INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPOINTMENT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) here for these next few minutes and to point out, as others have before me today, that we are dealing with probably the most critical bill and the most critical economic situation in Ontario since the turn of the last decade in 1970.
We rise in support of coming to grips for the first time in 12 years with the economic problems that have developed even more speedily during the last three years.
We should like to put on the record that the economic difficulties in Ontario have not surfaced only in the last year or six months, or even the last three or four years, but that they are the end product of what began in 1970 with the first deficit budget brought in by the Davis government and simply have compounded over the years until we find ourselves in a crisis.
It is very easy for us to stand here tonight and blame either the world situation or the federal government, because I believe, and I would also like to go on record as saying very strongly, that all governments have been guilty of falling into the trap, especially during the 1970s, of spending their way towards re-election from term to term. Money seemed to be without end, and all we had to do was bring in a no-tax or a low-tax budget a year or a few months before an election and buy our way through those areas.
I would like to refer to the last election of 1981. As we look back on it with the 20-20 hindsight we always have, at that time we saw a contest between my leader, Stuart Smith, and the Premier (Mr. Davis). I do not think the NDP was really in it.
There was a contest where one leader had the courage to go to the people of Ontario and say: "Look, we are in trouble here in Ontario. We have slipped to 10th place in growth. Our economy is in trouble and we have to do something about it." The Premier of the province came back to us and said: "This is Dr. No talking. This is Dr. Negative." Then he went on to convince us all there was really nothing wrong with the economy and it was in good shape.
At that time he denied that there was any weakness in the provincial economy. Members will recall that he was quizzed about it time and time again by my leader and he simply denied it. After the realities of March 19, 1981, the Premier was known to go on record as saying the economy was in trouble, but it was all the feds' fault. We have gone on, from that time to this, blaming the federal government at every chance we get.
That may be good politics. It may be fine and it may be politically sexy to lay the blame on somebody else, but for the first time we have to come to terms with the fact that the economy is weak in Ontario. We are Ontario legislators and we have to do whatever Ontario can do in its role of governing this province to put us back on the rails economically.
In the last two years, members of the opposition parties have offered all sorts of ideas and suggestions to help with that economic recovery. As I said earlier, the economic problem was originally denied, then blamed on the feds. Now we see the first bright light, the first step, and that is the acceptance of the fact that we are there. We have no place to go but up, and we have to go there in the most realistic way we can. That is why we are supporting this bill.
As my leader said this afternoon, we see it only as a first step. It has to be coupled with a renewal of this province that will have its base in an improvement in productivity. That can happen in Ontario if we put our minds to it. To simply undertake a spending program and spend ourselves into heaven, as my Socialist friends on the left would do, will only run us into utter bankruptcy.
We have to come to grips with the reality. The reality has to come down to each and every citizen and individual. We must all bear a share of the responsibility. The bill is only the first step. We see renewal as a priority for the second step. I can only generalize here tonight in this debate. We see items like the modernization of our industries; the gaining of confidence that will release new investments into this province; resource utilization, resources that are here in the province now and are being underutilized or not utilized at all, which can replace materials and goods we are bringing in from outside the province at the present time; the upgrading of research and development that can once again make us world leaders in industry.
As much as we might try to deny it, we are part of the global village. The export of goods to the rest of the world is vital to the future of Ontario. We have no other choice. We have to become competitive. Our productivity has to be such that we can compete in the world market. If we cannot do that, if we allow ourselves to become insular and isolated, then we are doomed to a downturn from which we may not recover for many years.
8:10 p.m.
I believe this economy can recover, but only if we attack it with a more broadly based program than is presented in this bill. The five percent for 12 months is a good, solid start and a place we can jump off from, but we have to get into a renewal program and we have to begin it right away.
We have to get a grip on the post-control program that must face us at the end of 12 months. It will not mean anything for us to get into five per cent now for 12 months and then deal with the catch-up pressures at a later date. I hope the Treasurer has some concept of where he wants to go after the 12-month period expires. I hope his program does not relate to the never-never plan that has been proposed by the New Democratic Party, who would bankrupt us all if they had the opportunity.
There are an awful lot of things we can do besides imposing five per cent ceilings on wage increases in the public sector. I would like to deal with a few of them, because I think they are significant and rather symbolic of the kind of government performance we have had over the last 10 or 12 years.
I will leave the deficit to the financial experts, because perhaps they know more about it than I do, but in my portfolio as Energy critic and now as Natural Resources critic I have had exposure to some of the things this government has done over the last 10 years which in my view are absolutely appalling. In my view, they demonstrate a total incompetence on the part of certain areas of government.
I would like to spend a minute or two talking about a couple of subjects. However isolated they may be, I believe they are symbolic of what may be going on in other areas of government. One concerns the cancelling of the order for the Challenger jet.
Mr. Piché: Just a minute now. Do you know what you have done by cancelling that? You have hurt norOntair. You have hurt the people in this province. You are totally against the north when you cancel the jet.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Obviously the member for Cochrane North wanted the jet.
Mr. Piché: I want to go on record that I will be speaking about the jet next week.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Halton-Burlington has the floor. I would ask the member for Cochrane North to contain himself and stay in his seat. He will have his turn.
Mr. J. A. Reed: My party went on record a long time ago in opposition to the purchase of the Challenger jet. It is on the record for all to see. I expressed satisfaction with members of my caucus who fought that issue most vociferously. I only had a small role to play in the opposition to the purchase of the jet.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, I would point out to the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) and the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) that the member for Halton-Burlington has the floor. I have recognized him.
I think, as I have observed before, that if we are going to have free speech anywhere, surely we must have it here. By free speech I do not mean everybody talking at the same time, so we will try to regulate it and we will recognize once more the member for Halton-Burlington.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I must say it is difficult to make a reasoned and reserved speech in this House, but I am going to continue to try.
I would just like to begin on the jet issue with the --
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, tell him to change the subject, because he is not going to be allowed to continue his speech.
Mr. Kerrio: Oh, there is a threat.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we must understand one thing. I am not going to tell anybody what to say or how to say it. I have recognized the member for Halton-Burlington. He is going to address his remarks to the bill, I am sure, and I am sure the member for Cochrane North will have an opportunity to respond at the proper time. So we will try once again.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The spending of money, as far as I am concerned, should be considered a major part of the debate on this bill, and that is why I brought up the subject of the jet and the alternatives that were presented when the order for the jet was cancelled.
You will note that the government has now indicated it will be buying two C1215 water bombers from Canadair to replace the jet. "Two Water Bombers for Jet 'Good Deal,'" says the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) in a headline in the Sun today, and I have no doubt that they can make a very valuable contribution to firefighting in northern Ontario. I am a little bit distressed that there is at least one member from northern Ontario on the government side who would sooner have the jet than the water bombers, but I should go into this just a little bit.
The Minister of Natural Resources said today that the purchase of these water bombers is a good deal. I would just like to read into the record a letter from the Deputy Minister of Energy in 1980 to Richard J. Frost, barrister and solicitor, 80 Richmond Street West, Toronto, in which he says:
"Dick: We have decided that the C1215, despite its obvious merits, is not an appropriate aircraft for us to add to our fleet of aircraft."
I would also like to put on the record that in 1981 my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) was asking the Minister of Natural Resources in estimates about adding to the fleet of C1215s, which, as he says, "have proven themselves in Quebec, Manitoba and other jurisdictions" because "they can swoop down and bring up a great amount of water" and make a very valuable contribution to firefighting. At that time the minister said: "We have thought of it. C1215s are used by some European jurisdictions as well to combat forest fires, and we had some discussions about their experience."
In 1981 he was still flim-flamming around and talking about C1215s, and in fact his deputy had rejected C1215s the year before. As a matter of fact, later on in Hansard the minister said they were talking about leasing a C1215 this year for the purposes of a demonstration water bombing. They had done the same thing about six or seven years before with the same type of aircraft and had come to the conclusion that they should not be purchased.
8:20 p.m.
I happen to believe the C1215 is probably a good aircraft for the job for which it is intended. It would seem to me that firefighting in northern Ontario is a little more valuable than whisking cabinet ministers around from one airport to the next half an hour faster than with the King Air now available.
When the government talks about the spending of money and about getting itself into financial difficulty, then having to come along with rather draconian measures to get itself out of it, one has to look back at the decision and indecision. I have only used that nonsense as an example of the kind of decision and indecision that has gone on for years and years in this government.
I can bring up another example and I think I should. It concerns the decision, after five years of effort on the part of the Energy critic of the Liberal Party to get the government to acknowledge it, that small water power is a useful item and would make a contribution to the energy situation in Ontario. The Ministry of Energy, after some real effort, supported that concept.
About a year later, the Ministry of Natural Resources came along and supported it. If one looks at the strategic land use plans and so on, one sees that support, but to this day there is not one individual in the Ministry of Natural Resources who has the expertise to handle the development of small water power. As a result, investors who have wanted to invest for the last five years have not been able to achieve any results whatsoever because that ministry carries with it an incompetence in that development unparalleled in the history of this province. Money is being wasted right and left to carry on the trappings of competent government ministries when they really leave a great deal in question.
When the government is talking about impositions on salary increases and so on, I say to the government and the Treasurer they have to look inside each and every one of those ministries to find out just what they are doing with the personnel there. Some of them are excellent and are doing tremendous jobs in spite of themselves. It seems to me there is a tremendous amount of changing of priorities and a new look that has to take place inside government.
The five per cent imposition is on only 500,000 individuals in Ontario, which does not --
Mr. McClellan: Only? Tell us what you would like to do.
Mr. J. A. Reed: It is a large number of people but it does not encompass all the people who work. Our party, as early as July I believe, went on record as saying any kind of restraint program should be broadly based. It should include prices and wages and should predominate in the whole working area. We believe that today. If the government is going to get anywhere with the restraint program, it has to be very broadly based.
I am hopeful this bill will have a psychological effect on the private sector, but I am not that confident it will. I wonder why the government has brought in a companion bill enabling it to join a federal restraint program, because from what I can gather, no formal request has been made to the government of Canada to get into a restraint program. It seems to me there is an element of leadership there that is missing. It is an element of leadership, I am proud to say, that has been expressed by my own leader and he is to be commended for the stand he has taken.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You weren't listening. Where have you been?
Mr. McClellan: Don't heckle your last buddy.
Mr. J. A. Reed: I am going to tell my Socialist friend that I know everything that is being done here and our support of this bill is not universally popular. I understand that. I also know I have no intention of playing loosey-goosey with deficits in the future the way his people would, and mortgaging my children through the next generation. I have no intention of doing that.
