30th Parliament, 3rd Session

L094 - Wed 14 Jul 1976 / Mer 14 jul 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.


Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.


Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to inform the House about an important study that has been authorized by my ministry. I have asked the Ontario Council of Health, the senior advisory body to me on health matters in Ontario, to investigate the Metropolitan Toronto hospital bed situation and to make recommendations as to possible rationalization of beds in the area.

I should point out that this study in no way reflects on the recent Divisional Court ruling since it will cover the entire Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr. Singer: First you close them; then you study them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The terms of reference for the study are still being refined by my staff and the council but, broadly speaking, they will be designed to verify beds in service and their patterns of utilization. They will also recognize the specific teaching requirements of the University of Toronto. I expect the study will not only identify bed problems but offer guidance to the ministry in correcting current problem areas.

Finally, I’m hopeful that the council will be able to report to me by the end of the year.

Mr. Renwick: Why do you have that study now?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Deans: If you wonder why I am stalling, Mr. Speaker, I’m looking for my leader who is somewhere between the CBC and here. I would like to ask the House leader a question. I had anticipated that the Premier would be making a statement and maybe the minister could tell me why he isn’t here to make it? It would be useful to all of us.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m sure the Premier is on his way.

Mr. Deans: He is somewhere between the Ombudsman and here, is he?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, he is on his way.

Mr. Deans: I see. Well, we are okay now. We’ve been brought back to normal. Thank you very much.


Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can she revise for the Legislature the views she put about the situation and the work training programme for Elliot Lake and explain why it is that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has not functioned adequately in this role, as she indicated it would when she responded to us about the Globe and Mail stories some weeks ago?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am somewhat at a loss to understand the purport of this question regarding the function of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in this area. It is my understanding that the board is functioning well and that a majority of the workers affected by the studies, the examination of working level months, is participating in the programme. A minority has not as yet decided to participate in the programme but the members are in the process of making up their minds individually about whether they will or not. They are being encouraged to do so and will be aided by the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the employers to do so if and when they do decide to participate.

Mr. Lewis: Did the letter from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, disclaiming the allegations which occurred in the Globe and Mail, ever appear in the Globe and Mail? Has the minister yet retracted her statement that the union leaders supported the programme when they denied it utterly the day after she made it in this Legislature?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am very happy that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised that specific question.

Mr. Ferris: You just happen to have it with you.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The letter has not as yet appeared in the Globe and Mail because the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board felt that he had to have personal verification of the facts which he had been given. He acquired those in a meeting with representatives of the unions and the union leaders at the beginning of this week, as a matter of fact. I have it on the word of Mr. Starr that the union leaders strongly support the programme of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in this area.

The letter which was drafted to be submitted to the Globe and Mail has not as yet been submitted. I have not asked today whether it is intended to be submitted or not, but if it is, it will not be changed from the format in which I saw it because the figures are apparently correct and the attitude of the union leaders is as I reported it.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary: Can the minister table that information with the Legislature since none of it has appeared publicly as yet?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, as soon as I have it in some sort of tablable form I shall be pleased to do so.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, what resolutions has he come to with Arthur Maloney? Ontario awaits.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure whether Ontario awaits or whether the Leader of the Opposition awaits.

An hon. member: It is the same thing.

Mr. Lewis: You walked into that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Before I was interrupted, I was prepared to say that the two were not synonymous by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. Lewis: I am inclined to agree.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad you agree with me. I could go on but I won’t. Yes, I have had two discussions with the Ombudsman today and we are having a further discussion tomorrow morning. I have nothing of a specific nature to say to the House, although I fully expect I will have something more definitive before we possibly adjourn tomorrow.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I notice in your gallery a former member of this House. I certainly would like to welcome the head of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. It’s obvious it is on its summer vacation or the former member for Peterborough would be hard at work at that institution. It’s encouraging to see him continuing his educational career by joining us once again in the Legislature this afternoon.

I might say that I’m very pleased to recognize his presence, because since he has left the political arena, most of the time he speaks so encouragingly and so favourably about the former Minister of Education, the present Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the educational system of the Province of Ontario. It’s always a pleasure to greet him anywhere, at any time.

Mr. Gaunt: Now we know why he got the job.

Mr. Moffatt: You are reading between the lines again.

Mr. MacDonald: Will there be time for replies?

Mr. Lewis: It might be nice to make him the next Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say --

Mr. Lewis: Walter, we love you --

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we’ve had converts before and I expect will again.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question period.

Mr. Lewis: I trust you subtracted all of that from the question period, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to press the Premier just a little about it. Can he give us an undertaking that if the statement he provides the House with tomorrow is not acceptable to Arthur Maloney, as Ombudsman, the Premier will have the report tabled in the Legislature and subject to debate before we adjourn?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is assuming some things that may or may not happen. Certainly I would like to think that anything I say tomorrow will be generally acceptable as far as the Ombudsman is concerned. That does not -- and I want this clearly understood, so there will be no misunderstanding in the press -- that doesn’t mean that the resolutions will be found, but hopefully what I may have to say tomorrow would be acceptable to the Ombudsman.

Mr. Lewis: I put to the Premier again, by way of supplementary -- and I don’t consider it hypothetical because it’s tomorrow -- if Arthur Maloney, as Ombudsman, takes exception to the Premier’s report, in part or in whole, will the Ombudsman’s initial Pickering study be tabled with the Legislature and will we be provided with an opportunity to debate it before we adjourn?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know it’s not hypothetical in the sense that we’re not talking about something two weeks or a month away, however, the discussions are such that I really can’t comment any more than I have. Quite obviously, there’ll be a question period tomorrow, with the usual procedures. However, I’m relatively optimistic that what I have to say tomorrow will meet with his satisfaction.

Mr. Singer: Relating to the Premier’s last answer, would the Premier not agree with me that there might be other methods of this House dealing with the report and agreement or disagreement, methods other than a debate in the Legislature? There might be resolutions, which the government might put forward or either of the opposition parties might choose to put forward. Merely setting aside time for debate, which might not come to any answer, probably isn’t going to help the situation along at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wilson Heights is more perceptive on this occasion than he is on some others.

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tend to agree.

Mr. Lewis: To put you both at rest, we will move a resolution.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask one final question of the Premier: Since there is such enormous concern over the proposed Reed Paper-government preliminary agreement in northwestern Ontario, can he, as Premier, give us a specific statement about where things stand and what it is intended the preliminary agreement will cover? Is it in draft form? Can anyone learn anything about it, beyond the vagaries of which we’ve been told?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there is, in fact, no agreement at this moment. There have been, and are, discussions with Reed Paper as to the economic development of northwestern Ontario, of that there is no question. These discussions as I understand it, are still going on. I cannot undertake to the Leader of the Opposition that these discussions can be made public at this moment.

Certainly if an agreement is concluded, that agreement is a public document; there’s no problem with that whatsoever. But as I understand it, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) can correct me if I’m wrong, there has been no agreement.


Mr. Lewis: Is the Premier aware that the entire Treaty No. 9 organization has asked that a commission of inquiry involving three people be struck to allow the various band councils some participation in the striking of this agreement, or to share with them its likely components? Can the Premier respond to that, since the concern accelerates greatly in the northwest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a concern and I think it's understandable. I think, though, that to say there will be an inquiry prior to an agreement being finalized really wouldn’t serve any purpose at this point in time. I think that while the government recognizes the concerns of the Treaty No. 9 Indians, it is also important for the economic welfare of this province -- and I am sure the member’s colleague two seats to his left, and philosophically usually to his right, understands what I am saying when I --


Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, he is philosophically to his right. Listen, up in Thunder Bay one day I thought he was a right-wing Tory.


Mr. Stokes: You said that, not me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I said that to the member because it is true. I have never heard a greater endorsation of the private sector than he gave on that occasion. It was tremendous.


Hon. Mr. Davis: What we are interested in, because the northwest -- and I think the Leader of the Opposition supports this -- does need economic growth and development, and certainly we want to work in this direction in a way that is acceptable. So I say at this moment in time, while I understand the concerns, we will not be having a public inquiry prior to these agreements being further discussed.

Mr. Martel: That was sacrilegious.


Mr. Reid: In view of the concern, does the Premier not feel that there should be some public input, both by the Indians who are directly involved and perhaps stand to gain or lose the most, plus the people who live in the area, before any final agreement is made between Reed Paper and the government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would have to say this to the hon. member, and I sense his concern is genuine, I think it’s important to recognize that this government does in fact represent the people, that our concern is to see that there is development in that part of the Province of Ontario, and the people who are resident there are without question the beneficiaries of this development. Without that sort of thing there would be no purpose in this, and I would have to say to the hon. member that it is very difficult in negotiations of this kind to have them conducted, shall we say, in a very public forum.

Certainly any agreement that is concluded is subject to criticism -- hopefully there won’t be any, or if there is it will be of a constructive nature -- by members of this House and others. But certainly for the ministry and the company involved to sort of have the negotiations at the Clerk’s table, really I think --

Mr. Lewis: Why not? Why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I think would be perhaps presuming too much. And the Clerk says he doesn’t want them at his table.

Mr. Lewis: You are selling the whole band down the river.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no. Oh no. Oh, listen. I know what the member would do.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member would nationalize the whole pulp and paper industry.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It is already Crown land which the government is giving away; it is already in the power of the government --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who is giving land away?


Mr. S. Smith: Well, it’s nice to know that there is some interest over there.


Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Revenue; I am afraid in the discussions yesterday regarding campaign donations we didn’t get to the main substance. Could the Minister of Revenue explain the cabinet’s decision in approving the particular lakefront development in Burlington that was the subject of discussion yesterday? And could he explain how that is in keeping with the thrust and the intent of the government’s report suggesting that Burlington requires more public access to the lakefront and a 50-ft walkway along the lakeshore?

Hon. Mr. Meen: This had been before the legislation committee of cabinet on a number of occasions. During the course of the various deliberations of the committee, both at times when I was the chairman and on previous occasions, it had been referred back with the suggestion from the committee that negotiations continue between the developer on the one hand and the city of Burlington and the region of Halton on the other. Over the months that ensued the various points that were raised by the parties ultimately were resolved. At one stage -- and it was relatively recently; the time when I was the chairman -- we had recommended that the report of the lakefront study be considered with respect to the 50-ft walkway which had been recommended and at one stage, following that I believe, the city of Burlington had indicated they wanted that as one of the conditions of agreement.

Subsequently though in, as I suppose it is fair to say, the trade-offs that occur in these negotiations that went on between the city primarily and the developer, the city ultimately agreed to relinquish that request with the accession by the developer to other requests which they made with respect to road widening and all sorts of things -- a total of some 16 or 17 different items which were ultimately agreed to between the parties.

So it really was on that basis that the legislation committee recommended to cabinet and cabinet adopted the recommendation that we affirm the Municipal Board order with those refinements spelled out as an addendum to the order in council. So that is the way it went.

The refinements, I think, and cabinet takes this position, significantly improve the position of the city. Its negotiating position was far enhanced by the negotiations that went on by the referral back, I should say, by cabinet. The delays that we put into this in order to give them an opportunity to negotiate significantly strengthened their hand, and I believe that in the long run they have now wound up with the development here and conditions for development that will be to the maximum benefit of the city of Burlington and to regional Halton.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, if I understood correctly it was the city of Burlington that modified its position on this. Could the minister explain how the eventual decision relates to provincial policy to retain adequate amounts of lake frontage for public access in Burlington, which at present I believe only has 11 per cent, whereas Oakville and Mississauga have 30 per cent or so and the minister’s own government suggests that that should be a minimum?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Actually, Mr. Speaker, if that was a decision by the city, they have decided in these trade-offs they were prepared to relinquish that, so far as the public walkway was concerned, in exchange for road widenings and some of these other conditions that have in effect been built into the agreement.


Mr. S. Smith: A brief question for the Minister of Labour: When will the minister table the long-awaited results of the inspection at Hamilton Match Plate Co.?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry I don’t have them with me today. I shall attempt to get them and table them tomorrow.


Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Agriculture: How does the minister respond to the Minister of Agriculture of the federal government of Canada who has claimed that, and I quote, “The Ontario government has suckered into the dairy business without first having the assurance of market share quotas” a number of farmers, and that “the provincial government deliberately got these people in and should face up to its responsibility”? That comes from a recent speech. What is the response to the minister?

Hon. W. Newman: First and foremost, I think he’s a very fine man but I feel that was a very irresponsible speech he gave.


Hon. W. Newman: No -- and I say this advisedly, that we have a national --

Mr. Shore: Who advised you?

Hon. W. Newman: -- MSQ or industrial milk allocation across Canada that is set by the Canadian Dairy Commission for all farmers in Canada and for all provinces. We were given an allocation in 1975 under the Canadian Dairy Commission and our Milk Marketing Board achieved 97 per cent of the total allocation. As a result of our fulfilling that we were allocated in 1975, it was possible to have a smaller percentage reduction in the Province of Ontario than there was in the rest of Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister not accept that his government’s IMPIP proposal in fact did draw new people into the dairy business, and these are the very people suffering because of the fact that their market share quota is not sufficient?

Mr. Nixon: No doubt about it.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in order to explain the IMPIP programme to the leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Nixon: He understands it.

Hon. W. Newman: I am going to answer his question.

Mr. Roy: Well, just answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: In 1973 there was a shortage of milk. We were asked, and Mr. Trudeau himself said it, that we be self-sufficient.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We always pay attention to him.

Mr. S. Smith: Darn right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think yesterday demonstrated that.

Hon. W. Newman: We moved into the programme in 1973, to encourage milk production in the Province of Ontario through our IMPIP programme, to encourage milk production and to keep up the quota allocation in the Province of Ontario in the light of quota moved to other provinces. Our programme was discontinued as of June, 1975; and I must say that the member might check into the Farm Credit Corp., which is a federal programme which was still active in the milk business as late as last December.

Mr. Riddell: Since the federal Minister of Agriculture has laid part of the blame at least on the steps of the provincial government --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does that come as a shock to you?

Mr. S. Smith: They learned the game from you.

Mr. Riddell: -- what is the minister prepared to do to ensure that our milk producers stay in business? If the federal minister isn’t prepared to make any concessions, part of the responsibility lies here; what is this minister going to do to help the farmers out?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have been in Ottawa many times in the last three weeks trying to get some common sense out of the dairy policy; I say it advisedly, and I will say it again --


Hon. W. Newman: I asked for a reduction in the 18 per cent cutback.

Mr. Roy: You are not very effective.

Hon. W. Newman: I asked for a reduction in the penalty clause of $8.50 per cwt on over-supplied quota; and I also asked that the monthly allocations come off, because you can’t turn cows on and off on a monthly allocation. I was promised an answer two weeks ago today; I was promised one and I still have not got that answer.

In spite of that, I met with our Ontario Milk Marketing Board, and they are going to increase, on their own, for the first three months, the total allocation in milk shipped from 29 per cent to 33 per cent of the total year’s production of industrial milk, which will make a great deal of difference to a lot of producers when they get their cheques this week. There will be some producers who will still be having deductions. We are working with the Milk Marketing Board; I met with them yesterday morning myself personally for two hours and our staff were over there yesterday. We are working with them, specifically, to pinpoint the problem areas. If we could get a little more co-operation out of Ottawa we could do it a lot faster.

Mr. MacDonald: Since the minister has waited for two weeks for a reply, does he not think the time has come when he can take the secrecy off this agreement that was reached in Ottawa, and allegedly has been roadblocked by the Treasury Board? At least let us know, and the farmers of Ontario know, what Gene Whalen said he could do until he was roadblocked by his colleagues?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I had a news conference two weeks ago today at which time I explained exactly what I asked Ottawa to do and what I thought they would be doing.

Mr. Roy: Obviously nobody is listening to you.

Mr. MacDonald: What were the components of the package to which the federal minister agreed in the meeting two weeks ago and which cannot be revealed because it hadn’t been cleared; and now, presumably, it is never going to be heard?

Mr. S. Smith: Surely Ed Broadbent can get you a brown envelope.

Mr. MacDonald: Will the minister not let the farmers know what that agreement was?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I know what I asked for from Ottawa; I made it very clear. I feel, in fairness to the federal minister, from whom I have asked certain concessions for the farmers in this province, I was told I would have an answer and I still anticipate that he will make an announcement on it shortly; if he doesn’t it might be necessary for me to take the appropriate steps to disclose exactly what we agreed to. But I think, in fairness, --

Mr. MacDonald: Do it now.

Hon. W. Newman: -- in fairness I should still give him the opportunity to come forward and be a man and tell the people what he really is going to do.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s already had two weeks.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gaunt: Could the minister indicate to the House how much market share quota had been retrieved or returned to the board, and when the board intends to reallocate that market share quota to producers in the greatest need?


Hon. W. Newman: The problem is the board at this point in time has available -- there will be a meeting to deal with it very shortly -- only about three million pounds of MSQ with close to 5,000 applications -- which isn’t very much.


Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier:

Has the Premier been able yet to respond to a resolution which was sent to him from northwestern Ontario municipalities asking for his support for 12 northern federal constituencies to remain? I think he is aware of the proposed redistribution which will eliminate one of the northern Ontario seats. Has he responded to this particular request, and if not, could he give us his feelings about this?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process. I could only point out to the member for Hamilton West -- he wasn’t here at the time -- that this government made it very clear I believe in the resolution that it presented to the House here for redistribution that the total number of seats north of the French River would not be altered no matter what the mathematics or geography would indicate.

That was the position taken at that time and I think it was totally justifiable. But I wouldn’t object to doubling the number of seats in the north, because the next time around it would mean that we would have an even greater number of seats.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Just don’t sign long-term leases, you guys. That’s all.


Ms. S. Smith: A new question, to the Minister of Health: Could the Minister of Health tell us whether there are any figures giving results of the monitoring of benzene levels, the concentration of benzene, in the various factories in this province? Is he aware of the recent concerns regarding leukaemia deaths among workers at Goodyear Tire in Akron related apparently to benzene, and I wonder if he has any figures to give us?

Hon. F. S. Miller: None that I can give off the top of my head, but I would be pleased to get any information we have. We have been studying aromatic hydrocarbons in general, particularly the chlorinated types, and we realize they are among the most dangerous of the industrial pollutants. I think one will find they are closely related to the coke oven problems we are studying now.


Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment: What response has he made to the recent request by the northern Ontario United Steelworkers area council that the government take immediate action to eliminate radioactivity, acidity and other pollutants originating from active as well as abandoned uranium mining operations in the Elliot Lake area that are contaminating the Serpent River system, and is he willing to meet now with the steel workers to discuss the recommendations of the report made by his ministry this spring?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to meet Mr. Gilchrist, the chairman of the local, on Aug. 9.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate whether the government has any intention to establish some type of fund which would be used to clean up tailing areas of mines which have gone out of operation? Surely a fund could be established to clean up, and rather than the government and the province being responsible, have the industry be responsible through a fund which could be used when a mine is closed down?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a section under the Mining Act that would provide for this. I think it was yesterday, or possibly a day or two before we recessed, that the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) indicated that there may be money available from lottery funds for health-related environmental matters. I am hoping a fund can be set up from that source.

One of the problems we have, of course, is that abandoned mines and abandoned tailings are difficult to deal with even under the provisions of the Mining Act when the company has folded and moved away. So it may be that at the present time when the company is in operation we set up some type of assessment for the future or I can look to my colleague.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Since the levels of radium in the Sheriff Creek are five times above the accepted level, is the government prepared to backfill the abandoned mines and require new technology before there is an expansion of uranium operations in the Elliot Lake area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, that is something that’s going on at the present time. As the hon. member knows, the two companies want to expand up there. Officials from my ministry and MNR, as well as the Atomic Energy Control Board, are requiring that provision be made for treatment of these tailings before the expansion will be approved.


