INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 170, 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.
On section 1:
Mr. Chairman: If memory serves me correctly, we had left the debate under discussion of an amendment moved by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) to clause 1(a), in which he moved that clause 1(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "'Commission' means the Fair Prices Commission." The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) had the floor at that time.
As I cast my eyes about, I do now recognize the member for Erie.
Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to address myself to the amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party concerning the prices review commission.
Listening to the lengthy debate put forward by my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold --
Mr. Martel: Good stuff.
Mr. Haggerty: It was good stuff was it? It was laid on pretty heavy. I say to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), it reminds me of going to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair here this winter, walking through the cattle building.
I consider the present positions taken by his party: they were definitely opposed to it and felt amendments would not do it any good, they were not going to bother with amendments or anything. It was a complete flip-flop. If one goes through the cattle building at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, it reminds me of walking through there, the flip-flop.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: Obviously they want to filibuster over there, but I want to say, it has never been stated by this party we would not move amendments.
We said on the first part of the garbage we would not move amendments, but we would in fact be moving amendments on that section dealing with prices and controls on prices.
If my friend is going to say something, it should reflect accurately what has been said and should not distort it.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not distorted it at all. I think the papers will bear that out. All I am suggesting is if they went through the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, they would perhaps get my message, because the member for Welland-Thorold talked about price controls on almost everything, right from the farm gate, right from the milk, right on through the whole system.
That was the message I got, for two nights I believe it was, Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday evening from the member for Welland-Thorold. That was definitely the intent of their present bill that was debated this afternoon.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We have never talked about price controls at the farm gate. We talked about the fact that farmers were not getting their fair share of the market price and we talked about some price review system at the consumer gate, not the farm gate.
Mr. Chairman: I agree. Order.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I enjoyed the interjections but take a look at Bill 184, An Act to provide for the Fair Pricing of Products and Services sold to Consumers in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: We have another point of order.
Mr. Renwick: My point of order is very clear. We dealt with Bill 184 this afternoon and the Liberal Party opposed it.
Mr. Haggerty: We will not argue that point. The point I am trying to bring to the attention of the Legislature is I heard the member for Welland-Thorold compare food prices on the American side to those on the Canadian side. I have to agree with him. You can buy a dozen eggs on the American side for about half the price you can over here. Beef, or vegetables, are a lot cheaper than they are here.
For example, just before the American Thanksgiving weekend on November 28, you could buy choice number one turkeys, the Butterball, for 78 cents a pound.
Interjections.
Mr. Haggerty: There are some interjections from the other side.
I wanted to bring to the attention of the Legislature that in dealing with this restraint bill and the fair prices commission, members have to remember one thing: On the American side of the border they have a free-market approach; in the distribution of farm produce they do not have an egg marketing board, a chicken marketing board or a turkey marketing board.
And they do not have a milk marketing board. You can buy milk there for about half of the Ontario price, but it is costing the taxpayers there about $6 million a day to subsidize the dairy industry.
This past week there was an article in the Globe and Mail concerning the recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade meetings in Geneva, Switzerland. The Americans have huge surpluses of whole grain, grain cereal, or whatever you want to call it, and a huge dairy surplus. They threatened to dump these surpluses on the world market if they were not given special consideration in this regard. If that should happen, it would cause chaos in the marketing programs we have in Canada.
There is no wheat marketing board in the United States, as we have in Canada. In a sense, prices are controlled in these particular areas but they are not controlled on the American side. That is why the farm products there are much cheaper than they are here. I live right next door, in Fort Erie, across the bridge. I often wish I could go over there and load up my car and come back. I could live rather cheaply.
But if one goes a little deeper into the pricing of goods on the American side, and takes into consideration the wages paid in the supermarkets there, one finds them to be much lower than those wages paid in Ontario stores. I am not arguing that point. I just want to make sure the House clearly understands the comments put forward by the New Democratic Party when they talk about fair price control.
lnterjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Cochrane North.
Mr. Piché: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I respect the speaker but he is not talking on Bill 179. I understand we have a lot of Ontario Public Service Employees Union representative here who need to learn what we are doing as a government because they have been given some very false information. I think they should know why we are here today, but the member is not discussing Bill 179.
Mr. Nixon: Why doesn't the member make a speech when it is his turn?
Mr. Piché: Just a minute now, I still have the floor.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane North has a point of order.
Mr. Piché: That is right. We should stick to Bill 179, which is a very important bill for the people of this province. The people from OPSEU have been misdirected by their leaders. I think it is very important that we deal with Bill 179 and not go outside it.
Mr. Mackenzie: Point of order, Mr. Chairman:
Mr. Chairman: Just before the point of order, I am wondering if I might point out to all our guests in the galleries that under our standing orders --
Mr. McClellan: Talk to the member for Cochrane North who is making a fool of himself.
Mr. Chairman: Well, wait a minute. I just want to point out, that under our standing orders --
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order. I am going to call you to order.
Mr. Piché: No, no. I am on a point of privilege. You have no choice.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I have a choice. I am speaking. Order.
Mr. Piché: I cannot accept that.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Cochrane North, you are out of order at this time. You will have your opportunity. I would hate to do something drastic.
Mr. Piché: I have the floor.
Mr. Chairman: No, you do not have the floor. I do not recognize you. I shall recognize you in a moment. I want to point out to guests in the gallery that, under our standing orders, which are the rules and procedures of this Legislature, no one other than members is allowed to participate in the debate. That includes any kind of clapping. I want to bring that to your attention, because I would hate to have to clear the gallery at some time.
At this time I recognize the member for Hamilton East.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, the reason I am rising to my feet is simply to point out that, if we are going to enforce that rule in the gallery -- and I agree you should enforce your ruling that the galleries are not allowed to enter into the debate -- there cannot be deliberate incitement from members, such as the member for Cochrane North, and that is exactly what we had in this House.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane North has the floor.
Mr. Piché: On a point of privilege: The comment that has been made is wrong. All I am saying is that we are dealing with Bill 179, which is so important to this province and the people of this province. The people who are up there --
Mr. Chairman: You have made your point.
Mr. Piché: I have not made my point yet. You are cutting me off. All I am saying is, let us take Bill 179 and deal with that matter right now, because of its importance.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur has the floor.
