Journal des débats 1982-déc-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to make a few comments on the first anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland.

As someone who was born in Poland and had the opportunity to travel to Poland and meet face to face with Lech Walesa, the important leader of the Polish Solidarity union, I believe Sunday, December 12, is especially significant. This date marks the anniversary of the declaration of martial law in Poland, an act that was used by the military government to legally destroy the hard-won freedoms gained by Solidarity and then eventually Solidarity itself.

Poland under martial law became a vast prison in which elite paramilitary forces crushed all forms of democratic expression. The Polish government itself stated that some 10,000 Solidarity activists were forcibly interned during the past year. Yesterday General Jaruzelski indicated that martial law might be lifted soon and Poland would return to a more normal government but that the government would continue to have the club of martial law ready to use in case the people again began to resent tyranny and oppression.

I am not one who joins in the collective sigh of relief at the lifting of martial law or the release of internees. The Polish crisis is not over; it is just beginning. No government, no military regime can ever hope to successfully suppress the legitimate demands of its people for a more just and more equitable life. The communist system as applied in Poland and eastern Europe has failed abjectly to respond to the needs and aspirations of the people.

During my visit to Poland it became very clear that the system was characterized by a self-perpetuating elite similar to a feudal aristocracy, who owed their allegiance to the system and were rewarded by that system with extra privileges and powers. Not for them the long lineups, the food shortages and inadequate housing of the general population. Polish society resembles a pyramid, with the people at the bottom having the least number of privileges. Soviet-style communism, instead of serving the workers, serves the elite.

We in Ontario and Canada must continue to support the full restoration of Solidarity under the terms of its agreement with the government. We must also continue to condemn the Polish military government for its continual disregard for basic human rights and individual liberties.

Finally, we must continue to condemn Soviet imperialism and foreign intervention, since the USSR is the source of power and oppression. "USSR" to me stands not for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" but for "unwilling subjects of Soviet repression."

Mr. Shymko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to add some remarks to the statement of the member for Parkdale. I would like to say that, as the French saying goes, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." The more one sees changes in the present regime in Poland under military occupation, and imposed by the Soviet Russian administration, the more we see things remain in the same tragic state, as the plight of the Polish nation continues to evoke the best sentiments of those of us living in freedom.

The so-called suspension of martial law will continue to mean a suspension of freedom, a suspension of the rights of workers to organize free trade unions and a suspension of democracy.

I hope that the most important aspect of this announcement will be to ask those of us at all levels of political jurisdiction to continue to campaign actively for the release of all political prisoners who continue to be incarcerated, to continue to demand the restoration of a free trade union movement in Poland and to demand that Solidarity be allowed to conduct its activities in freedom. As Edmund Burke pointed out, the best guarantee of totalitarianism and slavery in every corner of the world is that men of goodwill remain silent.

I join the honourable member in protesting in the strongest political terms the continued grievous violations of fundamental civil and political rights of workers and of the people of Poland.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to represent my party on the weekend at two events to commemorate the first anniversary of the declaration of martial law in Poland: first, on Saturday at the city hall, where there was a Solidarity conference involving representatives from many of the captive nations; and second, a mass last night at St. Michael's Cathedral which was held to commemorate that terrible event.

I want very much to associate our party with the concerns that have been expressed today by the member for Parkdale and the member for High Park-Swansea with respect to the importance of the link between political and economic freedom and the link between civil liberties and the ability of an independent trade union movement to survive and flourish.

In that light, I want to quote from the statement by His Eminence Cardinal Carter on the occasion of the anniversary of the papal encyclical on human worth. Cardinal Carter said, and I think these are words that many of us should take to heart:

"The rights of workers have come under attack in various parts of the world. Many of us have watched with grave concern the attacks in Poland on the trade union Solidarity and have sought to support workers there. No less should we seek to assure the rights of workers here in our own country.

"The economic crisis in which we find ourselves is growing more acute. The hardships and suffering which it is causing are increasing. The burden of economic depression tends to fall hardest on the most unprotected. Various elements in our society are searching for solutions. There are no easy or simple answers. What is clear, however, is that no solution can be accepted which abrogates the basic rights of workers to bargain collectively and in some circumstances to turn to the strike as a final resort."

2:10 p.m.

Our party very much wishes to associate itself with those words of Cardinal Carter as we commemorate this day, the solemn anniversary of the declaration of martial law in Poland. We have to keep our links and our ties to those in eastern Europe who are striving for freedom, but equally important we have to keep our ties with those who are striving for freedom right here in Canada and right here in Ontario.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the seventh annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped.

This report covers the 12-month period ended March 31, 1982, most of which fell within the International Year of Disabled Persons. The public meetings sponsored by the advisory council and the advice given by the council to this government contributed greatly to the development of major government programs that commenced, were enlarged or were augmented during that very special year.

This annual report reflects the hard work and contribution of advisory council members under the direction of Jack Longman of Windsor, who continues to provide excellent leadership to this council.

ORAL QUESTONS

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General, who has just arrived in the House. On May 25, 1982, referring to the Nelles investigation, he stated in the House, "I do appreciate that the public would probably be dissatisfied by an investigation that dragged on for a large number of months."

He mentioned at the same time that the chief of police was aware that time was of the essence, at least the necessity of concluding the investigation with some dispatch. Here we are almost at the end of the session, many months since the police inquiry started. Can the Attorney General bring this House up to date on that investigation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the investigation obviously has not been concluded or I would have so advised the Legislature. The chief of police and I both would be quite satisfied to have had the investigation concluded by now, because one does appreciate the intense, ongoing public interest with respect to this whole tragic affair.

Investigations often lead to unexpected developments and to unexpected additional leads. These all have to be pursued carefully, as they have been in this case. I am not in a position at present to speculate as to when this investigation will be concluded.

Mr. Peterson: I know the Attorney General is mindful of the potential ramifications of this dragging on incessantly and having no results day after day. He is aware that the police have been into this investigation now for some 21 months. At this point, there are no visible results.

Is he any closer in his own mind to asking for a public inquiry, giving a commissioner, possibly a judge, powers that the police perhaps would not have, because it increasingly appears there may not be any results from his investigations?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It would be quite unwise for anyone in this Legislature to speculate at this point as to what might or might not happen as far as this investigation is concerned. Until the investigation has been completed, it would be equally unwise for me to speculate as to the appropriateness or otherwise of a public inquiry.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am quite disturbed that the Attorney General is so indecisive in his remarks. Can he tell us when he last consulted with the chief of police and those carrying on the investigation? Has he been told when it is likely this investigation will be completed? Is it likely to be true that it will not come to any successful conclusion, that the results will be inconclusive and that, some time when this House is not in session, the Attorney General will make an announcement about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I receive regular reports from the law officers of the criminal branch of my ministry who are in almost daily contact with the police in charge of the investigation.

Mr. Peterson: The Attorney General is obviously reluctant to commit himself. Given the quasi-commitment he made six months ago, saying he did not want to see this thing drag on unnecessarily, and given that he appears today at least -- and I do not mean to put words in his mouth -- to be no closer to a conclusion than he was 21 months ago when this thing started, or at least six or eight months ago when he renewed the investigation with some vigour, is the Attorney General prepared to tell this House when he expects a report from the police? Within what time frame is he now operating?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect, I think the Leader of the Opposition, by the wording of his questions, is suggesting that I am in charge of the investigation. I am not suggesting this is his intention, but it should hardly need to be restated that the Attorney General of this province is not in charge of any police investigation. This is a responsibility we leave with individuals who have demonstrated in the past their capacity to fulfil or discharge their responsibilities in this area in a very effective fashion.

Obviously, all these months having passed, the police are closer to some final decision on this matter. I want to make it clear to this House that considerable police resources have been allocated to this investigation. There is nothing I have learned during the course of this investigation that would suggest I should not continue to have confidence in the manner in which the investigation is being carried out by members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

PRICE RESTRAINT CRITERIA

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of the government House leader, in the absence of both the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), as we proceed this afternoon to deal with certain amendments to Bill 179.

Is the government House leader aware that a number of commentators and experts in economics say one of the great pressures in our economic system today is the prices pressure? I refer the minister to "Business Trends" in the Globe and Mail this morning under the heading "Wage Costs Falling; Prices Real Problem." The article says:

"All of this suggests that the problem for the economy in 1983 will not be, as Ottawa claims, too much wage inflation. It will be the persistence of price inflation -- with most of it initiated by governments and regulators who are able to add to taxes and costs with no regard for economic conditions."

Clearly that says governments are one of the chief culprits at present.

Will the minister agree with me that the amendments the Liberal Party will be bringing forth this afternoon, which he is very well aware of, would add substantially to keeping inflation in line? Will he also agree with me that governments have a responsibility to do what they can at this time of restraint to make sure that we do not push prices beyond most people's capacity to deal with them at the same time as we are restraining their wages?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would say several things to the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, I do not disagree with his thesis concerning prices. Second, I believe our bill does handle that situation well. Third, the Treasurer will be prepared to comment on each of the amendments, if and when we arrive at them, this afternoon and evening.

Mr. Peterson: The realities are that public transportation, quasi-regulated by the province at least, has gone up by 27 per cent in the past year; household fuel, water and electricity are up by 17.5 per cent; motor vehicle registration fees are up by 17 per cent; gasoline is up by 16.6 per cent -- and this government is profiteering on gasoline pricing; public transportation is up by 15.8 per cent; alcoholic beverages are up by 15 per cent; tobacco products are up by 14.7 per cent; and so the list goes on. Property taxes also are up by 12.9 per cent, and health care is up by 11.7 per cent.

