Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: On Thursday last, after the disturbance which led to the clearing of the public galleries, I agreed to make a statement on the matter early this week. Unfortunately, in my absence on Friday an incident arose which perhaps was a reaction from the disorder on Thursday and perhaps a natural fear of a repetition.

I think I should emphasize that there is no dress code for the public galleries as long as the apparel does not form part of an obvious demonstration, which is not permitted in the House nor inside the Legislative Building. Such demonstrations are an affront to and contempt of the whole House, no matter to whom it is directed.

To deal with the disturbance of Thursday and the questions arising therefrom: First, as to the suggestion that the action taken last Thursday in some way infringes the privileges of the House and of the members, I point out that there is no recognized privilege of the members to have an audience in the galleries. On the contrary, one of the most important privileges of the House is to be allowed to conduct its business and its debates without interruption, disorder or attempted intimidation from the galleries.

There is ample authority for the action taken, in standing orders 6 and 9 and by many precedents in this House and other parliaments. I refer the members to the 19th edition of May's Parliamentary Practice at page 223 where, under the heading "Misconduct of Strangers in the Galleries," it states:

"Individual instances of misconduct on the part of strangers admitted to the galleries of the House have occurred from time to time, and the offenders have been removed from the galleries, or the galleries have been closed by the Speaker's directions, or the Speaker has issued a warning of his intention to clear the galleries if disorderly behaviour were to continue."

I also find very interesting the quotation from the House of Representatives in Australia in which the parliamentary practice is very succinctly stated as follows:

"Admission to the galleries is a privilege extended by the House, and people attending must conform with established forms of behaviour. People visiting the House are presumed to do so to listen to debates, and it is considered discourteous for them not to devote their attention to the proceedings. Thus, photographs are not permitted to be taken in the chamber, and visitors are required to refrain from reading, writing, conversing, applauding, eating and so on. Successive Speakers of the House have upheld these rules. Visitors in the galleries are not permitted to display signs or banners."

To sum up the matter as briefly as possible, may I say that strangers are permitted to remain in the galleries as long as they obey the rules and traditions of Parliament and listen, without any demonstration, applause or disorder of any kind. The Speaker has always been charged with the enforcement of this principle, and if, as on Thursday last, it becomes impossible to isolate those causing the disturbance, there is no alternative but to clear the galleries in accordance with the precedents cited.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I might, having been one of those people who met with you to discuss this matter, it seemed to me there was some tacit agreement that the conduct which was unacceptable at the time and the action which therefore followed would not be tolerated in the future, but it was my understanding that it would be drawn to the attention of the public via a statement today that people would not be kicked out totally for the whole of the session. Should they return and then conduct themselves in an improper manner, they would be asked to leave and not be allowed back in for the rest of that session. I think that part of the statement is missing, and I ask you why.

Mr. Speaker: I think probably you did not listen very carefully to what I said, because it is covered in there quite fully. It must remain part of the discretion of the Speaker to make those decisions.

Mr. Martel: That is not what I am talking about, and you know it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: No; you are out of order. I have done what I said I would do.

Mr. McClellan: How can you know it is out of order when you have not heard my point of order?

Mr. Speaker: A point of order on what?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, with respect to part of the matter that was raised here this afternoon, I want very briefly to set out a concern that has not been addressed in your statement.

Mr. Speaker: All right. It cannot be debated. I just point that out.

Mr. McClellan: No. I am not debating anything you said, sir, because we agree with what you said. There is no question at all that if there is a disturbance in the galleries, the Speaker has the authority and the responsibility to deal with the disturbance, and that is what you have spoken to.

The concern that was raised last week, which I do not believe was addressed in your statement, is the question of how long the galleries should be closed upon the action of the Speaker to deal with a disturbance. The concern which we raised last week, and to which we hoped you would address yourself, was the fact that the galleries remained closed for the remainder of that sitting and then appeared to be closed again on the evening of the same day. There is some confusion as to what the status was in the evening, but there is no confusion with respect to the status in the afternoon.

2:10 p.m.

It is not our intention to debate the matter, but perhaps the suggestion made last week by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), and seconded by myself, that the matter be referred either to the standing committee on procedural affairs or to a meeting of the House leaders and their assistants, together with the Speaker and his assistants, would be useful in dealing with this second matter; that is, how long the galleries should remain closed following their clearance after a disruption.

Mr. Speaker: When the member has an opportunity to read Hansard, he will see that the matter has been addressed. Again I must say, very clearly, that must lie within the jurisdiction, discretion and judgement of the Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who was the Acting Speaker on Friday, will recall the issue at hand on that particular day was the wearing of specific tee-shirts. Perhaps I did not catch it, but I did not hear the issue of tee-shirts spelled out. It was generally agreed among the three parties that the wearing of tee-shirts that simply identify a person as a member of a union would be accepted. Otherwise, if they bore a political message, they would not be. Will the Speaker clearly point that out for those who are going to be in the galleries?

The second point I address is that of the length of time and what would be done in terms of repeated offenders who might be involved in an offence a second or third time. The last point I would make is to reiterate the suggestion which the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) found reasonable, and certainly his party is agreeable, that is to have this dealt with by the standing committee on procedural affairs or the House leaders.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not the practice in the House, and in most cases it is not necessary at all, but I wonder if you would look at this suggestion. When you are trying to clarify matters that are of some length, such as the one today, would it be possible to give each party a copy of what you are reading, as is normally done with statements? Is that at all possible?

Mr. Speaker: It is possible, but it has not been done. It appears in the Votes and Proceedings.

I would like to address the member for St. Catharines. When he has had an opportunity to read this in Hansard, he will find it quite clearly deals with this matter and the other matters he has raised as well.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

BUY-CANADIAN POLICY

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share with the Legislature a new initiative taken by my ministry in the area of Canadian-made product purchasing. I am sure it will interest this House to know that two to three per cent of all construction in Canada is under the auspices of the Ministry of Government Services. In the fiscal year 1981-82 this government spent in the neighbourhood of $70 million in renovations and capital construction in the province.

Some rather startling statistics come to light in purchasing Canadian goods. For instance, we are able to buy only an average of 60 per cent Canadian-made electrical and mechanical products. This is just not good enough. If we are to be successful in offering stimulation to our economy through government purchasing, we must do better than simply be satisfied with what is currently available to us. We must encourage Canadian initiatives in the manufacturing of needed products for the overall benefit of our province and our country.

I sincerely believe our actions in these areas will provide job creation incentives right where they should be, in the private sector. I believe we can play a major role in offering Ontario and other Canadian manufacturing an excellent opportunity to help us as a government and, more important, to help themselves.

The procurement of Canadian-made electrical and mechanical products has been a very real concern to me, and I shared these concerns with the House not too long ago. At that time, I advised the Legislature that the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Government Services would be working in concert to ensure that everything possible would be done to seek further opportunities to buy Canadian in these two very important areas.

I am happy to report that, effective last Friday. a procurement officer was provided by my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) to work hand in glove with the Ministry of Government Services to achieve these goals.

We will identify these products which are not now available to us through Ontario and other Canadian manufacturers. The Ministry of Government Services will then work directly with the Ministry of Industry and Trade to encourage Canadian companies to examine these manufacturing opportunities. The result will be to increase employment, productivity and manufacturing opportunities in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer is no doubt aware of the announcement this morning of the layoff of another 1,250 truck production line workers in Oshawa, starting October 25. In many ways this is a typical week in this province. They will join the approximately 300 employees of Atlas Steels in Welland who have been laid off, the 94 workers at Shaw Pipe in Welland and 49 employees at Borg-Warner in Cambridge, and add to the already current total of about 17,000 laid-off workers in Sudbury, 3,425 in Sault Ste. Marie, 1,200 from Stelco in Hamilton, and indeed thousands of others from across this province.

The figures indicate that the number of permanently or indefinitely laid-off workers in this province is up by 144 per cent from a year ago in the January to August 31 period. When the Treasurer brought in his wage restraint program, he said it was the first step and the first step only. How long do we have to wait for the second step?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those facts just given. I believe the reduction is a one-shift reduction in the light truck plant at General Motors, with similar reductions on the US side. I am aware also that it is not exactly rosy in the economic picture at this moment.

At the same time, when I brought out the five per cent package, we said we would be asking Ottawa, and we have, to co-operate with all 10 provinces. In the event they do not, Ontario will have to take some economic steps, but I believe with the attitude of the new federal Minister of Finance we will have some co-operation on the economic stimulation side.

Mr. Peterson: We have asked the Treasurer before what he is going to do. Am I to assume his response is to blame them or to call a meeting? We ask him what he is going to do with the money saved in terms of provincial transfers as a result of his program. He has mentioned the figure of some $840 million or so -- and let us not quibble about the number -- which will be saved because of the restraint program, against budgeted transfers. In other words, a substantial amount of money will be available.

My question is this: Is the Treasurer just going to use that to reduce the deficit, as he implied he might in a response during question period a week or so ago? Why does he not take some of that money right now and put it into job creation programs so this will not be the bleakest winter in memory for a lot of these unfortunate people'?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition is changing his point of view rather dramatically. For the four years I have been Treasurer, he has constantly reminded me of the deficit and has told me to do something about reducing its size. Now he is telling me I have saved money, therefore, there must be money in the till. He knows that is ridiculous.

At the same time as we will have some savings in the future we have immediate losses in revenue; it does not mean there is a pool of money and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. He also knows it is best that we have one national economic recovery program. All 10 provinces agree on that. I am not blaming the federal government at all, but they have just changed ministers in two shifts and I understand there is to be a third shift. The Leader of the Opposition knows it is not worth spinning our wheels in a province alone when most of the economic power is in Ottawa.

Mr. Bradley: It's in Washington.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I'm not blaming them, Jimmy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the layoffs in Oshawa, we now have a number of major industrial centres in the province that are facing substantial increases in unemployment; with unemployment insurance benefits running out, they are going to have a very difficult time coming through this period.

Is the Treasurer prepared to give us any idea as to what plans he might have for those industrial cities, such as Oshawa, that have experienced these dramatic layoffs? Is he preparing to carry through some of the commitments, made in a somewhat veiled way by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), to go to those municipalities that have high unemployment and are going to have increased welfare costs and to do something locally that either would stimulate the local economy or, at the very least, would do something to buffer the dramatic effects on welfare programs around Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say we are very concerned that the 20 per cent raised at the local level might be very hard to achieve in some municipalities. This should in no way lower the security of assistance for people living in those municipalities. We all have to find a way to help people, whether or not the municipality is able to raise its share. I just hope that is limited to a very few, and smaller municipalities, in Ontario. We have an overall obligation to people no matter where they live, and I am reasonably sure it will be honoured.

Mr. Peterson: On a quasi point of privilege: May I clear up some of the misunderstandings of the Treasurer, who attributes certain statements to me that are not correct? We have said the government should not be wasting money on Suncors, land banks, advertising and silly things like that which do nothing for Ontario. I stand by that. If the Treasurer had spent that money on job creation, then we would have something in this province now and in the future. He has squandered it, and he knows that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: My question is this: Why does the Treasurer not recognize that out of approximately 1,800 layoffs in August alone, probably more than 400 are permanent? Those jobs will never come back. One example is the Miami Carey factory in Barrie.

We have very serious problems. The Treasurer took his own initiative on the restraint program, he did not take that occasion to follow the federal example; why can he not follow his own example now and do something about the people who will be facing the bleakest winter in memory?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, we have done something --

Mr. Foulds: What have you done?

Mr. F. S. Miller: What have we done? The honourable member does not like to recognize that we have people at work who would not have been at work had we not taken the actions in the budget. He does not like to admit that in the north we have section 38 jobs going through the Ministry of Natural Resources in the forest and mining industries. He does not want to admit that we are working with municipalities right across this province on public works activities through the assistance of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He does not want to admit that we are working on the universities of this province so that we have a lot of people working under the assistance programs.

RESTRAINT ON DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I have another question for the Treasurer. Will he be so kind as to inform this House about the results of the meeting of his administration on Thursday -- I have no idea whether he was there -- with members of the Ontario Medical Association? Presumably the Treasurer and/or the Premier asked those people to contribute in some way to this restraint program. What was requested of those people and what was their response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was not there. I am not privy to it, and I cannot answer.

Mr. Peterson: Very frankly, it is a shocking comment that the Premier would not invite the Treasurer to a meeting like that. However, would the Treasurer care to redirect the question to somebody who was there? Was it only the Premier who was there?

Mr. Bradley: Was Larry there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was in Vancouver, doing my job.

Mr. Peterson: Let me ask the Treasurer for his personal opinion, since I gather that is all he is asked for now, anyway. Would it not be his impression that the $82 million he could save his Treasury as a result of bringing in a restraint program in this area, i.e. making the doctors' fees conform with the principles inherent in his restraint program, could be used well and effectively to create jobs in this province for this coming winter?

Does he not agree with me that in the absence of that kind of program we are going to see far more inequity, and the people who are asked to comply with his program will be much less happy doing so when they see these gross disparities in his program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have made comments in the past that it would be much easier for me if they were in.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister going to bring them in?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have no comment on that

at all.

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Is he fully aware that his wage restraint bill, Bill 179, rolls back the wages of approximately 100 Canadian Union of Public Employees agreements that have already been signed and settled and that extended into 1983-84, and in a very few cases beyond that? Is he fully aware of the extent of the confiscation of wages that is taking place under his control legislation?

Is he aware, for example, that a building custodian with Ontario Housing will lose $1,209; that a labourer with the regional municipality of Sudbury will lose $1,326; that a laundry aide worker in Barton Place Nursing Home will lose $1,590; that a housekeeping aide in North Centennial Manor home for the aged will lose $1,112; and that a social worker in the Bruce County Children's Aid Society will lose $1,659? How can he justify confiscating people's wages in that way, and can he explain how this confiscation will add to the economy of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is version number five of what I am beginning to think is a daily question, because the honourable member has asked that same question in some form each day. He has the strange idea that somehow the money paid to all those people: (a), is less than it was this year -- he keeps using the word "confiscation"; and (b), does not come from taxpayers, many of whom cannot get five per cent or even get a job.

I argue that when we have a very high percentage of people unemployed in some of the ridings represented, such as the riding of his friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) on his right -- I do not know how many are unemployed in Sudbury, but it is the highest percentage in all Canada -- a good many of them right now would dearly love to have a five per cent increase and steady pay; that is why we did it.

Second, the member also knows that, unlike the federal scheme, we treated the people at the low end of the scale fairly, in that there is a minimum increase of $750 mandated and some flexibility up to $1,000. While some contracts obviously were abrogated -- I do not know whether 100 is correct; I certainly know a considerable number were -- I think, strangely enough, the reverse also happened. I happened to be in a riding where some people will get 2.8 per cent more next year than the contract they signed would have entitled them to, because of our bill.

Mr. Foulds: I would like the Treasurer to explain how he and his government, which presumably is a government that pays some attention to the rule of law, justify ripping up contracts that have already been signed and interfering in agreements between employers and employees. These employees were guaranteed by the agreements signed by their employers that they would be receiving wage increases such as the ones I have outlined.

How does he think it makes it any better when, for example, he takes away from a laundry aide worker in the Barton Place Nursing Home only $1,340 instead of $1,590, because of the so-called equity that is built into the lower end of the scale? How does he think it makes it any better for the labourer in the regional municipality of Sudbury to take away only $1,216 instead of the maximum of $1,326? How does he justify that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member keeps on this "take away" bit. He is doing his calculations --

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer is taking it away. The employers agreed to pay it to them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are not taking it away. No one on this side was happy about the course of action we took. The member has heard the Premier (Mr. Davis) say that on a number of occasions. We did not like taking it. These are not normal times. We have taken action we believed was necessary in the interest of all the people in the province, all of whom are represented by the government on this side.

2:30 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Treasurer might advise us whether those lofty principles of restraint apply also to the medical profession; and if so, when his government intends either to bring them into line voluntarily or by legislation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that is a supplementary or not, but I answered it to the member's leader.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the Treasurer. These are signed contracts that are being rolled back in the second year.

Does he realize that of the five examples given by the deputy leader of this party, four of them are incomes of $18,000 and under, and as low as $14,000 or $15,000 a year in at least one case; and that they will lose $1,200, $1,300 or $1,400 with the rollback of that contract in the second year? Does he recognize this is one union alone and does he realize the loss of wages it means on the very lowest level income people?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am reasonably aware of that, but I am also aware that the principles the members in that party espouse do not ever work when they are put into practice.

