal to the total salary received by the people in the lower levels. Therefore, it is not fair.
It would be far more equitable for us to adopt some kind of system, such as they have adopted, for instance, in British Columbia, where there is a sliding scale. We know that in Ontario the merit increase allowance is going to be affected. It would be much more equitable for our public employees to adopt the kind of system there is in BC; that is the sliding scale.
Another major problem we are concerned with in the restraint program has to do with prices in the private sector which are not subject to controls. As the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) pointed out so eloquently, or not so eloquently, just a few days ago, the corporate profits were down 10.5 per cent in 1981 and down 50.1 per cent in the first quarter of 1982. That is a tremendous decrease for the corporate profits. I would assume the prices are going to be affected. The corporations are going to have to raise prices in order to recoup some of the losses they are going to suffer.
10 p.m.
If these corporations want to maintain their shareholder confidence then the prices are going to have to go up. Given the enormity of corporate losses, one could assume with a great degree of certainty that prices will have to be raised at a level significantly greater than five per cent. While wage settlements in the private sector may be lower than they have been traditionally, they will have to keep pace with the price levels and therefore will aid in keeping the rate of inflation above five per cent.
By keeping the rate of inflation above five per cent, the people who only receive five per cent, plus the extra load by jumping into another tax bracket with that five per cent, may end up by receiving only an increase of four per cent. With inflation running at around 10.5 per cent or thereabouts, and even if it decreases to seven per cent or eight per cent, they may be very close to five per cent below inflation. That is not fair to the public sector. The public sector workers, who have their wages controlled, will experience a decrease in their real disposable income and their purchasing power.
Given the short duration of the restraint program, and that is only one year, it is highly probable that public sector workers who would see their real disposable incomes decline under controls would, once the controls are lifted, try a catch-up program, as happened in 1975, 1976, and 1977. After earlier controls came off there was a real catch-up program. We are not arguing with the fact that they tried to do it; we all try to do it. We try to do it here in the public sector too; we try to arrange for some kind of catch-up program. If we have a restraint program for only one year, we are going to be right back into the inflationary spiral after one year if nothing is done in order to plan for the post-restraint program.
As the municipal critic on this side of the House, I feel a greater sensitivity to the impact of this particular program on municipalities and their planning for the coming year. On September 23, 1982, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) stated about the municipalities: "I indicated clearly that the number of dollars that were given to them a year ago would continue to flow to them, but any increases would be very marginal, if any."
At the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at the Royal York Hotel on August 24, his text indicated that he was not going to contemplate any increases for municipalities, not even three per cent, four per cent or five per cent. Then when he actually read his text, he digressed and, in fact, indicated that there might be marginal increases. I am not sure whether it was that he could not read very well -- in fairness, I am sure he can -- but I guess in order to soften the blow at the last minute he said, "There might be a few increases."
I am not sure whether he is playing games or whether he is not. I know that sometimes the government tries to indicate very strongly that there is not going to be any increase and then, of course, at the last minute it gives an increase. So the municipalities will say: "That is great, the government gave us something after they indicated they were not going to."
I would assume the province intends to limit municipal grants to a maximum of five per cent. I do not imagine they will give any more than five per cent. This is especially worrisome when one considers that many of the costs municipalities now face are uncontrollable. For example, the Treasurer has indicated that Ontario health insurance plan premiums will not be subject to the five per cent increase restraint. Given that doctors' incomes are not restrained either, it is a fair assumption that OHIP premiums will rise somewhat in accordance with the increases in doctor's fees, which are slated to increase well above five per cent if we accept the agreement that was reached earlier this year.
As the members are aware, the majority of municipalities across Ontario pay all or part of OHIP premiums for their employees. Therefore, if OHIP premiums increase at a rate greater than the grant increases given to municipalities, this will place additional burdens on the budgeting and on the financial situation of municipalities.
Another cost crisis facing municipalities is the ever increasing welfare roll. Indeed, the Treasurer pointed out this problem in his statement last Tuesday. Most members are aware that many municipalities across Ontario have already exhausted their welfare budgets for the 1982 fiscal year. Many more can be expected to exceed their welfare budgets as another 500,000 employable unemployed are expected to exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits and be added to the already burgeoning welfare rolls of this province.
