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.

The Deputy Speaker: In continuing the debate, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has the floor.

Mr. Breithaupt: With all his supporters, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, they may already be out starting to celebrate.

The members will recall that when I started speaking on Bill 179 I mentioned a number of reasons why this party was in strong, almost vehement opposition to the bill we had before us. One of those reasons was the unfairness of the bill. It is unfair in many ways. It is unfair because public servants are being singled out as the only ones who have restraint applied to their wages.

In fact, there is no restraint being applied to any other sector of the economy. The so-called control on prices is totally a façade. The public servants are being singled out because they are vulnerable, because the government wants to focus attention on them and because the government wants to pit them against the unemployed. Certainly they have done that in their speeches so far.

Secondly, we say this bill is extremely unfair because there are no comparable restrictions on such things as interest rates or, as I mentioned, on prices. It legislates the limits on the wages that can be paid to the public servants, but there are not even any criteria in the bill as to the amount of the price increases that are going to be permitted. There is certainly no freeze on prices. There has been such a contrast between that and the treatment of the public servants that it is an injustice which we in this party cannot tolerate.

As the members know, I dwelt at length this afternoon on the subject of prices and the need for some intervention in the matter of consumer prices. I pointed out that consumers were paying far too much in many areas; yet in the bill we have before us there is no effective means of controlling prices.

I also pointed out the injustice in that what little, if anything, is going to be done is limited strictly to a period of one year, no longer. The bill makes that clear. Yet when it comes to the salaries of public servants, it can be one year or, in many cases, two years, even up to three years, that the government is going to intervene and control the wages of those workers.

Specifically, this evening I want to mention the injustice to one group of workers with whom the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and I are very familiar; that is, the public health nurses. That in itself would be enough to make us vote against this bill, just that one item.

The public health nurses in the Niagara region have been on strike since last February. They went on strike to try to get salaries comparable with those paid in the other health units in the province. They were the lowest-paid public health nurses in any of the health units in Ontario. So they went on strike on May 3 to try to get parity; not to get up to the top but just to get up to the average salary being paid to public health nurses.

It is rather interesting that these public health nurses were not given the parity increase that was recommended by the Ministry of Health back on August 12, 1974. The member for St. Catharines and I have repeatedly raised the issue in this House, saying the Ministry of Health should intervene and see that they got some parity with other public health nurses. They said: "No. We keep our hands off. We leave that to bargaining between the health unit and the nurses' association local in that area."

Mr. Bradley: And the very enlightened chairman.

Mr. Swart: And the very enlightened chairman, yes. I have here a memo that was sent out from the Ministry of Health to the chairmen of boards of health and medical officers of health, entitled "Adjustments to the 1974 Budget." I will just quote one or two sections from this document:

"If and when health units have negotiated or established pay patterns for registered nurses based on, but not exceeding, the amounts and the time frame of the Ontario Nurses' Association agreement, they may then submit supplementary budgets to obtain additional cash flow. If an existing contract is reopened, the effective date will not be earlier than July 1, 1974."

Even this document from the ministry suggests they should reopen contracts to pay this additional amount to bring them up to the nurses in the hospitals.

It says: "Effective August 12, 1974, supplementary budgets for 1974 as requested in my May 3 letter and written submission requesting funds in respect of salary and wage commitments entered into after June 28 in accordance with ministry guidelines" -- the ministry guidelines incorporating parity with the nurses in the hospitals -- "will serve as the basis for the immediate modification to cash flow to catch up to 100 per cent of legitimate amounts requested by health units to meet commitments."

Here was an instance where the Ontario government in its more enlightened days offered to pay 100 per cent of the amount necessary for the public health nurses to get parity with the hospital workers.

8:10 p.m.

As I say, on numerous occasions this year in the House, especially since May 3, we have called on the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) to intervene. He said: "No. We keep hands off. That is a private matter. We are not going to get into that matter."

In fact, during this late summer the nurses had an offer of 12 per cent retroactive and three per cent, I believe it was, effective July 1, a 15 per cent increase. Even that would not have brought them up to the average of public health nurses; so they turned it down. Then on September 21 government legislation was tabled that said they shall get nine per cent back to February, and when that agreement comes up this February, they are going to get five per cent. So not only has it held them at the lowest level, but also it is increasing the gap between them and the average.

I just want to contrast that with what was done with Consumers' Gas Co., which got an increase last February that amounted to 32 per cent and increased their profit by 35 per cent from $102 million to $137 million. When the members of this party appealed that unreasonable and excessive increase on March 22, we heard nothing until five days before the restraint bill was tabled in this House. When that bill was going to be tabled, the government hurried to dismiss our appeal and confirmed their 32 per cent increase, which will increase their profit by 35 per cent for the year ending in October 1982, so it would not muddy the waters when the restraint bill was introduced.

What a contrast to what they do to the nurses and other public servants. They spring this bill on them when some of them are still in negotiation, when some have even made verbal commitments, and they say: "It doesn't matter what you have negotiated. You are going to get nine per cent for that and for the past period of time and five per cent when that contract comes up for renewal."

Mr. Cooke: No wonder Darcy McKeough is smiling.

Mr. Swart: No wonder Darcy McKeough is smiling. He talks about a 4.4 per cent increase when in reality he is asking for a 20 per cent increase in the amount of revenue he is going to get for the cost of distributing gas. What a horrible injustice this is to the workers and to the public employees. Of course, there is no question that it is a simple case of the government thinking it will get public support for some kind of wage restraint; they will bash the public servants because they think they can get away with it even better there than they can in the private sector.

That is why we have this bill before us, as all of my colleagues have said and as I have said in this House before. It is disgusting. It casts a horrible reflection on our public servants, as though they are less essential to our society than other servants. That is something that we in this party do not subscribe to. We say they are performing a useful service and they should be paid as well as the rest of the people in our society. We oppose it for that kind of unfairness. We oppose this bill because it has singled out 500,000 employees but makes no move to limit the other three or four million employees in the province.

The bill is unfair because even within this public category doctors are exempt. The most highly paid group of all, the group that has got the largest increases for the longest period of time, is exempt. For those who are going to get a $12,000 increase, the government makes no move to cut back on that increase; but to those who are getting a $1,500 increase, if they are above the $15,000 income and in the $15,000 to $25,000 range, where most of them fit, the government says, "We will take anything over the five per cent away from you."

Mr. Stokes: I wonder what the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) thinks of all this.

Mr. Swart: Yes, it would be interesting to know. I would like to be able to read the minds of some of those people over there.

Mr. Cooke: That's making one major assumption. You cannot read something that doesn't exist.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Come on over and have a chat.

Mr. Cooke: You should be speaking on this bill.

Mr. Swart: It would be interesting to read their minds, but I suspect we fairly accurately read the minds of the people over there. This is a political device. They know very well that it is not really going to do anything to resolve the problem of inflation, let alone the other major economic problems in our economy of unemployment and stagnation. It is not going to do anything for those, but they think it is good policy. This is a vulnerable group. They have to focus public resentment some place; so they focus it on the public servants, and that is the real reason for this legislation.

Mr. Stokes: They have security of tenure so they should suffer.

Mr. Swart: Yes; so they are the ones the government attacks.

Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock when we adjourned I was dealing with the issue of prices. I had not really finished at that time, and perhaps --

Mr. Stokes: More produce?

Mr. Swart: No. No more produce at this time. I want to deal a little bit with theory in the matter of prices. I have given many examples of unjustified price increases, some where the government already has the legislation to do something about them, and others where the government does not have the legislation but ought to have the legislation, whether it pertains to the price of milk or the cost of auto insurance or to a number of monopolies where the government should be appointing a public advocate to protect the consumer interest.

I pointed out the excessive prices that are being charged for a number of products -- I demonstrated those products in this House; I had those products here -- because there was inadequate competition to effectively control the prices of those products to the public. This government cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of having adequate competition laws.

While this bill is being debated, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who has not been in the House today and who, as I mentioned before, in a nine-minute speech never even mentioned prices, should make a statement that they have reversed their policy and are now going to join with the federal government or perhaps go further and push the federal government into enacting some adequate competition laws in this nation.

The present combines investigation legislation was passed in 1930, and there have been very few amendments since. The inadequacies of these laws were first brought to light when the federal government lost two important cases, one concerning the alleged sugar monopoly in British Columbia and one concerning the Canadian breweries, which controlled 60 per cent of beer sales. They lost those charges because they did not have adequate legislation.

It was not until 1971 that a new bill was introduced by the Liberals to replace the antiquated Combines Investigation Act, and the hue and cry that resulted from big business over the new bill caused the Liberals to promise to make changes in spite of the urgent need of protection for the consumer in the Canadian economy.

The Liberal government decided to approach the situation in two stages. Stage one concerned only consumer-related areas, such as prohibiting resale price maintenance, misleading advertising and labelling regulations. That stage was passed in 1975, and it has had some beneficial effects since that time; but it was not the important one.

Not until 1977 did the government introduce legislation in connection with the effects of big corporate mergers and price-fixing on Canadians. This was considerably watered down from the legislation presented at the beginning of the 1970s. With the constant barrage from big business and corporate lawyers, this new legislation fell by the wayside, not even making it past the first reading in the federal House.

8:20 p.m.

André Ouellet was made Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, recognizing the need and being pushed by his staff, who knew the weakness of the existing legislation even more than he did, he moved in to reform in what appeared to be a determined way. He recognized that our anti-combines legislation was totally ineffective compared to that legislation in the United States. The US law considers monopolies as inherently bad for the country. Even kids in the school in the United States learn about the Sherman antitrust laws and the trust-busters as part of the US tradition to keep competition.

Today, Canadians have been given no choice but to believe mergers are a way of life, but in the United States mergers can be annulled if prosecutors prove they tend to create a monopoly. For example, the US antitrust officials were able to threaten action against the US Abitibi operations when it appeared that Consolidated-Bathurst, a Canadian papermaker, was about to take over. Between them, they produce 30 per cent of the Canadian newsprint and could be large enough to control prices in the United States.