I had the interesting chance to read the other day about what has happened to the great country of France since it went socialist under Mitterrand. He has just had to freeze all wages in that country. A socialist had to freeze them all because since he took office inflation has gone up so fast, unemployment has gone up so fast and the value of his currency has gone down so fast, because socialist ideals do not work, that he had to put in a major, massive change in direction and become a capitalist again.

Mr. Foulds: I observe that Reaganomics are really working well in Ontario, are they not?

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is he aware that the Treasury hotline number on Bill 179 is making the following labour relations interpretations: When asked, they are indicating that if Ontario health insurance plan benefits are in a contract, and if OHIP is included at 100 per cent or full OHIP coverage, then that will be passed through and not considered to be five per cent of the compensation in a new contract; but if, on the other hand, the contract language specifies a fixed sum -- for example, OHIP coverage will be $48 a month, or something like that -- then any attempt to improve that fixed sum will be considered part of the five per cent compensation package?

Is the minister further aware that the hotline is saying to people who inquire that if a contract specifies shift premiums as a percentage of hourly rate, then it will be passed through and not affect the five per cent compensation package; however, if that shift premium is specified in the contract as a fixed monetary rate -- for example, 25 cents or 30 cents an hour -- any attempt to improve that item will be considered part of the five per cent total compensation? How does the minister explain these discrepancies in interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have not been privy to the hotline and I have not found occasion yet to make use of it; so the honourable member is bringing this information to me for the very first time. I will be pleased to look into it and report back.

Mr. Foulds: I refer the minister to the hotline number, which is 963-2268. I also have a supplementary. Can the minister provide his and the Ministry of Labour's interpretation for the following situation? As the minister is aware, some part-time workers have contracts which provide a percentage of their wages in lieu of benefits, while others have contracts which provide a fixed dollar sum in lieu of benefits. Can the minister explain which of these part-time workers are the harder hit by the legislation and can he explain why that is in each case?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, I cannot at this time.

Mr. Foulds: I can tell the minister it is the part-time workers with the fixed sum that probably are the harder hit by the legislation.

Can he then tell me if he was accurately quoted as saying he is philosophically opposed to the legislation and opposed to the legislation in principle? If that is the case, how can he continue to support legislation that is not only wrong in principle, as he acknowledged, but also has these enormous internal inequities when it comes to labour relations negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was accurately quoted when I stated I was philosophically opposed to aspects of the restraint program, particularly those relative to collective bargaining. I would have been opposed if I had not been Minister of Labour. My present portfolio has nothing to do with that particular philosophy.

I said at the same time I thought from my conversations with many of my colleagues on this side of the House that they also were philosophically opposed to any disruption in the collective bargaining system. I also indicated many, if not most, over here were uncomfortable with interference in the work place.

Finally, I said these are not normal times, as the Treasurer said a little earlier. These are unique times, devastating times. The leader of the official opposition outlined some very alarming figures, figures that come across my desk each and every day. I happen to get those figures a little bit in advance of their actual publication. It is a very serious, devastating situation in this province. Therefore we have to take drastic measures at times like this, and that is what this government is doing.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker I have a question to the Treasurer on his $40-million advertising budget, a little more specific than the one on Friday.

The minister will recall the advertising- communications budget for his government has gone up some 360 per cent in five years and now his government is the sixth largest advertiser in Canada, according to Media Measurement Services. Five years ago it was in 13th place, so it has moved up in at least one category in this country.

Considering he spent all summer apparently coming forward with a so-called economic package, if he has specifics on how he is going to limit wages, salaries and benefits for public employees in Ontario, why does he not have specifics on how he is cutting his advertising budget drastically from $40 million to perhaps a quarter of that? What are the specifics of his cuts? Why has he not announced those specifics so it would be easier for the people of Ontario to accept the program he has imposed upon them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the $40-million figure, which I believe he got from my staff, included all the publications of government as well as advertising per se.

Mr. Bradley: With the minister's photograph in them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Would he really deny the people of his riding the information in a lot of those booklets, roughly $15 million worth of booklets a year? I wonder if his riding office does not use those. Does it not use information on all of the programs of government where his staff needs detailed information?

I refer to information and brochures on senior citizen tax credits, the renter-buy program, health information, beer and liquor control board advertising that really cuts down on preventive health care.

A good deal of the increase in the advertising the last while -- I think $9 million of it -- was due to the lottery fund which in effect is really a new business. Some of the advertising, some $3 million to $4 million of it, is for direct job-generating advertising like the tourism material. Does the member really believe that governments do not have a responsibility for information services?

Knowing how often I get asked from his benches for information, and I am sure other ministers are asked as well, I would argue the member knows that big government today has a job contacting people. He knows the media in all forms -- print and otherwise -- are necessary to do that job.

Given all that, we are working through the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) to find ways of curtailing it. Obviously if incomes are not up to expectations and jobs are hard to find, we have a responsibility to cut spending too, and we are doing it.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: I have a specific case for the Treasurer, since he is not going to provide the specifics. Is he prepared to tell the House today that as a restraint measure he is prepared to cancel the $850,000 campaign which is supposedly designed to get people out to vote in municipal elections and leave that job up to the candidates and the media, instead of squandering the taxpayers' money on something that is not directly useful but is insulting the intelligence of the people of Ontario by telling them they should get out and vote when they know they should get out and vote?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not need to try to justify that particular campaign. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) can do that. He points out that a very low percentage of the people choose the municipal governments and school boards of this province, as opposed to a large percentage who vote for us and for the federal government. He felt there was some obligation to make them more aware of the importance of voting. The fact remains that that particular one is already committed for the next two weeks and then it is over.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that these are extraordinary times and that restraint in some areas of government is important. This is an example, I think most members of the Legislature would agree, where restraint could occur.

Can the Treasurer explain why inside of two days all these brochures and fancy advertising campaigns have come to the members of the Legislature -- one saying, "You decide;" one on Trillium; one for Agriculture Week; and one to try to get people to take advantage of the $8,000 amount. $5,000 from the feds and $3,000 from this government.

This advertising program cost $1 million, which would have provided 300 families with interest rate relief. Is it not about time that even in a symbolic way this government cut back on some of these areas and put that money into aid to people, whether it be in welfare, interest rate relief or job creation? Those are areas that matter. Why does the government not get with it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That I would argue, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what that $8,000 flyer was doing. Instead of having people out of work, we are trying to get houses built right now to employ people. It is working. I am told that last month new house sales in the Metro area went up by 50 per cent. They had their best month's sales in very many months. Just like other programs where there are jobs behind them, we feel we have to do some advertising.

SKF CANADA LTD.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It concerns the latest report by Dr. Paul Grayson on the SKF workers. It is a report that is being funded partly through his ministry, the federal ministry and another agency, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

As the minister knows, this has been following what happened to the 350 workers in the SKF plant in my riding. Most of those who worked there are about 49 years of age and had worked there for 18 years. That plant had been in my riding for 26 years before it shut down. It started shutting down last September, a year ago, and finished in December.

Is the minister aware that 64 per cent of those men are still unemployed as of August 3? They will be facing the humiliation of welfare this winter if they do not get jobs. The numbers of employed have increased by less than four per cent since March. Nine of out 10 of those unemployed workers are willing to take jobs at a lower skill level, and 60 per cent of the unemployed say the shutdown has cost them over $10,000. One out of four has already spent 50 per cent of his savings.

Is the minister aware that only 6.5 per cent got jobs through government help and only 4.2 per cent have been retrained? Does the minister think it is time to rethink his position on plant closure justification and tell his cabinet colleagues that this is the time to find jobs for people, to retrain people and not to fight inflation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the high percentage. I was not aware of the actual figure of 64 per cent. The member also referred to 6.5 per cent, I believe it was, who had found jobs through government assistance and that only 4.2 per cent had been retrained by government. I do not want to quarrel with the member, but it was my understanding that both of those figures were considerably higher than that. I will certainly check on them accordingly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Those are Dr. Grayson's figures that I have received.

Is the minister aware that at the same time as this has been going on, the invoicing from the Scarborough sales division of SKF has risen seven per cent this year and that sales, in which we are grouped with South Africa and India, have risen 25 per cent according to the last annual report of SKF?

At the same time, 42 per cent of the workers in my riding have said this has changed their entire lives, 75 per cent of the spouses have likened the stress which they are undergoing to divorce or the loss of a loved one through death, and one in three questioned whether life is worth while now. There has also been a 100 per cent increase in the number of spouses reporting ill health in the last six months.

Does the minister not understand that it is his duty to find these people work? That plant should never have been allowed to close in the first place, for us to just import goods and ball-bearings from SKF. Jobs are the issue. Will the minister please get up in the House and say jobs are the issue, not inflation? He should not be punishing the public sector but should be helping these people who are in desperate need and do not deserve to go on welfare this winter.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have no problem at all in indicating that job creation is extremely important and that has been the policy of this government from day one.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, since the minister seems reluctant to offer any kind of program to stop the shutdowns of plants, could he at least commit himself and his government to a program of providing assistance where plants are shutting down?

Given the situation at SKF, which has been repeated at so many other plants, there should be proper retraining and job adjustment committees set up by the employer. If employers do not wish to set them up, they should be forced to provide money to the government to set up proper committees to make sure that workers who are thrown out of jobs are at least given the opportunity to find new employment, even if that means proper retraining.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there are few bright spots in the Ministry of Labour these days. However, one that is functioning extremely well, albeit functioning in an atmosphere that is very depressing, is the plant closure and employment adjustment committee. That particular branch has many success stories to tell and has done a good job in this respect under very trying conditions.

ONTARIO STATUS OF WOMEN COUNCIL

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could get the Provincial Secretary for Social Development to resume her seat, since my question is to her.

I would like to quote to the minister from a document prepared by the Ontario Status of Women Council in June of this year, entitled Recommendations for new Government Structures for Women. It states very clearly, "Given the complexity, scope and numerical representation of women in Ontario society, it is clear that Ontario should expand the role of council chairperson to a full-time position."

I would like to remind the minister that this was the first recommendation from the council in its report to the government. Why would the minister not have seen the issues affecting women in this province as important enough to follow this recommendation as put forward by her own status of women council, whose mandate is to advise her on matters affecting women?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable member, I have had discussions with the status of women council as recently as this past week. They are in full accord that there is further discussion to be considered and they are in perfect agreement that we will continue to consider that particular recommendation.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Now that the provincial secretary has considered that recommendation to death, which seems to be a rather simple one that does not need months of consideration, let me remind her of the second recommendation from that very same report, which states, "Women's organizations and other groups should be offered the opportunity to participate in the selection process for appointments to councils."

Would the minister please tell me which groups, if any, participated in the selection process that resulted in the choice of Sally Barnes, the former press secretary to the Premier (Mr. Davis), as chairperson of the council; and which groups, if any, were involved in the selection of N. John Adams, a former Tory candidate in Scarborough West, as a member of that council?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It still remains the Premier's prerogative to decide on who will be a chairman of any of the advisory councils. I have always encouraged the members of the councils that report to me to make recommendations, which has happened each year as it comes time for new appointments, and they have always been considered. I have not heard any complaints from any of the councils in this regard -- none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether that was a true supplementary or not, but I will now hear the member for Beaches-Woodbine with a supplementary.

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister did not answer the question. The question was, which ones participated in the selection --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the provincial secretary if she has yet met with the new director of the women's bureau and its members to discuss the agenda of urgent matters that the council had brought forward in 1980, including affirmative action and equal pay for work of equal value?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I met with the council, Mr. Speaker, and I have left at their discretion which direction they will go. They are an advisory council. They advise the government, and I will await their recommendation.

LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of a situation in London, Ontario, where a landlord, Corporate Image Development Ltd., which is asking for 38 per cent rent increases, is harassing members of a tenants' association for attempting to hold back rents because their heat and water have been off for several weeks since that landlord has not paid his bills?

Is the minister aware of the case at 2181 Navaho Drive in Ottawa, where the landlord has hired private investigators to take pictures of people attending a tenants' meeting, and these people are being served with notices of eviction?

Can he inform the House when he will amend the landlord and tenant and rent review acts specifically to prohibit and punish those landlords who involve themselves in this kind of activity?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of the particular incident the member refers to in London, nor am I particularly aware of the landlord and tenant issues he has raised. I am sure he will feel free to raise this matter with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) when he is in the House, because the landlord and tenant legislation comes under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Philip: As the minister responsible for rent review and responsible for working with the Attorney General to bring in amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, for which we have been waiting for so long since part of it was thrown out of court, would the minister not agree, as the former Minister of Labour with some knowledge about the Labour Relations Act, that although the Residential Tenancies Act, for which he is responsible, gives tenants the right to organize tenants' associations, it does not make it a specific offence to harass tenants, as the Labour Relations Act does under sections 56 and 58?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No. As the member has pointed out, the particular sections of the rent review legislation that dealt with landlord and tenant relations were struck down by the court, and the Attorney General and I will be having discussions about them. Until that time, the landlord and tenant act as it exists now prevails.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received a petition that he was sent last month by tenants in several buildings in Hamilton, who have labelled the commissioner of rent review there merely an agent or an arm of the landlords? If he has received that petition, what does he plan to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have received that petition. If those people have reason to believe that is true, and I do not agree with them, and if the member agrees with them, then she should go outside and say it and accuse commissioner of acting improperly, but she should not say it in here with the protection she gets in this House.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have already written to the minister in the past about this commissioner with no success.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: If he recalls the budget speech of 1981, the throne speech of 1982 and the budget speech of the same year, he will know that the farmers of Ontario were promised; first, a young farmer financial aid program; and second, full exemption from property taxation for their land. What is the current status of these programs and when can the farmers expect them to be introduced?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with them in reverse order. With respect to the property taxation matter, the member will know that in July of this year my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) wrote to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the municipal association and to a number of interested organizations to indicate that for several reasons the taxation matter had been deferred.

Since that time, the federation of agriculture made representations to the Treasurer, to myself, and I believe to most of the members of cabinet if not all, suggesting that they would like the matter reconsidered. It is being reconsidered and the results of that reconsideration I hope will be conveyed to them and made public very shortly.

On the first matter, this was referred to in the March 9, 1982, throne speech and in the May 13 budget. Since that time the ministry has formulated its proposals which have been submitted and are under consideration.

As I have indicated frankly and publicly to a number of farm organizations around the province, given the fact the province's revenues have declined as much as they have from the original estimates in the Treasurer's last budget, and given the pressures of public spending in all respects, including for purposes of agricultural programs, that proposal, along with proposals of other ministries for new programs, is in abatement until such time as we see what is happening to the province's revenues.

One thing is even more important to the farmers, I think, because countless farmers have said to me, "We would like to see a program of assistance to beginning farmers but there is a very basic problem and that is on the price side." That is why we have been devoting so much of our time and energy to promoting a better national tripartite stabilization program.

On that, I have asked members for their assistance to convince the federal minister to finally take a position one way or the other. The financial aid program will undoubtedly be of assistance to some beginning farmers, but if they are to have a chance we have to have a much better stabilization program.

Mr. Riddell: The minister has led me into my supplementary. He talked about putting pressure on the federal government for a tripartite national stabilization program. Does he recall the federal minister offering the provinces that program four years ago? It received no response from this ministry. That was four years ago.

In view of the fact that the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program was established only as a bridging mechanism while gambling that the financial situation in the agricultural industry would improve, and in view of the dismal prices which are forecast -- I outlined those prices when I asked the question a week or so ago -- what plans does the minister intend to introduce as a follow-up to his program this year'? Will he be extending that program beyond this year and will it be expanded to offer the interest subsidy on new lines of credit and deferred interest'?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First, let me remind my friend that in 1978 when the Minister of Agriculture for Canada made his offer, the government of Ontario supported him. The government of Ontario still supports the development of a better national tripartite stabilization program.

Mr. Riddell: Not according to your federal counterpart.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Quite frankly, I do not think it particularly matters to any farmer in the province what happened four years ago, it does not matter. What matters is what is happening in 1982. The government of Ontario is committed to developing a three-way stabilization program, and there is wide support for it. The Ontario and Canadian Federations of Agriculture, the Canadian and Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian and Ontario pork producers, the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada: all support a three-way stabilization program. Admittedly such a program was not there in 1978, but this government did support it.

3 p.m.

For the federal minister and for this member to stand on the fact that the proposal did not get support in 1978 as a reason not to pursue it in 1982 is absolutely ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Pope: He ought to be ashamed.

Mr. Riddell: Let's talk about the farm assistance program, something you can do something about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am just about to. All the interjection suggests is that perhaps I am getting too close to a sore point and the member does not want to listen.

In 1982 the farm adjustment assistance program has been the most successful program of its kind in any jurisdiction in the country; far more successful by miles than the meagre, weak efforts of the Farm Credit Corporation in Ottawa. I would remind the member that his party promised $500 million more credit in the Farm Credit Corporation by June. It is now October and it is not there.

