REPORT, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
REPORT, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the committee of the whole House on 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.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if I might bring to your attention the fact that the parties have all agreed on an equal sharing of time this evening. In any event, if we run short of speakers, the vote will be taken at 10:15 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is according to government motion number 10 with the equal sharing of time. Is this a point of order?
Mr. Bradley: No. I am getting up to speak.
The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of order, the member for Ottawa Centre?
Mr. Cassidy: I thought I would speak as well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bradley: Not at the same time, Michael.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It would save time if the two of us spoke simultaneously.
The Acting Speaker: No, there is no room in the rules for that one. I do now recognize the member for St. Catharines.
Mr. Bradley: Thank you very much
The Acting Speaker: Just as he begins, to remind all honourable members, we are under resolution number 10.
Mr. Bradley: Yes, which is very free-wheeling, I understand, in its interpretation. This is one opportunity that we have to do that. I will make sure that the pages keep the water flowing here tonight so that I am able to continue my remarks.
I believe it was Thursday of this past week that I had prepared a few remarks for the House on Bill 179, a rather stirring speech, at which time I was going to appeal with a good deal of passion and conviction to my friends to the left to take a certain course of action.
However, when I went to make this speech -- and I was very excited about this opportunity to influence the future course of action in Ontario, the very history of Ontario -- the chief government whip stood in his place and invoked a motion that had been alluded to previously, a closure motion. This motion indicated that the question before the House at that time, which was put before us by the government House leader, would be put to a vote. This was approved, at least accepted, by the gentleman in the chair at the time, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).
I will have to modify to a certain extent some of the remarks I would have made on that evening because I thought they were very reasonable. I thought they were somewhat nonpartisan, if one in this House can be nonpartisan. They were certainly an appeal to the members of the New Democratic Party to adopt a different course of action than they had adopted to that particular time.
The evening before, recognizing that everything was a pressing matter in the House, we had conceded the fact we should, in the spirit of the Christmas season, allow the New Democratic Party to have its Christmas party last Wednesday night and that the House would not sit on that occasion, even though there were pressing matters before us. This is something we would want to do in the spirit of the Christmas season.
Nevertheless, the next evening we were into a rather extensive and heated debate in the Ontario Legislature on Bill 179, or at least on something associated with it, and that was the motion which, in effect, imposed time allocation on this bill.
In discussing this particular legislation, this particular motion, I should indicate that it is not from the point of view of a person who is unfamiliar with those who are involved in the labour union movement. Indeed, my own background as an individual is in a labour union household.
I have gone through the process that many working people in this province have gone through; that is, a family that has gone through the difficulties of unemployment, a family that has not had the privilege of some people in Ontario who have been either by fortune born into privilege or who have been able to build themselves into that.
I come from a family with a working-class background. My father -- and some of my friends to the left might even shake at this one -- belonged to the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 902, in the city of Sudbury, which at that time was not in conflict with the United Steel Workers but ultimately was.
Mr. Stokes: What does he think of you now?
Mr. Bradley: Very proud, very proud of the stance I have taken in this House. And I have extolled the virtues of the former Speaker to the members of my family as well, and his background in the railroad, because my family originates in the railroad business from way back when.
Subsequent to that, my father was a member of the boiler makers union -- I do not mean the boiler makers who are upstairs at the present time, but I am referring to those who would be employed at the Port Weller dry dock -- a member of the Steelworkers Union and ultimately the United Auto Workers Union -- and members of the House will recognize this -- as an employee of Columbus McKinnon chain, the infamous Columbus McKinnon chain that closed its doors during a strike.
I have gone through the process of unemployment, the process of the low wages within the family, the process of a rather long strike, so I am very familiar with the difficulties faced by working people in this province. Indeed, I represent a constituency that is a working person's constituency.
On that evening, because we had a time allocation motion placed before us, I was going to appeal to members of the New Democratic Party who, after all, had fought a fight on behalf of those who had asked that the bill be withdrawn; and most of the groups who came before the justice committee asked that the bill be withdrawn.
8:10 p.m.
They indicated they were not particularly interested in amendments. They thought the bill could not be improved by amendments and they wanted it withdrawn. As many of those groups made representations to the committee, I carefully noted those areas about which they were most concerned. Part of that formed the amendments that eventually were put forward by those of us in the official opposition.
The New Democratic Party took a course of action about which it felt strongly. I do not want to be partisan enough in this House to think it was only for political reasons or anything of that nature. I think most people over there, in principle, would be opposed to the kind of legislation that was brought before the House in its entirety. I want to be charitable enough to concede that this evening.
There may be some political advantage in hoping, if one wants to be cynical enough to think of this, that the government would pass the most draconian measure so we could then point to the government and say, "Look at what we are facing," and attempt to mobilize opposition to that government. That is one course of action. I do not want to suggest that because I think there are a number of people over there, and I see the former leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who are genuinely concerned about all aspects of this bill.
We in the official opposition and members of the government side, in a jocular fashion, and sometimes in less than an amusing fashion, are at times moved to say, "You are the tools of one particular segment of society." Putting that aside for a moment, I do not think the members of the New Democratic Party could in any way have been accused on that occasion of backing off from a tough position and acquiescing to the government.
They had fought the hard battle in committee, moving procedural motion after procedural motion, not allowing the bill to move in any fashion. Once the bill came into the House, having moved what I consider to be trivial amendments, amendments we did not support necessarily because we thought they were just there to delay the bill, I have no doubt the members of the New Democratic Party might have felt in some cases --
Mr. McClellan: You are supposed to address the Speaker.
Mr. Bradley: The member for Bellwoods wants me to address the Speaker, but I am really trying to appeal to his good sense and logic this evening.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: It's the wrong time.
Mr. Bradley: It may be the wrong time when I say "this evening." However, what I had hoped that evening --
Mr. Stokes: Are you trying to convince us to vote against the bill?
Mr. Bradley: I am trying to convince you to do what you should have done last Thursday.
What I am saying is that, having fought the good fight, they could not be accused of abandoning those they claim, with a good deal of virtue, to be defending. At that time they could have said, and I would have appealed to their leader and party at that time to have said: "We have fought the good battle. We still believe the bill should be withdrawn. We see no virtue in this bill but we recognize you have 70 seats, albeit with 44 per cent of the 59 per cent of the people who voted. Nevertheless, under our electoral system, the government has 70 seats and therefore will pass the kind of legislation it sees fit to pass."
I would have appealed to the leader of the New Democratic Party and his colleagues to take that into consideration, knowing they had fought the good battle, and agree to a voluntary time allocation whereby all the amendments could be brought forward, We in the official opposition had 19 amendments, many of them removing the more objectionable parts of the bill. The government had some amendments. We had proposed some to them. Others had encouraged that we have a time allocation so at least those amendments in their entirety could have been put before the House and there could have been a debate on those amendments.
Mr. Cassidy: You would have lost them all.
Mr. Bradley: The member for Ottawa Centre says we would have lost them all; perhaps, but perhaps not.
We saw an example of one amendment which was brought forward to serve the purpose of the nurses in Etobicoke who were caught in a situation where, on the day the legislation was introduced in the House, they were involved in the signing of a contract. An amendment was brought forward so that the people who were caught in that situation were alleviated from that situation.
The government facing, as it has, the continuous obstruction of the third party, who thought that was a legitimate tactic to follow, is obviously going to be cantankerous and less apt to give any consideration at all to amendments in that atmosphere.
Second, they felt that the legislation which was introduced on September 21 had been held up for a somewhat long time. Nevertheless, we never had the opportunity to introduce all of those amendments, some of which the government may have accepted, some of which they may have rejected; but at least we would have had an opportunity to have them on record as opposing or agreeing with some of those amendments. Many people in this House who have been here longer than I know the tactics that the government uses. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) used it on the one amendment that was accepted, which was lifted from the opposition. That is fine with us.
What the government would likely have done is to take the amendments we had proposed, modified them perhaps in a slight way and introduced them as amendments of their own. If it serves the purpose of alleviating part of the concern, removing some of the objections, then so be it, let the government take the credit for those amendments. But never did this House have the opportunity to vote on all of those amendments, and in my view that is unacceptable.
We had a number of amendments, and I think it is worthy of noting what those amendments would have done for the House before this bill is reported. For instance, initially we would have had an amendment which would have restored due process to the bill by making it subject to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, thus guaranteeing the right to a hearing and the right to receive reasons for a decision from the board.
The amendment also would have added the right of appeal to cabinet of any decision of the board. As my friend the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) will point out, that was an opportunity for the government to show some good faith and to have agreed to that amendment.
I know there are a number of people on that side of the House, not all of whom take after Attila or Napoleon or anybody of that nature, who would have recognized the virtue of this. I think of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), a very progressive individual from time to time, who would have likely looked favourably upon an amendment of this kind. I indicated at that time that it would have provided an opportunity for the government, having imposed this draconian measure upon Ontario, to at least provide the mechanism for appeal, to have provided the opportunity for a hearing for any group in the province that wanted that hearing. That is one of the amendments that we would have liked to have seen passed.
A second which was not allowed to be put because of the filibustering that went on from the third party was an amendment which would have allowed those bargaining groups which signed memoranda of agreement on the day the program was announced to be exempted from the transitional provisions, along with those groups which signed before September 21, 1982. As it turned out, the government extracted that and presented it as an amendment of its own -- we note that it was for the Etobicoke public health nurses -- so that was one instance where we were successful.