At the same time, Canadian officials could do nothing to prevent the merger unless it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the consumer would suffer. Under our laws, there has to be the intent to make the consumer suffer. It does not matter that one can prove a monopoly or that one can prove collusion; one has to prove the intent to make the consumer suffer under existing laws before one can get a conviction in our courts.

The US manufacturers know all too well that tied selling, exclusive dealing and market restriction practices can result in major law suits and enormous awards. In Canada, the opposite is the case; it would be thrown out of court. Here manufacturers may feel free to negotiate exclusive-dealing clauses, forced purchase requirements, territorial restrictions from their dealers and their distributors and they know that they will get away without any convictions, and probably without any charges being laid, because those who lay the charges realize it is so useless.

This is particularly true after the convictions of the three sugar refineries just two years ago, in April 1980, when they were fined $750,000 for collusion in setting uniform prices on sugar. They appealed to the Supreme Court and, although the judge indicated that there was no question there was collusion in the price-setting, he said it did not meet all the three criteria of the combines legislation and therefore he could not give a conviction and had to absolve them of their charges. They know in the United States that they cannot get away with it.

I have a newspaper clipping here from the Toronto Sun of August 26, 1982. It says: "AT and T" -- and we all know what that is; it is the biggest company in the United States -- "will never be the same again." The United Press International article states:

"The process of dismantling of American Telephone and Telegraph Company is under way -- a move that will reshape the US communications network and telephone service for every consumer.

"US District Judge Harold Greene Tuesday placed his stamp of approval on the agreement that opens the way for AT and T to spin off its 22 local operating companies within 18 months and for the first time to enter into lucrative new markets such as data processing. They may enter into those lucrative new markets in competition.

"Long distance rates" -- and we have some discussion here about telephone rates -- "are expected to remain stable or even drop because of the competition from AT and T's new rivals, such as MCI -- a long-distance phone lines competitor."

These things happen in the United States. I am no great admirer of the US economic system; in fact, the reverse is true. But at least they say, "If we are going to have private enterprise, there is going to be competition."

Mr. Stokes: Their Tide and their mayonnaise are cheaper too.

Mr. Swart: They sure are. It shows that competition is perhaps the best way to provide the best products at the cheapest price, even though it is no way to plan an economy and to solve unemployment. But we are not concerned about that in this province; and I am coming to that in a few minutes.

Mr. Ouellet in Ottawa got quite concerned about this issue, with his own people and the New Democratic Party pushing him for stronger legislation. He made some pretty strong statements after he became Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Talking about the new anti-combines legislation, he stated in an address to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce in March 1981: "Time is short, since we are witnessing a new outbreak in the area of mergers and acquisitions in the country. If this phenomenon should continue for another three or four years at the same pace, the control of the entire Canadian economy could be literally in the hands of six or seven."

That is Mr. Ouellet speaking, a federal Liberal cabinet minister; not a radical Socialist, but a man who has looked objectively at the situation and realized it was necessary to have much stronger anti-combines legislation.

He made many other statements along those lines, which I will not repeat here. I just want to point out that the corporations then stepped in and began to oppose once again what he was going to do. "Combines Amendment Seen as Major Intrusion: The vice-president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated that this is going to be the greatest intrusion into competition we have ever seen in this country."

I have many more such quotes which I could use, but what I want to mention, and perhaps use a quote or two about, is the intervention of the then Provincial Secretary for Justice and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), into this area. I presume that his friends in the corporate sector got in touch with him.

Beginning on Thursday, September 3, 1981, at the federal-provincial consumer affairs ministers' conference in Quebec City, he began a series of speeches in which he attacked the federal government viciously. He said, "We do not need this improved anti-combines legislation."

Some of the remarks are almost unbelievable and were contained in a 14-page statement he delivered. This is the kind of comment he made about the proposed anti-combines legislation:

"This policy will break the back and the spirit of Canadian business. We do not see a compelling need for substantial change in current combines legislation, nor do we consider a new competition policy to be a priority at this time. We" -- the Ontario government -- "fail to understand how numerical computation of market share can conclude that a company is acting or is likely to act against the public interests even if they have only 50 per cent of the market share. We cannot see how that is acting against the public interest" and so on.

He even stated in his speech that industry knows more about what the consumers want than does government and that government should keep its hands off this matter entirely. I do not want to take the time to do it, but I really should read all of his statement into the record to show the side that the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, speaking for the government of Ontario, took with regard to protection for the consumers, because that is what competition law is all about: protection for the consumers.

He came out solidly and became the most vigorous spokesman in Canada in opposition to the toughening of the anti-combines legislation and in echoing the words of the corporations in this country.

8:30 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Is that Gordon Walker?

Mr. Swart: That is who it is.

Mr. Stokes: What is he doing now?

Mr. Swart: He is now the Minister of Industry and Trade, if I remember correctly. They have moved him in with his friends.

Mr. Bradley: Did you check your donation list?

Mr. Swart: No, I do not need to check the donation list. One looks at the donation list to the Conservatives and they are all the same. They are from the corporations.

I would have liked to have taken time to read that whole thing into the record but I am not going to. My other colleagues in this party have given excellent speeches and have touched on the issue of competition. I am not sure there is any more important issue on consumer prices but I will let it go at that for the time being.

What I want to do is come back briefly to the speech of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), the man charged with responsibility for protecting the consumers, the man charged with administering the price section of this legislation we have before us.

Mr. Stokes: You might say he is the Conservatives' Walter Gordon.

Mr. Swart: No, I sure would not say he is the Conservatives' Walter Gordon.

Mr. Stokes: Donald Gordon.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps Donald Gordon; Walter Gordon has been one of the leading spokesmen in attacking high interest rates and advocating measures which really deal with some of the problems we face in our economy.

I want to mention the thrust of the minister's nine-minute speech in this Legislature. It had nothing to do with consumer prices; he ignored that totally. There was not one word about it.

He said, "I do not profess to be the world's authority on public policy measures one can look at, but as I see it there are three public policy measures one can look towards to deal with the problem of inflation and two of those have been in the forefront in this country for the past several years."

I should have stated that before that he makes this very significant statement: "As I see it, the key issue facing governments in this country is inflation. From it flow high interest rates; from it flow mortgage failures; from it flow bankruptcies; from it flows currency instability."

He states the problem facing us and the sole and only reason for the bill we have is to deal with inflation. We in this party fundamentally disagree with that.

Then he goes on to say when he talks about these measures: "The first is a restrictive monetary policy, which we have seen, with the limitation on flow of money with high interest rates. The second is a restrictive fiscal policy with government restraints and higher taxation to reduce the public's ability to purchase products.

"I think it would be no surprise to any of the members, and certainly it is not to me, that although the application of these principles has been varied from province to province and different parts of the country, I see no evidence that as a macroeconomic tool it is doing the job." He admits the high interest rates are not doing the job. He admits the restraint program, the fiscal policy of the Ontario government is not doing the job.

Then he says these significant words, "Therefore, as people who have to try and solve these public policy issues, we must look to the only third alternative we have and that is an incomes policy, a policy which endeavours through an incomes and prices control program to limit the upward income demands of people" -- replace that word with workers -- "and the upward prices we are paying for products." We can eliminate that last section because it does not have any meaning.

Here he says high interest rates did not solve the problem. Restraint did not solve the problem. We all know, he knows and everybody else knows, it is far worse now than it was before. Why would he not reverse those policies? Why would he not lower the interest rates? Why would he not abandon the restraint policy?

Instead of that, he goes to another measure which he knows is going to be totally ineffective and he says that is the reason the bill is here today, to address the issue of inflation and the things that flow from it.

When interest rates went up four or five years ago things were not too bad. If they had lowered them at that time the likelihood is we would never have been in the serious economic mess we are in today. In the same way, five or seven years ago, we did not have these restraint programs. If they had been implemented, once again, I bet we would not be in the difficult situation we are in today.

He said, in effect, that all economic problems are traced to inflation. Inflation is harmful. We agree that inflation can be harmful, but the minister has his philosophical blinkers on as to what is causing inflation. He only sees the chicken; he does not even see the egg in this whole equation.

If they really want to deal with economic problems, if they really want to deal with inflation, they should lower the interest rates. They should have been lowered long ago; they should be brought down now. It is not high wages that have caused the foreclosures on so many farms; it is not high wages that have caused the foreclosures on mortgages of home owners; it is not high wages that have caused the small business failures; it is not high wages that caused Massey-Ferguson to nearly go under; it is not high wages that have caused the people not to buy automobiles or not to buy homes; it is high interest rates.

Any government that wants to be serious about dealing with inflation problems and the economy would have lowered interest rates. That is what the federal Liberals should have done two, three, four years ago, and that is what the Conservatives over here should have been pushing to do instead of pushing for wage restraint.

The second greatest cause of inflation is our stagnant economy. This, I suggest, is really what we have to address. We have to address it through growth and development, through economic planning. This year we are going to be paying out $8 billion on unemployment insurance to people who would sooner be working. We are going to pay out an almost equal amount on welfare to people who would sooner be working.

When we look at the lost productivity, because our economy is running at only 68 per cent of capacity, when we compound all these things and put them into the end price, as they must go into the end price, that is the greatest cause of inflation second to interest rates.

If we want to produce goods and services cheaply, we must run at 100 or 95 per cent of capacity, not 65. That is what we should be addressing. After the interest rates, we should he addressing the issue of full employment. Instead of that, we have governments both here and in Ottawa that have addressed these problems in the only way they can without offending their corporate friends, and that is by taking a crack at the public service.

This bill is a measure that separates us more clearly from the Liberals and Tories than any government bill that has been brought before this House in my seven years here. Liberals and Tories believe major economic decisions should be left to the private sector companies, based on what is good for them on their profit ledger. We believe major economic decisions must be based on what is good for Canada, what is good for employment and what is good for maximum provision of goods and services.

There is some significance in the fact that the United States and Canada are the two countries in the world that now adhere most closely to that private enterprise, doctrinaire system that says the major economic decisions shall be made in the private sector. That is one reason they have dropped from first and second place in the average income of their citizens in the world down to 12th and 15th places in the world.

They have been passed by West Germany and by all those countries that have had social democratic governments and where economic planning still prevails. This is what we need here in our economy: a total change, a dramatic change in our system so that the government intervenes and makes those decisions on the basis of what is good for our economy, what is good for employment and what is good for maximum production.