Mr. Foulds: I should like to make one point on the point of order. The member for Cochrane North has risen on what he thinks to be a point of order and has made allegations against people who cannot reply to them in the House. I would simply point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that if the honourable member had said another honourable member had misled the House or his party or whatever, that person could rise on a point of privilege.
Unfortunately, I believe the member is invoking parliamentary privilege unnecessarily, and I would invite the member for Cochrane North, during the course of the debate on clause 1(a), to try to get to his feet to substantiate his unfounded allegations.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton Mountain.
Mr. Charlton: On the original point of order made by the member for Cochrane North, it should be pointed out to him that Bill 179 is not on the floor tonight. Clause 1(a) of Bill 179 is on the floor. In fact our amendment to clause 1(a), dealing with a fair prices commission, is on the floor tonight.
Mr. Chairman: Back to the member for Erie. I would like to point out that, indeed, we are speaking to the amendment. Let us give it a try and see if you are speaking to the amendment. Try to mention it now and again.
Mr. Haggerty: I was talking about the fair prices commission. I am sure that is the amendment put forward by my colleagues to the left. I do not want to repeat this, but they should go through the cattle building at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. I talked about the flip-flop that took place down there. I thought I would drive that point home. If one looks at the cattle down there, one will see a point here and a point there, and a lot of bull in between. I hope you get the message, Mr. Chairman.
What I am trying to convey to you, Mr. Chairman, is that for two days I have heard nothing but boloney from the other side. There was mention of -- I should not say wage and price controls, but controls on consumer goods. If I can relate that to the Solidarity situation in Poland, that is one of the problems they want to get rid of over there, controls. They want to be free, to move in a free climate so that they can go out and buy the goods they see that suit their pocketbooks.
The same thing applies here in Ontario. You talk about competition. That has been mentioned under this fair prices commission. Do you have competition when beer, wines and other spirituous goods are sold in Ontario?
Mr. Edighoffer: Milk?
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, milk is another one. There is no competition at all once you set up some measure of control. I learned a lesson during the war years -- and I am not that young a person, don't let looks fool you. If you go back to the wage and price controls that were in effect during the war years, 1941 or 1940 to 1944-45 -- I believe that was when the controls were removed -- a price commission was established at that time to be a watchdog over what the consumer was paying for certain goods. There was a certain price tag put on them, but there were also coupons given to you on certain items that were restricted.
Butter, for example: if you went into a store, under controls you had to produce the coupons but if you had the money, through the scarcity of that item on the market, you could buy it almost any place. The same applied to the gasoline controls they had. You could end up, under controls, with a black market; you create a scarcity of goods on the market.
The consumer has a better chance to go out and buy goods today; the sales and the deals are there. All it takes is for consumers to gain confidence to get back into the mainstream and spend some of that money in purchasing goods. You will turn the economy around that way without putting controls on, as suggested by the New Democratic Party and by the government.
Even wages were frozen during that time. They were under the watchful eyes of the government. There were certain areas where you could go out and perhaps pick up another job during the war years under the Selective Service Commission. Some persons had two jobs. Perhaps there was more income in those days, because many of the spouses had the opportunity to work in industry, and that practice has continued to the present day. So there was sufficient income with two persons earning income.
Even renting was a serious problem. Almost every little cubby-hole in certain houses in the town of Port Colborne at that time could be rented if you had the money. They paid a considerable rental for the use because there was a shortage. But what happened during the war years was that the government came in with a wartime housing program. There are some good experiences and some good lessons to be learned from the history of controls that took place during the war years.
The government came in and built the wartime housing, and you can go through the Niagara Peninsula from St. Catharines to Fort Erie, Port Colborne and other places and you can see those houses still standing today, still providing housing accommodation for families. But it took a government with a deep sense of commitment to put sufficient housing on the market. If we had that today we would not have to have rent controls. Instead of the Arabs coming here and buying Cadillac Fairview, or whoever did, and the speculators in this area, that money could have built new units.
We are taking a backwards approach in this whole piece of legislation. I could use a stronger term than that in the House, but I do not want to use it. We are not going forward but backward. The NDP were right about the controls in 1975. They did not support them. They had principles at that time, and they did not flip-flop. They stuck to their guns and said it would not work.
In some areas it did. I happened to have State Farm automobile insurance at that time. I will put a plug in for them and maybe I will get a rebate on my insurance this year. Anyway, I got two rebates because there were huge profits made.
The Fraser Institute, I believe, at the University of British Columbia did a report on taxation --
Mr. Piché: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I do not want to interfere, but the member is not speaking on Bill 179. That is why we are here tonight. Bill 179 should have been passed a long time ago but we have to listen to the opposition. If we were the government right now, we would have passed that a long time ago; but we are listening, and he is not speaking on Bill 179. I would like to draw that to your attention.
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: It is a good point of order, actually. I would like to bring to the attention of the member for --
Mr. McClellan: I think he was asking a question as to who is the government.
Mr. Piché: We are.
Mr. Chairman: In theory.
Interjections
Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Erie tie in the amendment the odd time?
Mr. Haggerty: I am sure I am dealing with the amendment.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: As the acting government in the member's eyes, we will be happy to answer his questions if that is what he wants.
Mr. Haggerty: I do not know if the member is talking for the government over there or not. With what he is suggesting to us here tonight, we might as well pack up all our goodies, if one can call them goodies. We might as well call it a night if he wants to bring in closure. Is that what he is suggesting?
Mr. Piché: Mr. Chairman, I will not --
Mr. Chairman: The member for Erie has the floor.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor on a point of order. I will not bring in closure but I will suggest that section 36 be considered.
Mr. Nixon: Oh my God, section 36.
Mr. Haggerty: Which section is he dealing with now?
Mr. Nixon: That is for the expulsion of obstreperous members.
Mr. Haggerty: I suggest some members have not read that book, Tax Base and Income Policies. It is a good document.
Mr. Nixon: Read it to us.
Mr. Haggerty: I should read sections of it. It goes way back to 300 AD or 301 AD. Controls were brought in during the Roman Empire. This document will tell the members that, beginning at that time, the history of controls is that they have never worked. The have been a complete failure.
I talked before about the scarcity of goods that will come about if we accept this amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party. That is what will happen. There will be a scarcity of commodities on the market. As soon as that happens, prices will go up. If people have the money, they will get goods one way or another through a black market system.