Our program has approved assistance to more than 2,700 individual farmers in the province. Under option B, which involves interest rate rebates, we have approved rebates on outstanding farm credit in excess of $500 million. Now that is help; that is a meaningful program, a constructive program.

I think I indicated in the House last week -- certainly I did on a number of occasions to farm organizations around the province -- we are evaluating the success of the program in 1982 and formulating some proposals to put to cabinet for 1983.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the minister's answer a little further relative to the exemption from taxation of farm land. He will recall I wrote an open letter to him on this matter a couple of weeks ago, to which I have not yet received a reply.

Is the minister not aware of the injustice of the present system, which provides tremendous tax credits to wealthy people who have moved out on the land and get the exemption on their house because they produce a small amount of farm produce? Would he not think it would be advantageous in these tough times to take that away from them and give it to the farmers who need the help? Would it not be better to give it to those farmers rather than the wealthy home owners who live in $250,000 homes and produce a very small amount of agricultural produce?

Second, is the minister prepared to improve his own supplementary stabilization program if this tripartite stabilization does not come to fruition in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to deal with the first part, we will certainly take the member's arguments into consideration. These arguments are not new. They are very similar to arguments that have been made on this side of the House when the ideas were originally proposed. As I indicated, at the request of the federation we are reconsidering the matter.

On the second part, one of the things that could well be a problem with the member's proposal has been the stated intention of the federal government on a number of occasions in the past to disallow provincial stabilization payments where they are in the form of a topping-up of the Agricultural Stabilization Act payments at 90 per cent.

What I am trying to do, in co-operation with several other provinces, is to bring this issue to a head. It now looks as if we will be meeting in Regina, I hope early in November. The Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Berntson, has been extremely co-operative with me and my staff in trying to pull a meeting together to bring this issue to a head.

Frankly, I think it is really inappropriate, totally unproductive and of no assistance whatsoever to the farmers of this province to have Mr. Whelan and I or anybody else pointing fingers back and forth. The matter has to be brought to a head. We must know the position of the federal government. If its position is that it wants to continue to press for supply management in the red meat sector, for instance, let it say so. If the federal government wants all the credit for introducing improved stabilization, as it wants credit for everything else, let it have it. I do not care. It can have all the plaudits as long as we get on with the job.

STEPHANIE KUSAN CASE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware from press reports and from the five letters I have written to him since May of the plight of 20-year-old Stephanie Kusan of Sudbury, who is suffering from a massive malignant tumour in the right side of her face.

He will be further aware that she has undergone massive doses of chemotherapy and that she underwent extensive radiation in 1981 at Princess Margaret Hospital. They told her she had approximately a month to a year to live and they wanted to undertake radical surgery to remove an eye, a cheekbone and the upper jaw. The minister will be further aware that the father took her to see Dr. Burzynski in Houston and that in the four months of the treatment to date the tumour has been reduced to approximately 20 per cent of its size.

In view of the fact that the father has put a second mortgage on his home, spent all of his savings and received $5,000 assistance via a collection in Sudbury to pay for some of the treatment, will the minister suggest to OHIP that it is time it provides some financial assistance to help this father who is endeavouring to save his daughter's life?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I find this case and some others like it particularly troubling, leaving aside the obvious tragic nature of the disease. We are in a position where obviously the young lady has received some assistance from some sources. I am informed that she has improved more than many people had anticipated was possible.

The situation the ministry finds itself in is that all of the medical authorities who are charged with making medical judgements, as opposed to the Ministry of Health and OHIP, which are not, to this date seem to be somewhat less than convinced that this particular treatment is an entirely valid one. There are people from Ontario who are getting treatment for a variety of diseases by various people every day of the year at various points throughout the world. OHIP obviously should only be paying for those procedures that are medically approved by proper authorities in Canada. To this date neither the National Cancer Institute of Canada nor the Ontario Cancer Institute recognizes this treatment as one that should be medically sustainable in this province or paid for out of OHIP because they are unconvinced of its efficacy.

I can only assure the member and the family that we are continuing to watch this very carefully. If the point arrives at which those two institutes, as well as other people who are in a position to make medical judgements, but mainly those institutes, do certify this particular treatment, then OHIP will pay all of the costs in accordance with the normal formula on a retroactive basis.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the two medical reports from her attending physician in Sudbury, one of which I have submitted and the other of which I just received on Saturday? One of them says: There is no question in my mind that Stephanie is very much improved. Her CT scan is very much improved. She is able to breathe through the right nostril now. She has no pain over the right maxillary sinus, and the disease does appear to have regressed considerably since she started her Antineoplastin serum."

In a letter I just received, dated September 16, Dr. Doug Prince says: "The new X-rays show a definite diminution in the size of the tumour in her maxillary sinus on the right side, and the tumour now appears to be confined to the medial wall of the right maxillary sinus. The relative size in the diminution of the tumour would appear to be of the order of 20 to 25 per cent."

Is the minister further aware that Blue Cross and Blue Shield now pay for treatment in the United States for these patients? Is he aware of the report of Dr. Walde, a specialist in Sault Ste. Marie, who supports the treatment? Finally, I ask the minister if he can comment on Dr. Harold Fardner, a professor of medicine at Wayne State University medical school in Detroit, Michigan, who says he is convinced that Burzynski's treatment is a medical breakthrough. He says, "There is scientific validity to what he is doing, though all the evidence is not in yet."

3:10 p.m.

I would like to send to the minister the three computerized axial tomography scans that were done showing the reduction in the size of the tumour in the nasal passage. Perhaps he could have his staff look at them and then return them to me. I will explain them to him to the best of my knowledge and ask that he have his medical staff review them.

With regard to the contribution of funds, if the minister cannot do it through an OHIP payment, could it not be funded on an experimental basis in his research against cancer, using this case as one of the cases for which we are providing funding in order to determine if it would be beneficial or not to all those people who are suffering from cancer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand why the member is raising this valid question. I must say I have a great degree of difficulty in discussing the particulars of any person's situation even with his consent and I do not purport to do that because I am not a doctor.

What is the position in which the ministry finds itself? The recognized authorities here, which are recognized as among the best, if not the best, in the world, the National Cancer Institute of Canada and the Ontario Cancer Institute, do not agree with the three, four or five opinions the family has obtained. The American National Cancer Institute does not agree either. All of the major cancer authorities charged with responsibility by governments to make these judgements do not think this is an efficacious treatment.

Obviously I share with the honourable member the desire to help a family in such a terrible crisis. That is an obvious human response. Any member of this assembly would share that. The reality is that there is a plethora of very costly treatments sustained and put forward by a variety of practitioners throughout the world. They would equally qualify if we did not have the benefit of some outside authority, such as the cancer institutes, which are highly recognized and competent to make these judgements.

No one can accuse the American, Canadian or Ontario cancer institutes of being unsympathetic, uncaring or not bending in every way possible to assist the tragic sufferers of those diseases. Yet those are the people who have passed this judgement, having perused the situation in some depth and with some concern. That puts me in a difficult position, but I think the only tenable thing to do is follow the advice of the recognized experts all over North America. The moment that advice indicates there ought to be a different direction followed, the costs will be paid retroactively in full. I cannot give any more assistance than that. I wish I could.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to take up the last comment because I had a next-door neighbour whose mother went through this process, and it cost the family about $15,000.

The minister said there was a possibility of retroactive payments if it were determined that this was a useful treatment. How far back would he go with those retroactive payments? How are we going to determine whether at the time the treatment took place it was a reasonable treatment in the opinion of others? In other words, I am saying the treatment could be modified and then considered acceptable; yet when it was administered originally it may not have been considered acceptable even in retrospect.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a very fair question and it reflects the difficulty in these cases. If the member wants to put that particular case to us, we will certainly review it and see if there is an option to be of assistance there.

MIDDLESEX-LONDON DISTRICT MENTAL HEALTH UNIT

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Given the concern we all have for restraint because of high interest rates, unemployment and all those other factors, can the minister tell us how the Middlesex-London District Mental Health Unit could justify advertising for new and separate accommodations, which if they were to be owned outright would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 million or $7 million and if they were built on a leaseback/buy basis would be equally expensive; when in fact these new facilities could have been part of the new Victoria-Westminster complex.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the member knows, we provide 75 per cent funding to the health units. The units obviously have their own boards and they have to make certain decisions in regard to accommodation. Had the health unit desired that kind of accommodation and put that proposition to us, we would have looked at it. I think it is quite a different proposition to suggest we should run the health units to the degree the member is suggesting.

If it is the view of the health unit, the locally elected officials who serve on it and appoint people to it, that they desire a move into the new Vic premises, they should indicate that to the London Vic and to us immediately and we will certainly see what we can do to influence that change. I must say I have not heard that sentiment expressed to me by the various people I have spoken to from the health unit, some of whom I have met myself.

Mr. Van Horne: By way of supplementary, the minister might be interested to know I spoke at noon hour today with the secretary-treasurer, and a private proposal to do just what I have suggested has come in to his office, so the possibility and potential are there. I also got the distinct impression, in discussing this with him, that the unit would not object to some intervention and some direction from the Ministry of Health, so perhaps the minister might consider doing that. Would the minister report back here to me what results come from that kind of discussion?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I certainly would. Let me make it clear that those people who suggest they would not mind intervention from the ministry, of course, invite the ministry to intervene instead of making some of these decisions themselves. Then when the ministry intervenes, the next thing we know is that a local health unit is saying the ministry does not respect its autonomy. I would not be surprised if this has been reflected in some of the hearings on the Health Protection Act. I have to say to the health units they should not be taking the position that they will lie back and hope I will intervene. I hope the health unit will take the initiative and indicate to us what its preference is.

Mr. Van Horne: Do not twist my words.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Take a supplementary and let us clear it up.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITIONS

LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the tenants of 1950 Main Street West and 2000 Main Street West requesting that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations investigate the display of immature nonsense witnessed at the so-called nonbiased meeting of September 1, 1981; and there is a commissioner named in this investigation.

There are more than 80 signatures on this petition, and I would like to present it to the minister, bearing in mind that he might note the third paragraph of the covering letter, which states, "Mr. Preston's performance is a disgrace to your entire department and makes one wonder if you are running a buyer's market instead of a nonpartial commission representing both tenants and owners alike."

This is the first petition which, I might add, went to the minister more than two weeks ago. The second petition, dated September 10, also includes almost 100 names from the tenants' association at 851 Queenston Road, in which the tenants at this particular building cite another commissioner and ask for the removal of the said commissioner because he has acted in such a way as to bias the supposed impartiality of the Residential Tenancy Commission in Hamilton.

I would ask the minister to consider both those petitions respectfully and to take action with respect to the investigation of both officers of the government.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. J. A. Reed and Mr. Peterson exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF SARNIA FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Mr. Gillies, first reading of Bill Pr35, An Act to incorporate the City of Sarnia Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (continued)

Resuming the adjourned 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. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, when we were talking about Bill 179, I mentioned some of the things I felt were missing in that legislation and some of the concerns I have. In order for this bill to be seen as equitable it should illustrate not only restraint in the public sector in so far as wages of public servants are concerned, but should indicate very clearly the government's own intentions to redress some of the inequities that already exist in this province.

I was reading an article from the Ottawa Citizen at that time which was entitled, "Bill Davis, Party Man." It was about the 1984 party the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province wishes to have and how he is going to spend a considerable amount of money celebrating a year that we are not sure is a very significant one in the history of this province, other than the fact that it happens to be the year the southern boundary of this province was surveyed. I am sure other years have had more important things that could be celebrated. If we have extra money, given the economic circumstances we are in, I am sure we can do better things with that money.

In discussing Bill 179 and its impact we should go back a bit to some of the things that happened earlier this year. The budget that was introduced was very mean and cruel towards the residents of this province. It imposed taxes on food; and not just taxes on luxury food items. An apple bought at school which a child would eat at lunch is certainly not what I would call a luxury. I am sure the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) will agree with me when I say that. Such things are not luxury items. Those are very basic, good health necessities. The taxing of certain hygiene products, especially the feminine hygiene products, was outrightly despicable in my view.

The increased costs that budget imposed on some of our municipalities tie in very well with Bill 179. We know this government has clearly enunciated that not only are the public servants at the municipal and provincial levels expected to show restraint, but the municipalities themselves are not to expect any more than roughly a five per cent increase in their subsidies from the provincial government.

How are the municipalities going to live with this? The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) in his speech last week said it quite well when he indicated that this government should not only commit itself to increasing its share of the welfare cheques, which has to be done as the amount that people receive is clearly insufficient, but the government also has to tell the municipalities of this province that it is willing not only to contribute their 30 per cent of the total that it costs for providing welfare, but that the portion that the municipalities have to pay, the 20 per cent they pay for welfare, should be covered by an increased grant from the province to the municipalities, otherwise welfare will become an increasing municipal burden. None of us wants that but we see it becoming reality. We only have to remember what happened 50 years ago when welfare was a municipal burden and brought about the downfall of many municipalities of this province. That is certainly not a situation we want to see again.

In my own constituency, the town of Hawkesbury may lose 20 per cent of all its assessment on December 1 with the closure of the CIP plant, and 17 per cent of its work force will be out of jobs. With a shrinking tax base, a shrinking amount of dollars to pay municipal taxes and an increasing welfare roll simultaneously, it does not take very long to calculate that municipalities such as Hawkesbury, and I am sure there are many others like it across this province, will not be able to make ends meet with a five per cent increase from the province. They will have to pass that on to the property taxpayers, and that is a most unfair method of taxation.

As we have discussed earlier, in order for Bill 179 to be equitable the province should have enunciated at the time of the introduction of the bill some of the things it was going to do with the money that it would save, as well as the costcutting measures it would introduce to cut down on the government funds it has itself been wasting over the past few years. One of the things that must be done with that money is, as I have already said, to increase the payments to our general welfare assistance recipients.

In response to a newsletter which I sent to my constituents recently, just today I received a reply which illustrates well how welfare recipients are suffering in this province. I will read it to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will be moved by the text of this letter, which is very brief.

"Le gouvernement ne ménage aucun argent avec ce systÃ¨me-lÃ pour ce qui est du nouveau systÃ¨me du bien-Ãªtre social. Ãa ne tient pas debout. Je suis une femme seule de 51 ans, incapable de travailler et mon premier chÃ¨que du mois est de $181.50 alors que je paie $180 de loyer."

Alors comme vous voyez, M. le président, il ne reste Ã cette personne que $1.50 pour deux semaines. Comment peut-on vivre une journée avec $1.50? Inutile de dire que c'est impossible de vivre pour deux semaines. Et je continue de lire le texte de la lettre.

"Il me reste $1.50 pour 15 jours alors que nous sommes déjÃ sans sous depuis le 16 du mois précédent, en plus de nous faire dépenser l'enveloppe et le timbre Ã tous les mois."

Alors vous voyez, M. le président, que cette personne reÃ§oit $181.50 au début du mois, et elle doit prendre $180 pour payer son loyer, et Ã la mi-mois il lui reste quelque $100 pour payer toutes les dépenses pour le restant du mois. Alors comment est-ce qu'une personne peut faire pour vivre avec Ã§a? C'est presque impossible.

Le député de Scarborough West lui-mÃªme a tenté de vivre un mois dans ces circonstances et il a trouvé que c'était impossible Ã faire. Le député de Scarborough West n'était peut-Ãªtre pas familier avec la faÃ§on de restreindre ses dépenses étant donné qu'il ne vit pas depuis longue date sous un systÃ¨me comme celui-lÃ . Mais, étant donné les circonstances, qu'il a vécu seulement un mois sur ce montant d'argent, il s'est vu pris sans argent lui aussi et je suis persuadé que si le ministre des Affaires communautaires et sociales avait tenté lui-mÃªme de vivre pendant un mois dans ces circonstances, il aurait été impossible pour lui aussi de joindre les deux bouts.

3:30.p.m.

As I have just finished saying, our recipients of general welfare assistance are in such dire straits right now that it is one of the saddest things to see in Ontario, if not the worst cruelty the government of this province has ever imposed on its people. While all this is going on, while the government has increased all these taxes in the budget and while welfare recipients have not seen their benefits increased, let me tell members what we are also seeing as a waste of government funds.

I have here an article that talks about an expenditure of some $50,000 for a lecturer, a computer expert, who came to discuss certain matters with officials of the government. That expert earned $50,000 for two days. He does not have to live for two weeks with the $1.51 that this welfare recipient was faced with; $1.51 is about what he has to spend every second of the day. How can these kinds of injustices give credibility to this program? It is very difficult to understand.