Mr. Givens: I’d like to ask the Premier to tell us about the nature and scope of the commitment he made at the very rarely held, top-level, high-echelon, four-level, governmental conference which was held under his auspices here about two weeks ago, relative to the Union Station railway properties, and when we are likely to see some visible manifestations resulting from that conference on the site.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must compliment the member from Armourdale on the way he phrases that question. It means it’s going to take me a little longer to respond but I shall endeavour to do so. To do so, I have to trace a little history. It was a year ago, plus about five weeks, that it became obvious that Metro Centre as a concept had collapsed. The province had an interest, obviously from the standpoint of development and from the standpoint of growth, but I guess primarily from the standpoint of transportation.

I requested a meeting of all the principals involved. The meeting was held in the middle of June, 1975 at which time a committee was struck, chaired by one Cameron McNab, the former Deputy Minister of Transportation and Communications, to develop the transportation part of it. In conjunction with that, the mayor of the city of Toronto became chairman of a land-use committee which was to work in conjunction with the transportation committee. Both committees functioned over the period of time that was suggested. Mr. McNab’s report came in and I had a preliminary glance at it I think in the latter part of May. All of the principals were there again, almost to the date that was allocated, one year.

Under Mr. McNab’s proposal, Union Station per se, the great hail, would remain. The transportation complex, rather than being moved south, which would have been a very large additional expense, will be constructed on the existing site with some expansion. It will accommodate the increased GO service, it provides for intercity rail transportation. The parties involved unanimously accepted Mr. McNab’s report. The details as to what share is to be borne by those involved, the railways and the governments, is something that will be worked out prior to this fall. It did settle the site of the Bathurst St. -- well, it was to have been an interchange but it is now a tunnel between Bathurst and Spadina, if memory serves me correctly. From the standpoint of transportation, it was a very constructive, positive and encouraging report that received, I think it is fair to say, the unanimous approval of all the principals at the meeting.

In conjunction with that, the government of Ontario agreed to commit, along with the two railways -- and I’m going by memory I must confess -- sums of money for a land-use study to relate to the transportation complex for the balance of the land and the utilization of it. Under the plan it is feasible to move the high line -- and for those who don’t understand these terminologies, which I don’t either but I pretend to, the high line is the through line --

Mr. Roy: You’ve got the report. We haven’t.

Mr. Martel: This is a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- at the southern part of the railway complex.

Mr. Lewis: This is the old total recall at work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, this did happen fairly recently, so I remember some of it. The transportation plan does permit the high line to be moved north so that all of the land south could be utilized for some other type of development. So the mayor of the city of Toronto -- we have committed ourselves, I believe, to $300,000 and the two railways to $150,000 each for a detailed land-use study to relate the land use there to the harbour front park to the transportation complex.

While there wasn’t a great deal of attention paid to it at the time, I’m delighted the hon. member raised the question because in my view it is a very significant decision. The thing is under way; it will happen and I think is a very encouraging development for the people of this community and those who are served by the transportation centre.

Ms. Bryden: I have a supplementary of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. It appears that various groups were involved in the planning of this expenditure of $300,000 by the province that he mentioned, but the only people who were not present were the members of this Legislature. I would like to ask how it happened that Mr. McNab’s report, or any part of it, was not brought before the estimates committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications which, presumably, would then have given the members of this Legislature an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference of the studies that are being funded by this $300,000. It has very serious implications for land use and urban sprawl.

Mr. Singer: Speech!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member that the meeting took place somewhere between June 15 and 20 -- I forget the exact date. There were no funds, obviously, in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications because this was a request received from the mayor of the city of Toronto and those groups working with the land-use committee. Now that the transportation problem has been resolved, the detailed study for land use to relate to this transportation centre, to the land, to the harbour front, was something that was of priority for the city of Toronto; and I think for Metro. So I made a decision, really, within about 10 minutes that the government of this province would assist in the funding of this project in order to get the whole thing on the road. It did not appear in the estimates because it wasn’t contemplated, but I’m sure the hon. member will have an opportunity when she may or may not be here in time for the estimates again to be considered of some ministry where that $300,000 can be discussed in great detail.

Mr. Martel: Try it, Bill. Call an election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member does not think we should have given them money, let her say so.

Mrs. Campbell: Is the Premier then saying that, whereas the city of Toronto had these concerns that the transportation report would take precedence over the land-use planning report, it has in fact happened and the city is pleased with that result?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never presume to speak for anybody else. That’s wrong; I do on occasion, and she objects, But I will not speak for the mayor of the city of Toronto, except that he was at that meeting.

Mr. Roy: The Supreme Court of Canada will speak for the government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My recollection is that he said to the press afterwards that he was delighted with the results of the meeting. And I see the head of the member for Armourdale going up and down -- so he agrees with me.

Mrs. Campbell: I have great doubts if that is the case.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for St. George doesn’t think the mayor of the city of Toronto knows what he is doing, or if she doesn’t think the member for Armourdale understands the situation, then let her say so. I’m trying to tell her all I can.

Mrs. Campbell: I didn’t suggest that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Say so.

Mr. Peterson: The member for Armourdale has got a bad neck. Don’t take that for approval.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My impression was that they were quite pleased. The transportation issue was resolved. They had the funding to do the land-use study. There is nothing to inhibit the technical work, the design work from going ahead with respect to transportation and it in no way prejudices the ultimate land-use decisions.


Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Sweeney: Watch out, Bette.

Mr. Grossman: We’re friends again.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please; we’re wasting time.

Mr. Conway: Has the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick resigned yet?

Mr. Grossman: No, I don’t have to.

Mr. Singer: Are you Wiseman’s parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Grossman: While I’m delighted about the Metropolitan Toronto hospital bed study, I would like to ask the minister how he sees the role of the individual hospitals in Metro. Will they be making representations to the committee? Will they be working with them? Will there be consultants to meet with the hospitals? What will the association be? How will the hospitals let the study know what their opinions are?

Mr. Ferris: Regression analysis.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made today was a bit vague, I admit it.

Mr. Ruston: Now the minister is admitting it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was purposely vague because I wanted to get before this Legislature, while it was sitting, the fact that I was intending to have this study, even though some of the details still had to be worked out. I did not want people saying to me about a week hence, “Why didn't you tell us while we were here?”


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Therefore, I took the precaution of making a comment, or a statement, today. It is the intention of the study to go this way, as I understand it.


First, there will be a technical stage when we will use consultants. The consultants will collect data on the current situation in Toronto -- bed uses, referral patterns, and so forth. They should have this information ready, we hope, by Oct. 1, at which time the council of health would, I understand, appoint a task force of six to eight people chosen carefully. First of all, the council would make the data available to the Toronto hospitals and they in turn would be allowed to appear before the task force to give their opinions to it and let them make the more subjective decisions that would result from it.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister going to allow the Doctors Hospital to be viewed as a participant in this process in terms of the evaluation of the bed utilization and numbers? Will he therefore permit this committee to make a recommendation involving the Doctors Hospital, which would be nice since it would be based on evidence rather than on the bureaucracy? In fact, can the Doctors Hospital state be tied in to some extent to this report?


Hon. F. S. Miller: Naturally it can be. There would be no use having this study if we didn’t consider the Doctors Hospital in the whole pattern.


Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Why would the minister limit the study to Metropolitan Toronto and not the province generally?

An hon. member: Because he’s perverse.

Mr. Roy: Is this the type of planning the Ministry of Health does? It doses hospitals; then it makes a bed study. Is that the way the ministry operates?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the area represented by the hon. member, I have a very active health council. If I were asking for information from that area, that would be the logical source. In the city of Toronto, I do not have a health council.


Mr. S. Smith: Nor have Durham, Chesley, Clinton and Paris.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There is not likely to be one for some time. Because of that, because of the fact that over 30 to 35 per cent of my total health budget at a rough guess goes into the city of Toronto and because I think it is perhaps the most fertile area for amalgamations of facilities, then I think it is logical that this study should be done here.


Mr. Mackenzie: Could the Premier tell us what earthly reason there could be for the recent cabinet decision overruling the appeal by the Wentworth Conservation Authority, supported by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, against the development by a group of developers of the plateau development off DeWitt Rd. in Stoney Creek?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure there are some very good earthly reasons why the cabinet would do that. If the hon. member would ask the Minister of Revenue, perhaps he can tell him or perhaps he will get the information and present it to him.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to redirect the question?

Mr. Mackenzie: Why would this land be allowed for development for the very well to-do alone at about $35,000 per lot and why would the ministry not have allowed for a transfer of Ontario Housing land in Saltfleet city rather than using this prime Escarpment property which we are supposed to be protecting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, if the hon. member would direct that question to the Minister of Revenue, who is chairman of the committee that deals with appeals to cabinet, I am sure he would be delighted either to answer it or get the information for him.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like then to redirect, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. minister hear the questions?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. The Municipal Board itself indicated that the plateau land was ideal for development purposes for use in housing. Obviously we need housing. The fact that it is quality land for housing --


Hon. Mr. Meen: -- should not detract from that purpose whatever. The cabinet agreed with the board. What the board had done in addition was to zone the slope lands for use as estate properties rather than for recreational purposes. In any variation which cabinet placed upon the board order, those slope lands, including the plateau lands at the very top which are owned by the TH and B, cannot be used for any kind of development and become usable only for conservation authority purposes.

It was the opinion of cabinet that this was an improvement over the board order and met the requirements of the conservation authority which did not have the money to purchase the plateau lands for conservation purposes. From the information which was available to us through the Ministry of Natural Resources, we think it appears that the conservation authority is better off on this basis than it would have been on the basis of the board order as issued.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.




Hon. Mr. Welch moved that tomorrow, Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. with a luncheon interval from 1 to 2 p.m., with routine proceedings at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: On two different occasions in this House -- on March 17, 1976, and Nov. 6. 1975 -- the Minister of the Environment promised myself and this House information relating to the pollution downstream from every pulp and paper mill in this province. Yet in a letter dated July 12, 1976, he states, and I quote: “Unfortunately we do not have for each mill in Ontario water quality data which was provided for the Thunder Bay mills.”

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to request the Minister of the Environment to clarify his remarks on those two previous occasions and the remarks in this letter.

Mr. Speaker: In the first place, it’s not really a point of privilege because the member’s privileges have not been abrogated in any respect. Perhaps the hon. minister might have a brief answer to the question posed, I’m not sure; probably not.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the hon. member wanted the same type of analysis that was available for the Thunder Bay mills. In other words, the type of analysis carried out while the plants were shut down and then subsequent monitoring and testing of the water after the plants were back in operation. Apparently we don’t have the information from when the plants were shut down. There’s no problem in getting the hon. member --

Mr. Singer: Are you extending the question period?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There’s no problem in getting the hon. member data available since the plants have been in operation, if that’s satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: I might just point out to the hon. member that the matter he raised could quite properly have been raised during the question period.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.


Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 127, An Act to ratify the entering into an Agreement under the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada).

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, Mr. Speaker. I made a brief opening statement when I introduced the legislation yesterday.

Mr. Moffatt: That was an apology.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am naturally awaiting with great interest the forthcoming helpful comments from opposite and I would like to reserve the right to reply at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Lewis: We regard him as a colleague; the minister can regard him as a mentor.

Mr. Renwick: I’m glad it’s the anniversary of Bastille Day. I don’t anticipate that we’ll have the same success as accompanied the assault on the Bastille on that particular day but we’re certainly going to try.

Mr. Speaker, it will be no news to the government nor to anyone else that we rise on second reading to oppose Bill 127 as we did yesterday on first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: And as you did in December.

An hon. member: Yes, we did in December.

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t be so phoney, Albert.

Mr. Bain: Are you phoney, Albert?

Mr. Singer: Getting more letters addressed to “Dear Roy”?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: When we moved yesterday to cause a division of the House to indicate our --

Mr. Roy: Posturing.

Mr. Mackenzie: You’re still phoney, Albert.

Mr. Renwick: -- our opposition to Bill 127, we did so because we invoked what we have invoked only on one other occasion -- the opportunity, by opposing the introduction of the bill on first reading, to underline, in unmistakable terms, the opposition which we as a party feel toward this bill and to the anti-inflation programme reflected in the federal government Bill C-73, to which this bill is a part.

Mr. Nixon: You and Joe Morris.

Mr. Renwick: We object to that bill, we object to Bill C-73; and we object to this bill, and we will oppose it on second reading.

Mr. Nixon: The member for CLC.

Mr. Renwick: We will divide the House on second reading.

Mr. Nixon: And third reading.

Mr. Renwick: And we intend to oppose the bill on third reading, and to divide the House on third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Every member will have an opportunity to engage in this debate. Just now the member for Riverdale has the floor.

Mr. Singer: As I said in my latest letter, “Dear Roy.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: But your letter was wrong too.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, when we are faced with a government which is incompetent, that is a problem; when we are faced with a government which couples incompetency with illegality our duty as an opposition is compounded. I may say further that when the third party indicates that it will support the government --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right.

Mr. Renwick: -- regardless of its disagreement with the government, then our duty, as official opposition, to oppose, is doubly compounded.

Mr. Nixon: That was your duty last December; last December you supported the government on the same issue.

Mr. Bain: We felt the same toward the AIB last December as we do now.

Mr. Conway: What are you going to do about the general strike?

Mr. Renwick: You know, my friends on the left, the third party, recall to mind a saying of the late Will Rogers, which I perhaps would paraphrase. Will Rogers said on one occasion: “I belong to no organized political party; I am a liberal.”

Mr. Singer: I am glad you thought of that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would want that corrected, because Will Rogers said, “I am a Democrat,” and they went out to win the election.

Mr. Martel: That won’t happen in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think you are both wrong, but I can’t prove it.

Mr. Roy: What was Jim before? He wasn’t a Tory, was he?

Mr. Renwick: Well, I may say that I am going to repeat a throwaway line I used on a less important occasion to my friends on the left, that one of these days they are --

Mr. Nixon: Was that when you were identified with the government on this issue?

Mr. Renwick: -- one of these days my friends on the left are going to realize it’s going to be more important what they stand for than who they stand with.

Mr. Peterson: Is Elie writing your material now?

Mr. Roy: Tell that to the labour movement, eh?

Mr. Breithaupt: That certainly is a throwaway line.

Mr. Peterson: For one of your good lines, tell them about Masters and Johnson.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Riverdale may continue.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your concern but I really don’t need your protection.

Mr. Conway: What about the general strike?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to validate the invalid. We are being asked to make constitutional what is unconstitutional.


Mr. Renwick: We are being asked to take out of the pockets of citizens of the province in the public sector, the moneys which the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday morning put back in their pockets. That’s what is happening.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, that’s exactly right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not very fair. I don’t think the courts said money should be put back in the pockets; I didn’t read that.

Mr. Lewis: That’s exactly what they said.

Mr. Nixon: You are doing very well, Jim, go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: That’s the effect.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You did all right, you got your money.

Mr. Roy: You are the only one who got any money out of it.

Mr. Singer: Your throwaway speech is great up to now.


Mr. Renwick: Well as a matter of fact I still have the dollar. I was going to ask the Attorney General to sign it for me, but I didn’t want to depreciate it in value.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 127 asks us to ratify the agreement between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada, which the Supreme Court struck down on Monday morning. The ratification of an agreement poses immense problems, because the element of time has made it difficult to put ourselves back in the position where we should have been last January when -- if the government had introduced the legislation at the appropriate time instead of with undue haste signing that agreement on Jan. 13, prior to the Legislature coming into session to deal with the Metropolitan Toronto strike -- we could have dealt with the reality of the agreement.

The agreement would then have been in draft form. We could have had an intelligent, meaningful debate with respect to what the government of Ontario was doing. Amendments could have been proposed to the kind of agreement that would be authorized under the legislation. Consideration could have been given to its implications. An opportunity could have been given for all of us to have some say about the nature of the federal legislation and the nature of the government’s response.

But now we’re in a straitjacket with the bill that comes before us. As I said in caucus yesterday, it is kind of a double Catch 22, because we’re being asked to ratify an agreement which two parties have signed and agreed to. So we can’t amend the agreement, and there is no way of amending the agreement. The agreement is not attached as a schedule to the bill. Even if it were attached, no change could be made in that particular agreement because that agreement is now signed by the government of Canada. So to that extent we’re in the first part of the Catch-22 straitjacket and we don’t intend to discuss in detail -- at least I don’t intend to discuss in detail -- the implications of this agreement from that point of view.

The other factor, of course, which is more paramount is that even had we been able to discuss that agreement, we would have had to object to the adherence by the government of the Province of Ontario to the federal anti-inflation programme.

Mr. Roy: Is that what you said in December?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Why did you vote for it then? Have you no principles?

Mr. Martel: You were too busy in the leadership campaign those days to know what was going on.

Mr. Roy: Lookit, I can look at --

Mr. Nixon: The member for Sudbury East stood up with the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: You wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

An hon. member: Who’s the leader of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We can recess the House if that becomes necessary.

Mr. Shore: What did he say? Recess it? For how long?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to allow myself the luxury of a minor parenthesis to answer the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: You must address the Chair. You should know that.

Mr. Renwick: We opposed the subamendment proposed by the Liberal Party to the Throne debate last December because we did not want to give any credence to the policy of the federal Liberal government by appearing to support a proposal that there should be established in the Province of Ontario a parallel provincial body to administer a law which fundamentally and basically was wrong and bad, and remains wrong and bad.

Mr. Shore: Better caucus that one.

Mr. Nixon: Those weren’t the reasons you gave. Hindsight, that’s all.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not what you said then.

Mr. Roy: You should be at the Olympics.

Mr. Renwick: My fundamental point -- and there are a number of other points that I want to deal with in the course of my remarks --

Mr. Roy: That was the reason for the caucus yesterday, wasn’t it?

Mr. Renwick: But my fundamental point is that the conservative government in the Province of Ontario has adopted, believes in and has embraced fully and completely the anti-inflation programme of the federal government. The policy of this government is identical with the policy of the federal Liberal government. We oppose both. We just don’t believe in that kind of legislation.

Mr. Conway: What happened in December?

Mr. Renwick: When I had occasion to give a little bit of thought about the position of this party on this particular debate it did not take me very much time to recall some remarks which I had made in this assembly on St. Patrick’s Day in 1972.

Mr. Shore: You only have two hours.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, with your consent I want to make a couple of quotations very briefly from those remarks which I made at that time.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is an unimpeachable source.

Mr. Renwick: March 17, 1972, in this Legislature, standing as I do, proudly representing the riding -- the great riding -- of Riverdale, I made the following comments:

“The specific problem at this particular time ... is the continued persistence of high unemployment coupled with the continued persistence of inflation at an unacceptable rate. That combination of factors creates an impasse in the development of sound policies in the Province of Ontario which we in this Legislature have got to begin to try to understand.”

Mr. Shore: Were you the first one to say that?

Mr. Renwick: A little bit later on I commented that perhaps those who had been listening at that time would realize that I was talking about a price review system which was essential in the Province of Ontario, and then I went on:

“I’m quite certain, Mr. Speaker, that the members will have noticed that I have not referred to wages, because I now want to deal with the problem with which this party is faced in this debate. Because the pat answer of the Conservative government and the pat answer of the federal government is that the reason for price increases at the industrial wholesale level in that runaway manner is because of wage demands, and that the granting of wage increases produces that spiralling of the prices, and that it is the wage component of the price increases which leads to the built-in bias of our economy, leading to an inflationary and high unemployment economy.”