The government has some regulatory authority over many of these items, and it now has an opportunity to address some of them through the amendments we are going to propose. Will the minister now commit himself, his colleagues and his government to doing what they can to fight inflation by voting, at the very least, for a restraint on rent increases?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friends will have a chance to have a full discussion on matters concerning rents both tomorrow afternoon and when my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) presents his bill. In this province I believe we have a mechanism to handle rent increases as we do to handle many price increases. Indeed, the mechanisms set up in Bill 179 will fairly deal with the problem.

I am not going to get into a discussion about the Liberal amendments at this minute. The Treasurer has studied them all very carefully over the weekend and will be prepared to comment on them when --

Mr. Martel: You said you were not accepting them last week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Treasurer has not offered a complete statement on all the amendments. If the amendments are permitted to be discussed by my friends over there this afternoon, the Treasurer will comment fully on each one. I suggest members should move along so they can hear what he has to say on them.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know the Liberals now have found that direct intervention on prices might have some control on inflation rather than just advocating high interest rates and wage controls.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Can the minister tell us the rationale on which the cabinet decided to uphold the award to Consumers' Gas? That decision was made in September after the New Democratic Party appealed last March against allowing Consumers' Gas to increase its rates by 32 per cent over a one-year period. That provided an increase in profits of 35 per cent, and it cannot be by any stretch of the imagination in line with the restraint program. That does not indicate the government is trying to do something about inflation, as the minister claims it is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to let the minister responsible answer that question. I think my friend has asked that question before.

Mr. Peterson: Probably one of the biggest agencies the government regulates in this province is Ontario Hydro. Given that electricity, fuel and household water prices went up by more than 17 per cent during the past year, will the minister not agree that it would be a tremendous sign of good faith by his party to the people they are asking to restrain their wages by restraining hydro prices to a maximum of five per cent this year? Does he not agree that would give his government more credibility? God knows it is desperately in need of it on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am convinced the mechanism we have laid out in Bill 179 is going to be effective and is going to be accepted by the majority of the people in this province.

SPARTON OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade and concerns a company by the name of Sparton of Canada Ltd., which has a plant in London, Ontario. In January 1981, Sparton of Canada employed 225 employees. There are now 35 employees working there.

The minister is aware of some problems that have arisen as a result of a move by the company to a new site in Campbellford, Ontario. He will have received a letter from United Auto Workers, which has a collective agreement with the company in London, expressing some concern that the company may be endeavouring to get out from under its collective agreement in establishing this new plant in Campbellford.

The minister also will know that this plant was established with the direct assistance of his own ministry and that his own ministry officials assisted the company in searching for the new site. I want to ask the minister what assurances he got from the company, first, that there was no effort on the part of the company to avoid its obligations under the collective agreement; and second, that there was no intention on the part of the company to reduce the work that was to be performed in London.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party will appreciate that we maintain an inventory of vacant premises throughout the province, and that is available to any group of people who may be interested in locating in the province.

In this case, when our ministry was contacted about the matter of locating in some spot other than a built-up or large area in the province for the purposes of the kind of component the company intends to manufacture, there was some determination made by our ministry people with the Sparton people in London to find out whether it was movement of the existing plant, because under those circumstances we were not prepared to be a part of it.

Let me assure him that, being a local member from that area, I would not be at all interested in having the plant of an industry in my own riding moved to some other part of the province, although from time to time there are other members who might disagree with that.

In this special case we established from the Sparton people that there was no relationship between the two and that a totally new line of product would be established.

When we had the complaint from the UAW, our people recontacted the headquarters of the operation to be assured by the vice-president there that there was no intention of moving any part of the London operation; in fact, London ultimately would regain its present strength and the Campbellford plant would become a user of the London plant.

Those assurances were made, and we are satisfied they are accurate. We are going on the best advice we have available to us. We can never guarantee these things, but assurances were made by the corporate officials and our people were satisfied with those assurances.

Mr. Rae: I can understand the need for the minister to maintain good relations in Campbellford. After all, there are delegates there as there are all over the province.

I have right here a letter from Mr. E. W. Halayko, who is a former management employee of Sparton, and he brings three situations to my attention. I am quoting directly from his letter. He says:

"When I was program manager of Sparton Canada in London, I attended a meeting of senior staff in March 1981 that was discussing the business projections of Sparton for the upcoming years. In the course of that meeting. . . the president and chief operating officer of Sparton Corp. of Michigan turned to K. Holland, the director of personnel relations, and stated to the effect, "I want that union out of here; break it.'"

Second, prior to this gentleman's layoff at Sparton, he said he had access to the business plans for 1983. "In the section dealing with personnel relations, a statement was made that management was continuing to operate in such a way as to get rid of the union."

Finally, Mr. Halayko alleges that, as a shareholder of Sparton, he attended the company's annual meeting in October 1982 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Copps: I understood we were not allowed to read letters into the record.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for York South.

Mr. Rae: At that meeting he asked Mr. Smith, the chairman and chief executive officer of Sparton Corp., what plans the company had for its Canadian operations. Mr. Smith answered that there would be "no new business in Canada until labour problems were resolved."

In the light of the evidence of these three instances, in the words of the letter of a clear intention expressed by the company to break the union, I ask the minister what guarantees he can give us that the reason for the move to Campbellford is not to get out from under a collective agreement and to break the collective agreement that has been signed in London, Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The best assurances I can give the leader of the third party are the indications from the corporate officials of that firm. We have no way of determining any better evidence than that.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the work force in the London plant has been reduced from 260 to fewer than 35 and it is suggested that the work force in the Campbellford plant is expected to go as high as 300, why would the minister put money from his ministry into an operation which could be carried out in existing facilities with existing skilled workmen and move them to another location? As a matter of fact, the whole thing makes no sense to the workmen in his own riding. What is the mentality that the government would do such a thing?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think the member will find that the kind of assistance that was afforded in this case was from the plant locations division of the ministry that maintains the inventory of the vacant sites that are available. That is the first thing.

Second, it is my understanding that the plant in Campbellford is one that is especially modern and particularly geared to the kind of needs this particular company has to build the special component it intends to manufacture there. The current facilities in London, which I believe date back to 1923, are such old facilities that they do not fit the kind of requirements they have for sterile rooms and the like, for the new component that is being provided.

Let me assure the member when I took the various considerations into account, I certainly had no intention of seeing any kind of employment leave my own riding if it was at all avoidable. I can assure the member of that aspect.

Mr. Rae: The ministry must have known that machinery was moved out of the London plant during the strike that took place there in 1981 and has not been returned. That is one of the reasons the work force has been reduced so dramatically.

Why did the ministry jump in with both feet to aid companies without having the answer to such basic things as whether the new products are going to be different than existing ones; whether the company is trying to avoid its contract obligations with the union, the problem of a runaway plant; or what the net effect on employment will be? Just what guarantees and what questions did the minister ask before the department went ahead and gave this kind of assistance to this company?

Hon. Mr. Walker: In releasing the inventory of vacant premises that some rather large real estate company might also have in equal amount, in releasing the inventory that we had in terms of the availability of quarters throughout the province, some of which might have been in the member's own riding, we at least indicated to them where places would be available for their purposes.

Second, we did get the answers. Our ministry did talk to Sparton officials in Canada and in the United States to obtain the answers and were satisfied with the answers.

When the complaint was raised, the answers were reaffirmed. When the questions were raised again, the answers were reaffirmed again and we are satisfied to that extent. But the inventory of the available premises, that list, was simply provided to them. That was the kind of help that was afforded. Our ministry was satisfied with the answers they received from the people in Sparton.

SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns the housing crisis right now in Metropolitan Toronto, in particular the very real crisis that exists with respect to social housing.

Given that the Ontario rental construction loan program has produced only 10 completed units in the city of Toronto, North York and Scarborough; given the very real crisis that is now facing Cityhome, whereas the minister will now have heard from the mayor of Toronto that 4,000 people are waiting but just a handful are going to get homes, can the minister tell us what action he intends to take to see that social housing is built in the Metro Toronto area and that the needs of the people of this area are going to be met when the market is so clearly failing to meet them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that last Thursday night I finished my estimates in committee and I doubt that I saw the leader of that particular party asking any questions in relationship to the provision of housing in Ontario. I made very clear at the committee hearings some of the difficulties we are encountering --

Mr. Kerrio: When are you going to get TV cameras down there?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Does the member mean the leader of the third party would be better focused on TV cameras there than he is here? He could be right.

I made it very clear at that time that we understand some of the problems relating to the field of housing; there is no doubt about that. I would say to the leader of the third party --

Mr. Swart: You are the biggest problem.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That might be that member's estimation but some would think he is likely the greatest deficit to that party. I think we would have a great number in this House who would agree, even some members of his own party.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister address the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the situation with Mr. LeBlanc, the new minister reporting for housing with the federal government, in relation to the allocation of units under the municipal and private nonprofits and co-ops as to how we can get more units for Ontario.

Over the last number of years this province has provided a rather substantial number of units. I want to emphasize here today that at the moment there are about 114,000 units in the province and we have an annual turnover of somewhere between eight per cent and 10 per cent of new people coming on to our waiting list for housing.

