Journal des débats 1982-oct-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise upon what my House leader tells me would be better defined as a point of order than as a point of privilege, if one were defining it.

It relates to a situation that arose yesterday in the standing committee on general government. I ask your assistance and guidance in this regard, because it was always my understanding -- and I think you have said this many times in the House -- that the committees shall determine their own progress, their own program and their own procedures.

At the beginning of the supposed consideration of Bill 127 yesterday in the standing committee on general government, I moved a motion which asked that the committee not deal with the clause-by-clause study of Bill 127 at this time. In my view this was a procedural motion, which is always in order. Nothing had transpired immediately before that and nothing the week before which said we should not deal with this item.

The motion, unfortunately, was ruled out of order by the chairman. There are many who would say that it is tantamount to closure not to permit that motion to come forward and not to permit debate on it. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that committee chairmen are aware that committees order their own business and that they should permit motions of that nature.

I say that particularly because, as things transpired in the committee that day, three of the six members of the government party on the committee dealing with the clause-by-clause motion had not sat in on many hearings on Bill 127. That is why it was very unfortunate that we did proceed on that day. I ask your guidance and assistance.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I would have to rule that it is not a point of order and that, in fact, there is nothing out of order. As you are aware, the committees do make their own decisions. I cannot consider anything until the report comes back into this House, and neither can the House.

ELECTION ANNIVERSARY

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, there is a very important date coming up on Sunday which I know you and the House would not want to let go by without some kind of remembrance in the chamber which perhaps will add a little levity to an otherwise hostile environment.

Mr. Stokes: The election of the gang of '67.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You will know, as my friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has said, that Sunday, October 17, will mark the anniversary of the election of the gang of '67 to this august chamber.

It is interesting that there are only 10 members of that esteemed class, whose centennial project was to get a job by being elected in 1967: five on the Liberal side, two in the New Democratic Party and three on the Conservative side.

It is also interesting for historical purposes to mention that of the 125 members in the chamber there are only 14 who predeceased -- is that the right term? I think "predeceased" is the right term -- the rest of the class of '67 in this chamber.

I will not waste the time of the House by putting those names before you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention, for the people who were elected in 1967, that they will mark their 15th anniversary in this place of heavenly peace.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River may be interested to know that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has already drawn this very important date to my attention, with the very strong suggestion that perhaps something should be done to mark the occasion. I am working on that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when you are examining that matter, could you tell me, as the person who was Leader of the Opposition before and after that election, how the results could have been what they were when the alternative slogan to a continuation of Tory rule was, "Nixon Now"?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know I express the views of many of the honourable member's colleagues and party people throughout the province in saying that there would be a number of people in the Liberal Party who would say, "Now is the time for Nixon."

2:10 p.m.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION SPENDING

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I think is a point of privilege but also may be a point of order. It concerns the vote campaign in the municipal elections of November 8. The government is spending $850,000 on that campaign, as you know. One of the expenditures is for a brochure which the government is putting out and which says: "You decide. Your vote works for you every day."

It is filled up in the front, in the centre and in the back --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have not finished.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of privilege or a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: You're not allowed to embarrass the government like that.

Mr. Speaker: I will ignore that remark. I think this would be better dealt with during the oral question period.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would --

Mr. Speaker: I have to ask the honourable member to resume his seat, please.

Mr. Epp: I would ask that you be a little more liberal in your ruling. It is a very important point, but it may embarrass the government.

Mr. Speaker: I think you can bring it up at the proper time, during the question period.

Mr. Epp: I ask you because it involves --

Mr. Speaker: I cannot debate it. I have asked you to resume your seat.

Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

KIM ANNE POPEN

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am surprised there is no statement, this being an important day in the province. I know all members on this side are surprised that we have not heard a statement either from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). Today marks the end of a major epoch. A great work, which is finally coming to a conclusion, has been in the process for the last many number of years in this province.

In 1976, Kim Anne Popen died. There has been an investigation since that time and, finally, that report has gone to the printers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a travesty of justice.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Peterson: Let the minister speak. He is not known to be a shrinking violet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing to reply to, because it is not a point of order.

Mr. Peterson: Even if he just wants to grumble a little, let him go ahead. Frankie wants his day, Mr. Speaker. He is very anxious to say something.

Interjections.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to mark another anniversary of a sort. It is one year and one day since the announcement of the great Suncor purchase. I suspect the Minister of Energy would like to take advantage of this opportunity to tell everyone in this province about the benefits to the taxpayers of Ontario that have come to them as a result of this purchase.

Can the minister tell us what benefits the taxpayers of the province have had as a result of the purchase that would not have occurred had we not been involved? Will he tell us, please, the current value of the investment in 25 per cent of Suncor?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that this question has been raised, Indeed, had it not been raised, I planned to make a statement later on in the day, because this is a very significant and important question that the Leader of the Opposition raises.

He no doubt will know that since the involvement of this government through the Ontario Energy Corp. in the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor, almost $1 billion in new investment has been initiated by Suncor alone or in conjunction with the Ontario Energy Corp. We will perhaps get back to that in a moment.

Against the background of the current economic times, when others were backing away from many megaprojects and were timid to take advantage of the federal government's leadership with respect to Canadianization, this company, in which this government had an interest, proceeded and made some very significant decisions with economic benefits to the people of Ontario.

The member might ask, and I am sure he did ask, what benefits there were to the people of Ontario.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It just so happens that it may be of some interest to this House that because of the --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You'll be sorry you asked.

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just with respect to the decision --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition asked the question. I suggest that interjections not be listened to and that the minister proceed to answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Be quiet over there.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just to deal with one of those --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Did you read my letter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I did read the letter. Indeed, that letter prompted me to do a bit more research in anticipation of this anniversary presentation here in the House. It was the member's letter that helped me do that.

Let us just talk about the Sarnia investment alone -- $335 million.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the member for Halton-Burlington to refrain from asking supplementary questions.

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I share with the House the fact that as a result of the Sarnia investment alone, 61 Canadian companies have been awarded contracts for the construction of that upgrading facility in Sarnia, the value of which is $45 million in Canadian contracts.

Let us take a little look around the province to see where this money, this $45 million, is going in Ontario. Let us look at Etobicoke, Brantford, Cambridge, Scarborough, St. Thomas, Toronto, Peterborough, Penetanguishene, Niagara Falls, Brampton, Bradford and St. Catharines. Foster Wheeler in St. Catharines, I say to the member for St. Catharines, benefits by this contract, and that involves a lot of people; a lot of people benefit there.

Let us talk about Fort Erie and London. Let us also talk about --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Reference was made to my name and I rise --

Mr. Speaker: No, it was not.

Mr. Bradley: I want to ask the minister where he was when Babcock and Wilcox was getting all those contracts from Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Speaker: You will get a chance to ask the question. The Minister of Energy has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: While we are talking about our favourites, let us not forget Niagara Structural Steel in St. Catharines as well. Let us talk to the people who are employed in all these plants and ask them what they think about the Suncor investment.

Mr. Peterson: The only contribution the minister could make to Penetanguishene would be to send Malcolm Rowan there, believe me.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is the only kind of rebuttal you are capable of.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: I want to compliment the minister on answering me with a straight face. I want to compliment him, because he does not believe a word of it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I believe it.

Mr. Peterson: I know he does not and everyone else knows he does not. In fact, is it not true --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- and I am responding to his answer as well as to the news release, this hokey news release that just came to me, stating that the Suncor commitment to the federal government in May 1980 was to upgrade the Sarnia refinery, which was long before the minister's involvement.

Is it not true that as of September 1, 1981, the Alberta-Ottawa pricing accord made it economic for Suncor to proceed with its Fort McMurray overburden removal project?

Is it not true also that the major fire at the oil sands plant compressor building on January 20, 1982 -- and maybe the minister wants credit for that fire, I do not know -- is the major reason that Suncor has initiated the Fort McMurray plant integrity program?

Is it not true as well that on August 17, 1981, Suncor submitted a definitive proposal for the Fort Kent heavy oil project to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board? The go-ahead was contingent on the price to be received, which was resolved under the September 1, 1981, pricing accord.

Is it not true that the minister could have formed his Trillium Exploration Corp., without having made the $650-million investment in Suncor?

The facts are that none of those projects is contingent or dependent on the minister's taking 25 per cent of it. He is trying to take credit now for something he deserves absolutely no credit for, particularly when he said at the beginning that he was not there to manage Suncor and that, in fact, he was going to leave it in other hands. He is sucking and blowing, and he is being an incredible hypocrite.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are the expert at sucking and blowing; so you should know.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have seen many exhibitions, but anyone who struggles to justify a position over time as weakly as the Leader of the Opposition does really should re-examine his position.

I want to point out that in view of the economic climate since the acquisition of a 25 per cent interest in this company through the Ontario Energy Corp., great confidence has been shown with respect to this whole industry by this company, encouraged by the Ontario government's participation on its board through the OEC.

The fact remains that there is $1 billion worth of investment in Canada. The fact remains that there is $45 million worth of business for Ontario companies. Indeed, no matter what he says, the Leader of the Opposition cannot eradicate this. It is directly related to this decision to go in. He should look at what happened to the other companies.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about heavy fuel oil upgrading. Who else was involved in making that commitment and where are they now? They have decided not to go ahead. We encouraged this company through our involvement to proceed.

The economic value and benefit to this province are obvious. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition was big enough to realize what this means in the way of jobs for the people in all those communities to which I have made reference.

Mr. Peterson: I am a lot bigger than the minister, let me tell him. Let me ask him this: How can the minister, with a straight face and with all the piety that he has summoned up, say what he has said, when Mr. Hennigar, the president of Suncor, said on July 26, 1982: "We would have proceeded with the upgrader even if the provincial government had not owned part of Suncor"? Why is the minister perpetuating this myth?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will tell the Leader of the Opposition, who keeps making reference to a letter of July 1982, that I have a letter from Mr. Hennigar dated August 1982.

Mr. Bradley: One from Morley Rosenberg.

Mr. Wrye: Is he from the Morley Rosenberg school?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let us just get the record balanced and straight about the comment by Mr. Hennigar --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why don't you read the July letter?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You don't want to hear it, do you?

Mr. Kerrio: What does Joe Clark say about this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: After last Tuesday, you people should not even mention Joe Clark. After your performance in Broadview-Greenwood, you should be --

Mr. Bradley: Who is going to read Morley Rosenberg's letter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a supplementary. The minister is trying to reply, if the members would just contain themselves long enough.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is Mr. Hennigar's letter of August 1982: "The comments attributed to me with respect to the role of the OEC's directors on the Suncor board should only be interpreted to mean that commercial criteria exclusively were used by the board. My comments should not be interpreted to mean that the OEC's representatives did not contribute significantly to the decision to proceed nor that the approval of the project was a foregone conclusion when the OEC joined the Suncor board. On the contrary, the support of the OEC representatives on the board was most supportive in arriving at the decision to proceed."

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Let me just say, by way of advice to the minister, that if he finds Mr. Hennigar was either mistaken or telling a lie in the circumstances, he can always appoint him to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Last week we were discussing the unemployment problem in this province. The Premier said: "If one looks at those sectors where the unemployment figures have increased, they are sectors over which this government has no control."

It is interesting to look at unemployment rates in the various sectors of the province. I want to bring them to the attention of the Premier.

In agriculture, from last month to this month, unemployment went from 5.9 per cent to 7.2 per cent; in primary industry, unemployment increased from 30.6 per cent to 31.5 per cent; manufacturing unemployment increased from 11.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent; in transportation, communications and other utilities, unemployment increased from 6.8 per cent to 6.9 per cent; and in public administration, unemployment increased from 4.5 per cent to 6 per cent.

What these figures say is that in virtually every sector, unemployment is increasing. Is the Premier saying there is nothing he can do at all?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the "community party" for Ontario is misunderstanding, once again, what I said. I must confess I was shocked when I read a release about a gentleman, whose name I will not trouble the House with, who is running in the by-election in York South as "our community candidate." I want to congratulate the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) as the new leader of the "community party" of Ontario. I think it is just tremendous. I was in his home town last night.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: When is a Liberal not a Liberal?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: When he is an Ontario Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Whenever he might want to get elected.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was just reading this press release from Slim Streek.

Mr. Kerrio: You call yourselves Tories.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right. Look at the pink shirt the honourable member's leader is wearing today. That is because risers are being provided for the TV cameras at the member's party's rally tonight. What are risers for rallies? I have no idea. I am just reading the information here.

I will try to take the member back to the question and the discussion. What I endeavoured to point out to the member -- let us go through the categories he listed. I think I said that in the resource sector the question of the world nickel market was something over which the government of Ontario had no control. He read out figures for the resource sector --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He did mention the resource sector. Primary industry comes under the resource sector. The member should try to understand what he is trying to ask. For a former member of the Young Presidents' Organization not to know that primary industry includes the resource sector is a clear indication that he never should have been a member of that organization because some of his colleagues were.

Primary industry includes Inco, it includes Falconbridge, and it includes others in the resource sector. I make no apologies for it; we do not control the price, the international marketplace or the demand.

Mr. Mancini: How about keeping the promise?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I ask the member for Essex South to try to pay attention.

Let us go through the transportation sector. The member should know something about the transportation sector. I observed that this government really had no control over the automotive market in the United States. That is part of the transportation sector. It relates to the automotive business. It is approximately 24 per cent of the economy of Ontario. I make no apologies, once again, for stating that we do not control market conditions in the United States.

I think the member mentioned the agricultural sector. In terms of the sectoral analysis done by his research experts, who prepare these questions for him, I do not know whether they included in the agricultural sector the farm implement machinery business or whether they included it in manufacturing; whichever one it happens to be in, I think his colleague -- "Nixon Now" for leader of the "community party" of Ontario -- his colleague would tell him that the problems in Brantford, and for some of his constituents who live outside that great community, relate to the depressed condition of the agricultural machinery market, not only in the United States but elsewhere as well.

I said to the members of this House that this government had taken certain initiatives in the housing field in terms of small business. We have seen growth in some small business; we have seen employment increase in some areas of small business. But I reiterate that there are some market conditions over which this government does not have control, and I say, with the greatest of respect, there are one or two areas over which even the member's friends in Ottawa have no control.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: It is very hard to decipher, but I assume the Premier is saying that he has no control. Why did he go to the Premiers' conference in Halifax, for example, on August 25 of this year and say, "But at the same time these constraints cannot be used to deny our domestic responsibility to make our best efforts to provide for immediate economic recovery and set the basis for economic growth through the rest of this decade"? It is interesting that on September 21 of this year the Premier repeated the identical words in this Legislature, and it is interesting that on October 8 of this year in his speech to the Conference Board of Canada he repeated the identical words, the identical phrase.

What is his problem? Do his speechwriters have the same ennui the rest of the government has? Are they unable to think of anything new? Or is that his idea of best efforts, having no control and not being prepared to do anything at the same time as he is making pious speeches about how we all have to do something and do it together?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I guess the honourable member's research assistant was not at the Conference Board deliberations because I did not use my speech. That may come as a bit of a shock to him. I know he always sticks to the written text. Particularly when he is trying to find out where Highway I is, I know how he sticks to the text.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I was attempting to say and as I tried to say in London last evening, as a matter of fact, at a very nonpartisan event -- it was a great evening and they missed the member --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it went very well. Mr. J. Allyn Taylor, the chairman of the board of McMichael gallery, is a very distinguished Canadian. Maybe that is why the member was not there. Anyway, I will go ahead.

Mr. Bradley: Was Morley there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, but Captain Joe Jeffery was there and many other of the friends of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not see his father-in-law.

What I said in Halifax, what I repeated here and what the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has said on two or three occasions is that we think there is a responsibility, but before consideration by this government of what limited options may be available to us we were anxious to co-operate, as I said in Halifax, with the other provinces and with the government of Canada. That is still our expectation, although I cannot say it is one that is going to be fulfilled.