A few minutes later I said:

“I am simply saying, with whatever degree of emphasis one wants to put on it, that the federal government at Ottawa and the government of this province, if they ever recognize that prices were responsible and that something has to be done about it, would couple wages with it, inequitably and inadequately. We would have a wage and prices board. That’s the traditional method by which the response is made.

“I want very clearly to put across to the members of the government that this party dissociates itself for valid reasons from any suggestion that that is the key problem of the economy. You do not shift the responsibility to those who work for wages in the economy. You accept the responsibility that you’re dealing in a managed price economy.”

Mr. Speaker, our position then was as I have stated it. Our position today is identical with it. We oppose the nature of the federal Liberal government’s programme of inflation, and that is not in any way to indicate that we are not aware of and concerned about the whole question of inflation so far as it impacts upon the spendable and favourable component of the income of people who work in the Province of Ontario.

Perhaps some of you will recall, if by any chance I can find it, that when Marcus Aurelius was the emperor of the Roman Empire --

Mr. Shore: Were you around then? I always said you were way ahead of your time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He’s older than some of the rest of us.

Mr. Renwick: -- and wrote in his memoirs, and while I haven’t had an opportunity to read the memoirs in the original, I do have the privilege of the comments of Mr. Gibbon in his book “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” in relation to what Marcus Aurelius said at that time. Marcus Aurelius was faced with a revolt of the workmen in the Roman mint and it related to the depreciation of the currency, and Mr. Justice Beetz indicated that the question of inflation is many centuries old.

Mr. S. Smith: I think that was the precedent that the Attorney General gave them at the Supreme Court.

Mr. Renwick: Shortly before the decision came down, I happened to be reading “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” because of the --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought you said you were there.

Mr. Renwick: -- immense number of parallels with which we are faced in the Province of Ontario at the present time.

Mr. S. Smith: Was it 1639 BC or AD?

Mr. Renwick: Gibbon said, in referring to this revolt of the workmen at the mint:

“In an age when the principles of commerce were so imperfectly understood [and of course that’s true of this government even now] the most desirable end might perhaps be effected by harsh and injudicious means. The repetitions of intolerable taxes either on land or on the necessities of life may at last provoke those who will not or who cannot relinquish their country, but the case is far otherwise in every operation which by whatsoever expedient restores the just value of money. The transient evil is soon obliterated by the permanent benefit. The loss is divided among the multitudes. If a few wealthy individuals experience a sensible diminution of treasures with their riches, they at the same time lose the degree of weight and importance which they derive from the possession of them.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: He wrote that?

Mr. S. Smith: He would have been better in Latin.

Mr. Renwick: May I simply say that the desirable end of the federal government, with which we would not disagree nor would anyone, is that inflation and high unemployment are the major defects in the functioning of our economy and have got to be corrected. But they are not to be corrected by harsh and injudicious means or in the polite language of today by some kind of rough justice which impinges as always more heavily on those in the lower echelons of society than on those in the upper echelons of society.

Let me turn now very briefly to the court decision. I want to deal with the second question first because it deserves a comment but only a comment.

Mr. S. Smith: The steelworkers are in the lowest echelons, are they?

Mr. Renwick: The second question was that if the Anti-Inflation Act is intra vires the Parliament of Canada, is the agreement entitled between the government of Canada and the government of the Province of Ontario entered into on Jan. 13, 1976, effective under the Anti-Inflation Act to render that Act binding on and the anti-inflation guidelines made thereunder applicable to the provincial public sector in Ontario as defined in the agreement? The answer of all members of the court is no. The agreement is not effective to render the Anti-Inflation Act binding and the guidelines made thereunder applicable to the provincial public sector in Ontario as defined in the agreement.

I want to make very clear in any comments that I have to make about the decision of the court that I am speaking to the government in its responsible capacity. I want everyone to know that I happen to have, both personally and professionally, the highest conceivable regard for the deputy Attorney General of the province, Mr. Frank Callaghan; for the former Deputy Attorney General of the province and now the Deputy Treasurer of the province, Mr. Rendall Dick; and for Mr. David Mundell who argued the case.

The government’s responsibility about this is the important factor. I know, in these days when everything is translated into sporting terms, one can talk about 9-0 or 12-0 or 3-0 and 9-0, depending on how many games one is playing. I am not worried about baiting the Attorney General. He is of course a very modest and humble man.

Mr. Breithaupt: He has a lot to be modest about.

Mr. Renwick: I know very well that he will have some difficulty in responding publicly to this disastrous attack upon his ability and indeed his credibility. But I am going to leave it at that because I don’t want for one moment to think that it is anything other than a matter of some personal satisfaction to me that, when the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) was speaking in this House on Oct. 30 last year, I was engaged in writing to the Attorney General indicating to him I was extremely concerned about and would be very upset if the agreement announced by the Treasurer as being the way in which the government was going to enter into the arrangements with the government of Canada was passed without enabling legislation. And on Oct 30 last year I said in part to the Attorney General:


“I submit to you that for the national programme to apply directly to the public sector in Ontario it is essential there be legislation of the legislative assembly of Ontario, properly enacted within its legislative authority, to grant authority to the Anti-Inflation Board to administer those matters coming under that legislation. It is my submission that in the absence of such legislation such a delegation would be unconstitutional.

“My remarks apply equally well to the jurisdiction of the province in the field of education, under section 93. It is, therefore, my further submission that any attempt to make the collective agreements between boards of education and teachers, or between municipal corporations and employees, or between the provincial government and its employees, subject to the Anti-Inflation Board without proper enabling legislation of the Legislature of Ontario is inviting a recourse to the courts on the constitutional question, which in my view could only be determined adversely to the intention of the government of Ontario as set out in the Speech from the Throne.”


Mr. Renwick: And I’m glad the Treasurer’s here -- I went on; I said:

“In short, it is constitutional nonsense for my colleague, the Treasurer, to have stated at the meeting of ministers of finance on Oct. 22 last, “In the interest of making this programme work immediately the Ontario government will not raise constitutional issues.” I feel it is incumbent on you as the Attorney General of Ontario to ensure that the government of Ontario adheres to the constitution of Canada.”

Mr. Martel: Get up and yell, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You who went on to say that the federal legislation was unconstitutional and you lost that 7-2.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Only one person has the floor at the time.

Mr. Renwick: I’m not going to enter into an argument. The Attorney General has the correspondence; everybody who has been at all interested in the matter has the correspondence.

Mr. S. Smith: The only ones who were correct on this are seated right over here.


Mr. Renwick: The essential fact was, without making any value judgement on the validity of the federal government’s programme, I said that you can’t enter into the agreement without enabling legislation of this assembly. You went ahead at your own peril and made that mistake, and produced and compounded the problem with which we are faced here in this particular assembly at this time.


Mr. Renwick: My fundamental concern and questions to the government and my reason for speaking to the government in this debate today has nothing to do with whether the decisions were 9-0, 7-2 or anything like that. My concern is the position which the government of Ontario took on this anti-inflation legislation.

If you want to understand that, while it is interesting, of course, to read the judgement of the Chief Justice of Canada and those who supported him, and it’s interesting to read the judgement of Mr. Justice Ritchie and those justices who supported him, the fundamental decision is the decision of Mr. Justice Beetz. He’s the one who deals with the Ontario position, and that amounted to an abdication of the responsibility of a government in the Province of Ontario to protect the constitution of the province within the federal system. This government, under this Attorney General, failed to do that.

Mr. Singer: How can you be fundamental when you are two out of nine?

Mr. Renwick: I want to make it very clear Mr. Justice Beetz said that he was going to deal with the submission of the government of Ontario on the question of the doctrine of national concern or national dimension. He specifically stated that his colleague, the Chief Justice, whose judgement he had read, did not deal with that submission; that the Chief Justice in his majority decision, accompanied by that of Mr. Justice Ritchie, dealt on the question of the emergency or crisis involved, and did not deal with the submission of the government of the Province of Ontario.

This is no semantic difference as the members of the government team tried to indicate to the court. It was not a matter of semantic difference. It was a matter as to whether or not at a particular point of time matters of something called national dimension and concern would move permanently to the federal government and exclude the provincial legislative and therefore executive power in immense areas of the constitution.

The emergency doctrine is an entirely different one in that there pay be a temporary emergency which impinges upon and is paramount to the exercise of what are traditionally the fields allocated under the constitution to the provincial government. But the government of Ontario, in its submission, did not argue the question of emergency or crisis.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s not true.

Mr. Renwick: It argued the question of national concern and national dimension -- as I happen to have, of course, the factum of the government of Ontario submitted to the court for the purposes of its argument.

I want that point clearly noted in this assembly. And it is noted for those who are interested in this kind of a topic from the point of view of the politics of Ontario and from the point of view of the constitution of Canada and the position of Ontario within that federal system -- in which I happen to believe -- and which this government inadvertently in its incompetence, was headed towards its destruction in its submission to that court. The Attorney General submits that:

“It is established that where the subject matter of legislation goes beyond local or provincial concern or interest, and from its inherent nature is the concern of Canada as a whole, then it falls within the competence of Parliament, as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada.”

Further on, the submission of the Attorney General says:

“The Attorney General submits that legislation to control and restrain matters that may cause and contribute to conditions of national inflation throughout Canada is legislation in relation to its subject matter that, from its inherent nature, is a matter of national concern and interest.”

I’m not going to take the time to read the judgement of Mr. Justice Beetz. Those who are interested will do so.

What he said, and he said very clearly, is that if that line of reasoning were accepted by the court -- and he’s the only judge, to my knowledge; although I haven’t read the judgement of Mr. Justice de Grandpré --

Mr. Singer: De Grandpré agreed with Beetz. He has no separate judgement.

Mr. Renwick: He said: “If the argument of the Attorney General of Ontario were accepted, there would, in due course, be no federal system.”

Mr. Singer: Oh, I don’t agree with you.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what he said. I am simply saying that a government who shows now a fundamental incompetence in a field related to the federal constitution of the country and the constitution of this province has long since lost its capacity to govern and, in due course, will be defeated at the polls. There is no question but that will be the case. Let me emphasize what I said. Mr. Justice Beetz is the only one of the justices who dealt with this submission of the government of the Province of Ontario. I know this is terribly boring for the Attorney General.

Mr. Singer: You always quote the losers, do you? The losers are the authority. Why don’t you quote the two majority judgements? They add up to seven out of nine.

Mr. Martel: Maybe he can get up and have the Treasurer yell at us for a while to liven it up. If he doesn’t, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) might help.


Mr. Martel: That isn’t what the Attorney General did for Ontario.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Justice Beetz, in the course of his remarks, said this about the federal legislation -- the Attorney General read the judgement, so I don’t need to read what went before and what went after: “Property and civil rights in the provinces are for the greater part the pith and substance of the subject matter of the anti-inflation Act.”

What it is saying is that the major part of the application of the federal anti-inflation programme dealt with matters within the jurisdiction of this Legislature. The major areas of concern are matters which are traditionally within the constitutional authority of this assembly.

According to the constitution, Parliament may fight inflation with the powers put at its disposal by the specific heads enumerated in section 91, or by such powers as are outside of section 92. But it cannot, apart from a declaration of national emergency -- which the government of Ontario did not argue before that court -- or from a constitutional amendment which, of course, is a different matter, fight inflation with powers exclusively reserved to the provinces, such as the power to make laws in relation to property and civil rights. This is what Parliament has, in fact, attempted to do in enacting the anti-inflation legislation.

On page 26, in what I hope will be the coup de grâce of this particular argument of national concern or national dimension, which is so appealing to this government in the default which it has of its sense of what the constitution is about, Mr. Justice Beetz said,

“The containment and reduction of inflation does not pass muster as a new subject matter. It is an aggregate of several subjects, some of which form a substantial part of provincial jurisdiction. It is totally lacking in specificity; it is so pervasive that it knows no bounds. Its recognition as a federal head of power would render most provincial powers nugatory.”

Well in any event, Mr. Speaker, I found it quite fascinating that it was the whole submission of the government of the Province of Ontario, on which the judgement of Mr. Justice Beetz alone placed the emphasis, in the judgements which he rendered. I find that quite significant, because it means that we have said, or I have said, in this House on a number of occasions, that you can’t fool around with the constitution in a federal system, you have to know it and you have to understand it.

I may have some differences of opinion on questions of whether there is or is not a national emergency or national crisis, and the national emergency power now exists, it has been ceded by the court in many ways. It happens that the dissenting judges didn’t accept that there was a national crisis, but that didn’t detract at all from the emphasis which was placed by Mr. Justice Beetz when he attacked the Ontario submission and said if you follow that course under the constitution you destroy the federal nature of the constitution of Canada.

In any event, those who were interested will, I hope, at some point in time, read that particular judgement; not because it’s a matter for legal scholars or not because it’s a judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada in what may in the future turn out to be a very important case, but it is illustrative of the prime concern which we as a party have had that there is no understanding by this government of the nature of the constitution of the country. They were prepared to hand over to the federal government, on a permanent basis, matters which in substance must of necessity remain within the jurisdiction of this province. They were not prepared --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Nonsense.

Mr. Renwick: -- to recognize that it was but of temporary concern. Of course if the Attorney General of Ontario wants to say that is nonsense, then he again should read the particular concern which was expressed by the court on the question of what the position of the Province of Ontario was.

Mr. S. Smith: Lost 7-to-2.

Mr. Singer: The member should also read what Laskin said.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, let me, very briefly, state our position. We are opposed to the federal anti-inflation programme because t is inequitable, it is unjust and it is very oppressive to those who are not in a position to deal effectively with it. We are opposed to the anti-inflation programme of the government of Canada because it leaves out vast and immense areas within the economic life of the country which impinge directly on persons who work, whether they work in the private sector of the Province of Ontario, in the public sector of the Province of Ontario, in the federal public sector or in the federal private sector.

Mr. Conway: What’s your answer?

Mr. Renwick: All of these areas are left out of any comprehensive scheme to deal with the initial problems and the basic problems, which have been recognized for so long --

Mr. S. Smith: Socialism is the answer, I suppose.

Mr. Renwick: -- of inflation and unemployment. Those problems will not heal unless there is the kind of sensitive, comprehensive programme which has led this party to reject, and object to, the anti-inflation programme of the federal government, which coincides with the policies of this government in combating those two particular concerns.


I happen also, in a day when perhaps legalities take over in the Legislature, I happen to have looked at a bible of ours -- anyway a bible of mine, Halsbury’s Laws of England -- and I would suggest that in this minority situation with the kind of incompetence which has been demonstrated by the government in its submissions on this bill and with the kind of concern which we have in this party about the nature of the federal constitution of the country and the place of Ontario within it, let alone the other areas of incompetence which have been spelled out from time to time in this assembly, I want to say I think it’s about time that in due and proper course consistent with the dignity of this province the government seek a renewed mandate or let us govern. We have got to.

Mr. S. Smith: Socialism is the answer, I suppose.

Mr. Breithaupt: Could we have a third choice, please?

Mr. Renwick: As I said, in kind of a nice detached way, Halsbury said: “It is generally conceded that the ministers of the Crown are under the established usage entitled to a fair trial.” We’ve given them a fair trial.

Mr. Breithaupt: Before they are hung.

Mr. Renwick: At least until it becomes clear that they are unable to obtain that support in the legislative assembly of Ontario which is necessary to enable them to carry on the executive government. I may say that we are now in that never-never land. We have a kind of negative support from the party on the left. We opposed the government on the confidence question on June 22.

Mr. S. Smith: Not in December.

Mr. Conway: You missed one date.

Mr. Renwick: Our attitude is unchanged on July 14. We think we are now at the point where it is customary for the Legislature to extend such support by granting supplies or otherwise as may be necessary to enable the executive government of the province to be carried on in a manner becoming to the dignity of the province, and we have done that until Oct. 31, until the sense of the electorate can conveniently be taken upon a dissolution.

We say to the government that the time has come when in an orderly way and in a proper way the government should seek a dissolution of this Parliament and deal with the question before the people of the Province of Ontario as to the incompetence of the government and on the question of its credibility. In no way has its incompetence and the depth and extent of that incompetence been more shown than in the way in which the government has managed its adherence to the federal anti-inflation programme.

For those reasons and many others to be stated by my colleagues, we oppose and will continue to oppose this legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: I am very pleased to speak in this debate. The Anti-Inflation Board, a piece of federal legislation brought in by the federal government, is one that we feel has been reluctantly embraced by the people of Canada and by the people of this province and certainly is accepted by our party as a necessary means of trying to grapple with the problems of inflation. The problems fall most heavily, not so much on those who are in large businesses and not so much on those who are represented by active and strong unions, but on those who are not unionized or whose unions are very weak and have little clout, on those who might be unemployed, on those who are ill or who are on disability benefits of one type or another, pensioners and old people.

Mr. Peterson: You mean the NDP.

Mr. S. Smith: As long as a situation exists whereby a strong union can bargain for higher wages to keep up with the cost of living and the company is in a powerful enough position to increase its price to pay for that and to pay for other things, as long as we are in that type of situation, then there will be only one group in society that’s able to keep up with the cost of living while the pensioners, the ones on fixed incomes, the ones who are on various government benefits, the ones who are on fixed rates of return from annuities and so on, are the ones who, in fact, go under. As a necessary social document, we see the Anti-Inflation Board as at least one constructive attempt to deal with the hazards and the perils of inflation which are racking the country.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not what you said in December.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is that no means of coping with inflation is going to be universally accepted. We have some serious questions about the Anti-Inflation Board and some of its operations, but basically we feel it has been, and we think the people of this country believe it has been, a progressive and honest effort --


Mr. S. Smith: -- to deal with a terrible problem which is, in fact, hurting the --

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Come on.

An hon. member: You know it is unfair.

An hon. member: Your friends in Manitoba think it is okay.

An hon. member: Listen, you’ll learn something.

Mr. S. Smith: -- poor, the people who are the underprivileged in society. Somebody has to stand up for the little man. The large industries can defend themselves, the powerful unions can defend themselves; somebody has to stand up for the little man.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not the NDP.


Mr. Warner: We’re going to have another debate on --

Mr. S. Smith: We think it is important that to some extent prices be dealt with and to some extent prices have been dealt with. We notice that the cost of living increase is much much lower since the Anti-Inflation Board than it had been in the previous year. This may be bad news to the NDP but we are pleased to see that inflation is beginning to be brought under control and we give credit to the federal government for bringing in the Anti-Inflation Board.


Mr. S. Smith: Frankly, one of the things that worries me about the board is the effect that it has on productivity.

Mr. Cassidy: Because of the control on wages.

Mr. S. Smith: I am a little concerned that since most companies find themselves limited in the amount that they are able to declare as profit, an incentive to modernize and an incentive to become more productive has been removed from many sectors of the economy. I think this is something with the federal budget tried to deal with and frankly I am concerned about it, but I don’t see that this is the place to go into great detail about the Anti-Inflation Board -- all in all, I feel it deserves support and it in fact --

Mr. Cassidy: You want to keep control on wages and not on prices, eh?

Mr. S. Smith: -- it has the support of most Canadians.

What has the provincial government’s response been? They have accepted the Anti-Inflation Board and I commend them for it. They were able to give it strong support and I commend them for that. The Treasurer, mind you, did throw in a few disclaimers from time to time in speeches to Tory groups where he said, “We Tories would have done it differently, you understand,” leaving people to guess and to wonder precisely what was the secret formula he had that he didn’t let the rest of the population in on at the time.


Mr. S. Smith: But, nonetheless, despite these Tory disclaimers, the Treasurer has supported the Anti-Inflation Board and I give him credit for it and I agree with him. He was wise to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not what you voted in December.

Mr. S. Smith: He had two choices as to how to go into the anti-inflation programme. In October when he was deciding to take one of the two choices -- and that is to set up a provincial board to implement, roughly speaking, the same programme or to let the federal board do it -- he chose, for reasons which he explained and which frankly I did not agree with, and I still do not agree with, he chose to hand it over to the federal government.