A third amendment, an amendment which exempts from the transitional provisions those groups which were in binding arbitration as of September 21, 1982, is very progressive, a very reasonable amendment, which surely would have been acceptable to members on the government side if they were approaching this in a reasonable fashion, an amendment which would have mandated a nine per cent transitional increase rather than the existing not more than nine per cent.
There are many people who expressed concern because it said not more than nine per cent could be provided in that transitional year. Our amendment would have mandated nine per cent and would have treated those people in a more appropriate fashion.
Further amendments to the legislation included an amendment which would have allowed free collective bargaining for long outstanding contracts rather than leaving it to the board to establish compensation. That is surely another reasonable amendment to this piece of legislation.
An amendment which would have removed the differential treatment of union and nonunion workers, giving both mandatory increases of five per cent in the control year -- as the bill now reads, workers with a collective agreement were guaranteed five per cent while those without a collective agreement could not get more than five per cent -- would have been a very reasonable amendment which surely the government, if it were approaching this in a reasonable and logical fashion, would have accepted.
8:20 p.m.
Another amendment we would have presented to this bill would have raised a minimum increase from $750 to $1,200 and eliminated the discretionary increase. Increases would then have ranged from 12 per cent at $10,000 to five per cent at $24,000 and above. This was the notching provision we talked about, which would have made this legislation fairer for the people at the lower echelon of the pay scale in the Ontario public service.
We had a motion that would have moved that subsections 12(3) and 12(4) of the bill be struck out and subsection 12(5) be renumbered, according to what we wanted to see in the bill; an amendment that eliminated the restrictions on seniority and merit increases for those making more than $35,000, so that those who had gone to university, to community college, to other areas to increase their academic qualifications would not have been penalized because they happened to be at the threshold of $35,000; an amendment that would have removed the extension to noncompensation elements of collective agreements, allowing for normal bargaining rights on noncompensation issues, which in 1982 are certainly, if not of equal importance, of great importance in relation to the monetary items; an amendment that would have brought other housekeeping items into effect as a result of those amendments; an amendment that said, "For the period referred to in subsection 12(1), the value of such proposed change does not constitute an increase that is equivalent to more than the increase permitted under section 12." Once again, coming forward with very reasonable amendments, we would have introduced an amendment that would have allowed any person to refer a price increase to the board for investigation, rather than only the minister having this right. Surely a progressive piece of legislation would have to include that, since it would come down as hard on the price side as it did on the wage side. We would have had an amendment requiring the minister to publish and make public the economic criteria by which price increases are judged so that there would have had to be justification on the part of the Inflation Restraint Board.
There would have been an amendment to include in the program price increases taking effect after September 21, 1982, regardless of when the increases were announced. The effect of this amendment would have been to limit the OHIP premium increases that took effect on October 1, 1982, to five per cent, rather than the 17.5 per cent proposed in the budget of the provincial Treasurer. There would have been an amendment that would have included the OHIP fee schedule in the entire program, and a further amendment that would have restricted Ontario Hydro rates to a five per cent increase during the control period, because of those who would have to accept five per cent in their own compensation packages. Another amendment would have restricted the first 12-month increase in controlled rents during the control period to five per cent without cost pass-throughs.
These are the amendments we were prepared to move in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to force the government to vote on them, to force all members of this Legislature to vote on them. We were not permitted to do so because of the time allocation motion, because of the closure motion that was put forward by the government as a result of the obstruction by the members of the New Democratic Party.
In my view what we have over there, even with its 70 seats, is a government that is not satisfied with the present rules of the House. That government has, time and again, been frustrated when we, the official opposition, or the members of the third party have used a good deal of the time of the House or a good deal of the time of committees to hold up legislation in an effort to persuade the government to move in a different direction.
Having said that, we are convinced the government was looking for an opportunity to find some excuse to impose time allocation on this House, to impose a brand new rule on this House that has not been used for 11 years. The New Democratic Party gave that opportunity to this government to implement this particular piece of legislation, this particular motion. That party must assume responsibility for that motion having come before the House. Members must have realized that those people were looking for an excuse to have this kind of motion before the House, this kind of procedural motion. They gave it to the government by the approach they took to Bill 179.
That may have won a lot of Brownie points with those who said nothing could be done with this bill except to withdraw it, but the penalty they have paid is, first of all, the lack of opportunity to discuss amendments to this legislation of a meaningful nature. The second penalty they have paid is the fact that the government has now implemented not one, but two, new closure-type motions, precedents that have been implemented in this Legislature because that party has chosen to take the course of action that it has taken.
Interjections.
Mr. Bradley: While they barrack and bark at me from that side, I know there are people in that party who know what I am saying is correct. Not my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie); he and I are not going to agree on this, but I am sure there are many people over there with a very realistic attitude to the Legislature of Ontario, with a practical knowledge of the fact that the government holds 70 seats and with the knowledge that this government has time and again been frustrated in committee and the House --
Mr. McClellan: Why are you afraid of the government? You are afraid of the government.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bradley: They have been frustrated because they have been unable to implement what they want, and the result of the NDP delay has been --
The Acting Speaker: The interruptions should cease.
Mr. Bradley: -- to give them the opportunity and the excuse to implement a motion which the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation says is now the issue. It is no longer Bill 179; now the issue is the closure motion.
While I certainly make no excuse for that bunch which looked for the opportunity to implement this, I am going to tell you that the members of the New Democratic Party are the ones who provided them with that opportunity; and that was a sorry day. I hope those people who perhaps are in the House for the first time and who have been watching this debate recognize well what has happened in terms of this closure motion and why we have it before us.
I would have liked to have had the opportunity last Thursday to be able to place before my friends in the New Democratic Party the case for adopting a different course of action at that time. I would have had a hard time with my friend the member for Hamilton East, but some of the others might well have seen reason in that particular argument; perhaps even the member for Ottawa Centre, who from time to time has been progressive and realistic in his outlook, would have recognized the virtue of that.
Mr. Cassidy: That's right. I am progressive.
Mr. Bradley: It would have seemed to me there were two choices on that evening. We now have no choice except the one choice; that is, either a bill which was amended, or the original bill which the government wanted to shove through. As a result of the obstructionism that took place we have the original bill. It has gone through, and that is a sad day.
I would have wanted to see something different. It did not happen so I guess we have to face the reality of what has happened. We only hope now that the members of the government, having seen there were some amendments that should have enjoyed support and that there was virtue in some of the things we recommended, somehow will attempt to rectify that in the future.
It has been said often that those who stand up in a Legislature and in public forums -- I do not know whether the Latin for that is fora, but I will say forums --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Fora.
Mr. Bradley: I took Latin up to grade 13 and I still know it is fora.
8.30 p.m.
Often, when faced with the reality of office, they have to take measures which they would not consider acceptable in normal circumstances. I want to share with the House and with you, Mr. Speaker, some experiences, the most recent being that in the province of Quebec. The government in Quebec was elected with overwhelming support from the labour union movement. No one would challenge, surely, that it was elected with overwhelming support from the labour union movement, from those in the public service and from those who are represented by the Quebec Teachers Corp.
Yet the very government that was elected with this great groundswell of public support -- and those people carried the ball for the Parti Québécois in the referendum -- now brings in measures, because of a $3-billion deficit, which do not just limit the pay of the public service, but demand almost a 20 per cent cut in pay for those people. It imposed a cutback of 20 per cent and then imposed a contract for the next three years. This is the same government that was elected with such great support. Who remembers Louis Laberge? Who remembers Marcel Pepin? Who remembers the support they gave to that PQ government? Yet that government betrayed them.
We can go to other places to see what happens when people have to take the responsibilities of office. I will not go to Sweden or those places because that is not fair. I will not go to France where the socialist government has imposed some difficult measures. Instead I will stay in this country and go to the province of Manitoba, because the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba, the Hon. David Barrett, has designs on taking over.
Mr. Samis: Ho, ho; come on, your geography.
Mr. Bradley: Barrett is in BC; I am sorry. I mean BC.
Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, David Barrett is going to be the next premier of British Columbia.
Mr. Bradley: I thank the member very much.
I wanted him to say that because I am going to tell him what Dave Barrett said and what he did. I am glad the member brought that up.
Here is what happened. Firemen are workers in an essential service. The New Democratic Party never does anything bad to the workers. Here it says that in August 1974, "Firemen from four Vancouver area municipalities returned to work August 10 after agreeing to a British Columbia government bill ordering them back to work. But the workers did not return to work willingly. Legal adviser F. R. Chamberlain said in an interview August 9 that the members of the International Association of Firefighters have instructed their executive to inform the provincial government and the federal members of government that they dislike the way in which their strike, in its second day August 9, was settled." That is, it was settled by imposed government legislation ordering them back to work.
"Labour Minister Bill King," a good New Democrat, "said it was a regrettable step to take but all other methods of solving the dispute between the men in the four municipalities had failed. At the same time, he announced a search for a better way of dealing with work stoppages in essential services, such as firefighting, police service and hospitals." That may be understandable because they are essential services.
Let us go into the private sector now with the NDP government in British Columbia. Let us see what they did in October 1975: "Special legislation forcing striking food industry, forest, railway and propane workers back on the job was passed by the British Columbia legislature in an emergency session on October 7."