It is imperative, therefore, that the government not only guarantees to meet its portion of the welfare costs, but also that it gives municipalities the money they need to meet their growing welfare needs. This is a very important sector. I know where the province is paying only about 80 per cent of these costs it is going to have to give some additional moneys to the municipalities, particularly the large urban municipalities in this province which are suffering.
I know my own municipality of Waterloo region, where welfare is under the regional jurisdiction as it is in other regions, is suffering badly because of the increased number of people on welfare and the lack of assistance by the province.
If these uncontrollable costs are not reflected in municipal grants these governments will be faced with a hard decision of either cutting services or increasing user fees. For example, in public transit, these fees are going to have to be increased if they want to keep a balanced budget.
As the members know, municipalities have to have a balanced budget. Unlike the province, and for that matter the federal government, which continually have excessive costs and run up high deficit budgets, municipal governments cannot budget for deficits. Such action would be harder on the elderly and lower income individuals who traditionally are heavy users of public transit.
Municipalities could raise taxes, an action which could have harmful effects. For the worker whose wages are subject to the restraint program, an increase in taxes above five per cent would mean a decrease in his or her real disposable income. Again, this could lead to a drop in consumer consumption patterns, thereby leading to a decreased demand which translates into production cuts and layoffs.
Certainly, I am glad the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), was not in charge of putting out this restraint program because we know when he puts out a brochure it is the glossiest brochure that was ever produced in Ontario, and some get pretty glossy.
I notice the Treasurer exercised a little restraint with this brochure, which just about fell apart; I had to staple it together. We should be grateful for small blessings, and I suppose one would be the fact the Minister of Health is not Treasurer of this province, because his restraint might apply to other people but it certainly would not apply to himself and to his publications.
In conclusion, I would like to echo the call of my leader to ask the government to plough the savings from the restraint program back into the economy to spur the creation of jobs which are so clearly needed. As I have mentioned, an obvious weakness in the restraint program is it may very well lose jobs. Therefore, it is imperative the government establishes significant job creation programs.
I would also hope that if voluntary restraint compliance from the private sector does not occur, the government will swiftly act to implement across-the-board wage and price controls for the private sector as well. Ontario as the major producing province is able to exercise such control.
10:10 p.m.
Such action can only lead to the adoption of similar controls across Canada. Other provinces would adopt controls in order to protect their competitive position. We have waited three long months for this small first step in the fight against inflation. The fight must not stop, and must not be delayed any longer.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill and I trust you will bear with me if the speech is a little less lengthy than that of some of my colleagues. I somehow suspected the opposite side would cope with it rather well.
In speaking on this bill, I want to say some things in candor, and if the tone is a little more reflective than pugnacious I trust members will accommodate themselves to that as well.
In a personal vein I speak as someone who did not fully agree with my party's stand in 1974 at the federal level, when they were opposed to the idea of wage and price controls. I was one of those Canadians who said that on a short-term basis it was worth a try, and did support it. I did not support the idea of a three-year term for the wage and price controls, but with the inflation situation we had it was worth a try. I emphasize that was 1974.
I am also very aware of the current Gallup polls. It is a simple fact of political life that the controls are popular, whether one looks at the Gallup poll or at Allan Gregg in Decima Research Ltd. We know the general mood out there is one of great anxiety and people are looking for a simple solution or a simple fix to the overall economic problems we are facing.
I will be candid. In my own riding last spring I did a survey and we had a record response to the questionnaire. In fact we had more than 1,800 replies. On one of the questions on that questionnaire, anticipating the advent and imposition of wage and/or price controls, the response was two to one in favour, which did not surprise me but was rather overwhelming nevertheless. I have included another question in the fall questionnaire, being interested in comparing the results. There the question is, "Are you in favour of wage controls if there are no controls on prices and interest rates?" and we will see if the same majority holds.
It does create within me a certain ambivalence, because I realize I am not in sync with the views of my constituents on this matter. I just felt I could not go along with something I did not believe in. I am aware of the need for restraint today, on government budgets as well as other budgets. When one has a serious recession such as we have, inevitably one will have a shortfall in government revenues and that is a serious problem. I am not one of those who would suggest that simple blind spending is the solution to every problem that we face today. I realize there is no simple solution to the economic recession we are facing. I do not think any political party would advocate there is a simple solution to it.
