Journal des débats 1982-déc-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Although you were not in the chair Monday night and the House was in committee of the whole, you are no doubt aware that under the requirements of the time allocation resolution, as interpreted by the chairman, we as members were required to make 32 standing votes in the time available for that purpose.

It occurred to me then, and I still believe, that it was not a proper interpretation of the requirement of the time allocation rule; but if it was a proper interpretation, it put all of us, as members, in a somewhat ridiculous position. For some of us, such as the Premier (Mr. Davis), now older than 50, it was probably a severe strain on their circulatory system. The last thing we want is any sort of infarct on the part of the head of government or anybody else who is over 50 and overweight.

I wonder whether the Speaker would undertake to review the wording of the resolution and its interpretation. In the unlikely event we are ever faced with the same situation, perhaps he might recommend either a change in wording or an interpretation of the present wording that would be a little more fitting with the dignity of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Nixon: Did you say yes, you would?

Mr. Speaker: I said, "Thank you."

Mr. Nixon: Will you consider a reduction?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I shall.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the motion, I felt a severe back strain from all that stuff too.

Mr. Boudria: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: We notice again today that at the time of ministerial announcements, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is not in the House. She made --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of privilege or even a matter of order.

Mr. Boudria: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Because I so rule.

Mr. Nixon: Here comes the Minister of Education now.

Mr. Boudria: Do you have a ministerial announcement today?

Hon. Mr. Pope: That's none of your business.

Mr. Boudria: Franco-Ontarian education is everybody's business.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General with respect to the investigation being carried out by the police into the incident at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Will the Attorney General confirm that the Ministry of Health has appointed the Atlanta Center for Disease Control to conduct an investigation into the epidemiological aspects of the digoxin findings?

Will he also confirm that the Atlanta investigation in this matter, and indeed the hospital's independent investigation, have been sharing not only basic data sources but also preliminary findings with the police?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to discuss any of the details of the investigation while it is ongoing.

Mr. Peterson: The Attorney General said a couple of days ago he did not think the police would be continuing their work if they did not believe there was a reasonable likelihood that charges would result. Is he aware the hospital spokesman, Mr. Ken Rowe, the assistant administrator and hospital secretary, came to the conclusion through an inquiry that it appears there were "valid medical reasons for the deaths of the 28 infants which are presently the focus of the police investigations"?

How does the Attorney General reconcile the discrepancy between what he is saying and what Mr. Rowe is saying?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not going to discuss the ongoing investigation. I said obviously the police felt there was a reasonable likelihood of laying charges or the investigation would not be commencing. I am not going to get into a debate at this time about any views that might have been expressed by any individual with respect to this investigation. The Leader of the Opposition should appreciate that would hardly be in the public interest; it would be very counterproductive. I am not going to indulge in an exercise that has the potential to undermine the investigation.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, information also has been made available to us with respect to the investigation by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, and the work that is being done by the hospital itself and by Mr. Justice Dubin, as well as the investigation that is being carried out by the Attorney General's office. In light of this and the very real discrepancy between the opinions offered by the Attorney General and those of others as to whether criminal charges will be laid, can the Attorney General at least give us an assurance that a decision will be made extremely soon as to whether any criminal charges will be laid?

If the decision is not to lay criminal charges, can he please give us the assurance he will call for a full public inquiry which will be able to have access to the data from the Atlanta centre and his own department, as well as from the hospital? Does the Attorney General not concur the very real confusion that exists should be ended and that it is time for a full public inquiry in order to get some of these facts into the light of day?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing further to add to any responses I have given to questions related to this matter.

Mr. Peterson: The Attorney General seems to want to respond selectively on this matter but not when asked questions with respect to the things he has said publicly. On Monday he said there were new leads. Now we have a different kind of conclusion by Mr. Rowe at the Hospital for Sick Children. Given the high degree of anxiety which has surrounded this question from the beginning and the lack of answers that have been forthcoming from anyone, including himself, does he not feel it incumbent upon himself at least to reconcile these quite divergent opinions that have been expressed?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the leader of the official opposition harboured any real feeling of responsibility in respect to this very difficult, sensitive, complex issue, he would not be pursuing debate during an ongoing investigation.

Certainly I have been selective in my responses. I have been very careful not to say anything that can hinder the investigation. I am not going to get into a debate about any opinions that might have been offered from any quarter with respect to any aspect of the evidence. He should appreciate that it would be irresponsible for me to take any other position at this time.

Mr. Peterson: I thought I just saw the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Has he disappeared? Is he hiding under the desk?

Hon. Mr. Wells: He will be back in a minute.

Mr. Peterson: Is he worth waiting for?

Mr. Rae: Is the question worth waiting for?

Mr. Peterson: Would the Premier like to stand up and wear his Argo jacket for a while and waste some time until he comes back?

Mr. Speaker: I hope we would not hold up oral question time waiting for someone not in the chamber.

Mr. Peterson: Does anyone have a point of order as we wait for the Treasurer?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order that I know of.

Mr. McClellan: Think of a third question, quick.

Mr. Peterson: I see him. Wonderful.

Mr. Kerrio: Speak of the devil.

Mr. Peterson: Welcome back.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. I gather I missed a fine exchange yesterday between him and the very able deputy leader of this party. I gather from Hansard that in one response the very able Treasurer said, "I do not think the worst is ahead. I think the worst is behind." I think those were his words. How does he reconcile that with the forecast of a number of economists?

The federal government, the Conference Board of Canada, Wood Gundy and most other forecasting groups say unemployment will continue to worsen for at least another six months. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce survey of business spending intentions forecasts an even larger decline in 1983 than this year. In general, economists have been revising their expectations for recovery downwards in the United States. The trends in employment, unemployment and layoffs have been worsening, not improving.

How does he reconcile his statement yesterday with his statement of November 25 when he said, "Right now we believe the general trend in employment will be downward before it is upward." What does he actually believe the future holds for this great province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: After question period yesterday, as I recall, a member of the press asked much the same question. He said, "Are you not inconsistent in the two statements you have made?" I pointed out to him I was not. I have said in this House the measure of unemployment is not likely to improve according to the forecasters, and that is seen on most days of the week as the one and only measure of what the economy is doing. I accept that as being a reasonable prediction -- that unemployment is not suddenly going to lessen. This is for a number of reasons, one of which is that the current rate of utilization of people at work is not very high in many companies. So even as orders improve, there will not necessarily be a quick return to employment or rehiring.

However, just today I saw Massey-Ferguson, and I think it was General Motors, bringing back people, and those are both very encouraging signs. I think 1,450 people in Brantford are being called back --

Mr. Nixon: Not related to sales, unfortunately.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a second now. The member is trying to take both sides of this argument, and he knows that.

Mr. Nixon: It has not done anything for Brantford yet.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member has quoted some reputable economists, to whom I have also listened. In fact I had the opportunity to cross-examine one or two of the people from those companies this week in preparation for my trip to Ottawa tonight. They agreed that both statements may be true. We are now predicting an improvement in the real gross national product, both in the United States and Canada, through all four quarters of 1983. We are also saying that, because of the rate of addition to the labour force and the underutilization of some companies, unemployment statistics may not evidence that for the next short while. However it is believed that the economy, as measured by GNP, is improving.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think most normal people find what the minister is saying very difficult to understand. He has said he does not think the worst is ahead, he thinks it is behind. Apparently, unemployment is not factored into his thinking as to what measures real GNP growth. Could the Treasurer share his specific forecast with this House? Against what is he comparing his performance? What are his forecasts? What is he expecting for this province in the next six months? Surely these are reasonable requests to make of the Treasurer so that we can have something against which to measure the success or failure of his policies.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope the Leader of the Opposition knows that if one measures GNP it is usually against the previous quarter or the previous year, depending upon the time frame one is comparing. When I say that GNP will improve in Canada by something between one and two per cent in the year 1983, that is to be compared with the year 1982.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from whatever theoretical forecasts there may be with respect to unemployment or GNP or anything else, I think the House really wants to know what perspective from Ontario, the manufacturing heartland of Canada, the Treasurer is going to be taking into these meetings tomorrow with the other finance ministers. Is the minister going to push for a program of stimulus, for a program of job creation, by all levels of government as well as the private sector, or is he simply going to be urging continued restraint on government when faced with the most serious recession this province and this country have known since the 1930s.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A few people in the last year have accused this province or the federal government of a restraint budget. The member may call it a restraint budget. Perhaps he does not think borrowings are critical. The criticism I have heard from the Liberal benches, and once in a while from his benches over the last while, is that I have allowed my cash requirements to go up 92 per cent or 84 per cent, or whatever figure they pick up on a given day of the week. They throw that back in my face, saying: "You must not do those kinds of things, you naughty boy. You must not go ahead and try to help create jobs through your budget," as we did; "or through co-operation with the federal government," as we did.

Of course, I am going to listen tomorrow to what Mr. Lalonde has to say. I do not know whether he was trying to fly a balloon in the air last week when he talked about massively increasing the deficit and having large capital works programs. I can only say Ontario is going to that meeting in a spirit of co-operation aimed at solving the problems of the economy of this country and putting people back to work.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is going from voodoo economics to Pollyanna economics. I suggest he might want to rent Grant Devine's psychic, because he is not doing too well on his own.

Did the Treasurer say on the radio that one of the ways to deal with chronic unemployment, to get the economy going again, was to do something about the retail sales tax? I understood he said that today or yesterday. If he did not, since he made the biggest blunder of his life in expanding the retail sales tax, is he now considering reducing the tax to five per cent or doing away with it altogether, as he has done in the past, on some items?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with the wonders of modern electronics, I am always afraid to stand up and say I did not say something on radio. I am afraid someone with spliced tape -- and I know no one up there ever did that -- would come back and show me my words. However, I looked at the Ottawa Citizen and I looked at the Toronto Sun and both of them assured me I did not say that. If they assure me of that, then I am safe.

In any case, the question did pop up in the press gallery, in the scrum yesterday following question period. Because we will be talking about possible stimuli, and because someone asked if I was going to take sales tax off, I said, "First, one does not speculate in the sales tax area for the simple reason there are too many people out there waiting for some kind of signal to say it is going to happen."

Second, I do not see that now as my solution in Ontario for the unemployment problem, because certain of the items in the big-ticket field have had that approach used fairly frequently lately. I would rather see some other measures taken at the federal level in co-operation with us. I am not trying to pass the buck.

Let me just mention one that is in Ontario's paper tomorrow. If one accepts the fact that many of the unemployed are able to do routine maintenance jobs around homes, one could offer some kind of income tax credit for people who hired unemployed persons in Ontario or Canada to do winter home maintenance or building projects. It was simply one we put down as an example. It is not a sales tax example. It is an income tax example.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns one of the answers he gave in the House on Monday. He said: "This government has been able to provide, along with private industry, a very acceptable form of housing."

How can the minister say that given the fact there are literally hundreds of people living in hostel accommodations here in the city of Toronto, and people who are actually sleeping on the floor, not just for one night but for the whole of the winter? When we know that is happening right here in Toronto, how can he possibly say the government and private industry have been able to provide a very acceptable form of housing?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, let me assure this House my remarks of Monday will not be altered a bit on Wednesday, regardless of the question of the leader for the third party.

I say on behalf of this government, and of the federal government and the private sectors, that the quality of housing in Ontario does not have to take a back seat to any jurisdiction in North America or in the world. Indeed, we have as good a quality as he will find.

Mr. Rae: I do not understand the answer. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and I met this morning with representatives from the Salvation Army, the Anglican All Saints Church, with the program head of the Fred Victor Mission and with the director of the Fred Victor Mission and the director of Dixon Hall. We were told there were literally hundreds of people who were living in emergency accommodation, not just for one or two nights but for months at a time. The reason was simply that there was no affordable housing in the downtown core of the city; that was the reason -- a lack of affordable housing.

The fact is this government's program and the work of the private sector produced a net loss of 72 private rooms in Toronto in 1981 and the average rent for a room was $186. How can the minister possibly say this government has done anything to provide affordable accommodation in downtown Toronto and in many other communities across the province, when dozens of people who want an affordable place to live are living in emergency accommodation and have to sleep on the floor?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch, and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) have met with exactly the same groups and have reviewed with them the problems the leader of the third party has indicated today. I understand they are working towards a solution. We in this House cannot agree on everything but I am sure we can all agree the solution is not going to take place overnight.

I do not accept the remark of the leader of the third party that, "This government, indeed the private sector, has done nothing to try to provide for suitable accommodation in this community and in most jurisdictions across the province." Through nonprofit organizations, both public and private, through the allocations of the federal government to the provincial government for that sector and through the allocations to the private nonprofits and the co-ops, we have continued to try to bring on the market a substantial number of units, all of them heavily supported and subsidized provincially, federally or co-operatively by the two levels of government.

A year ago this government went into the Ontario rental construction loan program. Surely I do not have to go back through the figures again. We have had something in the range of 16,700 units applied for and accepted in the province. They are under construction and some of them are already completed. They are heavily subsidized by the people of the province through an interest-free loan for a fairly lengthy period of time. It accounts for $100 million.

The government of Canada came through this year with the Canada rental supply program. That will bring rental units into place in the market that will be written down and will be aimed at accommodating the lower- and middle-income groups.

The Ontario renter-buy program also is important. As of today --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Renter-buy for these people?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I say as of today --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They can't buy a house.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The renter-buy program was brought on the market to try to --

Mr. Mackenzie: Why don't you join the real world?

Mr. Rae: Get with it, Claude, for God's sake.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: When did you become the reverend gentleman?

The renter-buy program was brought to the marketplace to try to ease the pressures on the rental system. As of today we have more than 11,000 units that have qualified in this province. I have no doubt we will achieve the 12,000 units we readjusted our target for.

Mr. Foulds: You were aiming for more than that to start with.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Certainly. I have said it many times and if the member had been down to my estimates he would have heard me indicate clearly that we had readjusted our figures in a downward direction. There will be a minimum of 12,000 units. If one extrapolates that, one will find that if they are not renters who have gone into purchasing they are first-time home purchasers who would have been looking for rental accommodation.