The bill, called the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act, gave the more than 50,000 workers involved 48 hours to return to work, imposed a minimum 90-day cooling-off period and ordered labour and management to resume bargaining immediately. During the cooling-off period, strikes, lockouts and picketing would be prohibited, and terms and conditions of collective agreement as of January I would be enforced. The provincial cabinet would have had the power to extend the period for an additional 14 days.
Mr. Allen: Could I inquire whether the member for St. Catharines is speaking to the question of the realism or the unrealism of the New Democratic Party in Canada?
Mr. Bradley: I will continue. I know it is embarrassing for the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), but I will continue.
Here is what the Premier says: "Premier Dave Barrett said the bill tells the parties involved to 'grow up, get with it, and get your heads together -- if you can't do it we will.'" The New Democratic Party Premier of British Columbia said that.
This is how long it took, so think about this bill: "The legislation sped through three readings in seven hours, winning approval by a 46-3 vote. The dissenting votes came from three back-benchers of Mr. Barrett's New Democratic Party.
"The BC Federation of Labour vowed immediately to fight the bill, but by October 9 the 29,000 coast members of the International Woodworkers of America had reached a tentative agreement and other affected workers were returning to their jobs." That is what they did in British Columbia. I will leave British Columbia at that point.
The honourable members will want to know what happened in Saskatchewan with the last government. Some of the people affected by this legislation are hospital workers and one would assume members of the New Democratic Party have a good deal of empathy, such as they have expressed in this Legislature, for hospital workers. What did Allan Blakeney and his government do? Before the election they passed legislation that, in effect, prohibited strikes by hospital workers during the campaign. Once again, that is accepting the responsibilities of office. That is what they do when they are in office because they have to accept the responsibilities of office.
It is not just in labour legislation I am talking about. I want to talk about cutbacks, because there are many members of the public service who are worried about cutbacks. In Manitoba, His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, then the Premier of Manitoba, did something in August of 1976. This is Premier Ed Schreyer, the good strong New Democrat. His successors are now in power. We do not want to see cutbacks in the public service, but let me tell the members what Ed Schreyer did when he was under the gun. Maybe the third party members do not want to know.
"Manitoba Premier Ed Schreyer announced in Winnipeg August 17 he has ordered cutbacks in the provincial civil service and in government programs in an effort to reduce expenditures by between $18 million and $30 million." No, it was not Sterling Lyon; it was Ed Schreyer, the NDP Premier.
"He said that if the cutbacks proved insufficient, an increase in provincial income tax could be considered.
"As part of the austerity measures, cabinet ministers have been instructed to review departmental operations and prepare a list of possible cutbacks and deferrals; defer funds not already committed to expansion of programs; scale down construction and development programs; attempt to reduce administrative and controllable expenses; and refrain from filling vacant posts.
"The Premier said the civil service is to be frozen at its present size and reduced gradually by 10 per cent."
This is what happens when one gets in government and realizes the realities of office. But there are some in opposition -- I will get to them yet -- who even when they are in opposition recognize that tough measures are necessary. The successor to the leader of the New Democratic Party in the federal NDP caucus, Nelson Riis, has indicated that he favours a full program of wage and price control. He wants controls. Nelson Riis, the federal NDP economic critic, said that.
Richard Gwyn, who writes a syndicated column, was talking about a chamber of commerce meeting, and the Tory who was there was saying how bad the six and five program was. He said it was a terrible program and should be thrown out. None other than Nelson Riis said: "Hold on. We have to be responsible about this. At least, it is a start." He received a good round of applause from the chamber of commerce.
I do not know how Peter Ittinuar felt when he crossed the floor from the NDP to the Liberals. I do not know how he felt. How about this -- perhaps this mitigated in favour of it.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Wildman: Guilty, very guilty.
Mr. Bradley: My friend says "guilty"; and that is a possibility, that happens.
lnterjections.
Mr. Bradley: I will now do as my friend the member for Cornwall instructs me and train the guns over here where they usually are.
I find extremely repulsive the measure they have introduced. The closure motion is unacceptable to those of us in the opposition. We have said that on many occasions. We understand who has given the government an excuse to impose this motion. We understand the great strategy of the messiah from Ottawa, which was to I am up the legislative process to the very end. It backfired and as a result we have these two new precedent-setting pieces of closure procedure before this House that we have never had before. The third party must accept a good deal of responsibility for that.
Provoked as it was, the government should have resisted that temptation and proceeded under some other method. It should have given one last chance to the member for York South -- who knows all the rules in Ottawa but apparently is not too familiar with the procedures here at Queen's Park -- to change his mind.
Interjections.
Mr. Bradley: I will not say where the member for Cornwall is at the present time. How much time do I have left?
The Deputy Speaker: Seven minutes.
Mr. Bradley: I will go the full seven minutes.
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: My friend the member for Etobicoke was an excellent chairman of the justice committee. I well recall his glory days in the Re-Mor matter.
There are times when we are able to reach the members of the governing party in some small way. Through pressure of some kind, we are able to persuade them to take a second look at legislation which they impose in an impulsive manner.
I would have hoped my friend the member for Etobicoke, the member for York South and others would have sat down with the government and said: "We see several things wrong with this legislation that we would like you to fix up. You can take the credit for it. You bring in the amendments that would make the changes which would alleviate some of the greatest concerns. You bring in the amendments that would remove some of the greatest objections and we will be prepared to co-operate. We might not vote for those amendments but we are prepared to see them come forward."
On the other hand, they might have said, "We will vote for them if they are amendments that are going to improve the bill in some way." Unfortunately, that attitude was not there.
I mentioned this earlier in my remarks and I guess it is a political strategy to take. One of the tacks to take is to hope the government will impose the worst possible measure, to hope it will entertain no changes and that the final bill which comes before this Legislature and is implemented is the worst possible bill, so when one is on the campaign trail, or before the campaign trail, one can use that as an example of why the government should not be re-elected. One can radicalize even those in the public service who in the past have been supporters of that government. I suppose that is one political tactic to take.
I happen to disagree with that because ultimately we must look at the legislation that is going to flow from the House. Even though those who are directly affected by it are not going to be entirely happy, better that the worst aspects of the bill be removed or changed than have the original bill pass through the House.
That is not to be, because we have before us a time allocation motion which I remind members of the House is now a precedent and will be used time and again to counteract the last weapon we had. Of course, we have the other weapon we have used in the past, the weapon of interim supply. But I want to tell members what happened with that. I see some members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union here who would be interested because they get only one version from the president of OPSEU on what happened in this situation.
Wanting to get information on a $65O million investment that was known to only four members of the cabinet -- and not even those four agreed -- we in the opposition held up interim supply. Naturally the government sent out the usual notices: "Guess what? The Liberals are going to make it so that you are not going to get paid. That is what the Liberals are going to do to you." The New Democratic Party co-operated with the filibuster at that time; the NDP were discussing that motion. But what happens? The president of OPSEU sends out an open letter condemning Dr. Stuart Smith and the Liberals for holding up the pay of the members of the public service.
The New Democratic Party had participated in that process, legitimately wanting the information from the government on Suncor even though they probably would have preferred that the government buy 51 per cent instead of 25 per cent. Nevertheless they legitimately wanted that information; they participated in the holdup of interim supply. Yet the president of OPSEU writes a letter saying, "Of course, the Liberals prevented you from getting paid," and he forgot to mention the New Democratic Party had participated in it.
I think it is very important that members of unions be aware of all of the facts before making that judgement, and that is why I brought this matter to members of the House this evening. I want them to know what happened in that instance.
It is with a good deal of concern, with a good deal of regret and with a good deal of remorse that I see this closure motion before the House, that I see a time allocation motion. I firmly believe if the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), the Minister of Community and Social Services, were sitting in the opposition -- I remember his years in the past -- he would be expressing extreme regret about the implementation of a resolution of this kind. I know him well enough to know that would be the case.
I suggest there are many others across there in the same circumstance. There are a number, however, who will be quite pleased to see this measure come before us, because from now on as a result of the obstruction, as a result of the overreaction to that obstruction --
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: I did not take a course that cost me $3,000.
The Deputy Speaker: Avoid the interjection. Wind it up.
Mr. Bradley: The Treasurer of course had the taxpayers pay for a $3,000 public speaking course.
The Deputy Speaker: Honourable member, time.
Mr. Bradley: Time is almost up? Okay.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are under a cloud of closure tonight, which we shall not soon forget and which will destroy the legislative process for many years to come if it is once again implemented with the precedent that has been set by the members opposite.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Conway: We want Odoardo.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview?
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I move that we now recognize the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo).
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview will be speaking shortly, but I wanted to set the record straight a bit for my party about the process we have gone through over the course of the last two and a half months.
I just want to remind the House before we go on, though, that I have just been looking at the record of the votes that took place from the Liberal Party with respect to Bill 179, and I have never seen anything so schizophrenic in my life. One minute they were on one side and the next minute they were on the other. They quite specifically and continuously stood on both sides of the fence. I wonder how they can stand up in this Legislature today, because when you sit on the fence that long it gets awfully damned painful.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am very disappointed you did not recognize the member for Downsview, because I saw him standing first.