At that time, frankly, I thought he should have chosen the route that Quebec has taken, and I believe Saskatchewan, and set up an Ontario board, not to do any great favours to the public service --

Mr. Mackenzie: As usual.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Saskatchewan is not signing the agreement.

Mr. S. Smith: All right, I stand corrected. I am willing to stand corrected on that, but certainly there is Quebec. I remind you that at that time it seemed to me that we could have set up our own provincial board, not to deal more favourably necessarily with any of the groups that would come before that board, but in order to avoid certain disadvantages of sending people to Ottawa.

I realize that politically it was very expedient of the government to rid itself of a good many hornets’ nests -- people who were asking for very high wage settlements and where the government would have to be directly implicated in saying no -- and they preferred to slough that off on to Ottawa. That is my reading; I am sure the Treasurer’s reading was that they saw it as necessary to have a uniform board taking care of the whole country and it is a reasonable point of view. I don’t share it but I will agree that he meant well at the time.

I am willing to say, however, that we might have had faster decisions made. I suspect they would have been cheaper; I notice that the bureaucratic expenses of the federal board are enormous. They are spending $12 million whereas the Province of Quebec is only spending $1.5 million and --

Mr. Shore: That is less than rent control, isn’t it?

Mr. S. Smith: -- in fact, the Ottawa board in my opinion has spent a great deal too much money.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The board hasn’t done anything.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They aren’t doing anything; that doesn’t cost much.

Mr. S. Smith: But, I think it would have been cheaper to have our own board. I think that we would have avoided some of the rather unfortunate arbitrary decisions that seem to have been made in which teachers, for instance, in adjacent neighbourhoods, find themselves receiving widely disparate salaries because of some of the decisions that were made and because of the dates at which they reached their settlement. I think that kind of injustice could have been handled better at a provincial level.

I think, generally speaking, that I happen to be one who supports provincial rights -- and this party has stood for provincial rights. I think it would have been better to have a provincial board right from the outset, but the government chose to go federally -- and we know that they chose to do so in a way that avoided debate in the Legislature.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you remember very well the pleas -- and that is the only word for it -- we pleaded with the government: “Bring it before us for a debate. Let us talk about which option you are choosing. Let us have our say on this matter.” And you recall, Mr. Speaker, that they chose to avoid the Legislature and how we heard a lot of jokes about the fact that they lost 9-to-0. Apparently, from the member for Riverdale’s point of view they only lost 7-to-2; and the Treasurer’s point of view was that they lost 9-to-0. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the only side in this House that was right on both accounts was the Liberal Party.

An hon. member: As usual.

Mr. S. Smith: So, what we have seen is a situation where the Attorney General went to defend the case of the Province of Ontario before the Supreme Court. And now, of course, we shall never know whether the 9-to-O defeat was because the case was so weak, or because of the defence that it received. In any case, I think there was a certain magic mixture of those two qualities which resulted in that whitewash, and what we see is that the government has been slapped down in the courts again.

Mr. Warner: A coalition government.

Mr. Davison: You’re going to support them.

Mr. S. Smith: Think back, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine in the days of Mr. Drew and the days of Mr. Frost and the days of Mr. Robarts, that the government of Ontario would be slapped down in the courts twice in a month and a half on fundamental issues?

Mr. Renwick: And you support them.

Mr. S. Smith: That this government would show such contempt for the people of Ontario? That they would not consult with the small towns whose hospitals were involved? That they would not consult with the people when they imposed regional government upon them? They would not even consult with the members of the Legislature on closing hospitals and on handing over the public service of Ontario to the federal government.

Mr. Lewis: After all that, this government still receives Liberal support.

Mr. S. Smith: I believe that we have reached a very pathetic level of government in this province, and the fact is that the courts --

Mr. Swart: And you keep them there.

Mr. S. Smith: -- have become the place that the people receive the consultative process. This government has become distant from people, excessively centralized, very bureaucratic, highly secretive, and recently shown to be very incompetent.

About the only thing I could think of that could be worse than this particular government --

Mr. Lewis: Pathos on the one side; pathos on the other.

Mr. S. Smith: -- would be the giant government that the NDP would impose on the Province of Ontario. It would be the bureaucracy of the socialist dreamers. It would be the bureaucracy of a divided party.

Mr. Lewis: That makes an assumption we will form the government.

Mr. Nixon: The assumption is that you’re the only ones who would be worse.

Mr. Lewis: So to save Ontario from socialism, they will prop you up forever. Boy, oh boy, what a party.

Mr. S. Smith: This group of people, the NDP --

Mr. Nixon: There wouldn’t be an Ontario with you people.

Mr. S. Smith: The NDP would, in fact, subject this province and this country to a massive bureaucracy. For a house, you would have your name on a list.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Mr. S. Smith: Where, in fact, you would have government control of various --

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t even have a list.

Mr. S. Smith: -- aspects of our economy that would make this bureaucracy of the Tories seem pleasing by comparison.

Mr. Renwick: You are sure of that?

Mr. Lewis: How do you like that?

Mr. Nixon: Socialize. Nationalize.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: Here comes the bogy man.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you fantasizing this afternoon?

Mr. S. Smith: I can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that referring to the NDP as socialists --



Mr. S. Smith: I appreciate that referring to the NDP as socialists is very offensive to half their members who represent, in fact, very conservative labour union sentiment instead of true socialism, but nonetheless there is suspicion of the socialist part left in at least some of the members here who haven’t totally gone over to the more conservative labour unions. There are still enough of them that surely they are willing to stand up and accept the socialism, the dream, the Utopia which they have in mind, and not repudiate it the way some of the members have attempted to do.

Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with Utopia?

Mr. Mackenzie: Explain yourself.

Mr. S. Smith: Now let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the situation we now face is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This is a very important debate. It’s one of the most important debates that will ever come before this Legislature. I think that everybody’s point of view should he heard. I think that the members should give courtesy to the speaker to be heard, give those visitors in the gallery an opportunity to listen, and I think if we did that we would have a much more successful exchange of ideas and I think that everybody would be a lot happier for it. I think you should do the courtesy to the person who has the floor to listen to him without interruption.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your comments.

The question is, can we now, in fact, turn back the clock? The question is, can we now set up a provincial board in a way that would make sense when, in fact, so much time has passed? My own feeling and the feeling of our party is very clear, that, in simple words, it is now too late. I have suggested a selection of metaphors from which members are free to choose as they please -- a smorgasbord, so to speak, of metaphors, including eggs which have been scrambled, water which has passed under the bridge, and toothpaste which cannot be put back in the tube.

Mr. Breithaupt: I like the last one.

Mr. S. Smith: You like the last one? It’s yours. The fact is that we have an Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa which has gained a degree of public acceptance, which has gained a degree of familiarity, and nothing we should do should be, in fact, something to weaken that board.

Mr. Moffatt: Familiarity breeds contempt.

Mr. S. Smith: The NDP doesn’t want any Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa; the less of it they see the better. We do want an Anti-Inflation Board, we want a strong Anti-Inflation Board, and we feel that at this time to set up a provincial board would be to weaken the federal one, and therefore we say it’s too late. At the time that the whole concept originated it could have been done quite well, but I think at this point it weakens it.

Let me point out to you that thousands of workers have already come before the federal board. In fact, 82,673 Ontario workers have been affected by the AIB decisions as of June 25, and a great many more have been affected since then, which are not tabulated yet. Of those, 55,290 are in the public sector and the remainder obviously in the private sector.

Mr. Wildman: How many court decisions?

Mr. S. Smith: The AIB has made decisions on 987 cases as of June 25, of which 186 are Ontario public service and 149 Ontario private sector. In other words, about one-third of the decisions are Ontario. They have built up a whole backlog of jurisprudence; they have built up the experience; they have trained the staff; they have gained the experience that’s necessary. It does not seem reasonable to me that we should now duplicate all that, start all over again in Ontario, retrain everyone here, have them go through all the learning process, and duplicate the whole bureaucracy at the Ontario level at this point. It was a good idea then, but it’s too late now.

The next question that comes up concerns the retroactivity of the bill that is being presented to us. We do not like retroactive legislation any more than anybody else does, but you know there are times when it can be a greater unfairness not to have retroactive legislation.

On that particular point, I have here this news release by the OSSTF. That happens to be an organization that I think a great deal of. I think it’s done excellent work and it consists of fine people.

Mr. Bounsall: However -- here comes the big “but”.

Mr. S. Smith: This particular news release, however, is a despicable document from an otherwise excellent organization. It’s released by one Mark Barry, assistant communications director of the OSSTF, and let me read what they say about retroactivity. Let me tell you first of all what eliminating the retroactivity would mean. I asked their spokesman, “What is it you want us to do? If we eliminate the retroactivity, what will happen to your salaries?” They said: “We have an arbitrator’s settlement and we will accept the arbitrator’s settlement.”

What they are suggesting, Mr. Speaker -- and what I hope you will tell to the paperworkers in your other capacity as a member and what I hope other members will tell to the paperworkers, the miners, the steelworkers and the autoworkers -- what they are suggesting --

An hon. member: What about the textile workers?

Mr. S. Smith: -- is that the teachers should be entitled to their 39.2 per cent increase while the paperworkers have been put back to 14 per cent. The paperworkers are not happy with their 14, their 10 and their eight. They say it is a substandard agreement but they have ratified it because it is one which “inevitably had to be accepted because of the imposition of wage and price controls.”

If we remove retroactivity and give these teachers their 39.2 per cent, is that justice for the other workers in this province? They are asking for something which is absolutely unfair to the bulk of the population of this province. They cannot expect that the Liberal Party will permit the teaching profession and the other public servants to get the higher settlements that arbitrators accepted and agreed upon, when in fact everybody else in society has had to conform with the Anti-Inflation Board and had their wages rolled back throughout the private sector.


Mr. S. Smith: The fact is we are not going to give them 39.2 per cent. If the NDP wants to give them 39.2 per cent, let them stand up and say so. Let them declare about it.


Mr. S. Smith: We feel that if the paperworkers had to settle, if the glassworkers have to settle, and if the steelworkers have to settle, the teachers are not a privileged group in society that, just because of the fact that the government bungled it, legally should be able to get away with such a high settlement, albeit that an arbitrator came down with it. The government’s legal bungling is no excuse for that group in the public service to be treated any differently from the people in the private sector of this economy of Ontario, and we must be clear about that.

Mr. Bounsall: There’s a concept called comparability, you know.

Mr. S. Smith: Therefore, when this particular release goes on to congratulate the NDP, I don’t mind that. They are free to do that but they go on to insult the Liberal Party and let me read to you what this release says. When they say, “The provincial Liberal Party support for the government legislation in light of its non-confidence motion moved in December indicates an abandonment of position of principle in the face of political expediency,” let me remind that organization --

Mr. Davidson: It is a matter of fact.

Mr. S. Smith: -- that it was the NDP that voted the other way in December. At that time they abandoned their principle for political expediency and admitted that that’s what they were doing.


Mr. S. Smith: Furthermore, they go on to say, “This move will make many Ontario citizens wonder if the party can now be taken seriously as a stable participant in the political life of the province.” Let me tell you when this organization walks into this House and demands 39.2 per cent at a time when the paperworkers are held back, the steelworkers are held back and the autoworkers are held back, then they have abandoned all rationality in the face of monetary desires and they will make Ontario citizens wonder if the OSSTF can be taken seriously as stable representatives of this noble profession.

I have nothing against the organization. I have nothing against the teaching profession but this particular release is a despicable document. I would expect that there will be a retraction or an apology from that organization for that particular release.


Mr. S. Smith: In summary, what I am saying is that --

Mr. Lewis: The law is bad; there are bad sections.

Mr. S. Smith: -- anti-inflation is something that has to concern all of us. We cannot sit back while the powerful companies and the powerful unions make deals between themselves which then result in higher prices for everyone. We have to protect the people on fixed incomes, the pensioners, the people who hold bonds and annuities for their old age, the ill, the unorganized workers, the unemployed, the people in weak unions, and only something which restricts the degree to which wages can go up in a strongly unionized sector and which controls the degree to which profits can be increased, only that kind of measure can protect the weak in our society.

Mr. Cassidy: What about prices? That’s where the problem is.

Mr. S. Smith: The NDP can crow about prices and complain they are going to control them, but look at what happened in BC.

Mr. Cassidy: You haven’t said a word about that.

Mr. S. Smith: The moment those controls came off, those prices went right up to where they had to be and their profits have still been controlled by the Anti-Inflation Board. The truth is that the prices will go up immediately price controls come off, and we know that. This is something they have gone through in BC. They have gone through it in the United States. We know that that’s what happened. The AIB is a reasonable effort. It’s a social document more than anything else. It’s a reasonable effort to protect the poor, the downtrodden in society and the ones who don’t have the powerful unions to speak for them.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. They’re not even part of the programme.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: We’ll find out whether they’re going to support the general strike in the fall, and we’ll see whether the NDP is prepared to stand and let the people of Ontario know that their friends are the ones who already have powerful unions looking after their interests. My friends are the ones who are receiving pensions and are on fixed incomes, and inflation is killing them.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I was going to conclude my remarks, but asinine comments which one hears from time to time, spoken perhaps elsewhere outside the chamber, suggest that the senior citizens’ pensions are not covered by the programme. Do these people not understand that as inflation increases the value of a pensioner’s dollar goes down; the value of a person’s benefits on workmen’s compensation goes down?

Mr. Wildman: That’s exactly why they should control prices.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t they understand that when there’s a certain amount of money in an economy, and when more of that money goes into the strongly unionized sector, when more of that money goes into the hands of those who belong to powerful unions, that means less real purchasing power is available for those who are not in the strongly unionized sector? They must surely know that. Why do they persist in saying this?

What we say is this: The government has, in fact, made a mockery of itself by going to the Supreme Court and being defeated when they should have allowed the House to vote on it in the first place.

Mr. Davidson: How were you going to vote?

Mr. S. Smith: The government has, in fact, prevented the province from having what would have been better, a provincial board. But too much time has passed, now, for that; and so we say we must all get together, we must support the fight against inflation and we must support the Anti-Inflation Board that exists. The time has passed to set up a provincial board, let’s get on with the game. We have to agree that what the AIB has already done is retroactively correct; we must now face the future in a united way, coping with inflation and recognizing that inflation has as its worst enemies the least powerful in society.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, for several years past, in my former role dealing with many people who had problems with advancing inflation, I applauded, albeit quietly, the efforts of this government to awaken the federal government of this country to the need to face --

Mr. Reid: In the meantime running up fantastic deficits.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that ever-growing problem of national inflation of the double-digit variety. Along with thousands of other citizens in this province, and particularly those who were suffering greatly from the effects of inflation, I was disappointed that for many years the federal government failed to heed the warnings and the exhortations which emanated from this government in Toronto.

Mr. Breithaupt: Four years of deficits.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think it’s very fortunate for the people of Ontario, and for the people of Canada, that the government of Ontario did not become totally frustrated by the lack of response, which lasted for so many years.

Mr. Roy: They did, Bette, they did.

Mr. Reid: Oh, come on! Tell us about the 1972 and 1976 deficits.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It continued to awaken the public concern for this national problem; to make the people of the province, and hopefully our federal leadership, aware of the fact that highest priorities should be assigned to this problem; that the need for national action was the need which was most important, that segmented provincial action would not, in fact, solve the problems nor find solutions for the problems emanating from double-digit inflation.

Therefore, very shortly after arriving at Queen’s Park, I was somewhat gratified to find that, finally, the Prime Minister of this country got the message. On Oct. 13 he made a national statement which revealed to all of us that in fact the concerns which had been expressed so clearly by the provincial government of Ontario had managed to reach the Prime Minister’s ear; he recognized that there were problems which he had to deal with and he announced a programme to begin to deal with the problem of inflation.


Shortly thereafter, I was privileged, as a member of this government, to attend the federal-provincial discussions which took place at the ministerial and official level -- the discussions which were to explore the methods to be used to develop the programme for control of inflation in Canada. It became crystal clear, very shortly into those meetings, that unless the Province of Ontario committed itself fully to the programme and participated totally in the programme there would be no national programme -- none whatsoever.

Mr. Conway: That was your energy policy too, eh?

Hon. B. Stephenson: This was clearly stated in several of the meetings by the senior ministers at the federal level and was certainly reiterated by senior ministers at other provincial levels as well. It became patently obvious to us that unless Ontario maintained its role as a keystone of Confederation that, in fact, this problem of national inflation could destroy all of us.

Mr. Conway: Not to say anything about the policies for teachers.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And as a result of that concern, as a result of our commitment to our role in Canadian Confederation, the Ontario government gave unqualified support to the programme shortly after it was announced.

We did, indeed, become very much aware that the federal programme was specifically directed towards the private sector; that the form of agreement which was developed between the provinces and the federal government would have a great effect upon the scope and the effect of the programme; the kinds of arrangements which were made between the provincial government and the federal government could, in effect, ensure that there would be disparity in the way in which the private sector was dealt with and the way in which the public sector was dealt with.

Therefore, there were many explorations of the method in which this agreement should be signed to ensure that both the private and public sectors of the Province of Ontario, the largest and most populous province of this country, would be dealt with equally under the anti-inflation programme.

We inquired, I suppose somewhat surreptitiously, around about the halls of Queen’s Park to find out what the reactions would be of the members opposite to the development of a programme which would, in fact, provide provincial leadership for this national programme, the kind of leadership which was absolutely necessary --

Mr. Singer: How did that inquiry go on, along the hall?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- to ensure that there would be a national programme and it became very obvious --

Mr. Singer: Did Darcy surreptitiously go along the halls?


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that the kind of reaction which we would get, predictably, from the official opposition, would be a total lack of support for the anti-inflation programme and, therefore, obviously no support for the provincial government in its attempt to play a major part in controlling national inflation.

It was obvious, as well, after a few preliminary discussions --

Mr. S. Smith: With whom?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that the Liberal Party of this province, while they would support their federal brothers initiative in this area --

Mr. Breithaupt: We call it the federal government.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- would demand that there be a provincial board established which could ensure at least two things. It would ensure that there would be a duplication of whatever bureaucracy was necessary to establish the anti-inflation programme.

Mr. Breithaupt: No so.

Mr. Roy: And protect provincial interests, yes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It would ensure that there was duplication of expenditure for this specific programme and it would also ensure that there would be a different method of dealing with the public sector compared with that method of dealing experienced by the private sector at the national level. In order to ensure that there would not be a situation created in which there could be discriminatory circumstances for the workers --

Mr. Roy: Is that what is going on in Quebec?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- either in the private sector or the public sector, where the worker in the CUPE union would be dealt with differently than the worker in the UAW, it was decided by this government that we must commit ourselves to the federal programme totally, that we would not establish a provincial board.

Then we, of course, had two alternatives. We could either bring in legislation which would either be amended to develop a provincial board and ensure this kind of discriminatory action --

Mr. Conway: First things first.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- or we could, in fact, bring in legislation on which we would be totally defeated and submit the electorate of this province to yet another election --

Mr. S. Smith: So to avoid the will of the Legislature.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- in December of 1975, or January of 1976.

Mr. S. Smith: That is the divine right to rule, exactly, to avoid the will of the Legislature.

Mr. Singer: Why go to that terrible Legislature?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We therefore accepted legal counsel at both the federal and provincial level --

Mr. S. Smith: Not federal.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and federal; and had from the highest legal authority at the federal level the word that the method which we finally chose was both legal and constitutional. With that kind of support --

Mr. Breithaupt: Have you got the cigarette boxes on which they wrote their memos?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- we did, in fact, enact the order in council.