For Bill 179 to be fair and equitable, more has to be done. The general principle of the bill is sound but on its own, without the other things around it, it is very difficult legislation for the people of Ontario to accept.

Let me give a few more examples of some of the thrifty spending of this government.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is no doubt making his way to an aspect of Bill 179.

Mr. Boudria: If you will check the record, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that I have mentioned Bill 179 four or five times in the last four or five sentences.

The Deputy Speaker: No, you have not.

Mr. Boudria: I am sure you will recall it. And I did it, I believe, in both official languages. I am sure you will be able to recognize that, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, for Bill 179 to be fair and equitable, here are some of the things that should be changed. I am sure you will appreciate the direct link, Mr. Speaker.

We all remember that the government of this province, to protect the $550,000 loan it had made in northern Ontario, saw itself become the proud owner of a certain establishment known as Minaki Lodge. Since then, it has spent some $23.5 million fixing the $550,000 Minaki Lodge. We now hear that Minaki Lodge will open shortly, and guess who is going to run it? The buy-Canadian minister who was here a while ago should be here to listen to this: a US hotel chain called Radisson Hotels is going to run Minaki Lodge.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Is that an American firm?

Mr. Boudria: It definitely is an American firm. One would think there was no potential to run it here in this country -- not that the expenditure should ever have been made; it is probably the worst waste of government funds that has ever been perpetrated.

The last episode in the continuing saga of Minaki is the construction of a $13-million road to link the $550,000 hotel that now costs $23.5 million. To put all that together, this is a logic this government has used in the past.

We will all remember -- and I am sure you will as well, Mr. Speaker -- the $1.9 million that was spent during the 1970s on such things as public opinion polls and the $4.7 million with which we were told in the very subliminal advertisements to "Preserve it, conserve it."

The resemblance between the P and the C in "Preserve it, conserve it" and the initials of the Progressive Conservative Party is, of course, a mere coincidence. Everybody has always said the fact that they were said in this order was pure coincidence. There were thousands and thousands of words in the dictionary, but the two that rhymed with "progressive" and "conservative" had to be used in those particular advertisements.

Of course, that is all paid for by you and me, Mr. Speaker, and by the poor people of this province. These are the same poor people who are attacked by this government in the increases in the budget we have seen. The same people who will have their wages restrained in Bill 179 will pay for this kind of expenditure.

The Ministry of the Environment spent $500,000 telling us that our polluted lakes were clean. The Ministry of Health, which complains about the shortage of funds, had an advertising budget of $1.5 million last year; it took out enormous newspaper ads to tell us, "Happy Hospital Day."

For the government's general advertisement programs -- and I am glad the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is here, because he is familiar with the way some of these funds have been spent -- I am told the expenditures went up from $12 million the previous year to $24 million last year. That was used for such worthwhile ventures as giant billboards on Yonge Street showing luscious strawberries -- in February, just before an election -- and telling us, "Good things grow in Ontario."

I admit I come from another part of this province and I am not too familiar with agriculture on Yonge Street, but I am sure strawberries do not grow there in February any more than they do in Prescott-Russell.

Mr. McGuigan: They grow very early in my riding but not that early.

Mr. Boudria: The member for Kent-Elgin tells me they grow very early in his riding but not quite that early.

The government has announced it is selling the jet. I am sad to see the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), who was so madly in love with the jet, is no longer here. He left the chamber temporarily and that is unfortunate, because I would have liked to have expressed my disagreement with what he said last week about all the virtues and necessities of having what he called an air ambulance, although it probably would not even have had a stretcher in it. Anyway, that ambulance of the government now has been traded for two water bombers to extinguish the steam and hot air around Queen's Park.

The people who have to live with Bill 179 now -- either those who see their salaries restrained or the people who suffered from the Treasurer's recent budget, which had large tax increases for them -- are faced with paying for those kinds of expenditures.

I have an article here from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, September 25. This article talks about the Tories having started their own cuts. I will just summarize one or two things for members, because I am sure they will want to hear this. Unemployment is one of the most serious problems we have in this province right now, as well as the problem of helping our people at the bottom end of the salary scale. Let me detail very briefly what the increase in expenditures are for this year.

The increased budget amount for the illustrious Office of the Assembly -- the members of this Legislature, who have to deal with constituents on a daily basis -- is minus eight per cent. Now that is restraint, I have to admit. The Ministry of Industry and Trade, which has been set up to create things like new employment, has an increase of two per cent.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which provides low-cost housing in the province and Ontario Housing rental units -- of course, one must remember that Ontario rental housing units are not covered by Bill 179 -- has a gigantic increase in expenditures for this year of three per cent. The Ombudsman, the very person who is there to protect the little guy, had an increase of four per cent.

I will jump a few here and go right to the top end. The Ministry of Energy -- that is, the "Preserve it, conserve it" people, the Malcolm Rowan people and the Suncor people -- has an increase of 194 per cent. Those are the priorities of the government for helping our people in need. It is 194 per cent for "Preserve it, conserve it.''

3:40 p.m.

The government may have sold the jet, but it has not yet convinced me that it is ready to practise restraint on itself. Since the election of last year, of the 31 limousines that are driven around by the Premier, cabinet ministers and the like, 19 of them have been changed. It is very interesting for we mortals who drive old-fashioned 1978, 1979, or whatever models of cars we have, to learn of some of the vehicles that were purchased since the election of last year.

They are cars, such as the 1982 Oldsmobile Regency at a cost of $19,567, for ministers who have to travel between here and the Macdonald Block, which is the considerable distance of roughly 750 feet. Why a car of that price is necessary for that is absolutely beyond me. Perhaps some of the cabinet ministers will later clarify the necessity of such expenditures.

Why were only eight cars changed in the year prior to the election, but 19 of them have been changed in the year after the election? Again, I am sure the members will agree with me it is pure coincidence that 19 of 31 cars were changed after the election. I am sure the ministers did not give themselves a new present for winning their majority. I am sure that is all coincidental. I am sure the $459,934.40 worth of limousines we have for the cabinet ministers is very necessary, much more necessary than providing help for our needy. At least that seems to be the attitude of the government.

A minute ago I was talking about the 194 per cent increase in expenditures for the Ministry of Energy. The members will recall, of course, that the Ministry of Energy purchased 25 per cent of the shares of Suncor on behalf of this government.

Mr. Laughren: Has the Treasurer heard about that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I have.

Mr. Boudria: He was told afterwards. We have learned lately that Suncor is getting into a new venture, the Trillium venture. I want to talk about that briefly as a spending priority of this government as opposed to some of the things it should be doing with the money it will save as a result of the implementation of Bill 179. I am sure the members would want me to talk about that. This is entitled "Suncor arithmetic". I will read it:

"In a letter to the Globe and Mail the other day, Ontario Energy Corp. president Malcolm Rowan took issue with our editorial dealing with the formation of Trillium Exploration Corp. -- created by his crown corporation in association with Suncor Inc., an oil company belonging to Sun Co. Inc. of Pennsylvania. Amongst other things, Mr. Rowan wrote, 'Your editorial failed to mention that the Ontario Energy Corp.'s annual net commitment to Trillium Exploration Corp. of approximately $7 million is significantly less than the $10 million which Ontario expects to receive in dividends from Suncor in 1982."

Of course, we all know about the Suncor dividends. Every time there are dividends here, there are three times as much that leave the country because three quarters of the ownership of Suncor is in the United States. All that aside, let me read a little further:

"We're glad Mr. Rowan brought that point up. Last year the Ontario Energy Corp. made the memorable decision to buy 13 million shares in Suncor Inc., an investment which gave it only 25 per cent of the oil company's share (with the balance held by its US parent)" -- which is what I was saying -- "but which still managed to cost it $650 million. The down payment of $321 million was borrowed at rates exceeding 15 per cent, and the balance, held by Sun Co. in 10-year notes, was borrowed at 14.36 per cent -- paid for by the cheery taxpayers of Ontario.

"Mr. Rowan is delighted that Ontario may receive $10 million in dividends from Suncor in 1982. (He says about $5 million was received in the first half of the year and he expects a similar return in the second half.) What he fails to mention, however, is that while $7 million may be 'significantly less' than $10 million, it is also significantly less than $48 million, which is one year's interest (at 15 per cent) on his company's down payment for the Suncor shares."

I am sure you follow the Suncor arithmetic of all that, Mr. Speaker, which means that every day we own it, we are getting further and further into debt.

The Deputy Speaker: And you relate that to the restraints respecting Bill 179.

Mr. Boudria: That is correct, that brings me exactly to that very point, that this government is not practising the restraint it preaches. One of the things we have to do in this province, apart from restraint, is to create employment. Various members have talked about this very important point. If restraint is done in the spirit of creating more employment, it is a lot easier to swallow than just restraint for the purpose of restraint. I am sure you will agree with that, Mr. Speaker.

To do the things I have just mentioned, the government of this province has to start restraining its own expenditures and put the money towards meaningful employment-creating ventures. What the government has to do, first of all, is spend money in Canada. The Suncor purchase, for example, is purely money leaving this country going somewhere else.

Today we had another famous statement to the Legislature by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) about the buy-Canadian policy. I am glad the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is here, because he is very familiar with the buy-Canadian policy of this government. We talked about that policy last year, and I think I illustrated very clearly to the member for Cambridge that the government of this province was doing everything but buying Canadian. It seemed as if, even among the things we used in our offices, it was impossible to find something Canadian.

Here is the latest in the continuing saga of buying Canadian. The statement on buying Canadian was just issued today, and yet today I learned that Zap the Safety Bird, a cartoon strip produced by Ontario Hydro which says at the bottom. We do more than make electricity' ' -- making cartoons is the "more" that they do than make electricity -- is produced in the United States. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? On the very day the Minister of Government Services is talking to us about buy-Canadian, we learn that Zap the Safety Bird is produced in the United States. Is the member going to tell that to the folks in Cambridge'?

Mr. Barlow: Sure. If they ask me, I will tell them. I really appreciate you bringing that to my attention.

Mr. Boudria: I am sure the member for Cambridge will put that in his next constituency mailing, along with the last buy-Canadian episode we had in this Legislature.

This brings me to a more symbolic buy-Canadian thing that happened earlier this year. This one may have sounded funny at the time but, as far as being symbolic is concerned, there was nothing more symbolic than that issue, nothing more symbolic than that even one job could have been created in Ontario. That concerned the "We're proud to be Canadian" medallion, commemorating the proclamation of the Canadian Constitution.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that those medallions were minted in Rochester, New York. Just how proud to be Canadian are we when we allow things like that to happen? Instead of creating a job in Ontario, even one job, we export the job of minting the medallions to the United States. I can just imagine what the person who was producing those things in Rochester must have been thinking. The guy minting those medallions, stamping them one at a time, or however it is done, must have said to himself: "Proud to be Canadian? They're not all that proud, are they, if they are not even producing them in their own country?" Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, being a Canadian beside that American person producing those coins right there'?

The Deputy Speaker: I am having trouble imagining how this falls under Bill 179.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. As I said a while ago, this falls under Bill 179 simply in the sense of equity of this legislation, the restraint that it preaches. We have to cut government expenditures where necessary; we have to produce Canadian jobs and increase assistance to our needy people. When all those things are combined, Bill 179 is much easier to swallow, as I said previously. That is how it ties in very closely.

I have a few more things here which I would like to cover very briefly.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will help out in case you are --

Mr. Samis: You are doing pretty well yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Boudria: He is cheering me on, and I appreciate that.

The other day the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) -- and I notice he is leaving -- accused the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto of cooking the books when it issued its statement regarding the level of benefits offered to our needy people, a level of benefits which I have been saying should have been included in the statement read by the Treasurer when he introduced Bill 179. The minister said that they cooked the books, that we were not really 10th.

Do members know why we were not really 10th? The minister said it was because it is based only on a single parent with one child. If one uses other statistics, we are much better off. If one uses two adults and two children, we are in the very enviable position of being ninth. I am sure the government is much prouder to be ninth than being 10th in so far as the level of benefits that it gives to its welfare recipients. One can understand the relevance and the pride of Ontario, the province of opportunity, being ninth. I suppose the minister must think this is something to brag about. It is not good enough and that inequity has to be fixed, and very shortly.

It is fine for the minister to say, "I will do it before winter", "I will do it when I please;" or whatever other words he has used in this House and elsewhere to describe the time at which he was going to announce changes in the general welfare assistance benefit rate; but for the people at the receiving end of that amount of money, the people who cannot buy groceries because they just do not have any money to buy them with, another two months' wait makes a big difference to them.

Now we are seeing a new phenomenon. I was reading an article in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday last which mentioned the new welfare recipients. These are people who were laid off 11, 12 and 13 months ago; their unemployment insurance benefits have now run out and now they are falling on general welfare assistance. These are a brand-new set of people on welfare. These are people who were familiar with high earnings and now they are in a very disheartening situation of having lost their jobs, sought employment for a year, run out of UIC benefits and now are on general welfare assistance.

If all of that is not bad enough, the amount of benefits they get is impossible to live on. For these people, being on general welfare assistance would be a traumatic experience at the best of times. The fact is, the amount of the cheque is so small -- and I am sure the Treasurer will appreciate this -- that it would be impossible for most of us to live for more than four or five days on that amount. Yet we expect our fellow Ontarians to subsist for a month on that same amount of money. That is nothing to be proud of, whether we are 10th or ninth.

I will just read a very short editorial, again from the Ottawa Citizen. Members will appreciate that is one of the newspapers serving my constituency. Here is what they had to say about the Ministry of Community and Social Services, under the heading "Ontario's Miserly Welfare Record":

"The Ontario government's welfare record has become an embarrassment to a province that has always regarded itself as generous and progressive." And the word "progressive" is part of the name of the government party.

"Figures released by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto show that the welfare recipients in this province receive less money than those in any other province." I point out that that is based on the cooked figures; it is not really that bad now. We are not 10th, we are ninth -- provided there are four people in the household.

"Ontario awards a single parent supporting one child $453 a month. The same individual in 'right-wing' Alberta would have received $754 in August. It isn't only in rich Alberta that the milk of human kindness flows more freely. Such have-not provinces as Nova Scotia ($572), Newfoundland" -- which some of us joke about occasionally; can you imagine what they say about us, Mr. Speaker? -- "($546) and New Brunswick ($519) all leave the misers controlling Ontario's welfare purse-strings" -- and I hope the Treasurer is listening to this -- "in the shade. Even tiny Prince Edward Island outspends us.

"By comparison, Statistics Canada estimates that a mother and child living in a large urban centre need a monthly income of $986.25 merely to reach the poverty line. Ontario pays less than half of that amount. The figures suggest that Ontario has been waging its war on spending on the backs of the weakest members of society: single mothers, the physically disabled, the mentally handicapped and the marginally employed.

"While some assume that those on welfare are shiftless layabouts, the reality is much different." That is the reality I was talking about a few moments ago. "Most are, in fact, society's victims. Few would willingly choose to subsist on welfare if they had any other option.

"Since 1976, the purchasing power of welfare recipients has fallen 36 per cent. No other segment of society has been called upon to make a similar sacrifice." That is not a five per cent increase. It is not catching up and it is not keeping up with inflation. It has fallen by 36 per cent since 1976.

"Although the cost of welfare is shared among the federal, provincial and municipal governments involved, there is no doubt who the guilty party is in the whole sad affair. The federal government pays 50 per cent of whatever budget each province presents. In other words, Ontario, which provides only 30 per cent of the funding, effectively sets the spending limit" -- as we all know.

"In the current economic climate, more and more people are getting a taste of welfare's thin gruel. Until shame or shifting political winds force a change, there is only one rational thing Ontarians can do about welfare: pray it doesn't happen to you."

That is as sad as it comes. Even people working in welfare, welfare administrators, who only a few years ago would not have said anything against this government and would have just provided the money that comes down from heaven, now speak out.

An article in the North Bay Nugget of August 31, 1982, quotes social services administrator Gerry Cardinal, and I want to read the following excerpt:

"'And I don't know how some of these people manage on what we give them,' he added. 'It is a bare, bare income; you'd have to be a miracle worker to live on it.'"

I am not a miracle worker, and I do not think the minister is, either. There is no reason we should expect our citizens to be miracle workers.

Many people face a shrinking income. For many in our society, such as the welfare recipients we have just discussed, the levels of benefits are not increasing.

4 p.m.

Another group faced with a similar situation are the farmers of my constituency. Many of them have refinanced their operations over the past few years and have placed themselves in the unenviable situation of having payments which now exceed their income. One has written to me to explain the plight of the farmers, how they must increase their revenue in order merely to subsist as the proud people they have always been. The situation is very sad indeed. I will take a few moments to read to you what this letter says about being a farmer in our area.