8:40 p.m.

So I, along with all of my colleagues in this party, am using my time in an attempt to show what a total façade this bill is. It is worse than nothing at all, because it is intended to create friction among classes of workers and between the unemployed and the workers.

The government may think it made a smart political move, but I suggest that one or two or three months down the road, when the public realizes that there is no intent to control prices, that there is going to be no solution in this to the major problems that face our economy, the government is going to find that it is not going to win popular support and that the people of this province and of this nation are going to be turning to an alternative form of operation that is offered by the New Democratic Party.

The Deputy Speaker: Before the member for Ottawa East begins, I would like to remind all people in the public galleries, as I am sure they realize, that no one is to participate in any way whatsoever in the debate taking place on the floor of the House except honourable members.

At one point there was a great outburst of laughter. I think I am very discreet. We will not consider that an outburst in a public debate. But hand clapping, quite frankly, is not allowed, and, shall we say, three strikes and you are out.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, after waiting this long to get the floor and have an opportunity to speak here this evening I would appreciate some response from anywhere, whether it comes out of the gallery or not. I do not want to be unduly harsh towards my colleagues who have participated in this debate, but there are times when the action in this place, to say the least, has been a lot more exciting.

Mr. Speaker, I must make a confession to you at the beginning of all this. There are other apparently exciting things going on this evening, like the election in New Brunswick, and there are by-elections and there is the World Series.

Mr. Stokes: Who won in New Brunswick?

Mr. Roy: I do not know who won where. All I know is that there are not very many good nights or good days for Liberals these days, those of us who have conviction -- should I say "conviction"?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Come over to our side.

Mr. Roy: Oh no, Frank, we will not be moving. But those of us who have dedication and conviction, as before in greater and better days.

I am told by my colleagues across the way, who hasten to rush across this expanse between us here, that in New Brunswick the present administration has made substantial gains and the Liberals again have not managed to --

Mr. Bradley: Is that the Premier who is the friend of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Roy: That is right. That is the man who consistently supported the Prime Minister of the country, and somehow the people in New Brunswick reward him by punishing the Liberals. We have had, as members know, the same problem here. My colleagues in the NDP will recall that during the years 1977 to 1981 all of us worked hard together. We co-operated. We made minority government work, and the people of the province were so pleased and so grateful that they gave these beggars across the way a majority.

That is the frustration of the process, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you have experienced it. I have experienced it even as I have sat here for the last few weeks trying to get on, listening to my colleagues to my left not abusing the rules of the House but going on. I kept getting weather reports from them. I said, "How long are you going to be?" They would say, "Oh, I may be two hours, I may be three hours." On and on they went. I have an apology this evening to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) --

Mr. Stokes: Are you for or against the bill?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can you bring your predecessor to heel? Can you have some measure of control over the former Speaker? I should love to answer him, I should love to banter back and forth with him; but I was advised, in my early days, when he was in the chair, that I must address the chair, that I cannot debate back and forth. So obviously I shall not be able to respond.

My position, or the position of this party, has been clear. It will be on the record; and I shall do it again. Apparently there has been an agreement between the House leaders here, and those of us who had been preparing speeches on this bill all summer long will have to curtail some of our exuberance. So for a variety of reasons I do not intend to be unduly lengthy in these remarks.

Mr. Stokes: All the Tories will vote for this bill.

Mr. Roy: I say to my colleague for Lake Nipigon that I have no apologies to make. We have said, and we repeat, that in principle we are in favour of this bill, but we have said and we think we have a position that is extremely defensible. In fact, we would challenge the government and the members to go to the people on the position we have taken.

We say there are major flaws in the bill and we are going to try to correct some of these flaws. There is little doubt that, in principle, some kind of a restraint was necessary. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has set out on what basis, under what principles, we would have brought in a measure of control.

There is no doubt that we are facing a very serious economic situation. I do not have to repeat the ravages that have been caused by inflation, by the interest rates, and now we are facing serious unemployment. We have these plant closures, we have bankruptcies across the province. It is somewhat ironic, in a sense, it makes one somewhat cynical when one thinks back on the electoral process of 1981. Our leader at that time, Mr. Smith, was going round and saying to the people of Ontario that we were facing serious economic problems. For that he was rewarded with -- well, we are back in opposition here. Then he was rewarded, as well --

Mr. Stokes: He was dumped by his own party.

Mr. Roy: He was not dumped by his own party. We do not do that. The member is getting the leaders mixed up. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) could hardly get back in the door to the member's caucus after the election. He should not get the leaders confused. One was called Stuart. Does the member recall he made the best speech ever heard in this House? Remember that?

Mr. Stokes: I agreed with him personally.

Mr. Roy: But at the time, members will recall that Stuart Smith was going around the province saying there were fundamental problems with the economy, that basic restructuring of the economy was required. At that time the Premier kept ridiculing him and calling him "Dr. Negative."

Unfortunately -- and I am sure Stuart Smith is as sad as anyone -- many of these predictions have come true and we are now facing serious basic problems with the Ontario economy.

As serious as the problems were, it was nevertheless an opportunity for both the federal and the provincial governments to try to rally the country, and I think the country was prepared to follow serious leadership. I had a perception, and I think many colleagues here had a perception, that had the people of Canada been given the right leadership, had they been given the proper incentives, had they been given the type of leadership we are talking about, not only of telling people what to do but in fact doing it themselves right from the top down, from the federal and provincial governments, I think we could have arrived at a consensus where measures such as Bill 179 would have been far more palatable to most Canadians.

8:50 p.m.

We have not gotten that leadership, and I am critical of my colleagues at the federal level as well. I really felt that the first federal budget brought down by MacEachen -- when was it, last fall? -- was not at all the type of budget that was required for the times. We were facing tough economic situations at that point, and here the federal government brings in a budget that had all sorts of restrictions: discouraging investment, discouraging private enterprise, imposing taxation on individuals and encouraging individuals to save their money rather than invest it.

In other words, it reminded me somewhat of the situation centuries ago when doctors used to impose a treatment on patients, and they used to say that if the sickness did not get you the treatment would. They used to bleed patients, people who were sick at the time, half dying. They thought the cure was to bleed them.

In some ways the first federal budget was a disaster, and I suppose the best evidence of this was that four or five months later a second budget was brought down with what is now called the six and five program. The problem with that approach, and I regret having to say it, is that again the program in itself could have been sold and would have had much more support from the people of Canada had there been proper leadership.

In my opinion, and I say this with regret, much of what was proposed in the second MacEachen budget lacked a certain amount of credibility. A few months earlier one budget had been proposed; only six months later a budget radically different was proposed, which had solutions that were completely contrary to those of the first budget. Yet it was the same minister who was proposing it. I think a lot of people had problems in accepting different signals from the same messenger.

I think another problem was that the federal people lacked a certain amount of credibility in the sense that they had improved their financial position just a short time before they proposed their budget. They had increased their remuneration by close to 50 per cent over the last 18 months before bringing forward the budget. It is awfully tough for people at the bottom end of the scale to accept the fact that people leading them would seem to take advantage of a situation so early before they impose a series of sacrifices on them, very often imposing sacrifices on people who are much less in a position to be able to sacrifice than the leaders of the country. So because of this problem and because the federal program was so restricted, I think it lacked credibility.

I say this again with regret, I am not here as an apologist for the unions or for organized groups, but I think it was possible to bring forward a program without necessarily antagonizing and attacking a specific group. For these reasons the federal program, because of the people who proposed it, because of their actions before their programs, because of the fact that they then changed Finance ministers, in my opinion lacks credibility, and in that sense it will possibly not be as effective as it could have been.

I was reading just the other day a statement on October 8, 1982, by two of the leading economists in the country, Doug Peters, the chief economist and senior vice-president of Toronto Dominion Bank, and Tom Maxwell, the vice-president of the Conference Board of Canada. I quote:

"The federal government's six and five wage restraint program has been branded ineffectual and a waste of time by two of the country's top economists. The restraint program on which much of Canada's economic recovery hopes are pinned is just too little, too late, they said. The bankers told the conference that what the country really needed is a blanket 12-month wage freeze on all Canadians."

In a sense, it is much of what this party has been talking about. If restraint controls are going to be imposed on people, they must be imposed on everyone.

Mr. Mackenzie: For three years, like your leader says.

Mr. Roy: We did not talk about three years. Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Roy: As I listen to my friends to my left making cynical comments, and I try not to spend too much time looking at them, I am reminded that there appears to be some effort to have an Alamo-type of approach, "We are going to fight it out here in the House."

Meanwhile, their leader who is in a by-election is downplaying it. That is the part I find somewhat hypocritical about their approach. Here they are in the House, going on ad infinitum about how objectionable this bill is, yet their leader is out there in a by-election downplaying his opposition to it. How would one categorize that? I notice even their supporters up there are getting somewhat annoyed about the truth here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Bill 179, please.

Mr. Roy: I ask my colleagues to the left to show some credibility of their own. Then maybe people out there will start listening to them.

It seems to me that if a program were to encourage the support of all Canadians it would require on the part of the federal government the start of some form of rollback for the people at the top. The people who obtained an increase of 50 per cent or close to 50 per cent over the last 18 months should have shown some form of leadership and accepted some form of rollback to get some credibility.

In my opinion the increases should have been staged much as we had proposed, so there would be no increase at all for certain people and other people at a higher level would have had a lower percentage increase than people at the bottom end of the scale. Finally, it seems to us the federal government had an ideal opportunity, as these economists have said, to impose the freeze right across the board. It was unfair to impose it on only the public sector.

It seems to us that if we are to convince Canadians that a program has a certain amount of equity, what is required is that there be some type of control over prices as well. Unfortunately, these were the deficiencies in the federal program. There is a perception out there, unfortunately, that the actions of the federal government had more to do with politics than with the economy.

It is unfortunate some of the actions taken by the federal government, and I just mention one, the bail-out of a company such as Maislin, undermine the credibility of such a program.

I do not have to continue repeating some of the deficiencies of the federal program but, having said that, it seems to us the action this government has taken over the period of the summer resulting in this Bill 179 requires and is deficient of credibility.