It seems to me we have come through -- at least I hope we have; probably I am wrong, when I hear this Socialist diatribe coming at me and these interjections -- the "me" generation. I hope we have reached the point as Canadians and as citizens of Ontario where we can stand together and say: "Look, we have a difficulty, it is not an impossible situation, it is a difficulty. It is a challenge and we have to pull together."
I am particularly concerned about the people I know who are on fixed incomes and have suffered the ravages of inflation over the last decade or so. It becomes more and more difficult for them to make ends meet.
I am concerned with a declining industrial base that limits our ability to develop the kinds of social programs we need in Ontario and, believe me, if we are going to have adequate social programs in this province we have to have adequate strength in the economy to pay for them.
My Socialist friends would live on the never- never plan for ever and run us into bankruptcy if they could. I know they will not get that chance. We will not let them get that chance, they can be sure of that.
I would like to get back to one or two priority issues that do not involve the jet. I would just like to comment on 65 jets. The cost of 65 jets represents the money that has been committed to Suncor.
The jet was a political symbol and it was all very nice because we could visualize the Premier riding around and using, as my colleague the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) has said, the padded-leather toilet seats and all that sort of thing. But the fact is, the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor represents a commitment 65 times larger than the purchase of that jet.
What an impact that has had, coupled with the accumulated deficits over the years, on inflation in this province. I say to this government that when the caboose is going out of the station and one is trying to grab hold of the rail at the end, then it is the end of the line. These kinds of expenditures cannot be tolerated. We cannot afford them as citizens. We know that. For the first time, I think they know that now.
The Suncor purchase did nothing for us economically except bleed us. It did nothing to create any jobs and the Trillium Exploration Co. -- let me see if I have that stuff here -- is going to do nothing to create jobs in Ontario either. Can we afford that kind of expenditure, that kind of ego trip? I think not.
Mr. Stokes: That is not true. Lalonde says that as a result of the megaprojects 70 per cent of the jobs that will be created will be in Ontario.
Mr. J. A. Reed: Let me say to the member for Lake Nipigon, he is looking down the line to a time when most of us will be retired from this Legislature. We have to deal with the economic problems in Ontario today. We cannot deal with them 10 years from now.
He may be able to find a way to justify the expenditure of $2.2 billion on Suncor. I cannot find a way to justify that expenditure and I do not think any thinking individual in this province can find a way to justify it. Even the Treasurer of Ontario, until he was cajoled into supporting it, could not find a way to justify the expenditure of that money.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Piché: Watch what you say about the Treasurer; he is my friend.
Mr. J. A. Reed: The Treasurer is my friend too. As misguided as he is, he is my friend too. I have a lot of good feelings for the Treasurer.
The area of resource development is one that I have begun to learn about in my new capacity as Natural Resources critic. There is a law in the books that goes back, I believe, to 1970. I have a copy of it here somewhere. It says that all metals mined in Canada should be refined in Canada, with the exception of those that are exempted. The situation has become so bad that a recommendation was made some years ago to get rid of that part of the bill because it served no function at all.
Let me give a rundown on some of the metals that are shipped out of this country for refining. The Treasurer talks about developing secondary industry in the north and about trying to do something other than being hewers of wood and drawers of water. I believe we have great potential for that.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Great potential to be hewers of wood and drawers of water?
Mr. J. A. Reed: The Minister of Education is an expert in this mining business, and she will give us a dissertation when she speaks on this subject. However, as long as I have the floor, I am going to go down this list.
Here we have percentages. In 1980, 17 per cent of our iron ore, 33 per cent of our lead and 28 per cent of our zinc was smelted outside of this country. I could go on and on; there are lots of other base metals that are mined in Ontario and smelted outside the country.
What does that say for our commitment to the development of the north? It says very little. What has happened is that in spite of a law that is on the books stating all our good intentions, we are capitulating at every turn because some economic argument persuades the minister to make a decision to exempt at some time or another.
Let me go into the area of energy alternatives. I say this because the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) -- there he goes back to his seat -- will be very familiar with this.
I was in the town of Hearst last year, and I was impressed with what I saw. I went in and found, to my disappointment, that a majority of the town was closed down. The big lumber company had its gates locked that day. There was very little happening except the trains running through and one bright light. The bright light was a processing plant that was taking forest waste, which is considered to have a negative value in the north, and turning it into an energy source -- pelletized wood product -- that was competing in terms of price with natural gas as an industrial fuel.
That said more to me than anything else. We have all this tremendous unused waste resource. As a matter of fact, when we talk about forest waste, there is so much of it in northern Ontario that it is considered to be a major impediment to reforestation. If one goes to western Canada, no such thing exists, because the companies there have to clean it up as they go and do something with it.
That company was using what then was waste as a potential energy resource. It has expanded its operations since that time and will continue to expand until the end of this decade.
It seems to me that this kind of imaginative thinking and creativity should prevail in any renewal program we have in Ontario. What we are doing is performing a function that does not cost in Ontario but makes a profit, because it generates and recycles money that is otherwise disappearing from this province forever. Every time we can take $1 from moneys that are going out of the province and recycle it with resources that are inside the province, depending on the economist one talks to, we make from $3 to $5 back. Everyone in this Legislature knows that, and also that therein lies one of the great opportunities for renewal.
We propose to impose five per cent on one sector of the economy. We have proposed to do it because that is the area the provincial government has some control over. I would like to say to this government that we want it to press the federal government for a much more broadly based restraint policy, as proposed by my leader last July. We also want it to undertake a renewal program that will result in increased productivity and greater employment as well as a more competitive situation in the world marketplace in years to come.
It is not going to be easy. It is going to require the co-operation of every citizen in this province. It is going to require putting aside expectations, delaying expectations or retracting expectations that all of us have had during the past five, six or seven years. But if we do it, and do it with a will, we will succeed, and restore our strength in this country and our strength in the world market in a way that is expedient, in a way that is strong and in a way that will provide jobs for all those people who are unemployed at present.
Mr. Wildman: What about interest rates?
Mr. J. A. Reed: The Socialists have asked me to talk about interest rates. Let me just say what I know from my limited knowledge. I know that Saskatchewan has brought in an interest rate subsidy program. I wonder whether my Socialist friends have any idea how that is paid for. I wonder whether they realize that if one subsidizes interest rates, one has to take the money from somewhere; it has to come out of something. In Alberta, the way it has been done just prior to election time, one takes it out of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund.
If one tries to do subsidize interest rates in Ontario, let me ask my friends where the money will be coming from to subsidize those interest rates. If they think for one moment that Ontario has the resources to subsidize a broad-based interest rate policy, I have news for them. The province, through its own mismanagement, has come close to bankrupting itself over the past 10 years.
Do my friends know that since we have had the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) as Premier in Ontario, we have never had a balanced budget? Do they know that, prior to that time, there never was a deficit? Since that time we have had nothing but deficit budgets.
I say to the government, there is no other single thing in this economy that has become a larger contributor to inflation than that deficit budgeting. We have to come to terms with it, we have to turn it around and we have to bring it back. We have to provide political leadership and bring the people of Ontario with us. If we do that, we will recover. If we continue to fudge, as we have during the past three months when the Premier refused to make any definitive statement in terms of restraint, then we are going to run ourselves into even more serious trouble.
I suggest very strongly to the government not to listen to the Socialist never-never plan but to pay some serious attention to the views that have been put forth by my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). If they do that, we will go ahead to recovery.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and then that collection of weird ideas from the last speaker from the Liberal Party, how can anyone take seriously a party that talks about a balanced budget when there is 10.8 per cent unemployment in Ontario and when, on the same day, the leader of the Liberal Party tells the government not to cut back transfers to municipalities, to increase money to hospitals, to lower tuition fees and to increase money to universities and colleges? They expect to be taken seriously, but these guys on my right are the biggest joke in my life.
How the leader of the Liberal Party could go on this afternoon for almost an hour and a half and not even mention Liberal interest rates is beyond my comprehension. The fact of the matter is that there are serious problems in our economy. We all recognize that. One of the serious problems is interest rates, another one is the Liberal Party in Ottawa and a third one is the Conservative Party in Ontario.
The two-faced, sit-on-the-fence approach of the Ontario Liberal Party is also beyond my belief. We have the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) doing interviews back in my home town criticizing the provincial program, saying it is no good, and then standing up in this House on Tuesday and voting for the program on first reading. We have the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) going out in front of the Legislature the other day and trying to convince the teachers that the Liberal Party of Ontario was really opposed to the provincial program. What a bunch of garbage.
What do the Liberals think the voters of this province are? Do they really think they are foolish? There may be people in some ridings who have followed that party for many years, but they are re-evaluating the party's position; they know where the party is at now. The Liberal Party will not be any kind of a party after the 1985 election; it is on its way out. The borderline where the Liberal Party exists no longer will be the Manitoba-Ontario border; it will be the Quebec-Ontario border.
Back to interest rates for one second: The fact that the Liberal Party said nothing about interest rates today, as I said, is rather unbelievable. But when I take a look at the donations to the Liberal Party in the 1977 provincial election, I find that in my own riding, for example, $500 was given by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to the Liberal candidate and $500 to the Conservative candidate. To me, that sums it up, because the only institutions, the only people that benefit from high interest rates are the banks and the bank shareholders.
I want to talk about this government's program and this government's record, certainly not of leadership but of economic failure in Ontario.
It was only a few months ago, on May 13, that this government brought down a budget. This government's record is one of neglect to this province, and it has consistently taken a political approach to very serious economic problems when we really need an economic planning document for Ontario.
Mr. Brandt: The Socialist master plan; it doesn't work anywhere else, and it won't work here.
Mr. Cooke: The member for Sarnia should go back to his riding or maybe to the neighbouring riding -- the good mayor of Chatham is here today; the member should go to Chatham -- and tell the people who are unemployed there that his government's laissez-faire attitude towards the auto industry, for example, is sufficient. Let him tell them that.
The refusal on the part of this government to accept that there are any structural problems --
Mr. Shymko: Are you going to tell us Bob Rae's solution? What do you think of the French Socialists' solution? They've slapped wage controls on everybody.
Mr. Stokes: What about your Socialist BILD program?
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) gets up here all the time to make his speeches and raise his points of privilege about the countries in the eastern bloc. We have talked about the problems in Poland, as he has as well, and what is his government doing? His government is taking the right to strike away from 500,000 organized workers.
Mr. Shymko: Don't insult Solidarity and don't compare this government with the one in Poland.