Mr. Speaker, representing the constituency that you do, you will know that many of the cash crops this year are down considerably in price. As difficult as it was only a year ago to live on their income, with their present revenue it is impossible for some of our farmers.

People may say that interest rates are coming down a little and they are less now than they were last year -- the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) will recognize that, I am sure -- but for the people whose mortgages are now due on their farm, business or home they are still considerably higher than they were three, four or five years ago when they last renewed their mortgages.

I will read the letter to you, Mr. Speaker.

La lettre vient de St-Isidore de Prescott (Ontario) et elle se lit comme suit:

"Cher M. Boudria,

Bonjour et félicitations pour le magnifique travail que vous accomplissez pour nous les citoyens de Prescott. J'ai eu la chance de travailler sur le comité pour la nouvelle école d'agriculture et vous avez donné un appui Ã notre comité. J'ai beaucoup aimé votre détermination vis-Ã -vis la francophonie. Vous y mettez vraiment de l'énergie et la détermination que j'aime voir dans un politicien efficace. Continuez le bon travail.

Les gros titres dans les journaux ne doivent pas arrÃªter votre élan car aussi bien dépenser les gros sous pour une bonne cause que les dépenser pour acheter un avion pour Monsieur Davis qui ne nous servira Ã rien, Ã nous les agriculteurs.

Si je vous écris aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas seulement pour vous complimenter mais pour vous exposer un ou deux problÃ¨mes et vous donner mon opinion sur certaines injustices faites par le gouvernement provincial.

Notre premier problÃ¨me en est un de la compagnie qui vend des pipelines et réservoirs Ã lait de marque Zéro. Une compagnie américaine qui vend Ã travers la Coopérative fédérée du Québec. Nous avions depuis 1975 un vendeur dans la personne de Michel Lacasse de St-Isidore (Ontario). Depuis la fin de l'automne, il ne veut plus faire le service sur les machines Zéro, étant en conflit avec Washington. Ceci nous place dans une trÃ¨s mauvaise situation car le lait, c'est périssable. Nous avons toute la misÃ¨re du monde pour obtenir des piÃ¨ces de rechange par ici et nous devons nous garder un inventaire assez considérable quand nous pouvons mettre la main sur les piÃ¨ces. Pour les réparations mineures qui ne requiÃ¨rent pas de piÃ¨ces, nous pouvons avoir recours Ã d'autres compagnies qui nous chargent les yeux de la tÃªte car nous ne sommes pas des clients. J'ai eu vent qu'il y a une association en Ontario qui demande aux compagnies de donner du service pour une durée de dix ans aprÃ¨s que la compagnie a cessé d'exister. J'aimerais savoir oÃ¹ m'adresser. Nous sommes Ã peu prÃ¨s 250 agriculteurs de l'est qui avons des produits Zéro.

Comme la machine est de bonne qualité, nous aimerions avoir un nouveau concessionnaire. Comment et oÃ¹ s'adresser? Michel Lacasse veut prendre une autre agence et modifier nos pipelines avec ses nouveaux produits, mais comme il y a seulement deux ans que j'ai mon pipeline et que je n'ai pas les moyens de le modifier, que dois-je faire?

En passant, ne croyez-vous pas qu'un gars qui laisse une compagnie pour une autre sans raison valable ne devrait-il pas se voir refuser un permis de vendeur, car il nous fait du tort en ne faisant pas de service.

Mon deuxiÃ¨me problÃ¨me en est un de drainage. En juin 82, j'ai fait application pour un prÃªt Ã la municipalité de Plantagenet-Sud. Le greffier m'a dit de faire une estimé, ce que je fis. Quelle ne fut pas ma surprise d'apprendre que j'étais la quarante-deuxiÃ¨me sur une liste et qu'ils avaient de l'argent pour 34 cette année.

"L'ouvrage a été fait en juillet et je dois attendre Ã l'an prochain pour obtenir le prÃªt. J'aimerais savoir si c'est vrai que les premiers qui sont sur la liste ont le prÃªt garanti pour l'année aprÃ¨s leur application. Si c'est vrai, je crois que c'est injuste pour ceux qui font l'ouvrage pendant l'année car il est facile de mettre son application et de changer d'idée et de ne pas le faire. J'aimerais aussi avoir les rÃ¨glements pour cette année sur leurs lois en vigueur sur le drainage du terrain. J'ai l'Acte sur le drainage mais il ne dit rien sur les lois."

Alors comme vous le savez, Monsieur le président, c'est ce qui se passe dans beaucoup de cas, étant donné la pénurie de fonds qu'il y a, et je suis content que le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry soit ici parce que c'est sans doute la mÃªme situation dans son comté. Étant donné la pénurie de fonds qu'il y a actuellement, et étant donné le nombre de personnes qui sont sur la liste d'attente pour recevoir des fonds, souvent ceux qui peuvent financer l'installation du drainage souterrain par des fonds privés et attendre d'avoir l'octroi sont placés dans une position plus avantageuse que ceux qui ne peuvent pas se permettre ce financement et cette attente.

C'est une situation qui est trÃ¨s difficile et jusqu'Ã environ l'année 77 je pense, 76-77, il n'y avait pas ce fameux quota, c'est-Ã -dire que le gouvernement acceptait toutes les applications qui entraient jusqu'Ã ces années-lÃ et donc il n'y avait pas de liste d'attente. Du fait qu'il n'y avait pas de liste d'attente, les gens étaient tous traités de la mÃªme faÃ§on. Mais le cas n'est plus le mÃªme depuis ce changement qui semble avoir entrainé un favoritisme envers les gens qui peuvent se financer temporairement en attendant d'avoir l'octroi. C'est trÃ¨s, trÃ¨s malheureux, et puis Monsieur le président, c'est d'autant plus malheureux chez nous dans l'est de l'Ontario, dans le sens que nous, Ã§a ne fait pas tellement d'années qu'on peut installer ces fameux drains, parce que les anciens drains rouges qu'on avait ne s'adaptaient pas bien Ã la sorte de sol que nous avions. C'est seulement depuis qu'on a des tuyaux perforés, dans les derniÃ¨res années, qu'on a réussi Ã commencer Ã faire le drainage souterrain dans l'est de l'Ontario, ou du moins dans la région que je représente et aussi dans la région que le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry représente parce que les deux régions se ressemblent beaucoup.

Et je continue Ã lire le texte de la lettre, Monsieur le président.

"Est-ce les municipalités qui décident comment administrer l'argent ou est-ce le ministÃ¨re des Affaires municipales?"

Comme on le sait, ce sont les municipalités si le ministÃ¨re des Affaires municipales n'est pas impliqué du tout. Je vais lire un peu plus loin, Monsieur le président. Vous verrez la situation trÃ¨s triste, et je suis certain que le Trésorier comprendra aussi la situation trÃ¨s triste dans laquelle les agriculteurs de ma région se trouvent.

"Je sais que notre municipalité a fait une demande de prÃªt au provincial d'une valeur de 500Â 000Â $ pour l'automne. Quelle chance croyez-vous qu'ils ont de l'avoir? J'aimerais aussi voir le gouvernement provincial aider les agriculteurs Ã payer le drainage, vu que ceci est fait pour améliorer la production. Si le gouvernement ne sort pas des plans pour aider les cultivateurs de l'est, je vois un avenir trÃ¨s dur pour l'agriculture. Le 60% n'est pas beaucoup quand Ã§a coÃ»te autour de 583,45 $ de l'acre pour faire le drainage. Pour faire 41 acres de drainage en juillet, Ã§a m'a coÃ»té 23Â 921,62Â $. Au taux d'intérÃªt actuel, nous avons besoin de toute l'aide possible. Je crois que le gouvernement pourrait faire comme au Québec, soit payer la moitié de l'installation. Ces années-ci c'est une nécessité d'avoir du drainage sur nos fermes Ã 175 acres de drainés sur 350. La population a besoin des agriculteurs pour leur nourriture. Saviez-vous qu'ici dans notre région, plusieurs de nos belles fermes sont Ã vendre et que les maisons de courtier ont un "field day" pour essayer de les vendre des Allemands. La mienne est sur le marché car je préfÃ¨re vendre maintenant au lieu de voir la banque s'en emparer Ã n'importe quel moment. Si mon information est correcte, la brasserie Labatt est en train d'acheter une de nos meilleures fermes du comté, soit la ferme des frÃ¨res Charbonneau de Fournier (Ontario) pour la fabuleuse somme de trois millions de dollars. Je me suis laissé dire par un membre de l'OMMB que la raison pour laquelle les brasseries achÃ¨tent des fermes est qu'elles veulent faire enlever le quota et obtenir le monopole du lait. Avec une publicité aussi atroce que celle diffusée Ã la télévision par l'Office du lait, derniÃ¨rement, je suis portée Ã croire que c'est vrai. La compagnie Budweiser Beer a une annonce plus convenable pour l'agriculture que notre Commission du lait.

Les agriculteurs sont fatigués des réponses négatives du gouvernement. Nous travaillons toute une famille de cinq membres comme des esclaves pour recevoir un mince 500 $ par mois pour se nourrir. Tout ce que le gouvernement a Ã nous répondre, c'est: serrez-vous la ceinture."

Et lÃ on revient Ã ce dont on parlait plus tÃ´t. Qui doit se serrer la ceinture? Les gens qui ont acheté les 19 000 usines dans les derniers 12 mois? Certes non. Alors c'est qui? Les agriculteurs? Ce sont les récipiendaires de l'assistance sociale. Ce sont les gens qui peuvent le moins se serrer la ceinture qui sont obligés de le faire. Et je continue, Monsieur le président.

"Eh bien, Monsieur Boudria, nous n'avons plus de trous dans notre ceinture. Nous sommes Ã bout de trous. La Commission du lait vient de nous annoncer une augmentation du lait de 3,55%, mais en mÃªme temps elle hausse la retenue de 1,10 $ et le transport de 23 sous en janvier 82, ce qui fait un revenu net de 5 cents en plus. Ils nous disent que nous n'avons pas droit Ã plus de 6% de hausse cette année et Ã 5% l'an prochain. Mais aussi, ils nous disent qu'ils n'ont aucun contrÃ´le sur la hausse du coÃ»t de la production. Voyez-vous la situation dans laquelle nous allons nous trouver pris? Il y a quelques années Ã l'arÃ¨ne St-Isidore, le cher Monsieur Gilles Choquette de la Commission du lait nous a promis qu'il n'y aurait plus de situation comme celles-ci, mais voilÃ qu'il parle de couper le quota, de monter la promotion de plus de 6% et quoi d'autre encore. Si la crédibilité des agriculteurs n'est pas rétablie bientÃ´t, vous pouvez commencer Ã penser Ã l'importation de produits agricoles. Nous sommes vaillants, les agriculteurs, mais il y a des limites, ne croyez-vous pas?

J'aimerais aussi parler du programme d'amélioration des fermes. Je crois que c'est une farce car vous savez bien que la majorité des agriculteurs ont des problÃ¨mes financiers de plus ou moins grande envergure et vous nous demandez d'engager des gens sans expérience pour faire du travail. Ne croyez-vous pas que vous auriez pu offrir l'argent aux cultivateurs pour faire l'ouvrage? Non. Les cultivateurs sont habitués Ã travailler pour rien et Ã Ãªtre comme les femmes, des Ãªtres inférieurs. Nous ne pouvons pas nous payer les programmes du gouvernement car Ã§a nous coÃ»terait trop cher. Parlons du Youth Program (le Programme des jeunes, Monsieur le président), un autre programme qui pourrait Ãªtre bon si les critÃ¨res n'étaient pas si stupides. Pourquoi devrais-je engager les enfants du voisin quand mes enfants font l'ouvrage pour rien et pourtant ils sont étudiants. Je peux leur montrer la bonne faÃ§on de faire l'ouvrage, leur répéter que c'est pour leur avenir qu'ils travaillent, si il y a un avenir dans l'agriculture. Les rémunérer serait une faÃ§on de leur faire aimer le travail en famille et ceci aiderait Ã enlever les problÃ¨mes de délinquance qui nous coÃ»tent si cher.

Voici un exemple: mon garÃ§on de 13 ans est Ã charrier le fumier pendant que les deux filles aident leur pÃ¨re Ã défaire de la clÃ´ture. Un autre point trÃ¨s important est qu'il faut attendre d'avoir été accepté au programme avant d'engager quelqu'un: on risque de faire tout l'ouvrage tout seul avant d'avoir une réponse.

En terminant, je sais que vous ne pouvez presque rien faire Ã la situation car nous sommes une minorité, les agriculteurs, et nous ne faisons pas le poids lors des élections contre tous les citadins. Mais je crois fermement que si vous étiez au pouvoir au lieu d'Ãªtre dans l'opposition vous pourriez peut-Ãªtre faire beaucoup plus.

Pour ma part, je suis assez écÅ"urée. J'ai une grosse envie de tout ficher en l'air car j'ai vécu les effets de la guerre. J'ai connu la misère, la pauvreté. J'ai vu mes parents vivre une vie agricole difficile, sans jamais avoir un sous, pour arriver à leur mort avec à peine de quoi se faire enterrer. Je vois ma mère vivre avec une misérable pension provinciale, devant rendre compte de chaque piastre qu'elle dépense. Si c'est cela qui m'attend, je ne sais pas ce que je ferai. D'ailleurs, avec une arthrite comme la mienne, ayant peut-être un mois, un an avant d'être invalide, je dois me pousser toujours plus fort pour continuer à avancer, mais pour quoi? Pour que la banque ou le FCC prenne tout à leur gré? Je sais bien que ce n'est pas de votre faute si nous sommes dans une situation aussi désastreuse. Mais il faut reconnaà®tre que c'est avec l'aide des soi-disant experts que nous nous retrouvons dans cette situation. Vous pouvez acheter toutes les compagnies de machines que vous voulez, mais s'il n'y a personne pour acheter les machines, ça va servir à quoi?

Je sais que j'ai écris beaucoup, que mon orthographe n'est pas bonne car j'ai dà» laisser l'école quand j'étais jeune pour aider ma mère avec les autres enfants, mais je devais vous dire ce que je pense. Trop de gens parlent sans vous dire ce qu'ils pensent. Je ne veux pas de réponse sur tous les sujets, mais j'aimerais en avoir une pour nos deux problèmes par exemple.

Merci d'avoir pris le temps de me lire."

Et on me dit "Sincèrement". Je ne lirai pas la signature de la lettre puisque je n'ai pas demandé à la personne d'utiliser son nom. J'ai demandé d'utiliser le texte, mais non le nom.

Mais je voulais, Monsieur le président, vous indiquer la situation désastreuse dans laquelle se trouvent nos agriculteurs. Je ne vois rien dans ce projet de loi qui les aide. Ce qui me surprend le plus à propos du projet de loi, Monsieur le président, c'est qu'il a fallu trois ou quatre mois pour l'introduire. On se demande ce qu'il peut y avoir dans ce projet-là qui a pris tant de temps. Il semble plutôt que c'était un projet de loi qui aurait pu être préparé en quelques heures et introduit à l'Assemblée législative en quelques jours. Alors pourquoi a-t-on pris tout un été pour en arriver à cette solution'? Cela me dépasse. Comme je le dis, je suis en faveur du principe général des restreintes budgétaires du gouvernement provincial, mais je suis d'avis que le gouvernement pourrait, avant la lecture finale de ce projet de loi, faire des énoncés très clairs sur les autres améliorations qui sont nécessaires pour faire revivre l'économie de notre province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that, if you do not mind.

I am in favour of the principle of restraint and, of course, this holds for not only public sector wages. Restraint, in order to be palatable and in order to get the willingness on the part of this population, should be done in such a way as to demonstrate that this government wants equity.

This will be done only if the government announces that it will cut unnecessary expenditures, such as advertising and those other things I have talked about at length in my speech; that it will immediately make improvements to assist the people at the lower end of the economic structure of our province, more specifically the recipients of general welfare assistance; and that those things that are controlled by the government, such as hydro rates, Ontario Housing Corp. rents and so on, will be controlled as strictly as salaries.

Once all those things are included in a total package, the population of this province will be far less reluctant to accept any form of restraint, because restraint would mean something different from what it does at the present time.

I hope the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) takes at least some of the suggestions I have made. Recognizing that he and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have seen fit to do such a symbolic thing as sell their cherished prize for winning the last election, which is the $10.6-million jet, I am sure they could do more to demonstrate the same commitment not only towards public sector wage restraint but also towards government restraint per se.