9 p.m.

The approach of the Premier (Mr. Davis) during the early part of the summer was reflective of Hamlet, "To be or not to be." He really did not know which way to go. It was obvious they were polling all summer long; this government, this party, was trying to determine whether there was any widespread support for controls. After the polls came in, indicating there was widespread public support for controls, and after seeing that the federal polis indicated widespread support for controls, then the machine got going. One has to read with interest a story that appeared in the Toronto Star of Saturday, September 25, wherein the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) stated that Bill 179 went through something like 15 different drafts.

Having decided that politically it was palatable, that the public was with them, they got the civil service going. All summer long, or at least during the latter part of the summer, they were trying to make up their minds whether it was going to be six and five, or five and nine, or four and two, or whatever it is.

What was most cynical about the process was what the Premier had said earlier on. We are going back to July 6, 1982, and this matter has been mentioned in the House on a number of occasions. It is awfully tough for a leader who is bringing about a program as radical as this one to have any credibility when just a few months earlier he was saying that singling out the Ontario civil service for wage controls would be unfair. That is what he said.

It would be unfair, Premier Davis said in the Legislature, but he would not guarantee he would not do it. That is a bit of a contradiction right there. Talk about playing all your cards. He went on to say the economic situation had deteriorated since he made that remark. He said this on July 6.

If we go back to January, Premier Davis said he categorically ruled out wage controls for Ontario public employees. That is what he said in January. Then we have this quote. "'Wage controls in the public sector would be unfair because you cannot isolate one sector of society in the fight against inflation,' Davis said after meeting with labour leaders yesterday." He said this at the meeting with labour leaders in January. Then we see him come around. In July he still said it was unfair, but things were changing; yet we wasted all summer.

This party, under the leadership of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), has proposed a comprehensive program. We asked the government to bring it forward prior to the recess in July, but we did not see it. Finally, it was brought forward in September. The cynical part about the process is that we wasted all summer and then we were brought back three weeks early just to make it appear as though we were doing something.

I think this approach to such an important program as this one undermines the credibility of the process in that we have a government that seems to put more premium on polls, on public support, than on attacking the real problems to correct an economic situation.

The Premier talked about perception. I think he was cynical in his statement when he said those of us who were so critical when he was going to buy the jet were unfair, but that there was a public perception that the jet was not something that could be sold at this time. That is exactly what he did with this particular program. On the one hand, he said, "The perception and your cynical opposition gave us a bad time on this jet and we had to sell it," yet the government pulled the same stunt on these controls. It polled and it waited until it felt that the polls were with it; then it proceeded with the program, a limited program which undermines by attacking a specific sector of the community. That was not necessary. There were other things they could have done.

I hope that when this bill goes to committee we will have an opportunity of proposing some amendments. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition proposed a comprehensive program in July before the House recessed, and now he has outlined what he feels the flaws are in the present program.

Just to emphasize where the weaknesses are in some of these programs, we stated earlier, and we now repeat, that to impose a five per cent restriction on everyone is unfair. Five per cent to a person at the top end of the scale means a lot more money than it does to somebody at the bottom end. I appreciate that in Bill 179 there is a process where people making something under $15,000 will be entitled to an increase of up to $1,000. My colleagues and I will attempt to make some amendment to this. We feel that the freeze should have been staged, that there should have been a freeze at the top, with the largest percentage of increase being granted to those at the bottom end of the scale and somewhat less to those in the middle of the scale.

One has only to read the bill to understand that the emphasis is on restriction of wages. There is not much restriction provided on prices. I do not intend to repeat what my leader had to say on the subject, but that is a basic weakness in the bill.

Mr. Stokes: That is in the federal program too.

Mr. Roy: I have been critical of the federal program to the extent that there is not sufficient control on prices. I want to say to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with him on that. The program should not apply only to the public sector but also to the private sector and to prices as well. That is our position and it is on the record.

I see, for instance, that the Treasurer and the Premier have taken the position that any imposition of prices should be done at the federal level. I can understand that. I think it would be far more practical to have a freeze, or at least control, at the national level than on a selective provincial level, but it appears that we will not get one from the federal level. Therefore, it is incumbent on this administration to see to it that there is a measure of equity in the program.

To do that requires that the lead be taken with institutions and corporations which are under the control of the province. Every day in the Legislature, through the question period, we see how this government and the Treasurer of Ontario try to avoid the subject. Instead, they talk in legalistic and semantic terms about how the bill does not apply to a particular sector.

Why, for instance, would the bill not apply to the highest wage earners in Ontario, the doctors of this province? There can be no justification for that. How can we in fairness, as politicians, and how can the government expect to have any credibility if the people who are making $100,000 a year or thereabouts will not accept some measure of control?

We are asking the people at the bottom end of the scale to limit their increases to five per cent. I cannot see how a program like this can be expected to have widespread support in a community. Even people who are not affected in any way will understand that when we talk about the recovery of the economy of a province or of the country, the effort requires sacrifices by everyone, including people at the top end of the scale. I am sad to see that the government has not given more leadership in that field.

9:10 p.m.

We hope in committee to have the opportunity of amending this legislation. The other flaw in the process is that this government, which is prepared to impose some measure of control on the civil service of Ontario, is not prepared to curtail its own activities. For instance, as my colleagues have pointed out, in the field of advertising we see no evidence, although there has been some comment in the House, that the Conservative government, which uses public funds very often to perpetuate itself, is in any way curtailing or showing some measure of control or some rollback in the area of advertising.

Neither do we see any evidence that the government will in any way curtail its appetite for taxing the people of Ontario. The famous ad valorem tax over the last while will amount to an increase of something like 40 per cent. The government is asking the civil service of Ontario to take a freeze of five per cent while it is grabbing out of the pockets of the people of this province huge amounts of money through an ad valorem tax they do not even know about. In other words, the process is automatic. It is done by regulations and it is not even brought forward to this assembly. With that type of example, how do they expect people to have any belief in their programs?

I hear from people in my riding that Ontario public servants are to be limited to five per cent, yet their rents will increase 17 or 20 per cent or whatever. Surely all of us have had complaints about this. I am sure even my colleague from St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has had complaints about how public servants are being restricted. Yet where the government has some jurisdiction in the area of rent it is not being imposed. Just the other day, on Thursday, October 7, the Toronto Star had an article indicating that 84 per cent of tenants and home owners want controls to continue. Even from a political point of view, if the Tories have seen this, they should realize it is good politics to continue some measure of control.

What is difficult for people to accept is a situation such as we saw just last week with the employees of the Toronto Star, who are apparently not going to be covered by this legislation. The people there have turned down an offer of 13 per cent. How can we convince people that the process here is fair if we limit them to five, and yet other people who are organized, like the workers at the Star, are refusing offers of 13 per cent?

This summer right across Ontario there were difficult situations involving the construction industry. Many of the trades in the construction industry had increases --

Mr. Stokes: What about Hydro and Consumers' Gas?

Mr. Roy: We can go on with example after example. In the construction industry, I am aware the plumbers around Ottawa were turning down increases of over 15 per cent. Yet we are asking citizens of Ontario, the public sector, to accept restraint -- and we are not just asking the people who have safe jobs at the top end making $50,000 a year -- and to make that sort of sacrifice. I find that, in some sense, extremely sad because I think a collective effort on the part of Canadians would have been possible had there been wholesale leadership and programs with a measure of equity proposed by the federal government and the province.

We just heard today that the province, which is supposed to be limiting its expenditure, has apparently agreed to the McMichael gallery renovations which have risen from $4.7 million to $9 million. The government of this province is going to tell people who are going to be cut off unemployment insurance and going on welfare this winter there are no extra funds; yet they waste money at this rate -- not that I am saying it is not a good project, but it is the kind of example which undermines the credibility of this process.

Mr. Stokes: What does the Management Board of Cabinet think of it?

Mr. Roy: Yes. Where are the people who are supposed to defend the public? Where are the people who were going to be tough, representing the public and making sure that they get full value out of every -- I was going to say penny, but what is a penny to those people? I mean, what is a million in this process? They have only doubled the budget here.

Unfortunately, all of these funds are being wasted. There is no job creation involved in the process. There is job creation for certain individuals. They have jobs for people like the Morley Rosenbergs of this world. That reminds me that the Morley Rosenberg situation is far too delicious to abandon when we are talking about Bill 179 and job creation because that is one sector that should be looked at.

I am reminded of a play that was playing at the Royal Alexandra Theatre -- I do not know if it is still there -- called Mass Appeal. The play is about a young seminarian who is trying to get into the priesthood. He is getting advice from an older priest who is telling him how to go about getting in the priesthood and what he should say to the rector of the seminary if he wants to get in.

The young seminarian says to the priest: "I am going to tell them the truth. I am going to tell them about my activities when I was younger and I am going to tell them that I have really made out with guys and girls." The priest said: "No, don't say that. Do not go into those details. Don't tell the rector about those things. You don't have to tell a lie, but just don't talk about it."

Anyway, the young seminarian feels very idealistic and he says, "No, no, I am not going to lie." Finally the older priest gets exasperated and he says, "Look, if you do not care about becoming a priest, go ahead and tell the truth, but if you want to be a priest, you lie."

That reminds me of the process that must have taken place with Morley Rosenberg after his letter was published and he had been appointed to the Ontario Municipal Board. I can just see the situation, with his getting calls from Eddie Goodman or the Premier's office saying, "Morley, do you want to keep the job?" Morley says, "Yes, I want to keep the job." They say, "That letter was very embarrassing." Morley replies, "Well, Mr. Premier, it was sort of what happened and you wouldn't want me to lie." And they say, "Morley, if you want to be a judge, you lie."

I could just see the process. Here we have a situation where an individual said what he said in that letter, how he had been promised that whole thing -- and probably it was all true, every word in that letter. The government knows it, we know it, everybody knows it. But Morley gets up and says publicly: "I did not mean those things. It was an exaggeration. It is not true. It is a lie."

Mr. Stokes: If he had to do that to get to the 0MB, what would he have had to do to get to --

Mr. Speaker: Back to Bill 179.

Mr. Roy: Yes. What would he have to do to be a judge? My God.

Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is, when necessary, the people on that side have a way of finding a job even in very difficult circumstances. If you do not believe me, we will get an impartial judge to decide. We will call Morley and he will tell us how easy it is to get a job.

It seems to us that without the amendments, without corrections and without dealing with some of the matters I have outlined and what my leader, the member for London Centre, has proposed, it is going to be awfully difficult to convince the majority. I think the majority of Ontarians are saying, "Yes, there should be a measure of control." I think the Premier can get 65 per cent of the people to agree, but I am saying, had he brought forward a program such as we proposed, that would have been right across the board, that would have been staged at various levels, and that would have applied to the private sector, which under the Constitution is his responsibility, as well as to the public sector, and if he had shown some leadership in the area of prices as well as wages, then he would have had 95 per cent of the public of Ontario on his side.

9:20 p.m.

He would have had, out of this very difficult economic situation, a united effort to correct this problem. As I listened to the speeches that have gone on over the last few weeks, one thing struck me, which is interesting when one looks at the process because some of the matters commented on by colleagues certainly had merit. One of the areas that is of great interest to me is the fact that there is a possibility this legislation is offensive to the new Charter of Rights.

As a lawyer who has seriously curtailed his practice to serve the public of Ontario, I want to say there are many laws in Ontario which are offensive to the charter. In fact, I would think in some measure most laws would be offensive to the charter, had it not been for one provision in section 1 of the charter. I am sure the members would want me to read it. It states: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free democratic society."

Members can understand that provision was put in there because of such laws as the breathalyser test. Basically, according to English criminal jurisprudence and English legal principles, people should not have to incriminate themselves. That is one of the basic principles of our system of justice. The breathalyser does exactly that. It forces a person to blow in a machine which will give the court the evidence to convict him.

It was acceptable whenever the law was brought in and in the 1950s and 1960s. When our society had to combat a serious problem of drinking drivers we had to resort to such a law. I suppose that is the type of law which would be struck down on the basis of the charter but because of section 1 would be considered something that is reasonable within a democratic society such as ours.

When people look at whether the bill offends provisions of the charter, one of the provisions of the charter which my colleagues say is being offended by Bill 179 is freedom of peaceful assembly and possibly freedom of association. They may well have a point in saying that Bill 179, which curtails the right to strike or at least takes away that right for the period this legislation will be in force and which in some ways takes away their free collective bargaining process, in some measure offends this legislation.

It is going to be interesting to see if the courts perceive that in our 1982 Canadian society such legislation is permissible under the charter. I would hazard a guess about it, given the very difficult economic situation and using the precedent of the first wage and price controls brought in by the federal government in 1976-77 which were challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada. It was found at that time to be constitutional, and the federal government acquired jurisdiction to bring forward such legislation based on peace, order and good government. If that is the way the Supreme Court leans, I would think there would be no difficulty in suggesting that this type of legislation is not offensive to the charter.

One of the things that also struck me in the process of debating the charter is the fact that the organized unions, which have been protesting this legislation, have sometimes been more enthusiastic about protecting the status quo of those with good jobs than with extending their efforts towards those who do not have jobs. I say this to my colleagues to the left.

The other day I was reading Le Droit, which I am sure they spend much time perusing. Le Droit talked about the resignation in Quebec of the former House leader Charron. I have never been a great fan of his. I recall when he was first elected in the early 1970s. He has been in the House some 12 years now and was among the first group of six who made it to the Quebec National Assembly, but he always impressed me as being far too radical and doctrinaire to have the flexibility necessary to be a member of the government. Obviously he matured somewhat.

Even though one may not particularly like an individual, one must have some sympathy for the streak of bad luck Charron has had the last while for whatever reason, from the shoplifting charge to the impaired driving charge that he was facing. Now, after first resigning as House leader and subsequently resigning his seat, after 12 short years he is a man of 35 who has left politics. The thing that struck me about Charron was the comments he made upon resigning, which I think are worth keeping in mind when one looks how people change their approach to various groups and institutions.

Members will recall that the Parti Québecois received strong support from the labour movement and from the workers of Quebec. That is their constituency. That is where they get their support. Well, I would hazard a guess that if there was an election in Quebec right now, much of that labour movement would abandon the Parti Québecois. As my colleagues have said, it would be just like the union leaders in Ontario abandoning the New Democratic Party.

Le Droit quotes Charron upon his resignation, if I may read it in French and give you a brief translation: "Comme plusieurs ministres et députés du parti dont il a déjà été le leader, le député de Saint-Jacques a déjà exprimé son désenchantement à l'endroit des syndicats, qui consacrent 95 pour cent de leurs energies à protéger les gens parmi les mieux équipés pour traverser la crise actuelle."

He is saying, "Like many people of my party, I am extremely disappointed with the labour leaders, who spend 95 per cent of their effort and energies in protecting those who are the best equipped to protect themselves" -- those who have the best positions -- "through this present economic situation." He says that his generation of 35 years of age "s'est syndiquée jusque par-dessus les oreilles." He says the young people, many of these labour groups, are overly unionized -- "above the ears" is the expression he uses.

It is funny about this group and a guy like Charron saying something like this, because often they were receiving the support of the labour leaders, but they were anticlerical, they were against the church, against the bishops of Quebec.

9:30 p.m.

He goes on to say, "My generation are overly organized." He also says, "I must pay homage in this assembly to the bishops and to the priests, who do a better job of defending the poor and those who do not have any power and those who do not have any vested interests than the labour leaders."

Charron is saying this. We are not talking about a right-wing Fascist. This is a comment from an individual whose support in his own riding has come from the working class. Obviously, the party has received tremendous support from the labour leaders of Quebec, who in some sense have even more power than labour leaders in other provinces.

So it is well that once in a while the process is brought into focus and that one looks at an individual such as this, who has had a chance to look at the process from the inside and to comment on a situation where he has had support from that group, has seen the process and is frustrated by it.

I think we should caution those who are organized. This is one of the reasons my colleagues and I feel there should be controls right across the board. There are groups in society that are much better organized but are not affected by this program and whose workers will not be affected by the process.

I can understand the way the province and the federal government have said: "Look, the private sector will bring on their own controls; they do not need the controls of everyone else. The economic situation will force them to moderate their demands." That is true in some areas, but it is not true in others.

I have pointed out, for instance, that when you get workers like those at the Toronto Star and in the construction industry this summer, or other groups that are obviously going to make more than 10 or 15 per cent just because they are organized or are in one sector --

Mr. Stokes: What about doctors?

Mr. Roy: And the same with doctors. It is unconscionable. My friend mentions the doctors. I could not agree with him more. There should be some controls on the doctors. I ask my colleagues across the way, how can they go back to their ridings and sell this program when people raise this issue: What about the doctors? How can they tell people at the bottom end of the scale that they have got to limit themselves to five per cent when the doctors, who are making two, three, four and five times more money, will not be limited?

Mr. Cassidy: So why are you voting for it?

Mr. Roy: We are going to try to correct it. We are in favour of the principle of the bill. The member for Ottawa Centre has done this before. He should know that. Many times he has voted for the principle of a bill and tried to amend it. We are in favour of some form of control.

Mr. Cassidy: You can't make a silk purse out of a Tory sow's ear.

Mr. Roy: My friend should not be nasty. A lot of people commented that way about his potential as leader of that party, and we do not want to be nasty.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): And now back to Bill 179.

Mr. Roy: My colleagues to the left well know that we are facing serious economic situations and if most of them were to search their own consciences, if most of them were to look more closely at what their federal colleagues have said and what Bob Rae is saying at present in the by-election campaign, they would agree that some measure of control is necessary.

What we are saying is simply this: Yes, controls are necessary. Yes, equity is necessary. We in this party do not have to be ashamed and we do not have to apologize to anyone in this province for the position we have taken on this bill, because we accept the fact that controls are necessary. But we see basic flaws in the bill, and we hope we will have an opportunity of bringing forward amendments. My leader has talked about all the amendments we will bring forward to make this a better piece of legislation. In the process, it is sad that we did not have this opportunity right from the start.

If my colleagues across the way would accept some of these recommendations, we could get far more people in this province to start having confidence again in the process and to understand that if they are going to sacrifice and suffer, this measure of control should be as wide-ranging and as universal as possible so that it would be an effort on the part of all citizens of this province to control and to bring some measure of revitalization into the economic process and not done just on the backs of a few. This is the concern we have about this legislation.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my turn in the rotation to speak against this odious piece of legislation. I mean it very sincerely when I say that since I was elected in 1975 there has not been a piece of legislation before this House that we find as repugnant and as inimical to a number of things that we thought were basic decencies, basic parts of our society that were accepted as civilized behaviour. Yet this bill comes in and tears up a number of principles that we thought were unassailable.

During the course of the debate, a number of my colleagues have tried to speak to different aspects of this bill. My colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) spoke at great length about the assault that this bill makes on very basic principles of administrative law that we had thought had become entrenched in Ontario since the McRuer report of the early 1970s.

Much of the legislative work of this assembly since the McRuer report has been to incorporate Chief Justice McRuer's principles with respect to administrative law in each of the many statutes that govern the people of this province. Yet in 1982, after close to a decade of legislative reforms incorporating the principles of the McRuer report, we can still have a piece of legislation before us that contains wording such as we find in subsection 3(4), which says:

"The (Inflation Review] Board may, in its discretion where it considers it desirable to do so, hold a hearing. . .But "the board is not required to give reasons for any final order, decision or determination. . ." And "the board is not required to hold any hearing before making any order, decision or determination. . ."

We simply ask, is this Ontario? Is this our Ontario, where one man is being given these kinds of dictatorial powers to make decisions that affect 500,000 workers and is not even required to hold a hearing or to give reasons for his decision? It is a travesty.

Even the Anti-Inflation Board of odious memory required that there be a hearing after a collective bargaining process had resulted in a settlement. There was a process of hearing, review and appeal. This legislation makes the Anti-Inflation Board process look like some kind of model of democratic procedure. This is simply unacceptable. It is simply dictatorial in its concept, and I cannot understand how my colleagues in the Liberal Party remain blind to that reality.

9:40 p.m.