The Treasurer has said on three or four occasions in answer to exactly the same question raised by the Leader of the Opposition that until we have some response from Ottawa, until we get some indication of whether we can deal with this on a co-operative basis, we will delay whatever initiatives might be available to us until that determination is made. I do not know how many more times the member has to be told.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier will realize that there are 700,000 people unemployed in this province. It is a serious problem and it demands a serious answer instead of his silly, comic routine which we get every day in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Last week when the Premier said this government could do nothing about markets that exist within this province in order to increase consumer demand, did he not realize that he already has taken action on that matter? He has taken $440 million of consumer buying power out of the marketplace by a wage control bill which will lose more jobs in this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the honourable member, he has asked two questions. The first indicated that in spite of his assessment of how I answered the Leader of the Opposition with his very penetrating questions, he was not paying any attention.

I did not refer to the domestic marketplace at all; I was referring to the international marketplace and the United States. If he would listen for once in his life, he might understand what is being said. I think it is fair to state as well that the member has become so sanctimonious, so self-righteous, so caught up in his own importance that he never listens to anyone else.

I would also say to the member that he should be saying something else to the public sector employees of this province, for whom I have a much greater measure of respect and in whom I have more confidence than the member obviously does. We are not taking out $450 million worth of purchasing power; we are, as a matter of deliberate policy, trying to reduce the level of inflation, trying to give greater freedom within the marketplace and providing a measure of job security that his party would never support. His party would support greater unemployment in the public sector by the reaction he is taking to that bill.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier feels that we are badgering. He quite obviously feels that the opposition is not entitled to ask questions about it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He does not understand the pre-eminent question in this province at the present time. Does the Premier realize, on the basis of last month's statistics compared to this month's, that we are losing more than one job every two minutes, so critical is the situation? The Premier is saying, "We will wait for the federal government." What are the Premier's plans? Does he have any plans? Why does he not share them with us? What is he going to do? A lot of people are very upset.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question as to the right of the Leader of the Opposition to ask any question he desires. However, in a moment of quiet contemplation, he might review his leadoff on other questions over the past two or three weeks and see whether my somewhat facetious observation as to their penetrating character is not correct.

I repeat again what was said two weeks ago and what has been said by the Treasurer since that time. We believe part of the solution has to relate to the responsibilities of all governments in this country. It has to relate to the responsibilities of the government in Ottawa. The Leader of the Opposition may not like that, but it is factually correct.

The Treasurer has had a meeting with the new federal Minister of Finance. He hopes they will be having further discussions. We hope to work out a co-operative approach to this, which I think would be best and which the Treasurer thinks would be best. I hope the Leader of the Opposition in his quiet moments would also think it best.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have also said if that does not materialize this government is prepared to take certain initiatives. We are not prepared to disclose them at this moment.

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Does the minister remember a statement he made in the Legislature on October 7, when he referred to the wages of public servants who earn $13,000 a year? He said, "Of course, I do not feel the salary being quoted is a generous salary or even a salary that anyone can subsist on these days, certainly not at that figure."

Keeping that in mind, would the minister like to comment on the effect of Bill 179, which provides for a maximum increase of $1,000, on the employees of Ark Eden Nursing Home where the starting rate for kitchen aides, nursing aides, housekeeping aides, laundry aides and cooks will go from $6,661 a year to $7,961 a year with that maximum increase? If a family or an individual cannot live on $13,000, how can someone live on less than $8,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think the real question at hand is the ability to save jobs at the present time and that is what Bill 179 will do.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Bellwoods.

Mr. McClellan: You caught me off guard, Mr. Speaker. I expected an answer to that question.

My supplementary concerns the windfall profit that will come to this wonderful facility, the Ark Eden Nursing Home, as a result of the wage control program. Would the minister not agree that since this nursing home receives the same per diem rate of $23 as every other nursing home, the five per cent wage increase next year will result in a very nice little windfall profit to this nursing home?

Would the minister consult with his friend the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and tell us what the profit margin is for Ark Eden Nursing Home before the control goes into effect, what the profit margin is in comparison to nursing homes in the same vicinity which pay double the wages and just how much money they expect to make as a result of Bill 179?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not think one can establish a pattern for windfall profits unless one knows the expenses the institution is committed to. A lot of these nursing homes have been operating extremely close to the line. I cannot see that this is a situation where there are necessarily going to be windfall profits.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I heard the word "nursing." When the minister is considering this matter, will he report the progress to this House and indicate whether he has given favourable consideration to the public health nurses in Niagara and the representations they made here?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that is not a supplementary.

Mr. Bradley: Was the question not on nursing?

Ms. Copps: He asked about nursing homes.

Mr. Speaker: He was talking about nursing homes.

Mr. Bradley: Some of them work in nursing homes.

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: I think he wants to answer.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, it had nothing to do with the main question.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Labour to take a better shot at talking about the windfall profit. The fact of the matter is other nursing homes with the same per diem are paying their workers double. Obviously this nursing home will get a windfall profit as a result of Bill 179.

Is he further aware that the average yearly income for a registered nurse in the hospitals of this province is $24,000? The registered nurses at this nursing home will be going from $14,800 to $15,100 if they get the five per cent which is provided for under the government's bill.

I would like to ask the minister whether he thinks this is fair. Does he realize that this nursing home is providing care to children who have severe problems and are severely handicapped? Should we not recognize that these people have a very difficult job and that they should be paid a decent wage?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not going to argue with the member opposite as to what a decent wage is or as to what these people are entitled to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The arithmetic the member opposite used is not very good though.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I just happen to feel, regardless of whatever date was selected for the implementation of these guidelines, there are going to be groups and individuals who are hindered by them and this just happens to be one of those cases.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the provincial Treasurer has gone so I will ask the question of the Premier. Is the Treasurer coming back in?

Mr. Speaker: Ask your question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Here comes the Treasurer. The Treasurer will recall the following comments that he made in the Legislature on Bill 179: "I sometimes believe that members opposite do not understand that our high credit rating is not merely a status symbol. It is concrete evidence to investors that Ontario is a secure place to put their money. We need more investors to have confidence in Ontario."

With that in mind, one of the rationales the Treasurer has used for the wage controls contained in this statement is that we need more foreign investment. In other words, he is encouraging more foreign capital for Ontario and he supports more foreign ownership. How can the Treasurer advocate such a policy when, between now and the end of the decade, foreign companies, lenders and investors, will extract $279 billion from Canada?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that shows the myopic view of my friend the Treasury critic in the opposition benches.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend, profits are from goods one creates out of the resources of a country, the manpower, the energy and the materials. If investment is not brought there, be it our own or foreign, then the human resources are totally wasted. The cost of keeping those human resources unoccupied far exceeds the small share of profit that is given to the shareholders.

Mr. Cooke: I think the Treasurer missed the point that was being made, and that is the cost of foreign investment in this province and in the country.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he realizes that last year Canada paid out $10.3 billion to foreign lenders and investors and we paid out a net $21 billion for foreign-made goods. The Treasurer should be aware that if the situation continues up until 1990, that is the equivalent of losing 107 General Motors in this province.

Does the Treasurer not understand the cost of foreign investment? Is it not time we had an industrial strategy in this province that concentrated on developing the Canadian-owned sector in order to develop our resources, as well as a manufacturing sector for Canadians?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have not misunderstood; my colleague has not heard. It takes investment; it takes capital that is available. We saw some interesting examples a while back of our buying back a resource through a company called Dome, replacing foreign equity with borrowed money. We did not have the savings in this country and that virtually destroyed a company.

I am as good an economic nationalist as my friend. I want, as does our party, Canadians to own equity in this country, but one has to have the wherewithal to buy that equity. The member will not put even a cent in equity. He believes in the state owning it all. No one would come here under him.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the minister must recognize the degree of opposition to Bill 179 in that it zeros in only on the public sector. Has he given consideration to, or does he agree with, the remarks of Nelson Riis, the federal New Democratic Party finance critic, who said he believes in full wage and price controls on both the public and private sector?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I have discovered about the NDP is that hearing one of its members offer an opinion does not indicate what the party thinks because it has as many opinions as it has members. It always has had and always will have. It is not a party; it is a collection of individuals no one else will take. I do not agree with the statement.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the money that goes out of this country, the Treasurer talks about our not having the capital ability ourselves within this province to invest. Does he not realize the money that is going out of this country is our money? Does he not realize there has been the Statistics Canada study, the Gray report and the report of a committee of this Legislature which have proven the problems of foreign investment, foreign ownership and foreign control?

Is it not time the Treasurer and the Premier recognize that this matter of foreign ownership is at the heart of the economic problems that now exist? It goes back to the Premier's answer to an earlier question when he pointed out the dependence on the United States and other foreign countries. That is the reason we do not control our economy and cannot create the jobs to get out of this depression on our own.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I sense I could answer this question all day and probably not change my colleague's mind. What is money? Money, as far as I understand it, is a material issued to represent wealth created somewhere in one's country. If one prints the stuff without creating the wealth, one has inflation. Does the member follow that? We create wealth by using foreign investment, Canadian labour and Canadian investment and putting them together to create wealth. When we do that we can print money that means something. When we create that money it is not bad to give a little bit of the money we created to somebody who put his money here.

BRUCE HYDRO LINE

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier resulting from the rejection by the cabinet of the appeal from the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture on a decision by the joint board on a proposal from Ontario Hydro on the location of the transmission lines bringing power from Bruce to southwestern Ontario.

Can the Premier explain to the House and to the interested communities and property owners why the appeal was rejected? It sought to remove approval by the joint board for location of a high-tension line along a Highway 401 corridor. Such a proposal was not even part of the program put forward by Ontario Hydro in its six alternatives. Since it has been approved by the cabinet, what is the Premier going to say and what can I say to the communities and property owners affected who had no opportunity to come to the joint hearing board since the proposal was not before the board at the origination of the hearing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to get more definite material for the honourable member to explain to some of his constituents. The cabinet really confirmed the majority decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. It was as simple as that. It was actually the consolidated hearings board. While we were asked by some to alter that, there was a suggestion it be sent back for a further hearing, that would have resulted in X number of months of further hearings with perhaps no differential in result. So the cabinet, in its wisdom, felt it should confirm the order of the joint board.

I should point out -- and this perhaps will help the honourable member in explanation to his constituents -- that as I understand it, the initial recommendation covers a rather wide band in terms of the potential alignment. In fact, as the member knows, the alignment corridor probably will be in the neighbourhood of 800 or 1,000 feet, or whatever it is, but on the maps it appears as though it is covering eight or 10 miles, as I am sure it does for some of his constituents when they look at the maps themselves.

As I understand the process, in terms of the specific allocation of the transmission line itself within those broad bands, there will be an opportunity for public input. I think the member can assure his constituents of that.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier will no doubt recall the tremendous difficulties experienced by himself and his colleagues in getting an approval to bring the power from the original Bruce station down from Bradley to Georgetown. The tremendous expense and numbers of hearings and the deviation of the line from certain properties really brought the program into disrepute.

Is he not aware that Ontario Hydro, no doubt after consultation with the minister and other of the Premier's colleagues, went to great lengths to call a number of public meetings to discuss the six alternatives that were put forward? The one along Highway 401 was not one of the alternatives. The communities and people there had no idea that they would be involved. For me to say, "All is well because Bill Davis says you will have something to say about the exact alignment," is not sufficient. It seems absurd to them that the power from Bruce is going to go across to Barrie, down to Milton, around to Middleport and through the county of Norfolk, with a second line along Highway 401.

One of them might have been appropriate, particularly since it was part of the hearing, but for the other one to appear out of thin air -- and I look at the New Democratic Party members since they were so involved in this -- without the citizens even having any right to discuss it, does not suggest that Hydro has learned any lessons. The Premier is going to have a continuing problem, believe me, unless he orders an additional hearing, not for the exact location of the line in the band on each side of Highway 401, but as to whether it should go through there at all. Hydro did not think it should. Why does the Premier think it should?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not think the member intended to suggest that Ontario Hydro did this. As I recall it, and I do not have all the details with me, the actual band or area that the joint hearing board recommended was not Hydro's first preference.

Mr. Nixon: I am not blaming them, I am blaming the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, on occasion I have heard from over there some people who suggest that we should not, as a matter of policy, interfere with decisions by the joint hearing board or the OMB or what have you. We were faced with this recommendation from a board that was constituted to have these hearings.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and no doubt the Minister for Industry and Trade will be interested in this question as well.

Both ministers will be aware that nearly 11,000 apartment units in Metropolitan Toronto have been sold through Greymac and that the matter has been referred to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Since it is the policy of this agency to consult the provincial government affected concerning its views, can the minister tell the House Ontario's position on the purchase of existing rental accommodation by foreign companies, such as is indicated may be the case in this particular purchase?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member has information I do not possess, I would be delighted to receive it. I have no information that Greymac is a foreign corporation. If he has that information, will he please provide it to the House?

Mr. Philip: Maybe the reason this minister does not have information on foreign investment and speculation in apartment buildings is that he has failed to do the kinds of studies this party has asked for on the effect of foreign investment in the apartment industry.

Mr. Speaker: Your question, please.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister aware that tenants are presently paying 85 per cent of the refinancing cost of apartment sales? With the balance of payments problem, why should Ontario tenants be financing Swiss companies and other companies for the takeover of apartment buildings in this province? Is that the minister's position?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first let me say in a quite straightforward manner that if the member has information to indicate Greymac is a foreign-owned corporation he should put it before the House now. If he does not, then would he please stop repeating those things.

He has asked about the commission's guidelines. They are not the government's orders; they are the commission's guidelines with respect to refinancing. He knows them very well. He knows that the refinancing guideline policies of the commission, as I recall, allow up to 85 per cent of the financing charges to be passed on. They may be passed on over a number of years, depending upon --

Mr. Laughren: That's not bad, is it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us not play silly games. That is the reality of life. When one buys something, part of it is financed. That happened probably when the member bought his house, unless he is that wealthy he did not have to mortgage it. The member knows the way it is done and he knows it is a perfectly proper business practice. I do not understand all this talk he keeps repeating about a foreign company. If he has that information, he should put it out.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the minister will check the record, he will notice I did not say Greymac was a foreign company but that indications are that it is acting as a front for foreign companies for the purchase. That was what the record showed. If the minister is asking me to stop playing silly games, he should stop playing them also.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, in this transfer of properties some 10,000 tenants in Toronto alone could potentially be affected. I wonder if the minister could review the regulations such as they exist, looking at the 15 per cent money down and the amortization over a number of years, and come back to this House with a more equitable, fairer treatment of amortization so that tenants in this province are not continually ripped off by the kind of regulations that presently exist in the Residential Tenancy Commission.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I hope that people listening do not really believe that it is a valuable thing in society to try to make scapegoats of people for political reasons. That is not really a good way to approach life.

The member knows very well that the guidelines established by the commission, not by the government, say that up to 85 per cent of the financing charges can be passed on, which is the way any purchase any of us make is often financed. If she is saying there is something inappropriate about that, then I would like to hear some good justifications for it because, as I understand it, the commission sought good advice on what was a normal and acceptable business practice.

I know their practice is being questioned in the courts, and there is a case coming up this fall as to whether or not they even have the right to spread them out over any number of years. Nevertheless, they endeavour to act in the best interest of people purchasing and to provide some spreading out of costs to tenants. I think that is a pretty reasonable approach.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade. In spite of announcements about a proposed short-term rearrangement of credit by suppliers to International Harvester of Chicago, due to the longer-term possibility of the bankruptcy of the American company and the news report that International Harvester Canada is a separate financial unit, will the minister initiate a preliminary feasibility and advisability study by the government, either alone or in conjunction with other agencies, to participate in the financing of the Canadian company in the event that the US company does go bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it might be rather foolish for any organization, whether it be the government of Canada or of Ontario, or for that matter a chartered bank or lending institution, to ever wander in and immediately say, "Yes, we are prepared to give you money for this situation."

It seems to me that if there is a problem, then the problem will be brought forward. At the moment, it is our understanding that things are on a reasonable keel. It was just two or three days ago -- last Friday I believe -- that the shareholders' meeting of International Harvester in the United States confirmed the reorganization plans for International Harvester for the refinancing arrangements that had been submitted to their various banks on an international basis. We have to assume that particular refinancing restructure will have to be carried out before any problems will be incurred. Should problems develop, they will be dealt with at the time.

3 p.m.