Already this province, along with the federal government, spends about $300 million annually in subsidy programs. In addition to that, we continue to have programs for nonprofits for the municipalities and the private sector and for co-ops. Our allocation there is somewhere around 4,500 units per year.

Over and above that, we have had the Ontario rental construction loan program, from which we had 16,700 units taken up, and 20 per cent of which, over the period of time when they are completed in their construction form, will be made available to the various housing authorities across the province. We also have the Canada rental supply program, which is a federal program in existence right now in this province and across the country. From 25 per cent to one third of those units will be turned over to the various housing authorities for their use in applying the supplementary rental support program in the various areas of the province.

Third, we have had the renter-buy program in the current year, for which this government has allocated something in the range of $75 million. Today we have about 10,600 units that have already been taken up. Let me suggest to this House that we will achieve at least 12,000 units under that program in the current year: 6,000 for people who leave rental accommodation in the province and 6,000 for people who fill the first-time requirement for a housing unit.

Extrapolated into realistic terms, that is 12,000 who will either have moved out of rental accommodation or will not require rental accommodation. Through the programs of the federal and provincial government, we continue to analyse and to try to serve the marketplace.

I think it is unrealistic, as I said on Saturday in my own constituency office in Ottawa, if one thinks this government and the federal government have the capacity to build to the maximum requirement of the waiting list as of today. The governments, federally and provincially, have tried to supply the requirements in the marketplace, keeping in mind some realistic positions in the financial terms.

Mr. Rae: I do not know who the poor constituent was who got the third part of the answer in the minister's constituency office.

I would like to draw to the minister's attention, although I am sure he has seen it, the article on the front page of today's Globe and Mail, describing the plight of one Stephen Valentine, who happens to have a one-bedroom apartment on Woolner Avenue, which is in the riding of York South. His rent has gone up from $232.25 to $296 this year and will go up to $370 next year.

All the talk the minister has made about the renter-buy program is not going to do anything for Mr. Valentine. because he is not in a position to afford a house, particularly because his salary is just about to be frozen by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: With all the talk the minister has given us, the programs he has described have produced 10 units from the ORCL program in Toronto, which has a need of 31,000 for people who are on a waiting list for socially-assisted housing. Is the minister seriously telling the House that the government is anywhere near meeting that need of 31,000 people on the waiting list?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is interesting. Johnny-come-lately --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: A year ago we went through this very same discussion. The leader of the third party analysed it strictly from the federal point of view; his interests are very limited and very well focused in that area.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said a year ago in this House, and I will repeat it: one of the problems we have -- and I think we might as well become very realistic, although the member obviously does not want to be realistic -- is that we are not able to find --

Mr. Swart: You are the main problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member for Welland-Thorold would keep quiet for a moment, he might learn something.

I said clearly at that time that the cost of trying to produce units -- and I could not care less whether it happens to be the federal government, the provincial government or the private sector -- in the downtown Metropolitan Toronto area at a realistic cost under a subsidized program is virtually impossible, if not impossible, in this day because of the cost of land alone.

I said that out of the 16,700 units we had, virtually 50 per cent of them were in the Metropolitan Toronto area to serve the market requirements of this jurisdiction. We think that is realistic in trying to find ways of housing people at costs, I want to suggest to the members of this House, that are easily accepted by the other wage earners and taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Foulds: Like yours.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, and I make no apology to the member for Port Arthur, absolutely none. I paid for my own, so the member should not worry about it.

Mr. Foulds: Which one, Claude?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Which one are you paying for?

Mr. Bradley: Same one as Mike Cassidy.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Exactly, the same one as Mike Cassidy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I thank the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). I agree with him.

I said clearly at the time, a year ago, and I repeat today that we have --

Mr. Nixon: The Liberals are pure.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will not ask the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) for a further description. I said at that time --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister address the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I recognized at the time, a year ago, when one remarks about 10 units in downtown Toronto, that we would love to see more than that but I have to be realistic. First, we do not possess the land. Second, the cost of trying to construct them through the private sector is beyond the position of putting it into a rent supplement program.

I want to draw to the attention of the House that while it is easy to sit there and be critical because neither the federal nor the provincial government is able to provide units in the downtown Metropolitan Toronto area, the cost of trying to do so becomes extremely difficult, if not beyond all realism.

I look at some of the units we took up at Charles and Bay, which is an agreement we got involved in as a result of an agreement by the city council of Toronto. I ask the members of the opposition to look at what it is costing us as taxpayers, federally and provincially, in trying to maintain those 79 units in a downtown jurisdiction that was committed by a local government for which we had no other responsibility than to pick up that obligation. The cost has been astronomical, far beyond realism for the average taxpayer in this province to comprehend.

This government will continue to try, along with its ally the federal government, to design programs that will bring --

Mr. Cassidy: The feds are allies now?

Mr. McClellan: Your allies?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Ally?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Certainly, because I am willing to admit to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that we alone in the province are not going to supply the whole housing situation. It will be by a co-operative effort, federally and provincially, and, for the member's information, with the response and at the request of the municipalities there might come a day when we might have to ask the municipalities to come back into the housing provision program as well.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) indicated a few weeks ago that because of the rent review problem the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was going to look into ways of subsidizing housing and creating more rental units in the city of Toronto. The mayor of Toronto has recently indicated they need somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000 units in the city of Toronto for needy families who are out of accommodation or are in substandard accommodation and so forth.

How does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing expect to reply to the great needs that are out there, particularly in the city of Toronto but also in other parts of the province where these needy families need accommodation? The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has challenged him to come up with an innovative program to meet those needs. Can we expect an announcement in the near future from the government with respect to these important problems that are facing families in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I trust the member will recall that a few weeks ago, in response to a question of a similar nature from the official opposition, I said one of the areas we had to work on in a very diligent way with the federal government was to try to get the allocation of units to Ontario increased somewhat over what we had in 1980, 1981 and 1982. If we could get them increased in the municipal nonprofit, the private nonprofit and the co-ops, I thought it would help us to resolve some of the difficulties of the day.

It would not do it alone: I was willing to admit that. There would have to be other innovative programs that federally and provincially we would work on. Whether it be something related to the Challenge 2000 and some of the things that we had tried to explore in that area, or whether it even be further expansions where governments take an equity position in the development of some types of rental construction, I am not quite sure at the moment.

I do assure this House that the challenge that was offered to me by the Premier (Mr. Davis), and indeed my colleague in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is one that we are working at diligently. I indicated in my estimates just a week ago that not only is this Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing working at trying to gather together some of the background information necessary to design a very adequate program for the provision of accommodation, but we were calling upon the federal government as well, we were calling upon the municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, we were asking the private lending institutions to give some thought as to how we might achieve it.

Indeed, I have also asked the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, the Urban Development Institute and the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, which are three of the major developer organizations not only in Ontario but in Canada, to give some thought as to what governments, along with the private sector, might do to try to offset some of the difficulties we are experiencing in the housing field. I have to say very clearly and very distinctly in this House today that whatever our success will be in provision of adequate housing in 1983, 1984 and 1985, or whatever year in the future, this government has been able to provide, along with private industry, a very acceptable form of housing.

This province can in no way be considered to be less than of a national and international character in providing good housing for its people. Whatever success we are going to have in the future, I make clear today, will be because there is a co-operative understanding at the federal, provincial, municipal and indeed in private sector level, to provide that housing in the future. The capacity, financially, is not with this government alone.

If there is not a will by the federal government and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. to co-operate with the provincial government of this province, if there is not a will and understanding by the private lending institutions, if there is not a will and an understanding by those in the construction industry, whether it be land owners or developers, we will not succeed. I am inviting, over the next number of weeks, that we have a blueprint put together that will afford some opportunity for the taxpayers of this province to have an appreciation of how we are going to achieve success in the adequate provision of housing in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: The long and short of what the minister appears to be saying is that there is no more room for poor people in the city of Toronto. That is really what the minister is saying as far as housing is concerned. In that regard, I would like to ask him to comment on the statement in the speech from the throne that says a wide range of initiatives will be taken to increase the stock of rental housing, particularly in the area in and around Metro Toronto.

How can the minister possibly justify the Ontario rental construction loan program, which has produced 10 units in Metro Toronto to meet the needs of 31,000 people? Is the minister seriously saying this is the best the government of Ontario, with its own programs, can do for people who need rent geared to income?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The program which the leader of the third party -- a position which he will obviously be in for a long time to come -- has indicated is a program that we had in 1981. It terminated on December 31, 1981. It was not in the current year at all. The Canada rental supply program has been the rental program that has been in place in 1982, along with the renter-buy program supported and advanced by the government of this province to try and give people the opportunity for ownership. The 10 units were recognized a year ago. I do not require the member for York South to remind me of the 10 units, but over and above that, it is easy for them to overlook the other aspects of the housing provision program.

In the course of the last year, there have been a number of units that have come in place in this metropolitan region, and particularly in Toronto through the Toronto Cityhome program, which is the municipal nonprofit. There have been private nonprofit organizations and indeed there have been the co-ops in this community. I trust the member for York South clearly recalls the terms of reference for the nonprofits, whether private or public or co-op.

A very interesting percentage of their units, which are heavily supported by the federal government through CMHC and backed up by the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, are made available to people requiring rent supplement, the people less economically fortunate in our community, and they are in the Metropolitan Toronto area. As was said in the speech from the throne, that area includes a very large jurisdiction for which a very substantial number of units will be developed under the numerous provincial and federal programs.

2:50 p.m.

