Journal des débats 1982-sept-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, maybe you can decide whether this is a point of privilege, a point of order or a point of information. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in my place today to congratulate that great farmer, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who at the ploughing contest held last Tuesday in Lucan, just north of London --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, listen to the caterwauling coming from that side of the House --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: In the category set aside for special events among MPPs -- and the list included such notables as the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G.I. Miller) -- none other than the member for Welland-Thorold came out the winner.

I hope everyone in this House will join me in congratulating him on his very notable effort.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, I certainly want to offer our congratulations to the member for Welland-Thorold. But the ploughing was so even and uniform among all the members who participated that they really did not know which basis to use in making a final selection. What they finally did was, they gave it to the person who talked the most to the tractor as it was making its rounds in the field.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my congratulations to the member for Welland-Thorold for the prowess he displayed on Tuesday afternoon at Lucan. However, I am curious to know whether, as a good Socialist, he has had the silver tray melted down and has donated the proceeds to a worthy cause -- maybe the Liberal Party; I do not know.

We were very pleased to have been associated with the honourable member in that very worthwhile endeavour, which I am pleased to report to the House is going extremely well and which is a great tribute to Mr. McNamara and the local organizing committee in Middlesex county.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I guess there is some onus on me to reply. I have to say that the member for Huron-Middlesex was partly right in what he said: they were all nice, straight furrows. But the reason some of the others did not win was that they acted the same there as do politicians in the House: they were not sure where to start and they did not know when to stop.

I might add that I do not intend to melt the tray down; I want to keep it, because there is a good chance I might never get another one. But I would point out to the minister that perhaps I was able to get it because I spent the first 17 years of my life on a farm and had some practice behind the horses. That may stand me in good stead in pitting myself against the minister as agricultural critic, and I will come out on top there too.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we are all very pleased that the member for Welland-Thorold has been so honoured. I am not sure whether it is a reflection on his great skills or --

An hon. member: Or the lack among the others.

Mr. Speaker: Right. However, if we need any ploughing done, we know where to get it.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there are other explanations for the win by the honourable member. Some speculated that it was because he used his head at the front point on the plough that he won it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TREATMENT OF RAPE VICTIMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody important here. But I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice, in the absence of everyone else involved in that field.

I am sure the minister is aware of the reports in the papers today about the very upsetting news from Humber Memorial Hospital that a doctor apparently refused to proceed with haste in looking after a rape victim there.

Why is it that the ministers involved in these kinds of things wring their hands after the fact, when it was common knowledge both to the police and to people at rape crisis centres, indeed to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), that this kind of discriminatory practice was going on? Why do we always have to solve these problems after the fact? Apparently there now are two investigations, one called by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and one by the Attorney General. Why is the government always so slow to act in these matters?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, actually the Provincial Secretariat for Justice and the Ministry of the Attorney General have not been slow to act in terms of showing some leadership in dealing with this very heinous crime. As I indicated in the estimates last spring, the Provincial Secretariat for Justice implemented a rape crisis evidence kit which assists hospitals and doctors in collecting the necessary evidence for a rape crisis case.

We have experienced some difficulty with some hospitals and some doctors in terms of their attitudes in complying with the use of the kit and in providing the necessary examinations after such a crime has taken place.

We have undertaken a number of efforts to educate the various hospitals in the use of this kit. We have done a number of other things. We have produced a booklet on how to handle this matter. We also have funded rape crisis centres for the past three years, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, in terms of dealing with this very delicate matter.

However, we cannot change the attitudes of all the people involved with delivering the service. We are doing everything through education that we feel we possibly can at this time.

As the honourable member knows, there is a statutory obligation for hospitals to provide medical service to people who come to the hospital. I am sure this will be considered in the investigation that has been undertaken by the Attorney General.

Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the minister's long speech, but it had nothing to do with my question.

I gather from press reports the reality is that it has been common knowledge that this kind of delay has been going on in certain hospitals. I will quote, if I may, Sergeant John Stoneman, who is handling the rape investigation. He said yesterday, "Humber has a reputation for turning away rape victims."

Dr. Jack Walters, a leading advocate of the establishment of rape crisis centres in Ontario hospitals, said, "Incidents are common and will continue unless something is done."

The Attorney General himself told reporters, "Over the years I think we have heard reports to the effect that hospitals aren't enthusiastic about the treatment of victims of sexual abuse." Indeed, the minister's predecessor in his office acknowledged in Hansard in 1981, I believe, that there was a problem in that a number of hospitals were not taking advantage of the kits they had or were not moving with dispatch and the ministry was not getting the kind of co-operation it needed to make them effective.