Mr. Breithaupt: They were wrong, weren’t they?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There were many cries which were raised about Ontario participation in the programme, and they were from the constituencies which I deal with in my ministry, very happily. They were from the public service unions and from the private sector unions stating that our commitment to this anti-inflation programme would be the death-knell for collective bargaining. That is patently untrue. There may have been some misgivings in the early stages of the anti-inflation programme about the survival of collective bargaining, but it has become obvious recently that collective bargaining is very much alive and well and surviving in the Province of Ontario. This period of time, as I suggested in January, is being used as a pause period to consider other important aspects which may have been dealt with inadequately in other bargaining sessions.

We are, in fact, seeing a very active era in collective bargaining between employers and employees examining important issues. They are examining occupational health issues, examining the productivity issues, the right to work of workers, termination issues within their collective agreements. They are examining a great many factors which, as I suggested, perhaps had not been given adequate exploration when the monetary issues were those which were primary in the collective bargaining process.

I think it has been a period of creativity really in collective bargaining, which I hope will continue. I hope it will continue for the entire period of Ontario's limited participation in the federal programme. I think that’s something which really has to be emphasized. Although this province was enthusiastic in its support of a finely-developed initiative to begin to deal with double-digit inflation, we did limit our support specifically in order to allow this province, to allow its citizens, to allow the members of the Legislature, to allow the government an opportunity to examine its effects and to decide whether further participation would, in fact, be advisable.

As the hon. leader of the Liberal Party has said, obviously it is advisable that we look at this very carefully because the effects so far seem to have been reasonably beneficial. For the first time in three years the increase in the cost of living in this country has been smaller during the first six months than it --

Mr. Wildman: Food prices.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Food prices have increased slightly for a very good reason, because the farmers of this country are finally being paid adequately -- or almost adequately for the products which they produce.

Mr. Wildman: Their prices haven’t gone up.

Mr. Deans: You have got it the wrong way. It has gone down.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not quite true. However, there is a decrease in the cost of living. I think it is a direct result --

Mr. Deans: It is not quite true? It is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Fewer interjections would make for a better debate.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- of the joint governmental initiative against inflation. It is important, to realize that this Act to ratify the government’s decision in January be passed as rapidly as possible, because the chaos which could result if there were a delay in enacting this, I think, is just inconceivable. During the period from October, 1975, to the present time, the Anti-Inflation Board has examined a number of contracts which have been established within the Province of Ontario and they have affected approximately 145,000 employees. Of these, 58,000 were public employees and 87,000 are private-sector employees. But under the anti-inflation programme at the national level there are decisions pending which affect another 125,000 employees, the majority of whom are public-sector employees and the minority private-sector employees. If at this time we were to remove that large number of public-sector employees from this specific programme, we would, in fact, encourage inequities which I think would be insupportable in our efforts to control the inflation spiral and the problems which it has produced for our society.

I think it is also a very happy note to be able to relate that the employment problem which the hon. member for Riverdale has mentioned several times as being the primary one, is one which this government is examining extremely carefully and is working diligently with our federal counterpart to attempt to resolve, with some beneficial effect. Because the actual unemployment figure for the month of June in the Province of Ontario is 5.8 per cent, which is significantly lower than it has been for the last year.

I think there have been remarkable benefits, benefits which perhaps we did not anticipate from the anti-inflation programme. It has not been perfect. It is, indeed, as the former leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party suggested, rough justice, but it is a method of justice which was absolutely necessary for the people of this country.

It was impossible for those, as the leader of the Liberal Party has suggested, on fixed incomes or on very small incomes to deal with this inflationary spiral, and it was the responsibility of all of us as citizens of this country to attempt to do something positive to improve the lot of that specific group within our society.

Mr. Makarchuk: You haven’t done a darn thing.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There isn’t any worker, there is no worker in Canada who is not feeling the effects of the anti-inflation programme, not one, and of course unlike that group of maliciously malevolent misanthropes who sit over there, I consider everyone, every single person who works in this country, a worker.

Mr. Breithaupt: Also nattering nabobs of negativism too.

Mr. Lewis: You said that quite mellifluously.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Be he a steelworker, an automobile worker, a construction worker, a physician, a lawyer, a politician -- for instance, my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition -- I think we’re all workers and we’re all feeling the effects. I think the fact that we are all feeling this demonstrates that perhaps for once in this country there is some united effort to try to improve the future of the society of Canada.

Mr. Bounsall: If that’s the best effort this country can make, heaven help us!

Hon. B. Stephenson: I believe very strongly that unless we continue to function in a co-operative partnership with the federal government in this programme specifically at this time, we shall, in fact, not have a future in this country.

There are other factors involved I must admit, some of them I don’t like to look at, but I do believe that economically we must function together as partners and all of us as citizens, whether we belong to a trade union, whether we are unorganized workers, whether we are workers within the Legislature, have a real responsibility to get behind this programme to make it work to ensure that there will be a future for Canada and for those children we are raising, which will be the future of Canada.

Mr. Makarchuk: How much control are you putting on the spectators?

Mr. S. Smith: Your worship.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the member for Hamilton West, the leader of the Liberal Party, as I’m always interested in the comments of any member of the Legislature. I listened with particular interest because I thought perhaps this time he was going to tell us something about the way in which their policy is arrived at. Strangely enough, I did get a little glimmer of what they really believe. It seems the Liberal position is that if a government imposes some kind of hardship, some kind of acceptable measure on any sector of society, he would then move with haste to impose it on the remainder. That seems to be exactly the position that he takes, as he took during the debate on the rent control legislation.

Mr. Shore: What did you say, your honour, your worship?

Mr. Sweeney: What is your position?

Mr. Roy: You are confused, your worship.

Mr. Deans: The leader of the Liberal Party says that because the government of Ontario has moved to impose that which has worked a tremendous hardship on some sectors of the economy, because the government of Ontario has moved to adopt and accept the federal government’s proposals wholeheartedly, the Liberal Party then wants to join with it to impose those same restrictive measures on anyone who isn’t already under them. I don’t quite understand that position --

Mr. S. Smith: You would if you had listened. You are making it up. You don’t understand it. It comes from your own imagination.


Mr. Deans: -- although I do recall it was brought to my mind that during the debate on the rent control legislation when we were speaking about the need to take some action to safeguard the elderly against the inordinate rent increases that were being forced upon them, the leader of the Liberal Party said, and I can’t quote exactly, but said that --

Mr. Shore: Don’t try, Ian.

Mr. S. Smith: Why don’t you make it up as you usually do?

Mr. Deans: -- that he didn’t feel that it would be appropriate to give relief to one group unless it could be given to all.

Mr. S. Smith: What nonsense.


Mr. Deans: That was the position of the Liberal leader and that’s the position of the Liberal Party.

Mr. S. Smith: Read Hansard.

Mr. Deans: Well, that’s not the position that we take. We begin from the position that we think that the federal government’s action was wrong.

Mr. Conway: Like your EMO position.

Mr. Deans: We begin from the position that we believe that the federal government did to the public of Ontario and to the public of Canada something which they ought not to have done.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not what the judges think.

Mr. Deans: And therefore -- oh, I didn’t say they did it illegally, I said something they ought not to have done. And we don’t agree -- not for one moment do we agree -- that there was within the proper definition of the word, a national emergency. We don’t deny that there is a major problem with inflation. We don’t deny that there need be government intervention in the field. We don’t for one moment suggest that if we were a government we wouldn’t be moving into the field to attempt to come to grips with the problems that are brought about as the result of inflation.

Mr. S. Smith: Then what is your complaint about?

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: Schreyer says that you are wrong, that there is a problem.

Mr. Deans: But when we would move, we would move to ensure that all sectors of the economy were treated with equality, that there was fairness in the legislation, that it recognised that you can’t simply take certain areas of the economy and impose severe restrictions on them and expect that the remainder of the economy will somehow fall into line. And that’s what the federal government did. And that’s what the provincial government, with the support of the Liberal Party, is now doing to the remainder of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Shore: Your cousins down there like it.

Mr. Conway: Read your speech in December, Ian.

Mr. Deans: I was going to say that we were going to talk about the Davis-Trudeau alliance, but it’s now the Davis-Trudeau-Smith alliance.

Mr. S. Smith: Hear, hear. If it is to fight inflation you are darn right.


Mr. Deans: It isn’t simply the acceptance by the government of Ontario, supported almost indecently by the Liberal Party, of --

Mr. S. Smith: If it is to fight inflation you are right.

Mr. Deans: -- the measures that were imposed on the people of Canada and certain people in Ontario by the Liberal federal government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you include Schreyer?

Mr. Deans: It’s the move by this government and its allies in the Liberal Party to completely endorse and to involve themselves fully in what the federal government has done --

Mr. Breithaupt: Like Ed Schreyer; just like Ed Schreyer.

Mr. Conway: Read your December speech.

Mr. Deans: -- in all aspects of the initiative of the federal government. And there is something terribly wrong with a government that thinks that you can begin to impose --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you really believe all this?

Mr. S. Smith: It may be his speech before becoming mayor.

Mr. Deans: -- that you can begin to impose wage controls without having an equally forceful imposition of controls in profits and in prices.

Mr. Shore: You are nuts.

Mr. Deans: That’s where the problem lies, and that’s the reason why we couldn’t support the measures in Ottawa.

Mr. Bullbrook: Time, your worship.

Mr. Deans: That’s the reason why we can’t support the government’s initiatives here in Ontario, and that’s why we find it frankly abhorrent that the Liberal Party hasn’t got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and to say --

Mr. S. Smith: Who are you going to have run in the by-election, Stephen?

Mr. Roy: Your worship, don’t be so partisan. If you become mayor you won’t be so partisan.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Mr. Deans: -- that they in fact do represent the public of Ontario, and that this government has lost the confidence of this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s one of the more responsible things they have done; don’t knock it.

Mr. Deans: What bothers us about the federal legislation is simply this. There are too many exemptions within the federal legislation; there are too many areas of the economy that --

Mr. Conway: Your salary.

Mr. Deans: -- are not dealt with in the federal legislation; there are far too many areas that inflict tremendous hardship on the very people whom the Liberal leader was speaking about -- the poor, the sick, the elderly, food being the most evident one -- that don’t come under the AIB programme, and one would think --

Mr. Conway: How about the fire fighters?

Mr. S. Smith: Your colleague complained the food prices were too low.

Mr. Deans: -- one would think that the Liberal leader, if he were truly in opposition, would want to be discussing how that programme could have been changed --

Mr. Roy: Highly insulting.

Mr. Deans: -- in order to make sure that it met the needs of the people of the Province of Ontario. My colleagues intend to talk about the areas of exemptions and the inadequacies of the federal programme that the government of Ontario together with its allies, the Liberals, are now going to thrust upon the remaining people of the Province of Ontario who were automatically brought under the scope of it at the time of its passage.

Mr. Conway: Talk about the EMO.

Mr. Deans: We’re going to deal with the problems of increased food prices over a period of time. We’re going to talk about the fact that energy doesn’t fall within the ambit of the AIB. We intend to talk about interest rates and the problems that flow from leaving them free to travel as they will in whatever way they choose to go. We’re going to talk about the difficulties that confront so many people living in municipalities who can’t afford the tax burden they’re having to carry simply because this government refuses to provide an adequate source of revenue.

Mr. S. Smith: What could the Province of Ontario do about interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Give him some legal advice.

Mr. Deans: I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it’s for us a simple matter to oppose this legislation because we believe that it is wrong. We believe that it would have been possible in Canada to have developed a co-operative effort with the major sectors of the economy that would have brought about an anti-inflation programme that would have had, if not the full, certainly the majority support of the people of the country.

Mr. S. Smith: The NDP outlined it in great detail, didn’t they?

Mr. Deans: We believe that the major sectors of the economy, as spoken for at the moment by the chambers of commerce and the labour representatives, are in fact prepared to sit down and to seek the measures that would provide for some equity within the system.

Mr. Conway: The new alliance.

Mr. Ruston: The new alliance -- commerce and labour unions.

Mr. Deans: We believe they are prepared to have imposed upon themselves or to take upon themselves the responsibilities to help in the curbing of inflation. But we also think that if that is to be done it must be done as the result of discussion, as the result of an effort being made by government, by business and by labour to find adequate and proper solutions.

Mr. Smith: Thirty-nine-point-two per cent.

Mr. Deans: They did not try. There was very little effort made. Let me tell you that both of the sectors outside the government haven’t even made that approach.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member f for Wentworth only has the floor.

Mr. Deans: I’m accustomed to the member for Ottawa East blabbering on at good length to my left.

Mr. Roy: You are dreaming.

Mr. Deans: I want to tell you that two of the major sectors of the economy are at this very moment and have been all the way through the piece making representation to the government about the ways in which the government could bring in anti-inflation legislation which would be meaningful, workable and fair. I think the Province of Ontario acted as it did with undue haste and illegally, moving into the programme without thoroughly understanding the implications of it, not appreciating the exemptions and the force and effect that those exemptions would have on the economic stability of vast numbers of people in the Province of Ontario.

We think if the government of Ontario had played its rightful role and if it had consulted with those people over whom it has jurisdiction or at least their representatives, it could then have gone to Ottawa and could have laid before the government of Canada a proposal which may well have gone at least some part of the way towards establishing the kind of overall programme with the co-operation of those sectors that we think is possible.

Mr. Roy: Like what?

Mr. Deans: Let me suggest, for example, that the CLC and the Ontario Federation of Labour have on a number of occasions proposed various and a great number of different proposals that could quite easily --

Mr. Conway: Which ones?

Mr. Deans: -- be the foundation of an anti-inflation programme. Let me read to you from labour’s “Programme for the Future.” It’s an interesting document that covers not only those who are within the jurisdiction of organized labour but takes into account the effects of inflation on the very people that the Liberal leader so piously speaks about as if he truly represented them.

Mr. S. Smith: Which ones did they give to Turner? What is the date?

Mr. Deans: I quote:

“What is required is change in the way that important economic and social decisions are made. Business and government must now share their power with labour. If labour’s co-operation is required to lead us out of our economic difficulties, then it can only be on the basis of a programme which recognizes the right to employment for a living wage as the cornerstone of a productive and equitable society, which recognizes the need to create jobs as the first economic priority.”

Let me say that ever since I was elected to this House I have stood repeatedly and asked this government to show us its manpower policy --

Mr. Conway: They haven’t got one.

Mr. Deans: -- to show us the initiatives this government was prepared to take.


Mr. Deans: We have repeatedly, year after year --


Mr. Deans: -- asked the government to show us the initiatives it was prepared to take to provide the economic stability that would bring about the jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have destroyed, with socialist philosophy, you have destroyed. Look what happened to the government of Britain.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; the member for Wentworth only, order. Thank you.

Mr. S. Smith: Another Britain is what you want.

Mr. Deans: I can recall asking the former member for Hamilton West, Mr. McNie, now departed -- not from this earth but from this House -- what his job was, because he was named as the minister in charge of manpower. You know what he said to me? “I don’t know.”

I asked him could he tell me what he had done? He couldn’t tell me a thing. I then got up, in a new session of the Legislature, and asked the Premier if he could tell me who was in charge of manpower.

Mr. Shore: We asked you the same question.

Mr. Roy: Ask him what his job is going to be.

Mr. Deans: It turned out to be the Minister of Labour. I asked the Minister of Labour if she could tell me what she had done in the field of manpower and job creation. Not one single thing could she tell me, not one; because this government, over the nine years I have spent in this Legislature, has done virtually nothing to create jobs and has played a hand-in-hand game, with a great number of American companies, to eliminate jobs in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How many jobs were created in any comparable jurisdiction?

Mr. Deans: Let me go on: “Which contains a commitment to protect those who suffer from inflation by taxing those who benefit.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nonsense. Eliminate the American companies? Tell that to the UAW.

Mr. Deans: “Which includes a commitment to redress this country’s unacceptable record in redistributing income; which recognizes that an equitable society -- ”

Hon. Mr. Davis: Eliminate the American companies, that is what he said; Oshawa is trembling.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deans: “ -- can only be achieved if the power of corporations to set price is constrained to match the constraint which is impressed on the price of labour by the collective bargaining process; and which recognizes the private investment decisions must serve the interests of ordinary taxpayers, ordinary people in the Province of Ontario.”

They go on to say, I might bring to the attention of the leader of the Liberal Party, that organized labour is committed to these objectives and principles.

Mr. Grossman: This must have been left over from the convention.

Mr. Deans: The only guarantee that they will be honoured in our national economic and social decisions is if organized labour is a full partner in making these decisions.

This is the same group that the member for Hamilton West -- the leader of the Liberal Party -- stood up and ran down just a moment ago; he stood up and blasted them out of the Province of Ontario for their greed. Those are the people who are standing up, prepared to share not only in the restraint but prepared to share in the decision-making; they are prepared to share equally.

Mr. S. Smith: Give me the date of it. You know it was after the AIB. There was no constructive suggestion from the NDP before the AIB.

Mr. Lewis: Oh don’t be silly.

Mr. Deans: They go on to say, Mr. Speaker. -- and I know if the member for Hamilton West is not interested in it at least you are.

“What is required is a system of national social and economic planning. Only through planned development will we be able to direct investment to create jobs and secondary manufacturing in the regions where it is most needed, to ensure that the resources are available to meet the basic needs such as housing, to implement a programme of national manpower planning, to plan future urban growth and protect land for food production, to negotiate the distribution of our national income on an equitable basis and to develop a national transportation policy which would complement a national industrial strategy, to implement a social security and health services system which would apply equally to all Canadians and to establish our national and social and economic priorities.”

I want to say to the member for Hamilton West, who finds so much fault with the very people who have committed themselves to work for that kind of a programme, hand-in-hand, together with the other major sectors of society, that if he doesn’t think that is progressive, if he doesn’t think that’s responsive, if he doesn’t think that is responsible, then I ask him to stand up and show me his programme.

Mr. S. Smith: Only they want 39.2 per cent; and they had nothing to suggest before the AlB was set up.

Mr. Deans: Let me go on, for a moment, because I have a minute or two left. I want to raise with you the bogey man of how this programme is, in fact, having a beneficial effect on the inflationary spiral; and I want to quote from another recent article, because these people have done significant research in the field.


Let me quote from recent Globe and Mail, July 13, 1976:

“The recent downturn on the inflation rate to just under nine per cent has resulted mainly from a reduction in food prices at the farm gate [I wish the Minister of Labour were here to hear it], weakness in world prices for commodities and the four per cent upward revaluation of the Canadian dollar with reduced import prices.”

It had nothing, or virtually nothing, to do with the measures taken by the federal government and so eagerly endorsed by the provincial government and supported today by the Liberal Party.


Mr. Deans: It goes on:

“But industrial commodity prices have turned upward again and they are showing year-over-year gains of 30 and 40 per cent in some cases.

“Furthermore, there will be few declines in food prices, energy prices will continue to increase sharply and import prices will rise as the Canadian dollar drifts downward again from its artificially high level of more than $1.03 (US).

“The gloomy prospects suggest that Ottawa will have to tighten restrictions on wages and profits [It would be nice if they would even impose restrictions on profits, never mind tightening them] just to keep the inflation rate from turning upward again in 1977. [And he goes on to say] After a slight decline last year, corporate profits are expected to rise by about nine per cent this year and another 15 per cent in 1977.

“With wage and salary incomes restrained by controls, the pace of consumer spending will be moderate. Economists believe consumers will lower their savings rate from over 10 per cent last year to nine as inflation subsides in the months ahead and this will keep consumer spending rising about the same rate as the GNP.”