LENGTH OF TRACTOR-TRAILERS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications with regard to the extension of the length of tractor-trailers on the highways. I understand the minister has been considering the possibility of extending the length of tractor-trailers that are used on our highways from 65 feet to 100 feet -- I did not use metric there. A television report last week, December 9, indicated these vehicles may be on the highways by next spring.

Does the minister really think he has done enough investigating and testing on the highways to allow these long trucks to go on the highways and take any chances? If one looks at the reports from the United States, where they have been studied, traffic accidents have increased considerably. Is the minister considering allowing these trucks on the highways in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not given any such consideration. There have been requests by the trucking industry for longer units in the tractor-trailer field. I am on record as saying that would only be over my dead body.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know some of the members might like to encourage that situation.

This is a matter I expect will be commented on by Dr. Uffen, who is carrying out the Ontario Commission on Truck Safety. Dr. Uffen has had representations from both sides, for instance, from the automobile club recommending against the longer trucks and from the trucking industry requesting the longer trucks. He has carried out some tests himself as part of his commission study. One of the double 45-foot units was operated on Highway 401, and certain testing was done at our research testing place at Huron Park.

There certainly has been no decision by the government regarding any increase in length. I will leave the matter open to receive Dr. Uffen's report. I am very much looking forward to whatever his recommendations will be. I am not committing myself at this moment or committing the government in any way to any recommendation that might be within that report. We certainly think Dr. Uffen is doing a very thorough job. We are looking forward to his recommendations. But at our level there is no consideration at this moment about authorizing a longer vehicle.

Mr. Ruston: I did not really intend to ask a supplementary, the way the minister first answered the question. He said "over my dead body," and since I have a great deal of respect for the minister I am sure this would not be put through without his consent, but will the minister assure me that if it is considered in any way whatsoever by the government, he will bring a bill into the Legislature and at the same time allow public hearings so that the public can come in to have their say before anything is done on this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There has already been one round of public hearings. Dr. Uffen went across this province and held hearings -- I cannot say how many -- certainly at a large number of locations. He heard presentations from the public and from the industry on matters relating to truck safety. That has been done. Any change to the length of vehicles would require a change in legislation, which would come here.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it concerns child abuse. I wonder if the minister would comment on what I see as the failure of the child abuse registry in Ontario. Would he comment on the fact that since the old registry in 1978 we had 1,762 cases on file, and as of 1981 we had 603 in the new registry on file?

Is it still declining? Does the minister have any studies and will he table any studies done by his ministry on the efficacy of the new registry in order to give us a really clear idea of the extent of child abuse in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that on the old child abuse registry there were a number of cases that were not exactly active. Indeed, some of them had been put on somewhat indiscriminately in the past and they really were not applicable.

There are a number of significant improvements coming along. The one interesting thing is just how the abuse registry is read. In the past it was a collection of file cards; now, it is looked at quite actively. Indeed, I would think the honourable member would recall that a year or so ago, somebody wanted to put somebody on the registry, indeed they did, even though he had been acquitted in court. They wanted to know what the minister would do about it, and that person is not on the registry.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I received a letter recently from Dr. John Byles at McMaster in which he says, "The sad fact is that there is no reliable information available about the prevalence of this problem" -- child abuse -- "or about the comparative effectiveness of various strategies for dealing with the problem."

Is the minister aware of his study of the Hamilton children's aid societies, which found that of 270 cases reviewed on file as child abuse cases by the children's aid society and the Catholic children's aid society only 13 per cent were ever put on to the actual registry; that only 11.9 per cent of the cases of abrasion and bruises, or 17 of 143 cases on file, ever made it to the registry; that only 14 of 47 cases of sexual interference ever made it on to the registry; and that only two of four cases of incest made it to the registry? Is the minister also aware that although only 36 of the 270 cases made it on to the registry, 135 of those children had been treated by doctors and yet did not make it on to the registry?

Is this happening elsewhere? How can we get a clear idea of what the real extent of the problem is in Ontario? As the minister knows, his own review of the Hamilton CAS situation did not draw notice to any kind of problem in that area. Is it happening elsewhere, as Dr. Byles presumes it is? And how do we know?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, that particular study by that person is somewhat controversial. Were one to look at the methodology and manner in which he conducted his study, it might be applicable to Hamilton but it certainly does not reflect across the province. In fact, it has been challenged rather substantially as not even applying in Hamilton.

With respect to child abuse, there is no question that it is a significant concern. There are two forms of it. Sexual abuse is receiving considerable scrutiny at the moment, thanks particularly to the study I commissioned and paid for in Metropolitan Toronto. With respect to child abuse --

Mr. McClellan: You paid for it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I did. The member blames me for everything, so he might as well give me some credits too.

There is no question there has to be a concentrated effort to continue the work that has been done in the past few years. The professionals must continue drawing closer together in the reporting network, whether they be in the agency field or the medical field. There must be as close to accurate reporting of these matters as is humanly possible.

3 p.m.

On many occasions involving child abuse, the family hitherto has been totally unknown to the children's aid society, the medical field or any other agency. There is no alternative to the overall problem than for a continued effort to make sure there is as much early detection as is humanly possible. This has been done with training in the medical field.

I see the member is snickering. I guess he thinks that is funny.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not funny.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is no alternative to continuing effort to make sure there is not a repeat by reporting and placing the names on the child abuse registry. The child abuse registry must be utilized to make sure people who have committed or contributed to this very despicable conduct will not be near defenceless children again.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware that during the travels of the standing committee on social development, travels to look at the question of family violence, the issue of child abuse and, in particular, the issue of incest was raised on a number of occasions.

I wonder if the minister might consider using his offices to encourage the government to refer to that committee the whole question of child abuse, in particular the problem that seems to be perceived with the child registry. If it were with the committee we might take a look at the situation across the whole province.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unusual that somebody in the opposition would ask the minister to persuade a committee to do anything. If the committee wants to do it, as it did with family violence -- it did not consult me -- my office will certainly co-operate as much as possible. But I think the member is asking a lot when she says a minister should be suggesting to a standing committee what its subject matter should be.

COURT DELAYS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General. The Attorney General will recall questions I raised earlier this fall concerning the administration of justice in Windsor, specifically the huge backlog of cases that resulted in the dismissal of a charge against an accused because of delays which violated his right to a speedy trial.

I am reminded of the Attorney General's admission earlier this year when he said: "Government is not allocating enough resources to justice in the province. We have always been the poor cousins of government. There is not much political sex appeal in the administration of justice."

I understand the Attorney General recently spent a day in Windsor reviewing that deplorable situation. Now that he has held his meetings, can he tell us what he is going to do about a situation in which 58 of the accused cases outstanding were committed for trial back in 1980 and 1981, and at least as far back as a month ago? I have the complete list.

Does he believe the present blitz he has begun on this backlog is an adequate solution to the problem? Or is he now prepared to concede the solution includes committing more physical and human resources to the administration of justice in Windsor and Essex county?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member appreciates, the problems with respect to trial delays in Windsor are multifaceted. The resources issue alone, assuming we had all the resources we would like, would not resolve the issue. As I said earlier in the fall, we are hoping an additional appointment to the provincial court bench will be announced before the end of the year.

Mr. Martel: Send Morley down.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Let Morley be the judge.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member's friends next door do not seem to care about Windsor.

The Chief Justice of the province, in his capacity as the chairman of the Ontario Bench and Bar Council, has given the Windsor situation a priority. We are constructing an additional jury courtroom in Windsor.

I think the backlog problem will be resolved to some extent by the blitz that we hope will be going ahead early in the new year. This is similar to what we have done in Metropolitan Toronto. It would seem the major backlog in Windsor is due to the county court jury trials. We have some very special problems in Windsor because the overwhelming majority of criminal work is done by only a handful of people. This causes problems with respect to scheduling cases.

One accused was discharged because in the view of His Honour Judge Dunlap the trial did not proceed within a reasonable period of time. That case is now under appeal so I cannot comment any further on it.

I would simply reiterate we are very much aware of the problems in Windsor. They are being addressed and we hope to see some resolution of them early in the new year.

Mr. Wrye: I am glad the Attorney General raised the matter of the shortage of lawyers in criminal matters. In his earlier answer to me he said, "Part of the problem is that the number of lawyers active in the criminal courts is relatively small compared to the work that is available."

Given the concern the Attorney General expressed on that earlier occasion and repeated today perhaps he can tell us why during his Windsor visit neither he nor his officials met with members of the Criminal Lawyers' Association? This was despite the fact the president of the association, Don Tait, requested a meeting even on the day the Attorney General was in town -- back on November 2?

Does he not feel a meeting would have allowed him to hear all sides of the sorry story, or is he just interested in making members of the local bar the scapegoats for his own lack of attention and that of his ministry to this longstanding problem?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We are not attempting to make scapegoats of anybody. The lawyers themselves have conceded this is part of the problem. Members of my ministry have met with members of the local defence bar. I was not aware of any requests for a meeting the day I was in Windsor. If I had been aware I would certainly have attempted to work it in.

Their views as to the problems were expressed at great length in a meeting of the Bench and Bar Council, which preceded my visit to Windsor. Two of the leading members of the Windsor defence bar were present at that meeting. Minutes were kept and I had the opportunity to familiarize myself with their concerns and suggestions.