The minister does have the power under the Criminal Code to force people to comply. Why are we discussing this issue today? Why has the minister not moved on it before? Why has he not mobilized the various authorities under his jurisdiction to make sure this never should have happened and never should happen again?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not think it matters how many rules we make or what resources we provide to handle this situation. We cannot control what the response might be in a particular situation in any emergency department anywhere in this province. It depends on the attitudes of the individuals involved. It also depends on the work load of the emergency department at the time the victim approaches it. I understand the emergency department was very busy at that time.

We can try as we might, and we intend to try, to improve the process, but we cannot necessarily change the attitudes of everyone who is dealing with this crime.

I do not accept for a minute the rejection of this woman for treatment at Humber Memorial Hospital. I understand the hospital has made a very positive statement today about treating rape victims in the future. That, of course, is why the Attorney General and the Minister of Health have undertaken inquiries into this case.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would be interested to know that our health researcher spoke to the staff of the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre today and was advised by the staff of that centre that every single hospital in Toronto on at least one occasion has had a doctor refuse to complete the kit to provide medical treatment to a rape victim and that, in the experience of the staff of the centre, the shortest wait by a rape victim for medical treatment in a hospital is two hours and more frequently is four to five hours.

Will the minister not agree that we are not dealing with an isolated incident and that it will do no good to make a scapegoat of a particular doctor at a particular hospital? Why does he not sit down with his colleagues and develop a number of specialized rape crisis treatment facilities in specific hospitals around this province?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that there are numerous problems around Toronto in relation to this matter. I do know that the sexual evidence kit has been used in 500 or 600 cases since it was instituted. In general, it is used to a very great extent not only by the hospitals in our province but also in many other provinces where they are looking at it in terms of a precedent to deal with this very difficult problem.

The exclusion of the use of the kit does not necessarily mean that a victim is not dealt with properly. I am sure there are some doctors who would prefer to do their own examination, who have experience with this kind of matter and who can do just as good a job without the use of the kit.

My ministry is in constant communication with the rape crisis centre. I certainly would be glad to receive from them the documented cases they refer to.

Mr. Breithhaupt: Mr. Speaker, will the Provincial Secretary for Justice commit the government now to a policy statement in this House, with the Minister of Health and the Attorney General, to make the intentions of this Legislature quite clear, in matters such as this, as to what the responsibilities of the hospitals are in dealing with these matters? In that way the public would know that we are serious about this matter and that this kind of approach, which apparently has been somewhat haphazard over these past several years, must not be allowed to happen again.

We consider this to be a very serious matter and that both the Minister of Health and the Attorney General are extremely upset by this example. I do not know all the legislative changes that would be necessary to enforce an apparent serious attitude towards the treatment of a victim in these cases.

I do not know whether the present health legislation already covers that matter. We have not had a prosecution relating to this kind of matter. Maybe out of this case there will be a prosecution. That will come only after the results of an investigation, of course.

We will certainly look at the matter, and I will discuss it with the Attorney General and the Minister of Health as to whether additional safeguards of the rights of a victim in a case of this nature need to be enshrined in legislation.

2:20 p.m.

OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. We have had some discussion in this House about Ontario health insurance plan fees and their inclusion in Bill 179. The Treasurer has been asked this question before, but he has never answered it.

I want to ask a very clear question today. Are OHIP fees to be included as administered prices?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, OHIP fees are not an administered price.

Mr. Peterson: Can the Treasurer tell me which section of the bill excludes it and why it is not included? I ask that because even a very simple reading of the legislation, let alone a profound reading, would indicate its inclusion by any definition the Treasurer or I, or any lawyer, could devise.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The advice I was given was that it is a price negotiated for a service or product, the same as any other service or product purchased by government.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question twice already; both times the Treasurer said he did not know. I would like the Treasurer to explain in a rational manner how it is that OHIP fees and the OHIP fee schedule can be excluded from the definition of "administered price," when there is no exemption clause and the bill clearly says: "'Administered price' means…price, user charge or fee required, permitted or authorized by a public regulatory agency" -- such as OHIP, I add in parenthesis -- "to be charged by another person" -- such as a doctor, I also add in parenthesis.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the prices referred to are those that come before a board such as the Ontario Energy Board and the Ontario Highway Transport Board. These do not.