Other colleagues, the member for Windsor- Riverside (Mr. Cooke) and our deputy leader, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), have spoken to the issue of job creation and the fact that the contents of this bill will not create a single job in this province.

It is one of the wonders of supply-side economics, which this bill simply recapitulates, that instead of squeezing inflation out of the economy, a monetarist policy has squeezed growth out of the economy. If it keeps on long enough, supply-side economics and monetarism will squeeze inflation out of the economy, but not until, as our illustrious Prime Minister has said, it has wrestled the economy to the ground.

He has already done that. He said he was going to wrestle inflation to the ground, and then it turned out that he had wrestled the economy to the ground; and now that the economy is lying there prone and lifeless, with not a sign of health in virtually any sector, Mr. Trudeau is probably going to have his words come true. Inflation will be next.

It is true that inflation will be squeezed out of the economy, but at what cost? Who is going to put Humpty Dumpty together again after so many years of this crazed monetarist experiment? It has devastated the British economy, it has devastated the American economy, it has devastated our economy, and the spokespeople for the government simply keep saying that this kind of policy must be continued.

The Liberals speak for hours on the problems of the economy without ever mentioning interest rates. They have occupied hours of the time of the House. This has been a virtual filibuster by the Liberal Party. Never once have they addressed the question of interest rates. Instead, they feel that punishing public sector workers is somehow going to solve all of the problems that have been created by monetarism.

I listened very carefully to my friend the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) recently give his strange economic interpretation of what has happened to us, justifying high interest rates. Yet we have all listened to him very carefully over the course of the past 18 months as he has pleaded very eloquently and very ably for the farm community, which has been absolutely devastated by this same high interest rate policy.

It is very strange. It is an application of Bonzo economics. The President of the United States, that strange, ageing movie star whose greatest role was in Bedtime for Bonzo, who has now --

Mr. Riddell: You know the old saying: "Ignorance is bliss."

Mr. Laughren: Bonzo Riddell.

Mr. Breaugh: Is that why you're so happy, Jack? Is that why you are sitting there smiling?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Now we have Bonzo in charge of the economic destiny of the western industrial world. It is unreal: It is some kind of Kafkaesque joke. It is hard to believe that this is really happening, that Bonzo is setting interest rates at such incredibly obscene levels. In former times, when I was growing up, these people would have been charged under the Bank Act. They would have been convicted of what would have amounted to usury. Now my Chargex card interest rate is 28 per cent, I believe.

I have a Massey-Ferguson factory in my riding. It is some kind of mystery why Massey-Ferguson workers have been out of work for most of the past 18 months. Is it some mystery having to do with the high level of public sector wages? What nonsense.

The Inglis plant happens to be in my riding, and for most of the past 18 months Inglis has been on a three-day work week. Perhaps when he winds up the debate, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) can tell me how it is that taking money out of the pockets of a public sector worker is going to put the Inglis workers back to work five or six days a week.

How is taking $1,000 from a public servant, from a hospital worker or from a clerk here at Queen's Park, going to help a family buy a washing machine, a refrigerator or a dishwasher and put the workers at Inglis back to work? Will somebody explain that to me? I am too stupid to understand that. I concede I am too dumb to know how taking $1,000 out of somebody's pocket is going to permit that same person to purchase an appliance, a car, a tractor or furniture and put our people back to work. Will somebody explain that to me?

Mr. McKessock: Bring the price of a tractor down.

Mr. McClellan: The member says, "Bring the price of a tractor down," and he is right on. Do the members know how to do that? By lowering interest rates; that is how to bring the price of a tractor down so the farmer can afford to buy it. How can tie buy it when interest rates are 18 or 19 per cent?

Mr. McKessock: And wages.

Mr. McClellan: If we bring the farmer's wages down, I do not think he is going to be able to buy a tractor. Does the member think so?

Mr. McKessock: No wonder you don't understand.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Maybe he wants to bring down the wages of the Massey-Ferguson workers. The Massey-Ferguson workers have been on unemployment insurance for the past 18 months. How much lower does my friend want their wages to fall? Welfare? That is the next step.

It is ridiculous. It is the politics of victimization: beggar this person and somehow the neighbour will become wealthy. I do not understand that kind of economics. I do not understand how if one beggars the farmer the worker will prosper, or if one beggars the worker the farmer will prosper. I am too stupid to understand that.

Mr. McKessock: Eat more beef and the prices will come down and they can buy more tractors.

Mr. McClellan: It is kind of hard to do that on unemployment insurance.

What will solve our economic problems has to do with changing our monetarist policies and getting interest rates down to a rational level, but nobody is talking about that on the Liberal side or on the government side. I just do not understand how what is being proposed is going to help anybody.

Mr. McKessock: Tell us how you beat inflation.

Mr. McClellan: I have some things I want to talk about, and I do not want to take all night. I want to talk about a matter raised by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). It has to do with the basic integrity and good faith of government.

I had a conversation with my colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) about a month or so ago. We were talking about a gentleman we both knew very well. The member for Oxford told me one thing you could always say about this old gentleman was that one could always trust his word. His word was his bond, and one did not have to sign a paper if one shook hands with this old gentleman, because one could trust him.

Mr. McKessock: He must have been a Liberal.

Mr. McClellan: I think he was a Tory, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Riddell: He wasn't a New Democrat.

Mr. McClellan: I can assure my friend he was not of the New Democratic Party. The member for Oxford knows he had little use for New Democrats, but he did have a lot of use for his good name and his good word. If he gave his word on a deal or a contract, one could trust that. If he signed his name to a contract, one could trust that contract. One did not have to worry about him reneging on a contract.

Among other things, I always thought one could trust the Conservative people of this province and the Conservative representatives in this assembly at least to honour the set of principles that if one gives one's word on something, if one signs a contract, one's word is one's bond and that contract is good.

9:50 p.m.

The most difficult part of this bill to understand is the fact that it simply repudiates contracts that are signed in good faith by employers and employees, in some cases signed by the crown in right of Ontario through the Management Board of this government and its employees. These contracts are abrogated and torn up. I am referring to clause 11(b) of Bill 179. That is the provision that calls for rollbacks of existing contracts.

I do not understand how this government can bring in a restraint program that repudiates existing contracts. I could understand it bringing in a wage control bill. We were not terribly surprised that it brought in some kind of wage controls. But I was very surprised it brought in a bill that repudiated existing agreements. I do not know what the long-term effects of that will be, but I think it is a fundamental assault on some very basic principles and on the rule of law itself in this province when the government acts so arbitrarily to deny legal, binding contracts.

I want to spend a few minutes going through just a few details of some of these contracts so that some of the members of the assembly who may not be fully aware of the extent of the rollback provisions of Bill 179 can really have a clear sense of what my colleague the member for Nickel Belt was talking about when he said the government was attacking the rule of law and was challenging the integrity of the government and its good faith. Let us look at a couple of contracts.

This is an agreement between the regional municipality of York and the Canadian Union of Public Employees. It covers the employees at the York Manor Home for the Aged. Their contract is in effect until December 31, 1984. On January 1, 1983, which is the second year of the contract, they have an agreement to get a 10.5 per cent increase. That is going to be rolled back to five per cent. So this contract is ripped up by Bill 179.

Here is a collective agreement between the Orangeville Hydro Electric Commission and the CUPE Local 255. This contract runs from April 1, 1982, to March 31, 1984. Article 17 states, "This agreement shall remain in force for a period of 24 months, from April 1, 1982, to March 31, 1984."

It is signed on the back page, page 9, by the representatives of the Orangeville Hydro Electric Commission and by the representatives of CUPE Local 255 and guarantees, as of April 1, 1983, an 11.7 per cent increase to cover the period from April 1983 to March 31, 1984. That 11.7 per cent increase, which has been agreed to, signed in a contract that is legally binding under the terms of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, is rolled back to five per cent and is null and void under the terms of Bill 179.

Here is a contract between the Toronto Hydro-Electric System and CUPE Local 1 for the period of February 1, 1983, to January 31, 1984. Under the terms of the agreement, duly signed by representatives of both organizations, the workers are guaranteed in their legally binding contract an increase of nine per cent plus a cost of living allowance. This is rolled back to five per cent.

Another contract is abrogated under the terms of this bill. I have a contract between the Children's Aid Society of Oxford County and CUPE Local 2193. They were guaranteed in their legally binding contract, duly signed by members of the board of the children's aid society for the employer and by three representatives of Local 2193, an increase of eight per cent as of January 1, 1983, and an additional two per cent as of July 1,1983.

They are rolled back to five per cent. This is money that is coming out of their pockets. This is money that is legally contracted to these workers and the contracts are just being trampled upon.

I have an agreement between the St. Lawrence Estate and CUPE Local 1919, for the period of March 17, 1983, to March 16, 1984. A nurse's aide in this contract is given a legally binding increase of 12.6 per cent. This is rolled back to five per cent. This contract is also consigned to the shredder.

I have an agreement between the corporation of the city of Thunder Bay and CUPE Local 87 for the period of January 1, 1983, to December 31, 1983. In the second year of a two-year agreement, they were guaranteed a 10 per cent increase. They are being rolled back to five per cent.

I have an agreement between the corporation of the city of Sault Ste. Marie and CUPE Local 67. They have a contract for February 1, 1983, to January 31, 1984. According to the signatures on the back page, they are guaranteed an increase of 11 per cent. This contract is being ripped up by Bill 179.

The board of education for the city of Windsor and CUPE Local 27 have a contract giving them a cost of living increase, a straight inflationary increase from January 1, 1983, to December 31, 1983, and the board of education for the city of Windsor and its good name are shredded by Bill 179.

I have an agreement between the Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board and CUPE Local 1453. The second year of their agreement runs from January 1, 1983, to December 31, 1983. A custodian was guaranteed an increase of 13.6 per cent, or $1 an hour, and that will be rolled back to five per cent. The signature of the Peterborough separate school board is not worth the paper it is written on.