Of course, the side effect of that will be less money available for lending, which will in itself once again drive up the interest rates. That will again have a detrimental effect on the housing market and that will again create problems for the very people who work in this province and earn wages and salaries and even at this point can’t afford to buy a home in which to live.

That’s the crux of all of this; that you say on the one hand that the anti-inflation programme is working and creating this kind of beneficial result, but the fact of the matter is that that isn’t so. These are the results, the benefits that you are seeing at the moment, and a downturn is the result of other factors not even contained within the anti-inflation programme, factors which are not borne upon nor in any way relate to what the anti-inflation programme has jurisdiction over. Yet you would take yet another group of workers and place them within the ambit of the responsibility of the federal government which has shown little if any responsibility to workers in the Province of Ontario over many years.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as far as we are concerned in this party that there is a definite need for a co-operative programme in the Province of Ontario. There is a definite need for a co-operative programme across the country. There is a need for the government to sit down with those people who speak for and on behalf of the major economic segments and sectors of the country to work out a programme along the lines of that proposed, not necessarily entirely consistent with but at least using as the foundation that which was proposed by the leaders of the labour force in the country. Because it’s only with that kind of foundation will we be able to guarantee that the next generation of Canadians growing up won’t still be faced with anti-inflation boards, won’t still be faced with wage restraints, won’t still be faced with inadequate Conservative and Liberal governments.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have no quotes from Marcus Aurelius; not a single one from Gibbon. On the other hand, I could paraphrase one of Winston Churchill’s and it goes something like this --

An hon. member: Another bore.

Mr. Singer: -- if the NDP should endure for 1,000 years, this will not have been their finest hour --


Mr. Singer: -- because we have heard two speeches, one from the member for Riverdale and one from the soon-to-be mayor of Hamilton --

Mr. Roy: He will never make it on that speech.

Mr. Singer: -- which really, if we listen to them and if we accept them, would bring to the Province of Ontario economic chaos. If the House voted as these two hon. members are suggesting --


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wilson Heights only. Thank you.

Mr. Foulds: You mean he is going to give a speech for a change?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, if the House voted as these two hon. members suggested, the Province of Ontario would be left without any controls whatsoever in the public sector; and I suppose that’s what they want. They’ve been told that’s what they want, and that’s what they’re doing. They’ve accepted their orders; they’ve accepted their marching orders. The only hint of a positive suggestion came a few moments ago from the hon. member for Wentworth, and he said there’s a definite need for a co-operative programme. Lo and behold, in July of 1976 we have had the hint, the barest hint, of what they might do. It’s the choice of a co-operative programme in July or chaos. Which would you like?

Mr. MacDonald: You weren’t listening.

Mr. Singer: Where were they in December, when there was an opportunity to have Ontario set its own house in order? They were voting with the government because they didn’t want the kind of provincial control over its own public sector that we believe there should be. That’s where they were in December; they were without a positive suggestion.

Mr. Roy: Where were their principles in December?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal at some length with the Deer Roy and Dear Jim letters, but I won’t. I notice that they’re dated Oct. 30, and they followed very closely the day after the remarks made by my hon. colleague, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), who first brought this matter to the attention of the Legislature. I don’t think I’m really overstating it if I suspect that the hon. member for Riverdale, who’s a somewhat slow reaction, reacted a day late to the problem and followed the lead given by the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Roy: Probably.

Mr. Mackenzie: He just thought it through.

Mr. Breithaupt: He got it out of Instant Hansard.

Mr. Singer: The only defence we’ve had up to date of the Ontario government’s programme was the rather unusual speech given by the Minister of Labour. She used a remark that rather tickled my fancy. She said: “We, the Tories, inquired surreptitiously around the halls of Queen’s Park to find out what the reaction might be.”

Mr. Breithaupt: They used vacuum cleaners.

Mr. Singer: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can picture with me -- it boggles my mind a little -- the hon. member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough) inquiring surreptitiously around the halls of this building. I can’t envision it.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t talk to me. We’re cooperative.

Mr. Singer: You see, Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the hon. Minister of Labour and hear her talk about the surreptitious inquiries, one must look back at Hansard and see what, in fact, the hon. Treasurer had to say. He said on Oct. 30: “Our major responsibility is to fight inflation in the best possible way, and not to quibble about the constitution.”

Mr. Nixon: Sounds like C. D. Howe.

Mr. Roy: What’s a million?

Mr. Singer: To heck with the constitution. And you take that remark, and add to it the remarks of the hon. Minister of Labour, and it’s clear the philosophy that these people have is that they feel they have a divine right to rule. The constitution be damned!

They were afraid, Mr. Speaker. They were afraid to come into this Legislature, lay out their programme and ask for legislative approval of what they planned to do. That’s their problem. They believe -- and the Treasurer is the worst offender -- that they have a divine tight to rule and they can do whatever they want. That is why they make mistake after mistake after mistake.

One has to wonder, whence came the opinion of the Deputy Attorney General -- a fine man, a good civil servant, a good lawyer. But isn’t it interesting that in a matter as serious as this one the Deputy Attorney General reduced his opinion to some 2½ pages --

Mr. Breithaupt: And forgot the date.

Mr. Singer: Forgot to put a date on it. I guess he had it handy there in case the Treasurer might want that kind of opinion after the failure of his surreptitious inquiries around the halls of Queen’s Park. But there it was. Mr. Justice Laskin took some 68 pages to deal with this very important problem. The Deputy Attorney General solved it all in 2½ pages. It was too much for the Treasurer to worry about niceties of constitution. “Let’s get on with the business; let’s pass an order in council. Let’s ignore the Legislature; it’s just a big nuisance. We don’t want to do any of that.

I think it is important that the kind of questions put forward by my colleagues, the members for Ottawa East and for Sarnia, and from a number of other members of this party, finally are getting their appropriate answer. The significant judgement is not, as the member for Riverdale said, the judgement of Mr. Justice Beetz. The significant judgement is the judgement of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice gave a judgement, concurred in by three of his colleagues, that made four. Mr. Justice Ritchie gave his judgment, concurred in by two of his colleagues, that made seven, and Mr. Justice Beetz, as is his right and responsibility, gave a judgement concurred in only by one other. So when the hon. member for Riverdale says that is the significant judgement, I am surprised and shocked, really, at the approach that he can take and the way he can enshrine, or attempt to enshrine, a minority judgement and say: “There is the only wisdom in the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Mr. MacDonald: You quoted Churchill earlier and it was wrong.

Mr. Singer: The Premier, at least, learned a lesson and he said, “One does not argue with the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada,” but that’s not enough for the member for Riverdale. He knows better than that. When he says that’s the only significant judgement he is oh, so wrong, and he knows he is oh, so wrong.

Mr. Nixon: He has a lot of self-confidence though.

Mr. Breithaupt: It was really 7-to-3, you see.

Mr. Singer: You see, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Justice Beetz wrote his judgement, and I think there’s a lot of good common sense in it, unfortunately it is not the law of this land. The law of the land is the decision of the majority of that court and not Renwick’s opinion, and not Beetz’s opinion; it’s the opinion of the Chief Justice and the other six who went along with him. That’s the law of the land, and so much for the finest hour of the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Roy: In fact, his opinion is only worth $1.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, there are some very important phrases in all of these judgements. Mr. Justice Beetz sounds a warning note and I think it’s worth noting. On page 7 of his judgement he says --

Mr. MacDonald: You just condemned him.

Mr. Lewis: You are quoting who? Who are you quoting?

Mr. Singer: No, I’m not saying it’s the ultimate. I’m saying there’s a warning note and that’s why I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he and his colleagues --

Mr. Lewis: Who are you talking about?

Mr. Singer: -- should have been sufficiently alert last December when there was an opportunity to set this matter right. He and his colleagues should have been concerned to vote with the amendment that was put forward in the Throne debate and then we would have avoided this.

Mr. Breithaupt: All would have been set right.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t give us warning notes from a minority. Don’t give us warning notes from dissent.

Mr. Roy: You said in December: “I’m not going to posture.” What are you doing now?

An hon. member: Tell us what you’re going to do.

Mr. Singer: I will, just be patient, I’m coming to that. The warning note has to be sounded, and it is this, and I suggest that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, and particularly his close adviser, the member for Riverdale, should be alert to this kind of sentiment:

“Indeed, since practically any activity, or lack of activity, affects the gross national product, the value of the Canadian dollar, and therefore inflation, it is difficult to see what would be beyond the reach of Parliament.”

That’s the kind of thing that we’re concerned about.

Mr. Renwick: That is exactly right.

Mr. Singer: And we’ve got to be concerned about it. However, in this case, the majority of the court said the question of inflation is a problem for the whole of Canada. Had the NDP supported the motion of non-confidence put last December, we would --

Mr. Renwick: They said it was a national emergency.

Mr. Singer: -- have had a vehicle available to us here in the Province of Ontario to control our own public sector. But no, they sold out. They sold out because they did not have the courage or integrity to support the only logical suggestion put forward in this Legislature.

Mr. Nixon: And the Treasurer used their votes as an argument for the agreement.

Mr. Bullbrook: Exactly. That is the sad part of it. He used you people to support what he said.

Mr. Renwick: No, no.

Mr. Bullbrook: Certainly he did. You know it. He said there was a debate on the issue.

Mr. Singer: You see, Mr. Treasurer, that’s the man who walks up and down the corridors of these buildings inquiring surreptitiously and saying: “Don’t bother me about constitutional niceties.” He seizes on that kind of nonsense and that’s why we’re in the position we’re in today, where we have the choice of supporting the wrong step taken by this government or accepting economic chaos, as the NDP would have us do.

Mr. Nixon: We don’t have to support Joe Morris; you do.

Mr. Davidson: It may be the first time he was ever right.

Mr. Martel: You have to support Bill Davis.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was Joe Morris he was talking about.



Mr. Roy: Did the Treasurer really talk to anybody here?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Wilson Heights can continue.

Mr. Singer: Since the Leader of the Opposition was so anxious to hear some appropriate quotes from the judgement of the Chief Justice, let me give him one or two. On page 57 the Chief Justice says this:

“In enacting the Anti-Inflation Act as a measure for the peace, order and good government of Canada, Parliament is not opening an area of legislative authority which would otherwise have no anchorage at all in the federal catalogue of legislative powers but rather it is proceeding from legislative power bases which entitle it to wage war on inflation through monetary and fiscal policies and entitle it to embrace within the Anti-Inflation Act some of the sectors covered thereby but not all. The circumstances recounted above justify it in invoking its general power to extend its embrace as it has done.”

That is the law of Canada as pronounced by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s what it is all about. That is what my leader was talking about when he spoke in this debate a few moments ago. That is what we support. That is what the Supreme Court of Canada has said is valid and is proper and is logical and is reasonable. Let me deal just a little more elaborately --

Mr. Renwick: They didn’t say it was reasonable.

Mr. Singer: -- with what the Supreme Court has had to say about the actions of this government, insofar as implementing the statute by order in council. There is one paragraph on page 65 of the Chief Justice’s judgement, also now the law of Canada, and it really always has been. This is what my colleague from Sarnia was talking about; this is what I have been talking about, this is what many of us have been talking about for quite some time and this is even what Dear Jim said to Dear Roy in his famous exchange of correspondence.

Mr. Breithaupt: A day late.

Mr. Singer: If you are going to do things in this Legislature, you do it by enacting statutes. This is how the Chief Justice put it.

Mr. Bullbrook: We don’t like to quibble, mind you.

Mr. Singer: He said:

“Nor does the issue engage any concern with responsible government and the political answerability of the ministers to the legislative assembly. Rather what is at issue is the right of the Crown, although duly protected by an order in council, to bind its subjects in the province to laws not enacted by the Legislature nor made applicable to such subjects by adoption under authorizing legislation. There is no principle in this country --”

that means in the whole of Canada, even in Ontario where some people think the divine right to govern exists:

“-- as there is not in Great Britain, that the Crown may legislate by proclamation or order in council to bind the citizens where it so acts without the support of a statute of the Legislature.”

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s a novel concept; it really is.

Mr. Singer: No one really ever thought of that, I suppose, until Laskin wrote it out again. There was a man named Dicey who has been writing about constitutional laws for a long, long time. This is a quote out of Dicey’s famous book, well accepted even by such people as the Treasurer, but he can’t be bound up with constitutional niceties.

Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer reads Dicey every night before going to bed.


Mr. Breithaupt: Darcy on Dicey.

Mr. Singer: What is at stake and what has made this whole exercise worthwhile is maybe at long last there is a recognition that the rule of law applies in this province, not the rule of McKeough. I think that is very important. Maybe the government hasn’t learned its lesson yet. You remember, Mr. Speaker, when we talked about the Ombudsman and again with the support of the NDP, democratic party that they are, we passed a resolution amending a statute, again just as bad as trying to do what was done here by order in council when it should have been done by statute.

Mr. Bullbrook: Taking it away from the Legislature.

Mr. Singer: It was illegal and improper and even against several opinions of the law officers of the Crown. But the NDP hasn’t learned its lesson and the government certainly hasn’t learned its lesson. As they inquire surreptitiously around the halls as to what they can get away with, I would think that maybe the answer can come back loud and clear that this Legislature is important and the Legislature, not Darcy, governs the people of Ontario. That’s what this is all about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the member for Wilson Heights should remember that you refer to another member by his riding and not by his name.

Mr. Singer: Oh I’m sorry, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent; you’re quite right, Mr. Speaker.

We are not governed by the hon. member for Chatham-Kent. And he should worry, he has to worry. No less a person than the Chief Justice of Canada and six of his colleagues have said he has to worry about constitutional details. He, too, is part of the law of this province, not part of the people who govern beyond the law.

The reason we are supporting this bill that is before us today is to avoid the economic chaos that the NDP would create. To wipe out absolutely what has gone before would create the worst kind of economic chaos.

Mr. Warner: Let the voters decide.

Mr. Singer: The only reason they are taking this posture today is because they think this is going to do them some good, this is going to curry favour with Joe Morris and some of the others; it isn’t. They would throw the province into the worst kind of financial hysteria, mismanagement and problems that could possibly be imagined to exist.

Mr. Davidson: Why don’t you let the voters decide that?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, finally, we have to say, as loudly and as clearly as we can, that this lesson that has been taught to the government of Ontario by the Supreme Court of Canada, that they too are subject to the law, has to be learned and has to be learned well; and that to go back again to surreptitiously scurrying around the halls to see what they can get away with is no way to run a province.

Mr. Martel: You’re helping them.

Mr. Warner: That is how you keep them in business.

Mr. Singer: We are going to vote for this. We say a plague on the socialists’ house because we don’t believe in economic chaos; and we say a plague on the government’s house because they act against the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Roy: Who did you talk to over here, Darcy?

Mr. S. Smith: Divine right himself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to take part in this debate this afternoon on second reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: He rises to his feet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have listened with interest to those who have gone before. The lawyers in the Liberal Party, and the near lawyer in the Liberal Party, have had their day on constitutional niceties and legalisms; and I’m sure the member from -- formerly from Downsview, where is it he is from now?

Mr. Roy: Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Next to Chatham.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He really hasn’t improved, whether it’s Wilson Heights or Downsview. I’m sure he’s impressed himself this afternoon, but he leaves me a little unimpressed, I must say.

Mr. Singer: Darcy, I was hoping you would give me a gold star, I really was.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am interested in the approach taken by the official opposition to date.

Mr. Conway: Have you got a QC, Darcy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: After they’ve gone through their 11 or 12 speakers, or however many they have, I hope some of them at least -- because the member for Riverdale did not, and the member from Hamilton did not -- offer one constructive proposal as to what might take place.

I’m afraid I do have to agree, I think they have a right and a responsibility and a duty to oppose; but they also, in this House, have some responsibility to propose. And no proposition, no proposal, nothing constructive, has come forward from that party yet, I say, on this issue. Since Oct. 14 nothing very constructive has come forward, and it’s about time --

Mr. Davidson: Louder, I can't hear you.

Mr. MacDonald: You have nothing either.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is about time the Leader of the Opposition remembers this isn’t the Hart House debating society, that he is the Leader of the Opposition and if he really wants to curry favour he’s going to have to come forward with something constructive; he’s going to have to say what he proposes to take the place of the legislation that’s before the House this afternoon.

Mr. Lewis: Come off that stuff, we don’t have to give you alternatives. We’re not the government yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent has the floor.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you dissolve the House, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There you are. They, Mr. Speaker, have nothing to propose to us.

Mr. MacDonald: You haven’t either.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It will be interesting, Mr. Speaker, let me spend just a few moments relating to the House what the actions of the government have been and continue to be to control inflation in Ontario and play our part in controlling inflation in Canada.

I want to outline again for the members the scope of the inflation which we faced last fall, to emphasize the seriousness of the economic situation in which we found ourselves. I want to review for the members the factors which led the government to opt for an agreement which would bring the public sector in Ontario -- and that’s what we’re talking about -- under the programme guidelines in the way in which we did. I also want to briefly review the performance of the anti-inflation programme to date and to reaffirm our support of it.

The problem of simultaneous high inflation and high unemployment in Canada stemmed primarily from unprecedented pressures, which were a feature of the international economy through 1972 and 1973. Most industrial economies were enjoying a boom of major proportions, creating shortages in a number of commodities. A poor harvest in 1973 pushed food prices sharply upwards in most countries. The revaluation of several currencies abroad produced strong demand for Canadian exports and increased the cost of imported goods. Finally, the world economy suffered a major shock as oil-producing nations dramatically increased the price of their crude oil.

I don’t need to remind the members of the double-digit inflation which ensued, not only in this country but around the world as well. The adjustment to that environment forced our trading partners into deep and prolonged recessions from which only now are they recovering.

Primarily because of our relative self-sufficiency in oil, the recession has been relatively less severe in Canada. While unemployment has reached unacceptable levels here, we have for the most part avoided the high and prolonged unemployment suffered elsewhere.

So while we were spared the bitter medicine of recession, we also avoided the adjustment in expectations which others were forced to accept. Canada had suffered through three years of strong inflation. In this situation it was only natural that every group in our society was attempting to hedge against the future by demanding high prices, high wages, high salaries -- increases from the economy generally. Prices were and still are rising faster in Canada than in the United States. And wage settlements in manufacturing were significantly outstripping US levels. Our prospects for short-term recovery and for longer-term international competitiveness were seriously threatened.

Mr. Speaker, there was every indication that a moderation of price increases in this country would be a painfully slow process. Furthermore, the slowdown in the United States economy was going to have a spillover effect here and there was significant danger of a general decline in business and public confidence in the economy with prolonged and devastating effect.

Facing up to these prospects, the government of Ontario had been calling for some time for national action in dealing with these issues. At Premiers’ conferences in 1974 and 1975, Ontario had pledged itself to fully co-operate with the federal authorities in seeking solutions to the inflationary pressures we faced.

We called for federal leadership -- all the Premiers called for federal leadership. And let’s put the constitutional niceties in the context in which they were raised. The Premiers of the 10 provinces, to my recollection, indicated to the government of Canada that national action was needed; that if national action was to be taken there might well be a possibility of constitutional challenges.

The Premiers of the provinces indicated firmly to the Prime Minster of Canada, both in 1974 and in 1975, that they would not raise the constitutional issue, nor did they raise the constitutional issue. So let’s put that in context.

What the member for Wilson Heights described as not quibbling about constitutional niceties was, in fact, a commitment made by the Premiers of the provinces of this country, by the governments of the provinces of this country.


Mr. S. Smith: You had the other option. Quebec took the other option for this.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Quebec certainly did. Quebec more than any other province said, “We will not raise the constitutional issue.”

Mr. S. Smith: You had the other option. That is not a constitutional matter and you know it. You had two options and you know it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, it isn’t a constitutional matter. That’s fine.