There is a second point that should be made. I am advised by the member for Ottawa Centre that he has written a couple of exams lately and things did not go that well. That is why he is expressing some frustration here this evening.
The Deputy Speaker: Order; the member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.
Just before you start again, perhaps we could turn on the other mike because I have difficulty hearing the member when he is turning my way.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will talk a bit more about the Liberals. I think their contribution to this whole process has been negligible, innocuous, unhelpful and frankly lacking any kind of principles at all -- which is what we usually find as regards the Liberals.
I want to say a word about another concern I have. This does not concern the bill, because people know what we in this party feel about this bill. What I am concerned about is the process we have gone through over the course of not just the last two and a half months but since last January when the Premier met with Sean O'Flynn, the president of the Public Service Employees Union of Ontario. At that time he assured him the public servants of the province would not be pilloried, would not be singled out with a wage control plan. That was the promise and the Premier then decided he was not prepared to keep the promise.
All the way through the piece there has been, I believe, a deliberate destruction of good faith between this Legislature and the province's organized workers who work for government and the organized labour movement generally across the province. I think it has been extremely destructive of the relationship that has existed.
To begin with, the government made a promise which it broke. Then, over the summer, the government embarked on a study of wage controls. It let it be known in the press it was doing exactly that and quite deliberately decided not to consult in any way with the representatives of the workers who were going to be affected. It would not talk to labour. It would not talk to the public service employees, which is a slap in the face, to put it mildly.
In the fall, it gave all of about two hours of advance notice to the public servants before it brought forward Bill 179. This was not the product of a long and involved effort to build consensus across the province. This was the product of a government that felt it had to do something about the economy and had decided to take on the trade unions in a confrontation because it could not think of anything better to do.
Then we had the process that occurred in this House. We had a long debate on second reading. Initially the government did not even want to have a committee hearing of any sort. It did not want to have the matter sent out to committee because it thought the matter could be rammed through this Legislature more easily. Finally, after we insisted, they finally agreed that a certain number of hours would be given for committee consideration.
But it seems to me that was not enough -- and should not be enough- -- in terms of the work this Legislature should do. If we ever learn from the mistakes that have been made in the handling of Bill 179, I would be a very happy MPP. I fear, however, from 10 years' experience, that we may continue to make these kinds of mistakes in the future which contribute to the fact that this Legislature is so often considered by the people of the province to be irrelevant.
We had to insist on the committee. The committee was given no information by the government. The compendium that was offered with the bill was a joke. And in the committee hearings there were more than 40 groups who sought to appear before the committee who were shut out, were not permitted to make any presentations, were not permitted to be heard.
Those committees can divide, they can travel, they can move around. If there is trust and co-operation there is a great deal this House and the committees can do if they are given their head. But no, the government would not have that. They insisted that only 75 of the 120-odd groups that wanted to appear could be heard.
The groups said overwhelmingly they did not want the bill and they showed why they believed the bill was wrong. Many of the things they had to say were what we had been saying as well.
A further weakness, though, in terms of the process was the fact that the committee heard representations and then any efforts it made to go further into the matter were thwarted by the government. I just heard a lot of claptrap from the member for St. Catharines with respect to the New Democratic Party holding things up. He forgot to mention that the government consistently refused to make any serious contribution to the debate on Bill 179.
The Treasurer and the Premier made a few speeches outside this Legislature. They made some statements to the press and they made a statement before questions in this Legislature. The Treasurer came to one or two sessions of the committee and then left it up to his parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones).
The government refused to have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) or the minister responsible for the civil service, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), come before the committee. The government refused to have the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) come before the committee. The government refused to have the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) come before the committee, despite the fact the bill covered some 1,400 teachers and support workers across the province. The government refused to have Sally Barnes, the chairperson of the Ontario Status of Women Council, appear before the committee despite the impact of Bill 179 on wages of women working in or near government in the province.
The government refused to have Mr. Biddell, the designated chairman of the Inflation Restraint Board, come before the committee in order to explain some of the comments he has made previously about inflation restraints and in order to explain what he thought the purpose and workings of the board was going to be. The government refused to have the Deputy Minister of Labour come before the board. I cannot remember what its reaction was or even whether we got around to asking for the chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
What is important about that is this: Coming from the outside and voluntarily appearing were mainly people who had a direct interest in what was happening. They were either representatives of workers who would be injured or they were representatives of the trade union movement who were opposed to the principles of the bill, or in certain cases they came from private sector organizations like the Canadian Manufacturers Association or the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, who for various reasons mildly supported the attempts by the government to do something about inflation.
There were no impartial experts to speak of. I think the only group in that category who came were people from the labour study section of McMaster University's faculty of management. That was the only group that came whose members were at all impartial. It seems to me when we pay many millions of dollars to experts working on behalf not of the government but of the people of the province that we, as legislators, should be entitled to have a contribution from them.
The government has 65,000 civil servants and God knows what access to consultants, computers, policy analysts and that kind of thing, and this Legislature has to make use of that kind of information as well. If we cannot get civil servants to come before us then opposition members should have the power to commission that kind of information to come from outside experts who would seek to evaluate some of the questions we wanted to ask.
We wanted the Minister of Labour to tell us the possible impact on labour relations in the province by the passage of Bill 179. We wanted the Attorney General to tell us the constitutional implications of interfering with freedom of association and freedom of contract and of taking a stand that directly interfered with the political status of civil servants, particularly when they have no political rights to fight back.
We wanted the Chairman of Management Board to say what studies he and his ministry had taken with respect to the impact on the civil service in the province. We wanted the Attorney General to tell us what this meant in terms of administrative law because of the blatant disregard of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act which the government had embarked upon. We wanted him to tell us, as well, what this meant for the status of contracts in the province, because if a contract with workers could be declared null and void by this Legislature, what does that mean to a business person who wants to do business in the province? He may wonder whether we are prepared to breach those kinds of contracts as well.
We were not able to get those things answered at all. At no time did the government enter into the debate. The shameful part of the debate last night was where the Minister of Labour sat mute, as he has been all along. It surely is his obligation to speak up and speak his mind if he believes in any way possible that this bill is damaging to the state of labour relations in Ontario, but the government categorically decided it was not going to reply or debate in any way at all.
When that occurs, what we have is not democracy; what we have, in my opinion, is the tyranny of the majority. If that process goes on, we may as well simply pack this place in for the next three or four years, because that is not a Legislature. All of us suffer when this place does not function as a Legislature, when the rights of the opposition and the rights of the people who work for this place, the civil servants and the public servants of Ontario, are abrogated, as they have been with this clownish, shameful process in the passage of Bill 179.
9 p.m.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I join this debate with very mixed emotions. Often when a member stands up to speak on a bill, he will say as a matter of form, "I am pleased to join the debate," etc. I cannot say that tonight.
I join the debate with mixed emotions because much as I am pleased, as members of the government party are, to see a very necessary piece of legislation finally come before this House, I am also disappointed; and I do not say this in a provocative sense. I am disappointed at the process the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature endured for some eight weeks, which led to the motion that had to be put forward by the government House leader (Mr. Wells) last week.
I look back to the motion of this House that sent Bill 179 to the justice committee on October 19. That motion laid out the various hours of sitting and so on that the committee would be considering the bill, and it said: "Following the period of the delegations appearing, normal clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will start on November 2, with sittings," etc., "and when finished the bill will be reported to the House."
I had the opportunity to join the justice committee for some four or five days of those hearings, and in my brief experience of this House in the two years that I have been here, I have to say that the manner in which the clause-by-clause consideration was undertaken by the justice committee was by no means normal.
I speak to that which my friend the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) alluded to, the filibuster, the stonewalling conducted by the members of the third party in the justice committee. I suggest that it is a very sad day indeed when the government has to bring in a motion of the sort that has been put before this House to curtail the debate so the workings of this Legislature can continue.
When I heard my friend the member for Ottawa Centre speak to the tyranny of the majority, I had to consider whether at times during that particular process we were seeing the tyranny of the minority. There are some 37 clauses in Bill 179, and after 90 hours of consideration the justice committee was still talking about clause 1(a) , the name of the board.
For the edification of those in the gallery who may be wondering what the heck is going on here and why the government brought in a motion to curtail the debate on this bill, I suggest to them there is ongoing work in this House that requires a certain co-operation among the members of all three parties so that it will function. I am not saying by any means that we will always agree. Of course, we will not agree.
I listened to some of the arguments put forward on the substantive points of the bill by my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) and others, who speak very articulately to their philosophies and their beliefs with respect to this bill. Of course, I respect their opinion. As a legislator, I want to hear what they think and what they believe about it.
But, quite frankly, we had very little opportunity to do that. After 90 hours of procedural motions, of obstruction, of holding that committee up -- as one reporter said -- to ransom, what did we know that we did not know before? We knew that the members of one party in this House did not wish the bill to proceed and that the members of two other parties did. But we had very little opportunity to consider amendments to the bill or to discuss their merits and necessity and so on.
In my sittings in that committee, I saw every procedural trick in the book used by the members of the third party. I became quite concerned about the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke). He must have the weakest bladder in this House, because every time there was a motion before the committee, he was gone.
I should explain to our visitors, sir, that there is a rule in the standing orders of this Legislature whereby if a division is called in committee and all the committee members are not present to vote, there is a 20-minute recess until those members appear to vote, Of course, that rule exists for very good reasons. We have duties in the House and to our constituents and so on; it is seldom that every member of the committee is sitting in the committee waiting for a vote to occur.