The corporation of the county of Hastings and CUPE Local 1133 have a two-year agreement expiring December 31, 1983. By the way, this is the Hastings Manor Home for the Aged. The service staff were guaranteed an increase of 15.9 per cent. A nurse's aide, under the terms of this contract, was supposed to get $17,057 a year. As a result of clause 11(b) of Bill 179, the nurse's aide will receive instead $15,453. That means that $1,604 that is legally owed to the nurse's aide will be taken away from her when this contract is ripped up under the terms of Bill 179.

I have a collective agreement between CUPE Local 1565 and the Barton Place Nursing Home. I might add that is located in the riding of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). A registered nursing assistant was guaranteed an increase of 13.6 per cent for the period January 14, 1983, to March 1, 1984. The registered nursing assistant will get a decrease of $1,482. In other words, $1,482 of money that is legally owed to a registered nursing assistant will be taken away from her under the terms of this bill.

10 p.m.

A laundry aide will have the salary that has been legally contracted to him or her reduced from $14,820 to $13,221. That is an expropriation in the amount of $1,599 under the terms of Bill 179.

I do not understand how any government can purport to have a shred of integrity and yet treat legally binding contracts between employers and employees in this kind of cavalier way, not to say illegal way -- and that is another matter which was spoken to by my colleague the member for Riverdale.

I have an agreement which is between the Children's Aid Society of the County of Bruce and CUPE Local 2194. A clerk grade 3 will have his or her legally contracted wages rolled back from $14,179 to $13,429. That is a wage expropriation of $750.

A social worker 3 will have his or her wages rolled back from $26,535 to $25,351. That is a wage expropriation of $1,184, despite the fact that this was a legally binding contract.

An agreement between the Kingston Public Library Board and CUPE Local 2201: The library assistant will have his or her wages rolled back from an 11 per cent increase to a five per cent increase, from $13,565 to $12,970 for an expropriation of $595, courtesy of the Treasurer of Ontario and this very honourable government of ours.

A collective agreement between the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Board of Education and CUPE Local 782 --

Mr. Harris: Rip it up.

Mr. McClellan: I think I will give the honourable member the figures first so he knows exactly what he is doing.

The wages of a custodian on a contract from January 1983 to December 1983 will be rolled back from $17,550 to $16,350, a wage expropriation of $1,200. A building mechanic will have a wage expropriation of $1,990 under the terms of this most honourable government's legislation.

A collective agreement between the Ontario Housing Corp., a crown corporation, and the Ontario Housing Corp.'s employees union, Local 767 of CUPE: A clerk-typist earning the magnificent salary of $15,438 according to her legally binding contract will have that wage reduced to $14,346, a wage expropriation of $1,092. This from a crown corporation.

A collective agreement between another crown corporation, Ontario Hydro and CUPE Local 1000: A cashier, earning $20,405 under the terms of a legally binding contract due to expire March 31, 1984, will have the wage reduced to $19,477, a wage expropriation of $928 courtesy of the government of Ontario, and this Legislature, I may add for the benefit of my Liberal colleagues.

An agreement made between Carleton University and CUPE Local 910: A caretaker's salary is reduced from $17,472 to $16,380. There is a magnificent salary, isn't it, Mr. Speaker, $17,000 for a caretaker and that caretaker will have his wages expropriated in the amount of $1,092 under the terms of Bill 179.

A collective agreement between the regional municipality of Sudbury and the CUPE Local 6. It is going to do a lot of good for the merchants of Sudbury to have the municipal employees lose the difference between 13 per cent and five per cent when this contract is ripped up as soon as Bill 179 is passed. Agreements 207 and 1662 between the city of Sudbury and CUPE Local 6 were rolled back from 13 per cent to five per cent under the terms of this legislation.

The last two contracts I would draw to the attention of members are with their own employees, or I should say with our own employees. I am pleased the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), who is the Chairman of Management Board, is here in his seat. This is a collective agreement between the crown in right of Ontario, represented by the Management Board of Cabinet, and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. This is the clerical services contract.

I just bet the Chairman of Management Board may even be aware of the terms of this one, "Effective January 1, 1983, a further increase of nine per cent to all classifications in the category," that is to say the clerical services category. This is signed by the crown in right of Ontario represented by the Management Board of Cabinet and the signatures are here on the back, I cannot quite read them. I think they are D. Nagel and J. R. Scott.

I assume those people were acting on the instructions of the minister in charge of the cabinet board. I am not quite sure how these things work. I assume he was operating on the instructions of this cabinet in signing this contract, and Mr. O'Flynn and another person signed for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. This contract, which guaranteed an increase as I have described, will be rolled back to five per cent.

I am told the average loss for employees in this service category will be $1,083, a wage expropriation of $1,083. More than that, the word of the crown in right of Ontario represented by the Management Board of Cabinet, the word of this government with its own employees, under the terms of Bill 179 is not worth the paper this contract was written on.

Here is one final contract, again between the crown in right of Ontario, represented by the Management Board of Cabinet, and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union for the office services category. They have a legally binding contract from January 1983 to December 31, 1983, an 11.12 per cent increase guaranteed them under the signature of the Management Board of Cabinet. The signatures are those of D. Nagel and J. R. Scott.

I assume that is operating on the instructions of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, the honourable minister. So much for the honour of the minister's signature. According to the terms of this bill, his signature is not worth the paper it is written on, his contracts are not worth the paper they are written on and his good word is not worth putting into a shredder if he allows this bill to go forward as it is written.

I do not see how he can put any nice interpretation on it. He signed a contract in good faith with his employees. He has the power; there is no doubt about it. Those Tories have the power. They have their majority and they can pass any laws they want. They have the compliance of my colleagues in the Liberal Party. But do they have the right to do things like that?

Do they think they have the right to break their word, to tear up contracts, to go back on agreements that were negotiated in good faith? Do they think, because they won a majority in an election, that gives them the right to repudiate their own word with their own employees, to force other employers to repudiate their word with their employees, and to tear up hundreds of contracts signed in good faith under the terms of the labour laws of this province? Do they think they somehow have this power that is above the morality of ordinary people? The Tories are always talking about big government and the intrusion of big government in the lives of individuals, and yet when they are given the power there is nobody more intrusive. There is nobody prepared to use that power more ruthlessly or in a more arbitrary manner than they seem to be.

10:10 p.m.

Quite frankly, I suspect that most members of the Conservative caucus were not given full details f the extent of the bad-faith bargaining and the abrogation of contracts that Bill 179 entails. I suspect even some members of the cabinet were not fully aware of how many contracts were repudiated. I hope I am not wrong. I hope it was not the entire Tory caucus, acting consciously and with full knowledge of the implications of Bill 179, that authorized its executive to proceed with this bill. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but I do know this bill is wrong and that the principles in this bill are wrong and cannot be supported. Men of good faith cannot support this legislation because it lacks a basic decency.

Leaving aside all the economic arguments, leaving aside whether monetarism works or does not work, or whether wage controls are an effective way of bringing down inflation, leaving all that aside, the basic facts of the matter are that this bill is a fundamental violation of natural justice and a fundamental violation of the good faith and integrity of men who have signed contracts, the poor workers. If my colleagues from the Liberal Party want to remain blind to that and continue to support this legislation, that remains their problem and their dilemma. My colleagues do not want to be associated with this bill in any way, shape or form.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate on Bill 179, pleased that something has been started to slow down inflation by this government in this small way of a wage restraint bill for the public service sector. I feel, as others do in our party, that it is unfair that the public sector is singled out. The private sector should also be covered by the six and five or this government's nine and five program. However, nothing gets done if a start is not made. At least, I congratulate the government for finally making a start. We will try to improve the bill by amendments in committee.

The government must take the lead in restraint because it was the government that took the lead in inflation, causing the problem by excessive spending in nonproductive areas, such as advertising and purchases of an executive jet. It appears that Suncor shares can also be listed in that area as being nonproductive since there will be many years of paying interest on the $650-million investment before we see any return, if we ever do.

Farmers have been forced to sell their productive inventory this year just to keep afloat. If the government had to run its operation like a private business it would be definitely getting rid of nonproductive inventory and nonproductive programs. I take some hope from its sale of the jet. Even though it will lose a few million on the sale, it is better than being tied to a continuing loss proposal. Times are tough in the real world. Too many are isolated from the real world by having the power to get cost of living and inflation wage increases. That could not go on.

Unfortunately, nobody will voluntarily restrain. The government even needs legislation to control itself, such as we see in Bill 179 before us. The government could have just given a five per cent wage settlement to employees without legislation, but we all know what would have happened then. The unions would have called strikes and the system would have deteriorated further. Therefore, it is necessary to bring in legislation.

Times are tough for the farmers who live in the real world. As a beef farmer in the cow-calf business, I have just calculated that my income for 1983 would be a shade better if I sold half my herd now and paid off some money borrowed at the bank at a high interest rate. These are second-calf, good-producing cows. I had a 100 per cent calf crop this year for the first time in my life. I should not be selling these high-producing cows, but the real world tells me they must go.

There is another problem. Cows with calves by their side brought me $1,400 apiece in the fall of 1979. This fall, three years later, I will be getting $900, a drop of $500 per cow and calf. A five per cent increase, you say, is not enough? This is a 36 per cent decrease in three years, or a 12 per cent decrease each year. You say five per cent is not enough? You have not seen anything yet. You worry about the private sector getting more than you, but the fellow in the private sector may not even have a job.

Farmers losing 12 per cent a year are not buying tractors. Is it any wonder that Massey-Ferguson and International Harvester are in trouble? Farmers losing 12 per cent a year are not buying cars and trucks. Is it any wonder that car sales are down and Chrysler is in trouble?

Many farmers in the last couple of years have lost everything they had. I talk to farmers often and ask them, "How is farming?" Most of them will say, "Oh, not too bad." I will say, "That is if you don't have to buy a tractor," and they will say, "Oh, yes, I sure couldn't buy a new tractor." So it is like a dead-end street. Even if the farm is paid for and you are surviving, when that tractor wears out you are done because you cannot afford it or it does not make sense to buy a new one.

This is the situation, and not just with the farmer; many small and big businesses are in the same boat. We cannot keep demanding from a system what is not there or eventually we will collapse. Is it not better that each part of society share the burden that is being shouldered by farmers and business today and that each take a little part of the cutback? If we do not, we will collapse, and then we will either not have a job or we will have to take a 12 per cent cut in wages like the farmers rather than the five per cent increase that is laid out in this bill.