I think what the federal and provincial governments have been able to do, along with the private sector, has been remarkable in today's economy.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, regardless of all those numbers the minister is enumerating for us would he not agree there are a substantial number of people in Ottawa, the minister's own city, here in Toronto and elsewhere with no accommodation and no money? The minister witnessed some of them in tents this summer right at the steps of this Legislature. Would the minister not admit his government should involve itself directly, right now, to convert anything he can get his hands on into emergency shelter for this winter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my first responsibility as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is to try to get permanent units for people. Emergency housing does not fall within the confines of this ministry. It is under the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the municipalities.

As to the third part of the member's question about conversion, I trust the member will realize some of the problems we will encounter in trying to do conversions, whether it be in his community, my community or other jurisdictions of this province. One will be an understanding by the communities themselves to allow for that conversion within the zoning requirements of those communities.

Regarding the emergency housing aspect, my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has been working on that very subject.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I think in Toronto we are actually starting to meet the need for emergency housing this winter, but I want to bring the minister back to the fact that all the missions seem to tell us that more than 50 per cent of the people who are in emergency housing at the moment should be out in permanent, affordable housing and they cannot get it.

Will the minister try to respond to some creative ideas in the area of assisting the Fred Victor Mission to open up the 75-bed facility it wants to open up? Within the area of All Saints there are about 20 buildings that are boarded up at the moment which could be opened up and used. Will he not look at experiments in infill housing immediately, and duplexing assistance to people, incentives to subdivide homes and perhaps even make the "east of Bay" project what it was going to be in the first place, that is a major place to have subsidized housing in the city of Toronto? It is time for some particular action in Toronto right now.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will call upon my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, if I may, to answer the portion of the question on emergency housing.

On the portion relating to innovative ideas, we ourselves in the ministry have gone forward to the municipalities with those and asked them to look at them. I assure the member for Scarborough West that regardless of the action this government might wish to take, if there is not some understanding by the municipality and, more important, as I said in my estimates and I repeat here again today, if there cannot be some common understanding and appreciation of the problem by the people in various communities where the zoning changes are going to be required, then our ratio of success will be somewhat diminished.

I have not yet heard anyone on that side of the House saying that this minister should run roughshod over municipalities and change the zoning to accommodate that imaginative housing delivery program. The honourable member should not sit there and shake his head, because 90 per cent of the zoning will not accommodate the type of divisions of housing units that will be required. Unless that zoning is accommodated and changed by the municipality, the success ratio will be just about nil.

That is what we are working on. We have discussed it with the mayor of this community, my community and other parts of the province.

As for the first part of the question, if the member wishes, I will redirect it to my colleague.

HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I ask the minister to cast her mind back to the throne speech of this year and to recall that there was a firm commitment in the throne speech that homemaker programs would be provided in five or six areas commencing in 1982. Since we are coming to the end of 1982, can she tell us in which area a homemaker program has been commenced in Ontario? If there has not been one started, why has it not been started?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that was a policy statement in the speech from the throne. I think the question should be directed to the minister responsible for the operation of that program, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Rae: I thought the minister had some responsibility for the seniors secretariat and, I would have thought, some responsibility for the implementation of a program that deals with seniors. I am new here, and I could be wrong, but I thought the seniors secretariat did report to the provincial secretary.

I am quoting from the speech from the throne. It says: "It would be involved with the needs, particularly with respect of the needs of frail, elderly people." If that is true, if the homemaker program is dealing with the needs of frail, elderly people, how does the minister feel about the fact that the government apparently has not lived up to a commitment to provide homemakers' services for seniors, people whom I understand she takes some responsibility for in the Ontario cabinet?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The seniors secretariat, which does report to the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development, has a function of disseminating information in research areas and co-ordinating policies that have been implemented by the social development policy field throughout the various ministries. We do not deliver programs. We are not responsible for the delivery of programs. That is up to the individual ministries which have been assigned that particular responsibility.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister no doubt is aware that the homemaker program, or the chronic home care program, not only applies to senior citizens but also would apply to those other individuals who may have to be kept in their homes for reasons of illness.

Does she agree that if the province were going to go ahead with its commitment, not only in the throne speech but also in its plan of action over the next few years, to bring in chronic home care all over Ontario, it would be cost-effective in terms of the number of people who now are taking up hospital beds but who should not be there?

I think the latest statistics by the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto show that 888 persons were in Metropolitan Toronto hospitals last March who would not have been there had there been programs like the chronic home care program. Does the minister not think it is a cost-effective program that should be implemented immediately?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement with the honourable member. I think this is an appropriate direction for the government to be going. We are working as quickly as possible to implement that program across the province. But, again, we do need the co-operation of the local municipalities and the support they have to provide. A large part of the province now is covered by chronic home care programs. Metropolitan Toronto remains to be covered as quickly and as effectively as it can be managed.

I do agree that it is a very effective program, although the costs are quite similar; but in terms of compassion and the availability of services, I do agree it is very important.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect the question, since the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, in her responsibility for the seniors secretariat --

Mr. Speaker: No. The minister has to redirect.

Mr. Rae: May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development if she will permit me to redirect a supplementary question to the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes.

Mr. Rae: Thank you. It was announced in the speech from the throne that a homemaker program providing services at home for frail, elderly people and for the physically handicapped would be phased in, commencing in 1982, in five or six areas that already have acute and chronic home care programs.

I want to ask the Minister of Health why these programs have not been started in 1982, as was promised in the speech from the throne?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because, as we have tried to devise the program and pick six pilot areas, we found that the selection of those areas was more difficult than we had thought. Also we wanted to get --

Mr. Rae: Then do not announce it in the speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party did not even know we were doing it until someone handed him the piece of paper; he should not shroud himself with all this holiness.

Mr. Rae: I was up there. I was listening.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the New Democratic Party was very outraged when someone handed him the piece of paper as he walked in this afternoon. I understand his outrage.

In any case, I do not know quite how they do this in the House of Commons, but here, when the throne speech speaks of "this year," it speaks of the fiscal year, and that would be 1982-83. We are not yet finished 1982-83. I hope to have at least some of those six programs in place by that time. If we happen to miss March 31, we will not miss it by very much. Those programs will be up and in place.

I point out to the member with regard to the kind of thing he likes to complain about, or that those who have been here longer like to complain about, such as lack of co-ordination, that the homemaker program is a classic example of where two ministries in this government, with the co-operation of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, have worked together so that health delivers --

Mr. Rae: She said she didn't know anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pardon me? What was that? Stand up and be counted.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Say it again; do not be shy.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do not be shy. Say it.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us when you are going to keep the promise.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will check the Instant Hansard and see whether he regrets that silly thing he just blurted out.

In any case, we are co-operating very carefully to make sure that is a co-ordinated program. I am the first to admit that well thought out, co-ordinated programs take a little longer to bring in than those knee-jerk reactions the member invites us to do every day of the week.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: You didn't announce it three or four times then.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) should not interrupt his leader. I want to hear what he says.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Sudbury East is riding shotgun for his leader today; so I cannot hear.

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. In view of the increasing interest shown each Christmas regarding the use and abuse of alcohol, and in view of the statements by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and the federal minister regarding stiffer penalties for drinking drivers, does the Attorney General not agree that the time has come for his government to launch a full-scale review in some form to look into alcohol use in this province, taking into consideration the wishes of the hospitality industry, the mandates of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, the appropriate funding of detoxification centres and the work of the Addiction Research Foundation?

Does he not agree that a complete, comprehensive review is in order, rather than dealing with this important issue on an ad hoc basis?

Mr. Conway: I was stopped three times going home on Friday.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You have a suspicious-looking face.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, please.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, obviously alcohol abuse is one of the most serious problems facing contemporary society. I think the honourable member prefaced his question with comments in relation to alcohol abuse on the highway. I just remind him that the Premier (Mr. Davis) recently established another interministerial committee to review all initiatives that have been taken and might be taken with respect to reducing the incidence of alcohol abuse on the highway.

It is not a question of dealing with this matter on an ad hoc basis. The truth of the matter, as the member well knows, is that this is a very complex issue without any simple solutions, and different approaches must be utilized from time to time. The traditional approaches obviously have not been very successful. I am confident that the interministerial committee will be in a position to make some recommendations on a problem that should engage the interest of every citizen in this province.

Mr. Eakins: With respect, I feel that the minister is dealing with it on an ad hoc basis, because I am referring not only to the abuse but also to the use of alcohol in this province. As I mentioned, the hospitality industry is interested in the distribution by the LCBO, and recently before the Ombudsman committee the LCBO admitted it really did not have a policy.

I do not think one can speak of the abuse of alcohol without looking at the distribution and the overall picture. The Ministry of the Attorney General is involved, as are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am saying that rather than deal with it at Christmas time, like last year, when he had the reduce impaired driving everywhere program in effect and two days before the session ended he announced the increase of opening hours for the bars across the province; instead of dealing with it on an ad hoc basis --

Mr. Speaker: I trust you have a question.

Mr. Eakins: -- why does the minister not look at the overall use of alcohol in this province?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is an important interministerial committee that has been established, and I will welcome any specific suggestions from the member opposite as to what might be considered with respect to this very serious problem. It would be helpful to us if he might be a little more specific, for example, about his concerns as he has stated them in relation to the distribution system of the LCBO, I am sure he can enlarge on that; and I am sure any other views or ideas that he has for consideration by this committee will be very welcome.

PEANUT PRODUCTION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He will recall, I presume, that a couple of weeks ago in his introductory statement in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates he described the new peanut growing and processing program in glowing terms. He may recall saying: "Ontario peanut crops began only two years ago with 165 acres. It may reach 650 acres this year, and that is just the beginning."

Now, according to Kevin Cox in the Globe and Mail and discussions I have had with the producers, it appears that the whole program, including the future of the plant, in which he has $90,000, may be in jeopardy. Why did the minister not level with us in his estimates when he knew the problem and the troubles that exist?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the honourable member is implying at the very least that some information I had was being withheld from him and from the House. If that is what he is trying to say, it is a very unfair and untrue thing for him to try to say, not to mention irresponsible, but it is typical of the member for Welland-Thorold.

If he will recall, last night in estimates he had the opportunity to raise these questions when the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) was asking questions about crop insurance. The member sat there not saying a word. I guess there was not enough publicity in it for him at the standing committee on resources development when we were dealing with this very question.

We do not think the industry is going to die, if that is what the member is trying to say. To be sure, some of the growers this year have run into some problems because of weather; but we still feel that the industry has a future in the longer term. It is unfortunate that in the Globe and Mail article of December 10, the comments I made to the reporter about the future of the industry were either completely ignored or edited out. I draw the member's attention to the last two paragraphs of that article which quote another of the growers whose views are somewhat more optimistic.

On balance, we think the crop still has a good future in the province. We have invested significantly in it, particularly through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. The member's usual gloom and doom and prognostications of failure are ill placed in this case.

Mr. Swart: If the minister believes the program is in good shape, he had better talk to the farmers who are producing the peanuts. Surely he must know that part of the problem, and the reason farmers may not plant peanuts next year, is that the crop insurance program is placing such a narrow interpretation on the frost loss that the farmers are getting only a fraction of their costs. It is ignoring, for instance, the quality of the crop. Will the minister intervene to see that their compensation is based on their real losses?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, the member is doing nothing more than trying to grab headlines. He knows full well that this matter was dealt with in detail last night during consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. He knows full well that I read into the record the letter that was sent to the growers on January 25, 1982, outlining the details of the crop insurance plan for peanuts for 1982. We will live up entirely to what is involved in that crop insurance plan.

The member also knows full well what I pointed out to the members of the committee last night, but I guess it did not get him a headline. He is not the least bit interested in these growers. All he is interested in is a headline. That is all he is after. If he were that interested, he should have picked up the issue last night and pursued it in committee. Instead, he did not say a word.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we all have to admit that the farmers are at the whim of Mother Nature, and the peanut producers in that part of Ontario were dealt a severe blow by the frost of August 26. My question to the minister is, will he consider paying the peanut farmers on the basis of harvested production at the plant rather on the basis of field samples?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I must give credit to the honourable member. He was interested enough in the issue to raise it at the estimates last night and to discuss it. He will recall I said to him that, in our view, the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario must be operated on a businesslike basis and must be kept actuarially sound.

I am sorry; I told the other member that it was a letter of January 25. It was February 25, 1982, that the letter went out to the growers. There had been a meeting held earlier in the year, at which time the details of the crop insurance available for peanuts had been laid out. In this letter of February 25, point 6 is the operative and most important point in answer to the member's question. At that time they were told by Mr. Brown, our field services specialist, that "claims will be paid based on damage that can be seen in the field. Notice of damage must be given as soon as any damage occurs." We will live up to that, which we agreed to do.

2:50 p.m.

I also point out that there is a provision in the crop insurance plan for arbitration and, up to this point, four of the growers apparently have not accepted the offers of compensation, in which case they have been told that the matter can go to arbitration and, if the arbitrator overrules us, so be it. We will abide by the decision of the arbitrator. We have also told them, and I have talked to at least one of the growers personally on the telephone, that if they want a different type of insurance plan next year -- and at no point in the meeting when the insurance was being developed for peanuts was a request made for a quality factor -- if that is what they want, then that can be factored in. It will mean the premiums will be higher, but it can be factored in.

Finally, I have met with my marketing staff and told them I want them to work very closely with the growers in this area to be sure we are doing all we can in the broadest sense within the ministry to continue the development of this industry, notwithstanding it has had a difficult year, mainly because of the elements.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Ontario and Quebec have both introduced restraint legislation in their current sessions. It has taken Ontario almost three months to get Bill 179 passed, while Bill 70, much harsher legislation than Bill 179, was tabled and passed in the Quebec National Assembly within three days. Can the Treasurer tell the House why the response from each assembly would be so different?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is Bud Gregory's question. I can tell. Bud, you wrote this, didn't you?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that question was asked. I wondered the same thing, until I posed the question to one of the New Democratic Party members the other night. I asked, "How do you explain that?" First, a socialist government brought in legislation that did not just limit increases; it cut salaries 18½ per cent.

An hon. member: How much?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There was an 18.5 per cent cut in salaries by the socialist government in Quebec, a government that was elected by the unions down there. Oh, boy.