At the moment we are led to believe that the Chatham plant and the Hamilton plant are able to survive on their own. They are functioning and, indeed, their mandate is growing as a result of this financial reorganization. That is good news and I think the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), who has raised this question with me a number of times, would certainly accentuate that.

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to point out that I did not ask for an announcement. I asked for a feasibility study. The success of this recent proposal depends on the suppliers giving an advantage of $1 for every $3 that the banks are proposing to put in; by no means is the future of the company assured.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McGuigan: I would like to ask the minister for a word of encouragement to the people of Kent-Elgin and Chatham-Kent to counter the negative statements that have been made by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) which were commented on yesterday by the manager of radio station CFCO, who takes particular umbrage at the gloomy outlook the member has painted for the city of Chatham.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I suppose the only encouragement we can offer is that the member for Windsor-Riverside continues to go around hanging gloom and doom and all kinds of black veils over every place he visits. A couple of days ago it was Sarnia, a day ago it was St. Thomas and a few days ago it was Chatham. He seems to leave a black trail wherever he has been.

Beyond that I do not know that we can comment other than to say that there was a reorganization plan, and in that plan the Chatham plant appears to be receiving not only its good existing mandate but perhaps a much more significant mandate. In that situation we are, ourselves, in weekly contact with International Harvester on the matter.

Frankly, I am very optimistic about the opportunities and chances for International Harvester Canada and the success that the Chatham plant and the Hamilton plant can expect to enjoy.

DAY CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On March 19, 1982, the minister said, "Providing more and better quality day care is and will continue to be a priority of my ministry."

Can the minister explain some of the range of answers and advice that is being given to the day care community in the central, Toronto-based, region of Ontario, to do with his initiatives program that was established to help expand day care in the province?

Is it true that there is a temporary freeze on capital and start-up funds in the central region of about $200,000 at this point? Is it true, as others have been told, that this money has been frozen until Metro's base funding for day care, a deficit of $2.6 million, has been worked out?

Is it true, as some members of his ministry have been saying, that this is going to be the end of the initiatives program and that it will not be continuing? Or is it true, as other members of the ministry have been saying, that there is a huge overrun in the children's services budget for this region that is causing a rationalization right across the budget?

Would the minister please give us the answer on what is really happening, because day care deliverers and Metro social services sources have been given many different kinds of information, which are those I have listed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I just moved one through for the Pinocchio centre yesterday.

The problem in Metro is the fact that I provided -- I guess it is the second version mentioned by the member; he read them off in order.

I am talking to the honourable member and I would appreciate his paying attention while I answer his question.

I believe the second of the versions he mentioned was that Metro was having some difficulty with its $2.6 million which was the amount of money provided to Metro over the current fiscal year for 600 day care spaces. Metro has had some difficulty, and they have not applied any of that money to any new day care spaces. Through my ministry, I have been meeting with Metro and reminding them that this was not money to be used for something else, it was money to be used for the provision of subsidized day care spaces.

The problem with the money that is outstanding or left with us -- and the reason I say $14,000 is it is $186,000 now; so the next time the honourable member asks me, it is not $200,000 but $186,000 -- is that it leaves the day care provider in a very untenable position. That is start-up money, and their proposals are all based on the fact that Metro will take up a number of spaces in there. We shortly intend -- not hope, intend -- to have it resolved with Metro: either use that money for what it is intended or give Mr. Drea back the money, all of it, and Mr. Drea will work out another financing vehicle for those depending on subsidized day care spaces.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thank the minister for the partial clarification I have received. Is it not the case, though, that Metro has been telling the minister of its difficulty with the deficit since the spring and trying to make arrangements with him for accommodation of that deficit. The reason for the deficit is, of course, that they happen to pay day care workers in their Metro-based services a good rate of pay because they happen to be unionized.

When is the minister going to be making the proposal to Metro, inasmuch as tomorrow, essentially, is the last time the present council will effectively be able to do anything with the 300 spaces they --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Six hundred.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, I know that the two of you argue about whether it is 300 or 600. They say it is 300; the minister says it is 600. I do not want to get into that statistical argument with him, although I side with Metro on it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is the minister going to do something on this by tomorrow? Is he going to make them a proposal for what they could be doing with this deficit? Is he then threatening them to take away this money, essentially, and give it to nonunionized areas and other kinds of vehicles? That is why they have their deficit. The minister's base guideline does not fit what they need, and he knows that is entirely true.

Finally, does the minister concur with what Mr. Kruger has said, that cutbacks were going to be necessary in all the discretionary programs -- which means day care -- in Metro next year because of his restraint program?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The honourable member knows better than that. Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple and fundamental principle involved here. The amount of money given to Metropolitan Toronto was for one purpose and one purpose only. It was not to be used for welfare; it was not to be used to patch up some of Mr. Kruger's little misadventures in the past. It was to be used for the provision of subsidized day care spaces.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last year this very same question arose, and I said at that time --

Mr. McClellan: Tell us about the little misadventures.

Mr. McClellan: He is attacking his own friends.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am attacking what?

Mr. McClellan: Your own pals.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have an awful lot of friends. That is something that is very strange to you.

Mr. McClellan: Do you attack them all?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If he finds two, he will be a winner.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I read correspondence in the House last year, or perhaps it was in the estimates, which referred to the fact that additional moneys that were provided to Metro in the previous fiscal year to equalize salaries and to provide additional day care were not used for that purpose.

You will recall, and I am sure the House will recall, that specifically we said, "Don't use it to cushion your welfare bill."

My ministry and I proceeded in this fiscal year to put the money down. That was to be used for day care spaces. Now we find out it has not been used for that. I think it is the only choice I have. My ministry does have comprehensive auditing. I have very little alternative except to insist that those funds be used for day care. That is what I am saying.

3:10 p.m.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the wages they are paying because I gave them equalization money last year which, as the member will recall, they did not even use. They spent half of it on something else. How they get themselves out of their own internal financial difficulty really is not dependent upon the date of the municipal election or the fact that tomorrow is their last meeting. That is an ongoing thing.

Mr. Picherack, the new director, is simply going to have to show us how he intends to use the day care money for day care. If the member is holding a brief that says I should forget all about it because they got the additional $2 million, I cannot do that.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question as to whether he can condone the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in putting out this brochure. He was referring to the election of November 8 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a supplementary.

Mr. Epp: He was referring to the election --

Mr. Speaker: No, no.

Mr. Epp: -- and expenditures. I thought for sure you would be more lenient.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: When I was giving a reply to the honourable member for Scarborough West a few moments ago, I inadvertently misread some figures. I know he is not in the House, but I would like to make the correction.

The day care space funding for Metropolitan Toronto for this fiscal year was a little over $2 million for 600 day care spaces. That was partially implemented by Metro on January 1, 1982. They have used only $741,000 of that more than $2 million. The $1.3 million residue is available to them and they have not asked for it.

That does not change the substance of my answer about where the $1.3 million goes, but I did want to clarify it.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ADVERTISING

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister has been asked to support a program of restraint in spending by all government departments. Why, then, would he choose at this particular juncture to initiate a costly advertising program, the purpose of which is simply to wish Women's College Hospital a happy centennial? Is the minister exempt from the budgetary restrictions? Do ward heeling and political aspirations take precedence over restraint?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty because I suffer a disadvantage. On this side of the House we have to deal with facts. On the member's side, they can deal with inaccuracies and exaggerations.

For a long period of time, the public has been inundated with rather extreme and inaccurate statements with regard to the state of health care in this province. If one were to read some of the inaccuracies that the member's party has had bound up in red for $12,000, some of our citizens would believe that there is a health care system in this province which is not the best in the world, when in fact it is.

Therefore, when we have something that is worthy of note, when there are volunteers who have worked hours and hours and years and years to put together a great facility such as the Women's College Hospital, we on this side of the House are of the view that the citizens are entitled to as much good news and accurate news about the health care system as possible. I am proud to commit taxpayers' dollars to inform them of the great, world-leading facilities that are available to them in the health care system right here in this province.

TRAFFIC HAZARDS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege relating to a letter which I received from the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) on April 19, 1982, in which, following the death of a student in my riding, the minister wrote: "It is felt by some school boards that children should not be dependent on the school bus to stop traffic for them in an urban environment when they are exposed to potentially hazardous traffic conditions at all times, not only going to school --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Copps: There has been a second death on that same street. I wonder if the minister is still of the same opinion.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Ms. Copps: I could not wake him up in question period.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet on the evening of Monday, October 18, 1982, and the afternoon of Tuesday, October 19, 1982, to complete the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be transferred from the standing committee on administration of justice to the standing committee on general government, to be the first estimates taken.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CEEPHIL INVESTMENTS LTD. ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, seconded by Mr. Mitchell, first reading of Bill Pr40, An Act to revive Ceephil Investments Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Samis, first reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

VISITOR

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate that our friend the former member for Grenville-Dundas, Mr. Don Irvine, the distinguished new chairman of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, was with us. He has just left. As one member, I wanted to welcome him back and wish him well in the good works he will be undertaking at that august provincial agency.

3:20 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I thought since we are debating this bill today I might indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

Tonight, October 14, and tomorrow, October 15, we will be continuing the debate on second reading of Bill 179.

On Monday, October 18, we will also be debating Bill 179 until 5:45 p.m. May I indicate to the members that there is an understanding between all parties that there will be a second reading division put at about 5:45 p.m. on Monday. The House will not sit Monday night; however, one of the committees, as we have just indicated by motion, will be sitting on Monday evening.

On Tuesday, October 19, legislation will be dealt with in the House in the following order:

Second reading and committee of the whole House, if required, on Bills 163, 164, 171, 172, 109, 174, 91, 93, 149, 150, 131 and 132.

On Wednesday, October 20, three committees will meet in the morning. They will be the standing committee on general government, the standing committee on resources development and the standing committee on administration of justice.

On Thursday afternoon, October 21, private members' ballot items will be considered. The items to be considered will be those standing in the names of the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo).

On Thursday evening, we will continue with any legislation that is still remaining on the Order Paper from the schedule I indicated for Tuesday and Tuesday night.

On Friday, October 22, we will begin the estimates, in committee of supply in the House, of the Ministry of Government Services.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this bill. There has been a long debate on it and it will go on for a long time in committee and in the course of the clause-by-clause study.

The reason the debate is going to go on for so long is because of the very serious questions which I believe and my party believes have been raised by the bill.

The bill was born in expediency because the government did not know what else it could do, and had no other plans in terms of the economic crisis facing the province.

The bill violates fundamental principles of equity which hit at the heart of the social and political kind of commonwealth that we should be having in the province.

I believe the bill undermines credibility as far as the Conservative Party is concerned. I believe it is rapidly undermining the principle of accountability as far as members of the government party are concerned, and I believe it threatens the credibility of this institution and our effectiveness and legitimacy in terms of providing any kinds of leadership to the province in the difficult times that we face over the course of the next few years.

When I say that the government is acting out of expediency, I am simply looking at the record of what has happened over the course of the summer. Back in March, long before the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) budget, it became evident that we were not just into another recession. It became evident that we were facing a sea change in the economic situation.

Yet, when the Treasurer brought his budget down in May, he was not prepared to acknowledge that and made vacuous promises about the kind of upturn that he forecast, with an increase in jobs over the second half of this year. It did not occur. In fact, the records of the economy in terms of layoffs and shutdowns, which had begun before March and had become much more evident in the course of the spring, has gone on to the point where unemployment is now at double the level it was at the time of the March 1981 election.

But what did the Conservatives do? Nothing. What have they had to offer? What is in their arsenal? What kind of ideas have they had? Nothing. They felt, however, a political drive to be seen to do something. Therefore, working out of expediency over the course of the summer they systematically tore up the promises and pledges they had made to public servants and they came in with the wage control bill that we have in Bill 179.

This is not just a wage control bill directed to one sector of the society alone. It is a bill which is a monument to inequity, a monument to expediency, a monument of bad faith and, I believe, a very damaging bill in terms of what it does to the essential fabric of trust that we need in this province if we are to get out of the difficulties we will be facing over the coming decade.

What has it been worth? The Conservatives got a few headlines. The Premier (Mr. Davis) was able to go to the Conference Board of Canada and say, "Look, we did something." For a while -- a week, two weeks, three weeks -- it made the government look as though somehow it was on the way.

Before and since the introduction of Bill 179, there has been no other action by the government at all. It is tearing up any kind of goodwill or trust it has from public servants, 500,000 people across the province. It is tearing up the potential to get co-operation from that essential group in our society. It is throwing down the gauntlet as far as working people and trade unions in the province are concerned in general, and showing no leadership at all in terms of any other means of getting this province out of the economic crisis, a crisis to which the leadership of the Conservative Party in Ontario has contributed so much over such a long time.

I believe the bill shows, more than anything else has in a long time, that the Conservative government has decided that when it comes down to a battle between rich and powerful groups on one hand and ordinary working people on the other, it is going to side with the rich and powerful interests in this society.

The federal Liberals have shown much the same thing. If Dome, Massey, Ford or such corporations come out with their begging bowls, the Conservatives leap to attention and the federal Liberals leap to attention. But if ordinary people are losing their farms, their homes and their businesses, if they have to live on unemployment insurance, if their benefits are running out and nothing else is there, they are told by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), by the Premier and by the Treasurer that nothing can be done at this time: "We are sorry, but times are tough and government cannot be expected to do everything."

At the same time, the government turns around and says: "In view of the economic situation it is time for us all to pull together and to rediscover the common purpose we had in wartime. This is a war and we have to work together." I find it difficult to see how working people and their representatives in the labour movement can be expected to respond with full hearts. How can they take a slap in the face, a kick in the rear end; how can they take a denial of fundamental rights?

How can they take a statement by the government that, as far as it is concerned, if it is expedient the basic rights that were guaranteed in the Charter of Rights will be taken away from working people? How can working people take that lying down? And then they are expected to turn around and say, "If the government wants to sit us down and have us work together with business in a partnership to get an economic recovery plan, we will be happy to do it." That is very difficult.

It is difficult for people to forget what is being done to them now, just as it was difficult the last time this particular venture was tried at the time of the Anti-Inflation Board in the mid-1970s. That common effort by workers and their representatives, the trade unions, by small business and large corporations, by governments and by people generally to find a route for economic recovery is something we should be trying to find. I have argued many times in this House that we need to put legislative focus on the kind of economic planning we could be having in this province.

We need to face the fact that our situation is fundamentally different from what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. We need to look for new solutions to the fact that Ontario's industrial place in Confederation has been slipping for a number of years. We need to look together for answers to the fact that the nature of industry is changing. Electronics and other new technologies have been coming in at a rapid rate. We need to face the fact that our resource industries are not linked in a proper manner to ensure that the products we mine or the products cut in this province are processed in Ontario.

We must do all that together. Whether we are talking about doing it through a select committee on economic planning or technological change in the Legislature; or we are talking about a task force that brings together various interests in the economy, it requires a climate of trust and common purpose. I call to members' attention that what has been done over the course of the summer has engendered a climate that is exactly opposite to that.

3:30 p.m.

In his meetings with Sean O'Flynn and representatives of the public service union in the spring, the Premier assured them that they would not be singled out. He made a promise which he has now broken.

Over the course of the spring, the government was contemplating what it might do. In the summer, rumours began to fly that the government was contemplating public sector wage controls. At that time I do not think many people in the public sector realized just how broad the government's net would spread and that 500,000 people would be caught in it so that the government could show the public that it had done something. What it will to do for inflation, God knows.

Through that entire time, the government could have been sitting down with representatives of working people in the public and private sectors and saying: "Look, we have some ideas. We want to go in these directions. We think these are things that are essential for the province, and we would like to see whether we cannot get your co-operation."

Did they talk to Sean O'Flynn and bring him into their confidence? No. Did they bring the other public sector unions into their confidence? No. Did they indicate that they were prepared to respect the rights of trade unions? Clearly not. Were they working behind the backs of these workers? Obviously they were.

Instead, they had a task force headed by John Tory, who is a political official in the Premier's office. They met weekly over the course of the summer.

The government keeps telling us what agonies it went through. Agony it may be for them, because they also keep telling us how repugnant it is for them to interfere with free contracts, collective bargaining and all that kind of stuff.