Mr. S. Smith: You know it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Not to come to the Legislature --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The issue of not quibbling about the constitution was raised by the leader from Wilson Heights as a complete red herring.

Mr. Roy: Did you say that or didn’t you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That statement had nothing to do with whether the agreement would come to this Legislature or not. It was whether the several provinces would raise the constitutional issue. Get the facts straight. Even if he doesn’t interpret them correctly, I say to my friend, the leader of the third party, let him get his facts straight. It would be helpful occasionally.

Mr. S. Smith: We always have our facts straight.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, you don’t. You don’t have them straight.

Mr. S. Smith: This is just pure hogwash you are giving us. You know you had two options. You know you didn’t have to hand them over.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not a constitutional quibble.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The provinces agreed to put aside any constitutional quibbles that they might have about the federal legislation. That action then came last October and Ontario immediately gave its unqualified support. We placed and we continue to place the highest priority on co-ordinated national action to meet what we saw as a national problem. While we had our reservations about some aspects of the federal programme, we undertook to co-operate fully with the federal government.

I was asked what those reservations were. I’ve never made any secret of them. They happen to be the same reservations which are held by the former leader of the national Conservative Party and which happen to have been expressed since by the former Minister of Finance for Canada, Mr. Turner. We felt, I felt, this side felt, Mr. Stanfield felt and Mr. Turner has since said, that the programme should have started with a 60- or 90-day freeze. We’ve made no secret of that fact as was suggested by the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s your only difference with it, is it? Is that your only difference?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The federal programme consisted of a set of income guidelines, an administrative and monitoring structure and a plan to restrain government expenditure. Price increases were to be limited to a reflection of cost pass-through. Basic standards were established for all wage and salary increases which took into account target cost-of-living and productivity performances. In addition, the provinces were requested to undertake individually programmes of rent control consistent with national goals. Some members were aware Ontario had previously announced its intention to introduce rent review and we instituted a programme of rent control in full co-operation with the national standards.

Mr. Shore: How is that working?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Finally, the federal legislation provided for participation in the price and wage restraint programme by the provincial public sector. The form of that agreement is really the subject of our debate today.

From the beginning the government has been clear in its intentions to enter into an agreement with the federal government which would bring the provincial public sector under the programme of restraint administered by the federal Anti-Inflation Board. The restraint adopted by Ottawa was a plan which required temporary sacrifice by all Canadians. Equity demanded that employees of the provincial public sector should he asked to undertake the same sacrifices -- no more and no less than other elements of our society were being asked to make. If we were to set up a separate review and enforcement body, public servants in Ontario would inevitably be subject to different decisions. Such inequities would have led, I am convinced, to a serious erosion of the national effort and, consequently, a higher rate of inflation in this country.

Mr. Nixon: Or lower.

Mr. Bullbrook: That isn’t the experience in Quebec.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As I’ve stated several times before, we do not agree with the idea that was put forward last fall, which has been raised again recently, that the government has a “special relationship” with some groups in the province. In some form or another, the government has a special relationship with virtually every member of the Ontario work force. We have undertaken to ensure equitable application of the anti-inflation guidelines without any sacrifice of our constitutional responsibilities or jurisdiction.

Mr. Bullbrook: What about the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act? That is not a special relationship. That is a statute.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I say this to my friend, I’m not a lawyer.

Mr. Bullbrook: Don’t you understand? That is a statute, not a special relationship at all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act doesn’t say to me that I treat somebody on the line at General Motors or at Dow Chemical differently than I treat somebody in the provincial public sector.

Mr. Bullbrook: There is an Act, there is a statute on the books.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sarnia does not have the floor.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, that is right, I don’t. I will have it tomorrow though.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My friend is a lawyer and if he wants to clothe special relationships with his friends under some legal --

Mr. Bullbrook: Statutory relationships.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Statutory, my foot. You wanted to cosy up to the teachers and you know that is what you wanted to do, and you call that special relationships. Over here we are proud to say we have the same relationship with every member of the work force in this province and we don’t walk away from that.

Mr. Bullbrook: You be here tomorrow and I will tell you about special relationships.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You go out and tell -- I say to my friend from Sarnia --

Mr. Bullbrook: Don’t you know what the Act says?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Sit down. Sit down! Who has the floor, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Bullbrook: You have to make me sit down.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I say to my friend from Sarnia --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. member for Sarnia take his seat?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I say to my friend from Sarnia, you go out and tell the people at Dow, you tell the people at Polysar that you don’t have any relationship with them -- just a special relationship with the employees of the Lambton Board of Education. You tell that to the people at Dow and Holmes Foundry.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t know what you are talking about. Read your text.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Tell them that you have a legal relationship --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be helpful if the Treasurer addresses his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Bullbrook: Stick with your text.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, certainly. I was being interrupted but I wasn’t being thrown off the point. Your special relationship is so much nonsense and you know it.

Mr. S. Smith: I like your comment “Statutory, my foot,” because that is what you think of the law.

Mr. Bullbrook: You should not ad lib.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, yes I should, I should.

Mr. Bullbrook: Stick with your text.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I say to my friend, he shouldn’t interject because he gets bested every time when he is on the weak position that he is on today and it will be weaker tomorrow.

Mr. Bullbrook: You be here tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It will be weaker tomorrow. You really should leave all the speaking either to your leader or the member for Wilson Heights, because they both do much better than you, and that is saying something, that really is.

Mr. Bullbrook: I can’t deny that.

Mr. Cunningham: What is that -- 9-to-0?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we opted for federal administration of the programme, and as I recall it the majority of the members of the Legislature last December showed their confidence in the government in that decision by voting on that occasion.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right.

Mr. Breithaupt: The NDP did.

Mr. S. Smith: The other lovers of big government also joined with you.


Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have followed the wisest course. Certainly we have been spared the disparities and the inequities which would inevitably have arisen. Ontario’s teachers and civil servants are being treated in the same way as those in our manufacturing plants, in our mines, in our mills. Moreover, I think we have saved ourselves from a massive bureaucratic nightmare. At last count, the AIB staffing is close to 900, but Ontario decided to go it alone in administering the regulations with respect to its public sector.

Mr. Roy: The court doesn’t think so.

Mr. Peterson: You can put them on contract.

Mr. Shore: Rent review has 600.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would think that at least 300 positions in a provincial board would have been required; 300 positions I would guess at $10 million. That’s peanuts over there, but it means something to us on this side of the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Put them on contract.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, “What’s $10 million? What’s $10 million?” That’s his line.

Mr. Shore: What is $15 million?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Some mention has been made --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s about five days’ interest on your debt.

Mr. S. Smith: Your debt has been the main reason for inflation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. This is a very important debate and those who have spoken before, I have tried to give a good hearing. I think you should pay the same courtesy to the provincial Treasurer.

Mr. Reid: He is being provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’ll take three days by the time he is finished.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: Be courteous.

Mr. Shore: It cost $13 million for rent control.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Some mention was made that delay would have been avoided. There is no question, there has been delay in decisions by the AIB. We are told that the backlog now, by and large, has been cleaned up and that they expect to give either affirmative decisions or be in a position to require more information, they would hope, within the next month on a two- or three-week basis. They have caught up, and the administration of it, I think, is generally in hand.

As I say, there is no reason to think that we wouldn’t have encountered the same delays, the same bureaucratic problems of starting up a board and an administration that large, with, as I say, I suppose 300 people and I would guess something around the neighbourhood of $10 million a year.

I tabled for the information of the members a report prepared by my staff last month which documented the first six months under the anti-inflation programme. At that time I indicated that we were encouraged by the early signs. While there is a way to go before it becomes fully effective, I was confident that we were going to be able to lick the inflationary problem that has encompassed us.

Since that time the hopeful signs have continued. With the release -- and mention has been made of this today -- of the consumer price index for June, we have had seven consecutive months in which the year-to-year increase was less than 10 per cent. On the wage side, I have said and I say again that the news has not been so encouraging. Wage settlements in the first quarter of this year showed no significant moderation in yearly gains. This reflected in large measure I am sure in the flow-through of a number of particularly high settlements necessitated by the elements of fair play in the AIB regulations. I understand that more recently the board has begun to apply more stringently the arithmetic guidelines set forth and I would expect therefore to see wage settlement data reflecting the moderation.

The impact that excessive demands on the Canadian economy are having on our competitive position in international markets continues to be a matter of considerable concern. I would hope to see a moderation in wage demands following in tandem with the slowing of general price inflation, which would not then imply any sacrifice of real income from our work force, but wage increases in the order of 13 to 14 per cent annually, with inflation running at a six or eight per cent annual rate, is simply not compatible with the current productivity performance of this country and the goal of stabilizing our prices.

Finally, I want to reiterate the view that it would be inconceivable now, as it was nine months ago, to consider a separate board dealing with the provincial public sector. We undertook then to make this programme work in Ontario with only a small dose of bureaucracy but with a large dose of effectiveness. We were concerned that everyone in the province be treated fairly and equitably, both by the guidelines and in their administration and enforcement. We were concerned that this programme deal effectively with a problem of national magnitude and I believe that the evidence shows that these things have been accomplished with minimum cost to Ontario and to its citizens.

Therefore we ask both parties for their support. We think this fight against inflation has to be won. I have listened -- I will listen -- to hear what alternatives our friends in the socialist party would put forward. As I have indicated, two people have spoken and neither one of them, in my view, has put forward any kind of an alternative.

I just don’t think they can go out -- and I say this in sincerity -- as a responsible party, which they like to think they are, and say to the people of Ontario: “We are going to vote against this bill. We don’t want controls. We don’t want them retroactively. We are just going to say to the people in the public sector -- teachers, the civil servants, all the people who have been brought under the ambit -- that they have some sort of special place and we will forget about controls on teachers.”

We will continue, because the federal court clearly has said, 7-2 I am told, that under the Act of the federal government the workers of General Motors and the Dows and the Holmes Foundry and the chartered banks are under control. How those members can sit there and say as a responsible opposition -- and I like to think that in this Legislature we have responsible opposition -- that they are going to vote against this bill and make friends with their friends in CUPE and their friends in the teachers’ group by saying, “We are just going to let you go free and we hope that you will be moderate in your demands,” I don’t know. If that’s responsible opposition, then I say to my leader let’s go to the people and ask them and let’s do it soon.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Treasurer of Ontario that if he wishes to hear part of our policy as to what we would expect in the way of a replacement to what is before us in this bill, he will have to exercise some unusual patience and sit around the House for a while, because it will come in due course.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’ve listened for the last several months and haven’t heard anything yet.


Mr. Ferrier: Not in the last nine months.

Mr. Bounsall: There are so many interested speakers in our party on this bill that we have divided up the areas; and the Treasurer may just have to be a little patient as to what we would expect in terms of an anti-inflation programme.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I was prepared to be persuaded to vote against the bill.

Mr. Bounsall: You just might have to sit here for a day-and-a-half and be a little patient; we might be able to persuade you.


Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, as I sat digesting my Thanksgiving dinner Thanksgiving last --

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least you had yours at home; some of us were elsewhere.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I must admit I was mildly shocked to --

Mr. Ferrier: Didn’t Pierre put up a good meal?

Mr. Bounsall: I was mildly shocked to hear the Prime Minister of Canada come on the television and indicate that in such a short time, in less than 15 months, he had changed his position. It went in 15 months from a shrug about not being able to do anything about inflation in this country, because it was all imported anyway, to the fact that with continued Liberal rule the country was in an economic mess. I was rather surprised --

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was easier for some of us to adjust to that.

Mr. Bounsall: -- that they would admit it so publicly that the Liberal economic policies had made such a mess out of this country. That was the surprise part. It was not so much that he would flip-flop in a period of 15 months, because we’re used to flip-flops in this House from that party occurring a little more often than that.

I was rather interested in what was going to happen, because our party is not a party that disbelieves, per se, in controls. In fact, one might say of our party that we wouldn’t mind, in many instances, a little government inspection and perhaps some interference from time to time in the economic life of our country in order that it work to the best interests of the people of the country of Canada, or the Province of Ontario. I’m not at all opposed, per se, to price and wage controls. I was interested to see how it was going to work, and sat down to avidly read the paper over the next few days as to how it was going to work.

My next-door neighbour bounded over to my house the next day, a Mr. George Horobin [See Hansard No. 97] and said, “Hey, look, I bought some screws and some sandpaper last weekend.” He had spent the whole Thanksgiving weekend doing some home repairs and he ran out of both items. He went down to the nearest Canadian Tire store and bought the equivalent two commodities. The sandpaper, between Tuesday and the previous Friday, had increased by 42 per cent; and the screws had increased by 54 per cent. And he said, “Look, what are you going to do about it? We’ve now got a wage and price control board in Canada, I drop it in your lap.” In all good sincerity I sat down at my tape recorder and dictated a letter to the Anti-Inflation Board.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why didn’t you lend him some of your own sandpaper?

Mr. Bounsall: I get about as much time to do home repairs as you do. When did you last do any sandpapering?

Mr. Foulds: Don’t ask him about the other commodity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said sandpaper.

Mr. Bounsall: So, I put it on tape. But before the tape got down to Toronto and that letter typed, there was a pronouncement from the Anti-lnflation Board which said: “We’re not going to deal with prices unless there’s a huge, general outcry from a particular area; and we’re not going to deal with the little stuff.” So, I took that clipping over to George Horobin, and I said “Look I’ve got a letter ready to go, but why the heck bother sending it?” That was the response of the AIB and he agreed that I needn’t bother to keep my eye on prices from there on in. But I kept my eye on the situation and I’ve not seen any prices of small commodities even attempted to be rolled back or even looked at by this federal Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Peterson: You can be critic in charge of the number of screws.

Mr. Bounsall: The next week, maybe seven or eight days later, I dropped into --

Mr. Peterson: What did you do in the meantime?

Mr. Bounsall: -- my local gas station, which does all my repairs. A person by the name of Ron Carr, a good man, comes charging out and he says: “What are you going to do about this Anti-Inflation Board and all these price increases?” He had prepared, for the next time they came in, the increases in the price of brake drums that had occurred over the past two years. He said: “I’ve got the steel prices.” He had done some work. He had comparable increases in steel prices. He had comparable increases in the price of brake drum components. There was something like a 142 per cent anomaly between the two. He said they had just gone up another $23 for a standard set for -- I forget what it was now -- a General Motors Chevrolet car in the last two days. And he said: “Is this the type of price control we are going to be getting in Canada?”

By that time I was able to quote him what had appeared in the paper about these small component increases. He said: “What am I supposed to do? I can’t do anything else but pass on this price increase to my customers, but if they are feeling there’s been some price control in this country they sure aren’t going to be able to judge it from my bill, and I’ve got no control over the price of brake drums.” I said that I would also try to keep my eye on that situation. That might be even a slightly bigger component than screws and sandpaper and maybe the Anti-Inflation Board might be interested in the price increases of car components and brake drum components.

I made the mistake of going to church the Sunday following that. This is now 13 days after the pronouncement.

Mr. Peterson: What did you do in the meantime? Don’t leave those days out.

Mr. Bounsall: What did I find? I found myself confronted with an electrical contractor who was just furious. He said: “Look, everything has gone up about 40 per cent.”

Mr. Peterson: In church? Come on!

Mr. Bounsall: After the service, not in the middle of it -- we Anglicans do have a little decorum -- he confronted me with the price increases.

Mr. Peterson: That is a relief.

Mr. Sweeney: Did you increase your contribution?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What did you say? I didn’t hear that.

Mr. Riddell: What is the price of those screws today?

Mr. Bounsall: Even high churchmen, like the member for Riverdale, have even more deportment.

Mr. Renwick: And my friend, the government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the Treasurer.

Mr. Bounsall: In any event, the electrical contractor grabbed me right after the service, again in some agitation.

Mr. Sweeney: Where we?

Mr. Bounsall: He said: “Have you any idea how the prices of electrical components have gone up to since Thanksgiving? Because that is such an indirect charge to persons and as this is going to end up in my bill, is there going to be any investigation of that?” I said: “Well, I guess that is another thing I’m going to keep my eye on.” And I told him the story of the brake drums. Before I got to my car, a plumbing contractor --

Mr. Peterson: Did you take long to tell him?

Mr. Bounsall: -- had contacted me on the same matter. As far as I can determine, there has been no attempt whatsoever on the part of the federal government with the programme it has to do anything about this control of that kind of price increase. When this Legislature asks us to put a group of workers under a wage and price control system that works in that manner, then I tell you give us a system that has a decent workable component of price control and we’re not going to be that complaining about putting workers under wage controls.

Mr. Riddell: You never bought beef cheaper than you are buying it today.

Mr. Bounsall: But they had better go hand-in-hand and the price control had not only better come first but be seen to come first. That’s the basis for our agreement. We’re opposed to this particular federal Liberal government wage and price control system as we have seen it operating and we’re opposed to the provincial government being any part of it. We will not vote for any legislation that opts Ontario more into a programme which we feel is not working whatsoever. We will oppose that and for those reasons, because we have direct wage control under that programme and, at best, indirect and usually no price control at all. That is a system we do not believe in. That is the type of control it appears that the Tories and the Liberals like but it is not what the NDP likes and we will oppose it right down the line.

I took a survey in the last questionnaire I sent out to my riding last March in which I asked: “What aspects of the federal price and wage control programme do you like” I was very careful to word the question so I wasn’t leading anybody -- “(a) wage control only, (b) price control only, (c) both, (d) neither?” Only one per cent, not surprisingly -- one per cent -- wanted wage control only, 25 per cent wanted price control only -- and usually they didn’t write any comments on the questionnaires they sent back -- 19 per cent didn’t want either -- I would assume those were, by and large, the laissez-faire advocates who didn’t believe in any kind of government intervention -- but 55 per cent said they wanted both.

You should have seen what they did to that questionnaire. They wrote all over every conceivable free space on it. Some of them sent me letters back in saying, “We want both, not just wage control,” That was the tenor of their remarks, and they went on to enumerate the areas of price control which they wanted to see. They were saying, “Both, but what’s happening in the prices?” These were the ones most commonly mentioned -- and I checked my questionnaire sheet upstairs before this debate. They said, “What about the price of land and housing? What’s being done about that? What about the mortgage rates and their increases? Is anything being done to roll those back. What about energy prices in all forms?” They heard rumours of Hydro rate increases, and they had just had gasoline rate increases and rumours of more in the future. Many of them said they wanted both and asked if there would be increases in connection with the cost of living in things like old age pensions. That’s the type of comments I got back from those who wanted both.

The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) sent out an identical question on his questionnaire. He got a somewhat larger number of replies, and if I recall the statistics, they didn’t vary any more than one or two per cent in his replies from what my figures are. There is a great feeling out there of people who do not want wage controls, but an even greater feeling of those who would accept those, as we would in this party, provided there was some valid price control, and they could see and feel in these major areas some price control in the economy.

Just to leave that for a minute, I was quite interested in the last couple of days in some articles that appeared in the Globe and Mail. On July 9 an article by Wayne Cheveldayoff --

Ms. Gigantes: Cheveldayoff.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you. I was going to say I hoped I wasn’t mispronouncing it, but I am glad to have a fellow colleague from a riding which is more francophone than mine to be able to correct my pronunciation.

Mr. Peterson: That is not a French name, you turkey.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s not? Well, it starts off that way. I just don’t know how to put the Hungarian endings on the end properly.

Mr. Peterson: That is your whole problem right there.

Mr. Bounsall: He is obviously a bilingual person, the member for Windsor-Riverside tells me. The article is labelled, “Unit labour costs” and it is a survey of how much labour costs went up in all of the western democracies. And, lo and behold, in 1975 -- a year during two-thirds of which we had no wage restrictions in this country, and since Thanksgiving the wage restrictions were too new to really be effective -- Canada shows to have the lowest wage increase in all of the western countries that were surveyed.