The answer one of the NDP members gave me was that not only did they have, because they have exerted their majority, a much tougher House rule that allows for an emergency to be declared and, therefore, a very short debate, but also, as he said, "After all, they have a reasonable opposition; they only have Liberals."

Mr. Kolyn: The Treasurer will be aware that Bill 70 pockets $400 million from the Quebec public service. Given that Ontario is not rolling back the salary of one single public service employee in the province, why has the opposition outside the Legislature been so much greater than in Quebec?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On that latter point, I never really disagree with a member of my party, but I say the opposition outside the Legislature in Ontario has not been half as great as the stonewalling of the New Democratic Party within the Legislature.

As a matter of fact, I am very nervous about the eventual reaction, because when one gets driven to the wall and has to make absolute cuts in salaries, I am afraid one will see some real reactions in that province. We, on the other hand, have come away with a good understanding and a good deal of support from the people of Ontario affected by our bill.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer suppose that Bill 179 might have had speedier passage in this assembly if in the interest of fairness and equity it had included doctors, who continue to be excluded? They are the single highest-income category in this province, a group that draws down something in the order of $1.5 billion from the public Treasury, and they continue to be exempt from this legislation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, because if the opposition chose --

Mr. Wildman: The real opposition.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not talking of the party of the honourable member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), which in this case did have some amendments that were well thought out. Whether I could agree with them or not, they were well thought out and put sincerely on the Order Paper in an attempt to improve the bill from their point of view.

I just point out that when the New Democratic Party argued clauses such as "'Treasurer' means the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics," one has to realize they were not too interested in any serious amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know whether the Treasurer is aware that the Conservative Party in Ottawa is using all the devices at its command to prevent the imposition of closure by the Liberal government?

Mr. Martel: Is he not going to answer?

Interjections.

URANIUM PRICES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. A lot of people believe the Premier was born in a manger, but unfolding events in the area of uranium and Ontario Hydro will prove differently.

I must apologize for continually bringing before the House this colossal subject, which I would say borders on Watergate dimensions.

The latest documents I have today show that Ontario Hydro has contracted to buy thousands of tons of uranium which it will never use. This soaring supply, for which we are paying double the world price, will skyrocket hydro rates in this province.

Compounding this colossal mess, for which the Premier is totally responsible in that he steamrollered this legislation through the House on a deadline set by Steve Roman, we now have the blockbuster news from Douglas Point that Bruce B, which is under construction in my area and which was to have cost $1.88 billion, now will cost, according to Ontario Hydro, $5.778 billion when completed in 1987, or triple the original estimate.

Mr. Rotenberg: What is the question?

Mr. Sargent: The point I am trying to get at is that the new electricity rates will be 4.9 cents per kilowatt-hour as against 1.84 cents today.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: In view of this --

Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware --

Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much. I need all the help I can get.

In view of the fact that we have significant powers within the provincial jurisdiction to renegotiate this scandalous contract, will the Premier tell the House and the people of Ontario why he does not move immediately either to acquire ownership of Denison Mines or to renegotiate? He must have powerful pressures upon him if he cannot make full disclosure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, I think we have discussed this issue on more than one occasion. I want the honourable member to recall the history. The contract with Denison Mines -- and Rio Algom, incidentally -- was not legislated by this House. It was a contract entered into by Ontario Hydro under its authority as a utility, and it was assessed by the committee.

3 p.m.

I know the member has a thing about this particular issue and I understand that. He really approaches it from a rather different perspective than I would. I do not say that in any critical sense. I accept him as he is.

As a member of the Liberal Party, if he is advocating that Ontario Hydro or the government of Ontario acquire Denison Mines and Rio Algom, I find that an intriguing policy suggestion emanating from a party that has registered some reluctance on some other issues. I assume he is speaking for himself and not for his leader, although he may convince his leader that he may wish to entertain this as a policy.

I would also point out that no one is quarrelling with the increase in costs in some capital facilities. I think it is also important, though, to compare the costs per kilowatt or megawatt hour of Ontario Hydro related to the production of nuclear energy with any other nuclear facility anywhere in North America. There is no question that fuel costs may rise, but compared to the cost of natural gas, if that were to be the fuel, or coal or oil, there is no question whatsoever --

Mr. Martel: It doesn't rise as much if you own it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Water, water.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, if we had more water reserves, there is no question about it. They are very limited and the member and I both know.

Mr. J. A. Reed: We have it and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. A. Reed: You know we have to go into the arena and debate the subject publicly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On any comparative basis, the megawatt cost for Ontario Hydro related to any American utility or any utility in France, West Germany or United Kingdom utility, as it relates to the capital cost of nuclear production Ontario Hydro does very well.

I should also point out that in terms of fuel costs, and that is really what we are talking about, the fuel costs per se are a relatively minor portion of the total cost of the generation of nuclear energy. I come right back to it very simply, I suggest to the honourable member that if I compare the rates of Ontario Hydro here with Con Edison, Niagara Mohawk, any utility in the United States, which is really our competition -- not Hydro-Quebec; they have a very excellent contract with Churchill Falls or Newfoundland -- I suggest we compare very favourably.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for saying that it was such an intriguing concept. Denison is using this land to create a $2-billion profit. Is the Premier aware that we own the land and are leasing it to them for $5,000 a year? Is he aware of that?

Second, the government gave them a $650-million upfront loan for 40 years and that will cost us $1 billion in interest. Finally, on top of that, in the Toronto Star, Mr. Holt, the general manager of Hydro, justifies the building of the $20-billion Darlington plant, which is going to cost maybe $40 billion at the end, we do not know, by saying that because of the uranium contract with Denison, which will cost us around $7.5 billion, "If we do not build the plants, we will not be able to use the uranium."

What the hell does one do about a thing like that? The Premier says it is an intriguing concept. It is costing us billions of dollars for the kind of contract that Westinghouse renegotiated in the United States. We can do the same thing here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, before the Leader of the Opposition pounds his desk too vigorously, I suggest the member recall the discussions before the committee of this Legislature where the contract was very thoroughly reviewed.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes, and you remember --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recall the history of it. I recall those who made the presentations for Ontario Hydro, the legal advice they had, a very eminent counsel, not of a certain political persuasion with which I am closely associated --

Mr. Nixon: Baloney.

Mr. Kerrio: A good counsel, but a poor businessman.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a great deal of respect for him. He was the legal counsel that it was understood in --

Mr. Nixon: Are you suggesting that his professional opinion depends on the point of view of his political opinion? You're always talking about poor Pierre that way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. no. I just wanted to remind --

Mr. Nixon: You don't think he can do a job.

Mr. Speaker: We are recognizing the question from the member for Grey-Bruce.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just wanted to indicate my great respect for legal counsel at that particular hearing, the same legal counsel we heard rumoured was going to reorganize the government of the leader of the Liberal Party in 1975. I think they are one and the same person, if my recollection is correct and I think it is correct.

When one gets right back to the bottom line --

Mr. Nixon: He defended Hydro.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Grey-Bruce is speaking for the Liberal Party, I can only assume that in spite of all the discussion about unemployment, the need to stimulate the economy, the need to deal in a technical sense with a technology which I think we have been pioneering in world terms, the Liberal Party would call a total halt to Darlington. If it would have that impact on job creation and on the nuclear industry in Ontario, then fine. I accept that as the Liberal position here in Ontario and I am opposed to it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the escalating price of uranium, in view of the escalating price of nuclear station construction and in view of the predicted rate increase of 54 per cent that Ontario Hydro introduced at the last rate hearings, which I suspect will be low as the new nuclear stations kick into the system and we have to pay for those enormous capital costs, will the Premier undertake to instruct his Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) to have a full and special referral of Hydro's expansion plans to the Ontario Energy Board?

Will he agree to the establishment of a permanent standing committee on energy to examine these controversial situations as they arise, and especially to examine how many jobs will actually be lost as we close down the coal-fired plants in order to bring the nuclear plants on stream?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a prolonged debate on this issue, but I think I could give a very rapid calculation as to the number of jobs that will be lost as one or two coal-fired plants are terminated in relation to the number of employees in Peterborough, in Cambridge and in community after community in relation to the nuclear industry.

I would be delighted to develop some figures on that for the member. Let's face it, the main source of employment for the coal-generated facilities in this province happens to be in the coal mines of West Virginia, Virginia and Pennsylvania. If the member wants to maintain employment there to the detriment of Elliot Lake, be my guest.

115TH BIRTHDAY OF DAVE TRUMBLE

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: I wonder if could have the government join with the two opposition parties in sending birthday wishes to the oldest citizen who resides in my area, in the Belleville area, a gentlemen by the name of Dave Trumble who is 115 years old today. Mr. Trumble credits his long life to cigarettes, brandy and four wives. He resides in E. J. McQuigge Lodge, a nursing home on the border between my riding and that of the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock).

I checked with the owner of the nursing home and he says Mr. Trumble is quite well and quite active. He has a sense of humour and, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) said, there would be only one thing I would disagree with: he mentions he has made only one political mistake in his life and that was the one occasion he voted Liberal.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several constituents of mine from the riding of Huron-Bruce. It is directed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

I lend my support to this petition as I did with the previous petition signed by other constituents.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous constituents in my riding in Grey and Wellington counties to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition addressed to the Honourable Bette Stephenson:

"We the undersigned wish to express our concern over the possible imminent closing of Trent audio library which records textbooks for handicapped students at Ontario high schools, colleges and universities. We feel that access to the public educational system is a basic right and, moreover, by means of this service print-handicapped persons can become self-supporting citizens, not requiring disability pensions or welfare assistance."

I would like to support this petition as I send it forward to the Lieutenant Governor.

3:10 p.m.

INFLATION RESTRAINT BILL

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition, with respect, signed by 28 persons in the city of Kitchener.

"We request that you seek the withdrawal of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province."

As the member for this constituency, I believe it is my obligation to present this petition.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions here signed by a total of nine people from the riding of Cambridge.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request you seek the withdrawal of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report on wife battering and moved its adoption.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Shymko: I would like simply to add, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very historic moment from the point of view that we are the first province in Canada to follow the original report by the federal task force which in May of last year made a number of recommendations in the area of provincial jurisdiction. We in Ontario are the first to follow this up with an extensive study of the problem of family violence, and in particular --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am going to interrupt him --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I like the way you rule. Don't do anything. That was perfect. The report has been adopted. I heard it on a voice vote.

Mr. Speaker: I have to rescind that, because the member obviously is going to adjourn the debate at an appropriate time.

Mr. McClellan: Oh no. The vote carried.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The vote already carried. We're in great shape.

Mr. Shymko: What do you want me to do? You have adopted it? Fine. Can I continue?

I would like to point out once again that this is a very important moment. I would like to stress the maturity, the non-partisanship, the atmosphere among all the members of the committee in studying the problem of family violence. We would like to stress the important factor that it be treated as a crime, that it be treated with the same equity as violence that would occur outside the family environment.

Je voudrais ajouter aussi, M. le Président, que c'est la première fois que nous voyons un rapport qui est présenté par un comité permanent de l'Assemblée législative dans les deux langues officielles et qui souligne le fait qu'on doit considérer cette tragédie au sein de la famille comme un crime.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that I congratulate the many dedicated people out there in the field, those who are in charge of the shelters for battered women and their families, on the excellent work they are doing and will continue to do. I hope these recommendations will be taken seriously and will be implemented.

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

Mr. Martel: Has that report been carried and adopted?

Mr. Speaker: No.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty the Queen for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Office of the Assembly, Office of the Assembly program, $27,296,400.

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty the Queen for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Office of the Assembly, Office of the Assembly program, $3,441,500.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Allen, first reading of Bill 207, An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 1982.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill would repeal unproclaimed provisions of the Condominium Act that relate to condominium bureaus and, instead, provide for a registrar of condominiums who would give advisory services to the public, maintain a register of mailing addresses of condominiums and issue licences to condominium managers.

Condominium management would be restricted to licences except in those cases of managers of a single condominium having no more than 100 units. The Lieutenant Governor in Council would be empowered to make regulations requiring the posting of bonds. The Association of Condominium Managers may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, set standards for managers. The bill also provides a consensual procedure for the review and resolution of disputes within a condominium.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT

Mr. Jones, on behalf of Hon. F. S. Miller, moved third reading of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It has been agreed that we will distribute the time equally this afternoon and perhaps the table could take care of that matter.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, you will be aware of all the time we have spent on Bill 179. We have been discussing this legislation for months and you will no doubt recognize that we commenced the fall session earlier than usual specifically to "deal expeditiously with this urgent matter" -- which was Bill 179.

We have gone on at length, some could say ad nauseam, in the discussions on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Most of us would say ad nauseam.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, maybe most of us would say that. For a while we practically ground the deliberations of the Legislature to a halt on account of this piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation. There is no doubt that each and every one of us will recognize that this legislation is very important and controversial. It has created a lot of interest in the province.

3:20 p.m.

There is not a member of this Legislature who would deny that all of those things have gone on. Surely, though, as we recognize all of this, it should be apparent to each and every one of us that this legislation, because we have a majority government, will become law. We all know this, and there is not a member of this House who is so naive as to believe otherwise.

As we were discussing this bill throughout the last months it became apparent to us in the official opposition that what had to be done was to make this bill as fair and as equitable as possible for all the people concerned. We all recognized this and, as such --

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

Mr. Boudria: What is the Etobicoke landlord saying now?

Mr. Philip: I said you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Mr. Boudria: We just heard a very interesting comment here --

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections, please.

Mr. Boudria: -- and that from the same party who let one amendment through yesterday or the day before. At that time they had to go along with it because the amendment was to make the bill better, and when confronted with the amendment --

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill.

Mr. Boudria: -- they of course had to support the amendment. I would like to tell that same honourable member that there are several other amendments just as worth while as the one they approved only a few days ago. The members of the socialist party should recognize that amendments are worth making. If they do not recognize that, then why did they agree with one of those amendments?

Mr. Renwick: Because the government wouldn't pass the others.

Mr. Boudria: Well, isn't that interesting?

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member direct his remarks to the bill, please?

Mr. Boudria: In agreeing with that amendment, the third party recognized that the bill was going to become law. Had they not recognized that the bill would become law, they would not have agreed with the amendment. What would be the point if they thought this bill was going to die on the Order Paper or whatever else was going to happen to the bill? So I think we should establish once and for all that the third party recognized two days ago, maybe long before- -- and maybe they have just been posturing all this time and they have known it all along -- that Bill 179 was going to become law.