That is one of the areas we are not moving forward in, but are moving backwards more than anything. By having controls one deprives consumers of the free market process here in Canada and in Ontario. It does not give them the option to buy the type of goods they may want to purchase, but they will be whipped into line to buy one particular commodity or goods.
To me, the amendment doesn't resolve the problem of Bill 179. In fact, the bill itself does not resolve the problem. It does restrict the controls to one sector and that is the public sector. I would be more concerned with the proposed amendment if the government ever got into the area of the pending Bill 180. Then I think it would be necessary to have such a piece of legislation apply across the board.
That is the position put forward by my leader; if the government is going to have price and wage controls they would have to apply across the board, not only in Ontario but across all of Canada. I am sure at this time we are not going to get that type of control measure applied across Canada because I think the recent change in the government of Saskatchewan, the recent election in Saskatchewan, will bear that out. The Premier of the province says he wants no part of applying any wage or price controls, or any controls of any nature.
Mr. Philip: Why are you voting for price control then?
Mr. Haggerty: If we look at what happened in Saskatchewan, we talk about controls but one reason the NDP was turfed out was because of its involvement in the private sector.
I do not have to tell the House about the cost of fertilizer today. Much of the cost has been set by the former province of Saskatchewan because the government had taken over the industry and has since applied some form of price fixing. I suggest that is what happened out there and the impact is here. The same thing relates to the price of crude oil here in Canada.
Mr. Charlton: What is the former province of Saskatchewan now?
Mr. Haggerty: They tell me they have lower student costs for enrolment in universities. That is one area. They have the cheapest gas you can buy anywhere in Canada. There are no controls. When looking at the areas that have caused the problems, the oil-producing countries would have to be looked at.
There is a glut of certain goods on the market today. We have gasoline, crude oil, natural gas and so forth. Actually there is not enough market here in Ontario, in Canada, or even in the United States because of the slow growth of the economy. The governments are not buying it over there.
This present amendment, and even the bill, are not going in the right direction. When I was speaking previously on the principle of the bill I said that I had some strong reservations about the intent of the bill. I still have those reservations. If I had my way I think the bill should be withdrawn. They should be looking at the areas of apartment building or homes, something that would put some light in the economy, because controls will not keep pace with unemployment.
We are going to have to come up with other measures. I spoke in the debate on second reading of the bill and my topic was the high interest rates. If the government wants to apply some controls, they should be applied in the area of interest rates. That has the damaging effect on the economy. Industry is not moving ahead or expanding. People cannot afford to purchase homes, new or older homes.
I believe strongly in the philosophy and the doctrine of the former Social Credit Party that if the interest rates are controlled the economy can be controlled and we would not he in the fix that we are in today.
The amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party for a fair prices commission is not going to resolve the problems of the economy in Ontario. In the past there has been greed shown by certain sectors of the economy, the banking institutions, the oil industry itself. They have had an excellent program for the last five to seven years of charging whatever the traffic would bear. They have socked it to the consumer.
The consumers are a little bit wiser now. They are sitting back waiting for the price to be right before purchasing goods.
Mr. Wildman: Did he say he was a Social Crediter?
Mr. Cooke: He said he supports their economic policies.
Mr. Haggerty: Yes, on the doctrine of interest rates. There is a good lesson in the good book, the book of laws. There was a warning back at that time about usury. There is a good message in there. Perhaps the members on that side should read that particular section. I believe it is Exodus, chapter 18. It is a good lesson for many of us here. If that principle had been followed we would not be in the situation we are in today.
8:30 p.m.
I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chairman, but I still want to stick to my opening remark that I have never seen such a flip-flop as has come from the New Democratic Party, the party to my left. If you looked at the Sun yesterday --
Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder whether the member for Erie can describe what a flip-flop is. He speaks against Bill 179 and says it should be withdrawn, but he voted for it on first and second reading. Is that a flip-flop?
Mr. Haggerty: I think I said I had strong reservations about it, and I hope the bill will be withdrawn by the members on the other side.
Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you can help me. Can you explain to us and to the member for Erie how one registers a reservation when it comes to voting in this House?
Mr. Robinson: You get up slowly.
Mr. Haggerty: Well, they can move much faster than that. They have movement from all around. It is pretty hard to corner that party over there because they travel in circles. One never knows which side they are coming down on, but they can come down hard on both sides and say nothing.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment that our party has put forward to clause 1(a) of Bill 179. I want to confine my remarks to the substance of that amendment.
We have two basic reasons for putting this forward. The reason we believe it is necessary for us to explain in detail to the House the concepts by which this party is governed in relation to this bill is that we in this caucus know -- we got a signal a week ago from the government -- that we are living on borrowed time.
Whenever the government wants to it will stop the debate on this bill. They did it in the standing committee on administration of justice last Wednesday, and they will do it again when they believe they have given us enough rope so they can have some sense that we are the ones who are abusing the majority in the assembly.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You certainly are.
Mr. Renwick: The member for Cochrane North can talk all he wants about our abusing the government. The government has the majority; it is the tyranny of the majority that we felt last week. We can understand --
Interjections.
Mr. Barlow: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I wonder whether the member is going to speak to the amendment on the bill. He has not spoken to it as yet.
Mr. Cooke: Are you one of the gang of six?
Mr. Barlow: No, I did not qualify. Sorry.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I was simply referring to the fact that the reason we must speak at length about this very first amendment is that we know we have only a short period of time left to debate this bill before the government will force its passage under the iniquitous ruling of this assembly on a precedent that has no place in our parliamentary democracy and that was forced through the standing committee on administration of justice by the Tory majority on that committee and was forced through this assembly by the Tory majority in this House.
They control the passage of this bill, and we know very well that unless we get our case before the members again in this House, we will not have an opportunity for very long to do so. The word came through very clearly.
I want to come back specifically to the amendment and the two reasons we are proposing it. When we considered the first item, that the board is defined as meaning the Inflation Restraint Board, we had a profound sense of the dishonesty of the name of that board, the misapprehension that will be created in the minds of the public and the deliberate misrepresentation of what that board is about.
I want to explain it to the members of the House who were not on the standing committee on administration of justice and did not have an opportunity of understanding the duplicity of the government in this bill, in the hope that some members of the government back benches will intervene to say that you cannot fool the public that way. We believe it was deliberate and it was a misrepresentation. I am very careful. I never level it against a member of the assembly, but in the collective judgement of the Tory government they want to create a false impression in the minds of the public.