Mr. Cooke: He should be ashamed to be part of the party and the government he belongs to.
Mr. Shymko: You should have enough brains not to make such a stupid comparison.
Mr. Cooke: It is not a stupid comparison at all.
Mr. Foulds: It is not all right to defend trade unions in Poland and attack them here. Don't be so stupid yourself.
The Deputy Speaker: Order please, the member for High Park-Swansea.
Mr. Cooke: One of the most amazing facts of this government's approach to the economy is that it refuses to recognize that there are very deep-seated structural problems within the economy.
I remember back in 1978, just a year after I was elected, I got a phone call from the Chrysler United Auto Workers local about the closure of the truck plant, which meant 750 jobs were lost. That was the real beginning in Windsor of the depression that has struck that city and has continued to dominate the lives of thousands of families for going on four years now.
The government ignored the problems in that city, it continues to ignore the problems in that city, and as of today hundreds of people have lost their homes.
The city treasurer indicated to me today, as he did in front of an arbitration hearing dealing with the firefighters in Windsor, that there are now 1,100 homes in Windsor that are three years in tax arrears and could be confiscated by the city of Windsor.
In my view, there is nothing that symbolizes a depression -- and that is what we are in, a depression -- more than people losing their homes to the banks and the mortgage companies and people losing their homes to the city because of tax arrears, but that is the state of affairs in Windsor.
There are still 19,000 people unemployed, and hundreds more want jobs. The housing market has collapsed, and the welfare budget now is up to $17 million a year. Thousands of people have left the city. This government's neglect, for me and thousands of other people in my city, is simply unforgivable.
The depression has spread to many other communities in the province: Chatham, St. Thomas, Peterborough, Hamilton, Sudbury, the whole Niagara Peninsula. There are literally thousands of people, more than 600,000, who want jobs in this province.
Over the summer break, I saw a news clip on one of the television stations that showed hundreds of people applying for jobs to work at the Western Fair in London. It was amazing. Hundreds of skilled people -- some of them registered nurses, some of them skilled trades people and some of them university graduates -- were lining up for jobs at the Western Fair, for just a few days or a few weeks of work, at probably the minimum wage.
Yet I still hear some of the right-wingers in this province and in my city say that if a person wants a job, he can find one. The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of people unemployed and those people want jobs, not welfare or unemployment insurance.
In London, a radio or television station -- I believe it was TV -- put on a show where individuals could go on the show and advertise their skills to try to connect with a potential job within the community. There were people who lined up for three, four and five hours to have 30 seconds on radio or television to advertise their skills to get a possible job.
The same thing happened at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto. There was a news clip, I believe on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., that showed people with community college certificates and university degrees and all sorts of other people who simply wanted to work. They waited, applied and got jobs just for a few weeks because they felt those jobs were better than nothing and they were the only alternative to being on welfare or unemployment insurance. A job for three weeks was better than no job at all.
8:50 p.m.
I think it is worth repeating. Contrary to what some people in this government believe, people do not want handouts; they want jobs. This government must show leadership and develop an economic strategy to create those jobs. Instead, this government's strategy has been to bash the federal government and take no action of its own.
The result? When this government was re-elected in March 1981, unemployment was 289,000 or 6.9 per cent. A year later, in March 1982, it had gone up to 346,000 or 7.7 per cent. Now 489,000 persons or 10.8 per cent are officially unemployed. That is an increase of 200,000 or 70 per cent in the number of unemployed in the province since this government was re-elected. That is the reality of March 19, 1981.
My deputy leader ran through some of the communities and their unemployment rates, but I think they bear repeating. In Sudbury it is 27 per cent. I know what it was like in the city of Windsor when we had 21 or 22 per cent. I would suggest the real unemployment rate in Sudbury is probably closer to 40 per cent. With 40 per cent of the people in Sudbury unemployed, one can predict what the effects on that community are going to be. It is a one-industry town and its situation is made worse by the fact that it is a northern town, more isolated than some of the southern cities.
This government sits back and gives all sorts of excuses why it cannot act. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) gets up and blames the federal government for not creating a mining machinery industry. Yet this government has within its own power, its own jurisdiction, the ability to create that industry in northern Ontario in the Sudbury basin. The neglect in the city of Sudbury is simply disgraceful. The number of lives and families this government is destroying by its inaction is unforgivable.
In the city of Ottawa, where to a large degree there is dependence on the federal civil service, unemployment is officially up to 9.5 per cent. In Oshawa it is 11 per cent and in Hamilton it is 13 per cent. In St. Catharines it is 12.4 per cent and in Thunder Bay it is 10 per cent. In London it is 11 per cent and in Kitchener is 11.7 per cent.
There are 221,000 unemployed women in this province, or 11.2 per cent. I think it is safe to say that if one included the number of women in the province who would really like to have jobs, but who are not in the work force because they have given up or because they know the chances of going and looking for a job and finding one are very remote, unemployment among women in the province is probably 20 per cent or higher. I do not think that is an exaggeration.
Youth unemployment in this province is 202,000, or 16.1 per cent. This government's only response to youth unemployment at this point is to put out a document indicating the potential social ramifications of youth unemployment. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) seems to indicate the social ramifications are more intense or more potentially violent among certain races within our community and our province than they are in other races.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is inaccurate.
lnterjections.
Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is, whether one is black, white or whatever, if one is unemployed and young and one feels there is no future for one in this province or in this country, one becomes very frustrated and there is the potential of real trouble in Ontario, again because of the neglect of programs on the part of the province.
If the member for Brantford was misquoted, perhaps he should have got up in the House on a point of privilege and clarified the situation. He had the opportunity.
The statistics on permanent layoffs of 50 or more employees from January to April of this year reveal that 133 establishments had 11,929 indefinite job layoffs or jobs eliminated. From January to the end of July, the figures are up to 215 establishments and 21,611.
Yet with all this, in his May 13 budget the Treasurer (Mr. . F. S. Miller) claimed, "While the last few months have been difficult, there is now strong potential for the economy to follow a recovery path throughout the rest of the year." What a joke. With all the inaccuracies in his budget and all the projections that were so totally out, whether we are talking about the deficit, job creation or the growth in the economy in the second half -- and none of those was accurate -- I suggested in the House the other day, and I think it is a legitimate request, that he should have resigned his position, because that budget was completely out of touch and out of reality.
Interjections.
Mr. Cooke: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) makes a good point. With that budget, there was no way the Treasurer could possibly have miscalculated his projections that way. He had to have done so deliberately and to --
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: That is not so.
Mr. Laughren: If that is not so, then you are incompetent.
Mr. Cooke: Yes, that is the other alternative: he is incompetent. He had better look at some other staff and put together a decent budget that looks at the real world and not the world he likes to believe in.
Let me go on with some quotes from the Treasurer's budget. I quote again directly from the Treasurer's budget.
Mr. Stokes: Why doesn't he try selling used cars?
Mr. Piché: That's not nice.
Mr. Foulds: This is not a time for being nice.
Hon. F. S. Miller: You guys couldn't sell ice cream to a kid in Toronto.
Mr. Stokes: Not with the seven per cent you put on.
Mr. Cooke: That is right. Quoting again from the May 13 budget: "Because of these factors and actions, the Ontario government should strengthen during the balance of the year. Employment by year-end should reach 125,000 over current trends. Real growth in the GPP in the second half of 1982 should be four per cent on an annual basis."
As of September 10, when the last Statistics Canada figures came out, the number of people employed has decreased in the past 12 months by 162,000 jobs. From January of this year unti1 September 10, when the statistics came out, 117,000 jobs had been lost. Just from the time his budget was introduced until the end of August, we have lost 102,000 jobs in Ontario.
The reality of the situation is that if one adds 102,000, the jobs lost from the time the budget was introduced, to the 125,000 he projected would be created, we have a total of 227,000 jobs that must be created before the end of the year to reach the Treasurer's projections.
At the same time, 94,000 new people have entered the labour force. Just to get back to where we were a year ago, that means 256,000 new jobs have to be created -- and even at that time we were in a recession.
To return to the budget: "The Ontario government strongly believes that policies for job creation must be an urgent priority."
On September 21, 1982, the Treasurer's statement on the wage control program said the jobs would be coming some time in the future. If, in May, job creation was a priority, for God's sake, with an unemployment rate now of 10.8 per cent job creation has to be a top priority more than ever.
9 p.m.
Turning again to the document filed with the Legislature on May 13 and that tried to pass as a budget, I quote again: "Although the Ontario economy has been experiencing a cyclical downturn, the prospects over the next 12 months are more promising. Later this year, a recovery is expected to begin."
On May 13, the Treasurer of this province described the economic situation in Ontario as a cyclical downturn in the economy. But between May and September 21, something happened to turn it from a cyclical downturn to an economic crisis, something that resulted in a complete policy flip-flop on the part of the provincial government and that demanded, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, "leadership on the part of the federal and provincial governments."
Let me suggest that the thing that changed between May and September was that the polls the government took indicated the six and five program of the federal government was popular and they decided to capitalize on that program.
The only other thing that happened at that time was that the Treasurer began to realize how inaccurate the projections were for his budget, so he decided to bring in a program that did nothing to create jobs but did something to help balance his budget. We all know that a Tory government, especially a Tory government with a Treasurer named Frank Miller, is preoccupied with attempting to balance the budget rather than creating jobs and providing essential services to the people of this province.
What we need in this province is not a government that is willing to follow public opinion, but a government that is willing to lead.
What we had on September 21 was no new budget, no new job creation program, but simply a program that brought in wage controls for 500,000 employees in Ontario.
Let us go back to the beginning of the summer when the federal government brought in its budget. The federal finance minister at the time, Mr. MacEachen, that loved and admired Liberal, asked provincial governments to bring in programs in line with the six and five the federal government was trying to convince the people of Canada to support.
At that time, the Treasurer and the Premier of this province said they would consider the proposal. They considered the proposal; they had a cabinet meeting and then they had another cabinet meeting. I am sure they were taking polls every week, during all of that time, to find out how the people of the province felt about this program.
Finally, in the middle of September, the government decided it was time to act. It was time to act because the Tory polls were also indicating that the Premier was beginning to become unpopular and to be perceived as a Premier who was providing no economic leadership. We here all knew that. We have known that for 10 years.
The people of this province were beginning to focus on provincial responsibility for the provincial economy. So this government decided it had to bring in a program. It brought in one that would fit in with the polls, one that would get them votes but would not necessarily turn the economy around.