I would like to draw to the members' attention as well that they did propose some amendments of their own in the beginning. I remember speaking last week on a New Democratic Party amendment, an amendment that did not carry, as it pertained to the definition of the board and so forth. So we all recognized that the bill was going to become law. Each and every member of this House, each political party recognized that the bill was going to become law, and I think it is important to stress that before we go any further.

Mr. Philip: Then why talk about it? Why not let them just bring in what they want?

Mr. Boudria: The Etobicoke landlord is interjecting again, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we are dealing with a bill that we recognize will become law later today, it should be important to each and every one of us to understand that amendments could have been put forth and could have improved that bill, just as the amendment that was carried with the approval of the NDP only two days ago was incorporated in the bill.

I would like to know -- and I am sure the NDP members who speak after me will answer me -- were they against the Liberal amendment changing the minimum $750 increase to $1,200? I would like to know from that party if they were against that particular amendment.

Interruption.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there are interjections from the galleries.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have to caution all visitors in the galleries that they are not allowed to participate in any demonstration or in any way. If there is any further demonstration, I will have to clear the galleries.

Mr. Boudria: I would like to discuss the other amendment we had proposed, which is a limit of five per cent on increases in Ontario health insurance plan premiums, which again, because of the New Democratic Party, we did not get to talk about. I would like to know what the feelings of the NDP are on our amendment limiting hydro rate increases to five per cent.

I would like that party's reaction to that and to the contribution it would have made to have included those amendments, but I notice there is dead silence over there now that we start talking about those meaningful amendments that we, as a constructive opposition, were trying to bring forth.

In discussing a limit of five per cent increases in rent, it is interesting to note, especially in view of the question period today, how rents are unaffordable in this city and many other cities across this province, including the area I come from, the Prescott-Russell area. The western end of my riding is near the city of Ottawa. The city of Ottawa, of course, has one of the worst, if not the worst, rental shortage problems in the whole country.

It is very important to understand that in the context of the supply and demand situation for rental accommodation, rent increases for buildings are quite large. A limit of five per cent on increases in rent; surely one would think, Mr. Speaker -- and you, sir, in your nonpartisan and objective way, would recognize -- that the NDP should have favoured such an amendment, but then again, this is the same party that stopped us from introducing all these types of constructive amendments, which we believe is part of our mandate as a constructive opposition.

I believe it is important to recognize the difference between opposition and obstruction. I am the first to admit that I have gone on in the past and discussed certain bills at length and described in detail when I did not go along with some legislation. On several occasions we have indicated quite vocally our disapproval of legislation in the past but, regardless of what any member of this Legislature thinks, we have to respect the fact that on March 19, 1981, a government in this province, which I had nothing to do with, was elected. I am not a government member. I am an opposition member, but I recognize what happened on that day. I recognize that was the will of the electorate.

In fulfilling my mandate as an opposition member in this Legislature, I do believe it is incumbent upon the opposition to provide constructive criticism, to provide opposition to legislation where deemed necessary and to draw the attention of the government to certain inequities and to keep the system in check. I do believe that, as a constructive opposition, the Liberal Party is fulfilling that mandate very well.

I am sure all members will recognize that it was a very useful function to bring this bill to committee to listen to the briefs, to listen to the input of various groups; and once we listened to that input, to formulate constructive amendments, to bring those amendments ahead and to improve the legislation that is going to be finally dealt with on third reading today in this House.

Because of certain tactics which were used for reasons which were very partisan, reasons which had nothing to do with being a constructive opposition, those amendments, or the majority of them, were not dealt with at all in this Legislature. That is a very unfortunate process.

I believe it was the former member for York South who said one day last spring that he was always worried when any party or any group took the Legislature hostage or something to that effect. I believe that statement was made on the occasion of the Liberal Party stalling the legislative process for five hours and that was deemed to be unacceptable. For five hours the official opposition let the bells ring in this Legislature to demonstrate our opposition to the budget.

We opposed that and I am not sorry we did. It focused attention on the issue but we, as a constructive opposition party at that time, recognized the fact that regardless of whether or not we liked the bill that was introduced in the spring, we had to come back to the Legislature once the attention was focused, vote against the bill and allow the parliamentary process to continue. Just as some of us may not always respect the wishes of members on one side of the House or the other, surely we must respect the will of the electors at election time.

I do not particularly agree with some of the philosophy of the government on certain issues and I could name a few of them. Coming from the linguistic background I do, I feel the government has not been very favourable to some of the things I think are necessary. I have not demonstrated very much support for their actions vis-à-vis that issue. But I do recognize they were elected to govern -- that is a function of parliamentary government and I respect that.

3:30 p.m.

In the last election I was chosen to be a member for the great constituency of Prescott- Russell. That was the wish of the electors as a group. Every member should recognize the importance of such elections. Each and every one of us, regardless of where we sit in this Legislature, must have high respect for the office and for the responsibility that was given to us.

I need not remind members of the prayer we have every day when this Legislature commences. In it we acknowledge the great power and privilege given each of us to fulfil in this Legislature and that we must do everything in our power for all concerned in this province. It is very important at times like this to remind ourselves of that.

I had a visit at my constituency office last Monday morning from a group of workers in the public sector. One representative had a number of signed letters which he handed to me. He told me his provincial organization had decided they were going to work actively in the next provincial election against all those members who had supported Bill 179 in this Legislature.

I said: "I respect your position, but surely you will understand mine. You will understand that I, as a member of this Legislature, cannot make up my mind on threats I get from an individual who comes and sits across the desk from me. Surely you will recognize that I would be much less a member if that were the kind of thing I listened to before deciding what is good for the people of Prescott-Russell and the people of Ontario." To that I did not get a response from this individual.

We should all think of that kind of thing in what we are deciding here today in this House. What I as an opposition member would like -- and what several federal politicians would like, including New Democratic members at the federal level -- is a more comprehensive wage and price control policy than the one we are seeing today. We would like to have seen enacted some of the amendments we have proposed to this policy, to make it more comprehensive, to make it fuller, to make it carry more weight. We would like to see the control more on the price side than on the wage side.

But it was decided that our amendments could not be put forward. It was decided by a circumstance that we as a party did not control. It was decided by a small minority of members in this Legislature that the vast majority of members would have to stall the proceedings of this House, would have to stall the amendments to this bill and all other bills that we were going to pass before the Christmas recess.

Let me remind members of some of the things we had discussed. I sit on the social development committee. We in that committee had hoped our report on the wife battering issue, which was tabled today, would be discussed in this Legislature before Christmas so our recommendations could be implemented as soon as possible. I would remind members this is one example of things that were stalled.

Mr. Cooke: What a joke.

Mr. Boudria: The member for Windsor-Riverside does not even sit on that committee, so surely he is not able to pass judgement on whether or not that happened.

Mr. Cooke: The report cannot be debated when it was just tabled today. Do not be so stupid.

Mr. Boudria: Surely the members who sit on that committee -- and there are a number of them from the NDP -- will recall that was the recommendation we wanted to make to all our House leaders, to discuss that issue. Those who do not recall could perhaps read Hansard and find out. It is a very important issue. Notwithstanding the fact that Bill 179 deals with a lot of people, that report affects many more people and deals with a far greater number of victims. That process was stalled, along with all other bills.

A committee of this House sat throughout the summer months to discuss Bill 138 to amend the antiquated public health legislation in this province. We also wanted to pass that bill. Where is it now? It likely will not be touched. There are probably private bills from the municipalities of quite a few members of this Legislature -- Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic -- that will not go ahead, bills that municipalities want. What happened? The legislative process ground to a halt.

Some have said it was hijacked. Perhaps that word is appropriate. Actually, I think the word was invented by the leader of the New Democrats last spring when the legislative process was stopped for five working hours by the Liberals. That was seen as hijacking. I suppose the NDP think what has gone on for the last month was something other than hijacking because they, and not somebody else, were doing it.

It is unfortunate and it is unfair. It is unfair to the people of this province that we have allowed this to happen to our Legislature. We have allowed our Legislature to lose its meaning, to become for months an almost meaningless institution. That was not caused by the members of this party nor, with all due respect, by the members of the government party. It was caused by a small minority because of what I believe was their lack of respect for this great institution, among other things. Otherwise they would not have allowed this type of thing to go on.

I would like to measure how long we have spoken on various bills in this Legislature in comparison with this one. We have not stopped the amendments of any other party on any other bill. We did not stop the NDP from bringing in any amendments they may have had on Bill 127. I challenge them to say the same thing about Bill 179 and our amendments. Of course they cannot, because they have not acted responsibly. They may have the support of a few people who think they have done the right thing.

They say if the government will not withdraw the bill then it cannot amend it. That is a pretty naive attitude for members, most of whom, with the exception of two, have been in this Legislature for two terms or more. Some of them have been here for many years and should know the legislative process, should know how it goes on and what their responsibilities as legislators are. They claim they know what their responsibilities are with this bill. We will see. All I know is that never before have we seen that kind of thing go on. Never before has the legislative process received this kind of treatment from one political party. It is very unfortunate. It must never be allowed to happen again.

M. le Président, je voudrais juste résumer, en quelques instants, en disant que ce qui est arrivé à l'Assemblée législative ces derniers mois est très malheureux.

Je trouve que c'est très malheureux qu'un parti politique prenne pour otage cette Assemblée législative et permette d'arriver ce qu'on a vu récemment: à empêcher les autres partis de produire des amendements constructifs afin d'améliorer les lois passées par cette Assemblée législative. Que ce parti politique a choisi dans sa sagesse que le gouvernement devrait être arrêté, que ce parti a décidé que le gouvernement qui avait été dûment élu par le peuple ne pouvait plus maintenant remplir sa fonction de gouverner, parce qu'un projet de loi ne faisait pas son affaire.

En résumant, je voudrais dire que je trouve ces incidents très malheureux et très regrettables. J'ose espérer que cette situation ne se produira plus jamais à l'avenir.

3:40 p.m.

My only hope is that in future all members of all parties in this Legislative Assembly can act in a responsible manner to fulfil the responsible role that was given to them the day they won election.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some sadness to speak on the last day of this debate. This is the 85th day since the government brought in this bill. The New Democratic Party has fought the bill and has stalled it until today. I am proud of that. I would have been much prouder if we could have stopped the bill cold in this House.

Had we not fought this bill -- not only on behalf of the public sector workers who are directly affected but on behalf of the private sector workers as well -- who would have fought it? Certainly not the government. It wants the bill.

I want the members to pay attention because there are some ramifications of what we are doing here today.

I have not caught up on all my reading recently, but I was totally appalled today when I was given Background. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) had, in his November 22 memo, put in a piece in the viewpoint section, "Little Cause for Complaint." He may not have done it himself but it is his ministry's bulletin. He used an editorial from the St. Catharines Standard. I note he did not use the open letter Bishop Sherlock sent to the London Free Press which would have put an entirely different slant on it.

I will read the two paragraphs that make up the article because I think it is a slur and a slam at public service workers right across Ontario. The editorial he has printed at our expense in this government bulletin says: "It stands to reason that workers in the public sector now being squeezed by wage restrictions would object. Their reaction is understandable. The trouble is, the louder and the more persistent their protests the greater the irritation for the rest of the work force. What the public sector workers do not want to understand or refuse to acknowledge is that no matter what their unions tell them" -- we have had an awful lot of that old divide and conquer in recent days in this House -- "they have been and continue to be a privileged minority."

The vast majority of them earn under $20,000 and even under $18,000, but they are a privileged minority.

It gets worse: "Let us face it, with the economy in a shambles, it is the private sector worker who has been taking it on the chin. It is the private sector worker, not the public employee, who has been facing the prospect of a layoff" -- we hear that constantly from the Liberals -- "and if he is not laid off, he is often lucky just to keep his job, and never mind a raise. The difference between the public employee and the private sector worker is that the latter must justify his worth in the marketplace of the economy. The public employee is largely immune to such scrutiny."

He is clearly saying that because he does not have to do a job, he is not worth his weight in salt.

"Industries and businesses can go broke, governments can't. As we said, the public sector workers are entitled to complain -- it is a free country -- but they would do well to realize they are not going to get much sympathy from those who look upon them as privileged and spoiled."

Obviously that is exactly what the government of Ontario thinks of its public sector workers -- that they are privileged and spoiled. I have never heard of such a putdown or such a contemptible piece being printed in one of the government publications.

The Liberals are supporting the bill. Indeed, if we followed their leader, the bill would be tougher and would cover all the workers in Ontario. I notice the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) is nodding his head in agreement.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Private sector as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: It would be for a longer period of time and would be careful to make sure there was a control period in place at the end of this legislation so the workers could not attempt to make up what they had lost.

Mr. Kerrio: What is the alternative? Let the country go down the drain? That is what the NDP members would do.

Mr. Mackenzie: Unfortunately, the Liberals are supporting the bill and their arguments about wanting to move amendments -- we purposely let them get to subsection 3(4) when we could have stopped it the other night.

Mr. Kerrio: Good people will support the bill.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, would you please shut up this --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have never been more serious in my life. The points I want to make are important.

We let them get to subsection 3(4) in the amendments, to probably the most crucial amendment of all, regarding due process of law and the powers of the commission. To a man, the Tories voted against that amendment. We voted with the Liberals on that and we did it for one reason only. We had already been told by the government House leader, as the Liberals had, that no Liberal or NDP amendments would be passed on this bill. We knew it without being told. It was a clear indication this had bill could not even be slightly improved.

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let me switch from the other two parties. They are not worth spending any more time on.

Unfortunately the media in Ontario have also not been questioning this bill. I can see no indication of a concerned and crusading free press in Ontario and I find that rather sad. Ten years ago, after the fact of the War Measures Act, I recall there was no newspaper in this country that did not think it was terrible. Yet I cannot remember one newspaper that questioned the legislation when it was brought in in the first place. I have a suspicion that, not very far down the road, we are going to have the same kind of editorial comments about Bill 179.