The application of that rule by certain members of the standing committee on administration of justice was by no means, I feel, in the spirit in which that rule is intended. They were disappearing simply to use up time.
So, after some 90 hours in the committee, the government found itself in a dilemma. Even though I am sure my friends in the third party will disagree substantively with what I am saying, I am sure that at least my friend the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) will agree with me that the government was backed into a corner. The government had to take action as to whether to continue with and implement its legislative program. That decision had to be made.
I have a feeling that if any of my friends in the third party were sitting over here, faced with those options, their actions would not have been entirely dissimilar to ours. I do not say this in a provocative sense but I suggest in passing, as I speak to the motion before us that brings this bill back into the House, that it was necessary and timely.
I have a constituency that is heavily industrialized. It is a working town, and the people there are very proud. I talk with many of them on an ongoing basis about what is going on at the Legislature and what action the government is taking, and I have to say that the average person I speak to in my riding feels that restraint of government spending is both necessary and desirable.
I have heard other members of the House allude to Mr. Nelson Riis of the federal New Democratic Party. I do not have to look that far afield to find a New Democrat who supports the notion of restraint. My federal member in Brant is Mr. Derek Blackburn. Last summer, the Brantford Expositor came out with the glaring headline, "Blackburn Supports Restraint." As I recall, his criticism of the six and five program was that he thought the numbers might have been a bit off; he might have made it nine and seven or eight and six. But, basically, he supported the premise that restraint of government spending was necessary and desirable in the current economic situation.
In taking that position myself, I do so knowing that my friend and working colleague from Brant supports me, despite the fact that he is a member of the New Democratic Party. We have several similar examples.
Again I have to wonder, as I talk to people in my constituency, whether the steps that we are taking are, as is charged by our friends opposite, unfair, draconian or all these other adjectives they use. I think the workers and business people in my riding that I talk to would feel very happy indeed if they could earn five per cent more this year than they did last year, because the vast majority of them cannot.
In this day and age, it really does not matter whether the members of Local 458 of the United Auto Workers in Brantford vote themselves, in co-operation with Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Equipment, an increase of 10, 11 or 12 per cent. Because of the economic situation, they are laid off and are not getting the type of compensation they were making last year. They look at their friends and neighbours who work for the government and they have to wonder where the justice is.
9:10 p.m.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, we are debating a wage increase --
Mr. Renwick: I cannot believe the people say, "Beggar my neighbour." Is that the Tory intention of the bill? Beggar my neighbour?
Mr. Gillies: Certainly not. I suggest to my friend the member for Riverdale that what we are debating is a wage increase that may be considered fair by the employer.
My friend the member for St. Catharines raised the current actions of the government of Quebec. I quote from the Toronto Star of this past Saturday:
"The Quebec government has introduced legislation that will cut the pay of 350,000 public sector workers in the province by another five per cent next April." This, I might add, by a government that could be considered social democratic by any standard; at least it was elected on that premise.
The article continues: "The legislation comes on top of a previous measure introduced last spring that will cut public sector wages by up to 19.5 per cent on January 1."
They are talking about a 20 per cent decrease in these peoples' wages. My God, if we were contemplating that in this province, some of the adjectives used by my friends opposite would come to my mind: draconian, unfair, taking out the ramifications of a bad economic situation on the backs of public employees.
All those things would occur to me, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a wage increase. I have to wonder whether my friends opposite, in view of the situation this province and this country face right now, think and believe every word they have said in the course of this debate. Or do they feel the pressure is on them from those who have a certain degree of influence in their political fortunes?
Last week, when the motion by the government House leader was brought before the House, my friend and neighbour, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), said he was disappointed and he protested the motion because many more MPPs wanted to speak in the course of this debate. That is a sentiment I wholeheartedly accept and agree with.
I, for one, commend the members of the Liberal Party, the official opposition in this Legislature, for their conduct through the course of this debate, because the members of the official opposition have tried in their way to make this place work and to continue the work of the Legislature which we were elected to do.
We may disagree about the necessity of the motion. I can share the sentiment of my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in that we regret this motion was necessary. But we over here have an obligation to ensure that the work of the province continues.
Whenever there is a quorum call in this chamber, the members of the opposition are the first to remind us that the maintenance of a quorum in this House is the job of the government. The job of seeing the work of the Legislature continues is the job of the government. We accept that responsibility. We are going to do our job. I have a hunch that if the members of the official opposition were sitting over here, they themselves would realize that obligation to ensure the work of the Legislature continues. I believe they would have brought in a motion not at all dissimilar to the one brought forward by the government House leader in the past week.
I say again, after 90 hours of fruitless debate in committee, after listening to numerous delegations -- and I might just say by-the-by that the curtailment of the time for delegations in that committee was not put forward by the government. It was done quite by accident, I think, by a member of the third party. It was he who curtailed the last day of the presentations by delegations before the committee, not the government.
The members of the government party were there, ready to sit all evening if necessary to hear the various delegations that wanted to speak to them. But, unfortunately, that was not possible because of an action by a member of the New Democratic Party. As a result, we find ourselves now, not with a motion for closure --
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I note with some regret that the present speaker has neglected to notice that the curtailment of the committee hearings was at the direction of the chair when it was pointed out to him that he had no authority to sit past a certain hour. He rather abruptly ruled that the hearings were at an end.
I know the honourable member does not want to mislead the House. I know he wants to provide accurate information. I am sure he wants to point out to the members of the House that the committee hearings were ended by a ruling of the committee chairman, who simply said he had no authority to sit past a certain hour.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to debate the point at any length. I think it is quite clear on the record that a member of the New Democratic Party called attention to the clock, when there was a tacit agreement among the members of the committee that they would continue to hear the delegations until they were through. But I do not want to get into an extended debate on that. I have been in committees that have sat beyond the time of six o'clock or 10:30 p.m., and I am sure the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has too. I do not intend to debate that.
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member has gone on at some length now to establish the fact that the committee hearings went on for some length of time. I do not believe it is beyond comprehension that if the government had wanted to sit past six o'clock, it could have put its motion in due course, that is to say, before six o'clock. If the Hansards of the day were read, I think it would be found that members of all three parties were quite willing to sit past six o'clock. The only difficulty was that --
The Acting Speaker: I guess you are right.
Thank you for your point of order. I am sure we are all clear on that.
Mr. Gillies: I accept the point. I merely want to finish my comments on that point by saying, if the motion had been put by the government at six o'clock, we would have voted at 6:20, because the NDP would have wanted to waste another 20 minutes on a division.
However, I come back to --
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hate to contradict a fellow elf, but the rules of the House say rather precisely that members cannot impute motives. In this particular case, if the member had had the brains to put the motion before six o'clock, he might have been absolutely astounded at the results of that vote.
Mr. Gillies: I will accept that and I will continue this debate with the member for Oshawa tomorrow at 7 p.m. when we are in our elf costumes. To understand that, you will have to come to the Speaker's Christmas party, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Gillies: If you will excuse the pun, Mr. Speaker, I will be there with bells on.
After some 90 hours in the committee, we were still on clause 1(a). I have to wonder why, if, as they say, the members of the third party wished to debate the merits of this bill, they stalled on clause 1(a). There are a number of sections to this bill. We could have talked about part I, those clauses impacting on the Inflation Restraint Board. We could have talked about part II, public sector compensation restraint. We could have talked on into the other clauses: part III, administered prices, and so on. But there we were, tied up in a mess, in an absolute miasma of procedure.
Mr. Stokes: In a dilemma of your own making.
Mr. Gillies: In a dilemma of the making of the obstructionist tactics of the members of the third party. There we were. For that reason I listened with great interest to the comments made by the member for St. Catharines. I knew the members of the Liberal Party had amendments they wished to put to the bill. I knew the Treasurer had amendments to put to the bill.
If the motion that has been debated in the past week had not been put, I wonder whether our consideration of either the Liberal amendments or the government amendments would ever have come to pass. We would still be back in the justice committee debating clause 1(a). The face of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) coloured every time he spoke of the Inflation Restraint Board.
9:20 p.m.
I suggest there are things in this act that the people of Ontario and the public servants of this province had a right to hear debated. They had a right to see whether there would be amendments put and they had a right to see the bill brought before the House. That process was not going forward in the justice committee in the situation we were in for some 10 weeks.
One of the members speaking earlier spoke of the amendment the Treasurer put yesterday which allowed for some consideration of the situation in which the Etobicoke public nurses found themselves. As was every member of this House, I am sure, I was pleased to see that amendment put and passed, because it was something that had to be done on moral grounds; it was something that was just.
Would that amendment have been put and would that undertaking have come before the House if the bill were still down in the justice committee while debate continued on the first couple of clauses of the bill?
I come back to my original words: it is with mixed feelings that I speak tonight. I came here to do the work of representing my constituents in this chamber. I think we all came here, whatever our stripe and whatever our political beliefs, to do the work of the province and to further the workings of this Legislature. The job we were given to do was not to stall and debate procedure for 10 weeks in committee. The job we were given to do was to further the aspirations of the people we represent in an efficient and judicious manner.
On sober reflection, I think the people of the province will find that is what we have done, in no small part because of the decision by the government House leader and the Treasurer to bring this bill back to this House for debate and for consideration by all members.