Mr. Piché: We have 70 seats. How many seats do you have?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why don't you just get a shovel and shovel it out there?
Mr. McClellan: There is doctor BS with a recommendation.
Mr. Cooke: If there is anyone who can shovel it, the member who used to be the Minister of Labour and screwed up that department, and is now Minister of Colleges and Universities and Education, can shovel it better than all 124 of us put together.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just quote from a couple of columns, because I think the columns that were in the press across the province during the period of indecision by this government very much demonstrated how many people in this province were feeling. I am going to quote from the Globe and Mail, dated August 30, 1982. It was shortly after the premiers' conference and the columnist is Orland French. I am just going to quote the last few paragraphs:
"Mr. Davis governs, with political success, by reactionary management, not leadership. In this year's major national debate, how to achieve economic recovery, Mr. Davis has yet to spell out what he thinks.
"More than two months have elapsed since the federal government first begun enunciating its proposal for a six and five per cent restraint program. Mr. Davis has neither accepted nor rejected that idea.
"Ontario's public civil servants have no idea what the Ontario government has in mind for them. Nor do schoolteachers. Nor do the police. Nor do municipal councils. Nor do boards of education.
"Concluding his statement to the premiers, Mr. Davis said, 'Together we have a moral responsibility to serve the people of this country.' Part of that responsibility, one might humbly suggest, is showing leadership on a crucial national issue."
I would also like to quote from my home town newspaper, the Windsor Star, and the columnist, John Coleman. He begins by quoting the Premier, and I guess the exchange took place in a scrum outside a cabinet meeting:
"Reporter: Does your timing of telling us what you will do have anything to do with what Trudeau does?
"The Premier: I leave it up to the people who speculate when they write.
"Reporter: We have to speculate. You do not tell us a damn thing."
Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the text of this column:
"The provincial government is heading towards a restraint program, stuttering and stammering all the way to the inevitable announcement. In a nutshell, the above exchange between Premier William Davis and a reporter this week in Brampton gives you an idea of what it is like to get information on government plans. Davis is well known for being a noncommittal sort of fellow but, in leading up to a response to the Ottawa six and five restraint program, the Premier has really outdone himself.
"For two months Davis has fudged and talked in circles about the need for restraint, sometimes saying wage controls aren't the whole answer and sometimes saying they are part of the answer. All of this hedging comes from a man who told fellow premiers last week that what we need is clear and forceful leadership in a time of economic recession."
The column concludes by saying: "Davis told reporters that today's economic problems weren't created in 48 hours and they won't be solved in 48 hours. 'We will do it in our own way and our own time,' said the Premier and on that point the Premier was at least very candid."
I think these columnists really demonstrate what I feel, and what nearly 700,000 unemployed Ontarians feel, that this Premier has lost touch with the people of this province. He has never provided leadership for this province and he is neglecting the people, who are almost up to a million in this province, when they need him most.
Mr. Piché: Enough is enough. Next speaker, please.
Mr. Cooke: The member for Cochrane North will have his chance. We all look forward to his first speech in the Ontario Legislature. I am sure it will show about as much intelligence as his interjections. I can understand why the member does not take this whole debate very seriously. If the 689,000 people who are unemployed had the kind of money he has, they would not worry about having their wages restrained. They would not worry about their incomes being restrained. Why does he not sit in this Legislature and take a debate seriously for a change? We are talking about the economic future of this province.
9:10 p.m.
From the whole summer of indecision we went on to the premiers' conference that was held in Halifax. Let me quote from the Premier's statement to that gathering of premiers.
"During the past year, we as provincial premiers have shared a common frustration with the serious lack of leadership demonstrated by our federal government in shaping a national economic recovery." If the Premier of this province felt frustrated with the Prime Minister of this country, I would like to ask how the government members felt and how the rest of us on this side of the House felt about the lack of leadership on the part of this government and its Treasurer in face of the serious economic problems we have suffered for going on three years. What did the government do? What did this government suggest?
Over the last year, we have heard the Premier change his position on interest rates on at least two occasions. We have heard the Treasurer change his position on interest rates at least three or four times. Then they say they are fighting for lower interest rates.
Double messages have been provided to the federal government by the leader of the largest province in terms of population, the largest province in terms of manufacturing and the province that has been hit hardest by Liberal interest rates. The only proposal that this government put forward to the premiers' conference was that interest rates should be lowered, more in line with the lower American interest rates.
That simply is not good enough. That simply would do nothing to turn around the auto industry. It would do nothing to turn around the appliance industry. Interest rates in the United States are still too high and interest rates in Canada are even higher.
The solution to the interest rate problem, and one that we have asked the Premier and the Treasurer to endorse, is to demand that the federal government instruct Mr. Bouey to lower the interest rates unilaterally. The federal government will take whatever other action is necessary, and if that means controls on the outflow of capital then that is exactly what will have to be done.
High interest rates are simply destroying this country and the Liberal high interest rates, supported on most occasions by the Conservatives, and with no alternative offered by the federal Conservatives, are simply destroying the manufacturing sector and destroying individual lives.
What did the Premier suggest we should do about the auto industry? I will quote his suggestions for the auto industry. "The Canadian government should act with great determination to ensure that Canadian interests are recognized in any settlement of current international trade disputes in auto, steel and agricultural products." That is motherhood, but that was the proposal that the Premier of this province, where 95 per cent of the auto industry resides, put forward to the premiers' conference.
What does it mean? Do they really think the Canadian government is going to act with no determination in the negotiations? Do they think they are going to go in there and say there are no restrictions? What is the long-term solution to the auto trade problem? Does the Premier and this government support content legislation that says to the Japanese, to the Americans, that if they want to sell their cars here they have to have at least 85 per cent Canadian content, and that they have to achieve, eventually, 100 per cent Canadian content? That will create jobs in this province, that will get the economy moving.
Even in this time of recession it would create thousands of jobs. Instead, the Premier goes to the premiers' conference with some motherhood statement and says, "The Canadian government should act with great determination to ensure that Canadian interests are recognized in any settlement of current international trade disputes in auto, steel and agricultural products."
Mr. Shymko: Are you against motherhood?
Mr. Cooke: I am not against motherhood, but I would like to see the Premier come out with some type of specific program to protect an industry that is as important to Ontario as oil is to Alberta.
At the premiers' conference, he went on to say: "Canadian interest rates should be allowed to fully reflect declines in US rates. The federal government should increase incentives for the creation of jobs for our young people." That was his whole presentation on jobs for youth.
Can you imagine that? With over 200,000 young people unemployed the Premier says, "The federal government should increase incentives for the creation of jobs for our young people." Well, whoop-de-doo! What does that mean? What is he willing to do? What are the specific programs he would like to have the federal government introduce?
Then he says that the premiers' conference was a great success because they came out with all these specifics. The columns I read said that most of the other premiers did come out with specifics but Willie Davis sat there and tried to sit on the fence, as he does at most meetings.
"The Canadian government should continue to pursue strongly the process of trade expansion, particularly in high-technology goods and service." Well, good. Again that is motherhood. But what about our domestic market? Already we have the largest trade surplus overall because of our exports of natural resources, but we are still importing an incredible amount of mining machinery, machinery in general, auto and food processing products into this province and into this country. Surely the mark of a mature economy is that it fulfils the domestic market first.
He goes on at this first ministers' conference to say, "All programs and tax incentives to encourage research and development should be reviewed so as to ensure full participation by small and medium-sized companies."
Again, all of us want more research and development to occur in this province and in this country. What strategy is this government proposing? What the Premier does not even recognize in his statement is that the lack of research and development in this country and in this province has something to do with the ownership of the economy and the fact that manufacturing by and large is owned by foreign interests. And those foreign interests that own the auto industry and the food processing sector are not going to enter into research and development in this country unless there is legislation that forces them to do so.
It is simply a fact of life that if the tax system is used so that we tax a certain amount of money from them and if they do research and development then they get a certain amount of their investment back, those kinds of incentives will work. But simply to say that all programs and tax incentives to encourage R and D should be reviewed so as to ensure full participation by small and medium-sized companies does not mean anything. But that is a typical statement from this government and from this Premier, a Premier who for over 10 years now has demonstrated no leadership whatsoever.
Back to the auto industry. In the auto parts sector the Premier suggested at the first ministers' conference, "A national automotive parts program should be implemented to enable the auto parts industry to restructure in order to meet the competition for building components for the future generation of autos." Again, there is no comment about content legislation, no comment about what he as the leader of a provincial government where 95 per cent of the auto industry exists intends to do, what his strategy is to get that sector built up. There is no recognition that in this particular sector we have a Canadian-owned base, that over 60 per cent of the individual auto parts firms are Canadian owned, even though on the other side well over 60 per cent of the auto parts workers work for the multinationals.
The point is that there is a Canadian-owned auto parts base that could be expanded on. But this Premier of ours, who fails to recognize the structural problems of the economy, says nothing about content legislation and nothing about the provincial role. He simply says to the federal government, "A national auto parts program should be instituted." Surely if there is any sector of the economy where the provincial government has a primary role in Ontario it is the automotive industry. We have the vast majority of the jobs, plants and production.
9:20 p.m.
Let us get to foreign investment. Again the Premier makes some rather interesting wishy- washy comments at the premiers' conference. He endorses a limited existence for the Foreign Investment Review Agency but he endorses it in such a way that it would destroy FIRA. He says if there is new investment we should not be reviewing that, FIRA should have nothing to do with new foreign investment, but if there are takeovers then perhaps FIRA has a role to play.
There is no recognition that FIRA, if properly administered, has a very significant role to play in making sure that we have performance guarantees from the companies that decide to set up in this country and this province. There is no recognition that if FIRA does not get those performance guarantees the problem of lack of research and development, the problem of lack of sourcing of parts and components and the impact of the vast majority of imports into this country will continue.
Back to his speech. He says in summary: "We need clear and forceful leadership. Some of that leadership must and will come from those in this room." He was referring to all the premiers. "The Prime Minister is mistaken to represent that one measure is anything close to an overall program to stimulate economic recovery."
That was just a few weeks ago when he said to the Prime Minister of this country through the premiers' conference that a program of wage controls was only one small aspect of an economic recovery plan.
I am waiting and wondering why, when this government brought in its wage control program, that is the only part of its economic recovery program. If at the national level wage control is only one small part of economic recovery, surely at the provincial level, even if we agree with wage control, it is only one small part of a recovery plan.