I realize there is a tremendous amount of scepticism among the taxpayers, probably aggravated by a growing sense of pessimism, and in some cases outright defeatism and resignation that none of us can solve. None of us politicians have the answer for it. I realize there is a growing feeling among people in that respect, and that affects this party and both the other parties in this House and any party in Canada -- the Western Canada Concept in Alberta or any other new party on the scene in any province.
I am also very aware of the reality that civil servants are not very popular in society. I realize they are a very easy scapegoat for society's ills, especially in a time of anxiety such as we are facing now. I realize there is a general feeling that public service employees, especially the ones traditionally called civil servants, have a job for life if they want it. People in the private sector somehow resent it when they know their jobs are in jeopardy or they see their colleagues and friends being laid off or put in jeopardy. I do not like this resentment towards civil servants by people in the private sector, but it is a fact of life and I would be a liar if I said it was not out there.
In speaking on this bill I would like to put it in the context of my own views as a member of the Legislature and representative for the riding of Cornwall. They are not the result of anybody lobbying me -- any interest group, any union, any individual. These are conclusions I have arrived at and do not represent the result of being swayed by any one interest group in society. As a member I think I would be able to rise above that, if that were to be the case.
If we look at 1982 it has been a difficult year in this province and in every other province. Let us look at the ordinary people of the province and go back a few months to see what they have been facing this year. The first blow to the average person was last spring's budget. It was a pretty tough budget for a lot of people. It cost between $150 and $300, depending on whether or not they paid their Ontario health insurance plan direct. They faced the prospect of higher OHIP fees, which are coming into effect, higher taxes, extending the sales tax and a variety of provincial fees being increased. That was the first blow.
It was followed, in May I believe it was, by the MacEachen budget, which again for the average family in Ontario meant they lost another $100 to $120 in purchasing power as a result of some of the tax changes.
The figures from Statistics Canada comparing prices this summer with the previous summer is the third major blow to the average person in the province. Mortgage costs, compared with a year ago, are up 23.9 per cent; gasoline prices 18.9; car insurance 30.2; transit fares at the local level on average 22.6: and energy prices 17.6.
Another blow faced by many people living in this province in 1982 has been the record number of layoffs, plant closures and bankruptcies. In my own riding since we adjourned in July we have been faced with two layoffs and the announcement of a third one. Two are in the textile industry and one in the building construction business.
We had all sorts of temporary closures, shutdowns and layoffs that do not make the newspapers but are facts of life. I think that is represented in the figures released in August when we had a 52 per cent increase in the number of welfare recipients in the employable category.
I want to take this opportunity, not in a purely partisan vein, to congratulate the member for Scarborough West (R. F. Johnston) for what he has done in the past month. I think more than anyone else in this House he has been able to dramatize what it is like for people in this province to have to live on welfare. He has made a tremendous contribution to fighting the old game of welfare bashing that some politicians love. If there is one group in society that should not be bashed around it is these people, probably the most unfortunate in society. We all know there are people who abuse it, just as we all know that people at the top abuse the tax system opening.
If we look at the context of this bill, we are talking about 600,000 people being unemployed, rising unemployment in virtually every community in the province -- eastern Ontario, central Ontario, southwestern Ontario, northern Ontario. Times are tough, in pure and simple language, and everyone here knows it.
As a member of the opposition I have to confess I am a little bit surprised to see that a government that calls itself Conservative would intervene in the economy to the extent this bill represents. I suppose I should not be surprised; I should be accustomed to that fact, because since 1971 it has had a consistent record of deficit financing, which is kind of odd for a government calling itself Conservative. It has expanded the number of crown corporations in the province and virtually every year it is expanding that number by creating at least one, if not more than one, new crown corporation.
We all know about the $600-million investment in Suncor. We all know about the Trillium adventure -- Captain Malcolm and his crew. We all know this Conservative government -- rather ironically, as I love to engage in dialogue with my colleague the member from London North (Mr. Van Horne) on a Conservative government -- perpetuates rent controls. Now we have this. No wonder people say there is no Conservative Party left in Ontario.