The long title of the bill is very simple: An act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario, that is one thought; the second is: and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province. So what did the geniuses who drafted the name of the board do? They selected the word "restraint" from the first thought and combined it with the word "inflation" in the second, and they put it together and called it the Inflation Restraint Board.
It is a trick as old as can be that is used by governing parties everywhere to abuse the meaning of the language to create the impression that what they are doing is something other than what is being done. That is what has taken place here.
I had intended to bring down to the assembly today George Orwell's book 1984. If George were around, I am sure he would have perhaps said "1982" when he was referring to this bill, because it is precisely that kind of doublespeak which this government is using in this bill. That is what it is about; it is to fool the people about the bill.
In the time we have spoken, and on my calculation it is 73 days since we first got word of this bill, we have consistently and persistently tried to explain to the government that they cannot do this and they cannot get away with it. They cannot get away with it with the public because it is unfair, and that is why we believe we must speak at length and continuously on the borrowed time which this government is extending to us. They are listening to the debate in this assembly with mock politeness until such time as the word comes down to them that they must foreclose this debate. We know that will come.
It is very interesting that in South Africa they use the same device to abuse the use of the language and the words to create an impression other than what is being created.
Mr. Rotenberg: They do it in Russia too.
Mr. Renwick: They may very well do it in Russia. I do not know what I have to do with Russia.
Mr. Rotenberg: I beg your pardon. What do we have to do with South Africa?
Mr. Renwick: What do you have to do? I am illustrating to you what you are doing with the title of this bill.
We all know that there is a policy of apartheid to deliberately suppress the black people in South Africa, but what is the name of the bill that brings about the separation of the black people from the white people in South Africa? It is delightfully named the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons bill; that is what it is called. How delightful. And what are the black people being granted? Their homelands and their independence. That is the language that is used when the government of South Africa talks about these matters.
When they want to interfere with the free movement of black people in South Africa, they have a bill entitled the Prohibition of Improper Interference Act. That illustrates exactly the kind of misrepresentation that is inherent in the name of this board and in the name of the bill before us.
8:40 p.m.
What George Orwell talked about when he said it was going to come to doublespeak has come to Ontario. The control this board has is to carry into effect the deliberate policy of this government so that the employers in the public sector of Ontario can break the contracts they have entered into. That is what the bill says. It says to every employer in the public sector, at all levels of government and through the multitude of public agencies of the province, "Whatever your arrangements with your employees are, whatever bargains you have made to pay them, under the collective bargaining system or under individual contracts of employment or by way of arbitration, this bill says you no longer have to honour those agreements." That is what it says; nothing else.
It is important that the members of the government party understand that the name of the board, Inflation Restraint Board, has nothing to do with the major purpose of the bill, which is to allow employers to break their contracts. We have made the point time and again. We have not had the opportunity for some time to make it in this assembly, but that is what we are talking about.
When the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) stood in his place and said the bill had three purposes, and itemized them, one, two and three, he said the third one was the really important one, the signal to the private sector. What was the signal he wanted to convey to the private sector? He wanted to convey: "We are breaking the contracts of the public sector employers with their employees. We want you to interfere with and to break, if you can, your agreements with the employees in the private sector."
The members of the Liberal Party in Ottawa got the message because only yesterday the federal Minister of Finance, lacking totally any understanding of the collective bargaining process, threw his two cents' worth in on the Chrysler-United Auto Workers negotiations. What did he say? He said to the UAW workers, "Do what your union brethren in the United States, perhaps under different circumstances, are agreeing to do." What did he say to Chrysler Canada by inference? "You have my support not to bring an economic bargain to the table." That is what he said. "Let's have the strike continue." That was the inference in his words.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I suggest the honourable member is not speaking to the amendment to the bill. The Chrysler strike has nothing to do with the name of a board. I suggest we stick to the amendment, which is to change the name of the board.
Mr. Chairman: I have been listening very closely and have been making notes, and the last time the member made reference to the clause was one and a half minutes ago. I thought within the next 30 seconds he might get back around to mentioning the clause again.
Mr. Renwick: I was commenting about the name of the board, the Inflation Restraint Board. I was trying to indicate that the signals are going out very clearly. We all heard this morning about Stelco. What did Stelco do? Stelco said to the union, "You had better reopen our contract." When the man from Stelco was asked, "Are you saying you are not going to honour the contract that has been made?" he said, "Oh no;" but boy, will they pay a price when they come back to the bargaining table in 1984 if they do not agree to reopen their contract now.
That is exactly the kind of signal the Treasurer is conveying to the private sector and, if he is conveying it to unions such as the UAW and the United Steelworkers, whose comparative powers of collective bargaining are somewhat greater than those of individuals and others in society but dreadfully weak when compared to the bargaining powers of Chrysler or Stelco, what is happening in the small industries across the province where there is unorganized labour?
What is happening? It happened out at Canadian Pizza Crust Ltd. two months ago. Until the leader of this party raised the question in the assembly last Friday, nothing had taken place under either the Employment Standards Act or the Ontario Human Rights Code. Twenty-two women now in Canada from southeast Asia were laid off on the night shift. The whole of the night shift was locked out because the company got the signal from the Treasurer as to what they were to do. They were not to restrain inflation; they were to increase unemployment. That is the only solution.
Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The honourable member has alluded several times to comments made by the Treasurer, who has sent some supposed signal to the private sector suggesting that somehow or other they should behave in some particular way.
Mr. Stokes: What other conclusion can you draw?
Mr. Jones: I ask the member if he can refer us to the statement, the date or the occasion when the Treasurer made the comments attributed to him. Can the member just help us with that? I have some of the notes and statements with me. I would like to be following along.
Mr. Renwick: The member will find it in Hansard on September 21 or 22 in the statement by the Treasurer of Ontario with respect to this bill. He itemized three things, and the third one was the signal to the private sector. He deliberately said that of the three purposes probably the most important was the last one.
I will get the exact reference. I do not want to delay the debate on the bill while I look it up for the member, but it was on September 21 or September 22.
The first point I wanted to make was that the title of the board, if it is a reflection of the meaning of the bill, is a deliberate misrepresentation, because if it had been called the unemployment increase board or a board to increase unemployment in Ontario, then it would have been an accurate reflection of what the policy of this bill is.