I think there are alternatives. My deputy leader spoke about them this afternoon and I will go into them again later in this speech. Surely this government is hypocritical when it says to the federal government that wage controls are only one part of a program and then this government comes in with its economic recovery package and the only component it presents to the Ontario Legislature is a wage control package.
This government understands from the polling it does on a daily basis, maybe even twice a day -- and this is why the program has been brought in -- that it is popular these days to attack unions. They understand from their polls that it is even more popular to attack public sector unions. That is really the reason we have a wage control package in front of this Legislature.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about the structural problems of this economy that are not addressed by this package and were not addressed by the last budget or by any budget presented to this Legislature since I became a member in 1977.
This government's economic growth package has always relied on foreign investment. There are political and economic problems associated with foreign investment. This government takes a short-term approach. If they can get a branch plant, they bring it in because then they can announce 500 new jobs. The reality of the situation is that the economic problems outweigh the short-term political advantages. We must take a long-term economic approach to our government.
The reality of the situation is that foreign investment and control can be directly related, and the testimony in front of the plant shutdown committee proved this. Foreign investment relates very clearly to plant shutdowns, loss of job creation potential, lack of research and development and to the low level of management, skilled trades and marketing positions within our economy in Ontario.
Our reliance on multinationals is inhibiting the growth of our economy in many sectors, resulting in more and more reliance on imports. The 1975 report to the Ontario select committee on economic and cultural nationalism said: "The most important effects of foreign direct investment and foreign ownership relate to the cumulative structural impact on the economy."
Branch plants of multinationals located here are primarily here for entry into the Canadian market only. The result is that the economic interests of Ontario and of subsidiaries in Ontario are often different from and subordinate to those objectives of the multinationals. The result, according to the Gray report, which was done in the early 1970s, is "less production for the Canadian market, less opportunity for innovation and entrepreneurship, fewer export sales, fewer supporting services, less training of Canadian personnel in various skills, less specialized product development aimed at the Canadian needs or tastes and less spillover of economic recovery."
In many cases our reliance on branch plants has resulted in the underdevelopment of the Canadian industry even where our market is large enough to support that plant or production. Branch plants result in centralized control by the parent. Branch plants import component parts, and they prohibit their branch plant from exporting to European and offshore markets.
The Gray report said: "Canadian branch plants import one third of their requirements, and these imports tend to come from the country of the parent plant. Foreign-controlled companies are more import associated than Canadian-owned companies. Imports were high in these sectors where foreign control is the highest, i.e. auto, machine and tooling." Fourth, procurement of managing, engineering and accounting and advertising services were highest in the sectors of the economy controlled by foreign interests. A study done in 1978 by Statscan confirmed again the report done by Herb Gray in the early 1970s.
No matter how efficient the independent Canadian supplier might be, his price can never compete with the internal cost procedures of the multinational firms. The result is the loss of jobs in Canada and an increase in jobs where the multinational home base is.
In 1970, a US Senate committee on finance calculated that some 461,000 jobs were created in the US as a result of foreign direct investment of US firms in foreign countries, and 50 per cent of those jobs were a result of investment in Canada. Canada gained 110,000 jobs because of the investment, whereas in the United States it was well over double that. This figure is in 1970, and the information indicates that it would be much higher now.
Not only is job loss important, but the result is huge trade deficits, a lower Canadian dollar and higher interest rates. We always hear about government deficits being responsible for high interest rates. The fact is that the interest rates are affected very significantly by the outflow of capital due to research and development fees, profits and management fees that go out of this country as a result of foreign ownership of our economy.
In food processing, we were once self-reliant in Ontario, but because of the foreign takeover of the independent producers we are now a net importer of food. Between 1961 and the late 1970s over half, or 1,379, of the food processing plants in the province closed. At the same time Del Monte, Kellogg and General Foods took control of the food processing sector in the province. Now we have imports of tomato paste, canned peaches, frozen strawberries, canned pears and canned apples, and the list goes on and on.
The reality of the situation is that the foreign takeovers in the 1960s and early 1970s have resulted in our dependence on imports even in a sector where we should be a net exporter. This government's approach to the problems in the food processing sector since the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program was brought in has been to bribe the American-owned foreign multinationals to get into areas where we are net importers: for example, the grant that was given to Heinz in Leamington.
9:30 p.m.
Rather than bribing those foreign multinationals, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to me to be encouraging Canadianization, to be encouraging Canadian food processors to expand. We should say to the foreign multinationals: "We are not going to bribe you into producing more tomato paste. You either do it or we will go to the farmers in the community and we will set up a co-op and we will do it ourselves."
It seems to make a lot of economic sense. It would begin the process of Canadianization of the food processing sector. It would keep the profits here in Canada. It would develop research and development and it would, once again, lead to self-sufficiency in the food sector, which is most important for Ontario.
I talked about research and development and our suggestions of how we could encourage research and development in Ontario. What about skills training? The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) is here. She has been threatening the private sector for I do not know how long, and when the manpower section was under Labour the former Minister of Labour threatened the private sector, saying if the private sector did not do something about improving skills training the government would bring in a mandatory system, perhaps a grant levy system or some kind of legislation in order to get the private sector to do what it should be doing.
The fact of the matter is that this has been a problem in Ontario for years. We have been importing skilled tradespeople for a long time. When we did not have high unemployment it was not quite the political hot potato it is now, but now that it is politically important this government threatens the private sector.
The private sector knows darn well this government is not serious. If it was serious it would have brought in a grant levy program. It would have told the private sector: "If you want skilled tradespeople you will have to train them here, and if you train them here we will help you out financially. But if you do not train people then you are going to pay a tax." That kind of carrot and stick approach, I believe, would have a significant impact on the skilled trades needs within Ontario.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You had better look at it again.
Mr. Cooke: What is the minister's suggestion? She is up next. Maybe she will answer that question. How is she going to get the skilled tradespeople? Her only contribution to the skilled trades needs in this province was to go into Windsor in the middle of the last provincial election and turn the sod for a skills training centre that was already half built.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member knows that it was not --
Mr. Cooke: Come on. The minister knows that the holes were already dug and the government set that up in four days for the Tory candidates, because the big issue was how the Conservatives in the province closed down everything in Windsor.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Listen, you were there in the pictures -- in all of them as a matter of fact.
Mr. Cooke: I showed up because it was in my riding.
Mr. McClellan: He also won the election.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.
Mr. Roy: Was he crowding you, Bette?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: He was standing in front of me most of the time.
Mr. Cooke: Come on, Bette, you know it is impossible to stand in front of you.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, and you also know what you said was not true.
Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is I was invited -- not by the college because the college invited only Tory candidates, I am sure at the minister's instructions. I was not invited by her office, I was not invited by the contractor; I was invited by the building trades in Windsor.
There are other techniques that this government should be using in order to develop the Ontario economy. We hear a lot of talk about the procurement policy from the new Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker).
Mr. Speaker, just to get off this topic for a second, let me tell you something about the new Minister of Industry and Trade. This little story indicates how bankrupt and how inept this government is when it comes to development.
The new minister was down in Windsor recently in order to make an announcement about a new diesel engine plant. He had a meeting with the editorial board at the Windsor Star. The editorial board was talking to him about the potential implications of Chrysler no longer building a car in Canada. The minister said to the editorial board: "What are you talking about? They are going to be building a car. The Imperial, the New Yorker is still going to be built here."
The federal reporter who covers Ottawa pointed out to the minister that he was wrong. The day the announcement was going to be made he still did not know that no longer was a car going to be built. The minister's response was: "Gee, I did not know that. I will have to get my officials to check it out." A $250-million deal, a major concession under the auto pact that no longer would cars be built, and that minister who is responsible for guiding industry, for creating jobs in Ontario, did not even realize that no longer was Chrysler Corp. going to be building a car.
Interjections.
Mr. Cooke: I would like to know where the Treasurer is. If he is not back in a few minutes we may want to take an adjournment.
Mr. McLean: The member is not even talking about the bill, so why should he worry about the Treasurer?
Mr. Cooke: Perhaps the member should have listened to the statement by the Treasurer and the Premier on Tuesday when they said this was the government's economic recovery program. If this is an economic recovery program, then surely I have the right to talk about what a real economic recovery program should include and should have a right to talk about the failures.
If I am going to talk at length, which I certainly am -- if I am going to talk about the government failures within the economic field, we can only talk at length because we cannot do it in five or 10 minutes, believe me.
Mr. Foulds: The only way it could get any worse would be if the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) were Treasurer.
Mr. Cooke: That minister had a very interesting spring session and I just wish there were a few more revenue bills he could deal with this fall -- comic relief. I do not mean introduction of new bills. There are a couple we have not dealt with and I am sure we will get some comic relief out of that member in the fall.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Just so the member does not get disturbed, I will bring in a few.
Mr. Cooke: I understood there were a lot of senior citizen groups that were thinking of giving the minister an award for the way he handled their tax rebate program.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: They already did.
Mr. Cooke: They did, did they? Maybe that was the Tory elderly group, but it sure as heck was not the ordinary senior citizens in this province who have really been hurt by the bureaucratic mixup in this government.
Let me get back to procurement policy. A procurement policy has to be one of the important aspects of any economic recovery package. This government talks about municipalities and hospitals and school boards buying from Canadian sources but at the same time it uses as a guideline only a 10 per cent preference.
Time and time again there have been examples raised in this Legislature of sourcing, even, I believe, the constitutional coins that were sourced from outside this country. Surely this government has to take seriously the importance of sourcing its purchases from farms in Ontario and in Canada. Surely this government has to get out to the private sector and impress upon it the importance of that as well. I understand the limitations in the private sector because of the ownership problem, but surely government in Ontario has to begin to use its $22-billion buying power for the economic development of this country.
Finally, a couple of other areas. We have talked about the use of crown corporations. We mentioned earlier and time and time again -- unfortunately, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has gone again; I saw him here for about five minutes -- that mining machinery is surely an area where this government could show some leadership. It could get involved in a crown corporation. It is not a matter of philosophy, it is not a matter of ideology; it is a matter of practicality. The private sector has not taken up the opportunity. There is a market.
Sweden did it. At the beginning of the 1970s Sweden was not an exporter of mining machinery but she is now, and it is only because they had a government with foresight. It is only because they had a government that knew when to intervene to create jobs and industry. It is about time this government showed that kind of leadership.
It is this government's neglect of structural problems in the economy that has led to today's crisis. No one and no one region is exempt from the economic crisis. Now this government is trying to calm the people of this province with a wage control package. The perception they are trying to create among the people is that this is some kind of a magical answer to all the problems that exist in the province. It is a deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the Treasurer and the Premier.