Certainly, if the member would like, I would be quite happy to meet with any of those gentlemen at any time. There was certainly no intention on my part to avoid or not take advantage of such a meeting, but we have been in communication with them.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that Windsor Western Hospital and Riverview Hospital in Windsor apparently hired a former Workmen's Compensation Board employee, Terry Wilkins, who operates a business called Safety and Compensation Services, "occupational health and safety, loss control management, compensation and safety litigation."

Is the minister further aware he was hired on a handsome retainer last July to cut down the number of WCB claims in the hospitals? Is the minister further aware the health and safety committees have not been advised by the hospitals that this man has been hired for that purpose, but they are aware of his activities?

If we are going to use the proper routes to reduce accidents, does the minister not believe it will only be done through appropriate health and safety operations? The internal responsibility system should be working in an effort to reduce accidents. It should not be done through fighting industrial accident claims.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the gentleman in question, nor am I aware of his firm nor the involvement with the Windsor hospitals. However I am pleased to hear the member speak in a laudatory sense about the internal responsibility system. I certainly agree with him in the respect that the internal responsibility system is the right approach to occupational health and safety.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he will investigate the situation and send Mr. Melinyshyn to Windsor to ensure the act is being adhered to and that health and safety committees are working properly. If so many accidents are happening at these hospitals, he should try to ascertain why they are occurring rather than having someone hired and paid for by the taxpayers to fight legitimate workmen's compensation claims.

Perhaps the minister should also talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and ask him to look at the matter. He might check why a hospital with such a short supply of health care funds is spending money on this kind of a consultant for hospitals in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe my record is such that any time any of the members opposite bring a matter to my attention, whether in person or by letter or in the House, I do follow up and investigate and get back to them. I will do so in this case.

HIGH-TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, given the time, I will try to be brief. I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry and Trade. In view of the Ontario government's declared interest in fostering a high-technology industry I want to list just a few of the reports of the closings I have in front of me:

There is the announced closing of the Roche company, a relatively new, world-class, drug manufacturing plant in Montreal; the Ayerst drug company, a 300-man research and development facility, closing next year; the shelving of substantial expansion of the Merck-Frosst Laboratories; and in Ontario, the indefinite deferral of expansion by Syntex of its recently completed research facility in Mississauga. Finally there is the predicted closing of Smith Kline's, a new Ontario manufacturing plant, if appropriate redress is not forthcoming relative to the forced copying, in less than five years, of its largest and most important product.

These all result from an estimated $400 million to $500 million loss in sales in the last 15 years, in consequence of the federal government's forced licensing of validly patented products in this country. In view of the provincial government's direct equity interest in this field through its joint venture in the biotechnology company called Allelix, which will also be adversely affected by these federal regulations, is the minister aware of the seriousness of this situation?

Second, can the minister tell us if he has responded to the federal government's seeking of advice from the provinces on the negative and discriminatory aspects of subsection 41(4) of the Canada Patent Act? This is part of an interdepartmental review relative to the development of new drug products and manufacturing.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I answer both those questions in the affirmative.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

I would like to go on record as supporting this petition.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 59 individuals from the city of Windsor. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to Amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

MOVING OF NURSING HOME

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following, are residents of St. Marys and surrounding rural areas and wish to express our opposition to the proposed sale of nursing home beds out of the town of St. Marys. We recognize that, like most small towns in southwestern Ontario, we have a very high percentage of retired people making up our population. If nursing home care should become necessary in their later years, we feel it is extremely unfair that they be required to move away from the town and area where they have lived, raised their children and formed lifelong friendships.

"We recognize the hardship that elderly residents of Smith Nursing Home will bear, if forced to move away from St. Marys in the near future.

"We strongly petition the Ministry of Health to explore and consider alternatives which would enable a new nursing home facility to be built in the town of St. Marys."

This is signed by 2,337 residents of the area.

INFLATION RESTRAINT BILL

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 18 constituents from my riding:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request you seek the withdrawal 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."

FACILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 330 people, most of them from London but some from the London district as far away as Goderich. It is a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, urge that the five-year plan for the expansion of community services and consolidation of facilities for developmentally handicapped people be reconsidered. Especially, we are concerned with the closure of well-equipped, well-functioning hospitals. Placement in the community of many of the developmentally handicapped residents could only result in confusion, upset and regression."

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Lupusella, first reading of Bill 206, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this recognizes there are additional costs to a condominium corporation caused by owners who do not live in the condominium unit which they purchase.

The bill would authorize condominium corporations to make bylaws providing for the collection of special levies from owners of residential units that are occupied by tenants.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned consideration 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.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with Bill 179, and if memory serves me correctly, without reading the whole title, we were engaged with clause 1(a).

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I am just going to take a couple of minutes to sum up our objections to clause 1(a) of the bill, which members will remember is the clause that outlines the name of the board, the Inflation Restraint Board.

We oppose this clause because it is misleading. It tries to call this board an inflation restraint board when we all know the reality is that it is a wage control board and only a wage control board.

3:20 p.m.

It does nothing about prices. Even the Liberal Party is now coming along with our party in indicating that prices are running ahead of wages and that the real cause of inflation in Ontario and in our country is prices. Prices can in fact be controlled by government -- the prices of gasoline, home heating fuels like those of Union Gas and Consumers' Gas, and the price of food. The government could have an influence on these if it had the will to involve itself in the economy and if it was committed to a real inflation control program, not a program designed to give the impression it has a handle on the economic problems when in reality it does not.

This clause is symbolic of the whole problem of the bill, in that the government is taking no action to control inflation nor to create jobs. It has simply introduced this bill to give the people of the province the impression it understands what the problems are. It also is playing to a feeling within the province that unions are a problem. Instead of providing leadership in indicating what is causing inflation and instead of showing economic leadership, it is more concerned about the fortunes of the Conservative Party.

We have given examples. I would like to go over a couple more of them. As the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will know, the average salary within the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the people who work directly for this government, is about $20,000. Something like 60 per cent of the employees who work for this government earn less than $20,000. Instead of controlling prices, the government has taken the approach that it will control those wages.

Let me put forward the example of Joyce Morgan. She is 40 years old and lives in Brantford. She works for social services, I believe. She gets the $4.19 per hour that a file clerk at the Brant county welfare office gets, and her wages will be controlled under this program. But her housing costs will not be controlled, her insurance costs, her food costs, her home heating costs -- none of those costs is going to be controlled by this government.

We are saying this clause of the bill is wrong. It is the wrong name for the bill. It deliberately tries to mislead the people into believing that inflation will be controlled when the reality is that the program intends only to control the wages of the public sector in the province. So we will oppose this section.

3:34 p.m.

The committee divided on whether clause 1(a) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 87; nays 22.

Mr. Chairman: Clause 1(b)?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, this is really by way of explanation. I notice that clause 1(b) says that "minister" means the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have had a little difficulty from day one as to why in this particular section it is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It seems to me that, under part I, the Inflation Restraint Board more likely might have been attributed to the Minister of Labour; or that section 3, which outlines the board, might have referred to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if, indeed, it were really dealing with prices.

I really have some difficulty in understanding why, in clause 1(b), "minister" means the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like an explanation for that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, you will notice that there are two definitions. The Treasurer is called by that name, as opposed to "minister," simply to differentiate between the two ministers who have responsibility for different parts of the bill. It happens that we chose the various ministers who have some degree of responsibility. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is to administer the prices section of the bill. That is why he is named.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely it would have made more sense to have that description under section 3. It would seem to me that the Inflation Restraint Board is probably going to bear more heavily on the Minister of Labour than it will on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I have some strong questions as to why it should be the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who is designated in this act. Anyone who has read the act and followed the debate to this time would know that it really is a wage restraint bill. Surely it should be the Minister of Labour who would be the minister responsible for administering this act.

We in this party are extremely concerned that it is not a bill that controls prices and authorizes the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to have a fair prices commission, in which there would be meaningful action to control administered prices. That simply is not the case. We tried to change the bill to a fair prices bill. We tried to change the name of it. We know we are not going to be successful in that.

If it is not going to be a bill to deal with prices, if it is not going to be a bill to deal with consumer matters, then by what logic should the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations be the minister who is administering this legislation?

We should name the bill for what it is: a wage restraint bill for civil servants. It is nothing else. Therefore, it should be the Minister of Labour who is named in this bill, not the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

3:50 p.m.

The committee divided on whether clause 1(b) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 87; nays 22.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other section any other member would like to speak to?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly to clause 1(c) of the bill, regulations. The definition says, "'Regulations' means the regulations made under this act." It is a fairly innocuous definition until one makes a study of the bill; then you find, of course, that it is a perversion of the term. It is a term that should not be used in this bill in the first place, and that is the first argument I want to make to the government.

This is a bill under which the administration should not have any power to alter the precise terms of the bill to expand its meaning or to extend its definitions in any way by arbitrary decision of the executive power of the government. If the government believes that this bill is as important as it has told us it is, then this is one bill where there should be no provision for the exercise of the regulatory power.

My friend from Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) will recall Lord Hewart's book called The New Despotism, and he will understand what Lord Hewart meant when he talked about the new despotism: a legislative body such as this on important occasions delegating authority under statutes back to the government that introduced the bill in order that they can make up for what they forgot to do in the first place. That is all it is about.

For us now, after having objected to the bill in principle and substantially in clause-by-clause, to be asked to delegate back to the very executive who should not have brought in this monstrous bill the power to exercise some power speaks against what this party stands for.