I know we often get hung up on which came first, the chicken or the egg. The unions will say, "Give us more money and we will buy more things, which will produce more jobs." I suppose this might work if the worker spent all his money, but savings are higher today than they have ever been.

Rowland Frazee, chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada, says the bank's customer consumer loans dropped $100 million last year, while savings increased by $1.5 billion and an increased number of credit card balances are paid in full each month.

We have to realize that business must come first, whether it is the basic industry of farming for food or whether it is another industry. Without industry there would be no jobs; without farming there would be no food. So farming and industry do come first, no matter what has been figured out about the chicken and the egg.

If we have established that industry comes first, then unions should work very closely with industry to see that every possible avenue and solution are found to see that industry keeps afloat and keeps those jobs. Discussions should be held before bids are made on jobs. If the company feels it could present a successful bid on a job only by holding the line on wages or having a five per cent cut in wages, the union should have the opportunity to give its views on it. It could mean a little less compared with nothing.

This was made quite evident in a recent contract given to the Canadian General Motors diesel firm in St. Catharines over the US firm by the US. It will mean that the Canadian firm will hire 1,500 more people, whereas the US firm will be laying off 1,500 people. This recent contract gain over the US competition is, I hope, a new trend.

Mr. Swart: Did you know that it has been reversed?

Mr. McKessock: No.

Mr. Swart: The majority of that contract is going to the United States now. There was a public announcement.

Mr. McKessock: I hope this contract is a new trend.

Mr. Murray, president of the Quebec section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, said recently that Canadian manufacturers had been losing ground rapidly to many of their competitors. It was also mentioned in the same article that Canada's strike record was the second worst among industrialized countries, after Italy. Also, there is a high rate of industrial absenteeism, with low motivation of workers and poor training in essential skills.

10:20 p.m.

In this area of training, essential skills, this government has fallen short. I was contacted by Nordic Furniture of Markdale, which has several apprentices on staff. They, as well as other manufacturers in the furniture business in my riding, which is the heart of Ontario's furniture manufacturing industry, were encouraged to take them on.

When these industries asked where the apprentices would attend school, they were advised by the government not to worry, to take on the apprentices and schooling would be supplied. Two years had gone by and there was no schooling yet. Finally, they came up with a course in Ottawa for Grey county apprentices -- 250 miles away, when Georgian College is in the riding. Nordic Furniture told me there was no way their apprentices would go to Ottawa.

I called the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and was told there was a holdup because the whole apprenticeship program was being put on computer, but they did agree to try to get a course at Georgian College at Owen Sound and they had been working lately with the manufacturers to maybe have the schooling at the plant. The trouble is that these delays have turned manufacturers and apprentices off and the manufacturers are telling me: "No more apprentices. There's no schooling available. It's too much hassle."

There is another problem in this area. When a small company trains an apprentice, a large company comes along, offers twice the money and he is gone. There should be some regulation to allow those who train an apprentice to be able to keep him for a certain period of time.

Now to draw back a little closer to Bill 19, I see no reason that Ontario health insurance plan premiums should not be subject to the same five per cent increase. Only 20 per cent of the $6 billion we spend on health care comes from premiums. It is a tax that hurts a lot of those people who are hurting most, such as farmers and small businessmen who have to pay their own premiums and, in many cases, the premiums of their workers. These people are already in trouble and are taking cuts, not increases, and now they are subjected to OHIP increases as of October 1 of 17 per cent, We should be consistent. As I mentioned earlier, we all should share the realities of the real world and that means government as well as the public.

It was a nice tour we had to the new museum last Tuesday night, but restraint has really not hit yet. That little episode, I understand, cost $2,700. The food and wine were good, but it was not the real world. We are still protecting ourselves from the real world and letting a small number take the brunt of it.

Unless we all restrain, especially government, we will not lick inflation and the depression we have at hand. We will only add to it until it becomes an abscess and breaks and then starts to heal itself. The doctors have a chance also to prevent this economic abscess by agreeing to limit their increase this year to five per cent. This little shot of medicine would be a little different from the usual, because it would help the patients but it would be distasteful to the doctors.

When we talk about government restraint, the Ontario government with its largest deficit ever is not the only one to consider. The federal government is not without fault. They are not living in the real world either. I read that the Honourable Charles Lapointe, Minister of State responsible for tourism in the federal government, made a three-day trip across Canada to present 20 medals to Canadians to mark World Tourism Day. It cost taxpayers $30,000 in fuel alone for him to travel in his own government plane. I wonder why he did not send them by mail. Probably it was because there is no mail delivery on Saturdays.

The depression has not hit everyone yet. A recent article says, "At $3,000 a week, they are comfortable." No, it is not talking about the doctors but about the pipeline welders. The details are contained in a government report that makes discouraging reading during a time of salary and price restraint. It paints a picture of runaway spending and ballooning costs in which Canadian pipeline workers are treated almost like royalty compared to their US counterparts.

Bill 179 will hold public service wage settlements for the next year to five per cent and it is hoped that the private sector will follow suit. It is difficult to argue that this will create jobs, but it will if we are more competitive in our bids for contracts.

I know of a plan that will create jobs. It is very simple, nobody can interfere with it and I believe it could put all our unemployed back to work within a very short time. The plan is to buy Canadian.

In the agricultural sector alone we import approximately $3.5 billion in food products that we also grow right here in Canada. This is Canadian money flowing into the economies of other countries and losing us about 350,000 jobs in processing, packaging, etc., in addition to the farm jobs lost by not growing the products here.

If instead of orange juice we substituted grape juice, apple juice or tomato juice produced in Canada, it would add another $1 billion to the economy and create another 100,000 off-farm jobs besides the extra farm jobs created in growing the crops.

We would create 350,000 off-farm jobs if we were to buy Canadian agricultural products instead of importing them, another 100,000 jobs if we were to drink apple juice instead of orange juice, plus the extra on-farm jobs in producing the crops.

Do we want to do our part as individuals? As Canadians, do we want to see Canada grow stronger? Do we as union members, farmers, businessmen, public servants and politicians want a program that costs us nothing and gives us jobs? If so, I have just outlined it: buy Canadian.

As far as I can see, this is our only answer. There is no use in giving farmers grants to produce more food if we eat not what we produce but what we import from someplace else. Watch what you buy; make sure it is a Canadian product.

We could do the same in the manufacturing field. We could all buy Canadian-built cars, vacuum cleaners, machinery, ornaments, clothing, shoes, etc. If everyone would do this, we could turn the depression around very quickly.

It would have a lasting effect and would not break any laws. It would only cost the difference between the price of a Canadian product and the price of a foreign import, but it could save jobs and even make jobs for the unemployed. Let us face it, after the next election some of the fellows across the way are going to need jobs, because there will not be room on the Ontario Municipal Board for all of them.

Many people are tired of hearing gloom and doom, and so am I. It is really not that bad. Eighty-seven per cent of the work force is still working. Some people are still getting raises in pay. We can go to bed at night and sleep without fear of our house being bombed. We can walk the streets without being shot at. We can fill our stomachs three times a day with choice food that is the cheapest in the world.

Even those on welfare seem to eat pretty well. I noticed the picture in the paper of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) when he was dining with the welfare recipients. He was the skinniest one of the bunch.

We are several hundred per cent better off than most countries in the world. To a farmer, a five per cent increase looks pretty good after coming through the past couple of years.

I talked about the individual having the power to turn the economy around by buying Canadian. As far as prices are concerned, the individual has a lot of power in price-setting. He can try to keep input prices down by efficient, productive work and by keeping wages down. He can also consider the price tag on articles before he buys them. By not paying top price he will contribute to lowering prices.

If the public were willing to pay the top price for cars, would we see so many specials and rebates being offered? Not at all. When we dropped our knack of dickering and dealing about 15 years ago because of our affluent society, we added to inflation. Retailers usually charge what the traffic will bear. If we keep paying, the price keeps going up.

Certainly, input costs must be added to the price, but when people question the price, profit margins are kept at a minimum. I do not know of any other time in history when there has been such a variety of prices to choose from.

10:30 p.m.

I would like to close by quoting from an article written by Bill Smyllie for the Thomson Newspapers:

"Come on, Canadians, let's stop whining. My father and mother didn't whine during the big Depression. They did the best they could and desperately tried to avoid going on relief, now called welfare. Get rid of your boat. Sell your second car. There's such a thing as walking. Cut your kids' allowance to zilch and let them earn by working.

"So you like steak? Eat hamburg. Stop buying that crap from California and Florida in the wintertime, lettuce for a dollar and a half, mostly water, grapes, oranges, celery, those little hard, bitter tomatoes. Eat spuds, porridge. They're good for you. Dig a root cellar under your patio deck and fill it with carrots and turnips. Get a couple of chickens and if they don't lay, eat them. Cut out those long-distance calls about nothing and write a letter. Wear a sweater to keep your thermostat down.

"We can lick inflation, but not by living the way we do. We can lick unemployment with some guts, but not government guts. There aren't any. If you are out of work, take your unemployment insurance, but get looking for something else. This country still has limitless opportunities, if you want to work, that is, and if you don't believe me, ask the immigrants."

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, what a preposterous contribution the last member made in trying to suggest --

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on what the government is doing with Bill 179, and since you seem to be poised, I will move to adjourn the debate until Thursday.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the House, I thought I should indicate what the business will be for the rest of this week.

I know the members will also want to join with me in congratulating the Premier of New Brunswick and his Progressive Conservative government on their sweeping re-election tonight with a very increased majority. I think the House will also want to congratulate three new members of the House of Commons, the Progressive Conservative member for Timiskaming, the Progressive Conservative member for Leeds and the New Democratic Party member for Broadview-Greenwood who, I am sure, will --

Mr. Martel: What about the New Democrat who won in New Brunswick?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You have to have one.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on second reading of Bill 179 will continue on Thursday afternoon, Thursday evening and Friday morning. In order to carry out that business, I would like, with the consent of the House, to move a motion to suspend private members' business on Thursday afternoon.

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64, private members' business will not be considered on Thursday, October 14.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:34 p.m.