All that is a pile of rubbish, because they were prepared to go ahead and take away those rights and to take this action without a by-your-leave to the people who were affected. How government can now turn and say to those very people who do valuable work for the public sector, "We would like to have your co-operation in planning for the 1980s," is beyond me.

If this bill goes through, I do not see what government can do to re-engender any sense of trust, common purpose or good faith in their public servants. Yet, by God, we need that, because we have moved into an economic era that presents challenges not faced by this province and this country since the war.

It is no secret that there are puzzles for western governments. Reaganomics has been found wanting. Thatchernomics, or whatever they call it in Britain, has been found wanting. Governments are facing something of a fiscal crisis because programs undertaken at times of rapid growth are more difficult to pay for when the economy is depressed and when governments do not have as much money to play with as they had a few years ago.

I want to put a positive side to this and look at what has been accomplished over the course of the past 35 years because of the commitments that were made by governments, even by this government, to the idea of full employment and equitable sharing of rising income.

Until about six or seven years ago, that was still the watchword or guidepost for governments in this country. As a consequence of that, we had a prolonged period of superb economic growth with only one or two stretches of high unemployment. It was a period, I am afraid to say, in which we did not have a more equitable distribution of income. Although incomes were rising and people at the bottom of the ladder were able to have at least some share of the rise, that share should have been larger than it was.

Five or six years ago that commitment began to come to an end. It was a quiet kind of termination to the post-war commitment, but now it is becoming quite public. Government people, such as the Treasurer, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) and the Premier himself, are now going to their friends in the private sector and saying, "There may be some inequities in all this."

The Minister of Labour, who should resign rather than accept what is being done to the constituents he represents in the cabinet, admits that no one really could deem what hospital workers and similar employees are paid in Ontario today to be a living wage.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Labour is doing for labour what Koo Stark is doing for royalty.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right.

But rather than coming to grips with these problems and recognizing that we have to find new ways of ensuring equity, of ensuring equitable distribution of incomes and of sharing sacrifices if sacrifices have to be made, this government is now saying quite openly and quite explicitly that governments no longer can guarantee full employment, rising incomes and that incomes will be equitably shared.

Just a few months ago the federal authorities reported that last year, for the first time since the war, the number of people below the poverty line in this country had increased rather than decreased and that the proportion of people below the poverty line had increased for the first time, I believe, since the war.

As more and more workers run out of unemployment insurance benefits, lose their homes and are forced to go on welfare, as more and more families where there is one worker out of work now go on to two Unemployment Insurance Commission cheques, and perhaps only one UIC cheque and no welfare or anything like that, it is clear that more and more people are going to be driven below the poverty line.

It is also clear that rather than be proud of what has been accomplished in creating a safety net that would help to ensure that people could pay for health and would still have some spending power if misfortune should overtake them, we now have governments in this province and federally that are quite determined to take those safety nets away.

I am appalled at what I hear now, that the federal Liberals are going to take away the universal social programs. I laugh, almost, at the hypocrisy of the federal Tories, who say, "No, you are not going to do it; we are going to oppose it," while their provincial brethren in Ontario, the province where the Conservatives have been strongest for longest, are also looking for ways they can take away universal social programs.

What is it coming to? What it is coming to is a society in which, instead of trying to work together, pull together and co-operate on the basis of good faith and equity, sheer, raw, rank power is going to be what drives this province.

A society that is driven by power alone -- and that means political power, held by the Conservatives, and economic power, held by their friends, the kind of people whom the Premier sits down and has lunch with every few days -- is a society that fails to acknowledge the contribution that working people make and the rights that every one of its members should have on an inalienable basis because they are its members.

Such a society provokes confrontation and causes people who do not enjoy power, because they cannot get it politically and do not have it economically, to look for other means of having some stake in the society.

We had that at the time of the creation of the trade union movement in this province, which was resisted by the Conservatives and the Liberals of the day, when finally the working people simply went out on the streets and said, "We will not put up with this." They jammed the streets of Windsor to win the right to form unions. They did the same thing in Hamilton to win the right to form a union at Stelco. They did the same thing at General Motors. They used what power was available to them to ensure a more equitable position in society.

I am afraid we could be back to days that are not just like that but where alienation, strife and even violence become a way of life in this society and in this province if the government continues on the track it has now taken, which is that it believes the use of legislative power against a particular group of working people in the province is justified; it believes that, equity or no equity, inalienable rights can be taken away at the stroke of a pen.

I want to talk about equity for a minute, because not only is the bill bad in dealing with some people for one year, two years or three years and because of the fact that it exempts doctors while it brings in hospital workers yet again under the government's iron heel, but also it is fundamentally bad because of what it does with respect to basic human rights. It is not just wrong in law, as my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) argued in his speech the other day, it is morally wrong as well.

3:40 p.m.

A few months ago, I was up on Parliament Hill to participate in the ceremonies to honour the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. The Queen, the Premiers and a selection of the political elite of the country were there. A number of ordinary people from Ottawa came together and thronged Parliament Hill to celebrate what was at least presented to them as a recognition in law of certain inalienable rights that should stand above ordinary laws.

Those rights include, and I quote the Charter of Rights, "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Obviously, one has a bit more of that freedom if one can get a handle on the government's advertising budget in Ontario. The charter also says everybody should have freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

As to freedom of association, when we pressed to have the specific rights of working people injected into the Charter of Rights, we were told: "Don't worry. Freedom of association includes the right to have a union, the right to form a labour organization, the right to collective bargaining and" -- what is fundamental to that as well -- "the right to strike."

What happens when it comes to the crunch here in Ontario only four and a half months after the proclamation of the Charter of Rights? What happens is that, if Bill 179 passes, the right to bargain collectively has been taken away at the stroke of a pen from 500,000 public and quasi-public servants in Ontario. Many of those public servants did not have the right to strike to begin with.

What about the right to freedom of speech? They have a right to exercise freedom of speech, but they had better watch out how far they take it. If they take that right too far, what will happen to them is what happened to the federal employee, Neil Fraser, to the forestry employee who raised his concerns with the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and to a number of other public servants. They will be crushed by their employer if they seek to exercise political rights.

Not only does Bill 179 take away the right of collective bargaining, which is essential to have an effective labour organization, from 500,000 public servants and their unions; not only does it impose without due process the edict or fiat of a board that will be accountable to no man, to no person and to no body; but also the public servants who are affected in many cases will have no recourse or redress in terms of being able to get up publicly or to participate in the political process to try to get back through the political process what is being taken away from them through that process.

Mr. Speaker, we saw what happened when one of your colleagues, and perhaps it was you, kicked out of this Legislature and then excluded for an entire half day public servants who simply wanted to come here to what should be the centre of democracy in this province to see what was happening to their rights.

They were told by the office of the Speaker that they could not even look at the people's business being transacted here in this Legislature. They were told that they could not even wear a sweater that identified which organization they happened to come from; that was somehow not permissible.

If Conrad Black had come in wearing the corporate tie of Argus Corp., I am sure he would not have been excluded, because he is part of the cabal running this province. He is the kind of person who enjoys enough power and enough income to be excluded and exempted from the provisions of Bill 179. It is not the Conrad Blacks of this world who are being hit by Bill 179; it is the nursing care workers and day care workers, the ordinary people who provide the essential public services that help to make the quality of life for many people here in Ontario.

The Tories in Ottawa say civil servants should have political rights but, after 39 years here in Ontario, they have yet to implement them. At times, the Liberals in Ontario say civil servants should have political rights -- except the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who opposes them. But when they are in power in Ottawa, they not only impose it but also use the full power of civil service law and regulations to stamp on anybody who has the effrontery to raise his voice to seek justice or to raise questions that are important to him as a citizen.

If equity is violated, and it is, and if little people are being trampled on, and they are, let us consider what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. Let us suppose we had a tax bill affecting business and only small businesses were hit and big businesses were not. Would that be acceptable within this House? Let us suppose we had a bill that imposed a tax on businesses and only some were hit and others were not, depending on when their fiscal year happened to end. Would that be tolerable in this House? Of course not. If that is the case, then why are the same kinds of things being imposed on trade unions, with arbitrary differences being imposed in the course of Bill 179?

I have been told that I must not speak too long, because this bill will shortly go before a legislative committee. We in this party want to ensure that the working people and other people affected by Bill 179 will be able to comment on the bill. With respect to credibility, accountability and legitimacy, every time the credibility of the government of this province is undermined by actions such as Bill 179, all of us in this Legislature and in the political system suffer as a consequence. We are seen as being hypocritical. I am afraid it rubs off on every party, even though it begins with the government.

We are seen -- and this applies to all of us -- as not responding to the needs of the day and as failing to provide leadership in terms of the economic crisis that the province is facing now. We are seen as not having answers, and all of us suffer in terms of the legitimacy of the institution of the provincial parliament.

That is very important, because if the credibility and legitimacy of the provincial parliament continues to decline at the very rapid rate that I have seen it decline over the course of the 10 or 11 years I have been in this place, then other forces will spring up to fill the gap. We are seeing that already as the business groups come along and arrogate to themselves authority that should be exercised by government and specifically within this chamber by the Legislature. We are seeing that vacuum being filled by civil servants who increasingly are acting as though they are not accountable to anybody at the elected level of government, least of all to the opposition and to the majority of the electorate whom we happen to represent in Ontario.

That, I believe, is fundamentally dangerous in terms of the kind of society we will have in this province over the course of the next 10 or 20 years. Society is facing increasing strains. There are cracks in our social fabric. Those cracks in our social fabric are being exacerbated by the actions of the government, not just with respect to what they are doing to public servants with Bill 179 and with respect to what they are doing to the status of women in Ontario, the beggaring of higher education and public education, but also in terms of regional development in my part of the province, in northern Ontario and in many other parts that do not share what prosperity is left here in the Golden Horseshoe of the province.

Those things are realities now. This Legislature has to be seen to be grappling with those problems, coming up with some serious answers and not having its credibility undermined consistently by the expedient actions of a government whose sole purpose in life is to hang on to power, to dole out plums to its friends and appoint people like Donald Irvine and Morley Rosenberg and to keep on that side of the chamber no matter what it does in terms of the future of the province.

I happen to think there are some ideals we all ought to be striving for here in this chamber. I happen to think that when we say we subscribe to a Charter of Rights, we should act as though we mean it and not tear it up at the earliest opportunity.

I happen to believe that working people should have a fundamental and strong influence in terms of the guidance and direction of Ontario, this place I happen to love and respect and have given my life to. I believe that means organizations of working people have to have respect, have to have the confidence of all parties in this Legislature and have to be given their due place in participating in decisions about the direction of the province, rather than being pushed to one side, kicked out the door or thrown over the precipice, which is what is happening under Bill 179.

This is my final point: I believe we in this Legislature have to act as though we are accountable to all those interests in Ontario.

We see the Minister of Labour getting up and doing a Pontius Pilate act, saying, "I do not really like it, and nobody can live on those wages, but we are going to have to go along with it." We hear the Minister of Industry and Trade saying the same kind of thing, "I do not believe in intervention in the private sector or in the life of the economy, but you have to do it now." That is being said again and again, not just by back-benchers on the Conservative side but even by government ministers as well.

When one gets down to it, who over there is accountable? Do the members of the government party not realize that in adopting Bill 179 they are taking that responsibility? They cannot wiggle out of it and say, "I did not like it, but that was what the government had to do." That is the government. It is put over there to exercise responsibility.

Again and again, that is the game they are playing. A member says, "I am sorry they are doing this to my area, but I fought hard in caucus to stop it happening." I am sure there are people like Mr. Ramsay who will go up to the trade unionists in their ridings, saying, "I really fought for you."

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): The honourable member should refer to ministers by their offices.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will probably say how much worse the bill would have been if he had not been doing his bit within the cabinet. That is rubbish. In failing to accept responsibility, in failing to recognize they are accountable, those members of the government party and those ministers are doing their bit to undermine the credibility and accountability of government as a whole.

I am afraid Bill 179 is thwarting any effort we could and should be making to try to develop a common approach to tackle the serious economic crisis this province is experiencing. It will leave a legacy of bitterness and mistrust that is going to take many years for us to overcome. It is a misguided piece of legislation. It is inequitable and unfair.

I suggest to the government that it is still not too late to act on the kind of economic program we have put forward, to look for a common purpose here in the province and to tear up Bill 179 rather than let Bill 179 tear up the fabric of labour relations in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in telling you that I will be supporting this bill. One of my major reservations is that it took the government of Ontario so long to come forward with a program. At the same time, I have to say I support the initiative taken by the government of Canada in its so-called six and five program which evidently got through the House of Commons a little more readily than this bill is proceeding through this House.

The last speaker, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), talked about the hypocrisy of both the Conservative and Liberal parties, but his federal colleagues have not had the substantial objections to the price and wage restriction legislation that have been displayed by the provincial party.

It is difficult to know just how intense and committed the Socialists are in their opposition to this matter. The federal member for Brant, an NDP member and a very popular one in our area, indicated he did not have a substantial objection. The Brantford Expositor, which has yet to be wrong in 150 years of assiduous and careful reporting of events in the community, indicated he was supporting the whole concept of these restraints in the difficult times we face. His reasonableness and moderation in this matter may account for the fact that the people in the community have continued to support him in spite of the fact that some people have described Mr. Blackburn as a Liberal rather slowed down.

Anyway, it occurs to me that members of this House and of the House of Commons, of whatever party, have to express the views they feel in a matter of this importance and sensitivity. I suppose I speak alone when I say I personally felt it was a mistake when the government of Canada withdrew the original wage and price restraint legislation enacted in 1975. We were just getting used to it, getting used to the complaints and barkings of certain union leaders -- not necessarily working people, but union leaders -- and we were finding that we Canadians were improving our situation as compared with those of similar communities in the noncentrally planned world. Frankly, I felt that my Liberal friends in Ottawa made a mistake when they too quickly removed those restraints, which in my view could very well have been left in operation, at least in part, while we saw the changes in the economy that have been taking place.

I have listened to the speeches here, some of them very notable ones indeed, by my leader and by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), who, as he explained to us, took a course in economics at the then Ontario Agricultural College in 1954. In spite of that, he made an extremely useful contribution based on a very thorough reading of the materials available in our own library. My own experience with economists and experts is that most of us select and quote those economists and experts who generally agree with our predisposition in this matter.

John Kenneth Galbraith suits me, and he comes from southwestern Ontario. Sometimes he does not speak of the area with the greatest approval now, but he is a worldwide and noted authority and economist, a professor at Harvard and even an involved politician. His view is that the economic dislocations in the world, in the western world particularly, call for the sorts of draconian steps that have been taken reluctantly and belatedly by the government of Canada and now by the government of Ontario.

Particularly after talking to my constituents, many of whom are working farmers and, in the small towns, businessmen, I have no hesitation in saying that they would be very glad indeed if someone would guarantee to them a five per cent increase in their revenues for the coming year. On the contrary, with the depressed prices that the farmers and the small businessmen have to put up with, they are looking for a 25 to 50 per cent reduction.

I suppose over the 20 years I have been listening to the debates in this House as a member, and participating in them, the role of the farmer has been discussed on more than one occasion. I do not believe we have been crying wolf when we have talked about depression in the farm economy, but it seems to be very difficult to get anybody, even committed and sympathetic colleagues, to listen to the situation the farmers are facing at the present time, let alone complaining about an enforced five per cent increase and the restrictions that go with it. The farmers are facing price reductions in the sale of their crops and price escalations in the cost for their services that are not only traumatic but also disastrous.

At present, a 17-foot combine is operating in my soybean field. The operator, a close personal friend of mine and a fine young farmer, will be charging me $30 an acre, if I am lucky -- that is what it was last year -- to do this work. The price of the beans he is harvesting has fallen from about $10.50 a bushel four years ago to $5.68 a bushel at noon today -- that is, if I sell them. If I get a little fearful about that and put them in storage, I find that the costs of storage have escalated. Since the weather has been damp the beans, instead of being below 14 per cent in moisture, may even be up to 16 or 17 per cent or, God forbid, 18 per cent, which is break-the-bank level, and they will have to be dried down at the elevator at costs that have once again escalated with the increasing costs of petroleum fuel.

4 p.m.