Once we achieve that kind of restraint of government on itself as opposed to restraint on the people of this province, then I am sure the package will be far more acceptable to each and every one of us.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion I have had to rise in the House and feel the sense of something missing, because a colleague of mine of 18 years' standing is no longer in the assembly.

He was a leader of this party: I worked closely with him during the 18 years I have been in opposition in this assembly, and I just wanted to be able to recall to the House very briefly the contribution, unfailing and continuous, that he gave to the assembly over the long period of time from 1955 until he resigned his seat on July 31.

I speak, of course, of a man known to and respected by all the members of this assembly both present and past. I need only recall that in 1951 the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, which was then the official opposition in the House, was practically wiped out in that general election. There were then two surviving members of the party in 1951. The leader of the party at that time, E. B. Jolliffe, resigned shortly thereafter, and in 1953 Donald MacDonald was elected leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Ontario.

It is interesting to recall his two opponents, the two candidates who sought the office with him. One of them was a former member of this House, Mr. Fred Young, the former member for Yorkview, and the other was Mr. Andrew Brewin, who was for a long time an honoured and respected member of the House of Commons in Ottawa. Donald MacDonald fought the provincial election of June of 1955 and was elected in the riding of York South.

I may say that since maturity I have never, in the time I have had in association with men of any kind, recognized in anyone the kind of solid work he brought to bear on the parliamentary process in this province. It is interesting that when I was deciding whether or not I would try to pursue a political career myself, I was influenced by two men in the final decision I made to myself and by myself about which party I should belong to.

One of those men was Donald MacDonald, whom I had observed and read about in the newspapers of this province and in the public debates of this province from the time he was elected until on into the 1960s, when I tried to make up my mind what role, if any, I might play in public life; the other was a former Premier of Saskatchewan, now dead, the Honourable Woodrow Lloyd.

There were many others whom I respected and admired in the political life of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and in the political life of the New Democratic Party, but my entry into public life, my decision to join the New Democratic Party, was prompted in the main and particularly by the respect I had for both of those men.

I took the liberty of just looking at the Hansard of Donald MacDonald in his immediate entry into the House to find out the kinds of things that were being talked about and discussed at that time.

The House assembled, I believe, on January 31, 1956. The first comment made by my colleague Donald MacDonald was with respect to the death of a former member of the assembly at that time, the member for Renfrew South, Mr. James Dempsey, who had apparently died in the interval between the election of June and the calling of the House, because there had been a by-election to fill the vacancy just before Donald spoke for the first time in the House.

It was characteristic of him that he knew James Dempsey even though he had not sat in the chamber with him and he appropriately expressed his appreciation and his sympathy to the family of that member.

It was interesting also, in the Hansard of that time, that the Prime Minister of the day, Leslie Frost, had put before the House a suggestion that the number of Hansards be increased so that it could be distributed publicly and had proposed a price of $7.50. Donald MacDonald was trying to indicate that for ordinary people the price should be reduced and the distribution of Hansard promoted so that people would understand what it was about.

He was saying things which I have heard said even in these latter days, that in the eastern part of Ontario Ottawa dominated the scene and people had very little access to what went on in this chamber. I assume that could be said today with equal force.

He then referred to the northwest and made the same point. He said the focus of the northwestern part of the province was on Winnipeg, the information which they obtained, the knowledge which they received, the news which they had related to the area of Winnipeg. He was pointing out, of course, that a province of this vast size required every opportunity for people to understand what was taking place in the House.

He then began to speak, in the course of those remarks, about what had happened in the election.

I gather that in the 1951 election something like 50 per cent of the electorate turned out to vote. There were 98 seats in the House. The Conservative Party got 84 of those seats, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation got three of those seats, of which Donald MacDonald's seat was one, and the Liberal Party under the then Leader of the Opposition, Farquhar Oliver, held 11 seats. What an appalling House that must have been for those who sat in opposition. It must have been almost as appalling as the one in which we now sit in this assembly.

But he was pointing out that the government of the day was elected by 25 per cent of the eligible electorate of the province, and that the lack of interest of the people in the province in what went on in this assembly was a reflection of the kind of government that was being provided, even though it was a government elected with a monstrous majority.

The other 25 per cent of the electorate voted for either the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation or the Liberal Party. Things have not changed very much. I believe 58 per cent of the electorate voted in this last election and the Conservative Party received something like 44 per cent of the 58 per cent and the Liberal Party and ourselves received about 54 or 55 per cent.

So times have not changed since Donald MacDonald first came into the House. The world is not greatly different with respect to the kind of sense that people have about this assembly. I must say I was sorry to hear a fearless man such as Donald MacDonald say with some regret in his statement of resignation that he felt this chamber had depreciated in its relevance to the affairs of the province.

It is for a man such as him, who made his contribution here an immense challenge for those who are here now and those who come later, to make this chamber relevant, to make this assembly relevant, to make it a place where the concerns of people are debated and discussed.

If I may say just one personal word about Donald, I do not know, among all of the friends that I have in public life, a man whose public persona was what people saw. Few, if any, people saw the private person behind the public persona of Donald MacDonald. But for those of us who had occasions, rare as they were, to glimpse the private person behind the public servant, he was a man of immense charm, a man of immense friendliness and a man of great warmth. Some day, somewhere, it will be possible, I assume, for someone to write about Donald MacDonald. Most of us here will not even deserve a footnote in the history of the province, let alone receive it, but I am certain that some day at some time a writer will take the time and the trouble to recount in historical terms the immense contribution he made to this province.

4:30 p.m.

I do not want to go on too long, but I feel deeply about the loss of a colleague of that length's standing in this assembly. In the field of the Constitution of the country, of the forestry industry of the province, of agriculture, of energy, and of the processes of this House and its proceedings, in all those fields, to name only a few, Donald MacDonald brought an incisive and a fearless knowledge, a respect and an ability to cut through the verbosity that surrounds so much of our discussion here and to deal with the core issues that were before the province over many years.

In addition to that, there is not a man in Ontario at the present time who knows this province from one end to the other and in great depth in the way Donald MacDonald knows and appreciates the people, the vastness of the province, its wealth and its poverty and the needs of its people. I would like to quote a very brief statement MacDonald made when he spoke in the House because I think it does epitomize very much what he stood for and believed in. It is what we in our caucus at Queen's Park heard him say on many occasions. I quote only one paragraph from his first day in this assembly.

"If I may be permitted just a brief personal word, I would add that I know of no responsibility that a person can take up which is more meaningful, more of a noble calling, than the responsibility of a person who is elected to a Legislature such as this in a democratic country."

With that, I conclude these brief remarks in appreciation of the friendship, the relationship and the closeness in political life that I shared with the member, as did so many others of the caucus of what latterly became the New Democratic Party, of which Donald was the first leader in Ontario.

I could not speak of the member without drawing to the attention of the House the death during August of this year of his close personal associate, one who worked with him for many years, and who was very much part of the world of Queen's Park for so long. Ellen Adams died after a lengthy and disheartening illness in August this year. She was, from the time Donald came to the Parliament Building here until after the 1975 election, one of his close confidants. She was at one point the only member of the staff of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation caucus and she served in many areas.

Those members who knew her, who read about her and who understood her recognized that Ellen Adams in her person reflected very much the history of the times from the Depression in the 1930s in Germany, where she was born, to her flight from Germany to England, to her service in the Second World War in Great Britain, to her coming to Canada and her association with the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, to the time in Queen's Park when she found the work she believed in, which was assisting people. She brought sympathy for those in receipt of social assistance, those on workmen's compensation, those having difficulty with the welfare system and with unemployment insurance. She was the one who was able to turn the key to many of the solutions that we and others in this assembly have since used in order to achieve some measure of equity for people at the lower end of the scale in the economic life of the province.

From that work she went on to social activism at the community level and left her mark there as well. This was indicated by the presence at her funeral of three mayors of the city of Toronto, three leaders of the New Democratic Party, the Ontario Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), the two Ombudsmen for the province and many others.

It was a moment of tribute in mid-August of this year that those of us associated with Donald MacDonald and Ellen Adams recall with gratitude for her friendship, with sorrow that she has gone and with a deep sense of her contribution. We will remember for a long time a person who spent such a great deal of her life as a part of the operations of the assembly office of the New Democratic Party.

I have not had the opportunity to be in the House as often as I would have liked simply because there is an event taking place in Broadview-Greenwood which will result in the victory of the New Democratic Party on October 12 next. Lynn MacDonald, the New Democratic Party candidate, will be returned to continue the tradition that was established some years ago when Riverdale and Broadview became New Democratic Party seats. That tradition will continue.

Also in this caucus we look forward to November 4, 6 and 8. On November 4 the leader of this party will be elected to the assembly; on November 6 the Ontario Gazette will gazette the result of that by-election; and on November 8 Bob Rae will be able to take his seat here as the member for York South and participate in this debate which is going on at the present time on Bill 179.

I was going to say that perhaps he would wind up the debate. I am certain he may wish to wind up the debate, in which case it will be later on in the month, but in any event my guess is he will be able to make his contribution regarding the iniquitous bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will already have sensed the relevance of my remarks to Bill 179.

Mr. Barlow: You finally got around to mentioning it.

Mr. Renwick: I can assure members that what I have said will be as relevant as the rest of my remarks to Bill 179.

I have carried Bill 179 next to my heart to try to understand where the compassion of the Conservative Party is. I thought perhaps I had missed something. It has a grandiose title -- 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. But this bill is flawed in substance, it is illegal and it is unconstitutional.

Presently I might have an opportunity to prove the proposition I have just stated, but I have a number of other matters related to the bill on my mind and I will leave that until another occasion -- perhaps later on this afternoon. However, as time appears to be slipping by, it may not be until tomorrow or Thursday when I will draw to the attention of the House why the bill is open to a challenge in the court and has not been defended in this assembly in relation to the kind of legality and fundamental rights that have been trampled upon in such an astute, legalistic way by the legislative language contained in this particular bill.

4:40 p.m.

I do not often recall events, but I do recall one. The last time the government tried to do something like this, I indicated it was wrong and nine men in Ottawa agreed with me at that time. I expect that in due course, if this government does not withdraw the bill, nine men in Ottawa will decide that perhaps it tramples upon the fundamental rights of people and that perhaps the Conservative government does not understand the implications of the bill now before us for debate in the assembly.

Over the years I have tried to understand the Premier (Mr. Davis). On occasion I have thought to myself, "Yes, I now understand the Premier." On other occasions, I am completely dumfounded by what he does and what he then explains to the public of Ontario are the reasons behind the actions of the government which he leads.

I assure this House that I cannot understand how he was able to renege on the commitment he made that he would not single out the public sector for the punishment of wage restraints. There is no way in which anybody can read the reports of the day and talk to the people who were involved in them without believing that the Premier has reneged on a commitment of immense importance. No matter what language he uses to explain the change that has come over him, if one looks at the reports from early this year until the present time, on his attitude towards wage restraints, it can only be termed a complete reversal of his position.

As a matter of fact, there has been a phrase going through my mind and I have had to search it out to find out where it came from. It was haunting me for a considerable period of time. It went something like, "The sound of the flip-flop is heard in our land." I kept saying to myself, "Where have I heard that?" I thought for a moment it was William Butler Yeats, but I searched through his poetry and I could not find it. Then suddenly it dawned on me, and with great respect to Solomon and whoever wrote the Songs of Solomon, it was, "The voice of the turtle is heard in our land."

What has been running through my mind is that the sound of the flip-flop is heard in our land, and the Premier of this province did exactly that. He did it without explanation and in a way that is totally and completely unsatisfactory to our party and to those who are close to and concerned about the civil service of this province in the broadest sense of that term, that is, those who work in the public sector.

To divide the public sector from the private sector in the way in which this has been done is unacceptable to us in this party. I would have hoped it would have been unacceptable to a number of members in the back benches of the Conservative Party and I certainly would have hoped it would have been unacceptable to members of the Liberal Party.

How could the Premier of this province say, "I have been quoted as saying that singling out the public service is inequitable; I am not retreating from that contention"? What a brilliant statement, to place before us a bill that is admitted by the Premier of the province to be inequitable. Regardless of the reasons, that is what he said. He said in the assembly, "It is inequitable."

I have said it is illegal. Let me leave it for the moment that it is inequitable. That is what it is, and we are being asked to pass into law in the province an act which, in the words of the Premier is inequitable. Let me just place on the record what he was quoted as saying about this question of singling out the public sector of Ontario. These are reporters who are respected and well-known. That cannot be said of every reporter, but of these men it can be said.

This is Mr. Bruce Stewart of the Hamilton Spectator: "However, Mr. O'Flynn said: Mr. Davis has given his categoric assurance that he would not support any type of wage controls aimed specifically at one group such as public sector employees."

Mr. Treleaven: That is a reliable one.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is exactly what the Premier said to him. You want to know what you are talking about for once.

Mr. Renwick: I deliberately used that first quotation referring to Mr. O'Flynn. If what the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) has just said is an indication that Mr. O'Flynn is telling less than the truth, I would like the member to stand up and say so.

Mr. Treleaven: What I said, Mr. Speaker, in a facetious voice, was "That is a reliable one," referring to Mr. O'Flynn -- no more, no less.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: Let us decide whether the member's remark was facetious or not. This is not the occasion for facetious remarks. When we are talking about what the commitment of the Premier of this province was to representatives of the labour movement of this province, we do not fool around with it.

This is John Deverell in the Toronto Star on January 26: "'Ontario will not stamp legal controls on the wages of its 55,000 public employees,' Premier William Davis said. Wage controls on the public sector would be unfair because 'you can't isolate one sector of society' in the fight against inflation, Davis said after a meeting with labour leaders yesterday.

"Sean O'Flynn, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, said he was relieved by Davis' statement. 'The whole thing about public service controls has been a mischievous kite to distract attention from the real economic issues.'"

Perhaps we can come back to who flew the malicious kite. It was the Treasurer of the province (Mr. F. S. Miller), and we can come back to the conflict between the Treasurer of this province and the Premier about the direction of public policy in fiscal, economic and other matters in a few minutes. Those are the direct quotations of John Deverell in the Toronto Star.

Let me refer to another respected writer on the labour front, Wilfred List, who in the Globe and Mail of the same date wrote: "Premier William Davis has categorically ruled out wage controls for Ontario public employees. His statement was in response to a submission presented to him yesterday by officers of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Mr. Davis made it clear yesterday to the labour delegation led by OFL president Clifford Pilkey that Ontario would not support controls for public employees."

After the meeting, he even went beyond that to say he was not in favour of any structured policy with respect to wage controls of any kind. But it is sufficient to say that we come along to July 6, in a report of the proceedings in this assembly, which was reported in the London Free Press, when he began to indicate that perhaps the Treasury ministry of the province had got to him and that, yes, perhaps there was going to be some change in his position. I simply say that the statements which the Premier made in this assembly earlier this year were not explained by him in this House except to say that it was inequitable to do so, but that he was introducing a bill in any event.

4:50 p.m.

I often take time to read what the Premier has to say. I happened to scan a number of his other addresses and began to understand that what was taking place in the cabinet of this province was the reassertion by the Treasurer of the stranglehold of his ancient view of the economy over the government of Ontario and from the government of Ontario through to the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Davis goes before the Progressive Conservative association downtown and makes some remarks, part political, part just political bantering, something to do with the question of trusting in him when he makes mistakes and trusting in him when he goes his own particular way. But we now know and recognize that the substitution of the two firefighting aircraft ordered by the Premier for the jet was made because the Treasurer was not very happy about it. It is the same with the Suncor purchase. You will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker, this is the last comment I will make about Suncor. Because he had not consulted the Treasurer, we are now paying the price.

When the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) was Minister of Energy he talked about being "mugged in the corridors of power" by the bureaucrats. The Premier has been mugged in the corridors of power of his own government by the Treasurer and by the bureaucrats in the Treasury ministry. They lassoed him back into the game because he dared not to consult them on Suncor and because he made the mistake with respect to the jet. Had he not made those mistakes, the reassertion of control over the Premier of the province would not have taken place and we would not, in my judgement, be faced with this bill. That is the only explanation for the about-face that could possibly be put before the assembly with any sense of credibility.

In Halifax, on August 22, 1982, the Premier argued the case against control of the public sector unless there was a national economic recovery program. But he came back to Toronto, called the House back into session after a series of consultations with his colleagues in the cabinet and reversed his position. He said we will have public sector wage control and will wait for a national economic recovery program from Ottawa, rather than stating the position he put before his fellow Premiers in Halifax.

I am getting a bit ahead of myself, which I do not want to do, because if there is one thing we in this assembly have on this bill, it is time. We have lots of time to deal with the fundamentals of the bill and the problems which it is creating for us.