One or two of our church leaders, notably Cardinal Carter and Bishop Sherlock, have raised serious questions. Unfortunately other progressive church leaders do not seem to have understood yet what is going on with this piece of legislation. I hope the citizens and the responsible press in this province have simply not understood the ramifications of this bill rather than not caring, because it is a sad commentary on the Ontario political situation if people simply do not care. I hate to think they do not care or they think there is nothing wrong with the legislation that so callously discriminates against one group of Ontario workers.

This legislation makes a mockery of freely negotiated, legal and binding collective agreements. The old-fashioned "a bargain is a bargain" theory in Ontario that many people and many honourable members lived by for a very long time means nothing today for the public sector workers in Ontario. Which groups of workers -- or religious believers or racial or ethnic minorities -- will have their contracts broken next in Ontario?

This legislation denies the long-fought-for and hard-won right to strike to public sector workers in Ontario. This legislation denies something as fundamental as the right to arbitration, the way out of serious disagreements in collective bargaining in Ontario.

This bill arbitrarily cuts wages, in spite of what we heard -- the misunderstanding of one of the members across the way -- because when a legal and binding contract is rolled back from 11 per cent to five per cent, an $18,000-a-year worker has $1,000 taken from his pocket in the second year of his agreement.

This bill places immense power in the hands of one man and in the Inflation Restraint Board, the only avenue of appeal for workers if they think something is wrong. There are no reasons given for judgements, nor are there any written judgements. It is power that is almost unparalleled for an individual in Ontario.

This bill will tear at the social and collective bargaining fabric of Ontario for years to come. If some people think there has not been much of an uproar until now, wait for six months or a year when people start finding out, those hardworking people who work for municipal, provincial and federal governments. In here they are seen as selfish and lazy by this government, but look for the uproar when our garbage collectors, hospital workers, nursing home workers or government clerks find out their wages are being cut back. Watch for the reaction when they find out that if they have a dispute there is no avenue of appeal no right to arbitration and no right to strike.

3:50 p.m.

In short, we have a bill that attacks and destroys the basic rights of workers as well as the sanctity of freely negotiated agreements. Meanwhile government, the so-called official opposition and business attempt to stake out a position somewhat similar to what I heard from the government House leader at the press party last night. He told a number of us he could live with this legislation -- it was not that bad because, after all, it was only for a year or so.

Others from both the Liberal and Conservative parties have been much nastier in their approach -- almost apoplectic in some of the speeches we heard in here yesterday and on the clause-by-clause the day before. And their approach has become a personal one. One senses at least a measure of discomfort on their part, and certainly we see the nasty remarks in the speeches directed at the 22 members in this party.

We have no shame whatsoever for the position we have taken. The Tories say they cannot run the business of this House because of 22 New Democrats. There are 70 of them. It becomes increasingly obvious when we look at our economy in this province that they cannot run the business of this province without us, either.

The Liberal Party, backed into a hard-line position with their leader, seem to seek relief almost totally in an attack on union bosses. How many times have we heard this from Liberal members over the last two or three weeks? In fact, we do consult with union people. They do not make all of the decisions for us but we are proud of the fact that we do consult with them.

Is the Liberals' problem the fact they cannot seem to meet on any equal ground at all? Their frantic efforts to find some rationalization for their subservience to the Conservative government on this issue remind me very much of that fat, fresh worm I used to attach to a No. 3 hook when I was a kid fishing.

Let me repeat my opening remarks. I am hurt and disgusted with this bad, mean and unfair bill and I am proud to be resolutely opposed with every fibre of my body to its going through the House. Let me appeal to members to think back to the powerful comment of Martin Niemoeller on the rise of the dictatorial, fascist regime in Nazi Germany. I have always thought it had some real meaning, and I think very close parallels could be drawn.

Martin Niemoeller said: 'In Germany they came first for the communists, and I did not speak up because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I did not speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

I see it as being just that serious. We are not that far in Ontario from some very nasty campaigns against groups of people from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. When a government gets afraid, the first people it starts to attack are the trade unionists and the workers. They have started here with the public service workers in Ontario.

This is bad legislation that should not be allowed to be in the statutes of Ontario.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the ongoing, protracted debate on this very important and emotional and sensitive subject. Everyone knows the events leading up to this government action to deal with inflation. The bottom line is, do we move to address this very serious problem of inflation or do we wring our hands and let it ride along and hope for the best?

Over some 15 or 20 years it has been amply demonstrated in all countries I am aware of that hope is not going to work. It is not working. A government has a responsibility to lead, to address the problems that confront us. This the government has done. We would have been remiss had we not done that.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). I know of his intense feelings. He mentioned there had been 85 days of debate on this. Indeed it is just a week short of three months since this debate started. There is absolutely no question in my mind or memory that we have never given more consideration to any measure over the period of time I have been in this House.

It was placed upon us. As I said at the outset, do we take action or do we not? If you are charged with the responsibility of governing, the people who elected you expect you to do just that.

The member made a comparison between this government and fascist Germany. In all the time I have been here I have not heard such a far-out, dramatic. extravagant, irrational and totally inaccurate claim. I reject it wholly on the part of this side of the House, and I am sure my Liberal colleagues would join me in that expression. It was absolutely ridiculous. If we had got around to expanding the rules of unparliamentary conversation he would have been called to order on that.

Mr. Foulds: Who?

Mr. Kennedy: Him.

The member also mentioned he had been told the government would not consider any amendments. That might have been only within the last day or so because certainly, as with every bill, there is no inhibition to bringing forward amendments which would be considered by this government.

Again, it was an extreme, inaccurate and --

Interjection.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, a misleading statement.

Interjection.

Mr. Kennedy: Not leading; he is not leading the House when he makes that statement.

On the matter of inflation, this first came to my attention perhaps 15 or 20 years ago. Nobody paid much attention to it. It went on and on. We had high costs of goods, high wage settlements -- 30 per cent, 40 per cent, everything the economy would stand -- and things went merrily along. Over that period of time learned individuals kept saying: "This cannot go on. The deck of cards will collapse."

I think we were heading towards that. The fact there are now settlements that are much less than those I have mentioned is indicative that the marketplace is at work. It is the ultimate agency that will control our economy. It certainly has been at work lately.

I am not particularly happy -- in fact, I am unhappy -- that it has been necessary to bring this forward. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has said that. But it certainly has to be treated on balance with the way things are going. I can easily relate it to the number of people who come into my constituency office. They are not lamenting that their increase is only to be five per cent, but that they are out of a job. I have a deep sympathy for them.

We then have the problem of what we can do to turn this economy around in order to create jobs, to give the private sector confidence to reinvest, to get our markets opening up and, ultimately -- to hit bottom, if we have not already -- to add jobs to our economy. This is a measure to do just that.

4 p.m.

The other night the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) mentioned that this measure will not create one job. If we can restore business confidence and private sector confidence in the economy in the province, they will reinvest. Then we can get some expansion going and get the economy moving again. This will be self-correcting and we will start back.

There is another thing that should be remembered. The New Democratic Party members have mentioned the harshness of this bill and said that if they had not objected, stonewalled, filibustered, done everything they could to stop the democratic process, if they had not done that, who would? This bill was treated during its development and in the framing of it with a great deal of understanding as to the effect it would have on the civil service and those affected. That was very carefully considered.

I have here a couple of letters in support of this bill. One is from the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association. I will not read it all, but they say that to control inflation is crucial if business is to regain confidence. To me, there is a great deal of meat in that. I relate back to those in the private sector who are not limited to the restraint as contained in this bill but who are unemployed. Those people are subject to the marketplace at work. There is nothing harsher and more realistic than the marketplace at work. The marketplace controls wage restraint in that sector. I say it does it with far more harshness than this bill.

The second letter is from the Canadian Organization of Small Business, which is in support of the bill for the same reasons.

When we relate those things, hit a balance on it, we come up with this package that has sunsetting provisions. When they ask, "If the NDP did not oppose it, who would?" we can answer that that is looked after by the sunsetting provisions in the bill.

On balance, if the people affected can live with that over the period of time and give this effort by government a chance to function in concert with the federal government, we will all be better off. This country has resources that are unheard of in so many nations. If we can harness and exploit those resources, we will be on the road back to fuller employment than we have right now.

I noticed that the leader of the Liberal Party mentioned he would like to see a complete wage and price control program. As we all know, that party's federal cousins in Ottawa attempted that. If it had any success at all, it was certainly temporary and limited. It was a failure.

It was implied that we, on this side of the House, had not considered the full package across the board --

Mr. J. A. Reed: There is a third factor that you are missing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Kennedy: -- that of wage and price control. In rebuttal to that, I wish to say that prior to introducing the inflation restraint program, the government considered a wide range of restraint options. It was very carefully dealt with. If honourable members will remember, it was many months after the federal program was announced before we laid legislation on the table. During that period of time all these options were considered.

When the program was announced, the Premier indicated his interest in a national and economy-wide incomes policy. The federal government and a majority of other provinces contended that the private sector would respond voluntarily because of market pressures. That is what I was speaking of. Indeed, that has happened. Ontario has always championed the free movement of labour, services and capital between the provinces. Canada is a common market. Attempting to control prices in a single province would create enormous administrative monitoring and enforcement problems. I can understand that. I think all members can understand that. Anything of that nature must be at the national level. The federal government is quite right, although it can only go so far. It spins off out into the world marketplace. For those reasons, our government rejected private sector price controls at this time.

With the concern that has been expressed since this bill came forward, I might say with regret, I support the measure we have before us now. I do not have the problems the Liberals seem to have still, wringing their hands about whether it will go to the standing committee on procedural affairs or to a House leaders' meeting. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) said, if we did not move on this, it would perhaps go for another several months. Of course, if it went on long enough, the time frames within the bill and the compliance period would expire.

I am not particularly happy to see this form of closure. It is not a harsh closure, if we want to use that term at all. I use it in the sense of establishing --

Mr. Stokes: The member's House leader said it was only the guillotine.

Mr. Kennedy: All right. I use it in the sense of the motion providing some time constraints on the bill. It is a soft closure, because there have been three additional days of debate. A harsh closure would have been the application of rule 36 to move the previous question. If we are going to adopt the bill, if we are going to move forward, if we are going to make this effort towards wrestling with inflation, then we must simply move ahead with it.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the bill briefly, to say it is worth a shot. If we can restore business confidence, as is mentioned in the letter from the APMA, so that there will be confidence felt by business, and encouragement for them to expand rather than apprehension and, therefore, retraction, that is fine. It is so easy to say no to an investment if there is any apprehension on the part of business, and that only worsens the situation. Instead of retraction, if we can bring inflation under control, we will have growth in the private sector, we will have jobs restored and we will probably have new jobs.

My colleague the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) is quite right when he says we will retain jobs if the business sector can see conditions turning around and if they have some encouragement to go on with the development of their businesses and towards retention of their employees.

4:10 p.m.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the bill on this difficult situation before us. We look forward to the reaction out there in the private sector and of the state of the economy over this next little period of time.

Before I close, I want to say that I am optimistic for the future for the reasons given. In recent days, I have had a number of businessmen tell me that things are not all that bad and that they have a somewhat positive view towards 1983, as I do.

I understand and appreciate the concern of those who are affected very deeply, but I do hope we will see this turned around and certainly, if it is, we can say that those members of the Civil Service Commission and its agencies who have been participants in this, and who have been affected by it, have shared their concerns and have been great contributors towards recovery.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak today. I might add that it is also with some degree of sadness that I speak in this forum on what I suppose is in many ways a result of a long series of deliberations, first in the House, then in committee, then committee of the whole House and finally back here.

It probably speaks to the state we find ourselves in now that we are unable to operate under the rules, regulations and unspoken guidelines by which many of our institutions have performed rather well for many years. It probably goes without saying that it is an example of how things are easily done and governing is easy when times are good and there is a sufficient supply of good times for everyone. It is an example as well of the reverse of that. When there are difficult times, it is difficult to govern and it is difficult for anybody when there is not enough to go around.

The question this bill partly speaks towards is trying to decide when we are going to get into really planning to do a job for Ontario in dealing with the types of restructuring that must come out of this time of realignment and upheaval. I do not think there is a single sector in this province that has escaped at least a partial destruction of the way it has carried on its business, its lifestyle or whatever.

It is a serious concern of mine that, over the past several years, there did not seem to be a single voice that could come out to the people of the province, to the people of Canada or even to the world markets and warn us about the tragedies that lay ahead for those people who were living so well just a few years before.

I can remember when I first ran for this Legislature in March 1981, that part of the policy platform we were looking at in our party -- and it also came to a limited extent from the fellow who ran for the third party -- was an attempt to try to reawaken the people of our constituency to the very serious nature of the problems that were about to hit us from an economic standpoint.

It really came home to me at that time that when the person who ran for the government party spoke, he was pooh-poohing all the attempts we were making to tell the people that there was no plan and no structure available for the economy of this province to go ahead and develop the resources and those assets which we have here. There was nothing to develop the trained and skilled individuals we need to carry on that productive and competitive industrial capability that we in this province, and we in this whole nation, have.

There is a shortage of apprenticeship programs. There is a shortage of the type of manufacturing that we know we are capable of in this fine province. But the people would not hear of that in many senses of the word, because the Conservative candidate said: "Things have never been better. Things will never be better." Probably that last statement is true; things may never be as good again for many of the people in this province.

We have come to a very critical and crucial stage in the development of this province. I am upset for many reasons but, first, because it is difficult for me to accept the reaction of the government to this very serious and crucial problem in merely one bill, Bill 179. It very well may be a first and necessary step -- I cannot argue with that -- but I cannot in my own mind say that we can fool ourselves into thinking that this is the final step that must be taken. It is folly to say that and there is not a single person in this whole Legislature who would see this as the final step.

The difficulty is that we have not received anything further to go with this bill. I would have preferred to see a strategy laid down and announced by the government, either through the Premier, who has a responsibility to lead, through the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), whose responsibility it is also to shoulder leadership in this province, or through the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), but we have nothing to go hand-in-hand with this.

We do not have the programs that are available to show that there is going to be a long-term strategy to bring us out of these difficult times in which we find ourselves. We have some temporary jobs for those who are unskilled which will last for maybe 20 weeks to enable the people to get back on unemployment insurance.