We had the first inkling this afternoon. The bill has been under debate for 73 days. If we have anything to do with it, it will be under debate for 93 days or 100 days; but we do not have that luxury, we do not control the operation of this place. But we got the first inkling today.
What if this bill had passed? What if this bill had actually passed within the two weeks in which the government wanted it to pass? We would never have come near to the crunch which has started to occur. It began with the questions raised today with the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) with respect to the cutback for next year of the moneys that are going to be available to that ministry. The minister said very clearly today, "I am going to get less money next year." I think he said all the other ministries are going to get less money next year, one way or another.
I want to say to the government, they cannot have less money in the public service of Ontario without an attrition of jobs in the public sector. The ramifications, or whatever we call that, the spillover, will continue to increase unemployment.
Mr. Jones: That is not so, with all due respect.
Mr. Renwick: I believe tomorrow morning is when the new figures come out for unemployment. I do not know what they are, but I am fairly certain they will be increased. I could be certain if the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer would table in the assembly tonight the number of persons in each ministry of the government currently on the permanent payroll staff and the number of persons currently under contract to each of the ministries.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: With respect, we are discussing the amendment by the third party to change the name of this board. With respect, I suggest the honourable member is straying quite a bit from the purport of that amendment. What he says may be valid in other parts of the bill, but I suggest he save that for debate when that comes up --
Mr. Jones: They are not valid there either.
Mr. Rotenberg: -- if they are valid; but they are not valid in this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Just having assumed the chair, I gave the floor to the member for Riverdale on the assumption that he would be speaking to the amendment. I ask him to carry on.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out that one of the benefits of the time that has been taken to debate the implications of this bill is that the government now knows that by this time next year there will have been a significant shrinkage in the number of people in the employment of the government of Ontario and in each of the other areas of the public sector.
The mythology of security in the public sector, which was given as the reason for trying to divide the labour movement in this province into two sectors, was that somehow or other the public sector had a greater security of employment than those who were at risk in the private sector.
Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I know the enthusiasm with which the honourable member addresses his comments. He shared a similar comment with us in the standing committee on administration of justice. I refer back to the original comments of the Premier (Mr. Davis) as he entered the debate on second reading and of the Treasurer as he made his motion. The comments were not to pretend that there was total job security in the public sector, but they did make the point, and the point has been made in debate in the justice committee, that one thing the public sector does have is that --
The Deputy Chairman: You are getting into the debate. This is not a point of order. The member for Riverdale has the floor. There are points of order sometimes.
Mr. Renwick: By way of response to the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) has given me one of the quotations of the Treasurer. There is a second one dealing with this question of the signal to the private sector.
It was in the statement of the Treasurer to the Legislature on Tuesday, September 21, in the afternoon. "The program we are introducing gives the private sector the opportunity to respond on its own to the need for restraint. However, if their efforts are not successful, the legislation enables the province to join with the federal government and the other provinces in a comprehensive national program."
That has gone up the flue, of course, with the Macdonald commission. There will never be any joint national program until there is a change in the leadership of the Liberal Party at Ottawa and when the successor to Donald Macdonald makes his report on the economy of the country. I interjected here because every time I think of the Liberals I have to interject. I am sorry.
"The steps this government is taking today are not merely symbolic. They should demonstrate to management and labour in the private sector that we ask no more of them than we do of ourselves."
My point is that hanging on the word "restraint" is the meaning of this bill. It is not restraint, it induces unemployment. That is what is happening day in and day out in Ontario disguised as some kind of omnipotent government policy that, somehow or other, taking money out of the hands of public service employees in accordance with their carefully negotiated agreements of one kind or other is going to restrain inflation when all it is going to do is continue to increase unemployment. That is all it is going to do, the result is very clear.
Mr. Rotenberg: It is nonsense.
Mr. Cooke: It is not nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is complete nonsense.
Mr. Jones: One of the reasons for restraint, and you know it full well --
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Riverdale has the floor. The member should not allow these interruptions to distract him.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the rules. Whenever my friend gets up I always like to yield the floor to him.
The first reason we introduced this amendment was the deliberate misrepresentation of what this board is all about. This board has nothing to do with restraining inflation. All it has to do with is to operate in place of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), in place of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and in place of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) with respect to the collective bargaining rights of the people in the public sector. That is all.
It is an abdication of the parliamentary responsibilities under this system of government of the Minister of Education, of the Chairman of Management Board and of the Minister of Labour. That is what it is about. Jack Biddell, who I believe is an unelected, appointed official of the government of Ontario, will take the place of those three ministers.
Mr. McClellan: He'll do their dirty work.
Mr. Renwick: He will do their work and destroy the statutes that were created by this Legislature to govern the relationship in an orderly, legal and proper manner between the people in the public sector service of Ontario, be they teachers, be they members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, be they members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees or be they members of the public service on individual contracts.
That is what the bill is about, and that is why we are introducing the amendment. We said: "What could be accomplished by this bill if we could get rid of part II of it? What could be accomplished with respect to the restraint of inflation in Ontario?" We decided -- the member for Erie does not really listen; he has certain preconceived ideas --
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Renwick: One of the interesting things the continuation of this debate by the New Democratic Party has done with respect to the Liberal Party is to peel off, one by one, members of that party. Very early on we peeled off the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), and he is opposed to the bill. A little while later we peeled off the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), and he is opposed to the bill. Tonight my friend the member for Erie left the caucus of the Liberal Party and said he was opposed to the bill.
Interjections.
Mr. Roy: You have a vivid imagination.
Mr. Renwick: I have no doubt that if the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) stays in the assembly long enough to listen to the debate on any given occasion we shall get him to vote against it.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member should be speaking to the amendment having to do with the commission.
Mr. Renwick: My other remarks are going to be considerably briefer, because my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) put the case for the reasons we substituted a fair prices commission for the Inflation Restraint Board. He put them at great length, he put them with great clarity --
The Deputy Chairman: That is what we are still debating, though.
Mr. Renwick: -- and he gave some very clear and specific examples as to what a fair prices commission is about. He indicated quite clearly that is where the New Democratic Party takes its stand. That is where we do take our stand on this bill.