Mr. Philip: Did General Jaruzelski write your speech for you? It's exactly what he said.
Mr. Gillies: I hear the member for Etobicoke voicing his opinion on the bill. I wonder how he would have felt if the bill had not come back into the House so the concerns of his public nurses in Etobicoke could be considered by this Legislature. I wonder how he would have felt if, come Christmas Day or thereafter, we were still debating clause 1(a) in the justice committee. I do not think the member for Etobicoke would have been happy at all to see that.
I see the work that was undertaken in this Legislature, throughout the fall, despite the situation with Bill 179. The standing committee on social development, if I may digress for a moment, went through a long and complicated piece of legislation this fall, Bill 18, the new Health Protection Act. It was done on a co-operative basis by members of all three parties in this House.
It was a bill that was required. The last Public Health Act in this province is 100 years old. Now, because of the tactics of the third party, we find ourselves in a situation where that bill may not find its way on to the floor of this Legislature before the House adjourns. Then we will be in a situation where in the spring a new bill will have to be introduced and renumbered. I see that.
I see the unanimity for the bill of the Minister of Labour, introduced to increase the pensions for injured workers in this province. It is going to be passed very expediently with the support of all members. We are all pleased to see that; but that was not accomplished by stalling tactics on the part of any party.
That bill for the benefit of the injured workers in this province will not be passed expediently because one party decided it would take the course of this Legislature into its own hands. That bill will be passed because it will be brought in and passed within the framework in which this place should operate, on a co-operative basis with the working support of every member of the House.
We have to consider two things as Bill 179 draws near third reading and passage by this Legislature. There are the merits of the bill, which I feel are real and tangible. But we also have to consider the process and the situation in which this Legislature has found itself in the past month.
The motion put forward by the government House leader was necessary. It is tough medicine, but this place cannot be dictated to by the tyranny of the minority. The bill is going to come back into this House. It is going to pass.
I suggest to my friends in the third party, if they do not like the bill, and they obviously do not, they should vote against it and lobby against it. They should tell their people they do not like it. But they should allow the bill to come before this forum and all the members of this House for consideration.
They should not tie us up in knots. They should not play procedural games. It is the New Democratic Party, not the undemocratic party.
I have heard a number of other names suggested recently. It is not the new demolition party. It is in that party's interest as well as in the interest of every member of this House to see this bill debated.
I regret that there was not more time for full debate in the House on the bill, but that is the situation into which we were forced by the tactics of one party. If there is a message in this for all members, it is that it is in the interest of all members and in the interest of the people we serve that this place work.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the reporting back of the bill to the House from the committee of the whole.
I have listened with great care to the previous speakers this evening, in particular to the member for St. Catharines and the member for Brantford, both from ridings fairly close to that of my own in Hamilton West.
As I have in the past with respect to the debates in this House, I listened for something of substance from both of those gentlemen. I know both of them attempt to undertake a reasonable course of debate. They attempt to base their arguments on some quantity of evidence. Their manner in committees and in the House has impressed me, at least in some measure, in those respects. Yet I am puzzled by the direction both of them have taken.
The member for St. Catharines --
Mr. Eakins: A fine member.
Mr. Allen: Yes, the fine member for St. Catharines, apparently finding himself in a very difficult situation, having had the amendments his party attempted to put forward yesterday roundly defeated, should have been directing his energetic remarks in the direction of the government benches.
He should have been asking some more fundamental questions about the bill than perhaps he has up to this point, now that he has been confronted with the realities of the politics, the realities of the contents of the bill and the way in which it will apparently go forth from this House.
Yet we did not hear any of that type of argument. We did not hear any new, more profound or fundamentally realistic analysis of the bill or any attempt to set it in its proper context vis-à-vis its origin, which is from that side of the House.
Instead, like someone perplexed, like someone who has somehow been caught up in an unfortunate moment in which he suspects the enemy has overwhelmed him, he turned in this direction, believing we were somehow out to get him and his party.
It is true we have been holding up a piece of legislation in the House, but we have not prohibited the government from bringing in ancillary pieces of legislation. We have not inhibited the process of estimates. We have not inhibited the fundamental procedure of this House.
The responsibility for the ordering of this House rests in those benches opposite. Other bills could have come in here. Bill 138 could have come into this House at any time. It was precisely because the government had put its primary priority on Bill 179 and primarily because it would not explain to our satisfaction why that bill in economic terms was necessary for this province.
9:30 p.m.
That is the problem the member for St. Catharines faced, which he refused to face up to and which, in default of that, he cast about for an enemy and turned on this party when he should have been directing his energy and his remarks elsewhere.
In the second place was the member for Brantford, one of whose colleagues told us the other day that the members on that side had only contributed something like three hours and 51 minutes to all the parade of debate that had gone on before. I ask him, "Why?" It was because they were not prepared to present to this House, to either the Liberal or the New Democratic benches, a sustained, profound and realistic analysis of the economy and of the fiscal state of this province, and to set in that context the bill they were proposing to us as an answer for the economic woes of this province.
If they spent only three hours and 51 minutes out of that parade of time, out of that parade of speakers, then I do not know who they have to blame but themselves.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Try getting the floor.
Mr. Allen: There was lots of time to stand up in here.
We asked many questions. We cited numerous economists in this province who were sceptical, one after another, of the foundations of this bill, of the intent of this bill and of the consequences of this bill.
In spite of offering that parade of evidence, in spite of the evidence they were confronted with from representation after representation, in spite of what they no doubt will have read in some of the places I have read, which I will cite in a moment, and in spite of doubts that arose in the course of the last two or three months about this legislation, the members opposite persisted in presenting it in its original terms, arguing that somehow it would affect inflation, somehow it would reduce interest rates, somehow one sector of the community could be vested with the blame for the whole inflationary process.
We have tried to show and to argue, citing statistics, referring to the Auld report, for example, that those who are blamed in this legislation and in the introductory remarks surrounding it cannot statistically be demonstrated to be the source of inflation, and that to blame them is simply perverse.
In the second place, we have wondered when the Treasurer has come into this House and has told us he wanted somehow to make way for the private sector in borrowing in the capital markets of the nation. He warned that the pressure of government deficits and spending was pressing in upon the money markets of the nation, driving interest rates up and competing with the private sector. Yet he knew all along that he had not gone to the private money markets since 1978. He knew very well his borrowing came from other sources. He knew he borrowed at reduced interest rates. Yet he pretended to us that somehow or other this proposal was going to take the pressure off the money markets in some odd way by waving the bill in the air and by passing it in this House.
It will not do anything of the kind. It cannot reduce the level of inflation in any marked measure. It does not speak to prices in general, it does not speak to energy costs and it does not speak to interest rates.
He spoke in terms of taking the burden of government off the private sector, presumably referring to taxation. Yet he knows very well his government has so reduced taxes in the private sector that business taxes now account for something like seven per cent of provincial revenues.
We have tried to cite evidence like this. We have asked and asked the benches opposite for some discussion of the economics of this bill. We have heard no discussion; we have had no response. Now we hear that we are the party that somehow has been obstructing the process of reason in this place.
We have asked for reasoned responses, and we have had none. We have tried to present reasoned arguments, and we have had none. We have tried to secure an opportunity for the community to put its reasons, and the government did not listen.
So who, I ask, is obstructing reason in this House? Indeed, this bill itself is an affront to the reasoning process as applied to the economic system. This legislation is an affront to the whole process of reason in the industrial sector of our economy.
There is only one real, substantial dimension of industrial democracy in this country, and that is vested in the collective bargaining process. It is a process that is undertaken, it is true, in the terms of a confrontation of power, but it is also a process in which reason can exercise. And this government --
Mr. Philip: With the Liberals.
Mr. Allen: -- and if the Liberal Party continues to support the bill in principle and in fact at the end of the day, this government stands opposed to the use of reason with its own workers and in the bargaining processes of the whole public sector.
They tell us we are the party that somehow opposes the processes of reason in this place. When a bill so undermines the process of reason and negotiation in the marketplace itself, then I say to the members opposite, that is the kind of affront that not only requires a reasoned response from this side of the House, it requires a passionate response.
When I think back to the classes I took in British history, which reviewed for me the emergence of the parliamentary system, it was not a process that emerged as a consequence of a few gentlemen getting together and having a reasonable discussion. Let us remember that kings were beheaded in that process. Let us remember that the winning of the initiative on the part of the Commons, perhaps the foundation of the beginning of substantial modern parliamentary democracy, was a passionate battle.
Let us remember that at every step down through the history of parliament, when one group or another tried to find access to the means of limiting the authority of the crown or, in other terms, of participating in the authority of the crown, they were involved in a passionate struggle to achieve their objectives.
The procedures that are now being talked about as somehow or other holding up the exercise of the majority were constructed precisely in order to hold the trammels and the procedures of arbitrary authority at bay.
I ask the gentleman opposite who has asked with some sympathy what we would do on our part if we were in their shoes, what would the member for Brantford do if he were in ours? Would he not want the very procedures that he is now suggesting should be abridged to remain in place for a time in the future when he would want to take advantage of them for good purpose?
I do not want to prolong my remarks further, but I would like simply to conclude by referring to one of several contributors to The Magazine That's All About Small Business in December of this year. This interesting commentary on the six and five and the nine and five formulas is very sceptical throughout, I must say.