We happen to have about 103 acres of grain corn on our farm. The price there is, I would say, even more disastrous. Three or four years ago we were looking at a solid $4 a bushel. In fact, it was generally accepted that it should move up from the range of $5 to $6 a bushel, and we confidently expected that it would. The price offered at the local elevators at noon today was about $2.11. Is that about right?

Mr. Riddell: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: That is the price we were getting many years ago before inflation reduced the value of the monetary unit in the way that we have all suffered from.

I can see by the way the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) eyelids are drooping that the impression we are making with this sort of thing is what we have found not only in this Legislature but in the community. No one seems to realize the disastrous proportions of this squeeze. If I were to stand in this House and say that those people working for the government or emanations of the government should continue without any controls and with the same procedures that have seen substantial improvements compared to the rest of the community at the taxpayers' expense, I would personally feel I was irresponsible and that I could not face my constituents.

That is a rather convoluted sentence. To give some meaning to it, I would simply say I have some enthusiasm about supporting these restraints. I am simply concerned that they have been delayed so long. My own observation of governments at both levels is that they do not like to take any action at all until they see that the changes they desire are already beginning to occur. I believe this accounts for the unconscionable delay at the federal and provincial levels in this connection. Instead of the upturn that perhaps might have been predicted or, let us say, shadowed or telegraphed by certain indications, there has just been a continuing problem growing day by day until even these two governments have felt they had to take some action, that they could not continue to sit back and let the marketplace take its course.

I personally wish that the premiers had followed the direct initiative of the government of Canada with the six and five solution, if you want to call it that. I do not have enough confidence in politicians or economists to say that this is clearly the best and only answer. I am not sure what other answers are available, but this was the best the government of Canada could come up with. It would have been a good thing, in my view, if the premiers had set aside their political restraints and constraints and said, "Perhaps there might have been a better, smaller adjustment, but we across Canada are going to see that this applies in our provinces."

If the one New Democratic Party government felt that as a matter of principle it wanted to stay out and reap the advantages of the actions taken by the other governments, that would have been understandable and, I suppose, acceptable in its own way. I simply say again that the NDP in Ottawa has not taken this glassy-eyed position of opposition with all of the drama that has been inserted into the lengthy debate on the part of the NDP in this House.

To tell the truth, I have a high regard for the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). I thought perhaps the drama of tearing up the contracts in his speech was carried out a little more effectively than it had been by some of his colleagues. I felt that he had worked up quite a head of steam, which came across to me with great sincerity. But when I listen to his argument that we are setting aside all the inalienable rights of the people living in this province, I cannot accept that. I think that we as a Legislature, with responsibilities on a broad base, must take those actions that benefit the greatest number of our citizens. I confidently feel that at least this restraint initiative is going to have some substantial and positive influence on the economy as we look at the next little while.

There are two things that come from this decision which I believe are essential. The first is that the government not only say that it will enact but be seen to be enacting programs which will reduce its own expenditures, expenditures often entered into in an ill-advised way. At the very moment I am speaking, certain dignitaries from this House and elsewhere are laying the foundation stone for elaborate, new municipal administrative headquarters in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk.

I have the honour to represent a substantial portion of that area. As a matter of fact, the public building, when it is erected, will be built in my constituency. I want to say something about this because I believe the decision to build it is erroneous --

The Acting Speaker: Does this tie into Bill 179?

Mr. Nixon: You are darned right it does, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about the policy of this government. If they are going to force restraint on the taxpayers and citizens of this province, they have to have programs themselves that are not wasteful and are not seen to be wasteful. For them to proceed with the financing of a new regional headquarters at this time is entirely unsupportable. It is based on the decision made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) that somehow or other the commitment to build a new city in southwestern Ontario was correct and the $60 million already spent on it is not wasted. These remarks are timely because the erection of this building is going forward now and the cornerstone is being laid at this moment.

Mr. Conway: By whom?

Mr. Nixon: I cannot answer the question. I do not even know who is down there, but I know the building would not be under way if it had not been for the policies of the government of Ontario. The whole concept of regional government in Haldimand-Norfork was wrong and it really should be corrected.

It would be out of order, I would agree with you, Mr. Speaker, if I were to explain the huge problems they have had, not only in municipal but in educational jurisdiction, because of the thoughtless approach by the so-called visionaries of the Conservative government over the last few years. There is no doubt that one of the results was the defeat of Jim Allan, the former Treasurer. The area is well represented by my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), who is perhaps at this very moment attending the ceremony that is within a few miles of his own farm.

I do want to tell members what has happened to the hard-earned dollars from the taxpayers which have been wastefully funnelled into this program and what is prepared to be put before us by the government as its policy gradually changes in this connection. They went to Haldimand-Norfolk and they said: "We have got to do something about this city of Nanticoke. We have $60 million invested in it, we have had full-page ads from one end of the province to the other, we have had all the jingles that the very best Tory proponents could buy for the furtherance of this particular scheme and we cannot get anybody to move down there."

I believe a total of 79 people are now resident in this city which was by now, according to the best-laid plans of the Tories, supposed to have a population of about 12,000. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else, you should drive down there and see what we have bought for ourselves. We have lighted tennis courts, a new municipal centre, and a lake that has been created by the hand of man, not by the hand of God. The steps have been built leading down into this lake which looks as if it is for a mass baptism of those unfaithful who will get the message some time in the future. There is a shopping centre now with one variety store open under restricted hours and one drug store with one light burning over the prescription counter. There is nobody there. It is like science fiction, what we have wrought and what we have brought with public funds.

I see a former Minister of Housing, Don Irvine, sitting in the back row. I am not prepared to make a speech criticizing him personally in this regard. but I do recall at one stage there was some thought that about half a township, just north of where he lived, was going to be one of the industrial centres of the western world. They have brought their sights down slightly. I am not sure whether it was Don personally or somebody else who went out and planted poplar trees in that property.

They tried to turn the South Cayuga property they bought into a liquid waste dump but, thank God, Dr. Chant, of whom at one stage I was fairly critical in this regard, said that was not a suitable site, and that property stands there not being utilized.

4:10 p.m.

To go back to the headquarters of the new city: The one last bit of that ridiculous policy entered into at almost unfathomable expense still persists. In order to make that particular project have some impact on the community, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is not in this House now -- actually, he rarely is -- has said to them: "We will give you the land. We will provide you with the plans. We will give you the money at 11 per cent." That was when the going rate was something like 22 or 23 per cent. "We will undertake to rent offices in the new building for our many important provincial local emanations that are so necessary. As for the buildings you leave behind that we are using now, we will certainly assist in every way we possibly can to see that those are utilized to your benefit."

How could the local council resist that sort of thing? The aim of the minister was to make this city into an important centre. It is not going to happen. If even a quarter of the money had been spent in the development of the surrounding communities, such as the towns of Waterford, Simcoe, Port Dover and Jarvis, to assist them to provide the services for a reasonable expansion in the population, that would have been something useful for that particular area of southwestern Ontario. Instead of that, we have pumped unlimited funds into this grandiose vision, so-called, of the Conservative Party in Ontario, which I believe has been ill-advised and wrong-headed.

It has been ill-advised because the experts said to the ministers, "The population is going to throng down there." Such was not the case. We now have operating there the largest thermal hydro plant in the western world. Stelco has now completed nearby the most modern steel plant, I presume, in the world. Still the tremendous expansion of the work force has not taken place. The people are not following the lead of the government. They are moving into the various communities around and about that are solid, that are settled, that have churches and schools with room in them. The roads are built and the communities are established. That is what the people want and they have really turned this down.

I believe the new town of Townsend, because of this tremendous commitment of funds, is there to stay. Perhaps by the time the next Liberal administration in the province has been in office a decade or so it will be an established town. I will say it is a beautiful rural location. The money has bought very fine buildings and streets. The homes are well designed, but it is such an artificial concept that it is certainly an indication of the wastefulness of the government of Ontario at this time.

The local councillors, I believe, are not to be faulted. After all, we have imposed on them a local government constitution in the regional bill that was passed over the objections of the Liberal Party and against the votes of the opposition. They have been given a constitution that has meant local government has become expensive and remote and it continues to be unpopular.

I want to say something further about other expenditures which we really have to bring under control. If we are prepared to have these people coming under the jurisdiction of Bill 179, which I hold in my hand, we certainly have at the same time to make sure their costs are going to be controlled in some reasonable way as well. There is no reason at all why school boards and municipalities cannot have imposed on them a spending limit during the next year which, if it is not five per cent, at least is no more than 7.5 per cent to eight per cent. After all, we have assumed responsibility for any increases in the wages they must pay. That is a tremendous and important part of their overall budget. Surely the parent government can insist, as far as they are concerned, that for at least one year it will provide relief from the inflationary pressures through the tax bills that have been so much a part of municipal taxes and school board taxes.

Both the municipalities and the school boards have suffered from unnecessary and unusual pressures as the province, in trying to reduce its expenditure, at the same time loaded more and more of these responsibilities on the local boards. So there has to be a sharing of planning and responsibility, I hope over more than a year, but at least during the period that is established for this bill.

I can well recall the election campaign of 1977 when our good friend and former leader Stuart Smith put forward a very strong position that could not be argued against by any reasonable person. He said if we were going to control inflation, we had to set a limit on our expenditures, both provincially and locally, of eight per cent, which was the figure at that time. If that had been accepted in this province, it would have provided leadership for the rest of the country as well because it could have been done. It could have been a procedure whereby these restraints might have been applied well in advance of the emergencies we now face.

As far as Ontario Hydro itself is concerned -- I mentioned it briefly a moment ago -- it should certainly come under the jurisdiction of this bill. Ontario Hydro has applied for an increase in its rate of something slightly in excess of 13 per cent. Extremely useful hearings before the Ontario Energy Board have brought forward arguments that have resulted in an approval of an increase of approximately eight per cent.

If one reads the context of and the information supporting those hearings, it is evident that at least for the next year it is quite possible that the government of Ontario, supported by this Legislature, may very well bring Hydro under the jurisdiction of this restraint legislation and see that their rates do not go up by more than five per cent. I would hope this would last for more than a year.

It is true that the substantial cost to Ontario Hydro is a result of the huge amounts borrowed outside this country at very high interest rates. We are in a position to criticize that on more scores than one, particularly since the result of borrowing all that money has left us with an oversupply of electricity, which will be around 50 per cent during this restraint period.

I would like to say something about the decision to route energy from the Bruce generating plant to southwestern Ontario, which I mentioned in question period today. It is a clear indication of how government policy has allowed Hydro costs to run out of control. Mr. Speaker, I know from the glitter in your eye and the upward mobility that accompanies your political activity that you may look forward some day to ordering the business either of the government of Ontario or Ontario Hydro. But suppose you had one of the largest nuclear plants in the world in the Bruce Peninsula --

Mr. Conway: Yes, Darlington.

Mr. Nixon: He may have Darlington.

It was important that the power come down into southwestern Ontario in the London area. I do not think you, Mr. Speaker, being the hard-headed person I know you to be, would have any difficulty in seeing that the power got down there at the lowest public expense consistent with the preservation of those priorities we must establish for saving farm land. But we see now that that power, at great expense and with additional time for all sorts of hearings and construction, is going to be taken across to Barrie and down to Milton, and then it is going to be divided, part of it going down to Middleport and across to London along the lake and the rest of it going along Highway 401 to London.

The argument can be made that perhaps we are completing some sort of a grid. But if we accept the aim that the power must go down to southwestern Ontario, we can see the problem any moderate, reasonably sensible person would have in looking at this solution, particularly when we see that the section along Highway 401 was never part of the original proposal from Hydro and was never brought to the attention of the communities or property holders along that route.

All of a sudden they hear that the joint hearing board has decided the line should go along Highway 401. They do not have a chance to appear. They do not have the chance to come with handfuls of their own soil and say, "This is as good as the soil somewhere else in the province." As a matter of fact, it has been approved by cabinet now, but the Premier (Mr. Davis ) said in response to my question today that the local property owners will have input.

Mr. Stokes: And you could use all this money to pay underpaid hospital workers.

Mr. Nixon: If I may just complete my sentence, the Premier has said the local citizens will have an opportunity at least to advise on the exact location of the line. Of course that is so, but if a decision is made that the line will go through a corridor along Highway 401, it simply means that the citizens and property owners in the area have been denied any opportunity for input. This decision has been made by the Premier and his colleagues in the cabinet in consultation -- I almost used the word "collusion" -- with Hydro and its chairman, whose connection is well known as far as the Premier is concerned.

4:20 p.m.

Hydro must come under the provisions of this restraint. I believe this is essential if we are going to be able to go to our citizens and say, "Yes, there are difficult areas that are objectionable in many respects, but at least we are trying to make it fair for all concerned so that at least these emanations of government, the municipalities and Hydro, are going to be restrained in the same way." After all, the government of Canada has applied its restraint to Bell Canada. They have objected, but I do not hear the NDP moaning about the loss of their rights and that sort of thing. I think under these circumstances if the governments at the two levels are going to take this position, it must be seen to affect as broad a spectrum in the community as it possibly can.

One aspect where the government has undertaken to raise some more money is to be found in the recently heard announcement that it is going to divest itself of its large land bank. They are going to turn that land into cash to assist in at least a reduction of the deficit and in the payment of programs approved by the government with the power granted to them by this House.

There is a problem. I hear them saying on the radio all the time, "At least the government should sell this land back to the original owners at the same price it paid some years ago." It is so preposterous it just makes me weep because any farmer who bought back that land at that price would simply be foolish. The price of farm land in this province is sinking so rapidly that I would suggest that the actual market price of that land is somewhere between 60 and 75 per cent less than the amount the government paid for it. Admittedly, they paid at inflated rates when they acquired the land a decade ago.

There are other farmers who might have a different opinion. Our own particular farming area has a lot of class 1 land, although sometimes the slopes get a little steep for class 1, but it is good land which many of my neighbours over the years, the last decade, have felt was worth about $2,000 an acre. When we could get a rich lawyer from Toronto to come up and buy some rocky farm with a stream running through it, some of it was worth much more -- not to grow anything of course, but to sit around and admire the horses chomping away on the weeds. Right now, even the good farm land is not moving. I would suggest that the going price is considerably below $1,000 -- in fact, around $800 -- and nobody is buying it. With the interest rates coming down, there is a glimmer of hope.

Most of the people look at the activity in the stock market as the best indication that our economy is coming out of the gloom and doom. It must be my Methodist background, but if activity in the stock market is an indication of the revitalization of our community, then heaven help us. I just do not believe it is any sort of an indication of anything other than profit-taking by all the little striped-pants Tories who have been running up and down Bay Street worrying about their revenues and incomes over the years. I just think it is completely artificial.

Every night I turn on the news and here is the hero of the Premier, President Reagan, with tears in his eyes announcing that the stock market has burst through some bloody limit or other. If this is the basis of the salvation of our society, once again heaven help us. I do not believe it is. I think it is misleading. I believe that until we get a much healthier approach to the economy our salvation is not yet in sight.

The government is going to divest itself of this land bank. Really, what they have done is they have bought the land dear, and if they sell it they are going to be selling it relatively cheap. My dad always said, "If you are in business, the idea is to buy cheap and sell dear." It looks to me as if the government of Ontario, for generations vaunted for its business acumen, is simply going to wash out the taxpayers at both ends of that deal. It really means that their judgement has been atrociously bad in the acquisition of the land, for which there was no known practical use whatsoever, and the sale of the land is now forced on them by an economic situation which is almost out of control.

I believe their decisions have been bad at both ends. Believe me, governments must own land. It has been essential in the times of rapid development that the government had to own parcels of land to assist at least in the control of the development of certain urban areas. I have never objected to the government's acquiring industrial sites and servicing those sites so that it could, with a plan for the whole province, indicate where the growth should occur.

This government has even drawn back from that with the sort of third-rate vision that Treasurers, now and formerly, have been inflicting on us when they have purchased large tracts of land with no known use except for good farm operations. The sooner it is returned to that, the better. If it is actually to the benefit of some of the farmers in my constituency, so be it. It has been a long time since they have had any kind of a break from this government.