Mr. Peterson: Under the bill, an administered price is "a price, user charge or fee charged by a public agency ... established or controlled by the crown in right of Ontario, which provides any product or service for which a price, user charge or fee is charged." Very clearly, by the wording, this qualifies.

The Treasurer is destroying the efficacy of his own program right off the bat. It falls within the so-called administered price period. Why is this not being included? Why is he trying to ruin the program before it even starts?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I understand the thrust of the question, the Leader of the Opposition is saying that physicians are a public agency. They are not.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware that Consumers' Gas, whose disposable revenue went up by 35 per cent last year, has now placed before the Ontario Energy Board an application which, after taking into account the so-called restraint programs of both the federal and provincial governments, has not reduced the company's profit at all?

How is it that when the company plans to hold its employees to the wages the government dictates, natural gas consumers will pay 17.8 per cent more and the company will not lose a penny? Does the minister not think Consumers' Gas should be taking less out of the economy too, or otherwise they should change their name to "the Corporate Gas Company"?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is making reference to an application that is currently before the board, as I assume he is, the board will deal with that matter. The board already has been advised that the inflation restraint program applies as it deals with administered prices, and it will impose on any application the regulations we have been discussing in this House. It will deal with that in due course.

Mr. Foulds: How then does the minister explain to the workers on whom he has slapped a five per cent ceiling the fact that Consumers' Gas can pass through not only costs incurred because of the national energy program, the wellhead price and all that, but also its wages and a component for profit?

Does the minister not find it inconsistent that his cabinet approved last year's five per cent increase just four days before he came into this Legislature and asked for controls on wages? Does he not think that is inconsistent?

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I caution everybody in the public galleries that demonstrations are not allowed. I have to tell you all that if another outburst or any kind of demonstration takes place, I shall have to clear the galleries completely.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member does not really do the House a service by confusing two separate matters.

The very last matter was an application heard by the board dealing with a previous application, which members of his caucus appealed and to which this legislation had no application. The review of the matter resulted in that outcome. The matter had been before cabinet for a long time. The member knows that.

To prejudge what the Ontario Energy Board is going to do with respect to the first part is not really being very fair either. I have already pointed out, as has the Premier (Mr. Davis) on several occasions, that the compensation and net income restraints will be applied by the Ontario Energy Board. There will be certain costs, over which we have no control by virtue of the Canada-Alberta agreement, which the board will allow to pass through. In so far as it applies to compensation and net income, that applies and the Ontario Energy Board will make that application during the hearing to which the member has made reference.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, because of his portfolio, the minister must realize that during the past two years the percentage increase to the distributors has been greater than the increase in the cost of gas and taxes combined. He must know that the net income to the company went up in the past two years from $85 million to $157 million. He must also know that customers on equal billing in this province have just received notice that their rates are going up by some 18 to 20 per cent in September for this coming year.

There is plenty of fat there. Does he not realize that the refusal of his government to freeze the amount that Consumers' Gas is going to get makes a mockery of the government's proposed plan to limit prices under Bill 179?

Does he not realize that the bill is nothing more than a public wage control measure?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows what has already been said several times, that the intent of this legislation, in so far as the natural gas companies are concerned, is to deal with the compensation and net income packages. The member knows that a substantial portion of the gas bills which I pay and we all pay is beyond the control of the natural gas company by virtue of the agreements that have been signed. In so far as it falls within the jurisdiction of this province, these companies will be restrained consistent with the intent of this legislation.

Mr. Foulds: The intent is uneven, is it not?

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour about equal pay?

Does the minister remember telling the House on March 19, 1982: "There are some circumstances that are genuinely unfair to women in this province, and there is a great deal that has to be done. Certainly one of my objectives is to try to work towards a strengthening of our current equal pay laws"?

Is the minister aware that the wage control package in Bill 179 actually takes away advances towards equal pay for 15,000 female employees by rolling back the contract the government has already negotiated and signed with its office and clerical workers?

2:30 p.m.

[Interruption.]

An hon. member: Throw them out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The north end of both the east and west galleries will have to be cleared immediately.

An hon. member: Adjourn the House.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You should be satisfied, you fellows.

Mr. Mackenzie: You should be satisfied; yours is the most dangerous government this province has ever seen.

Mr. Speaker: I think that was misunderstood. I said the north section of both the east and west galleries, not the south section, must be cleared. The school children may remain in their seats.

Mr. Cassidy: But the people affected may not remain.

Mr. Speaker: I see that.