9:40 p.m.
The one that struck me most of all was that of the chief economist at Canada Permanent, Mr. Earl Bederman. He makes some very interesting remarks about the impact of the restraint legislation upon what he considers to be important processes of collective bargaining. He says:
"As one looks through the restraint programs, one cannot help but get the impression that the voice of labour is being neither heard nor listened to at present. Despite the government's musings, labour's complaint that it has become the scapegoat for all our economic ills has not been repudiated.
"In the public sector, there is mounting hostility which stems from the cancellation of existing contracts and the beliefs that the true intent of the restraint measures is to undermine the unions' legitimate right to exist. In the private sector, there is the sense that many businesses are seizing upon six and five and nine and five as easy opportunities to bring wages down at a faster pace than warranted by their own particular circumstances. They are, in effect, hiding behind the restraints in order to squeeze a few more dollars of profit.
"In these times, we would do well to remember that Canada's poor wage-cost performance has been exceeded only by our abysmal labour relations. . . The most successful trading nations, such as Germany and Japan, are built upon stable management-labour-government relations. Rather than address this subject, the six and five restraint program might well be making matters worse.
"The renewal of the collective bargaining process" -- this is Earl Bederman, chief economist of Canada Permanent -- "is essential if we are to build solid foundations for Canada's economic future. This is a glorious opportunity to initiate that process."
Yet what has happened is that instead of taking hold of that glorious opportunity, we have set collective bargaining relations back in this province who knows how many decades because of this bill.
Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, like the member for Brantford, I rise to speak on this bill with some mixed emotions. I am pleased to support the reporting of Bill 179 but I regret that it has followed this sort of route through the Legislature and committee.
Last week when our House leader introduced government motion 10, he stated that we had spent some 138 hours on the debate of Bill 179. I believe it was 38 hours in the Legislature, and many days in committee hearing almost 80 briefs from concerned individuals and groups. As a member of that committee, I listened with great interest to the views put forward by those groups and the questioning and the views of the individual members of the committee and parties involved.
It was very interesting to hear those views and to take part in the exchanges that occurred, but after a while it became quite clear in committee, as it was in the House, that we were experiencing substantial abuse of the rules of the committee and certainly an obstruction to the flow of legislation through that committee. I suppose one could say what it broke down to was the sanctimonious sensitivity of the socialist cynics.
Mr. Foulds: I like that. Who wrote it for you? That is quite an alliteration.
Mr. Stevenson: We witnessed more of that this afternoon in the debate on the no-confidence motion. I think it is very clear to anyone involved in the procedures around here that the Legislature must work. Each of us as individual members has the opportunity to put forward our views, as does each party, of course. Clearly, whether we agree with the legislation and whatever party we belong to, in time the legislation must go through and the Legislature must work.
It is unfortunate that the government was compelled to bring in motion 10 and it is unfortunate that the bill is coming to this sort of finality.
I suppose we could also say it is unfortunate that Bill 179 had to be introduced in the first place, but quite clearly we are in difficult economic times, and the difficulties in the economics of countries and companies are certainly not limited to Ontario or to Canada. Anyone who has travelled in the industrialized world in the last year or two is very familiar with the sort of consolidation and restraint that is going on not only here at home but also in countries around the world.
Mr. Martel: Like Poland.
Mr. Stevenson: Yes, that is an excellent example.
In Ontario in the last two years we have seen a reduction in corporate profits of approximately 10.5 per cent. In the early part of 1982, there was an additional 50 per cent drop in the profits of Canadian companies.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stevenson: With continuing and increasing unemployment and with the poor financial position that many of our private sector companies are in, quite clearly government revenues are down and will continue to be down for some time.
In some areas of the private sector the open-market system is working. Indeed, in my own riding, the great riding of Durham-York, there are examples of hourly paid workers who are working at no increase in wages and salaried people who have taken a 15 per cent cut in order to keep a company there in healthy financial condition to allow it to compete in the domestic market as well as in international markets. These people have made those moves and taken that restraint to maintain their jobs for the present and on into the future.
You can look around in other areas as well. Certainly many of our farmers are competing in an open market. Many of their commodities are priced on the world market. The farmers would be delighted to have a five per cent increase in 1982-83. In fact, they would be very happy to maintain the net income they have had in the past year, but they are likely going to have to accept less. Prices on commodities are down, and the inputs in most areas are certainly up.
It is largely these companies, these small businesses and these individual people who will be paying the revenues of this provincial government, and quite clearly it seemed to be a responsible move in tough times to try to limit the tax increases and in some form or other to restrain the wage increases of the public sector, as Bill 179 does. It restrains the wage increases to five per cent. Many areas, I repeat, would be very happy to have that five per cent increase.
The member for Brantford referred to the situation in Quebec, where there have been substantial cuts in the last year. We have only to look across the Great Lakes to some of the states that are adjacent to this good province, and there, in economies that are very similar to the economy of this province, we find large cuts in municipal spending, local and state police budgets being cut, and budgets cut to primary, secondary and post-secondary education. Of course, we are quite familiar with the fact that in many situations in the US, unions are working for no wage increase in order to try to keep their companies competitive.
I do not think anybody argues that workers should not get their fair share; and when the economy is buoyant, they should share in that buoyancy. But when their futures or their jobs are at stake, then surely they can bear at least some of the concern for that company to try to keep the company going, maintain their jobs and maintain the welfare of their families. Certainly some of them have not had that option. I agree with that, but those who have can at least share somewhat in that responsibility.
The member for Hamilton West said the other legislation has been held up because we put our priority on Bill 179. Certainly we put our priority on Bill 179 because we put our priority on the economy of this province. The members of this party care about jobs. They care about the homes of the people in Ontario. We are doing everything we can to keep things as buoyant as possible in these troubled economic times.
I said earlier that it was unfortunate Bill 179 has taken this course through the Legislature but at this point I am pleased to support the reporting of the bill.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate even though it is only for a short time because I am more convinced than ever, after 138 hours, that what we did was right. I do not regret for one second that I spoke for so many hours on second reading. If I could I would have spoken at even more length on third reading.
If I was not convinced what the New Democratic Party did was right, I would have been convinced tonight by the speeches made by the member for St. Catharines, the member for Brantford and the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) --
Mr. Philip: The Liberal-Conservative coalition.
Mr. Di Santo: Liberal-Conservative coalition.
Before coming into the House tonight I read a press release of the Liberal caucus which said:
"The layoff figures for October are out and they are intolerable. The figures reveal that almost twice as many workers lost their jobs in October as in the preceding month, stark testimony of the failure of the Ontario government to respond adequately to our deepening economic malaise."
The very reason the New Democratic Party is opposed to Bill 179 is because it is punitive in that it selects one sector of the employees of the province, the public sector, and punishes them -- and they have no right to fight against the government.
The member for Brantford should know of our very serious unemployment problems because thousands of people have been laid off in his riding. Thousands of workers are unemployed in the construction industry and in the manufacturing sector, and surely the duty of members of a government responsible to the people who elected them should be to create jobs, not to punish a sector of workers in our society.
I don't think Bill 179 will help to solve any problems we have. It will not solve the problem of inflation. It will not solve the problem of unemployment. It will not solve the problem of the recession we are going through. The Treasurer does not understand that because he was at his best only when he was selling used cars. He does not understand economics. He does not understand what is happening in the real world. He does not understand there are people now working who are having their contracts set at much lower levels than the inflation rate.
If the Treasurer reads the papers his friends publish, if he reads the Financial Post of December 11, he will understand that the bill he introduced is not only useless, it is harmful. The Financial Post said, talking about the six and five provincial plan, it should also speak to the Liberals who are supporting Bill 179. It said, "It has taken last week's Conference Board of Canada report on wage settlement to alert us to the folly of six and five and its offspring, which is Bill 179."
It goes on to say, and I hope the member for Durham-York listens, "Canadian businessmen who seem incapable of understanding either markets or politics cheer the advent of an unnecessary and ultimately extremely harmful program."
We too think this is a harmful program, that it is devastating, because it hits people who are in the lower economic bracket of the province. The garbage collectors of the city of North York and the caretakers of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board are not the people who are creating inflation.
We know this is a more complex problem and we also know that inflation is not the top priority we should be concerned with. Unemployment is the real problem, and the downturn in the economy. But of course the government chose an easy target and the Liberals are supporting them even though they come out with press releases denouncing the inadequacy of the Tory government in fighting the real problems of the province.
I want to close my remarks by reminding the assembly of the warning from the Most Reverend John Sherlock, the Bishop of London. He said this bill is in violation of the basic norms of justice because it is a violation of the collective bargaining process that has been instituted and accepted by the social parts in this province. It does not address the problems of prices. We have been arguing that it is not fair to freeze the wages of the civil servants when property taxes keep increasing and Bell telephone bills and hydro bills keep increasing.
I think this bill is neither equitable nor fair. For those reasons we have opposed it and we feel it is really a shame the Liberals are supporting the Conservatives. We will vote against this bill time and time again.
Hon. Mr. Drea: I just want to make a few remarks in the closing minutes of this debate on the question of the report. Along with some earlier speakers, I am going to try to be nonpartisan tonight although I do not think it will last very long. Along with some other earlier speakers, I find it somewhat sad that this motion, this procedure, the bouncing up and down of last night and all the things that tend to make the public consider parliaments to be more and more irrelevant, had to occur.