It is in that sense that I see Bill 179 by itself not as an end, not as a way of licking inflation by itself, as the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) indicated. It is perhaps a beginning, but it cannot be seen in an isolated sense that it is, by itself, the end. It never will be the end.

The society of Ontario must work as a whole towards the elimination of the problem we face. The people of the province must deal as a whole with those structural problems that see difficulties in our competitive advantages being eroded in international markets, whether it be on the agricultural scene or on the car manufacturing scene, or whether we are having trouble selling our natural resources, as we are with lumber and paper products. There must be a comprehensive program to deal with those very serious difficulties.

It is in that light that I think we can focus very briefly on the types of thoughts that have been going into dealing with the serious economic problems with which this bill is supposed to deal.

In our party, we have been thinking a great deal over the last several months about the difficulties in making our institutions and structures work. A very thoughtful speech was rendered in Sudbury by my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), wherein he advocated something that has not really been thought of for many years. That is the co-operative effort of all the segments of society to try to determine how best to structure our economy and how each part of our society can best participate in that -- government, labour and business -- forgetting for a moment their own individual pursuits of aggrandizement and putting themselves second to the benefit of society as a whole of both Ontario and Canada.

4:20 p.m.

Those may have been seen as musings in some sense of the word, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the members who are gathered here, in such numbers as they are, that those are the types of serious considerations we must make as a society. We must determine to work together co-operatively to deal with these difficult problems.

For some time now, we in this province have felt the results of policies that have come from the federal sphere. I guess recognition of some of the futility of those was best enunciated just last week by the governor of the Bank of Canada, when he said for the first time that his M1 policy is no longer effective to do the types of things that must be done.

It is in that sense that all of us see Bill 179 as perhaps marking time while we gather our thoughts and launch into the development of an economy and a resource base here in Ontario which will again become the envy of every province in Canada and in many of the states of the United States of America.

We used to be that. When I was running for election in March 1981, I went around to public meetings suggesting that we had to do several things to get the economy going again. The Progressive Conservative candidate said there was no point going around spouting that sort of stuff, because our economy had not stopped yet. He was right to a certain extent, because he was only a few months early. Certainly it has stopped now.

With respect to this bill, it is with some sadness that I remark that we have not been able to put our arguments with respect to the amendments which we wished to propose to this bill. The members of the third party allowed the introduction of an amendment to subsection 3(4) on the basis that a limited debate time would prevent us from being able to put our amendment in the fashion that would command the support of the members of the government party and others for those amendments.

The amendments which we were hoping could come through dealt with due process with regard to those units of the public sector that were involved in binding arbitration out of which they could not take themselves, and they dealt with the equalization of the act when there are union and non-union employees working in the same milieu. I have examples of that in my own riding at the Bruce nuclear generating station, where there are people employed by Ontario Hydro on construction projects who are working side by side with others who are not in the public sector. I had an amendment that would have increased the notching provisions to help those people who are most severely affected by this particular piece of legislation.

There was no co-operation that would allow us to put those amendments and to put them in such a way that we could feel they were justly dealt with in this House. There was, in short, none of the co-operation on which we think the future of this province and this country is so dependent. There was no co-operation because there was a small number of people who felt they ought to crusade not only to make their own point but also to prevent every other person from making a point or an argument on any particular section.

I am saddened, in addition, that when it came time to make sure that the nurses of Etobicoke were not dealt with harshly, the members of the third party voted against sections, which includes amendments that would recognize the hard-won contract those nurses arrived at on the day of the announcement of this bill.

It saddens me that when in the wave of the future we can see co-operation as the light at the end of the tunnel, there was none here; that self-interest was the major thrust of the debate which was focused in this Legislature and which was developed in our committee.

In short, I see this bill as the first step, a small step. And I say this most emphatically: It is a terribly small step, because we as legislators cannot now run back into our burrows and hope against hope that everything else will come around in the rest of the world and that we will then be able to declare in two years' time: "My goodness, Bill 179 was the greatest success ever." It will never be successful unless we deal quickly and very emphatically with those structural difficulties that are affecting our industry.

Structural difficulties are certainly showing up in the auto industry, in the farm machinery business and in the agriculture industry. Restructuring in each one of those segments not only is imminent but also has already started to take place, and if any of us here are foolish enough to feel that this is the end of it, then we are just fooling ourselves and the people of Ontario.

We would have preferred it if a great number of sensible amendments had been made to this bill. There were even some amendments that the government probably would have liked to make as well. I can appreciate the last-minute lobbying that was performed by the Treasurer and others in the hope that we could leapfrog through the bill and pick up amendments to clarify vague sections and to make sure we eliminated any questions.

What is going to happen now, because those amendments were not put, is that there will have to be some kind of guidelines written out, presumably guidelines that we as legislators were not even able to debate or speak about here in the House. It is certainly one of the most unfair types of requirements of the government when it comes to this type of legislation; it is certainly unfair to the people this legislation reflects upon.

This whole process has, I suppose, saddened any veteran observer of the legislative process in Ontario. For the first time in so many years it just has not worked, and we are all shocked. I suppose as legislators we ought not to be surprised at that when all the rest of our institutions are reeling under the pressures of society and its disruptions.

I also am concerned because in this bill we do not have controls on the prices that government is responsible for. There are some areas, as the member for Mississauga South mentioned with respect to monitoring prices in the whole, that may cause some difficulties. But there is no such difficulty as one finds on the interprovincial and international pricing scene when one gets to government prices. We could control Hydro, we could control the Ontario health insurance plan, we can control licences and fees -- we can step in and control those prices for which we are directly responsible, but it is soft-pedalled in this legislation.

That is one of the gravest problems for me. I do not see why we could not have been allowed to deal with the question of the inclusion of doctors and hydro rates in this bill and those other sorts of things. We could have dealt with rent review. We had prepared amendments; they have been available to members of the Legislature -- to the people of the province, for that matter -- since November 2. Perhaps the members of the third party read them and probably found them to be acceptable and sensible. Probably some of the government people do as well, but we never had the opportunity of finding that out.

4:30 p.m.

I will not go on much longer. I have set out the reasons for concern and also the reasons why we as a Legislature cannot stop here in dealing with the problem that faces us. We have to look ahead and develop a co-operative and imaginative approach to our economic problems and to the restructuring that is occurring.

We cannot afford to let Bill 179 be the last step. It is nothing more than a first step. In that sense, we will take it and then we will press to ensure the benefits of this restructuring period will not be lost on a government that sits still. We must deal quickly and effectively with our economy now. I hope we can get the government to move in that direction.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief. The debate on Bill 179 is drawing slowly to a close. It has dominated the life of this assembly since September 21. By this evening, it will be part of the law of the province.

We have put a number of arguments before the assembly, at second reading, in committee, in committee of the whole House and on the report stage of the bill. We have made our contribution to denying the legitimacy of the actions of the government. We are profoundly concerned about the bill. We consider it an immoral and dangerous bill.

I happen to have been reading John Strachey's The Strangled Cry, a series of essays written by John Strachey. In part of one of the essays he deals with Walther Rathenau, whose name is probably not well known in this assembly, with Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, whose name may be somewhat better known, and the German tragedy.

In speaking of the Weimar Republic, which was served by Walther Rathenau and Dr. Schacht, he has this to say: "The history of German capitalism has, however, known no such happy endings." He is referring to the possibilities of the Weimar Republic. "In the event, Rathenau was murdered and the Weimar Republic broke down. It broke down above all because it never learned how to manage its economic system. Then at length and far more terrible and disastrous even than these failures, there appeared the appalling phenomenon of success under antidemocratic auspices. The Nazi servants of hell found a way to make an economy in the last stages of capitalism work only too effectively and they used the vast power so generated to shatter themselves and the world."

As part of the last enactments of one of the last governments of the Weimar Republic, the Brüning government passed a series of deliberate and drastic measures which accelerated the process of deflation in Germany. Among the actions it took in December 1931 was to cut all wages subject to collective agreements by 10 per cent. Strachey goes on to say: "The effects of all this can be imagined, coming on top of a heavy drop in demand for German export which the world slump was, in any case, imposing. This drastic reduction in home purchasing power went fully halfway towards bringing the economy to a total standstill."

I draw that, not in a sense of exaggeration, to the attention of the assembly. We all know that within 18 months of that action of the last government of the Weimar Republic, Germany had been converted on Bastille Day in 1933 into a one-party government. On the way, the party with which we now have cordial relations was declared unlawful in Germany and was destroyed. We say drastic things about this bill, because we are concerned about it. We have put arguments that support the following indictment against the bill under 10 counts. I want very briefly and simply to list those counts.

It selects for punishment one sector of the public, the public sector. It makes lawful what would, but for this travesty of the law, be unlawful. It is living proof that this government not only does not understand, but has no sense of the history or the struggle that working people have put forward in the western world and in this province with respect to the collective bargaining process. It emphasizes the helplessness of those in the public sector who do not have the advantage of being protected by a trade union. It ignores the reality of Ontario.

It is reported to be taking $740 million out of the pockets of the working people in the public sector. It makes a joke of the principle of ministerial responsibility. Its passage has required the government to override the legislative process. It scorns Ontario's responsibilities in international law as part of the federal system of Canada. It mocks the principles of natural justice and it is unconstitutional.

I say advisedly to the government that the people of the province have three protections: The government of the province, which has failed them; this Legislative Assembly, which is about to fail them; and the third and last line of defence for the working people of this province, the courts. If the government members have the confidence in this bill they state they have, then I challenge them to refer it immediately to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Ontario, for a judicial decision with respect to its constitutionality, having regard to the much-vaunted Charter of Rights, which is part of the Constitution of the country, particularly with regard to that fundamental freedom that no one has, freedom of association. I say in very brief summary, the bill is immoral, it is wrong.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill 179 in the dying hours that are remaining to us for this all-important debate and discussion. We were reminded just a few moments ago by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) that this whole process started some two and a half months ago.

4:40 p.m.

I think the amount of time that has been allocated to debate of this one bill indicates the importance that has been placed on the substance, the subject matter, of this bill by all parties in this Legislature.

Our democratic process has often been said to be faulty. Indeed it is, but as statesmen have pointed out, while there are weaknesses in the democratic process, still the democratic process is the best system that has yet been invented, when we compare it against other systems of government.

In the democratic process, elected people have a great onus placed upon them. Not only the elected people who represent the party that happens to be in power at any given time, but that onus rests just as heavily on the shoulders of members elected in opposition.

I suppose that those in power have a somewhat heavier responsibility in the sense that ultimately resting with them is the responsibility to set the policy, make the decisions and to bring forward and enact the laws they feel are in the best interests of the people at large.

Under our democratic process, of course, it will not work well unless we have an effective and responsible opposition, whether it be one party, two or more.

We pass laws in this House on an ongoing basis. I do not think I have to point this out to you, Mr. Speaker, but I think it bears repeating that it has been said on more than one occasion, that every law that is passed is bound to adversely affect someone in some way, because there is no law that has ever been passed that I know of that has not adversely impacted someone in some way, either perceived or in fact.

The greatest responsibility of governments is to enact legislation that is equitable and fair and that is in the best common good.

We well know there are many occasions when we as a government party, who have the responsibility to initiate policy through new legislation and laws, have had to bring in legislation that we were not necessarily desirous of laying before this Legislature and that we did not take a great deal of pride in having to introduce, but nevertheless, in order to live up to our responsibilities felt there was an absolute need to introduce legislation we knew at the time was politically unpopular. That has been done on more than one occasion.

Let me cite as an example -- totally unrelated to this bill but I think it makes the same point -- the hue and cry, the many letters, the many telephone calls that we received at the time we brought in what we thought was appropriate social legislation because it dealt with the very safety and lives of individuals.

Yet, of the people we were trying to protect and in fact did protect with that legislation, many were the very people who cried out the loudest that their personal rights and privileges were being taken away from them. What I am referring to, of course, is the legislation that had to do with the mandatory wearing of seatbelts in automobiles, or the case where those who enjoyed motorcycling had to wear helmets.

They felt, probably quite rightly, that their personal rights and privileges had been encroached on. "Who is to tell me whether I have to wear a hat when I am riding a motorcycle or a seatbelt while driving a car?" That legislation was enacted because we felt it was for the common good. Yet it caused a great deal of resentment, and it was not necessarily popular legislation in that sense.

Here is another example, and again it is a question of perspective. Our friends from the third party during our days of minority government spent a great deal of time hammering and criticizing this government because of the policy decisions we had taken with regard to providing financial assistance to an underprivileged sector of the province up in the far northwest. I am referring in particular to Minaki Lodge. A great deal of time was spent in committee and in the House when the members of the third party lashed the government and got all the press they wanted over this particular issue, because it made good reading in the Toronto papers.

It was interesting. We were looking at the broader issue of having to assist another sector of the province that may not have had much meaning for the people in Metropolitan Toronto, yet it went to the very economic wellbeing and livelihood of the people in another sector of the province. The reality of that situation and the responsibility we took in the issue become very vivid and well understood at the time that the then leader of the third party went up into that part of the world during a certain election, and realized how important it was to have a broader perspective on issues and what it might do for them in another sector of the province where it did not have such a personal meaning and purpose.

That is what I mean by those in power having to look at an issue on a broader basis. Here, of course, the situation stands out so clearly with regard to Bill 179, because certainly it was not with a great deal of desire -- in fact, it was regrettable -- that we felt the need to bring in this type of legislation. But we knew, given the economic circumstances and times, that there was no alternative left open to us.

I have talked to a number of my constituents who are in the trade union movement. What they have said to me privately is what the third party in particular will not admit publicly, and that is the fact that these people realize that action of this nature had to be taken. Even though they were directly affected by it, they understood; they accepted the nine and five formula.

Mr. Philip: Name them.

Mr. Williams: I would suggest that they might be ostracized by their superiors if I were to do that, and I do not want to jeopardize any personal rights or privileges of individuals, the rank and file in the organized labour movement.

But I should say that they understood and appreciated that the days of the mid-1970s were gone, the days in which we were bringing in budgets on a regular basis where there were increases of 15, 16 and 17 per cent for the ministries, with similar types of wage settlements following in that pattern.