Mr. Cassidy: You talk about their rights and kick them out at the same time.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously, we are going to have to clear the whole gallery.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Mackenzie: You're sick; what you are doing to democracy in this province.

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order. Sit down. Order. The whole of the galleries are going to have to be vacated -- everybody in the public galleries.

Mr. Cassidy: Free unions are okay in Poland but not in Ontario.

Mr. Mackenzie: It's a pretty sad day.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, when the legislation was introduced, I particularly --

Mr. Laughren: Shame on you, Russ, you should resign.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: What did I have to do with it?

Mr. Mackenzie: You are a member of the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just address yourself to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, when the legislation was introduced, I looked at that particular section. I had the section studied by members of our ministry and we felt that there was no problem as far as the equal pay regulations in the legislation were concerned.

Mr. Foulds: Surely the minister is aware that in the civil service women earn roughly 72 per cent of the salaries of men in the civil service and that when the government signed the contract of 11 per cent for clerical workers and 11.12 per cent for office workers, the majority of those workers overwhelmingly being women, 15,000 out of the 17,000 in the category, it was as a small step to give those underpaid categories some marginal gains and some gains for women? The government legislation now is taking away up to $1,000 from those agreements already signed for each worker. How can the minister, who is responsible for the equal pay provisions and for the equal pay idea, support this legislation? What did he do and what is he prepared to do to defend women's wages and these workers' wages?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I indicated earlier, I looked at the legislation and had it studied and I could not see a problem. The honourable member is bringing to me what he perceives to be a problem. I indicated that I did not perceive any problem, but I will be happy to look at it in the context of what he has brought forward today.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, if the minister understood that the average salary of women in the public service in 1981 was just 72 per cent of that of men, this would surely have led him to the conclusion that in bringing in the restraint legislation, if he had allowed for sharper notching, rather than the very tragic joke of notching that is up to about one per cent over the five per cent, he could have brought in equity for all of the lower-paid groups, but, most particularly, equity for the lower-paid female civil servants, and thereby brought about a little more of a movement towards equal pay for both sexes.

Why did he not recommend to the cabinet that this be done? Why did he not stand firm in arguing that sharper notching be allowed to exist?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, when I studied the legislation on the basis of how it would affect the current equal pay legislation that we have in this Legislature, as far as I and my people could determine, it would not affect that legislation.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the women in the gallery have told the minister there is a problem, even though he says there is no problem, and they have told him in a very clear way. There is no need to tell the minister that this legislation is freezing any move towards closing the gap or providing remedial action, because that is going to be the effect of it. I would ask the minister, when awards are made under the equal pay legislation, which he prefers to a proper law of equal pay for work of equal value, to overcome situations where there has been discrimination against women, will those awards be restricted by this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with question period, I would inform the House that I am going to add five minutes to the total time to compensate for the disturbance.

SACRE COEUR SCHOOL RENOVATIONS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. It concerns the situation at Sacré Coeur school in Bourget and the report of a public inspection panel which stated that the basement of that school was extremely dangerous and that the classrooms could be described as death-traps.

Is the minister aware that last week, the parents of the children attending Sacré Coeur school gave her an ultimatum to announce major renovations on or by September 24? Is she further aware that on September 27 they boycotted the school until yesterday, at which time we had a meeting and subsequently decided in good faith to send the children back to school this morning? If the minister is aware of that, will she demonstrate the same good faith and now announce the renovations necessary to make that school safe for those children will be undertaken?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I really thought the honourable member had been around long enough to understand that the responsibility for providing school facilities rests with boards of education. It does not rest primarily with the ministry.

I would like the member to know that on at least a dozen occasions over the last 10 years that board has been informed that the one area, and the only one in that school, which is at fault in terms of child safety is the basement, because of some exposed wiring, and that it would be wise if that board were to correct that.

The board was informed again, as a result of the visit of our own director of architectural services in August, that that was what was required and they should immediately contact the fire marshal to have him look at it again and give his opinion. The board had not done that by September 20, therefore the director of architectural services contacted the fire marshal himself. That inspection is proceeding. On September 20, the board sent a letter to the fire marshal. That had already been done by the director of architectural services as well.

That report will be in the hands of the board within the next few days. I hope it will be not more than two weeks. It is then up to the board of Prescott-Russell to enclose or repair that situation. The remainder of the school is totally safe for the children.

If there is a problem of accommodation, that board has other facilities it might use for temporary purposes to take those children out of the basement, if they are using the basement at the present time, because that school is at this time 68 per cent occupied.