The Premier made this remarkable statement to the Progressive Conservative association on Saturday, September 11: "I say this to all of you, that while on occasion I will make decisions that will upset you, that while I appreciate the confidence in me, my responsibility has been and will continue to be to all of the people of this province because they are all part of what is important to me as an individual. I would remind myself, as well, that the people of the province do not expect their government to confront; they do not expect their government to debate. They expect their government to move with a sense of confidence, a sense of enthusiasm. I think they realize that we cannot solve all of the problems, but I think they will respect the fact that we are trying."

In the casual remarks before a Progressive Conservative association convention, what that means that the government does not intend to debate is perhaps what we see in this assembly now with respect to this bill, because there has been little counter-debate by the government benches apart from what the Treasurer and the Premier said in opening the debate. There has been little contribution, if any, to the assembly by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) or by his two predecessors as Ministers of Labour with respect to the guts of the bill, which is the attack on the collective bargaining system, the attack on the arbitration system of the province.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if at some point he would explain to this assembly what it is about the triple-A rating that must determine the whole future of the course of this government's economic policy. I have over the years heard the Treasurer and his predecessor say simply that somehow or other the triple-A rating is not just a symbol but an important factor in the life of this province. Yet the Treasurer and the Premier both know that the likelihood of investment in this province by people in this province has nothing to do with the triple-A rating of its credit in New York City, nothing whatsoever to do with that sense of confidence. If the economy of Ontario is strong, if it has the resilience and strength we believe it to have, then what happens in the rating places in New York City about the financial rating of this province is quite irrelevant because we will continue to get the money we need from people who choose and want to invest in it.

I suppose that in a funny way it can be said that old ideas have to rot before new ideas can take root. I would like to suggest to the Treasurer that he drop this particular status symbol and address the serious economic problems facing the province in a way other than by simply introducing Bill 179 and imposing public sector wage controls.

The remarks that the Premier made, both when he spoke in Halifax and when he spoke to this House, are basically repetitions in somewhat different form of remarks he has made over a period of about the last year. I would like to run through a few of those remarks and try perhaps to relate our conception of an economic strategy and policy for the province to the various areas he has spoken about.

Every now and then in the course of the remarks of the Treasurer and the Premier, both in this House and in Halifax, there is a particular synoptic phrase with respect to the public sector and the consequences that will flow from it if we do but adopt unquestioningly the policy reflected in the statements by the Premier and the Treasurer. The Treasurer repeated it a couple of days after the Premier spoke in this House on September 21. The Premier took it verbatim when he spoke in the House at the opening of the session on September 21 from the remarks he had made when he was in Halifax speaking to the opening session of the Premiers' conference on August 25. I quote from those remarks:

5 p.m.

"In this regard I repeat my call for public sector expenditure restraint. Reduced government demands on the capital market also will contribute to reduce pressures on interest rates. Public sector cost reductions can be passed through to the private sector in the form of lower increases in taxes, user fees and charges for government services. These reductions alone will have a significant impact on the performance of the consumer price index and will contribute to slower inflation in the private sector."

That seems to be the keystone of what the policy of the government is designed to achieve, but neither the Premier nor the Treasurer has said anything to elaborate on the meaning of that paragraph. I do not know and I have no idea what the Treasurer has in mind for us down the road. He obviously has a number of matters that are going to be brought to our attention in a piecemeal fashion rather than up front in a way that all of us can understand, because the Premier stated in his remarks on September 21, when he began to deal with the question of what can and will be done, "We are currently working on a further series of initiatives designed to generate further employment and stimulate economic activity."

I certainly trust that the Treasurer will enlighten us at some point during the course of this debate as to what those initiatives are that are designed to generate further employment and stimulate economic activity. All we have heard from the government so far is the remarks in the budget of the province earlier this year with respect to their concept of job-creation programs.

We have put before us in the budget counterproposals of the New Democratic Party the kind of program that would have been adequate and sufficient to produce the kinds of jobs that are required in the province. I would like to know from the Treasurer what he is going to announce as further policies and when we may expect them, considering that we are now into October.

In his address to this assembly, the Premier also referred to other announcements: "We fully anticipate that further announcements will be made governing other major regulated prices in the very near future." I may have missed something, but I do not know of any major statements that have been made about major regulated prices since September 21. I trust that in the course of this debate the Treasurer or one of the ministers of the government who can make that kind of statement will let us know what are those major statements about major regulated prices in the very near future.

One matter I want to have explained to the assembly is the reference by the Premier in two places to the arbitration system in the province. In Halifax, the Premier said, "In the public sector the role played by the arbitration system in perpetuating the inflation cycle should be reviewed." I do not know what he means by that statement. I hope somebody will tell us in what way the government of this province proposes to intervene in and change the arbitration system that is in effect for those members of the public service who do not have the right to strike and who are dependent on the processes of arbitration to bring about some form of collective agreement between various aspects of the public service and their employers in the public service. That was not a throwaway remark, because he repeated it in this assembly.

When we come to the question of the effect of the bill on the collective bargaining process, I hope the Minister of Labour, one of his predecessors in the portfolio, the Premier himself or the Treasurer will tell us what is meant by the statement that the arbitration system in this province is going to be reviewed. I hope someone will tell us what those changes are. I think I can find that reference in his remarks to this assembly, but members can take my word for it that he did repeat in this House exactly what he said in Halifax.

I do not understand whether there is any appreciation on the side of the government about the role of arbitration in those portions of the public service of Ontario which, for one reason or another, are denied the right to strike. I myself have never thought the arbitration process was simply related to favouring the public sector employees.

Is that what he means? Is that what is being said in this assembly, that the capacity of the collective bargaining process in the public service has been such that the settlements were an attempt through arbitration to obtain an equitable adjustment through wage increases in relation to the cost of living those in the public sector were subjected to?

I do not know what it means. I expect an answer in the course of this debate, because that kind of throwaway line by the Premier on two such important occasions, once in Halifax and once in this House, needs some further elaboration.

It is not sufficient for the Minister of Labour or his predecessor simply to say that somehow or other that process is at fault. It is not enough for him to say there is something wrong with the collective bargaining process in the public sector that has brought forth this legislation in such a way as to punish those who serve the public rather than those who may serve the private sector.

There is another way of looking at that issue, and I will be glad to do that somewhat later.

If I may, I will go through a little bit of what the Premier has had to say. Each of the topics he has discussed when he spoke to the Premiers in Halifax and when he spoke in this assembly touches upon very fundamental aspects of a very complex problem. It is surprising to me that the Premier seems to be so muddled about the problem that is facing this country. He seems to have it divided up into a number of headings, and it depends on the audience and the occasion as to which one he puts up front as the prime topic or goal or objective of the economy.

One can run through them very clearly. He always talks about the failure of leadership at the national level. Yet we are going to be asked in Bill 180 -- to be debated very soon, perhaps before this year is out -- to give him a carte blanche to enter into whatever agreement he wishes with the government at Ottawa. He has continuously characterized that government as one that has failed in its leadership of the country. How he does that, I do not understand, and how he expects us to approve of that bill in due course, I do not know.

5:10 p.m.

That is the first element of his rhetoric, if one can call it that. The rhetoric goes back to the Premiers' conference a year ago; it goes back to the first ministers' conference in February of this year. It was repeated at the first ministers' conference in June of this year, it was repeated at the Premiers' conference in Halifax, and again he brought some elements before this assembly when he called the House back into session to deal with this legislation and his version of an economic recovery program for this province.

The second element of his speech is a call for a national program. He has some strange sense of the federalism of this country, that the call for a national program is for the federal government to enact a program on a nationwide basis and for the provinces to say, "Me, too."

It is true that it is sugar-coated a little bit, that there is to be a national task force. But the ultimate question of his sense of the sovereignty of the provinces in a federal system is that if the federal government will put in a wage and price control policy on a national basis across the country -- not a profit control policy; we will come to that a little bit later -- this government will say, "Yes, we will go along."

No ifs, ands or buts; no public debate in this assembly. Simply the package is to be brought back here for ratification after it has been signed and sealed by the government of the province and without any debate. That is the second element of his speech.

The third one he talks about is inflation. He will say: "You can never be quite sure. Is it our attack on inflation that is the top priority in the country, or is it jobs?" On occasion he will say it is jobs. On occasion he will say it is productivity. On other occasions it will be interest. Sure, in the course of his speech he will throw them all in but every now and then, depending upon his mood and his audience, one or other of these various highlights is the focus of his particular address. We find this in his address to the Premiers and in his address to this assembly -- not in the course of debate but as a statement before the orders of the day so he will not have to engage in debate.

It may be that he may decide to participate in the debate. After all, he appeared in the House last Thursday evening. It will be an unusual occurrence if he participates in the debate on a bill in this assembly. Since he has been Premier, I do not ever recall him doing that; he leaves that to his ministers. At least this bill is not being left by the Treasurer to his parliamentary assistant, which is the normal course of legislation; nor is it being left to his other colleague, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), to pilot the bill through the House. Thank goodness for that, because this is the forum in which this economic debate is to take place.

He goes on in his addresses -- and it does not matter what the order is; he gets them all in at some point -- to talk about his concept of the federal state. I have talked a little bit about that. His sense of analysing the problems of this economy, his sense of analysing them in terms of either what the province can do or what the province co-operatively with the other provinces and with the federal government can do is a matter that escapes his attention. In some way, he thinks the future of the country is inextricably bound up with Ontario and Ottawa, not with Ontario and the other provinces with Ottawa working out a program acceptable to everybody. It is kind of a strange way in which the history of Ontario has been perverted over the years.

There are some of us, despite the tirade of the Premier against the deputy leader of this party, who have a little bit of sense of the history of the province. Indeed, I would guess we could have a little history match one of these days, if somebody would like to do it and if we could find someone to put the questions. The members opposite would have more to choose from, but we would put up our 21 members against any 21 members of either of the other two caucuses on specific knowledge of the history of this province and of events in the course of that history. We would have no difficulty in that. We even sometimes read history books in this party. Some of our members have written history books. It is quite surprising. I digress, and I apologize for that.

He then will go on and talk about the state of the economy. He will talk about the unemployment, about the jobs in the economy, all sorts of things that are wrong and, at that point, of course, it is never his responsibility. That is where he shades off into the rest of the world. In his speeches he has already dealt with Ottawa; so he shifts off into the United States and into the worldwide conditions that are causing so much of the economic downturn of the world for which, God forbid, he as Premier of this province cannot be held in any way responsible. Of course, he does not accept that things can be done in this province, except minor tampering of the kind the Treasurer brings in, such as the measures he brought in to stimulate car sales a year ago last November, if I remember correctly.

Then he talks about the Ontario program, never in terms of the future but always in terms of what has been done in the past, despite the fact that the programs he has initiated in the past and the policies that have been adopted by the government have created the situation we are in at this time. The Treasurer follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, who left the government because of the restraint program and the failure to follow it sufficiently rigorously. God knows where we would have been if Darcy McKeough had been here and that restraint program had been in force over a period of time. I hate to think what the state of the economy would be now.

When they talk about the Ontario program, we never know what it is. It is always what has taken place in the past, or it is something that is going to be announced some time down the road in the future. I referred a few minutes ago to the policies that are going to be announced by the Treasurer some time later on about stimulating the economy. They are never debated. Do members understand that? They are announced. I am delighted to see there are one or two Tory back-benchers here, because that is what happens.

We have never had until this occasion, as I recall -- and I am not one who very often lives in the past and I can be faulted, because I have enough to do in the present and future without living in the past -- an economic debate in the assembly. We have the throne debate, and it is limited. We participate in the throne debate, then that is cut off and we have the budget debate. But that budget debate, if members happen to notice, has a way of ending the session just before Christmas. And it goes on and on. What is it? It is a filler.

I found the Speaker of the assembly the other day denying us an emergency debate on the question of welfare assistance and social assistance and the levels of payment in this province on the grounds that those are matters that are in the budget debate on which we will vote -- we may vote -- towards the end of this year.

The budget is never debated. The Treasurer comes in and makes his budget statement before all his assembled friends at eight o'clock one evening and then they adjourn to the Albany Club. The bills that have been introduced into the assembly are broken down into any number of parts and the Treasurer hands over the great majority of them to the Minister of Revenue, who has nothing to do with them, even if he did understand their broader implications, nothing to do with the policies of the government. So perhaps members will understand why we felt that when the Premier opened his remarks to this assembly.

5:20 p.m.

I am glad to see I am beginning to get the feel of this debate. I was literally concerned today when I stood up to speak in the House as to whether or not after 15 or 20 minutes I would have to sit down, but I am delighted to know that it does not appear this is going to be one of my problems.

With our House leader we were anxious to focus the debate and not have the House engaged in other business so that the place would be dispersed and nobody would be in the chamber. We have enough trouble getting enough Tories in the House even when there is no other business going on in the assembly, let alone when there is.

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder what this has to do with Bill 179.

Interjection.

Mr. Renwick: I could see that. But this is a debate about fundamental government economic policies. It is not just an isolated Bill 179 or another isolated Bill 180; it is what the Premier meant when he stood in his place and said, "Today represents a critical opportunity for the Legislature of Ontario to address those issues of vital concern to the health of our economy, our province and all its citizens."

That is what this debate is about, and the rules are not such as to hamstring the capacity of this House to attempt to deal with the broad panorama that is involved finally in this --

lnterjections.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that note. I will keep it among my memorabilia.

What I am getting at is that we are talking about the overall economic policy of the government. That is what the debate is about. You could not possibly suggest to anyone in the assembly that when the Treasurer opened his remarks on Thursday, September 23, in this House he repeated. He said, "On Tuesday, when the Premier announced the anti-inflation program, he told the House that no decision taken by this government has received so much attention, so much discussion and so much genuine concern."

Surely those remarks are not related solely to the provisions of Bill 179. If they were it would mean that the government has lost its marbles, has lost its sense of what the province is about, because that is only one small item of what the overall economic policy of this government is about and of the straits that these policies have brought this province to in so far as its economy is concerned.

We go on in the litany of things the Premier touches on in these addresses so that the audience that listens to him must think, "My, this is a very wise man; what a grasp he has of the economic problems of his province." The verbosity is absolutely magnificent. I have touched on only four or five examples. He then goes on and talks about jobs, and he really becomes emotional about jobs in his speech.

Mr. Foulds: Frank?

Mr. Renwick: No, the Premier. Let me see if I have the right address. I rather liked the one in Halifax. He must have felt that he was far enough away from us that he could say a number of things about it.

He has this to say about the Treasurer's bottoming out theory of government, which I would guess he calls the "wringing-out" theory, but he never refers to his Treasurer when he is talking about bottoming out and wringing out the economy, the sort of shake-out theory of economy. He says that we are now on the road up after having shaken out the little guys and punished as many of them as we can; that we are now on the upbeat so that those who can profit from the economy without any restraint can go ahead and continue to profit from it.

He makes the statement about wringing out; and one can hear the pathos in his voice:

"Some have argued that these consequences are necessary to reduce domestic inflation by wringing out the inefficiencies of our market economy, but wrestling inflation to the ground at the expense of jobs is surely an untenable policy for Canadians. The economic and social costs are simply too enormous." That was said at the Premiers' conference in August.

Three or four pages later he comes back to that theme after having meandered among other topics.

"Our first priority must be to create and sustain jobs. In this regard, the sharp increase in youth unemployment demands even greater allocation of public funds to job creation for young people. The recent federal budget provided little incentive for job creation in Canada. I believe fiscal room can and must be found for this essential activity."

I do not know whether one of the announcements this fall from the Treasurer will have something to do with youth unemployment, but I was interested, intrigued and anxious to have up-to-date information for the assembly. So, shortly before the Legislature came into session today, I got this information about youth unemployment in the province as of October 4.

The annual average unemployment rates for Ontario youth, ages 15 to 24, for the years 1978 to 1982, are as follows: 1978, 13 per cent; 1979, 11.7 per cent; 1980, 12.4 per cent; 1981, 12.3 per cent; 1982, January to August, inclusive, 16.6 per cent. The monthly breakdown for the year 1982 is: January, 16.3 per cent; February, 15.5 per cent; March, 17.3 per cent; April, 16.2 per cent; May, 16.4 per cent; June, 17.5 per cent; July, 17.5 per cent; August, 16.1 per cent.

Then we begin to slip away from the high priority of jobs and we get this kind of slide-off statement from the Premier, "But the problem of unemployment cannot be solved merely by subsidizing the creation of temporary jobs." Notice the supreme rhetorical device involved in that. Nobody has talked about solving the problem of unemployment merely by the creation of temporary jobs. I have never heard anybody say that. This is the man of straw we must knock down.