That was all right when we had the financial resources to do those things, when the economy was humming, when everybody was at work and when industry was crying out for skilled and unskilled labour because they were so busy and were doing so well and were paying taxes into the government coffers so that we could afford to keep pace with that blossoming economy. We could adjust to that. Everybody was living the good life.

4:50 p.m.

But our government, earlier than any other provincial government, started to realize that there was a downturn taking place and we started to exercise restraint in our budgeting.

Mr. Boudria: When?

Mr. Williams: We have consistently, from 1976 on, started slowly and in as fair and equitable a fashion as possible, to draw back. We started to point out that the high spending by government, by industry and by the populace at large, had to be readjusted. It was, in fact, but not without some difficulty.

This is what Bill 179 is all about. It goes to the very heart of our difficult economic times. In order for our society as a whole to come out of these difficult economic times successfully and to put our economy back in place and humming again, so to speak, it requires the combined effort of industry, government and labour to act responsively and in a sensible manner to deal with the current conditions.

It was suggested by a number of other speakers -- I think the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) pointed out in his comments that he did not think that the interests of this Legislature had been served by the tactics and strategy that had been applied to this bill by the third party. In response to that criticism, I believe the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) said: "You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear." Neither can you make the democratic system work when the government has irresponsible opposition parties. That, exactly, is the even broader issue that has come into play here during this two-and-a-half-month process.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the third party has taken the opportunity in the House and in committee, over not days or weeks but months, to talk about not just Bill 179 but rather to talk around Bill 179. While the member for Etobicoke talks about sows, they talked about everything from aardvarks to zebras. That was what brought about one of the saddest experiences we have had in this House in the past decade.

It became quite evident and clear when the member for Hamilton East, in a very weak response to this criticism, started to lash out at the news media. He suggested they were not being responsible by not giving the perception and the point of view to this bill that they, as a third party, were giving; that somehow the press was being irresponsible and did not understand the situation.

I suggest that if the third party had been more concerned with responsible government rather than responsible press. this bill would have received the attention that it deserved in a much more responsible way. That responsible manner was, of course, by going through the normal debating process, as has been alluded to by the members of the official opposition.

It has been pointed out that while this bill is a good bill in the sense that it had to deal with the circumstances of the times, if we had had the normal opportunity to deal with amendments and suggestions that have been put forward, a good bill may have been made even better, but we were prevented from doing that by the behaviour and the actions, or inactions, of the members of the third party.

Quite frankly, I suggest they did not serve the best interests of the trade union movement by taking the actions and applying the strategies that they did, because while their image has been less than enhanced by this procedure and strategy that they have applied, unfortunately there has also been a fallout on the trade union movement who have a very strong vested interest in this matter and who have shown, of course, a very active involvement in the whole process, and so they should. But I do not think the party that purports to be the sole party to espouse the interests of the trade union movement -- at least that is the perception they have tried to convey to the public -- in fact did those they were trying to serve a service.

I have to say that normally the third party, as is the official opposition, is very effective in debate and in dealing with bills, in going into clause-by-clause discussion of legislation. We invited that discussion and that debate. It was regrettable that they shirked that responsibility on this particular occasion and that they in fact walked away from a very heavy responsibility to come in and work with the government party and the official opposition to make that bill as equitable and fair as possible.

What has happened as far as the strategy which has been applied is unfortunate. It has given cause for us to reassess our way of doing business in this Legislature and if ever the need cried out for a change in our procedures in this House, the results of the past two and half months have indicated the need is now.

I would hope that early in the new session we will, in fact, through the procedural affairs committee, reassess our position with regard to the standing orders of the Legislature and the way in which we do business here, because I think that all of the people of Ontario would have been better served if the normal democratic process had been allowed to prevail on the debate on this bill as on other legislation.

Mr. Martel: You will make the rules so there can be no opposition. You will use your majority for it.

Mr. Williams: One of our friends who is throwing complimentary remarks across the way has suggested that we use our majority. In fact, the majority is what the democratic process is all about. It is very seldom that you have a responsible opposition party supporting a government bill and I think it is very difficult for an opposition party to be able to publicly go on record and say that in principle they will support a government bill. I have to compliment the official opposition for having done that in this particular instance, because they understood the broader ramifications that this bill holds for all of us.

It has been pointed out on a number of occasions by the speakers from both opposition parties that this bill alone will not address all of the ills of our economic times. We, as you well know, have been the first to say that. In fact, the very day that this bill was introduced into the Legislature by the Premier, it was pointed out that if anyone thought that this bill alone was going to solve our economic ills they were living in a land of make believe. That is well understood. It has been said on a number of occasions this is only one aspect of the government programs we feel are necessary for the times if we are to address these difficult economic times. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program is the area in which government initiatives are being taken to assist industry, and labour that works with industry, to create jobs and to provide a higher level of economic activity in this province than might otherwise have been the case.

5 p.m.

There is no other provincial government in this country that has provided greater initiatives than those presented by the government of Ontario through its BILD program. That program is complementary to, and has to be dealt with in concert with, this type of legislation where government has to exercise responsible restraint. I have talked, as have others on both sides of the House, to people who are employed in the public sector. They will say privately what they may be reluctant to say publicly, that if this type of action had to be taken, it was done in the fairest and most equitable manner possible.

Mr. Swart: Yes, by putting the doctors in.

Mr. Williams: It is regrettable the member who interjected a moment ago did not give the official opposition the opportunity to discuss an amendment it wanted to put before this House for thorough discussion and debate. The debate that could have ensued, if we had been given the normal opportunity, would have been a productive one from the official opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: It is regrettable that in the few moments left to me the third party could not put into perspective the broader issues that were involved in this legislation throughout the debate. The responsibility of the government in power is to deal with the issues in a broader perspective. We have to deal with them in a way we feel is in the best interests of all the people of Ontario. Sacrifices have to be made by government, by labour and by industry. All three have to participate if it is going to work and if we are going to be able to recover from the extremely difficult economic period we are experiencing. It may have been politically unpopular but we did what we felt was responsibly correct.

To suggest, as the member for Hamilton East did, that he did not want to get involved in a clause-by-clause debate because his party's proposed amendments would be defeated in any event, is really bewildering. Up until this time, NDP members have always felt there was a need to put forward amendments to legislation to improve the bills put forward by the government. It is interesting to see they have reneged on this occasion. As I said earlier, it does not enhance their position as a political party. I think that tactic and strategy has backfired on them.

In closing, I simply want to put the whole issue into perspective by pointing out that this government is attacking these economically difficult times on two fronts. It is not only exercising restraint, as exemplified by Bill 179, but it also is implementing budgetary programs, with BILD being a very integral part of them, and injecting additional financial resources into the short-term work programs such as were announced November 22 and more recently by the Treasurer.

These are the initiatives this government is taking, and we feel collectively that all of those initiatives together will benefit the people of Ontario and restore this province to sound economic health.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in this party have put forth a great many valid reasons why this bill should not be passed, but I want to add one more, and that is that this bill is a hoax.

The government over there billed it as their only weapon to fight inflation. That weapon is nothing more than a cap gun, and it is not pointed at any of the real enemies, such as high interest rates, massive unemployment and the disintegrating economy. The real gun in this bill is pointed right back at the very people the members opposite claim they want to save.

Today they are conscripting an army of 500,000 and starting them on a forced route march, and the Liberal official opposition is acting as scouts to help round them up. That army will wander aimlessly and dejectedly, because they know the enemy they are out to seek and destroy is the illusory straw man of excessive wages. They know they will not be discharging a single bullet against the villain of inflation.

That army of 500,000 will ache and suffer pain and embarrassment from their ordeal. There will be no doctors to minister to their sores and their broken spirits. The army command at Queen's Park decided that doctors should not go with them, that the route march was too arduous for that elite group. There will be other health personnel on the route march, namely the low-paid female section, like public health nurses. Unfortunately the only medicine they have to administer is no good. They have been forced to take it themselves, and it makes them sick.

The mobilization exercise provided in Bill 179 to fight inflation becomes increasingly ludicrous. The generals here at Queen's Park are being more and more perceived as the asses they really are. By comparison to them, Hogan's Heroes and the Keystone Cops look like the saviours of Stalingrad.

But there may be a happy ending. After a year or two or three this 500,000-strong army, wandering among the populace of increasing numbers of unemployed, dispossessed and disenchanted, may convince these people that the solution lies in a whole new approach, a whole new direction. Conscripted into this army have been teachers, the union activists and the concerned social workers. Together they are a formidable team.

While the Tory command now has its gun to their head and they have to remain in the army, the generals cannot stop them from thinking and talking and planning. It just may be that this army can convince their colleagues and their friends and relatives who are still on civvy street that the Tory military strategy is really not the right one, that it is really the government that should be on the firing line.

If the government wants to control inflation, which is, of course, really the control of the prices of goods and services, it should establish a fair prices commission and stop all the price hikes that are unjustified. And if the government wants to control inflation, it should develop and implement an economic strategy for full employment so we run the economy at full capacity and produce goods cheaply. And if the government wants to control inflation, it should put people back to work so there will be a broad tax base and not overload just the segment of the society that is working.

I predict that these are the things the public really wants, and by this arbitrary bill the government is going to speed up the public's resolve to bring them about. This party will be using every legislative and parliamentary means to assist them towards those ends. In spite of what the government thinks, by making this bill into law, as this Tory government with the help of the Liberals is going to do, they will be facing the firing line of a mobilized public opinion in the next election. And they will fall like the brass braid tin soldiers they really are.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few final comments about what has been a very difficult situation for the last 85 days. When we were called back on September 21 we decided this was a bill that was so dangerous it had to be fought with every possible weapon that could be found within the rules of the Ontario Legislature.

It has been a long and hard fight and, as my colleagues have said, I think this party can be very proud of putting principle ahead of political gain. I think the one party in this Legislature that looks the most foolish and comes out of this whole debate with a much lower esteem than it went in with is the party to my right.

On this piece of legislation, the Liberal Party has felt uncomfortable and it would have liked nothing more than to see this bill passed in two or three days and behind them. They criticized the tactics we have used to fight this bill, but they have used the same tactics. When they felt strongly about something the government is doing they let the bells ring. They have done the same things on Bill 127.

There were even occasions when they have held up supply and held up the money going to people who need the income from government, whether it be senior citizens or individuals on mothers' allowance. The party to my right used that tactic a couple of years ago as well. We do not need to hear ridiculous lectures from the Liberal Party about our tactics.

We felt strongly about the principles involved in this bill and we decided from the outset that it had to be fought with every weapon available to us. I am proud to have been part of that process.

I want to remind the members of the Legislature about some of the comments that were made. The party to my right says we have denied them the right to put amendments. I want to reiterate what has already been said in interjections, that the government House leader indicated to the Liberal House leader and my House leader that every single one of the amendments proposed by both our party and the Liberal Party would be defeated. So let us not hear the kind of silliness we heard from the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) that those amendments would have been carefully considered.

If the doctors were to have been included in this legislation, he knows as well as I do the government would have brought in that amendment. It would not have let another political party get credit for that. If this government was interested in bringing natural justice into this bill, it would have approved that amendment the other night or it would have proposed its own. The reality is that the bill is as it is and the government had no intention of accepting any of the opposition's amendments.

That was the reason we set out our strategy at the beginning. The bill could not be amended. The government had set out the principles it wanted in the bill and it was not going to be amended. The only solution was to have the bill defeated or withdrawn.

It is sad to say that, had the Liberal Party thought about that, if it had accepted that and lived in the real world, if it had worked with this party in fighting that bill, perhaps we would have been able to force the government to back off. I think the Liberal Party is as responsible, if not more responsible, for this legislation becoming law today as the Conservative Party. They are partners in this denial of democratic rights for 500,000 people.

Today is a very sad day in the history of Ontario. The member for Oriole said a few minutes ago he was concerned that our party had not looked at the wider issues. I might suggest to the member that is exactly the reason this party opposed the bill, because we did look at the wider issues: The issue of democratic rights; the issue of whether this bill was immoral, whether it destroyed principles of free collective bargaining, principles the government House leader lectured me and other members on at a House leaders' meeting about a year and a half ago. He said: "No, no. Free collective bargaining is not a principle of a left-wing party. It is a basic principle of the Conservative Party that government should not interfere in free collective bargaining." That is what the government House leader said last year.

Now, because it is politically popular, because the polls indicate the Conservative government had to give the impression they were doing something about the economy, they ignore the real problems and attack 500,000 civil servants in Ontario. It really is a disgrace.

Again, the party to my right came up with all these amendments, but when the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the House in his response to this bill, he said first of all that the main thrust of the committee that would examine this legislation should be to decide what was going to be done in the post-control period, because he was convinced that there had to be controls after this legislation expires. He also said: "The program is designed to last only one year. I do not think that is adequate." That is what he said back in September of this year.

It was not until the Liberal Party heard many of the arguments we put forward as to why this bill was wrong and the arguments that were put very eloquently by the member for Riverdale on natural justice that the Liberal Party picked up that argument.

I went to a meeting in Windsor where the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) was present. He got up on the platform and said, "This bill has fundamental flaws, but we can support the principle." If it has fundamental flaws, it seems to me that means you cannot support the principle. If it is flawed fundamentally it does not deserve support on first reading, second reading or at any stage through discussion in the Legislature.

Interjection.

Mr. Cooke: Yes, it will be interesting to see if the member for Windsor-Sandwich is present.

We now, as members of the Legislature, have to consider what is going to happen after this legislation becomes law and when it expires. I suggest that it is a legitimate concern that this legislation will destroy and have serious effects on labour relations between teacher groups and boards, between city workers and the municipalities, etc.

We are going to have rocky labour relations in the public sector after this bill expires, because during this one, two, and in some cases three years of controls, rights are being taken away, wages will fall further behind, even further than they have fallen before, and there is going to be a natural desire for catch-up, and rightfully so. School boards are going to resist and we are going to have very difficult labour relations. Then we as members of the Legislature are going to be called upon by this government to pass more back-to-work legislation. That is exactly what will happen.

There will be strikes, and then this government will come in and say again that the unions and the teachers' federations are wrong and that we have to end the strike. The root of that problem is going to be this piece of legislation, which will cause those difficulties.

Free collective bargaining works and it has been proven to work, especially in the teachers' area where Bill 100 was brought in. Some of the problems that existed across the province have been smoothed out. Now with Bill 179 all of those advances are going to be destroyed.