I would like also to talk briefly about one other aspect of the bill that does concern me. I have indicated my support in principle, but having read the bill carefully, particularly with its provision for the so-called Inflation Restraint Board, it appears that there is an area there which members on all sides must move to amend. The powers given the board are those which I do not believe are sufficiently rooted in our democratic traditions to be allowed to stand. The idea of a board or any one of its designated members having the power to make such powerful, draconian decisions involving individual aspects of wage control simply does not rest properly with our understanding of the democratic responsibility involved in this bill.

There has to be a procedure for hearings, which I believe to be essential, and there has to be a procedure for some means of appeal. Perhaps it can be built in so that this appeal will not necessarily be dragged out to defeat the aim of the bill and the principle of the bill and the board that it creates. The way it is established now, particularly in the wording of those sections which indicate that the chairman may designate any member of the board to have these powers individually, is certainly not acceptable to me. I know that my colleagues, who are more knowledgeable and more involved in this matter, are at this time preparing the sorts of amendments which we believe are going to be essential to make this bill useful and workable and as fair as it can be.

I have one other item I want to deal with. At the same time as we are moving to restrain these various upward pressures on the economy, not only must the government of the day be seen to be controlling its own expenses and using its powers to control the expenses that our people face municipally through their school boards and in using government services such as Hydro, but there must be a program to provide at least some initiative for job creation where none exists provincially at the present time.

I see my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is in his place. He has certainly commanded a good deal of attention in recent days and months. I was particularly interested in his defence of the patronage system yesterday. I had the great pleasure of attending the committee meeting and hearing my friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) being somewhat critical of the decision of the government to appoint a certain former candidate to a high position. I could not believe my ears when I heard the member for Brantford say that really is the way government works and that we had to accept it and we could not blame the Premier or Mr. Goodman or Mr. Rosenberg for the mess they have got themselves into.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: We will see how that one works out. I would say that the member for Brantford has another responsibility besides being present, as he is most of the time in the House, and that is some sort of footling responsibility in connection with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) --

Mr. Conway: What kind of relationship? You had better run that one by us again.

Mr. Nixon: -- for youth unemployment or youth employment. I forget the name of the thing, but he keeps me informed and I do appreciate being kept informed. The nice thing is that some of the advantages of that program are accruing to Brantford by coincidence. We certainly appreciate the fact that from time to time there are certain provincial funds made available for specific areas of employment. The more of that we get, the better it is.

4:30 p.m.

I believe it is the perfect time for the government of Ontario to come forward with a properly ordered program to use our funds and our undoubted authority to make work in this province. The only program we have of any significance is the federal one known as the industry and labour adjustment program, ILAP.

I have here an ad from the Globe and Mail for Friday, October 8, which is a good one. It is paid for by the city of Brantford, not by anyone down here that I know of.

It says: "industrial expansion can be profitable. . . when you locate in Brantford, Ont.

"Industry is now eligible for up to 50 per cent of total capital costs and preproduction expenses through interest-free loan contributions, 75 per cent of total consulting costs in the form of grant contributions.

"These benefits plus many more are available to you through ILAP, federal industry and labour adjustment program."

The government of Canada did not put in this ad, although it may have had some small role to play in the advertisement; I do not know. There is a nice picture of the overall configuration of that great city of Brantford, part of which I represent, indicating what is available and what should be done.

The idea is that the federal government, much vilified in this House through ignorance, has provided a well-funded program which is designated and which is designed to assist many areas of this province, including Brantford and any other town that can possibly get the designation. They have a program that works.

Mr. Stokes: A Liberal is a Liberal.

Mr. McClellan: Unless it's an albatross.

Mr. Nixon: If a Liberal is a Liberal, I do not know what the Minister of Finance is, but he has to do something to assist an overall approach to providing jobs.

I remember distinctly, during the debate that established the new ministry at present headed by the member for London South, who is so engrossed in this debate, that there is a section in the new Ministry of Industry and Trade which clearly gives him the power to distribute funds made available from the Treasurer of Ontario for programs to stimulate employment and economic growth.

This is not sufficiently being carried out through the Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp., the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and all the rest of those programs that have proliferated. We have to have some new initiative which in my view should be designed substantially to back up the ILAP program as it is established in Canada and as it is in effect in Ontario.

One of the things I heard recently that made a small shiver run up my back was the response, evidently from federal politicians, to the figures that are perhaps the most damning. The figure is the rate of youth unemployment in Canada and particularly in Ontario. Not being a statistician, I am not going to bore the House further by talking about the numbers, but it is believed that the level of unemployment for people under age 25 ranges up to about 30 per cent.

I heard on the news this morning there was a possibility the government of Canada was going to establish a series of major camps. There is no adjective on the "camp." I am sure, if they go forward with it, there will be adjectives used.

Mr. Stokes: We had those camps during the Depression; $10 a month under the Liberals and $5 a month under the Conservatives.

Mr. Kerrio: And nothing under the Socialists.

Mr. Nixon: I am not sure whether the member for Lake Nipigon figures that is what gave him his start or not.

I hope we are not going to be driven by economic exigencies to establish some sort of a camp system. That does not mean there is not some possibility for Ontario, however, to take an initiative in youth employment which really would be acceptable.

One of the best programs we have ever had, it seems to me, has been the Junior Ranger program. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

There have been some awful things happen, I cannot go by without recalling there have been some very terrible accidents and things like that; but in general, leaving all that stuff aside, the idea of young people -- to begin with young men, and finally young women were involved as well -- going out and working for the province under suitable supervision, getting a chance to work in the north and in our parks system, has been an excellent concept. There is certainly no criticism levelled at it as far as I am concerned.

I think that concept may well have to be dramatically expanded. If 30 per cent of our people under 25 have nothing to do, then obviously we have to take whatever action is necessary and make available whatever resources are necessary to see that is corrected.

If this is going to come under the jurisdiction of the member for Brantford, I may have to amend my enthusiastic support, but if he is involved I have no objection. I do believe we could expand the concept of youth employment in government programs. It would be far better to be done otherwise, as it has been in the past, so that young people will know they have an opportunity upon the completion of their education to move out into some sort of community service where they will have an opportunity to use not only their academic training, but also the tremendous enthusiasm and commitment to community service that is so much a part of young people and that is so readily and quickly lost by those of us rapidly receding from that classification.

I hope a youth employment program will be one of the major initiatives that the Treasurer surely will announce in a package of initiatives he cannot resist much longer. I know he does his best thinking when he is jogging around Queen's Park. I should tell him I am thinking of replacing my Citation with a new car, so if he is going to take the sales tax off before Christmas, will he wink his left eye and wiggle his right ear? The last thing I want to do is pay sales tax today and find my good friend taking it off tomorrow. That might be sufficient stimulus for him to do so.

But we are not here to discuss how useful those initiatives are. I simply say that the Treasurer somehow has taken to himself all the initiative for establishing programs that might encourage the economy and beef up the work force.

I think that within the next few days, or at the most the next few weeks, there has to be a substantial program set down point by point that will work in conjunction with this restraint bill and that is designed to improve the employment situation, particularly among our young people. The very thought that we are going to have some sort of work camps established in which people are going to do exercise and study history, which is the prospect that came over the CBC this morning, does not fill me with enthusiasm. I think the sooner the province builds on its already successful initiative in this regard, the better it will be for all of us.

The last point I want to make -- you will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker -- has to do with certain other responsibilities that continue even in this time of restraint. I was very impressed to read reports of a cabinet document indicating that the payments to welfare recipients -- that is not the proper term -- the unfortunate people in our community who are assisted by government programs, have fallen far behind the basic needs even as calculated by the most conservative and hard-hearted Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), whom I call the minister of public welfare and who is now entering the House.

I happen to think that minister must have considerable clout in the cabinet and I believe we must be sure as members in this House that even a small part of the moneys we require for these programs is not squeezed out of the programs that are so essential to the people in the community who cannot look after themselves. We can argue this one way and another but, as far as we on this side are concerned, it is essential that the minister not back up from the requirements. I am losing my confidence in him in this regard. He is acting like an old mossback Tory, like some of his predecessors in this.

There has to be somebody over there with a heart, and I am not so sure his is still warm and beating. He may have been seized by the kind of political enthusiasm that has so stultified the abilities of some of the people sitting near him. After all, he has the responsibility to serve that particular constituency and sell the programs not only to his cabinet colleagues but also to the people in this House. We need a lot more action from him than we have been receiving.

There has been a lot of defence with gusto -- brio, as we say in South Dumfries -- of the indefensible. I would certainly like to see him come forward with some initiatives that may even get him a bad editorial in some of the Conservative press. Even Worthington might not like it, and if he does not like it, it has got to be right.

4:40 p.m.

The other area where we must consider using our funds is certainly in providing the sort of education which has become atrophied in this province. The member for Brantford knows as well as I that our community has been passed over time and again by the government of Ontario in the provision of the sort of education that would give our young people a chance for training and retraining, which in turn would give the kind of stimulation to Brantford that would remove it from its present category. There is a clear and unrefuted report that the young people in Brantford and Brant county utilize post-secondary education facilities, community colleges and universities far less than any other community of a comparable size in Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: Shame.

Mr. Nixon: My honourable colleague from Kitchener says "shame" and well he might, since his city has two universities and a community college. I do not begrudge him that, of course. I simply call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the inequity with which Conservative governments in the past have distributed the extremely important dollars for post-secondary education. These have so far evaded the city of Branford.

There are those here who would say, "Of course, with Makarchuk there, how could you get anything?" That is unfair. By the way, my New Democratic Party colleagues will be glad to know that Mr. Makarchuk has announced his candidacy in the next municipal election and is beginning the long road back to rejoining the NDP caucus here at Queen's Park. I know that will fill their hearts with gladness, and I thought they should be among the first to know.

Mr. J. A. Reed: An old pal of Morley's, a close friend of Morley's. Are you sure he is not going to the OMB?

Mr. Nixon: Well, it is quite clear, even when we had Liberal and Conservative representation, the honourable Dick Beckett, formerly a cabinet minister here, was not able to squeeze anything out of his colleagues either. But the statistics show that the young people in our area have really suffered from the inadequacies of the education system.

I know the member for Brantford, the federal member and myself, representing all three parties, are at one in this matter. If there is an area where this provincial government could have an impact on the situation in Brantford, it is in the expansion of post-secondary facilities, which are so seriously needed. They do not have to be just a cloning of all the wastefulness that has been the earmark of the provision of educational facilities by this government in the past. Surely, with the pressures we are subject to, economic and otherwise, we can come up with an innovative approach to practical additional education in our community that will give our work force the special advantage it needs in a community which has suffered so much over recent years.

In that connection, I return to my original point. You were not in your chair, Mr. Speaker, but I will not repeat it: I simply say to you with all the strength that I command, which is not enough to make a proper impact on this House, the farm community is no more in a position to go out and buy a combine this fall than it is to buy a Rolls-Royce and drive to Florida. It is one tough situation, and those farmers do not have a nickel to buy a hoe let alone to go out and buy a $150,000 combine.

As long as that is the case, the situation in Brantford is going to continue to be disastrous. I do not have the nerve to suggest that the solution to our economic difficulties lies in finding money for farmers, but that is a part of it. Our work force and our young people in the Brantford area and the Brant county area have suffered for a long time. The statistics are there. We are not just calling for another plum for home base; far from it. You should all be aware that for reasons that are really difficult to understand the community of Brantford has not had these facilities. The statistics clearly show that our young people have not had the advantages of continuing education.

Again I say that I am sorry this government and the government of Canada were so slow in coming up with an economic answer to the situation we are facing in this nation. I have no difficulty at all in facing my constituents who are critical of my support of this legislation, since a vast majority of our people would be delighted to receive a five per cent increase in their revenues rather than the dramatic losses they face.

I look forward to hearing of the work in the committee when various groups, including, I am sure, some farmers from our own area, come in to express their views to the members of the standing committee on administration of justice during the hearings that will begin next Tuesday. I believe they will be important. Frankly, I am glad that the operative date of this bill is retroactive so we are not going to be able to delay the effect of the kind of restraint which I believe this province has long needed.

The Deputy Speaker: Just before the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) begins, am I hearing loud music in the chamber?

Mr. Elston: It was brought on by the fine speech from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Sweeney: Heavenly music.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that beyond our control?

Mr. Conway: It is my understanding that it is about Bill 127. They have come to sing a Te Deum to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, since the member raised some questions, may I answer his questions by saying I give him my word.

Mr. McClellan: I've heard that one before.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What does that mean?

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of my speech it seems I have to pick up on the closing comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). He suggested in his closing lines -- and I will not attempt to quote him exactly -- that he was a bit sorry it had taken the governments, both at the senior level and at this level, so long to come up with economic solutions. Unfortunately, he is a slight bit ahead of himself because it does not appear to most of the people I have talked to in this province that either level is even close to any economic solutions. I will talk a little bit about that during the course of my speech.

I shall be speaking for a considerably shorter period than I had originally intended. However, I will be sure to honour all honourable members with the remainder of my remarks on third reading of this bill.

I am glad that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is with us this afternoon and particularly glad that my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is with us because a number of the things I will be discussing this afternoon he and I have discussed in the past. It has been an interesting debate. It is not a happy debate for very many of us, but many interesting things have become very clear during the debate.

One that has been very significant to me is the way in which the members of the government party and the members of the Liberal Party have chosen, in their contributions to this debate, to turn and speak to this party over here. It is nice to understand that the coalition between these two parties is finally clear in their minds at least, and that the fact the New Democratic Party in this Legislature is the only real opposition is very clear in their minds at long last.

Mr. Sweeney: That's sanctimonious balderdash.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer have said, both in their opening statements on this bill and again this afternoon at the end of a long series of repetitions of the same pronunciations about the intent of this bill, that the bill is to reduce inflation. The Premier said this afternoon, and has said a number of times over the course of the last few weeks, the bill is to create jobs, not to reduce jobs, and to set that example, to create that symbol. I want to talk about all three of those aspects this afternoon: inflation, jobs and the matter of symbols in our society in its present economic straits.

I am sorry the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) has left -- he was here a few minutes ago -- because I would like to start by dealing with the minister's remarks on this bill some two weeks ago, on September 28 I believe, during which he accused this party of having nothing to add to this debate and said there were no ideas coming out of this caucus. I seem to recall -- and I am not going to read them into the record -- a rather lengthy list of specific proposals that were put forward by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) in the first two speeches from this caucus.

4:50 p.m.

However, the minister went on to say, and I am going to read one paragraph into the record, "In this restraint period there is obviously going to have to be, not only in consultation with the province and the federal government but also with the municipal sector and the private social agencies, a very new and very significant approach to what is going to be required in the totality of the social order, not only in this decade but also in the decade ending this century." He goes on to refer to the start of the new approach that this government, supported by the Liberal Party, is proposing in this bill.

There is no new approach being made with this bill: there is absolutely nothing new about this bill. As a matter of fact, history records the very first political debate on the issue of restraining public sector wages was in the fourth century AD in the senate of the Roman empire. I should point out that this was only a few short years before the total collapse of the Roman empire. But that government in the fourth century AD, because of its economic mismanagement, chose to try to make scapegoats of its public servants, just as this government is doing some 2,000 years later.

I should also point out that although I did not have the time to assess the historical record of all of the occasions when this kind of approach to an economic crisis has been taken, several thousand instances are recorded in history. It is interesting to note that history -- not the politicians of the time, but history -- records in every single case I was able to find that this approach to economic crisis was a total and dismal failure: no success in reducing inflation or in reducing the cost of public administration; no success in the rebuilding of the economy, which was the stated intent of all of those historically recorded events. So I think this is a good place to start: with the comment from the government that this is an innovative approach. It is a very old and worn-out approach with a very bad record of success.

I want to move to some comments made by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) in his remarks in this debate, also about two weeks ago. On September 30 he started his comments by criticizing a whole range of the different sections in this bill. He said, "The program is inequitable" several times when he was referring to a whole range of sections; I will not go through it all.

I just wanted to make the point that in running through his list of times when "The program is inequitable," one of my colleagues, and I cannot recall which one, interjected rather loudly, "Why, then, are you supporting this bill?" The member for Waterloo North did not respond to that interjection, but, fortunately for those who happened to be sitting in the west gallery that evening, four members of the Liberal caucus spontaneously turned around in response to that interjection and all four of them said, "Nobody knows." That speaks to the specific and substantive ability of this government to deal, through this bill, with the economic crisis in Canada and in Ontario. "Why are you supporting this bill?" "Nobody knows."