The smallest gain in unit labour costs was 9.5 per cent for Canada; the United States was 11.1; Japan 16.9; France, 38.3; West Germany, 13.7; Italy, 32.8; Sweden, 27.7; and Britain, 21.8. So one kind of wonders about the need for wage control when in 1975, in the year in which this programme was initiated but did not really get rolling, Canada had the lowest rate of the western countries that were surveyed. And again, by the same gentleman on July 13, in an article on the business page entitled, “Economic Report,” talking about inflation:


“The recent downturn in the inflation rate to just under nine per cent has resulted from mainly a reduction in food prices at the farm gate,” a commodity which is not under the federal wage and price control programme, “weakness in world prices for commodities,” again something which is not being controlled by the federal wage and price control board “and the four per cent upward revaluation of the Canadian dollar which reduced import prices,” again a matter not under control of the federal wage and price control board -- this is what has resulted in our lower inflation; not, therefore, any action by the federal wage and price control board. It makes you wonder why we have it, doesn’t it?

The industrial commodity prices, however, if you look at the industrial commodity prices, have turned upward again and are showing year-over-year gains of 30 and 40 per cent in many cases. That’s how effective the price control component of the federal wage and price programme is, in fact, on manufacturers’ industrial prices in this country.

Mr. Renwick: That is where the inflation starts.

Mr. Bounsall: Then it goes on and says:

“Furthermore, there will be few further declines in food prices. Energy prices will continue to increase sharply and import prices will rise as the Canadian dollar drifts downward again from its now artificially high level of more than $1.03 US.”

So the recent downturn in any inflationary pressure has all come in areas in which the wage and price control board has had no effect. The one area which is completely identified as steadily increasing is the area in which they do have some effect. That comes as no surprise to me, because I have seen no real attempt, directly or indirectly, to recluse prices through that Anti-Inflation Board. I’m not filled with confidence when, a couple of months ago, it was stated, when the board was queried as to what efforts it was making and what results could be pointed to in terms of decreasing prices: “Certainly it’s working; we managed to have one particular hotel, in Toronto I believe it was, delay a price increase by one month.” That really fills you with confidence in terms of controlling prices through what that board is doing.

Therefore, it should be clearly understandable why we have no interest in participating in that kind of a wage and price control programme. This government is to be condemned for the particular bill it has in front of us, which places large groups of loyal, hard-working public servants in triple jeopardy.

I refer, of course, to all those groups of public servants already under compulsory arbitration by legislative action of this Legislature. I refer to the 50,000-plus Crown employees in the Province of Ontario, including the employees of boards and commissions, who have to operate under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. I refer to the hospital workers under the Hospital Disputes Arbitration Act. I refer to the Ontario Provincial Police and the municipal police under compulsory arbitration under the Police Act. And I refer to the firefighters who, partially to avoid having compulsory arbitration placed on them legislatively by this Legislature, some years ago stated they would accept voluntary arbitration in each and every case where they hadn’t reached agreement, and because that has become the pattern, it is almost as if the legislation had been written for them, placing them in just as disadvantageous a position as the other groups of workers I have mentioned.

First of all, the government takes away their right to strike by making them go to compulsory arbitration. They take away their right to strike without any counterbalancing compensation. It’s as if former Chief Justice McRuer, in his compendium on civil rights, had not written that section dealing with the right to strike, in which he said there may be some groups of workers who shouldn’t have the right to strike, but when you pass that legislation taking that right away you build in some really compensatory clauses for them to make up for that denial of that right. You take away that right to strike and you don’t give them any compensating counterbalancing effects in legislation.

You take away the right to strike and give no compensation for the loss of that right. You then say, “Okay, if you can’t settle you’ve got to go to compulsory arbitration.” And over the years, the decisions and comparisons made by those arbitrators clearly caused the workers involved, particularly hospital workers and the employees of the Liquor Control Board and the Liquor Licence Board, to fall steadily behind, year by year, their comparable workers.

At one point just two years ago last May the hospital workers in the Toronto area, denied the right to strike, almost took an illegal strike. Why? Because over the years the compulsory arbitration had placed them so far behind that when, for example, you compared a custodial worker in the hospitals in Ontario with a custodial worker in our school boards in Ontario the hospital worker was 40 per cent behind.

That’s what compulsory arbitration decisions did to that group of workers. In order to win some partial recovery -- and by no means was it full -- they almost had to defy the law of the Province of Ontario to so do. And they are still not caught up. As well, at this very moment Liquor Control Board employees in Ontario and Liquor Licence Board employees are $3,000 behind the comparable Brewer’s Retail workers, who have the right to strike.

If their latest arbitration award gets implemented, if this bill passes, and the Ontario government supports it before the AIB, they might only be $2,000 behind the comparable workers in the Brewers’ Retail situation. That’s what compulsory arbitration does.

So you take away the right to strike; you send them to compulsory arbitration; that’s the kind of attitude which results. Now you say, having received a settlement from an arbitrator -- certainly not known over the years to be a generous settlement -- through this bill you are now going to send them to the federal Anti-Inflation Board, which knows nothing about the working conditions and jobs of hospital workers, liquor store employees, firefighters, municipal police, or the comparability of those workers with other people in the Ontario economy.

I don’t know how the government can treat people this way. If it didn’t know the persons involved, or didn’t understand their job it would be different, but these are the government’s own workers of which it is rightfully proud. These are its own civil servants it is treating this way, of which it is rightfully very proud. Both the Premier and the Minister of Education rightfully uphold the teachers in Ontario as they do the whole system of education in Ontario. The LCBO employees in many areas of the province are -- or were -- the government’s very close friends. If it treats its friends this way, thank heavens the government is not in a position to deal with other groups any more than it has.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. In other words the opposition treats its friends differently from the rest of the people. That doesn’t surprise me a bit.

Mr. Ferrier: You are treating some of your friends as enemies, Bill.

Mr. Bounsall: No, I am just glad that there aren’t any more of these very groups that the government has created and of which it is so rightfully proud.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see, that was a slip. That was a slip.

Mr. Bounsall: Because these are its friends and this is how it chooses to treat the people, its employees, of which it is so rightfully proud.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We try to treat everybody equally.

Mr. Bounsall: Well, the government has done a good job for its friends over the years and made sure they have been behind.

Mr. Renwick: Hear, hear. You know that.

Mr. Bounsall: And what about those teacher groups under Bill 100, which was so very carefully set up and debated for months in this Legislature and in committee, which either went voluntarily to arbitration under Bill 100 or which this Legislature forced to compulsory arbitration?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes, the teachers. Do you remember being in my office when you were so sympathetic to those parents?

Mr. Ferrier: The AIB has more power than this Legislature.

Mr. Bounsall: The government wants to take that whole careful process to the AIB. It was your careful choice and you agonized -- maybe not the Premier but the minister -- over the choice of the arbitrary affair of those settlements. They look at the whole system. They presumably are used to and understand some part of education in Ontario. They come down with an arbitration settlement and the government says take it all to the Anti-lnflation Board as if someone up there knows anything about education in Ontario. Is the Premier happy with that situation? Well, we certainly wouldn’t be.

I just might say that the Liberal leader made some remarks -- in fact, a rather direct attack on the OSSTF and the Toronto teachers -- by mentioning that it was 39 per cent which went to the Anti-Inflation Board. As usual, maybe he should remind himself that the 39 per cent was the board’s figure which the arbitrator found to be an inflated figure and not a true amount as it related to the board’s expenditures and cost of that settlement. Also, the AIB allows for some comparability. The Toronto teachers, who were so directly affected by that two-year level increase awarded by the arbitrator, now happen to stand 45th amongst secondary teacher groups in salaries and benefits in the Province of Ontario. The government didn’t say that. That was said over here, but he should understand a little bit more about whom he’s attacking and what the facts are before such a blatant attack occurs on a group that stands 45th in the Province of Ontario as it now turns out.

It is rather interesting in terms of arbitrated decisions. The Liquor Control Board employees have gone through this whole process. They’ve got an arbitrated settlement and they are hoping, as this perhaps is being sent to the Anti-Inflation Board, that they might get the support of the chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or the lawyers that work on their behalf.

A letter of June 30, 1976 from the lawyers acting on behalf of the board to the arbitrator from Dispute Settlement Services Ltd. made it very clear. They acknowledged first the receipt of the letter purporting to give effect to the agreement pursuant to section 12 of CECBA. The letter said:

“We would ask your board to consider the position on the grounds that the agreement submitted by you for execution is void ab initio under the governing law, namely, the anti-inflation legislation and regulations passed thereunder since the compensation provided is in excess of the maximum allowable under the findings of the Anti-Inflation Board in its letter of April 23, 1976. As a result, the boards have no legal right to enter into the form of agreement submitted.”

The Liquor Control Board through its lawyers, is saying “We’re not going to enter into that agreement which you as the arbitrator sent in. Would we go before the Anti-Inflation Board on your behalf? Not at all.”

Contrast that attitude on behalf of the lawyers that work for the Liquor Control Board in Ontario with what happened in Manitoba. J. Frank Syms, chairman of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, sent a telegram to Jean-Luc Pepin protesting against the Anti-Inflation Board’s rollback of a wage settlement with commission employees.

The AIB ruling rolled back the salary increases to 12 per cent from 23 per cent. Mr. Syms said:

“We are hereby appealing to your well known sense of fairness for personal intervention and review of the reported AIB recommendations whose implementation would result in a grossly unfair effect on all personnel within our agreements. The rollback would mean liquor store clerks would be paid $1,500 less per year than their counterparts in Saskatchewan.”

Does the Liquor Control Board of Ontario send off a telegram in that regard or does it support the wage increase offered? No, the chairman refuses to go with them and the board is refusing to implement the report.

There is the contrast in chairmen when it can be shown, even with the full report completely implemented, they are $2,000 behind the comparable brewery store workers in the Province of Ontario. That’s the kind of thing about the government’s treatment of its employees which we find highly distasteful.

Mr. Riddell: What time?


Mr. Bounsall: In mid-June -- just very shortly. In mid-June I asked the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Auld), as the first of the settlements involving the different groups within the Ontario public service employees’ union came forward, if he was going to go before the Anti-Inflation Board -- if, in fact, that Anti-Inflation Board still existed at that point -- to argue on behalf of the increase granted by the arbitrator to a group of workers who had demonstratively fallen behind the private sector in the last three or four years.

The answer at that time was very typical of the member for Leeds. They weren’t too sure what he said, but it wasn’t much of anything -- it may have been yes, it may have been no. I don’t think he even clearly said he was going to consider it.

I checked with representatives of the Ontario public service employees’ union regarding a form that one must fill out. You check off a box, yes or no, as to whether you are going to appear on their behalf. And the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, the member for Leeds, had signed it and checked off the “no” box. Now, that is really supportive of an arbitrated decision involving public servants in the Province of Ontario -- in sharp contrast to what takes place in other provinces. This government should not be at all proud of that kind of performance by its ministers of the Crown who have to deal with our very loyal and hard-working Crown employees in this province.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say that there may be some tendency, in looking at this bill, to perhaps amend the bill to make the bill not retroactive, but to start it perhaps on the date that this bill is passed. Because there is a concept in here as to how you can make it retroactive, when that whole retroactive period was ruled to be unconstitutional by the actions in which the government treated that whole period. So, I think there is a fair argument to be made on constitutional grounds as to it not being made retroactive. But that would, in my opinion, given undue credence to the bill over what it should have in terms of our strict opposition to the bill.

There are persons who would argue that a provincial board in Ontario should deal with its own civil servants, but in terms of what we see in the Liquor Control Board and the Chairman of Management Board, this would not be a better board for provincial employees. I would certainly hesitate in setting up of a board reporting, as it must, either through that very well known economic guru, the member for Leeds, or more likely through that soul of sympathy and understanding, the “Duke of Chatham.” I certainly find that no palatable or acceptable alternative to sending wage settlements to the federal Anti-Inflation Board, which controls wages and doesn’t even support price controls. I will not vote for any bill that treats persons in the Province of Ontario, no matter who they are or how big or how small the group, in the manner we have seen people treated under that board.

Mr. Roy: I am rather enjoying this debate. I have sat here and listened to all the speeches -- all the participation by the various members on all sides.

I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we can’t have more debates like this and that we are caught up in other activities. As you know, most of us, including the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), and my own leader, were on holidays. Since there is nothing else to do anyway, we might as well spend it in this place. It gives the whole chamber a certain aura of participation in which --

Mr. Breithaupt: It is almost a debate.

Mr. Roy: Yes, it is almost a debate. I must say that the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough) would be more interesting if he just stayed away from his notes. He starts to banter for four or five minutes and then gets his nose into his notes and then does not participate in the debate. I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it makes your job somewhat difficult because there are exchanges going back and forth, but I must tell you, I think it’s enjoyable and I appreciate having some 10 minutes to participate in the debate and state our position very clearly, and possibly be somewhat repetitious of members who have gone ahead of me.

I must say that I have learned certain things. For instance, the member for York Mills (B. Stephenson), who participated somewhat earlier, mentioned the fact that there was some attempt apparently by the government to get some feel as to where things were going last fall, and whether they should bring in legislation in this House.

Mr. Lewis: She used some unfortunate words.

Mr. Roy: Yes, she did, and of course I don’t intend to repeat it, basically because I don’t think I could say it right, and because the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) has said it often enough, so I shall not repeat it. But I do want to say this, having looked at the whole approach of the government and at the legal advice given by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), he should get a slap on the wrist for having given bad advice, not only on this but also in the hospital situation, and he didn’t do too well on hockey violence either, actually.


Mr. Roy: He is just starting on that but the jury has other ideas. I say he runs into trouble when he faces juries and judges, and that’s not saying very much for the chief law officer for the Crown.

Mr. Nixon: It is just for the press gallery that he is able.

Mr. Roy: Yes, that’s right. I intend to talk about that if I get an opportunity later on. But I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier reprimanded the Attorney General for the bad advice he received on it, and maybe he reprimanded him for his performance up at the Supreme Court of Canada, because I heard from some of my colleagues --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think that in fairness to the Attorney General it should be pointed out again to the House that in the Supreme Court, on the first question that I argued on behalf of this province, the score was seven to two, and I think the justice critic of the Liberal Party, my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa East, should stick to his facts when he is talking about my performance.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I find this extremely enjoyable, because I would give more of the credit for that to J. J. Robinette than to Roy McMurtry. With great respect, on the argument where the Attorney General had to carry the burden the result was 9-0. It is seldom that we can get the Supreme Court of Canada 9-0.

Mr. Shore: Roy, don’t worry about it. You can’t win them all.

Mr. Roy: So I thought he would be reprimanded for sure by the Premier, then I heard the Treasurer and the member for York Mills talk about what had gone on, and I sympathize with you, because what happened is this, the government, the Treasurer, took a position and said, “This is what we are going to do, and now, Roy, you go out and justify it legally.

Mr. Nixon: That’s what happened.

Mr. Roy: That’s what happened and surely he should admit that. I have more sympathy if he will admit that, rather than giving him legal advice ahead of time that he should operate in that fashion. That’s exactly what the Minister of Labour said. The member for York Mills mentioned that they felt the current, where they were going in all of this.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I didn’t say that. You have marvellous pipe dreams.

Mr. Roy: Surreptitiously.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is it again?

Mr. Roy: Surreptitiously, that’s the word. It’s sort of a group intercommunication.


Mr. Roy: And I can’t even give the French translation. I can’t say this in French at all, but the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that I think that’s exactly what happened. They took that position and the Treasurer said, “Let’s not quibble with the constitution and things like this. We are taking that position and, Attorney General, chief law officer of the Crown, you justify that.” In the light of that, I just wonder why he went up there and pleaded that case himself. He must really be after headlines. It is only a propensity for headlines I think that drove him to that.

Mr. Peterson: It’s restraint. He is the cheapest lawyer in town.

Mr. Roy: And if he has learned nothing else as Attorney General he should have learned that he should accept legal advice from this side.

Mr. Foulds: Does Eddie Sargent accept legal advice from that side?

Mr. Roy: In fairness I must say this again, Mr. Speaker; the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) did not get his due credit on this. He’s the one who first raised that problem. He raised it; and then the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), and I don’t want to take anything away, sort of looked at the situation and it was sort of a trigger mechanism in the member for Riverdale’s head. He said he raised it. The member for Sarnia raised it.

Mr. Lewis: Jim Renwick mentioned it as Trudeau was speaking.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t get his full credit. I want to underline that and get that on the record. It was the member for Sarnia who first brought this issue to light, and he should get full marks for this.

Mr. Foulds: And today you are repudiating him with your vote to support the government.

Mr. Roy: We told you -- you know how we pleaded with you last fall -- we said bring it before the House. You wouldn’t listen to us.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You wanted the board for your teachers, and they spurned you.

Mr. Roy: We wanted you to bring this before the House, you wouldn’t listen to us.

Mr. Nixon: Our teachers?

Mr. Roy: How often did we tell you to bring this before the House?


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa East only.

Mr. Ruston: The Attorney General better resign, he had better resign.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Hell hath no fury like a spurned Liberal leader.

Mr. Lewis: They spurned you from great heights.

Mr. Peterson: Very little accuracy and not very much results.

Mr. Roy: At the rate I’m going, the only issue I’ll be able to deal with is the Attorney General, and I’ve only got a few minutes.

We told you. Didn’t we tell you? There’s no politics in “I told you so”.

Mr. Nixon: We told you.

Mr. Roy: If there was politics in “I told you so”, Robert Stanfield probably would have been in power. We would have been in power right here.

Mr. Nixon: And will be yet.

Mr. Roy: But let me say it again, we told the Attorney General that he was wrong. He didn’t want to listen to us so he went, as they call it in law, on a frolic of his own. He went up there and argued the case. But I think when I lost a certain amount of respect for him was when he did not admit that he had made a mistake. The first opportunity was when I saw on television the Premier and the Attorney General saying: “The feds are in this with us too.”

Mr. Nixon: They both looked rather pallid on that show.

Mr. Roy: On the bulletin board at the press gallery they quoted the last line of the decision, and I just want to read it to you, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s worth it. They said: “In my opinion, the agreement made between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario, pursuant to section 43, does not have the effect claimed for it by the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Which was underlined.

Mr. Roy: They underlined the whole paragraph; and the Attorney General of Canada had two lines.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t even have that at the press conference.

Mr. Roy: It was up there in the press gallery on the bulletin board. The Attorney General should have admitted his mistake, because the Supreme Court when it began the decision, said very clearly that the government of Canada had legislative authority. Let me read the first part of the decision, where it says: “No question arises as to the propriety of the execution and binding effect of the agreement so far as the government of Canada is concerned.”

They had legislative authority, Ontario did not; that’s why it was 9-0 against the Attorney General. Why didn’t he admit his mistake?

I could see his problem in admitting a mistake on hockey violence, on pornography, and maybe he didn’t take quite the right approach on hospitals; but on this, nine-zip; he should have admitted his mistake. He really should have admitted his mistake.

So I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, because I want my colleagues to participate --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Take your time, you are going great -- disaster.

Mr. Roy: -- I want to say this: We are taking it this time. The alternatives are very simple; an election, economic chaos across the whole province during the election period --

Mr. Warner: You are doing fine.

Mr. Roy: You fellows are the same. I had a whole bunch of pages here about what I was going to say about the NDP; should I do it after supper?


Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am being prevailed upon. Can I adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Eakins: On a point of order, we have got to take him and feed him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It being 6 o’clock I do now leave the chair and we will resume at 8 o’clock.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.