He goes on to say, "Sustaining employment domestically is closely tied to reducing interest rates, increasing trade and restoring business and consumer confidence." He continues by talking about the past Ontario program and about investment. We will have to come back and talk at some length on the question of investment because that is the trap and the open door by which he indicates we are inviting foreign investment into Ontario.

It is not very far for him then to move from that question to the value of the dollar; and he teaches some elementary economics, that the lower the dollar the higher the cost of imports and the price that can be achieved for exports, and the reverse of that. Then he goes on and talks about international trade.

5:30 p.m.

Then he comes to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and we find in this assembly that we have never had a debate about GATT, but the ministers from the federal government and others are meeting in Geneva in November of this year to talk about GATT. Why? Because GATT has been so far a disaster to this province, and the implications of GATT with respect to bilateral arrangements with the United States are causing immense havoc in Canada.

The United States Trade Agreements Act of 1979 is going to cause immense further damage to this economy, so much so that there are picayune criticisms being levelled in Washington by many uninformed people -- not by informed people in Washington -- about the reality of it. All this business leads to today's headline that the Prime Minister must now placate the concerns of the Americans about what is happening to us.

We do not stand a chance for the entry of our goods into the United States in the way in which the entry of American goods into Canada takes place. It is that simple. There are nontariff barriers available in the United States to protect its economy such as we in Canada have never even dreamed of. We have got to start to understand that. Again we get a throwaway statement by the Premier, and it is the first I heard about it. I suppose we are supposed to know everything about it.

I hope the Treasurer or the Premier, when they respond, will lay before the assembly what the position of this government is going to be when it goes to the GATT conference in November to find out what has happened over the past two years. The chief negotiator for Canada, who, I believe, is now in the employ of the Ontario government, has warned the Ontario government about the disastrous effects that the GATT negotiated a couple of years ago will have and is having on the economy of Ontario.

Then the Premier moves off GATT on to productivity. One of the speeches that goes back a year or so ago in Vancouver -- again, as far away as he can get from this assembly to discuss economic matters -- has all these topics in it, but the highlight that time was productivity. That seemed to be up front and centre with him. I do not know quite what he meant by productivity.

He seems to have a hangover solution that somehow or other working people are lazy and if they would only work harder, somehow or other, productivity would increase. That seems to be the underlying conception about it. Certainly it is mirrored in this bill that for people to keep up to date with the cost of inflation, the cost of goods in this society is somehow wrong and they must be penalized for it. It must be that in some way or other they are not performing as they should. Productivity is not taking place.

I do not know what he intends to do about arbitration in the public sector when he reviews it, but I can warn him that if he follows the false practice of equating some kind of productivity to the performance of hard-working members of the public service at the levels of salary most of them in the province obtain, he will be on the wrong course.

I expect the Treasurer perhaps will answer that question about the covert attack -- I use the word covert because I have been reading about M15, the history of the military intelligence section in England, and I am dealing a lot in covert terms. I may say the economic policies of this government have some of the elements of comic opera to be found in incidents related to the security of military intelligence in Great Britain as well.

Having left productivity, what does he move to? Attacking the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Why does he attack FIRA, which is one of the ways this country will be able to regulate the nature of foreign investment; not stop it, just regulate it to make certain Canada will have some benefit?

He attacks the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He is delighted that the Prime Minister has indicated that the powers of FIRA will not be extended; that has been given up and Herb Gray has paid the price and has moved to some other innocuous portfolio in the world of the shuffle that goes on.

He talks then about new foreign investment not being subject to FIRA. Can you believe that in this day and age Canada is going to say that direct foreign investment coming into Canada is not going to have to meet any tests other than to come? Can you believe it? All in the name of the triple-A rating. All in the name of that. It is quite fantastic.

Then the other wrinkle, that foreign-owned companies that have been here for a long time and have established themselves as "good corporate citizens" should be free from FIRA. Who will FIRA look at? Whose concern will they have if we follow the advice of the Premier and the Treasurer of this province to the federal government about foreign investment?

Foreign investment has destroyed, and is destroying, the independence of the country; not its capacity to be isolated but its capacity to be independent and to deal with some degree of clout with those neighbours in the trading world that have clout, because we have surprisingly little. We in this party are not prepared that the country should go on forever without some additional sense of clout.

Having dealt with FIRA, he then comes back to the need for this strange thing called "public sector restraint," even though his government has, in theory, been devoted to it at the cost of social programs in the province, at the cost of poor people in the province.

This is the kind of information which my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has been trying to bring to the attention of the assembly, that the levels of social assistance in this province, for people who need that assistance just to get by, is not being addressed because there has been a policy of restraint.

It is not just in the areas of people's livelihood, it is their ability to buy food and to provide shelter, to pay the rent, to buy the necessities of life and to have some sense of dignity about it. But in the other areas of social service, in the field of education, in the field of health care, in the hospital services across the province we are paying the price for that kind of restraint.

To illustrate that, I cannot believe what the Treasurer said on September 23 when he stood in his place here to justify his program. After all of this discussion and so much evident concern, he went on about high labour costs, about the loss of jobs, unemployment, productivity, all of the litany in his particular form of melange that he put before us, he related all of those and he said:

"However, those facts in and of themselves do not necessarily justify wage controls. There is one fact I am going to give you that does tip the balance. In the last year, the Ontario public sector saw an employment increase of over 15,000 people, almost entirely in the education and health fields."

One would think that was one of the worst things that could possibly happen in this province. Everybody knows, even the World Bank knows, that compared to capital investment the dollars which are invested in people's health and education do more with respect to increasing the productivity of a society than any other known method.

I want members to understand that. This is no raving Socialist at the head of the World Bank. He was the defence secretary of the late President Kennedy. He was at Ford. He knows all about assembly line production and what makes cars tick. God forbid, I certainly do not.

5:40 p.m.

One has to read the last report of the World Bank to hear what it has to say, and not just for underdeveloped countries or for developing countries but for all countries. The dollar investment in health and education pays far more in productivity than any capital dollar invested. It has a twofold purpose: it is both an end and a means. It allows people some sense of dignity, some sense of movement themselves in their own individual lives, and it contributes to the economic wellbeing and therefore to the ultimate social progress of those societies.

The Treasurer of this province says what tipped him in favour of public sector wage controls was the fact that in the last year the Ontario public sector -- not the public service of the government but the whole of the services of the province -- has increased its job content by some 15,000 people. That remark is the key to this government's philosophy. They believe people in the public sector are not making any contribution. They believe they are a necessary convenience to the government of Ontario. They are only here to carry out certain things. They are not engaged in delivering essential services to the people of the province. It is an indication, quite clearly, that those 15,000 people should not be there, an indication that somehow or other his policies of restraint have gone awry.

It is extremely important we understand that. He did not have to introduce public sector wage controls with the public service of Ontario itself. His whole purpose was to make certain he taught a lesson to the delivery system for social, educational and health services. He has destroyed those programs and affected their viability for those under his control. But the destruction of those programs has not gone sufficiently far. He now has put his tentacles right down through to the boards of education, the departments of health and the municipalities of the province in order to make certain they get the message. That is what has happened and will continue to happen.

Let me go on with the litany. We then move from public sector restraint to international competitiveness, from there to wage restraint, and from wage restraint, God knows. I got tired of writing it down and I was only up to page 9 of his 19-page speech. One gets tired reading the Premier's speeches; one gets tired of listening to the Treasurer. They never ever seem to come out of the revolving door. They are always inside there interminably throwing out. As the revolving door turns at one entrance, they shout out "Jobs," and at another entrance they shout out, "Productivity." Then they shout out, "Interest rates," and then, "Inflation."

At the end of the day when the door stops, it depends which topic it happens to have left in the jackpot as it goes around, and that is the sermon for that week and that is what one hears.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: I must say I had not thought of the revolving door, but it is damned good.

We want to try to come out of the maze. We have lived in the maze. We live in a rabbit warren here in the north end of the building and we know our way about. But we can get out of it any time we want by simple analysis and simple discussion of what the fundamental questions are in this society.

I must not go on without saying that much of what I know in this area I owe to the people, both at present and in the past, in the research area of our caucus who have worked for us on the economic aspects of the New Democratic Party's policies. We have always had some difficulty, particularly in the kinds of times in which our party was founded, in dealing with a government that is in difficulty with respect to economics.

As I said a few minutes ago, new ideas have to wait until old ideas rot or they will not take root, and that is what we have been trying to do. We have been trying over a period of time and have been able, both by empathy and by a basic sense of what this party is about, to put together sound and effective social policies, education policies and health policies. Those are not problems for us. We can express our policies with assurance, wisdom, background material and skill.

The Treasurer knows that in 1975 we came close to turning the trick of turning the government out on those issues. We learned after that that we had to move to the field of economics, that part of the Socialist tradition is that the economy has to be dealt with in a way that is responsive to the needs of people and not just as an adjunct to a profit-making machine run by the government and its colleagues in the business world. That is what we have been about. We have paid a price. The former leader of this party, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), was part of the price we paid to try to reduce to paper in an intelligible way all of the aspects of our economic policies.

Well, the paper-making time is over. Because of the work the member for Ottawa Centre did in this field, because of the work the policy people in the party did in this field, because of the work my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) did when he was for a considerable period of time the critic of this particular ministry and because of the way in which the party goes about its policy-making functions, the party now has sound and effective policies on the economy.

One can chart the downturn of the Conservative government on the fate of the economy. If one looks at the map, in 1974-75 there was a downturn, and we were not able to turn the trick on it. In 1977 there was another downturn, and we were not able to do it then. But I can assure the Treasurer that his government is in serious difficulty in the instability of the economics of the world, and the government is going to be turfed out.

He does not have to shout across at us about Mitterrand and how Mitterrand has come back on the road. He has not come back on the road. One has to read what is happening to understand that a right-wing government in Greece was replaced by a left-wing government; a left-wing government in Germany just collapsed and is being replaced by a right-wing government; a middle-of-the-road government in Sweden was replaced by a social democratic government. The government in the Netherlands is in great difficulty; the government in Belgium is in great difficulty; the United Kingdom replaced a very social democratic left-wing government with a right-wing government.

Why is this? It is very simple. When times are of this nature in the economics of society, people turn out governments. This government knows it. This is why this government is already talking in its private councils about 1984. This is why the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party is so right about this nonsensical extravaganza of the 200th anniversary of the province. We all know about history: we all know that tradition is important. What we were objecting to is the government of this province deciding it is the one that preserves the history of the province, that it is its private preserve.

5:50 p.m.

I know when the next election will be held in this province. I cannot put a date on it, but it will be within six months after the Prince of Wales has been here. I can assure members of that because, and I mean no disrespect to the royal family, this government has not made up its mind whether the royal family is an extension of the Tory party or whether the Tory party is an extension of the royal family.

Whatever it is, members can be certain that somehow or other the government of this province will try to kid the people. But it will not happen any more. The Tory government in Ottawa was kicked out and we had a time of unstability in Ottawa, which we continue to have, while the only party that can in some measure solve the economic problems of both the country and Ontario, the New Democratic Party, waits in the wings. I like waiting in the wings. I like it better than being on deck. There is something more positive about waiting in the wings.

While the Liberal Party in Ottawa works out the end of its career as the government of Canada, and while this government works out the end of its career as the government of Ontario, the New Democratic Party will continue to put the reality of the economic world of Canada and of the province more clearly, more concisely and more adequately than any other single political voice has done. We are doing it and, if I may say so, we are doing it extremely well.

We are beginning to feel the heat over here. For a while the focus of the Tory concern was the Liberal Party. They used to get a lot of it, but now the attacks are coming here. We like it. The more we get, the more we know that the government is in trouble and the more difficult it will be for it to justify its position.

Time is creeping on, and I have just got through a portion of the first file. I have a number of others here and some stored away under my seat. I want to leave a question to the Treasurer before we rise. The Treasurer is so angry he does not take any notes, but I hope he will comment on some of the points I have raised. I hope he will deign to answer the questions about the Foreign Investment Review Agency, about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, about productivity, about arbitration in the collective bargaining system for the public service and others scattered throughout my comments.

I want to understand why my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and my colleague the House leader of this party have this impatient little lecture from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), or from the Treasurer himself, when they start talking about the price restraint program of the province.

I also want to know why the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said to Joe Coté, if I may quote him -- and I can quote him because I can remember what he said very clearly; I leaped out of bed as soon as I heard him that morning about a quarter to eight -- "I do not know about you, Joe, but I think the people out there sense there is a problem." I thought, "I am going to think about that for the rest of the day." I thought about it and it was just as inane as it sounded that morning.

What is the answer to my friend the member for Etobicoke from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about rent control? "Don't you understand, Ed, that you have to pass through these costs? Of course you can't fix the rent increase at six per cent because you have to pass through these costs."

We get the same answer when my colleague asks about the price of natural gas or oil -- I forget which one. Of course they are beyond our control. Of course one has to pass through the costs, the wellhead costs and the transportation costs by the National Energy Board.

Mr. Martel: Not mortgage rates though. You can forget about mortgage rates.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, no, not mortgage rates. What the government never seems to understand is that just as those landlords and those purveyors of essential commodities in the province have to pass through their costs, so does the individual person in society.

The individual in society has absolutely no control over the interest rate on his mortgage. He has no control over his rent. He has no control over the cost of his food. He has no control over any of the essentials that are involved. But, no, he does not have to pass through those costs. He just has to take it on the chin and take the increase of up to five per cent or up to nine per cent. Why? Because the government wants to break the connection between wage demands and the cost of living. It is almost as if it wants in a Freudian way to break somebody's neck in the course of doing it.

The government is not going to do that if it allows the very commodities that people buy to have the benefit of pass-through. It is going to keep it up and to reduce the consuming capacity of the public. It is going to transfer more money to corporations, and the consumers are the ones who are going to get hurt.

The government says the program it is putting forward is to punish, to send a signal. Of all the remarks in the Treasurer's contribution in this debate, I found this the most offensive. It is the one at the end of his speech where he lists the three factors. One of the three factors is the signal from the public sector to the private sector. That is going to be the most important one of all of the signals. That is what it is about. It is a signal he is sending to the private sector.

Why does he not tackle the private sector? He does not tackle it because the private sector is in a shambles because of the policies of this government. Does the Treasurer understand that? Does he understand there is not a single sector of this economy the policies of this government have not contributed to the state it is now in? I can see the Premier sighing, puffing and huffing.

If one looks at the auto sector one can see it because the government has not done anything about it. If one looks at the shoe wear sector the same thing is happening, as it is in the textile sector. There are all of those sectors of the economy where the policies of this government have been behind the times. They have been inadequate and have led to the kind of problems we are trying to cope with at this point. The seriousness of it has nothing to do with anything except the failure of the policies of this government.

I want to pursue this on another occasion. I cannot see the clock, so I do not know whether to start on another topic or not.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has three minutes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: I have three minutes? What shall I do in three minutes'?

The Deputy Speaker: The member can mention Bill 179.

Mr. Renwick: I think I will try to find the Treasurer's statement, so I can refer to it. No, I have something here.

By accident, I happened to read, at the same time as I read one of the Premier's speeches, the remarks of Rowland C. Frazee, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada. It was headed, Canadian Confidence: A Long Night's Journey into Day. That would be translated to be the defeat of the Tory government and the emergence of the New Democratic Party.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is hilarious.

Mr. Renwick: If the government was to take the speech of the chairman of the Royal Bank and give it to the Treasurer and allow the bureaucrats in the Treasury office to shuffle the topics around a little bit and then sent it to the Premier's office for a rewrite job, one would get absolutely the identical speech, which the Premier would give anywhere.

I do not know whether or not he wishes to be chairman of the Royal Bank, but I can assure members if they follow the precepts of the chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, they will be in serious trouble. We all know that. We all know the costs to the province, to the people of Canada and to the whole of the country by the near bankruptcy of Dome and the costs we are going to bear to bail that organization out, all in the name of a good investment -- such a good investment the banks were about to pull the plug on them. But we are being told now that to get some, I think, convertible preference shares, that is a really good long-term investment for the people of Canada. That is their view of Canadianizing a company.

Members know as well as I do that the seriousness of the problem in this country is far beyond the mere attempt by this government to punish 50,000 people. It strikes at the root of the financial system. There is not a financial analyst who will not tell you that the government did not by choice bail out Dome; it had no alternative except to face the bankruptcy of Dome and the very serious consequences to the banking system of the country, which it would have had to bail out in any event.

I see it is now six o'clock.

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

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

October 4, 1982