When we were in the lockup on Tuesday where the officials for Treasury came in and talked to us, some very logical questions were asked of the ministry officials. One question was: How much will inflation be lowered by this program? They said: "We have no idea. We were not told to calculate that." Obviously that was of no interest to the Treasurer or the Premier.
9:40 p.m.
We asked them how much this would lower the provincial deficit. They said: "We have no idea. We did not calculate that. We were not asked to calculate that." Miller -- rather, the Treasurer --
Mr. Piché: Mr. Miller.
Mr. Cooke: If you want to interject, Rene, perhaps you should get in your seat.
Mr. Piché: All I am asking is that you show the gentleman a bit of respect.
Mr. Cooke: The provincial Treasurer stated clearly that the main goal of this program is not to create jobs, it is not to create economic revival in Ontario. He has clearly said in the newspapers and in the press conference after he announced his program that the main objective of this program is to lower the deficit. Surely at a time of economic crisis, at a time of 10.8 per cent unemployment, while deficits are important and they must be kept under some degree of control, the prime objective of a government must be to create jobs.
The evidence is that reducing consumer buying power will not create jobs and may increase unemployment. When unemployment increases, that will increase the deficit of the province as well. This is not an economic strategy; it is a political strategy. It is a strategy this government hopes will give the illusion to the people of the province that action is being taken on the economy when really it is not.
The matter of jobs is the number one priority we have to get through to the Treasurer and the Premier. The attack on the public sector is justified, according to the Conservatives, because the public sector has job security. I suggest one should go to the people who worked for the sales tax department offices that were closed and ask those people who were thrown out of work by this government if they had job security, or perhaps one should go to the hundreds of teachers across the province who have lost their jobs to see if they think they have job security. We should ask the latest 150 employee victims at the chest clinic that was closed just a couple of weeks ago. They were all flown down on the day the reception was being held here for the International Monetary Fund and they were told as of that day they were laid off. Some people in our city went to the chest clinic in Windsor and there was a sign saying: "Your appointment has been cancelled. Go to your family doctor." There was no explanation, no time or notice given to the employees.
One of the things that happened in that particular case is that the doctors who worked for the chest clinic were given three months' notice plus an additional three months' pay, but the ordinary Ontario Public Service Employees Union workers were given 90 days and that was it. Who has the best opportunity to earn a living, of having an income after they lose their job with the chest clinic? Is it the doctors or is it the unionized staff? I suggest that is just another example of the double standard under which this government operates. If you are in a union, 60 or 90 days is plenty; if you are a doctor, they will give you six months. That is the double standard that was used.
Let us look at the program that was introduced and let us see how equitable and sensitive it was. I understand when the Premier was speaking with my leader he warned him that the program was coming down, but he said not to worry, "We are going to deal with the public service in an equitable and sensitive way." "Sensitivity" was the word that he used. Now 500,000 workers have been affected.
It includes employees of provincial corporations, commissions, boards, agencies, universities, colleges, hospitals, health boards, libraries, nursing homes, ambulance workers, home-care workers, garbage collectors, social service workers, social workers at the children's aid societies -- all of these people plus many more are having their wages restricted by this "equitable and sensitive" piece of legislation. All of these people have lost their democratic right to bargain collectively and freely within Ontario.
Some will have three years of controls. The way the program has been explained, they tried to communicate to the people of this province that the program is for only one year; but for some it is a three-year program and for many more it is a two-year program. For example, if I understand the program correctly -- I know I understand it in my mind; it is not the easiest thing to explain the three-year section but I will attempt to.
I understand that if your contract expired, if you still have no contract from 1981 and you are still negotiating, then that contract will be settled for you by the inflation board and you will have a settlement imposed on you. So that is year one. For 1982 you will have a settlement up to nine per cent, and for year three it will be five per cent. There are three years of controls for some people who did not have a contract in 1981.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: A great concern to the back-benchers on the other side.
An hon. member: It is a very important debate, isn't it?
Interjection.
Mr. Foulds: Order, please. Mr. Speaker, Would you call them to order?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cooke: You did that with such enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker. The former member from your riding had lots of enthusiasm.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: He had a very limited vocabulary, though. All he could say was "Resign, resign, resign."
Mr. Cooke: But he was right on.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: He did, he resigned; the electors in his constituency made him resign.
Mr. Cooke: He has taken a sabbatical until 1985, and he will be back.
Some employees are being affected over three years. Let me give another example. In my home city the Canadian Union of Public Employees workers who work for the city of Windsor settled for an incredibly low contract. They dropped their cost of living allowance and settled for something much less than 10 per cent over the last two years, because they recognized the economic problems that existed within our city.
They bargained with sensitivity to the city of Windsor, and as a result property taxes were kept as low as possible. They made a significant contribution, but it was also with the understanding with the city that when the economic picture got better they would have the opportunity to do some catch-up.
Now what happens to them? They are going to be locked in to the government's two-year program, and they are going to suffer not for one year, not for two years, but, added to the two years they have already in effect been under controls, they will have been under controls for four years. What kind of justice is that?
The Premier tells us nonmonetary items can be negotiated. But how are they going to be resolved? You cannot strike to resolve your nonmonetary items, because strikes are outlawed. You cannot go to arbitration, because arbitration has been suspended. How are you going to resolve nonmonetary items? Who is going to resolve them? The reality of the situation is that the Premier has said nonmonetary items can be solved in one way: the union has the right to beg the employers, and that is what it boils down to.
Is the Minister of Colleges and Universities still in the House?
Mr. Wildman: Yes, she is here.
Mr. Cooke: Is she leaving?
Mr. Wildman: Jim Bradley, the member for St. Catharines, has gone over to the right side.
An hon. member: He never left it.
Mr. Cooke: I hope he will go back to St. Catharines and be a little more honest with the people in St. Catharines than he was with the teachers yesterday.
Interjections.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Cooke: For example, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union agreement for clerical workers from January 1982 to December 31, 1983, had a negotiated 11 per cent increase. That was negotiated and signed. It was an agreement this government made with the OPSEU workers, but it is now going to be rolled back to five per cent, a six per cent decrease.
What does that mean? It is a cost to those individuals, a loss of $1,084. There is only one way to describe that cost to those individuals; it is increased taxation on a select few. It is increased taxation on a worker who makes $16,000 or $17,000 a year, an increase in taxation to the provincial government of 40 per cent.
Tell me whether that is a fair solution. The member is going to be voting on this piece of legislation and I hope he will speak on it at some point.
Perhaps the Treasurer can indicate what kind of justice that is. How many jobs will it create when these workers lose $1,000? They will not have the opportunity to spend it in our economy. As a result, they will not be able to afford an appliance or perhaps an automobile. Obviously, the effect is clear. Consumer demand and standards of living will decrease significantly in this province. If people do not have consumer buying power, the only possible result is more unemployment.
If there is more unemployment, the result and the implications for the provincial government are higher welfare costs, higher social service costs, higher health costs, less income by way of taxes and therefore a higher deficit. What kind of economic sense does that make? In the short run, it may be very attractive politically; in the long run, it will be economically disastrous for this province and this country.
Nonunionized employees and those at the lowest income level, for example those at $15,000, can get up to $750. They get $750 at least, is that not correct?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Up to $1,000.
Mr. Cooke: Up to $1,000, but there is no guarantee they will get $1,000. How do they get $1,000?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Decision of the board.
Mr. Laughren: We know who is on the board.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: If their employer asks for it.
Mr. Cooke: If I was making $15,000, if I was not unionized and I had to send my request for an extra $250 to a board created by a government that brought in this kind of legislation, believe me I would not count on that $250.
Mr. Foulds: Only the employer can do it, not the employee. Read your legislation.
Mr. Cooke: Only the employer can do it, is that not correct?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I believe that is correct.
Mr. Cooke: Let us take the worst-case scenario. If they get $750, that is only five per cent. As members of the Legislature, we did better than that in terms of percentages. For those who are at a higher income scale, the percentages do not work too badly. Doctors get a very good deal.
Even if they went up to $1,000, these particular employees would be getting only a little over seven per cent increase when inflation is running at nearly 11 per cent. When they are making only $15,000 a year, they will still have a decrease in their buying power and a lowering of their standard of living. There is no way that section can be described as a sensitive and equitable part of the wage restraint package.
When he is summing up on second reading, perhaps the Treasurer can explain the coincidence that there are a lot of Canadian Union of Public Employees workers and nurses whose contracts run out on September 30 and that a major portion of this program takes effect on October 1. Is that a coincidence or is it something that, if the program had come in just a week ahead of time, would mean one year of controls as opposed to two? I cannot believe this government is so inept that it would have done that accidentally. That was a date designed to attack 25,000 nurses and 18,000 CUPE workers.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foulds: Why don't you call them to order, Mr. Speaker, when they interject?
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can use a couple of examples. We used one this afternoon in the Legislature. I want to use a couple more.
Joyce Morgan is 40 years of age and she lives in Brantford. She is a single parent with two children, both in school. She clears $313 every two weeks; she has a take-home pay of $626 every month. It is not exactly a big income. She works for social services, I believe it is, in Brant county.
Her rent is $224 a month but, as of January 1, 1983, it is going up $48, or more than 20 per cent; but her rent will not be controlled. Her food is at least $200 a month, she has fire insurance and all the other bills that go with just struggling along these days; but her wages will be controlled.
I ask the Treasurer, and perhaps he will respond when he sums up on second reading, how Joyce Morgan contributes to the inflationary cycle in this province. How does her $626 a month cause double-digit inflation? The only thing he is doing to her by controlling her wages is increasing her taxation to assist him in lowering his deficit.
How about Shelley Gordon in Toronto? She is a library assistant. Her income is $1,375 a month; she grosses $16,500 a year. She has rent of $200 a month; food of at least $260 a month; transit of $30; utilities of $50. She has a student loan payment of $107 a month and other expenses; furnishings $50 a month, plus other normal expenses. She has nearly $700 just in basic living expenses; but the Treasurer is going to control her wages.
She has $16,500 a year. She is young, just getting started in life in the city of Toronto, probably would like to save a bit of money, probably would like to buy some durable goods and perhaps have a goal of purchasing a home at some point. What the Treasurer is saying to her, and what she says to us, is that this wage control program, since her increases will not keep up with the cost of living, will mean she can no longer look at buying a car, and she was a potential car buyer; she is not going to be able to look at any appliances or new furnishings, or anything like that.