Some people say, "Oh well, in this day and age we always put in a definition of regulations." Well, there are many occasions in this Legislature when we have objected to the use of the wide power of delegated regulatory legislation. This is one case where the principle of nondelegation of authority should be upheld by this assembly, and I appeal to the members of the government side of the House to support that position.

When one examines what the bill then says about regulations, where do you find the regulations? Where do you find the detailed, abrupt, complete schedule of what the bill is about? You find it under part II of the bill. That is the only real place where the regulatory power is to be used.

Let me just point out the contrast between part III, which talks about administered prices, and part II, which talks about the breaking of the contracts of the employees in the public sector, and members will see what I mean.

The only use of the regulatory power referred to in part III under administered prices is contained in section 32: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations further defining the terms 'public agency' and 'public regulatory agency.'" Those are the nebulous groups of organizations for which the so-called Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is in some way going to administer prices.

How does that operate, by the way? It might be useful for the assembly to be told, because I am quite certain that since last September a number of members of the government party who undoubtedly studied the bill in depth at that time may have forgotten some of the details of the bill.

What is the administered prices process we are provided with? First, the minister establishes economic criteria by which price increases shall be reviewed. There is not a single word about publication by way of regulation of those criteria. There is not even a suggestion that they could be called guidelines and be published in any way.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will be establishing economic criteria by which price increases shall be reviewed. We will never see them. They will never be made available. They certainly will not be made available by right. Even with that minister, I would not want to trust the principle of noblesse oblige that somehow or other he is going to provide them to us out of the goodness of his heart.

Then what can he do with it? He then can go through various stages. He can refer a price increase of a public agency or public regulatory agency to the board for investigation. Then what does the board do? It investigates and reports to the minister. Then what does the minister do? He reviews the report. Having reviewed the report, what does he do? He refers it to the executive council of the province, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which then may make an order if it so wishes.

It will be a long time in the course of that process before we see an order of this government with respect to any of the so-called administered prices, but the House will understand that in the whole of that process there is not a single mention of the exercise of a regulatory power. There is no obligation on the minister at any time to publish anything by way of regulation, let alone guideline or criteria.

The only part of part III that refers to regulation is that if they want to make some minute change in the definition of public agency or public regulatory agency they will do it by regulation. Contrast that with what the powers of regulation are under part II.

Part II is a detailed, carefully thought out prescriptive list of the persons who are going to be subject to this draconian law in order that the employers can break the contracts for wages they have entered into. It is very carefully framed. There are no several stages to that process. It is set out in the statute. What do we then find? We find a very broad and precise regulatory power included in the bill, even though the statute itself is very broad and precise, as I will come back to in a moment.

In section 25, under part II of the bill, what is the power of regulation we are supposed to grant to the executive council? What does it provide? It provides that they may make regulations "designating any compensation plan or class thereof to which this part applies and the date as of which this part shall be applicable thereto, and where necessary, prescribing the manner in which this part shall be applied."

If one looks back in the bill, they made a desperate effort to specify the very matters about which they are now going to say, "We may have missed something and we may have to exercise that power." Then it goes on to say they may make regulations, "terminating in whole or in part the application of this part in respect of a compensation plan or compensation plans to which this part applies."

In case the members may have forgotten what a compensation plan is, it is any method by which compensation is established and includes the provisions contained in collective agreements or established bilaterally between an employer and an employee -- he is called an administrator, but he is an employer -- unilaterally by an employer or by or pursuant to any act of the Legislature.

4 p.m.

So they want to make certain, if they have forgotten something or have inadvertently not included somebody they should have included, they want us to give them the power to alter this bill. They tell us the bill is going to be in existence for only a short period of time. Why in heaven's name would they want to have that power? They had the whole paraphernalia of government to draw up the provisions of this bill. They drew upon all that talent, so why are they now pretending they need to have or should be exercising a further power? Why can they not play the whole thing up front? That has been our basic criticism throughout, that there is a great deal of euphemism about this bill, a great deal of pretence that it is not what it is supposed to be.

One of the places where that concern of ours about the bill applies specifically is under the term "regulations." I do not want to go on at any great length, but I do want to go on to the next part of the regulatory power, clause 25(1)(c): "Where it is considered necessary for the restraint of the public sector expenditure, adding to or deleting from the schedule any person or any class of persons or any agency, authority, board, commission, corporation or organization of any kind." I would invite any member of the government to look at the schedule, because it may be the one and only time that most members of the government party will have looked at the schedule.

The schedule is extremely lengthy, extremely detailed, extremely comprehensive. It took an awful lot of care and attention. It lists many items on pages 21 to 25 of the bill. The schedule consists of those organizations that are deemed by this bill to be part of the public sector of Ontario and therefore subject to these rules. Why should we give them the power to add to that list? Why should we give them that authority? That is the major authority.

Listen to this. The Ministry of Citizenship and Culture has three areas; the Ministry of Community and Social Services has items 1(a) to 1(v) and 2 to 5, that is, some 26 specific categories of organizations under the Ministry of Community and Social Services that someone has meticulously prepared. They are not specific, but they are classes of organizations that this government is saying are under the public sector; for example. "workshops under the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act," and "services purchased or funded under the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act;" or, as Mr. Micawber would say in Dickens, item: "satellite homes operating or funded under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act;" item: "support services to the physically handicapped, purchased by the Ministry of Community and Social Services under the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act;" item: "work activity projects under the General Welfare Assistance Act."

The list goes on and on, in lengthy and specific and meticulous detail, to itemize in the schedule all the instrumentalities of government that are going to be subjected by this government to this bill. Then they have the conceit, the gall and the arrogance to come before us and to ask us to grant them additional regulatory powers, where they are considered necessary for the restraint of the public sector expenditure, to add or delete anybody on the schedule.

The schedule continues with the Ministry of Correctional Services and four specific types of organizations that are covered. Under the Ministry of Health we again have a long list, itemized from (a) to (j).

Number 2 simply refers to the Ministry of Health Act, but in number 3 they get very specific: "Booth Avenue Hospital Laundry Inc., Centennial Hospital Linen Services, Kawartha Hospital Linen Services, Mohawk Hospital Linen Services Ltd., Nipissing Area Joint Hospitals Laundry Inc."

If ever there were organizations which have brought about the economic catastrophe in this country that this bill is supposed to be directed to, it is those who do the laundry in the hospitals in the province, and it is those people who have the honour of being included in this category of lists.

It is the same with number 9, the Hospital Medical Records Institute. If ever there was a grasping group of people, it is the people who keep the medical records in the hospitals. They are constantly causing inflationary spirals in this community and in this society which are so atrocious there should have been a bill directed entirely against them. The employees of the Hospital Medical Records Institute spend all their time, not keeping records, but destroying the economy of the province; they are at it all the time, the minister knows that.

The Ministry of Industry and Trade, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, all are listed. Because the bill is directed against public sector employees the government, with great care, specificity and clarity, has spelled out in the bill exactly who is to be covered. Then they have the nerve to tell us that we have to give them further regulatory power.

They may also not have defined "compensation" sufficiently broadly to have picked up everything which is included in the term "compensation" so they want a regulatory power to extend the definition of "compensation" despite the fact that they defined it in the bill to mean "all forms of payments, benefits and perquisites paid or provided, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a person who performs duties and functions that entitle that person to be paid a fixed or ascertainable amount."

But the government wants us to give it a further regulatory power because it may not have got the definition quite right. It is that kind of abominable nonsense that we object to in the use of the regulatory power in this bill. It says that the government may, by regulation, define "any word or expression not already expressly defined in this act." How ridiculous can the government get?

In a bill which talks about control of wages in the public sector by permitting employers to break contracts in the public sector, the government is very specific, detailed and very careful. It asks us to grant it wide regulatory power.

When it talks about administered prices and when it defines public agencies and public regulatory agencies, the bodies which perhaps will have their prices administered under a long-drawn-out process to be supervised by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, do we find a schedule of these public agencies? Do we find a schedule of these public regulatory agencies? Do we find attached to the schedule of this bill, under administered prices, a long list of the names of the agencies, boards and commissions which have finally been compiled in a document so that we can see up front in the legislation and in the bill whether or not their prices are to be administered?

Can a member of the public find that? No; a member of the public cannot find that. We may be fortunate enough to have a copy of a document listing the agencies, boards and commissions of government but nowhere else will it be found, so that the government can very carefully say to everybody: "Oh well, that is not a public agency or a public regulatory agency. If it is, we do not choose to regulate or administer their prices."

Not only does the minister not provide a schedule setting out what those agencies are, he asks us in a toss-away clause of section 32 of the bill to say he can further define the term "public agency" or "public regulatory agency" when he has done a poor job of defining it in the first place.

4:10 p.m.

There are many people who think the whole story of regulatory and delegated legislation is old and ancient history and that modern bodies such as this, which have abdicated most of their authority in the parliamentary system, should just go along and give the government any regulatory power it wants.

This party will not and it will oppose this section of the bill. This party thinks it is wrong for the specificity to be directed against only the organizations of the public sector employees and not to be used at all with respect to the areas covered by the so-called administered prices plan of the government. We ask all the members to join with us in defeating this section of the bill.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I listened carefully to the comments of my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and, as they pertain to this section of the bill, I must with respect disagree with him. Our party will support this section of the bill.

I say that notwithstanding the fact, and I thank the member for drawing it to my attention, that subsection 25(1) in particular, and some of the subsections in that area of defining where regulations might go, should give us great cause for concern that the Treasurer and the government have not been entirely up-front with us.