As I said before, today is a very sad day. Later on this afternoon royal assent will be given to this piece of legislation. I am not happy to be participating in this debate. I am sad that the legislation was ever introduced and I am sad that this government refuses to take a real approach to attacking the economic problems and instead takes a political approach. Whether it is the budget, whether it is the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development or whether it is Bill 179, the government consistently looks at the economic problems and takes a political approach instead of coming to grips with the real difficulties.

Just to finish, Mr. Speaker: I am very proud of the opposition this party has put forward on this bill, and I think over the next few years there will be many more discussions about Bill 179 and its implications. That bill will continue to haunt this government and the Liberal Party for many years to come.

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate? The time constraints left are 11 minutes, seven minutes and five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If none of the opposition parties wants to speak, would you begrudge us some of this time that is left over?

Mr. Cooke: They have seven minutes. Tell them to use it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am just asking if there is time left over because we have members who would like to speak. But if you would rather we did not, that is fine.

The Acting Speaker: There is five minutes left for this side, chief government whip.

Mr. J. A. Reed: In the seven minutes that I have left I will try not to duplicate some of the things that have been said here today. Indeed, it is an unfortunate day for me personally. For seven years I have had the privilege of serving in this Legislature and my constituents in Halton-Burlington. For the past 10 weeks, I have been one of those who have borne witness to actions by the third party that have prevented the forward motion of this Legislature and held up the process --

Mr. Swart: Backward legislation.

Mr. Martel: Go ring the bells for four days.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I just want to tell those fellows, they talked a lot about unamendable bills and so on this afternoon, but they have wanted it both ways for almost 10 weeks. They have tried to play both ends to the middle all the way.

I just heard a speaker say that the bill was unamendable. Yet the other night, they stood and supported an amendment. How can they have it both ways?

Mr. Laughren: It proved the point.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I have to point out that the one amendment that the government has put into this so-called unamendable bill they have been talking about was a Liberal amendment that brought justice to the public health nurses. They know that was a Liberal amendment.

They talk about the bill being unamendable. But we understand the reality of a majority government. We understand that the process has to take place; and, in fact, in principle we have supported restraints. As a matter of fact, on July 10, 1982, my leader went on record as proposing a three-point package, which was wage restraint in the public and private sectors, coupled with price restraints where they could be applied and an economic renewal program for Ontario.

We felt that those three things had to move ahead hand-in-hand if this province was to recover economically. That is why we are not satisfied that this bill has gone far enough; and the third party pointed that out.

Let us look at some of the things that might have happened if we had been able to bring in the amendments. Increases in Hydro rates would have been limited --

Mr. Swart: Don't face the real world, eh?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Just remember, it has been the actions of that party that prevented these amendments from being brought forward. And it is through their actions that we have had unprecedented motions in this Legislature which have established precedents for closure which has never happened before in this province. The responsibility for that lies right there with the rump of the opposition. It is the steerage that is trying to guide the ship, and they have blown it. They overstepped their boundaries and they know it.

It is upsetting to those of us who are attempting and who have attempted over the years to be responsible opposition members. An opposition is necessary in any democratic process. Maybe it is because they have too much research support. They are supported to the level of 30 members when they only have 22. Maybe they do need all the help they can get.

Mr. Swart: You sure need more.

Mr. J. A. Reed: We sure would appreciate having a little more.

Look at what the public sector workers have missed because we have not been able to introduce our amendments. The present minimum increase for those lowest-income wage earners is $750. The minimum increase would have been $1,200 under our amendment.

I just cannot understand how a responsible opposition can oppose those kinds of amendments and stand up with any kind of conviction and say the bill is unamendable, because of course it is amendable; it has already been amended.

I expect that the socialist party in Ontario is being seen finally for what it really is. They certainly do not represent opposition in this province. They can be very sure that in the next election there will be a new constituency of responsible citizens attracted to this party right here. Their numbers are not going to be 22 after the next provincial election; we may very well be able to drop the 20 and leave the two.

This bill must be supported at a time when our provinces financial condition is the worst it has been in many years. The responsibility for much of that lies right over there with the government, but we must get out of it and the only way we can get out of it is by supporting this bill.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I realize I am new here and this is an innovation, but after listening to speeches from the Liberal Party today and over the past two and a half months, I want to suggest that a crowbar be placed alongside the mace between the opposition and the government so that there will be something to use to pry the Liberal and Tory parties apart when it comes to major pieces of legislation. We are going to need that crowbar, because it is the only possible way we are going to be able to get them apart.

I want to make just two basic points about this legislation. As has been said many times and has been said today by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, this is a sad day. It is a sad day for two reasons: this bill represents perverse and wrong-headed economic policy. It has been suggested by members opposite -- the member for Mississauga South, the member for Oriole and the Treasurer himself -- and by members of the Liberal Party, that this is somehow a first step on the long road to recovery, that this is an essential element in the overall economic strategy that the government has for recovery in Ontario.

I want to suggest that a measure that takes money out of the pockets of working people, that takes money out of the pockets of people who buy cars, refrigerators and yes, who might even aspire to buy a home, can hardly be described as a policy that is in any way, shape or form a first step on the road to recovery. It has nothing to do with recovery.

It is a measure that takes purchasing power out of the homes of people who live in this province. It is also a measure that will lead to even fewer cars being sold than are being sold today, even fewer homes being sold than are being sold today, and fewer refrigerators and other appliances.

5:30 p.m.

For it to be described by the Treasurer or anyone else involved in the economic management of this province as somehow being a part of an economic strategy is a pathetic and perverse statement with respect to economic policy. It has nothing to do with inflation. It does not attack the sources of inflation, as my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has pointed out with such clarity and vigour. It has nothing to do with interest rates. It has nothing to do with unemployment.

It is a measure that has to do entirely with one thing and one thing alone. It is a political measure. It is a cosmetic measure. It is a measure designed to teach the public servants of this province a lesson. It is an attack on collective bargaining and on arbitration, because this government feels it has lost control of its own workers, the people who work for it. This is the only method it can devise to regain political control of the public service. It has nothing to do with economics.

If we want to talk about the broad picture, as the member for Oriole did, as he put this in the context of helmet legislation and seatbelt legislation and drew some weird comparison between those two things and this piece of legislation, this government has been driving without a seatbelt and without a helmet for one hell of a long time. It has been playing without a helmet for a long time too, judging from some of the speeches we have heard.

This legislation is perverse not only in the way it affects the economy, but if one looks at the broad picture, at what has happened in the 50-year cycle over the past few hundred years in the history of capitalism and at the kind of deflationary mania that seized hold of the North American economy and the European economy in the 1920s and early 1930s, one will find a direct parallel to what is being proposed by this government.

That is what makes this policy so tragic for people who are looking desperately to their government for jobs, security, leadership and some sense of compassion and understanding of their situation. What they get are phoney solutions which are only going to deepen their problems and drive the whole of the North American economy deeper into a recession from which it has to emerge if we are to provide hope for our people.

The bill would be bad enough if it were simply an economic measure designed to drive the economy further into recession. But it has deeper implications, which have been drawn on and spoken to most eloquently by my colleagues the member for Hamilton East, the member for Riverdale, the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke). They have spoken with such eloquence. I am proud to be associated with those members and their remarks with respect to the implications of this legislation, not simply for the economy but for the rule of law in this province.

Working people have come some way in this province in creating institutions that are democratic, in creating rights that have the force of law, in imposing the rule of law on employers as on themselves. There is no employer in this province, apart now from the government, that can with tranquility and total equanimity break its contract. There is no union in this province, as they know full well and having suffered the penalty, that can break contracts without people being thrown in jail, being fined or losing their jobs. That is what makes this bill such a travesty of natural justice, of administrative justice, of basic constitutional principles and of what is simply fair.

If I may relate to the members opposite, not on the basis of some abstract notion of law but on what they know is fair: Surely they believe that a bargain is a bargain. Surely they believe that when a hospital worker goes to arbitration -- because a hospital worker cannot go on strike -- that hospital worker is at least entitled to respect from the government and from his employer for the contracts that have been imposed by arbitration. Surely that is the least they can expect.

But no, that is not what the government is prepared to do for those people. The government is simply saying to those workers: "Your contracts are unimportant. Your contracts do not matter to us. The fact that you have negotiated and have some collective rights that are of some importance is of no concern to this government." Yet the Premier gave an assurance last January, when he met with a number of trade union people, that he had no intention of bringing in this kind of a program, because it would be unfair.

I suggest that members opposite know very well it is unfair. They know there is something ludicrous about reaching a settlement with the doctors in the springtime, providing for increases of 14 per cent and 15 per cent on salaries of $80,000, and then turning around and saying to a worker who is making $15,000, "You are going to get five per cent." The government knows that sticks in its craw; it sticks in the craw of anybody who cares about fairness in this province.

It is astonishing to me that this government has brought in this legislation, that it has persevered with this legislation in the face of the sense of fairness, the sense of justice and the sense of decency it knows exist in the hearts and minds of most of the people in this province.

In closing, I want to say that there was a famous dictum I learned in law school, that the history of the common law was the story of the transition from status to contract. I want to suggest that, as far as the law of employment is now concerned in this province, we are moving away from contract to status, which is not determined by the force of collective bargaining, by the force of equal rights and by people joining together and reaching what can be described as democratic rights and responsibilities. Status is arbitrarily determined and confined by legislative edict. It is then determined and confined by one individual and one individual alone.

It is a world where public servants who have signed collective agreements, who have been given or worked for, struggled for and finally had their rights recognized in some modicum of law, now are being told that all those rights, all those statutes, all those protections are gone and have been replaced, not by the rule of law, not by the rule of fairness, not by natural justice, not by a right to a hearing, not by a right to a written award, but by nothing more or less than an edict, an edict imposed on them by one individual appointed by the Premier. If that is not a travesty of natural justice, of what is fair and reasonable, of what I think would strike most citizens of this province as decent in the very minimum, I do not know what is.

It has been said by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that somehow I am responsible for the situation in which we now find ourselves. I want to say that I accept the compliment. I accept it, not on my own behalf, but on behalf of my colleagues, 22 strong. We are proud of the fact we have been an opposition that has insisted on our right to be heard. We have not been afraid of the polls. We have not been afraid of the coalition between the Liberals and the Tories. We are going to take this battle from this Legislature to every union hall, to every hospital, to every school, and on to the streets of this province. We are going to defeat this government and that party because of the kind of legislation it has introduced.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin in the dying few moments of the elongated debate that has accompanied Bill 179. We had an opportunity in the early debate at second reading to have people come before us in the standing committee on administration of justice to make presentations on the impact of this legislation. We had an opportunity in the debate that, unfortunately, degenerated in the justice committee in those couple of weeks when we had instructions from this House.

We unfortunately found ourselves involved with the leader of the New Democratic Party, who now proudly tells us it is something he is happy to associate himself with, a dialogue of gamesmanship in order to stall us from getting down to what the Liberal members have mentioned today, a chance to work with this bill, to examine the reasons for this bill and the effects it will have on our economy.

5:40 p.m.

I simply suggest it is important in these last few moments to remind ourselves why this legislation was brought forth by this government. The members will recall that our Premier joined in second reading of the debate, as well as our Treasurer as he carried this legislation. They clearly pointed up and reminded us that we have had 10 years of a period of extreme economic turmoil.

We know we are in difficult times, not just in this province but also in the country and in world economics. Contrary to what we just heard from NDP speaker after speaker, where they pretended this is not part of an overall program by this government and pretended it is somehow or other a silver bullet, we never said that as the government here. We said it was an important program towards the combination of remedies this government is bringing forward.

We heard a lot of kidding of my colleagues in the debate as they pretended the BILD program was somehow less than the economic strategy that it is, something less than an all-encompassing economic strategy for this combination of ministries as they go forward and work with the private sector in restoring the vitality that Ontario's economy is so well known for the world over.

I think it is very important to remind the members we have sadly seen some distortion in this debate, especially by the New Democratic Party. We heard today a reference to the tactics of this government. Can one imagine that, after the tactics we have seen from that party; somehow or other they wanted to link us with a German state in 1931? The member for Riverdale, of all people, pretended that a cut proposed in the public service back in 1931 was related to what this legislation has to do with, a restraint program.

I remind the members that, yes, this is a restraint program. We know the government was faced with options as it holds itself out to the private sector and the other parts of our society. Finding ourselves in increased borrowing, adding to the cost of increased government or facing the cutback of our civil service; these are the type of options we have if we do not have a restraint program such as this legislation so clearly spearheads.

I suppose the sad comment that should be a reminder to all of us, given the debate that has taken place over Bill 179, is when we had the member for York South (Mr. Rae), as the leader of the New Democratic Party, again pretend that somehow or other the government was using this program as a phoney program to play to some kind of poll.

I have never heard such nonsense. Those people should get up and admit just for once, and it would be good for their souls, that they took this and made a political game of it from day one when they went into that committee and started saying, "We are pledging to slow the process, to do everything we possibly can to prohibit this restraint program going forward."

They proudly claim they are going to pretend that somehow or other they were for the best interests of the people they pretended to be representing in that committee. All the time they were playing politics like crazy. They should admit it. We have heard talk about how this legislation is an attack on the civil servants of this province.

We heard our Premier, our Treasurer and others in the debate acknowledge how we very proudly have a high standard of civil servants that take something different than the view the members in their debate this afternoon wanted to convey to us. We heard a veiled threat that somehow or other we were going to see a horrendous uprising of the civil servants of this province. Why attach that kind of suspicion and throw out that kind of nonsense? Those are not the people we work with every day and those members should know differently.

If they wish to they can use it in their debate down in the committee, but in the chamber I would have thought they would have brought the level up and acknowledged that this program is important and has the support of the people of Ontario, including the civil servants.

The House divided on Mr. Jones's motion for third reading of Bill 179, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Boudria, Brandt, Breithaupt, Conway, Copps, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones;

Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller. G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Reid. T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg;

Roy, Runciman, Ruston, Sargent, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Spensieri, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Renwick, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.

Ayes 96; nays 21.

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you clear the galleries, please? The TV camera in the gallery will please be removed immediately.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

15 décembre 1982