It is a sad admission to make publicly that the thing that holds parliaments together has failed -- that is, the ability to go beyond the bare minimum of rules which are established in order to produce a compromise or a consensus or a working order. And when this has failed, there is no assurance it is a once-in-a-lifetime event. Unfortunately, unless the greatest of precautions are taken -- and in this case there is the goodwill of all members in the future -- there is a tendency that once something has occurred, the second, third, fourth and fifth times become eminently easier.
10 p.m.
However, I am optimistic about the ability not only of the members of the House responsible -- that is, the House leaders of the parties and the various caucuses -- to ensure this is not required again, but also of the individual determination of the 125 members of this parliament that we must begin to look a bit ahead if we are to fulfil our basic duty to the public. That is that this institution is not just a traditional one but is really relevant to our current times and is probably more relevant than ever.
Bill 179 is a good bill and a fair bill, but we are not debating Bill 179 tonight. The one thing that does concern me is the persistent apologia by some members, particularly of the third party. Frankly, were I over there, I would not be part of any apologia. The simple truth is that from the day this bill was announced, let alone introduced, they were going to use every single technique of the rules, popular or unpopular, to delay its passage as long as possible.
Because of the numbers, delay was all that could be done. From the moment the bill was introduced, the die was cast. It was going to speak. I think the one regret the members have is that the traditional role of the opposition was thwarted. The traditional role of the opposition is to oppose, but to oppose in a way that would make the particular piece of legislation better. If it is absolutely worthless, then it is to be voted out.
Mr. Renwick: What nonsense. Have you ever sat in opposition? Has anybody over there ever sat in opposition?
Hon. Mr. Drea: The member's role over there is simple. He thinks he can stop this House and make it do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. He is learning now he cannot do it. Instead of having a heart attack, he should act like a dignified senior citizen.
The role of the opposition is to oppose and, if the bill is worthy, to make it better. There is no role for an opposition that will keep a bill deliberately from being passed because they have --
Mr. Renwick: Don't tell us what the role of the opposition is.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: A responsible opposition, that is.
Mr. Martel: That's right.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: You fellows are not responsible.
Mr. Martel: It is called responsible government too.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Drea: Responsible government is when the public elects a party to govern. How long is a bill delayed until something has to be done? That is, not to delay a bill to make it better, but to delay a bill -- and I am going to give the benefit of the doubt -- until the government gets so tired of it that it abandons it.
In short, how long is enough? If the government had not moved this -- and I give great credit to my House leader for the manner in which he did it -- this bill, notwithstanding the fact it has great support from and beyond these precincts, would simply have been tied up in a meaningless and endless debate on clause 1(a), even on the title of it. The time really has come when there has to be a very concerted look by members of this Legislature at ways to ensure that this type of motion never has to be used again.
Mr. Swart: It did not have to be used this time.
Hon. Mr. Drea: No, it did not have to be used this time; not if the member had acted as an adult.
Mr. Martel: Yes, grandpa, tell us about it.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Drea: Is the honourable member using that as a derogatory term?
Mr. Martel: No, I have a grandfather too. He is much more sensitive, I can tell you.
Hon. Mr. Drea: After the performance of that member here last night my only regret is that it is not on film for the future edification of people. If the public ever saw what went on here last night, the bouncing up and down, merely to --
An hon. member: It is called voting.
Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, it is called voting: 37 times. Is the honourable member proud of himself for last night? Delightful. He has his little red sweater on: "We are all part of the proletarian mob and we are all going to move forward." Yes, we are.
I want to suggest the bill is a good bill and a fair bill. The bill was thwarted by the unnecessary use of procedural delays. The opposition did not get a chance to produce its amendments. But the one hopeful note was last night, when one group of people --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Drea: When one group of people, the nurses in Etobicoke --
Mr. Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if I might conclude on an optimistic note: Last night, the case of one group, in a situation obviously beyond their control -- and I refer to the nurses in Etobicoke -- -was put to the goodwill of the House and this parliament became very relevant again, because there was unanimous consent. Those people --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: I must call the minister to order. His time has expired.
Hon. Mr. Drea: All I wanted to do was end on the note that, notwithstanding all the hostility and bitterness, there is optimism for the future of the House, and particularly to avoid a repetition of this type of solution to an impasse. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this bill should be reported for third reading. In the next eight minutes, I want to outline five basic points explaining why that is so.
First, I want to say very clearly that at loggerheads here are contrasting views between this party and the other two parties about the role of parliamentary democracy.
We in this party do not believe it is the role of the opposition merely to rubber-stamp government legislation no matter how much we oppose it. We do not believe it is "the traditional role of the opposition simply to roll over and play dead and vote against it."
I want to point out to this House that many bills have been before this Legislature over the last 10 or 11 years that have taken much longer in debate, much longer in committee, than this one has. There was the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, the Child Welfare Act and the Education Act.
Back in 1973, there was Bill 274, which this government withdrew because of opposition in this House. It was our objective from the beginning to get the government to withdraw this legislation. I admit tonight that we failed in that objective, but let us be very clear that our objective was not merely to delay but to get the government to withdraw.
10:10 p.m.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the reasons the government should have withdrawn this bill and why, even at this moment, the government should withdraw this bill. The bill remains unfair and unjust. It hits civil servants whose wages are not out of line. When we think that the average 1981 wage of members in the Ontario public service was $18,700 and that 53 per cent of the civil servants in this province earn $17,500 or less, we see the injustice of the bill.
This bill wreaks a positive injustice upon individuals such as Marie Mitchell, who works in the Pinegrove Nursing Home in Woodbridge. The second year of her salary had been negotiated and signed in a firm contract. That is cut back by at least $456 and perhaps by $706. When this government takes that kind of money out of the pocket of a worker who earns around $11,000 a year, that is scandalous, unjust and unfair. When that very same person suffers a rent increase of 37 per cent in the previous month, that in a nutshell captures the injustice of this legislation.
In addition, the bill remains arbitrary. There is nothing in the bill that gives due process or any kind of appeal to the Inflation Restraint Board's decisions. Naïve as I am, as a lover of parliament, I remain shocked to this day at the answer I got when I raised with the Treasurer on September 27 the five arbitrary powers given to Mr. Biddell.
They are the right not to hold any hearings; the right to make any order, decision or determination and to deny any increase at all for the so-called transitional period; the sole right of the board to determine unilaterally the increases that could be as low as zero per cent; and, finally, the right of the board to award non-unionized public sector workers an increase of as little as between zero and five per cent in the control year itself.
When I asked the Treasurer whether Mr. Biddell had those immense arbitrary powers, the Treasurer replied, "I believe the member is correct on each one." Those huge, immense, arbitrary powers remain with that board.
I was not going to talk about the Liberal Party tonight, but I must point out that its amendment last night failed, as every amendment it was going to propose would have failed, because this government said from the beginning that it was unwilling to accept any substantial amendments. Members who believed they could amend this bill to improve it were living in Cloud-cuckoo-land, the same kind of land the Tories are living in when they think this bill will bring about an economic recovery for this province.
This bill creates no new jobs. Since it has been introduced, unemployment in this province has soared. Thunder Bay's unemployment doubled in one month from eight per cent to 16 per cent. Sudbury's unemployment remains at 28 per cent. Unemployment in St. Catharines is at the extraordinary rate of 19.1 per cent. What does this bill do to lessen the unemployment in those communities? Not one darned thing.
Finally, it was clear from the beginning that the government's strategy was to get this bill through no matter what: no matter that it had to blackmail the injured workers of this province by withholding that legislation; no matter that it deliberately kept from the Order Paper the introduction of legislation it now says is necessary; no matter that it refused to use Wednesdays, as we offered, for other legislative debate; no matter that the government took this bill out of committee and forced it into this House, where there was less debating time, which the government knew full well, and which pre-empted other bills.
If there has been any obstruction in the orderly development of debate in this House, it has been the government's and not this party's.
Finally, it is no matter to this government that this bill gave no economic justice to the Marie Mitchells of this world. It is no matter to this government that this bill did not limit the rent increases of 37 per cent, the Ontario health insurance plan increases of 17 per cent, the government advertising or Ontario Hydro's rate increase.
Finally, if I may quote from Charles Dickens and the words of A Tale of Two Cities, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." With this legislation, we have the worst of this government's times and the worst of its legislation.
10:26 p.m.
The House divided on the motion for adoption of the report, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;
MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W,. Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.;
Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.
Ayes 68; nays 53.
10:30 p.m.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of the House, I wish to announce the business for the next few days.
Tomorrow, the House will be meeting in the afternoon at two o'clock, and we will be dealing with third reading of Bill 179, with a vote at 5:45 p.m. and a 10-minute division bell, if necessary. The House will not sit in the evening, because, of course, tomorrow evening is your very festive Christmas party, Mr. Speaker. In the morning, the justice, resources development and general government committees will meet.
On Thursday, December 16, there will be no private members' business in the afternoon, and in the afternoon and evening we will deal with second readings and committee of the whole House on Bills 191, 205, 198, 188, 196 and 127.
On Friday, December 17, we will either continue on these bills or we will deal with concurrences. If we deal with concurrences, I will announce the orders for those tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.