We support this subsection with the concern we have with this bill, which we expressed in committee, that it would have been useful to us in committee and in the House if the Treasurer were to have tabled a draft of the regulations so we might have seen that the job the government intends to do in this area is not something that circumvents to some extent the will of the Legislature.

I am reminded the bill was introduced almost three months ago. One might have thought that by now the Treasurer and the government might have a fairly substantial list of regulations. In spite of that --

Mr. Cooke: You support the regulations.

Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Windsor-Riverside says, "You support the regulations." All I am supporting is the definition of the word "regulations."

I simply want to indicate that since we remain on the definition section, we will support this definition as to nothing being out of order in terms of definitions and I hope the House will get on to the substantive matters we wish to bring to its attention later in the bill.

4:23 p.m.

The committee divided on whether clause 1(c) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 89; nays 22.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1(d) stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, we will be opposing this section of the bill. I gather the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) will also be opposing it.

We are opposing this section of the bill because we believe it continues the fraud and misleading nature of this bill. If this bill was to be honest with the people of Ontario and with the members of the Legislature it would not be the Treasurer who was carrying this bill through the Legislature, it would be the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

If this bill was supposed to be carried by the Treasurer it would not be a wage control bill, it would be a bill which deals with the economic problems that exist in this province. That is not a wage problem, that is a problem of structural difficulties within the economy. They involve ownership, the lack of research and development and the high penetration of imports in the manufacturing sector. The Treasurer should have brought in a bill, an industrial strategy, a statement and a new budget that dealt with those problems in the food processing sector, the auto sector and natural resources.

Therefore, we cannot participate in this fraud by voting for this section. We believe that all members of the Legislature should oppose it and that the Treasurer should not be the individual carrying this bill. In fact, I believe the Treasurer is mentioned only one other time in this bill and that is at the end, where he has permission to bring in an annual report.

There is significant logic to opposing this section of the bill.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, our party will support this section, but I suppose we are not surprised that our friends on the left, the New Democratic Party, would oppose -- I want to put this on the record -- the section that says, "'Treasurer' means the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics." It seems logical to me. It seems straightforward and clear, and that is probably why the NDP are going to oppose it.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker said he was not surprised that his friends on the left would be opposed to this. We on the left are not surprised that our friends on the right are in favour of it.

The reason we are concerned about this is the fact that it appears that the Treasurer has, in some way, forced this on the rest of the cabinet and that he seems to have supplanted the Minister of Labour as the minister who is responsible for dealing with collective bargaining in this province.

It is most unfortunate, in our view, that the Minister of Labour has been somehow shut out of the whole debate on this legislation in the last two to three months. The minister, for some reason, did not participate in the debate on second reading. He did not come before the committee, although it was offered that the Deputy Minister of Labour would appear before the committee. For some reason, the government was opposed to the Minister of Labour appearing before the committee.

In our view, this is simply a bill to restrain the wages of public sector employees. It should be called the wage expropriation bill, and with that kind of legislation which deals with the fundamental right to collective bargaining in this province it should be the Minister of Labour rather than the Treasurer who is given the responsibility to administer the act.

For that reason we are opposed to this section and will be opposed to all sections of this legislation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, a good deal has been made in the committee, and it has been referred to again by this member, about the Minister of Labour not coming before the committee when they tried to make him come. They tried to get several other ministers to come. The point is, and they know this, that the minister responsible for a bill is always the minister who appears before committee on clause-by-clause. That is parliamentary procedure. They are attempting, through repetition of an erroneous fact, to make it seem logical. It is not.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I am glad the Treasurer saw fit to participate in the debate. But the fact is, for whatever reason, he saw fit not to be before the committee for many of its sittings and instead designated his parliamentary assistant to be there in his place.

If this is the major economic piece of legislation the government is bringing in this session -- and we have seen nothing else -- surely the Treasurer, if he feels he is the person who should be before the committee in clause-by-clause, should have been there while the standing committee was sitting outside the House.

There are a couple of points I would like to make with regard to the definition of "Treasurer."

First, the bill does nothing in the whole field of economics dealing with the minister's responsibility there. I do not want to spend an extended amount of time in the debate on this clause, but I point out this bill was introduced on September 21. Just in northern Ontario alone, the unemployment rate has skyrocketed, the economic situation has deteriorated and the introduction of this bill did nothing to re-establish confidence in the economy in that part of the province.

Second, no substantial job creation program has been developed. The minister, if he is a minister of economics, has totally failed in his responsibilities both to that section of the province and with regard to this bill.

Thunder Bay, for example, was swimming along more or less happily with an unemployment rate of a mere eight per cent in these tough economic times. I happen to think a mere eight per cent is very serious but this government does not. It considers that to be below the national average and therefore not worthy of its consideration or viewing. Since this bill was introduced, the unemployment rate in Thunder Bay has doubled. In the last month it has gone from eight to 16 per cent and this Minister of Treasury and Economics has done nothing.

It is patent nonsense for the Treasurer to say the Minister of Labour should not be responsible for the bill. We know the Minister of Labour is not responsible for the bill. When he was asked by myself during question period in the early stages of debate on this bill if he felt the wages the bill was restraining and the powers it was cutting away from the Labour Relations Act were justified, he burst out, "What had I to do with it?"' He had nothing to do with it. We agree.

That just pinpoints one of the reasons we are voting against this section. It is because it shows this government is increasingly arrogant and secretive. It brings in major programs without consulting the whole cabinet or the whole government, only a few selected ministers the Premier (Mr. Davis) decides to take into his confidence.

This legislation which has a detrimental effect on the lives of many people in the public sector is brought in and the Treasurer has no compunction whatsoever about it being unfair. He has said so in this House.

Therefore, we will vote against this clause.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have remained tranquil through most of this, but I would like to rebut a couple of points and I would like to point one out.

I was in the committee for most of the sessions when the public was there. I think I missed one or two evening sessions when my parliamentary assistant was there. I would gladly have been there had they not been putting forward motions to wind the clock entirely instead of dealing with the issues before the committee. I would gladly have been there had there been a useful use of that time, but all they did with absolute determination was slow down the process.

That brings me to the second point. There is a socialist government in the province to the east which in two days last week had to pass legislation cutting salaries 18.5 per cent, not to limit increases in salaries to five per cent. This was because they had got carried away in their early times with some of the socialist beliefs the members opposite repeat.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They did not have any democratic process; they had two days.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?

4:40 p.m.

The committee divided on whether clause 1(d) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 87; nays 21.

The Deputy Chairman: May I suggest to all honourable members that should it be the unanimous wish of the House it could do anything, and if it were the desire of all parties we could have the votes stacked.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Chairman: No. In that case we proceed.

On section 2:

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I might just make the point that we went through a number of weeks of committee where we kept getting the line from the chairman about mandatory instructions, a motion that had been passed in the House. The motion that was passed in this House calls for 10-minute divisions, and we will have 10-minute divisions because of the motion prepared by the government and passed by the government.

The arguments have already been made on the establishment of the Inflation Restraint Board; they were made on clause 1(a). We will be opposing subsection 2(1). The arguments have already been made why we are opposing the Inflation Restraint Board; that is, that the name of the board itself is a fraud.

4:58 p.m.

The committee divided on whether subsection 2(1) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 92; nays 22.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the remaining subsections of section 2 carry? No? There are many subsections of section 2 to carry.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, section 2 says, "The board shall consist of not fewer than three members who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to hold office for a term to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Is it three? Is it more than three? Can the Treasurer give us some idea of who the board members are, and can he tell us how much they are to be paid?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, did the member ask who the board members are?

Mr. Mackenzie: Is it limited to three? If so, who are they? If it is more, can the minister tell us that? And what are they being paid?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is not limited to three; and they are not chosen, with the exception of the chairman.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the minister obviously will have given some thought to this. I wish to know what the composition of the board will be. Will there be representatives from various sections of the community, particularly from the labour section? Will he give a commitment that there will be at least one or two labour people on this board?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I personally will not be choosing the board, but I would be delighted to have a representative of labour on it. I have listened to all the comments made by the members opposite about the board, and I assumed they would not recommend putting one of the labour union members on it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Treasurer could get serious for a moment.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was serious.

Mr. Laughren: He does not sound as if he is being serious. We are trying to find out from him just who is going to be on this board, how many people are going to be on it, what the selection process will be and what the members are going to be paid. Surely, since he thought this bill was going to be law within two or three weeks of having introduced it back in September, by now he will have picked out the members of the board and decided how much he is going to pay them. Can we have some straight answers, please?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer the questions. I am sure there is a per diem set for the chairman. There are rules set by Management Board of Cabinet for the remuneration of members of committees. I assume that we will be following the normal rules of Management Board for such committees, that the members will fall into one of the categories and the per diem will be set.

I do not have the number. Three may be all that are chosen. We would be delighted to have a member of labour. I was serious. I just assumed, since the members opposite say the bill is absolutely not supportable, that they would not want one of their members to be on it.

Mr. Laughren: The minister understands very clearly what we think of this bill. We also understand that, with the support of the Liberal Party, it is going to become law in Ontario. That is why we want more information on this board. Can the Treasurer remind us -- I have forgotten -- how much the chairman is going to be paid on this board?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member was not listening carefully. I said it has been set, but I do not know. I can find out during the course of this time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, the point made by my colleague the member for Riverdale was a good one. On a previous clause we had some pique and some anger, if I may say so, on the part of the Treasurer, because we felt clause 1(d) should not be part of the bill. The Treasurer responded that the bill is always carried by the person who sits in clause-by-clause in committee. That is fine.