[Applause.]

Mr. Boudria: Before the members over there applaud, they should listen to the rest of this.

There are no other restroom facilities in that school. Would the minister suggest that we provide them with Johnny-on-the-spot facilities while they make renovations to that place? The basement is five feet high. There are no fire exits in the place. There are classrooms with entrances but no exits, and washrooms with no sinks. How does the minister think we are going to solve that situation by covering up a few wires?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are no classrooms in the basement. If that board is using the basement for classrooms, I would like to suggest to the member that the board does not need to use the basement for classrooms. It can most readily rearrange schedules to accommodate all of those children and there are temporary services that might be made available to the children for washroom purposes until the work is carried out.

It is not because the ministry has not been aware of the problem. The ministry has been informing the board for more than 10 years that there was a problem. It is time that board took action.

NIAGARA NURSES' DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I am sure the minister is aware of the comments of Mr. Arkell of Grimsby, the head of the Niagara Regional Area Health Unit, that if the striking public health nurses are not back at work tomorrow they will be fired.

Since this is clearly and patently an illegal threat, can the minister tell us what steps he has taken to ensure Mr. Arkell is forced to retract this direct threat against these nurses, who are among the lowest-paid women in Ontario in the public health sector, or is the minister now totally impotent in his ministry as Minister of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I missed the last part of the comment.

Mr. Speaker: It is a question, not a comment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Have you any authority left?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for three years.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have never once hooted or hollered at those monkeys across the way.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: "Monkey" is the right word.

Mr. Martel: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I just want to make an observation before you do.

Mr. Martel: You make your observation.

Mr. McClellan: It will be interesting to see what your observation will be.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I would suggest to the Minister of Labour that he may want to reconsider his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. The remark was uncalled for, but I just want to make a further comment. As I said, I have not made any interjections. I have treated each one of those people with the greatest of respect, and I just cannot understand why it is not reciprocated on one or two occasions.

Mr. Riddell: I liked your first statement better.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: The coalition seems to be working, and I would much rather be called a monkey than be the insensitive --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: -- kind of person we have in labour relations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the member for Hamilton East with a supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that not one part of the question I asked was answered by the Minister of Labour, but I will ask a supplementary as well, and maybe he will have the courage to answer both of them.

Does the minister not now recognize the poisonous atmosphere that this control bill of his is creating with these public health nurses, who, as I said, are among the lowest-paid in Ontario and who have been on strike since May? Does he consider it fair that they are now to be forced back, retroactively really, at substandard and unfair rates? Where is the fairness in that? Even a monkey understands fairness. Why does the minister not understand?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member is assuming that I do not understand fairness and that I am insensitive, and I totally reject those accusations. The honourable members opposite do not have a monopoly on sensitivity, they do not have a monopoly on concern and they do not have a monopoly on care for the people of this province. I know the members opposite are sincere; they do have concern, but there is concern also on this side and over on that side as well.

Mr. Speaker: Direct your remarks to the question, please.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall the previous remarks of the same gentleman from Grimsby, who said that the public health nurses in Niagara do not provide an essential service. I think the minister will agree with me that they were uncalled-for remarks and not productive in the negotiating process.

Has the minister consulted with, or will he consult with, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to check on the legality of the remark Mr. Arkell is making, albeit he says it is his own personal opinion? There are many in the legal profession who would say that this claim is hollow and that until such time as legislation is passed in this House those people are not illegally on strike.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do just that. I see nothing wrong with that at all. The whole matter has certainly dragged on too long. If there is a feeling of bad-faith bargaining, and obviously there is, on behalf of the nurses involved, I really would recommend that they address that particular issue and take it to the appropriate forum, which is the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

TECHNOLOGY CENTRES

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) on high technology. A recent article in the Toronto Star makes reference to a federal task force on high technology and indicates that one of the recommendations could be to establish a technology centre on microelectronics. I wonder if the minister could give us some insight into this. Could he tell us what he knows about this report and possibly tell us where Ontario stands with its own program for high technology?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I believe that was a federal report that was ultimately released to the media in advance of being submitted officially to the department of labour. It is rather interesting that they are finally beginning to recognize there is a need to be involved in the microelectronics industry.

While they are doing an awful lot of talking about it, I think it is fair to say this province has made some very important strides in the microelectronics industry. Instead of talking about it, we are doing something about it. The microelectronics industry has a technology centre worth several million dollars that already has been established and is functioning out of Ottawa. I think the members from Ottawa would appreciate the value that will be to the Ottawa Valley -- to the so-called Silicon Valley.