Should the government allow the debate to continue to the point where, one way or another, we were able to reach that part, we would introduce the kind of amendment we would likely distribute to the members of the government party and the members of the opposition some time in the next several days, setting out exactly what we mean by a fair prices commission.
In that amendment we set out exactly what we are about. I ask the member for Erie to listen to the substantial part --
Mr. Haggerty: If you control the prices you control the wages, and the member knows that.
Mr. Renwick: I ask the member for Erie to listen, that is all I ask him to do. This is what the substance of our fair prices commission will do. Where any person requests in writing that the fair prices commission investigate a price increase that occurs or takes effect on or after September 21, 1982, and before January 1, 1984, the commission shall investigate and report on the price increase and shall determine whether the price increase is fair.
That is the purpose of it: fairness, equity. To us fairness means to be fair to everyone; that means fairness at the farm gate, fairness at the cash register, fairness throughout the system between the producer and the consumer. We have set it out in the bill and when the time comes to put that amendment -- should we have the opportunity on the borrowed time we live on -- then members will understand the kinds of considerations which we have itemized in our amendment that the commission is to take into account in determining whether any given price increase is fair.
We have also provided for rollbacks and increases if the decision is made that the price is not fair. We know the concept of fair prices to consumers and producers is not something that appeals to the Liberal Party and is anathema to the Tory party. We know they do not believe in fair prices; they believe in the cutthroat market price.
9 p.m.
I was reading the other night Sir Thomas More's Utopia, written many years ago, and I would commend it to the members of the Tory government. He foresaw exactly the kind of degradation of working people that would take place if we insisted on following nothing but a marketplace economy. He said it many years ago. In our own particular ways the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, when they have been the government, have introduced controls over the private marketplace.
Let us not kid ourselves about it, of course the government has; it intervenes all the time. It will deny it, but we are saying it always intervenes on the wrong side. That is what it has done with this bill, and that is why government members deny us our input, except by giving us this rope for the next few days to play along with this bill until they bring in closure on it.
I hope my colleagues and I, in speaking to this initial substantial amendment to the bill, will have the opportunity somehow to convey to the members of the government party that there is something fundamentally wrong with their bill and with the concept of the bill. I hope we have made them think a little about the nature of the misrepresentation on the one hand and the merit, justice and equity of a fair prices commission on the other hand. That is all we are about.
I have spoken at too great length, and we want the bill to proceed as rapidly as possible, given the importance of the provisions of this bill, until, perhaps some time towards the end of the winter or late spring, the government may see the error of its ways, withdraw the bill and introduce, on the model of our amendment -- we have no pride of authorship -- a fair prices commission in lieu of the misrepresentation contained in the public sector restraint of compensation bill.
The Deputy Chairman: The member for St. Catharines.
Mr. Philip: I thought I got the chairman's eye first.
The Deputy Chairman: There is a general rotation that we do try to follow, and I can assure the member for Etobicoke that if there is anything left to say after the member for St. Catharines we will certainly give him --
Mr. Mackenzie: We are waiting with bated breath.
The Deputy Chairman: We like to give everyone a chance in committee.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I do want to give my friend the member for Etobicoke the opportunity to speak at some length. He has assured me this evening that he has a speech that could go anywhere from 20 minutes to three or four hours on this aspect of the bill.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss this amendment, because it leads into an area that some of us have been very concerned about and that the member for Hamilton East addressed with his bill this afternoon, which some saw as having some possibilities. Even if the details were not acceptable to all, certainly it had a thrust that had some interesting possibilities for members of the House.
We are referring, of course, to the inadequacy of the bill under consideration in dealing with prices. It has been mentioned on many occasions in the discussion of this amendment that while the bill is relatively specific in those areas affecting wages and general compensation for public employees in Ontario, it is not nearly so specific in those areas that affect prices.
We recognize in the House that the provincial government does not have control over all prices, but there are many areas where the provincial government does have control over specific costs to consumers in this province. I think all of us would recognize, for instance, that in the budget of the Treasurer, announced on May 13 of this year and delivered in this House, there was provision for an increase of, I believe, 17.5 per cent in the Ontario health insurance plan premiums that are charged in Ontario.
For many people, the employer assumes the cost of OHIP. This is written into a contract. For a larger number of people than most in this House would recognize, however, there is a circumstance where there are a number of people who are not covered by those kinds of provisions within a contract and must pay the cost of OHIP premiums out of their own pockets.
Therefore, those of us in the opposition find it unacceptable, as I suspect some on the government side would, and would be uncomfortable with it. This is a circumstance in which a 17.5 per cent increase is going to be perpetrated upon the people of Ontario, many of whom are going to have their own wages and compensation package limited to five per cent.
We are also well aware, as many in this House from all parties have recognized, at least the opposition parties, that there was a provision for an increase in hydro rates and a provision for increase in other forms of energy, most particularly natural gas.
Time arid again we are told that governments do not have the power -- and this is why this amendment addresses this problem -- to legislate the cost of natural gas as it goes to the consumer in this province. We must be realistic, we are told, about the cost of hydro. That is why this amendment addresses that specific problem.
We in the opposition, at least on this side -- and I am sure this is shared by all opposition members and, indeed, probably by many on the government side -- feel that all of the increases which are under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, which would come under the jurisdiction of the amendment which has been proposed, should be within the same limitations as those of the wages and compensation package which is provided for in Bill 179.
We appeal to the government in this direction to ensure that it is as tough on prices within its jurisdiction -- I do not want to be unfair enough to say that it can control prices outside of its jurisdiction -- as it has been on the compensation package which is available to public employees in this province.
We are concerned, under the present wording of the bill, and the present provisions of that wording, that the Inflation Restraint Board has rather arbitrary powers and is lacking in an appeal process.
I was going through a document dated October 14, 1975. It was a speech made in the House of Commons by the then Minister of Finance, the Honourable Donald S. Macdonald. It is nicely bound, of course, as all of these things are. It is done in both of our official languages of Canada. It is entitled, An Attack on Inflation: A Program for National Action. It is a policy statement which was tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance at that time.
One of the aspects of it which differs -- and there are many who are proposing this particular legislation today who opposed this legislation as well -- one of the provisions which was available within the national program that existed in 1975 was a provision for an appeal process in terms of a compensation package which was offered. Many people who felt they were hard done by under the provisions of the Anti-Inflation Board legislation, which was announced and passed by the federal government in 1975, at least had that opportunity to appeal to that Anti-Inflation Board.