That brings me to one of the three points I mentioned: the symbol. The government has suggested, and several members of the Liberal caucus have concurred, that this bill has to create a symbol, an example for the people in Ontario about what it is we have to accomplish in order to deal with inflation.

The Prime Minister of Canada, the former Minister of Finance of Canada, the present Minister of Finance of Canada, the Premier of Ontario and the Treasurer of Ontario all have suggested at one time or another over the course of the last few months that working people in Canada have had expectations which were too high.

Quite clearly, that is reflected in this piece of legislation they have brought in. Their feeling is that working people in the public sector in Ontario have set their expectations too high. But let us talk about symbols for working people in Canada, the symbols which set the tone and the direction of their wage demands.

During the course of this debate, a number of my colleagues referred to some corporate executives and the dollars they were making. I think my colleagues on the other side of the House in the Liberal Party missed the point because they talked in terms of dollars. This piece of legislation talks in terms of percentages. Just so we can equate what is being asked of the public service in Ontario with what is happening elsewhere in our economy, I should talk about some of these people in percentage terms.

There is Mr. David M. Culver, president and chief executive officer of Alcan, who in 1980 was earning $467,000. He took a raise which in 1981 raised his salary to $530,000, a 13.6 per cent increase. That is not bad; working people have been asking for about that range as well.

That is about the highest percentage level that any working person in Ontario has received in any set of negotiations I am aware of, except for a couple of public sector negotiations where people were making $8,500 working for the Hamilton and District Association for the Mentally Retarded. They did get some settlements in the last couple of years which were slightly higher than that.

But for working people who are making average or above average incomes, that is about the highest increase they could have possibly have obtained in the last couple of years. Unfortunately, it is the lowest I can find on this list of corporate executive increases.

Mr. Stokes: What was the dollar increase on that?

Mr. Charlton: The dollar increase was $70,000 in one year.

Mr. Stokes: That would pay about seven of those association employees.

Mr. Charlton: It would pay seven to eight of those people who work for the Hamilton and District Association for the Mentally Retarded, dealing with our retarded children and retarded adults.

There is Mr. Welty, the president and chief executive officer of Asamera Oil. Between 1980 and 1981 he took a 40 per cent increase for himself, but the expectations of working people are too high if they go for 11, 12 or 13 per cent in trying to match the cost of living.

I will not run through them all, but I want to give a clear indication of what we are asking of the public service in Ontario.

5 p.m.

We have one Mr. Cooper, director and consultant to Falconbridge, who took a 90 per cent increase for himself in one year between 1980 and 1981.

We have here another person, a gentleman called Mr. Bronfman, chairman and chief executive officer of the Seagram Co. Ltd. Between 1980 and 1981 he took an increase of 122 per cent for himself.

These are the very industrialists who are telling the governments, both federal and provincial, that if we want economic recovery, if we want to be competitive in the world economy, they are going to have to ask the working people of Canada to restrain themselves.

These are the symbols that are being set up for the working people of Canada. This is the kind of symbol of restraint that has created the economic problems we have. These are the people with no conscience except for the profits of their companies. They have no conscience whatsoever for the welfare and wellbeing of working families, both in the public sector and in the private sector right across this country.

These are the people who have asked for and have gotten restraint, which is mandatory for the public sector. Together, the governments and industries are applying substantial pressure to see that this restraint approach restricts the wages of public and private sector working people across Canada.

With that kind of symbol in place and with that kind of example set for him, what working man whose mortgage doubles or whose heating bill goes up by one third as a result of the national energy program, or whose car collapses and he has to think about borrowing money to go out and buy a new car, is going to listen to this so-called symbol that the Treasurer presents to us here when he suggests that the $17,000-a-year public employee has to carry the cost of economic recovery on his back? Nobody anywhere can justify that kind of approach to recovery.

I want to wrap up my remarks today with some comments about the small business sector.

I do not know exactly how long the vicious competition has been going on between the Conservative government and the Liberal Party in this province about who really represents the best interests of small business. I do not know how long that debate has been going on, but it certainly has been going on in a very vicious way for the five years that I have been here, with the Tories on one day and the Liberals on the next day chanting their support for the small business sector and their understanding of its problems.

I took the time during the three weeks since this bill was introduced to commence a canvass of small businesses in my constituency. I should point out to the Treasurer that some 90 per cent of the small businesses I canvassed were operated by those who had professed in the past to be supporters of the Conservative Party. I should add that many of them no longer are supporters as a result of the actions of this government over the course of the past year. But 90 per cent of them voted for the Conservative government in the last election.

I cannot go through all the detail and all the comments those small businessmen made to me about this restraint program. I do not have time. I will impart those that I cannot impart today to the members of this august assembly on third reading of this bill. But there are a number of points I want to make about the comments those small businessmen made to me.

I spent about half an hour with each of 22 small businessmen in my riding. I intend to continue this canvass over the course of the next month or month and a half while the debate on this bill continues in committee and into third reading.

The 22 small business people I talked to included operators of variety stores, shoe stores, butcher shops, men's and women's clothing stores, a hardware store, a small independent vacuum cleaner store and repair shop, a tobacco shop, a bookstore -- and a small car dealership, believe it or not; I threw that one in just for the Treasurer.

Mr. Samis: A small car dealership?

Mr. Charlton: Yes, a small car dealership. I wanted to keep it totally independent of the multinationals.

At any rate, 18 of the 22 business people I talked to, or more than 80 per cent, said firmly that this restraint package would do nothing to deal with the problems their businesses are confronting. I asked them what these major problems were. The first and foremost problem all 18 related to me was reduced sales, ranging all the way from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. The second problem all 18 of them hit on was interest rates.

Nine of the 22 businesses, or slightly more than 40 per cent, are on the brink of collapse. They are the losers the Treasurer talked about in his budget of last May. Those nine businesses employ a total of 56 full-time and 40 part-time employees, over and above the owners, the operators, the entrepreneurs.

I repeat, the two major problems for all nine of these businesses were reduced sales and interest rates. All nine of these business people made it clear that if they do not have a very good Christmas season this year it is very likely they will not be operating in January; they will go under.

All nine of them see this program as reducing their chances of survival. They are aware of what is happening in Hamilton. They are aware of what the layoffs in Hamilton have done to their sales, as well as a couple of strikes over the course of the past two years, the one at Stelco and the transit strike last summer. They are also aware of what this program will do to the buying power of 13,000 families in the city of Hamilton who fall under this restraint program.

All nine of these business people feel their only hope for survival is action on the part of some level of government in this country that will increase consumer spending immediately. It seems to us on this side of the House that the only kind of action a federal or provincial government could take that would accomplish this in an immediate sense is tax reduction, not tax increase.

I might point out that all nine of those businesses on the verge of collapse made specific reference to the Treasurer's budget of last May and the retail sales tax. I asked them specifically about the corporate income tax reduction that the Treasurer included as part of his budget, and in all nine cases they found themselves unable to take advantage of that program because they are so close to the line at this point that they have no profits.

In addition to those nine, seven more businesses, or almost another 32 per cent -- in total, counting the nine and seven, 72 per cent -- are contemplating layoffs because of reduced sales and some difficulty with interest rates. At this stage they are not so close to collapse as the other nine businesses, but they are certainly reaching a point in this economic crisis where, as small businesses, they are considering layoffs.

In those seven businesses, the layoffs they are contemplating involve 11 full-time people and eight part-time employees. They put themselves in the same category as the nine businesses close to collapse in the sense that if they do not have an excellent Christmas season those employees will be laid off immediately after Christmas. These are not seasonal employees who are being hired for the Christmas season. They are regular full-time and part-time people in those businesses. They will be laid off immediately after the Christmas season if the Christmas season does not bring one hell of an increase in retail sales.

5:10 p.m.

As I suggested at the outset, what it boils down to is that 18 of the 22 businesses saw this restraint program, coupled with the Treasurer's unaltered budget of last May, as a total abrogation of this government's responsibility to deal with the economic problems confronting us in Ontario and as a way to avoid the real economic problems confronting business people in this country. They saw these programs as a hindrance to their ability to survive on the one hand and as no progress toward a way to avoid further decline and layoffs on the other hand.

I thought it would be interesting to bring those facts to the attention of the members of the two parties that are supporting this bill and have always claimed to be the friends and supporters of small business and the wisest as to the needs of the small business community in Ontario.

I expect to have more time in third reading of this bill to go through the specific comments of some of those small business people for the edification of the members of the two parties that are supporting this bill.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, it is with a good deal of despondency and a sense of tragedy that I rise to speak on this bill. I also felt a deep sense of anger and incredulity to be called back early to this House to debate a major piece of legislation in response to the economic crisis that Ontario finds itself in, only to have the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) stand up and, for a few minutes, make some inconsequential remarks about the problems we face and why this legislation might be appropriate.

I heard nothing in the way of a sustained economic analysis or report on the fiscal state of the Ontario Treasury; in short, there was no precise background against which to labour and to confront the piece of legislation that was presented to us.

I heard a sort of litany, the usual kind of commentary that I read in every history book I pick up dealing with the introductory years of every recession and depression this country has ever experienced. The same phrases keep on being repeated and repeated; there was nothing new, nothing profound and nothing that was essentially analytical.

As the debate went on and as ministers opposite and members to the right offered their commentaries on this bill, I kept hoping that in time that lack would be made up. But I kept hearing only the continued recitation of the same phrases and adjectives.

I have listened and I have reflected. I think I have listened to as many of the speeches presented on this bill as any member of the House. I am despondent that members opposite and to our right did not join the issue of the crisis of our economy and produce in their own commentaries something that would at least add to the substance of the remarks by the Premier and the Treasurer.

Our members in this corner of the House have made a number of charges with respect to Bill 179, and I certainly subscribe to them. I want to go from there to comment on the questionable justification for the bill, arguing that it is not only unfair and not only the most insidious piece of class legislation in Ontario's recent legislative history but also quite unnecessary, given the trends of wage settlements, interest rates and inflationary factors.

I want to argue also that it will not work, that the proposals put forward and the arguments given to sustain them will not bear scrutiny and that therefore the proposals will not and cannot have any effect on inflation or on interest rates. I think that in timing it is a piece of political opportunism, but I certainly recognize that there are more fundamental elements of policy in the government's mind to which this legislation gives expression and which perhaps have not been taken entirely seriously in this debate.

The bill does not stand alone as a piece of public relations gimmickry. Although many adjectives can be thrown at this government, I do not think it is a stupid one. It has lots of expertise, and I think this expertise has advised it to certain courses of action, this being one of them. I think the bill is a response to a major dilemma in Conservative economic and fiscal policy in the face of the deindustrialization of Ontario. Indeed, one could even go so far as to say that this is the labour component of the government's underlying economic strategy and that in the long run it can only reduce our working people in this province to Third World status.

Far from being a cure for our ills, the bill is an integral part of a complex of self-defeating policies that will engulf this province in further tragedy. Although I believe it recognizes the extent of the crisis and even its nature, this government cannot escape this further tragedy, because it is allied with those who are its root cause and whose policies it serves primarily.

I do not want to rehearse the unfairness of the legislation; we have been through all that: the fact that it targets the public sector worker, the fact that it targets the working people of this province in more general terms, the fact that the five per cent solution cutting across income levels is not equitable, the fact that it impacts unfairly on women in the public service and women in the work force at large, the fact that it ignores certain important groups in our community who draw income from the public sector and who should be subject to its provisions, and the fact, above all, that in fastening on the working people of this province it does so in disregard of the fact that their wage settlements and wage demands have not been, as alleged, exorbitant and inflationary.

I have statistics here -- I am not going to rehearse them all in detail, but I certainly could do so -- for average weekly wages and salaries in Canada and settlements in that regard over the period from 1977. They show that, when inflation is calculated in, the real income lost was 8.3 per cent in the country as a whole and 10.5 per cent in Ontario.

Taken in the large, and that is what one has to do, if one pits wage and salary settlements over against inflationary potential, those settlements have not been inflationary. That itself ought to have cut the ground out from under any serious proposal for wage controls in this province.

If one looks at the average weekly wages and salaries in the public and private sectors separately in Ontario, one comes to the same conclusion: neither one nor the other is inflationary or exorbitant, and one gets the impression more of working people running to keep up rather than trying to get ahead of the inflationary factor.

In some construing of the statistics you do find, if you are talking about wage settlements of units of 200 or more, that the public sector may be a little bit ahead of the private sector, or vice versa if you look at settlements in the larger units of 500 employees or more. However one construes it, there is no way in which the salary statistics in Ontario over recent years can be distorted to make working people the source of inflation and their wages the front line of attack against inflation itself and against interest rates. That may be the desperate expedient of bankrupt governments and a cornered governor of the Bank of Canada, but it simply will not hold water. It is baseless, it is dishonest, and it will be pernicious in its effects.

5:20 p.m.

When I turn to some single sectors that especially concern me in my responsibilities as Colleges and Universities critic, when I look at the university salary scene, I find the same evidence bearing out the same conclusion. University administrators quite freely admit they have ridden out seven years of underfunding on the backs of their faculties. If we look at the base income of full professors in our university system in 1971-72, we get an earning figure of $18,792, and if we look at the real dollar value of their income 10 years later, that has slipped to $14,155. If we run down the scale, assistant professors, for example, got $11,000-odd in 1971-72 and in real dollars now, $8,000-odd. Since 1978-79 the consumer price index has gone up 47.5 per cent, but university income scales only 27.7 per cent.

When one reviews the wage and salary advances of recent years in this province, it is quite obvious that they have not contributed to inflation and that the attempts to attack the inflationary factor and interest rates through that vehicle is not only unfair but entirely irrelevant. If the bill then attacks a nonexistent problem, it is certainly unnecessary in that respect, at least if the object is to restrain those inflationary runaway wage settlements that the Premier and his supporters appear to believe to have been out there in the labour market. The single, simple conclusion is that wage settlements have not been inflationary whether taken in total or by significant sectors.

I have not read anyone who predicts anything but a further decline in the level of wage settlements. The recent report from the Canadian Labour Congress itself predicts nothing but a continuation of declining settlements from the 8.3 per cent levels that have been struck in the course of these first few months of this year. As a wage control program, Bill 179 is redundant from the beginning.

The next point I want to come to is that Bill 179 is not only unfair, not only redundant and unnecessary, but that it will do nothing to reduce inflation or interest rates, that none of the arguments that have been adduced by the administration of this province will hold water when they are carefully examined. What are the arguments? First of all, it is argued that the public sector is a burden on the economy and that by easing that alleged burden inflation and interest rates will fall. That was what the Treasurer told us on September 23.

That argument just simply will not stand. There are two primary reasons for that. The first is that the projected saving of some $440 million to $840 million in government expenditure over the life of the program is simply too small to have any depressing effect upon interest rates. Even if a half-billion-dollar reduction in government expenditure was accomplished in one year, and that is unlikely, that is only two per cent of the Treasurer's projected expenditures for the year. That is a grain of sand in the economic mill. It may be noticed, but it will have no effect whatever on inflation or on interest rates.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence that such public sector cost reductions as are passed through to the private sector will have a significant impact on inflation. Why? Because the Tory tax structure, which I wish to return to later if there is time, inhibits the passing on of much more relief to private industry. After all, they have been at it for 20 years. Twenty years of tax concessions to the corporations of this province, as misguided and ineffective incentives, have left the province in a position now where it has no more tax room to spare.

The corporate sector now contributes only seven per cent of the total budget revenue of this province. If one asks who has borne the brunt of increases in public sector costs, it is not the corporations, it is the family sector. Twenty years ago corporate taxes made up 25.1 per cent of the budget revenue, and family taxes 15.4 per cent. Those proportions have, broadly speaking, been reversed in recent years so that the corporate contribution is seven per cent and that of families 27 per cent, excluding Ontario health insurance plan payments.