He has simply said to her: "Don't spend. We are not going to allow you to keep up with the cost of living and therefore you are no longer a consumer who is going to be able to contribute to an economic recovery." He is controlling her wages, he is diminishing her consumer buying power; and he is eliminating jobs by doing this to 500,000 people in Ontario.
The simple fact of the matter is that savings of individuals will be decreased because they cannot afford it. Their standard of living will decrease. Their disposable income will decrease. Major purchases will become impossible and standards of living in this province will decrease for 500,000 people and their families. There are simply no other conclusions to come to.
The only potential benefit from this program -- and I am not even sure it is a benefit -- is that in the short run, the very short run, the deficit may decrease. In the long run, as more and more jobs are eliminated and as social service costs go up, the deficit will increase.
The unimaginativeness of this program, the traditional Tory approach that this represents, is simply incredible. One would think that the Treasurer and the Premier could come up with something a little more imaginative to get the economy moving.
10 p.m.
Let us look at the Ontario Public Service Employees Union workers and how much money they earn in this province. In 1982, there are 1,700 OPSEU workers who earn less than $15,000 a year; 13,235 earn between $15,000 and $17,500 a year. That is not a large income, $15,000 to $17,500, especially when one considers that in Toronto the average income required to buy a home is now $59,000, I believe, and these people are earning $15,000 to $17,500.
The Treasurer has an obligation to these people, and to us in this party, to indicate how someone earning $15,000 to $17,500 a year is contributing to the inflationary cycle in this province. It just does not make any sense that these low-income earners are going to be controlled.
There are 13,157 OPSEU workers who earn between $17,500 and $20,000. Those totals mean that more than 54 per cent of OPSEU workers earn less than $20,000, yet their wages are going to be controlled by this piece of legislation. There has been no explanation by the Treasurer or the Premier how they contribute to the inflationary cycle.
There was a reasonably good commentary on CBC from Fraser Kelly, of all people. He indicated how ridiculous it was that the six and five per cent program and the five per cent program were being brought in. He said what the government was communicating to the people of this province was that high unemployment, the deficits that government is running up, the large amount of imports and all the economic problems we are suffering in this province are to be blamed on the 500,000 public servants who serve the people of this province. That is basically what the government is saying.
Years of riding on the growth in the 1960s -- growth that was not planned but just fell upon the government with luck -- and all the years of neglect have come home to roost with this government, and now it has decided to make the 500,000 civil servants in this province its whipping boys.
That may sell politically, but it is morally wrong as well as economically wrong. This party feels very strongly about it. We intend to fight it. We have put our proposals, our alternatives, forward. I would like to review some of those but, before I do that, I want to comment about the price controls, because that is the other side of the equation that is even more deceiving because of the way it has been presented to the people of this province.
The government states that no fees, licences or prices charged by ministries of government will increase by more than five per cent; yet as it was pointed out by my deputy leader today, Ontario health insurance plan premiums go up on October I by 17.4 per cent.
We got the silly argument from the Treasurer, in answer to a question about this, that those premiums were set in the May 13 budget and so they cannot be changed. We asked him through interjections and supplementary questions: "What about the contracts that have been signed? What about the second and third years of contracts that you are ripping up and tearing apart? You do not feel constrained in ripping those things up and destroying them and changing those contracts, many of which you have signed yourself. Why the double standard? Why the hypocrisy?" It does not seem to bother anyone on that side of the House.
The average family, as my deputy leader pointed out, pays $50 a year in fees that are regulated. The average family, on the other hand, as of October 1, 1982, will be paying $648 a year in OHIP premiums with the 17.4 per cent increase. If the government were serious about controlling prices, the Treasurer would have got up and indicated, as part of his statement the other day, that the October I increase in OHIP premiums was going to be null and void. He might even have indicated that a rollback would be in order, but at least he could have indicated that the increase scheduled for October was going to be rolled back. That would have been only decent; it would have indicated that this government was sincere to some degree.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: It also would have been consistent.
Mr. Cooke: Consistency is never anything this government has been worried about. In fact, in many ways this government in the way it operates is the Liberal Party of Ontario. It goes with the polis. It does whatever it thinks is popular. Its principles are surely to be questioned, and this piece of legislation shows it more than anything else.
The second piece of legislation is going to be even more difficult for this House to deal with. I do not know how this government can introduce a piece of legislation on first reading that says it is going to opt into a federal program that has not been announced and expect the opposition parties to say: "We agree. Whatever the federal Liberals decide to bring in as a program, we will opt into. We are going to give you that authority." If the government expects that piece of legislation to have second reading in this session and expects us to deal with it seriously, then it really has lost its respect for democracy and for the way this Legislature should be operating.
The most interesting, inconsistent and unfair part of this program is when legislated price controls say that all cost increases can be passed through, all legislated prices can have cost increases passed through to the consumers plus five per cent. Darcy McKeough did very well in the Globe and Mail today. I am sure the people who just read the headline thought Darcy McKeough was a great guy. He says he is going to raise Union Gas rates by 4.4 per cent, but when one reads the whole thing the increase is going to be more like 18 or 20 per cent.
On one hand, the government says prices will be able to reflect the five per cent plus increased costs. On the other hand, for the wage earner who has a rent increase of 20 per cent or more, who has a mortgage interest increase of perhaps 80 or 90 per cent because of Liberal interest rates or who has increases in food and energy prices, none of those costs can be passed through.
What we have said is that all fees and regulated prices now have a cost of living allowance one for one; they have a cost of living adjustment. But the workers in this province, the 500,000 public servants, do not even get anywhere near the cost of living. I do not believe that fair-minded people in this province, and by far the majority of the people of this province are fair-minded, are going to buy this kind of program when they really understand what it is all about.
The way it was explained to us the other day in the House by the Treasurer, he neglected to tell us that access to arbitration had been suspended, that the right to strike had been suspended, and that all costs could be passed through. Those kinds of less than honest ways of approaching this issue, those deliberate oversights, may fool the people of this province in the short term, but the people of this province are not foolish and they will catch on.
When we go around this province and talk to them about the program, we will be telling them with a great deal of honesty what is included in this program. If we cannot count on the government to level with the people of the province, certainly this party and the trade union movement will communicate with the people of this province in an on-the-level way so they understand what this program is all about and so they can understand exactly what it is going to do to the economy of the province.
10:10 p.m.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about our alternative. I think my leader has responded consistently in providing an alternative to this government's policies. That is how a responsible opposition party should act.
The starting point of our program is that 689,000 people are unemployed. That has to be first and foremost in any program; so the first priority is job creation in an NDP package of economic recovery. The province must show leadership. That means more than just bashing the federal government and saying the federal government can do it all.
The four principles we talked about are creating and protecting jobs, sharing any costs associated with the economic recovery, trimming waste in government and fighting inflation in necessities.
We talked about a housing program, the creation of 15,000 new rental units in the nonprofit sector by issuing a housing development bond. The program would cost $150 million and would create 33,000 jobs. Those 33,000 jobs would create taxpayers out of unemployed people, some in the building trades and some in areas where furniture is manufactured, instead of people who have to rely on unemployment insurance. We would get the benefit of losing some of the cost to government of social services and we would get the benefit of having taxpayers and people who feel good about contributing to society.
We have talked about a major energy conservation program financed through low-interest loans to home owners. That would create 20,000 jobs in this province. Already, we are 53,000 jobs ahead of what this government has created and, if we add on the jobs lost, we are well over 250,000 jobs ahead.
All it takes is a little imagination and willpower, not the kinds of programs the government relies on when it refuses to intervene in the economy except when it is intervening to restrict the wages of ordinary working people.
We talked about accelerating public works programs in our municipalities, school boards, hospitals and universities. We also talked about basic industry renewal. That includes Autocan, which in some respects is the type of program this government called for at the federal level but which we should be creating at the provincial level, where we would have a crown corporation to invest jointly with the Canadian-owned auto parts firms to get them modernized, bringing in new machinery so we can compete with foreign firms and so we can Canadianize the auto parts sector to strengthen it. Combined with content legislation at the federal level, that could create thousands of jobs in Ontario.
The same type of thing applies to machinery. As the Treasurer will know, our biggest deficit in trade is in the machinery sector, whether it is mining machinery or machinery in general. Consider what happens when we get new investment in this province. For example, if an auto parts plant is built, the machinery when they are tooling that plant is anywhere from 50 to 80 per cent imported. About 80 per cent of the capital cost of building a new auto plant these days is machinery, and that means the vast majority of investment is through imports, rather than through Canadian goods, which would create Canadian jobs here in Ontario.
Job protection: This government destroyed the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment at a time when this recession was just beginning. Now we need those policies more than ever where companies that are going to leave this province or close their doors have to justify both to the workers and to the communities why they are closing down.
Last week, when my colleagues the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and I were in Windsor, we met with a couple of widows from Bendix. Their husbands died from cancer because of asbestos. These are the only two who got widows' benefits, and now Bendix is appealing.
When we are dealing with multinationals like that, we cannot rely on the private sector to be responsible and to have a heart and care about the community they exist in. We have to legislate guidelines to enforce good corporate citizenship on multinationals.
The evidence is in, and it was placed before the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment, that many multinationals do not perform up to any of our standards, no matter which side of the House we are on. So we have suggested that there has to be justification and it has to be legislated justification.
The problems of severance pay have to be plugged up. We have to have six months' notice. No longer should a company be able to close up as Bendix did -- it paid a few weeks in lieu of notice -- and then just leave town, taking its machinery with it, and that is it. We have to have longer notice -- six months' notice -- so that during that time we can look and see whether justification can be established.
Those types of areas for job protection are important. It is about time this government took the initiative to amend those sections of the Employment Standards Act and whatever other legislation comes under the portfolio of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).
Speaking of the Minister of Labour, I find it rather sad that the Minister of Labour is not on the list to participate in this debate. Of all people, the Minister of Labour should be speaking on this piece of legislation, which destroys free collective bargaining for 500,000 people in this province.
I can understand why he is embarrassed. I can understand why he refuses to talk on the legislation. None the less, I believe he is not fulfilling his duties as Minister of Labour to participate in this debate and put forward his position as a minister of the crown.
Further on the economic recovery package, under "interest rates," we certainly understand that the federal government has a responsibility for setting interest rates through the Bank of Canada. However, we believe there are a couple of initiatives that this government could take.
First, the government of this province, through the Premier, should be using its influence with the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Finance to indicate clearly and once and for all that we expect interest rates to be lowered.