It is our view that a prices restraint board would have the opportunity to review a number of prices that come before it, and that individuals within this province who saw what they felt was an unfair price increase would have that opportunity through the amendment which is proposed, if the government were to accept it, to reflect and rule upon those prices which would be within the jurisdiction of the provincial government to ensure that -- to use common terminology in 1982 -- people would not be ripped off by unconscionable price increases.
The members would be interested to know that it reminds me of a bill which I received this past week from an automobile dealership. I had psyched myself up that it would probably cost about $200 or $250 because it seems one cannot get anything done to a car these days for anything less than that. The price was substantially higher.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley: Yes?
Mr. Piché: Could you try to speak on the bill? You have not said anything. If I am going to sit in the House and listen to you, please get to the bill.
9:10 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: The member is endeavouring to make an illustration and I am hoping it will tie into the amendment. I am allowing it.
Mr. Bradley: The chairman is very charitable in that regard and I appreciate it.
Keep in mind that as a member of this Legislature I am probably better paid than most of those employees who are going to be directly affected by this legislation. Also, I have a job for at least another two years. One never knows beyond that. Our "political enemies" would try to ensure that is not the case later.
The point I make is that I was hit with a bill of $622. Almost $100 of that bill was to replace what I thought was one light bulb costing about $4. Many of the people who are affected by this bill in terms of the compensation package might well find themselves in a circumstance where they are faced with bills of this kind. You have to ask, where is justice to be sought unless there is a meaningful aspect of this bill which relates to prices?
This is why we in the opposition feel that more teeth should be inserted in this bill. If an individual in this province wishes to bring to the attention of the Inflation Restraint Board -- to be renamed by the amendment to this bill -- a price increase that is substantially unconscionable and is not substantiated by the necessity of profit or cost, that opportunity should be available to that individual.
If we are to say that there are no limitations on the compensation package which is available, then there can be no --
Mr. Piché: I do not understand what the member is saying. My good friend Sean O'Flynn, a good friend of mine, does not know what you are talking about. Please talk to him so I can understand your language.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the member for Cochrane North to order.
What we are saying is that we are unsatisfied with the teeth that are included in this bill in terms of the price side and the emphasis that this amendment holds for the price side is that there would be greater teeth.
Interjections.
Mr. Bradley: I will not answer the interjections because I know the chairman would want me to continue on in the thrust that I am making instead of replying to extraneous interventions in this debate.
The Deputy Chairman: I would ask the honourable member to tie his remarks into the amendment that is before the House.
Mr. Bradley: I am certainly attempting to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections.
Mr. Shymko: Are you suggesting that we roll back the settled wage increases of our public employees the way they have done in Quebec?
Mr. Bradley: We are dealing with a different province. I recognize that the member for High Park-Swansea is talking about Quebec, but the chairman wants us to talk about this specific provision of the bill.
We see within the present wording of the bill, if it is not amended, a circumstance where those who face special circumstances in the public service would not have the opportunity to go to the Inflation Restraint Board and say: "Here are special circumstances. We feel you should make a particular ruling in our case, taking into consideration those special circumstances."
That is where the bill is deficient and that is where we have to address an amendment to alleviate that particular circumstance. Not only should the people be able to make a presentation to the committee with these special circumstances, but once the Inflation Restraint Board has made a ruling then there should be a provision for an appeal.
It is highly autocratic. it is dictatorial in many ways. I think much of the opposition that you see would be abated to a certain extent if there was a provision through an amendment to this bill that --
The Deputy Chairman: You are deviating at this point. My patience is now at the point where I am asking the honourable member if he would please restrict his statements to the amendment.
Mr. Bradley: The chairman, having entertained the arguments of the member for Riverdale and, the other night, the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold, would certainly see that my comments are tied in as much with this amendment as were those comments made by the honourable members on the other side. What we are appealing to the government to do --
Mr. McClellan: Is the member supporting the amendment?
Mr. Bradley: I am not going to talk about what the New Democratic Party did to the workers in Saskatchewan when their backs were against the wall --
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member will speak to the amendment.
Mr. Bradley: -- and I am not going to talk about Manitoba or British Columbia.
The Deputy Chairman: I will tell you what you can speak to.
Mr. Bradley: I want to address the amendment that is before the House.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to ask the honourable member for whom I have the greatest respect -- because I think he is probably deep down in his heart a hidden New Democrat who wants to break out -- whether it is not true that in giving the impression he is in support of this amendment he has forgotten his party's position, which is that it will be unable to support the amendment the member has suggested to clause 1(a). Why does he hypocritically give a speech in support of the amendment while being prepared to vote against it?
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Etobicoke knows that is not a point of order. It is an interjection, not a point of order. I call upon the member for St. Catharines to direct his thoughts and words to this amendment before us.
Mr. Bradley: Which I most certainly will do. I thank the member for Etobicoke for giving me a chance to regain my voice through his intervention in the debate.
This amendment allows the opportunity -- because we are not going to have other opportunities, apparently, to discuss amendments to this bill, since it is quite obvious the government's patience is being worn thin, as the chairman's patience is sometimes being worn thin -- to present the kind of amendments we think would substantially alter this bill and make it, if not entirely acceptable, certainly more acceptable than the original bill. This amendment allows us the opportunity to do that and I am going to take advantage of that.
Mr. Chairman, what I am saying -- and you might well agree with this, as a person who appreciates due process and the opportunity for people to appeal -- is you might feel that by having a stronger prices aspect to this you are alleviating part of the problem that exists in the mind of the public. The public says, by and large, "We would not mind being held down in our increases if we could be guaranteed that somehow our costs are going to be held somewhere in the neighbourhood of nine per cent in the transition year and five per cent in the control year." That is why I am addressing that particular problem.
If the government is prepared to yield, to put teeth into the bill in that direction and allow for a meaningful appeal process in terms of the wage side, taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances that might exist in several of the cases that have been brought to our attention, both in committee and subsequently in the House and through personal representations to us, then part of the opposition to the bill, albeit a small part, would be diminished by that kind of conciliatory attitude. I have not yet heard from the government side if that is a possibility, but then again we have not been able to deal with those parts of the bill that would be directly affected by this.