Can we believe the Treasurer when he says he is reducing to any degree the burden of government on the private sector? Can we believe the Premier when he says, as he did in Halifax and repeated here on September 23: "Public sector cost reductions can be passed through to the private sector through the tax system and through other charges for government services. These reductions alone will have a significant impact on the performance of the consumer price index and will contribute to reduced inflation in the private sector." No, we cannot; my answer is not a word of it applies.

In terms of the bill before us, that line of argument is simply garbage from beginning to end. So much then for the argument that inflation and the cost of living for citizens in this province will be reduced by the proposed reduction of the so-called burden of government on the economy. It will not stand scrutiny.

Another line of argument which the government has adopted, and equally fallacious in my opinion, is, to quote the Treasurer on September 23, "Our actions will help the fight against inflation by decreasing government demands on the capital market and ease the pressure on interest rates." This argument is quite simply incredible.

First, according to the Treasurer himself, the Ontario government has not gone to the capital markets since 1978-79. Second, the government has been decreasing, not increasing, its public debt. Third, Ontario does most of its borrowing from nonpublic sources like the Canada pension plan and the teachers' superannuation fund. How can this kind of borrowing be crowding the private sector off the money market and forcing up interest rates?

One is simply amazed that the Treasurer, of all people, would embark on such a line of defence of a policy of this nature. Any argument that controlling wages reduces deficits, and hence inflation, is lost in the simple fact that the government is not really a significant competitor with private interests in borrowing. In the circumstances it might be of some point to attack Hydro's $2.3 billion borrowing on the capital market this year, but that is another question.

There are other reasons to be sceptical of the argument that the government's deficit is inflationary and is maintaining high interest rates. First, of course, if that were so, it is a very interesting observation that the decline in interest rates over recent months is accompanied by the growth of the provincial deficit and of the doubling of the federal deficit. According to the Treasurer's analysis, that should not be happening, but it is and it gives the lie to his argument.

Second, and more important, is his argument that it is total government demand upon the capital markets of the nation that forces up interest rates or forces them down. If one looks at total government borrowing in this nation and the total government deficits, one will find that over recent years they have been declining, that their proportion of gross national earnings from 1978 to 1981 has been reduced to the point where they are now one fifth of what they were. In other words, combined deficits have been dropping, while inflation and interest rates have been generally rising. So where is the Treasurer's argument? It is lost completely. I do not see how it can be sustained. The whole case, it seems to me, for public sector wage controls as a means of reducing inflation and interest rates in particular, simply falls apart. There is not a shred of evidence to support it.

5:30 p.m.

As I suggested, one may hurl many adjectives at this government. One may be bewildered by the proposals and the arguments that come forth from it, such as this one, but I do not think this is an undesigning government. I think this is a deliberate policy, not one that was concocted in a fit of absence of mind and that did not really pay attention to the economic reality of this province. I do not think this is a stupid government. So where are the reasons for this particular bill?

Much has been said about its appeal to public relations, to a popular mood out there that seems to want some kind of action, that seems to want some kind of response. This is a handy thing to do, so the government does it. Timing may be affected by such things, but the form of the action is not. The form of the action is what we have to take account of, not its particular timing.

I want to suggest, as I did at the beginning, that this policy, this bill, is part of a response to the facts of a crisis in government revenue, and this is the reason, though there is more to it than meets the eye, for its introduction. It is also consistent with the government's program of restraint that has been in place since 1975. It provides the government with the necessary leverage to reduce transfer payments to local government. It provides the private sector with another tool to restrict labour income and reduce the presence of organized labour in the economy.

These are all reasons, but they all need, it seems to me, especially the last four, to be seen in terms of the economic and fiscal dilemma the Ontario government has boxed itself into as it attempts to respond to the crisis of the Ontario economy, a crisis sometimes referred to as deindustrialization. The government is aware of the nature of that crisis. It recognizes its proportions and has responded to it up to a point in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program.

BILD, in my view, is not so much wrong as it is a timid and cowering harbinger of what the government might do with respect to industrial renewal were it to adopt a vigorous strategy that could grow out of that and extend from it. However, precluded from that by its commitment to nonintervention in the economy and committed to scaling down the capacity of government to do so, Conservative policy is reduced to rather will-o'-the-wisp efforts to "create a favourable business climate."

This bill fits precisely into that emasculated policy framework in two ways. First, let me recall for members that the advisory committee on global product mandating called for and secured from the former Minister of Industry and Tourism a commitment for more encouragement, more incentives, more inducements. Its multinational branch plant members said they definitely did not need "inconsistent or hostile policies, such as statements calling for greater Canadian ownership and possible nationalization."

The ministry's Let's Do Business kits, therefore, went on to brag loudly about Ontario's low labour costs, its low minimum wage, its labour stability, its corporate incentives, its high depreciation allowances, its low corporate tax rates and the absence of restrictions on profit repatriation.

I submit that the wage control program is the labour component of this government's overall strategy expressed in those terms: improving and extending incentives for private investment. All of that in turn fits very neatly into the World Bank strategy for Third World industrial development, which calls for free trade zones, financial incentives and appeals to the transnational corporation as the vehicle for accomplishing its industrial objectives and which entails of necessity a repressive labour policy to establish favourable business climates.

It seems to me that the second primary reason for this bill lies in the fiscal extension of that policy. Businesses are, frankly and quite admittedly, cash short. They are looking for help. However, this government over the long haul, as I noted above, has over 20 years so consistently followed its corporate incentive approach that it has no more tax room to give. Taxation specialists have told us repeatedly -- and in my maiden speech in this House I tried to explain that in some detail -- that this whole panoply of incentives and tax expenditures to get business moving is simply an unproductive and self-defeating device. Yet the government has gone on year after year doing that. It has vacated just about all the space that it can for further tax incentives since corporations, as I said, now provide only seven per cent of those total tax revenues needed by this province. Now that we are at the dead end of that road, what is the Treasurer to do?

The Treasurer has only got one fundamental expedient, which was exhibited to us in the budget in May and is exhibited to us once more again in this program, which is not so much a wage restraint program as a 30 to 40 per cent surtax on public employees. The Treasurer has now begun totally and fully to adopt the strategy of increasing the severity of his acquisition and appropriation of the depressed wages of working people.

I understand his dilemma, but I refuse to share in it. I refuse to sympathize with policies that can have no other upshot but to reduce the working people of this province to Third World status. I repudiate this bill, and when the people of this province see its real intent, they will too.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in demanding the withdrawal of this dictatorial and misguided piece of legislation. I think it is the worst piece of legislation that has been introduced into this House in the seven years I have been here.

This legislation is not the answer to inflation. It is not the answer to our job shortage. It is not the answer to our deepening recession. In fact, it is just the opposite. It will increase the recession by reducing the purchasing power of 500,000 employees in this province. These are 500,000 employees who very much need the wages that are being taken away from them in order to just survive.

This piece of legislation will not create a single job. This piece of legislation will not control price rises in the supermarkets. It will not control the fees that physicians may charge under extra billing. It will not control the rising insurance rates or property taxes. It will not control rent hikes obtained by landlords under the rent review legislation if they are in excess of six per cent. It will allow for a continuation of rent increases above the six per cent for those who can claim that their financing costs have gone up.

This will not stop any of the price increases that the gas companies incur being passed through to the consumers and which, therefore, will result in increases much above the six per cent to gas consumers. This will not stop the increase of 17 per cent in Ontario health insurance plan premiums. It will not limit Toronto Transit Commission hikes to six per cent. It will not limit telephone hikes to six per cent.

This legislation is not in any sense a restraint program on anybody but the 500,000 public sector employees who are being asked to pay the bill for the government's mismanagement. In fact, this is a typical piece of Tory legislation. Instead of dealing with problems in a planned way to put people to work, they are producing a smokescreen. It is a political answer.

5:40 p.m.

They look for a scapegoat. They look for people who are weak, such as unorganized workers, minimum wage workers. They look for people, such as women, who are at the low end of the pay scale and who work in some public sector employment, like hospitals, in great numbers, as well as in the public service in substantial numbers. They look for people who are unpopular. Sometimes civil servants have a bad image, which I do not think is deserved. They know the civil servants are not always able to talk back, although I think a great many of them are talking back about this particular kind of persecution in this legislation.

This legislation will not get the economy going. It will not reduce high interest rates. It will not put our unused manufacturing capacity to work. It will not increase capital investment and inventory accumulation, which are two of the main reasons our factories are closing down. In fact, it will make the recession worse. The New Democratic Party has put forward a constructive program for solving our present economic problems and for getting the economy going, but the government has stubbornly refused to look at this program.

What we need is to put people to work on building new rental housing, on import replacement, on an auto parts corporation. What we need is to become more self-sufficient in food so that we do not have to spend as much money on foreign imports. The same is true for machinery production. We have to produce our machinery at home. We have to increase the refining and processing of our natural resources. These are the things that could put people to work, not this kind of hoax, which is simply an attack on the weak and those least able to defend themselves.

I want to speak specifically about how this legislation will affect women because they are one of the groups most affected by it. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) said in the House on October 1, "The Inflation Restraint Act does not distinguish in its terms between male and female employees and is, therefore, neutral in its application." That is one of the most laughable statements the minister has ever made. Women being at the low end of the wage scale will be adversely affected by any percentage increase restraint. Six per cent of $15,000 is a lot less than six per cent of $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000, so women will have much less opportunity to catch up.

Statistics Canada has produced new figures recently on the percentage that women's earnings are of men's earnings. On the average in 1980 they were 49 per cent of men's earnings. A new 1981 study shows they are just 51 per cent. This is quite a bit less than the figure that has been cited for a number of years, which was close to 60 per cent. Women comprise 67 per cent of the poor. They will comprise a larger percentage if this wage restraint bill goes into effect.

Families headed by women, usually single women, comprised 35 per cent of poor families. Those families will be reduced to a kind of poverty that could affect their children's health, their children's nutrition, their children's opportunities for recreation facilities and even their children's new winter coats. I think the kind of legislation that attacks the poor is the kind of legislation that we should not allow and it should be withdrawn.

I want to speak of some of the ways in which women are affected by this legislation. First of all, there is the case of the 17,000 public service employees who have signed a contract covering 1982 and 1983. This provided for an increase of 11 per cent in each of those years. These are the clerical and office service employees. This category is dominated by women and is a low-paid category. Of the 17,000 workers in this area, 15,000 are women. They will suffer a pay loss, an actual rollback of their contract of $1,000 per worker. This is equal to about three weeks' lost pay that the government is stealing from these women. They have signed a contract and the government is tearing up their contract.

This pay raise did not really provide for catch-up; it provided for keeping up with the cost of living. But women in the public service of Ontario make only 72 per cent of what men make. Not only are these women denied any catch-up, but they are being taxed by this legislation at the rate of $1,000 per worker.

Are the doctors paying this kind of a tax on their $100,000 salaries? No. Are the executives my colleague referred to, who are making in the six-figure area for their salaries and have increases of 40 and 50 per cent, paying any of this compulsory tax that the government is imposing on the clerical and office workers? They are not. We have to look at this kind of unfairness and say, "Surely, we must not allow such persecution of an underpaid group of women workers."

There is a day care worker in Ottawa who makes $17,500. This is not a very big salary. Day care workers are notoriously underpaid, and if it was not for their dedication, a lot of day care centres would close. This day care worker had a catch-up contract which was supposed to raise her wages in the coming year. Instead, as a result of this legislation, her wages will be cut by $18 a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks. It seems to me that her rights have been gravely affected by this legislation and the legislation cannot be called neutral.

An $18,000-a-year clerk in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications faces a reduction of nearly $20 a week next year, despite the contract that her union signed with the government.

5:50 p.m.

I want to draw attention to the plight of the public health nurses in North York. I raised this question in the House on Tuesday, but I was not able to give all the facts because the time for oral questions ran out.

I did point out that these public health nurses in North York have a starting rate which is $8,100 below the rate for public health nurses in the city of Toronto and $6,100 below the rate for sanitation inspectors in North York, their own community.

The sanitation inspectors are required, generally, to have less education than the public health nurses but they do substantially the same work in the community of maintaining health standards. The public health nurses probably do more preventive work in the schools and in the community. Sanitation inspectors are also essential for their contribution to keeping the community free of disease.

The public health nurses have been negotiating for more than a year to achieve a catch-up with these two categories, but a catch-up to bring them to parity with the Toronto nurses would require a 41.6 per cent increase. Under this legislation their chances of getting any catch-up are restricted to the nine and five per cent allowed under the legislation: nine per cent in the first year and five per cent in the second year. This would not even begin to allow them to catch up and, of course, would not keep up with the cost of living. But those figures are also maximum figures, so they might not even get the nine and five if their employer is not willing to give it to them.

These public health nurses in North York are also required to provide their own cars to do their jobs. At present they are suffering a loss of up to $2,000 a year on the shortfall between their car allowances and the costs of operating the cars.

The city of North York has initiated a study of this situation and has promised a report in 1982. If the city agrees to rectify this very serious situation, which really requires the nurses to subsidize the city of North York and the taxpayers of North York up to $2,000 a year, under this legislation it will not be allowed to correct the situation because this will be a monetary gain.

They will be restricted by the nine and five and, presumably, this particular situation cannot be rectified for the next year or two, probably two years since they are among the people whose contract is under negotiation but has not yet been signed. For two years they have to go on with this situation. I cannot understand how North York will be left with any public health nurses because it is an impossible situation.

There are other areas where women will suffer; for instance, in women's efforts to move into nontraditional jobs. They have been able to get into Stelco, which was quite a breakthrough, but as a result of the government's failure to keep the economy going, those jobs have disappeared. They have been laid off because their seniority is low.

This legislation will not help them get their jobs back, so we are no longer able to say there are women in Stelco. The gains they have made in moving into this new field have been wiped out by the government's failure to overcome the recession, its failure to provide purchasing power so Stelco could keep going on its former scale.

With regard to equal pay for work of equal value, that is one of the main ways in which women will ultimately improve their position in the work place and overcome the wage gap that exists between men and women. Until women are allowed to move out of the job ghettos and into other jobs or are provided with pay equivalent to the work being done in jobs that require equivalent skill or equivalent responsibility, they will not be able to overcome that wage gap. When the Minister of Labour was asked if he would consider bringing in equal pay for work of equal value, he said that at the present time, "the atmosphere is not right." He said business cannot afford it at the present time. He also said the work place is in a very fragile condition at this time.

It appears he chooses to support business and not to consider that discrimination is something that should be outlawed. Women will have to put up with the present discrimination for the next two or three years at least or until such time as he is convinced that equal pay for work of equal value is what is needed if we are going to give women equal opportunities in the work place.

Another problem that will face women is that the present legislation will, in effect, rule out bargaining on nonmonetary items. There are many items on which women are not protected that have been left to collective bargaining, because the government has failed to move in these areas. I am referring to things such as video display terminal hazards. There is no legislation in the province to protect women against the possible effects on them when operating these VDT machines.

Also, there is the question of maternity leave and day care provision, either in the work place or in the community, to enable women to work and to have equal opportunity.

There is the question of negotiating sexual harassment rules to protect women from this problem.

There are many nonmonetary matters that have been left to collective bargaining, but when the government tears up the collective bargaining contracts and eliminates them for a period of two to three years, that condemns women to the present conditions in all those fields and removes the steps that can be taken to make their opportunities equal. If the government itself would act in some of these areas, there would not be as many of them that would have to be bargained over. Ultimately, we hope these particular requirements will become universal for all workers, whether or not they are in bargaining units. At the moment, they have no recourse to any method in order to get protection for the various health and safety problems that particularly affect women or to ensure that there is adequate day care.

Another area where there are a considerable number of women workers is in community colleges. At the moment, the support staff are averaging something like $17,000 to $18,000 a year. They had been negotiating a catch-up provision, but they will not be able to achieve what they have been negotiating, because they will be affected by the nine and five. The contract is not settled, so these women are faced with two or three years of controls, and we do not know whether they will even get the maximum of nine and five. Sixty per cent of the 4,500 support staff of the community colleges are women, so I do not see how the minister can say the legislation is neutral as far as men and women are concerned.

The Deputy Speaker: At this time I would like to bring the time to the member's attention. Were you planning to resume at eight?

Ms. Bryden: Yes, I would like to resume at eight.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

14 octobre 1982