We now have the Treasurer here. We are in clause-by-clause. We are asking legitimate questions about the composition of the board, the amounts of per diem and the makeup, and the Treasurer is unable to answer those questions. What the heck is going on? The government members are not prepared to deal with the piece of legislation they have had ready for clause-by-clause for several months. It is an absolute travesty, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues and I in this party really want the answers to the questions we have asked.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, the bill has not become law; therefore, the members will not be appointed except for the chairman, who is in an acting position until then. Once we do have the bill passed, I am sure the member will find the recommendations are made to cabinet forthwith.

Mr. Foulds: Before my colleagues jump in, I want to make a point. This government has been acting since September 21 as if it were law when it comes to the wages of the people in the public sector. The ministries have been sending out letters to people in the public sector, saying they are not getting their merit increases because of this legislation. All of that kind of thing has happened. The government has slowed down on arbitration procedures and so on, but it is not willing to tell us who it has decided is going to be on this board once this damned bill is passed in one or two days.

What is the big rush for the bill if the government does not know who is going to be on the board? What is the big rush for the bill if the government is not going to have the central mechanism in place and ready to operate? It is the arrogance of the government, displayed by the Treasurer in response to questions by my colleagues, that angers people in our party so much about this arrogant legislation that is arrogant in principle.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I have to make a point. I think it is a valid one. When we made legitimate arguments about who should be answering for this bill, whether it was the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) or the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) -- I do not think we used the Minister of Health -- time and time again over weeks in that committee, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) kept telling us that the question should be directed to the Treasurer and, when we were in clause-by-clause, he would give us the answer.

I do not know how many times it is on record that we could ask him the questions. Now we are being stonewalled again by the Treasurer on a legitimate question. The whole darned thing is a farce.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, we know very well that the members on the other side are willing to give a blank cheque to the government on this bill. We know that not even the back-benchers over there will get up to ask who is going to be on this Inflation Restraint Board.

We know very well that members of that party are not going to vote against the government, but these questions ought to be answered in the interest of democracy. The people in this province want to know. We have a right to ask these questions, and the government has a responsibility to answer them.

My colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is saying they are just stonewalling this. The people over there applaud, but they are not asking these important questions about a bill they are going to support. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Treasurer one question. Shortly after this legislation was introduced and the announcement of Mr. Biddell as chairman of the Inflation Restraint Board was made, there were many press articles that indicated he was going to be paid $70,000 per year. I would assume that the Treasurer, if he did not know the figure, would have made an inquiry to the Management Board or whoever he says is responsible for the setting of this rate and would have that figure in his mind. What is Mr. Biddell going to get paid as chairman of the Inflation Restraint Board?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I said I would answer as soon as I had the answer.

Mr. Cooke: When that press article appeared in the Globe and Mail, did the Treasurer not even bother to check it out? He should come clean with us. I cannot believe he is so silly that he would not even bother to check that out himself as Treasurer.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the minister has staff under the gallery. Normally, during second reading debate, little notes are passed across to ministers giving them the information. Surely somebody has the information on what Mr. Biddell is being paid. Surely they know that. I think it is coming to the minister right now. Perhaps if I wait, he will have the exact figure. Maybe he can tell us what benefits Mr. Biddell gets as well. Does he have it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I think I answered the question. I still do not have a per diem rate. I am going to get that for them once I have it. On an annual basis, it would be in the range of a deputy minister, $65,000 to $70,000.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Since the minister knows what the approximate income of the chairman is going to be, I presume he can tell us what the approximate income of the other members on the board would be. I presume that can be passed as well from underneath the gallery at this point? Is that not an easy figure for him to come up with at this point?

It is the minister's plan, under this closure motion he brought forward, to have this proclaimed on Wednesday night so that it can be in effect by Thursday. Yet he cannot tell us today who the other people are whose appointment he will be recommending to the Lieutenant Governor. He cannot even tell us what range of pay they will be receiving and that obviously he has been talking to these people about. This is ridiculous.

If the Treasurer already knows what Biddell will be receiving, which is approximately that of a deputy minister, surely he can tell us whether these other people are going to get what an assistant deputy minister is making. Surely he can tell us that and how many there are, when he will be proposing their names to the Lieutenant Governor in just two days. This is ridiculous.

Hon. F. S. Miller: When we get down to subsection 5, we will be on remuneration.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I can understand why the Treasurer would make the assumption that members of his party, the back-benchers in the Conservative Party in this province, would not ask these questions or trust him to provide the answers to these questions. What bothers me is the incredible arrogance of the Treasurer to think that any opposition party could vote for a section like this one without having answers to these questions.

Does he realize the insult he is heaping upon the Liberal opposition in this province by making that assumption? He is just assuming that the Liberals do not need to know any answers, that they have all the answers they need to know and that they will support the government's bill regardless of what it contains, regardless of what the government will be paying the chairman, regardless of who the members of the board are and regardless of the term of office of these people.

I am not insulted myself, but if I were a back-bencher on the Conservative side, I would say: "What is it that the Treasurer expects of us? To be like trained seals back here and accept whatever he lays before us?" Mind you, if I were a Liberal member of the Ontario Legislature, I would start to question some of these clauses if for no other reason than to make sure the Treasurer understands that he cannot treat the opposition with such contempt in this Legislature.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question for the Treasurer. Perhaps he could tell us why the term could not be spelled out in the legislation and why the term of the members is to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Maybe he could also answer questions about whether the board is going to have three permanent members, whether they are to be part-time members or how that board is going to be structured.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the term obviously may need to be a little longer than the term of the bill, since I would assume there would be some matters that would not be totally resolved at the end of the time of the bill, when it closes automatically at the end of a year.

Three members may be all that are needed. I suggest we do not want too many. There is the right to put some members of the public service on the board. I will not know whether that will be done until such time as the recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor are put forward.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one final question? Since the Treasurer will not give us the names of these people, I wonder whether he could show us their pictures. Perhaps he could get Camp Associates to forward their pictures to us.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege: The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) -- as did the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) later on -- levelled some comments, an allegation if you will, that in my role of parliamentary assistant during the committee stage, I somehow or other had left questions unanswered or had made a commitment -- I believe the member said "time and time again" -- as to some specific detail that I undertook to get on behalf of the Treasurer or on my own part.

I know of no outstanding question on which I gave such an undertaking in that committee so I would ask the member either to withdraw it or to repeat it again, because certainly --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Jones: The thing is, they frittered all that time away. Now they come in here in a big rush wanting all kinds of questions they had ample opportunity to ask over in --

Mr. Chairman: Speaking of frittering the time away, let's take the vote on subsection 2(2).

5:25 p.m.

The committee divided on whether subsection 2(2) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 94; nays 21.

Mr. Chairman: Moving right along to subsection 2(3).

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Treasurer, once again, if he can now tell us, if he has had the message passed to him, who the vice-chairman of the board will be, and if he has any further information on what we will be paying the vice-chairman of the board?

[Applause]

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is nice to see that one member of the NDP did not want to vote with his party. Nice to see it --

Interjections.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't hear what the Treasurer said because of the noise. Could he repeat it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Right from the very beginning, verbatim: a) I was delighted to see that the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) had the courage not to vote with his party; that was the first part: b) the members have not been chosen and c) subsection 2(5) deals with remuneration.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate?

Mr. Bradley: Could the Treasurer tell the House what criteria will be used in the choosing of the members of the board and in the choosing of the vice-chairman? What criteria for serving has been established?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say our government has a record of choosing people with competence, geographic balance, sexual variations --

Mr. Conway: Take in the chamber of commerce.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously we will also try to have some variation in their approach to philosophy.

5:40 p.m.

The committee divided on whether subsection 2(3) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 90; nays 22.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 2(4) stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer and remind him of his own remarks just a matter of moments ago when he said that in taking a look at the composition of the board he was trying to cover various opinions -- male, female, different sections of the province -- yet here in this section we are going to give one person, any one person on the board, the authority to make a decision. This simply means that you are going to have decisions all over the field, depending on the various views of some of the members of the board on certain situations, and I would like to know why --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The member for Hamilton East has the floor and it is difficult to hear him.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to know why we are giving such authority and allowing only one person to make a decision. There may be some very important matters raised with the board, when we are going to have a variety of views and opinions on that board. As I say, you could have different decisions on the same issue if we allow it to come from one person.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if there are only three members -- and there may need to be more if the work load is heavy -- one would find that they would each take certain specific tasks to examine, but the fact that one member may be authorized in effect to make a decision, in my opinion, would not in any way cut down on the ability of members to compare notes, decide what is reasonable and use their time more effectively.

5:53 p.m.

The committee divided on whether subsection 2(4) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 65; nays 46.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 2(5) stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, this will take only a second. I would ask the Treasurer once more if he can give us any information as to how much the chairman and the other members of this board are going to be paid? Has he been able to get that information for us now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet has, as I mentioned earlier, a schedule of payments. It is my understanding that a member of a senior board of this nature would be paid about $125 a day. I can only say that the members have not been chosen, nor has the amount been set. Once the bill has been passed, both of those decisions will be made. That is the ball park.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, will that be presented in the Legislature for our information when the decision is made? Will there be an announcement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We do not have secrets.

The committee divided on whether subsection 2(5) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 62; nays 44.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

13 décembre 1982