I certainly would give the opportunity to government members to indicate their conciliatory attitude on this aspect of the bill. I cannot believe, for instance, that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), as a person who represents all the people in his constituency, would not find it acceptable to have the bill changed in such a way as to be harsher on prices than is the circumstance at present or to provide for the provision of an appeal process in terms of the wage compensation package. I notice the member for High Park-Swansea is nodding, so obviously he feels that is the case.
He might then want to make representations, as I know the chairman, as an individual member of this Legislature, might want to make representations, to the Treasurer to ensure that those kinds of provisions are written into this bill. If you were to do so, as I have pointed out on other occasions in committee and on public occasions, part of the opposition to this bill would diminish.
As long as it is harsh on the wage side and on the compensation package side, and it has gums instead of teeth to deal with the price side, then there is going to be considerable opposition existing within the public service and among those people sympathetic to the plight of those, particularly in the lower echelons of the pay scale of the public service, who would find it difficult in our inflationary period to sustain some of the confining parts of this piece of legislation.
9:20 p.m.
I bring this to the attention of the members of the Legislature. I appeal to the government members to give this consideration. I only hope we will have the opportunity to proceed with those aspects of the bill that would allow us to make these kinds of amendments, because not dealing with those aspects of the bill in my view will mean the bill will pass as the government originally intended it.
It might well be fine politically for those who are in adamant opposition to the bill to say: "Look at the Draconian measure being placed before us. It is totally unacceptable to place meaningful amendments to this bill because it is unacceptable, inequitable and unjust." However, when it comes down to short strokes, 70 members of the other side will make the ultimate decision on what form of bill will pass this Legislature. That is why we in the official opposition are saying, "Let us look at those parts of the bill which are most objectionable."
I recognize the entire bill is objectionable to many people in this province. But let us look at those aspects of the bill which are most objectionable. Let us have an opportunity to propose amendments to those aspects of the bill so that the bill that passes, although in general principle it has opposition from many of the people who are in the galleries tonight, will at least be a bill which has had some of its more objectionable parts removed and some of its more objectionable parts changed. Otherwise, the option we get is the original bill proposed by the government of Ontario. That appeal is made, and that caution is made to all of those who have been listening this evening.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to speak on the next amendment. I am quite prepared to have the vote taken.
The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to speak on this amendment?
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Mr. Cooke: They didn't say anything. How can the nays have it?
The Deputy Chairman: Call in the members.
10:21 p.m.
The House divided on Mr. Rae's amendment to clause 1(a), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 19; nays 74.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I think you would be interested to know that three generations of the Grossman family are in the Speaker's gallery. Actually, with the minister, it may be four. I am particularly glad to welcome the former member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. We like to think of him as the real Grossman. He is welcome here any time.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and indicate to him that my father tells me he used to think of the member's father as the real Nixon.
Mr. Nixon: We are both right.
The Deputy Chairman: In that case, maybe if we stay with the debate, clause 1(b) is before the House. Shall it carry?
An hon. member: It is still clause 1(a).
The Deputy Chairman: I did not know whether the spirit was so pleasant and ongoing that we would be able to complete the whole section. There has been so much debate. I recognize the member for Port Arthur. We have five minutes before the closing hour. Does clause 1(a) carry?
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: As I understand it, debate is allowable on clause 1(a), and our member for Etobicoke wishes to debate it. You have not put the question on clause 1(a), Mr. Chairman. You put the question on the amendment. The amendment was defeated, and 1(a) is now before the House for debate.
The Deputy Chairman: The amendment was defeated. Shall we now put the question on the whole section or on clause 1(a)?
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: We can debate clause 1(a), of course.
Mr. Foulds: Right, and my colleague from Etobicoke wishes to do that.
The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member's fellow member from Etobicoke.
Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a second amendment to clause 1(a). I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out clause 1(a).
The Deputy Chairman: To do such a thing would be to move against clause 1(a).
"Does clause 1(a) stand as part of the bill?" That would be the way to present your amendment.
Are we ready for the question on clause 1(a)?
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I heard you rule with respect to the amendment put forward by the member for Etobicoke. I believe that you were acting rather precipitately though, because I believe that member wished to speak further to the main question, which is whether clause 1(a) shall pass or not, whether or not his amendment is acceptable.
The Deputy Chairman: There is no need to worry. The honourable member may recognize that he made a motion and that motion was out of order. It is really whether clause 1(a) stands as part of the bill. He did not continue to speak. We can debate 1(a). We are in committee so honourable members can have the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, we have put an amendment to this section of the bill --
Hon. Mr. Eaton: That is not a proper amendment.
Mr. Cooke: Shut up and listen.
The Deputy Chairman: That is abusive language. I would ask the honourable member to withdraw it. I ask this House to conduct itself with some order and decorum, and I have asked the member for Windsor-Riverside to be so kind as to withdraw the abusive words.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order --
The Deputy Chairman: I am not recognizing the honourable member; I have asked the member for Windsor-Riverside if he would withdraw --
Mr. Stokes: The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) should do the same. He made the same remark this afternoon.
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside had the floor. In the spirit of good manners in the House, I am going back to that member. I did not hear the interjection. If the spirit of this place can be as it usually is, I am sure there is a way of resolving it happily.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the remark. But we are adding more and more words daily to the list of unparliamentary words, as you interpret them. I will put my point of order. My point of order is that we are moving an amendment to delete clause 1(a).
Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is out of order.
Mr. Cooke: If the members in the Conservative Party would just close their mouths and let me finish --
Interjections.
10:30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. That amendment --
Mr. Cooke: The precedent --
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order, all honourable members. I recognize the member for Windsor- Riverside.
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. To clarify, the amendment as it was presented was out of order.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, will you please let me finish?
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: I recognize the member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr. Cooke: I wish the government House leader would have a little courtesy and let me finish the point of order. The point of order is that the precedents were set in the standing committees, both on the sales tax hearings, when the Liberal Party moved motions to delete certain sections of the sales tax bill, as well as subsections of the bill, as well as the precedent that was set in the justice committee on this bill.
The Deputy Chairman: According to the rules of the committee of the whole House, the amendment as put was out of order. I recognize the House leader.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: How come there are different rules here than in committee? I challenge your ruling.
The Deputy Chairman: Just before you did that, I recognized the House leader.
On motion by Mr. Wells the committee of the whole House reported progress.
The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.