I had a rather interesting conversation last weekend with a gentleman who will go unnamed, a former member of the Frost cabinet, who just happened to be visiting our community on the weekend. We discussed the moves of the Davis government. He agreed with me that it is rather hard to find a Conservative streak in the recent announcements of policies being followed by this government.
Mr. Piché: What is his name?
Mr. Samis: No names given. That was a condition. Long before the member's time anyway.
10:20 p.m.
Not only does this government seem to be going way beyond the traditional bounds, norms and values of the Conservative philosophy they pay lip service to at election time, they even seem to be going beyond the federal government and the federal Liberals. They are advocating controls on wages just for civil servants. This government wants to go one step beyond that and impose them for the private sector and for upwards of two years, if possible.
I would think it would be kind of hard for a small-c conservative, who reads how actively Keith Davey has propagated this program and how he has cynically manipulated it for maximum political benefit, to think this is a purely economic program to deal with a purely economic situation. If you read the article in Maclean's magazine of August 16 -- I thought they had a fairly interesting article called "Chairman Keith's Big Red Book" not Chairman Keith from you know where, but the real Chairman Keith in Ottawa, the senator -- it says:
"Each book contains a four-page political game plan written by Liberal Senator Keith Davey, with mock questions and answers, a model speech, a model letter to fellow Liberals and a list of community opinion leaders recommending the MPs as people to be wooed throughout the summer. The Davey memo declares the six per cent solution will save the economy, so it must be explored by every Liberal to rescue the beleaguered party. The senator announces the party is now on a campaign footing."
That makes one wonder about the origins of six and five -- whether it is economic or whether it serves some other interest related to the Gallup poll standings for the past six months across the country. In the article they have some interesting quotes from Chairman Keith's big red book. He says:
"In fact the government has opted for some political hardball, therefore it must work. It will work if the posture is one of firmness in these times of crisis. Credibility will be reinforced over and over again each time the six and five line is held. Each rollback or cabinet decision will reinforce the vital impression there is a firm hand on the tiller and the economy is being managed.
"Notwithstanding all the efforts of the government, however, if the program is not reinforced on the political side, the Liberal Party will not reap the maximum benefit. The key is to sustain the momentum of one theme well into the fall. We must create the impression of economic progress, i.e., the budget is working."
That makes one wonder. If I were a Conservative in Ontario, reading some of these other quotes here as to how Chairman Keith is manipulating this whole thing for political and partisan political benefit, would I want my province and my government jumping in bed with Senator Keith Davey and what he is up to?
It is interesting that a Conservative government that is frequently critical of the federal government for intervening too often in the economy is going well beyond whatever Marc Lalonde wants, who very clearly said no to the idea of controls being extended to the private sector. Big businesses have made it very clear, whether the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the chamber of commerce, that they are opposed to extending controls to the private sector.
Somehow in Ontario we have a government that wants to go beyond Pierre Trudeau, Marc Lalonde and the business community and impose not only public sector controls but private controls at the same time. It really makes one wonder. I am not surprised that we would see in a Toronto Star story several weeks ago, "Tory Blasts Private Sector Curbs" and refers to Mike Wilson the Conservative finance critic. He says:
"The problem is not in the private sector, it is in the public sector. To impose a program of across-the-board controls in the private sector reduces its capacity on that side of the economy to pull us out of a recession. The last thing government should be doing is holding back the private sector when so many companies are already in positions of lost profits or low profits."
This is the Conservative Finance critic, the potential Minister of Finance for Canada, and he is saying he does not want to have anything to do with private sector controls. I presume Joe Clark agrees with him -- but not the government of Ontario, not the Premier. They want to go beyond the Conservative Party at the national level. I would suggest that is quite a feat to have a Conservative Party that wants to go beyond Pierre Trudeau, Marc Lalonde, Michael Wilson and Joe Clark.
We are supposed to be the party that is always intervening in the economy, always interfering with the private sector. I would dare say my good friend the cabinet minister must really be wondering: "What next in Ontario? What does 1983 hold for us?"
Mr. McClellan: Let alone 1984.
Mr. Samis: And 1984 is not far away.
Interjections.
Mr. Samis: I am sure the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) is looking forward to 1984 with great anticipation, as we are on this side.