If that means there have to be exchange controls or that there should be a direction from the federal government to Gerald Bouey that interest rates are simply to be lowered, then that is exactly what should be done. The alternative is that unemployment is going to continue to increase.
But we have not heard that. In fact, the Treasurer of this province said on one occasion, "Yes, interest rates should be lowered." On a different occasion he said, "You know the implications of interest rates being lowered." On another occasion he said, "Yes, my Premier says interest rates should be lowered." On yet another occasion he said, "You cannot bring in exchange controls." And on still another occasion he said, "If we have interest rates too low, we are going to chase out foreign investment and inflation will run away again."
I do not know what the Treasurer's position is on interest rates. I do not know what the Premier's position is. But I know that central to any long-lasting recovery in the economy of this province has to be the lowering of interest rates and a declaration by this government that it believes in the setting of a truly Canadian interest rate that reflects Canadian needs and not American needs.
In the area of taxes, to create jobs and for economic recovery, we believe the Treasurer made a very serious error when he extended the sales tax in the spring of this year. We also believe one way of stimulating sales, as well as of demonstrating to the people of this province that we are concerned about prices and consumer buying power, is to roll back the sales tax increase of this spring.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Here it is, the real solution: take in less money but spend more.
Mr. Cooke: Perhaps the Minister of Revenue can explain to me why in his budget the Treasurer projected a certain amount of income from his sales tax when we in the opposition predicted to him that sales tax was going to scare consumers, was going to have a negative effect on purchases and would result in less revenue. That is exactly what has happened. The government's deficit is up $400 million.
10:20 p.m.
The government talks about voodoo economics. It has introduced voodoo economics in the budget and now in this program more so than anything else.
We believe that in this province there are people who are earning high incomes, who can afford to contribute more to this province in terms of taxation. Those people who have a personal taxable income of $40,000 or more, we believe, should be taxed with a two per cent surtax. That would raise $290 million. It would not reduce their buying power because we know that people at the high income level have, as the economists say, a greater propensity to save.
For those people at the low income level, every extra dollar of income they have means they are going to spend it and therefore it stimulates the economy. From both an economic point of view and an equity point of view, it seems to us that a two per cent surtax on people with high incomes makes sense. At the same time, we do something for those people on low incomes, especially those people on fixed incomes because they need it and because it is fair and because, from an economic point of view, those people on low incomes will spend it and that will create jobs.
We also believe that other taxes such as a surtax on bank profits make a lot of sense. Banks are the one group of people who have done well with the high interest rates. Since many people in this province are suffering because of high interest rates, we think we should recover some of that money in order to assist those people who are suffering.
Interjections.
Mr. Foulds: That's right. Defend the banks. It is the only time you wake up.
Mr. Cooke: I do not think the Minister of Industry and Trade was here when I told my colleagues about the little meeting he had with the editorial board at the Windsor Star. I was surprised to learn that at that meeting he did not even know that Chrysler was not going to be building a car.
Mr. Shymko: What about all the Socialist millionaires?
Mr. Cooke: I was very concerned when I heard he was going to be Minister of Industry and Trade but when I heard that he did not even know what was in the deal, now I am petrified about the future of industry in the province.
Mr. Foulds: That's nine-job Walker.
Mr. Martel: So what if nine of them come from Japan to fill the jobs. It's nine jobs.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cooke: It seems to me that the Minister of Industry and Trade at least should have been up to date on the deal that he was signing that day when having the press conference. Maybe that explains why there is no economic leadership when the government cannot even read the fine print.
That explains why when he goes and gets information from some of these big corporations, after layoffs, he comes back here. I think probably they write his answers for him, and he just reads the corporate line. He believes everything they tell him. He probably saw Moe Closs five minutes before he went into the Windsor Star and he said, "Do not worry, Gord, we are going to build a car," and he went in there and told them that. He buys their line, hook, line and sinker.
Other areas of taxation that we think are worthy of consideration on the part of this government and that form part of our package are reintroduction of succession duties on the top three per cent of estates, excluding farms, which would raise $50 million to $75 million for this province, as well as the reintroduction of the land speculation tax in this province.
Let us talk about trimming government waste, because there are examples of government waste. None of us can deny that.
Mr. McClellan: Yuri Shymko.
Mr. Cooke: There are a lot of parliamentary assistants. But let us look at some of the ones that have been sort of symbolic of this government.
I thought it was rather heartless of this government. The same day they put on the International Monetary Fund reception which cost $180,000 in taxpayers' money, they flew in 150 workers from chest clinics across this province and told them, "Your jobs are gone. You are finished. We cannot afford you any longer. We do not need you." The cost for the reception was $180,000 plus whatever it cost to give our guests from around the world liquor at half price.
I realize that $180,000 is a small percentage of the provincial budget; I understand that. But the symbolic nature of that expenditure on the same day that 150 jobs were eliminated indicates to me how much out of touch this government is with what is going on economically in this province; how much out of touch it is with the hundreds of thousands of families in this province that are hurting, and how much out of touch it is with those senior citizens and single parents on fixed incomes.
One day, they are saying we can spend $180,000 and probably an additional $50,000 to $100,000 in forgone taxes on liquor, and the next day they are saying we have to bring in an economic emergency program because we have to restrain wages because government spends too much money. It is very difficult for a lot of us to reconcile those two facts. Or there is the $50,000 that was spent on the consultants who were brought in to show the government how to use computers --
Mr. McClellan: One consultant.
Mr. Cooke: Yes, one consultant -- $50,000 plus all his expenses. Earlier in the year, I raised the case of a welfare recipient, a single woman in her mid-50s, who gets $2,700 a year from this government. That $50,000 represents 20 years of income to her.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: But next year, this consultant will only get five per cent more.
Mr. Cooke: Right. Twenty years of income for this individual and we spend it in two days on one individual. I do not know where the justice is in that. I do not know where the equity is in that. I can understand why a lot of people in this province are very confused and very upset and very disillusioned with a government when it spends that kind of money on people who really, quite frankly, do not need us to subsidize their liquor sales.
There was the jet sale. The only reason the government sold that jet was because there was political pressure and because, again, it had become a symbolic issue to people across this province, representing government waste. So, because of public opinion, they were forced to sell that jet.
There are other areas where this government can have a serious impact in fighting inflation, and these are energy and transportation. We suggested in our package that this government should freeze hydro and home-heating fuel prices for eight months. The government can do that within the province and that would be a significant contribution towards fighting inflation and fighting the cycle that this government says is so important, and which I agree is important. But if one looks at the makeup of the inflation problems within this province, the majority of the inflation comes from government-administered prices, and this is one area where the government could have a significant impact on inflation in Ontario.
The government could freeze public transit fees for one year without reducing service. In this province, and specifically in Metropolitan Toronto, that would have a significant effect on inflation and would increase ridership. There is the likelihood that with increased ridership and increased revenues, it would not cost this government anything at all. That is something this government should be doing. They should freeze public transit fares for one year.
10:30 p.m.
We have suggested that the government freeze the tax on gasoline to the current dollar level for at least one year. This means we are saying to the government that if the cost of living allowance is no good for workers, then certainly attaching a built-in cost increase on the tax on gasoline through the ad valorem tax is also unfair and wrong; therefore, the ad valorem tax should be eliminated.
On motion by Mr. Cooke, the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as provided in the standing orders, we would normally indicate the business of the House for next week.
Tomorrow and Monday we will proceed with this debate on Bill 179. I think members are probably aware, however, that a request for an emergency debate is going to be moved tomorrow. Depending on the disposition of that by Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning we will debate either that or the bill. But on Monday we will continue with Bill 179, and then we will have further information on the business of the House after that.
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPOINTMENT
Mr. Speaker: It being 10:30 of the clock, and pursuant to standing order 28, I now recognize the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who has given prior notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question to the Premier (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I realize I have a very brief time, but I do want to say that in my opinion the administration of justice has not been well served in the last few days by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and by the Premier of this province.
There was a press conference this afternoon in which Mr. Rosenberg apparently stated that no commitments or promises were made by the Premier, by Mr. Goodman or by anyone else. He went on to say that the letter was written as a result of frustration. He said he was frustrated by the fact he had not succeeded in being elected, either provincially or federally. He said he was frustrated, apparently, because for about 15 months he had attempted to be appointed to the provincial court bench and his desire had not been fulfilled. He was frustrated, apparently, because he saw a municipal election coming up that was being contested, and he had not received the appointment.
Out of this frustration, according to Mr. Rosenberg's own statements, he decided to write a letter full of lies, according to him and according to the Premier and anyone else involved. He wrote a letter to the Premier, apparently, making very serious and unfounded allegations, and he was rewarded for doing that. His scheme worked: he was appointed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
So what terrible conclusions do we draw now? Many of us who have been around here for a while have serious doubts as to whether the allegations made in the letter of June 18, 1982, are in fact untrue. But accepting the word of Mr. Rosenberg in a press conference today, and accepting the word of the Premier and Mr. Goodman and other people involved in this that the allegations he made were untrue, the government, knowing this, appointed him to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? If you want to get on the Ontario Municipal Board, you lie. That is the way to get on that board. That is the upshot of this.
Given these circumstances, the questions to be asked in the administration of justice are simply: How in heaven's name does the government, in these circumstances, justify appointing such an individual to the Ontario Municipal Board to dispense justice? How is it that this matter is now public? How is it that the government is not removing this individual from the Ontario Municipal Board if he does not have the honour to remove himself or to resign from the board?
We can talk politics and we can make fun of this, but we are talking about the administration of justice. There are other jobs in a government. They can give Morley another job. He can go back to his law practice. He has got it for sale now; it is in today's Toronto Star. I think the telling words in his ad are, "The terms of sale are negotiable." I guess so.
It is absolutely intolerable that the citizens of this province are expected to have the confidence to come before this board despite the circumstances in which this individual was appointed to and remains on the board. How are we to convince the public of this province that the administration of justice is independent and has credibility in these circumstances?
The performances of the Attorney General and of the Premier, it seems to me, have not been such as to defend and protect the administration of justice. Given these circumstances, if the Premier does not want to have an independent inquiry, I challenge him to refer all of these circumstances to either the Law Society of Upper Canada or the judicial counsel for consideration to see what they would say about such circumstances.
It is not good enough to try to stonewall in the situation, hoping the thing will die down and go away. The administration of justice is far too important for this to happen. And if the people on that side hope that, given these circumstances, the matter will blow away, that nothing will be said and that over time people will forget, we on this side will not forget this. We will be talking about how --
Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Roy: We will be talking about how the administration of justice was not defended in September 1982 by the present administration.
The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.