Mr. Speaker, in the few remaining moments of the debate I want to begin with some of the reasons I am opposed to this bill. First of all I pointed out at the beginning that in 1974 I was not opposed to the introduction of modified wage and price controls. Let us compare the situations in 1974 and 1982. In 1974 we were talking about inflation rates of approximately 11 per cent. The unemployment rate was 6.3 per cent, wage settlements were well above the inflation rate and I think most people would agree that a clear-cut inflation psychology was permeating both the public and the private sector.
Compare that with 1982. Inflation is now 10.6 per cent and declining. If I am not mistaken, there was an article in the Toronto Star tonight about the Economic Council of Canada making their predictions for the next three years: on inflation they were predicting an average of 7.9 per cent for the period 1983 to 1985, and beyond 1985 they say we can look forward to an inflation rate in the general realm of 7.2 per cent.
So here is the prestigious economic council making predictions that inflation will soon be down to single digits long before six and five was imposed, long before this program was ever dreamed up. So the situation is clearly that inflation is going down in Canada; it was going down a year ago. In July 1981 the official inflation rate hit the magic figure of 13 per cent, double-digit inflation. I wonder where the government was then when we had double-digit inflation at 13 per cent.
Most economists are predicting that we will be below the 10 per cent figure by the end of the year or early in the new year, and most of them are predicting, along with the economic council, that it is going to stay in single-digit figures for the next two to three years. Whereas in 1974 there was an unemployment rate of 6.3 per cent, we are talking today of more than 12 per cent, and in real terms it is probably much closer to 15 per cent. In other words it is double what it was in 1974.
In summary, in 1982 we have a situation where inflation is going down, not up. It was going down before six and five was introduced; it was going down before the five per cent solution was introduced. We have unemployment at a record level in 1982 -- record layoffs, record bankruptcies -- and we have a general mood of pessimism and retrenchment, not of expansionism, not of greed and not of people getting more and more.
Jean-Luc Pépin, I think, was very forthright, although he got his knuckles rapped, when he said the federal six and five program would mean more unemployment. It is a fact of life: six and five does mean more unemployment. He did not deny he said it; he just said, "I am sorry I said it, but it is a fact of life." And he got reprimanded.
So we also know that with six and five and more unemployment we will have more unemployment insurance costs and more welfare costs. I would also argue that the recession itself, the mere fact of the depth of this recession -- the layoffs, the bankruptcies, the lack of consumer confidence, the high interest rates, the high unemployment, the general lack of investor confidence in the future -- all those factors serve as the single most effective, most potent anti-inflation force in our society today, not the government of Ontario, not the government of Canada. It is a simple economic fact that we are in the worst recession since the 1930s, and that is the single greatest anti-inflation force in our society today, sadly but truly.
Inflation, I emphasize, started to decline before six and five, it would have continued to decline without six and five and it will continue to decline without six and five or without the five per cent solution.
Mr. Speaker, I think maybe I will stop there.
On motion by Mr. Samis, the debate was adjourned.
ADMISSION TO GALLERIES
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, before the government House leader moves the adjournment of the House, I have a sense that the privileges of the House collectively, and my privileges particularly, have been infringed by the direction of the Speaker to clear the galleries.
I find that term an offensive term. I find it a term for which there is no reference in the standing orders. My sense, sir, is that you should, at the opening of the session tomorrow if at all possible, explain clearly to this House under what authority and by what right you as Speaker cleared the galleries as has happened on two occasions today. What are the rules which govern it and what governs you, sir, in making your decisions?
I have read with interest a number of times over the years, and particularly tonight, the provisions of our standing orders dealing with this question and I do not understand them or the procedures which you used. I would ask you, not only for my benefit but for the benefit of the whole House, to explain at the earliest possible moment what the process is by which you cleared the galleries of the House.
Mr. Speaker: If I may just comment on that, you asked me to have something for tomorrow. I was not planning to be here tomorrow and I might as well share that with you now. I would like to wait until the early part of next week, if I may.
Mr. Renwick: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the business of the House for the next several days will be continuing the resumed debate on Bill 179. We will debate the bill tomorrow morning, Monday afternoon, and Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening.
The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.