It is an indication some very important strides are being taken in the microelectronics industry. That is likely to be an industry that will produce tens of thousands of jobs in the next few years alone in the Ottawa area. It think that is something that should be supported a great deal.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to follow that through, if I could. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association made reference in today's Toronto Star to having a special session on "competing in the global village" during its annual meeting. I would like to know if the minister could tie this whole subject of microelectronics and high technology together. What are we doing to support the export of these services outside of our own province and country?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The six technology centres which will be onstream by the first of the year in Ontario and will touch on something like 90 per cent of the industry we have in this province will allow the small to medium-sized businesses to get into the export business and become those kinds of industries that will be competitive and truly export-oriented. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that if we do not get into this area much more heavily, the prediction of the CMA president will come true -- that the war will be lost. I would echo the comments that he is making in that respect.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the dissertation from the minister, I can only ask him: "Gordie, what would we do in Ontario without you?"

Mr. Speaker: Is that the supplementary?

Mr. Roy: No, no, the second supplementary is simply this: After patting himself on the back -- as he has during the question from his colleague on that side -- I wonder if he could react to a statement made by a gentleman whom I am sure all members would consider to be objective. In fact he is a former potential Tory candidate, the regional chairman for Ottawa-Carleton, Andy Haydon. He said Ontario was "foot-dragging on its micro centre." What reaction does the minister have to that statement the regional chairman made only in May? He did not seem to be so much in love with the members opposite as obviously they are.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It is amazing how his love seems to have changed. I am sure he would be the first to turn up at the door of the microelectronics centre, which is open today and serving the public, and discover that we are not dragging our feet. In fact, we are going at breakneck speed.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House -- since the federal committee is recommending that there should be some specific concern about the social and economic impact of microelectronics on our economy, particularly in the work place -- what steps the Ontario government is prepared to take in that area, which up until now has been totally ignored by the government?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are certainly not ignoring it; indeed, we are taking that into account. It is my intention, when the final boards are established -- and the microelectronics board is not far from being announced to the House -- that the final board will have labour representation on it. I think that will take into account precisely what the member is saying.

With respect to the auto parts technology centre and the advisory board I have established which provides me with advice on the five-year plan we have had presented to us in draft form this morning, that advisory board has on it Robert White of the United Auto Workers, who has agreed to serve. I think that is a very important addition to it.

I intend to see each of the technology-centre boards have a significant component of labour which will make sure that very aspect is considered at all steps through the process.

TREATMENT OF RAPE VICTIMS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Provincial Secretary for Justice in an effort to ensure the Humber Memorial Hospital horror story is not repeated. I believe the minister's concern about attitudes and work load is very admirable, but I would like to know what directives this government has issued to police forces across Ontario to force doctors to administer immediate tests of rape victims. Are these directives being followed across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have to refer that question to the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) who unfortunately is not here today. He happens to be in a hospital having an operation on an old football injury.

Mr. Martel: Another one?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Have they found the football yet?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not know whether there is anything within the jurisdiction of our present legislation under the Police Act to force police officers to do this or that in terms of duty or what they might do. They do not perform the medical examination. It is in their interest that it be done as quickly as possible. They attempt to work as closely as they can with various hospitals to have the examination done as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. They are very supportive of the rape evidence kit which has been supplied to all the hospitals.

Again, it deals with a matter of the police being fully supportive of having that kind of action taken as quickly as possible. I do not think that is the problem we are faced with.

Ms. Copps: If that is not the problem, can the minister explain why the director of nursing in an Ottawa area hospital this morning confirmed that some rape victims who come to that hospital are transferred without any testing whatsoever? In her own words, "It depends on the doctor and it depends on the police officer."

In fact, the sexual assault centre in this area responsible for referring women did not even know this hospital had a rape kit so there obviously seems to be a problem. Will the minister pass along to the Solicitor General our concern that a directive be issued immediately for all police forces across Ontario to force doctors to test victims immediately upon their arrival at hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I will pass along to the Solicitor General the member's concerns as to how she feels about this matter and in terms of trying to improve the system. I do not know whether the phrase the member used of forcing people to do things will actually work out in the end. We are interested in seeing the matter is remedied. We have been working very hard to seek that remedy in the past and will continue to do so.

ASSESSMENT OF HOMES WITH UFFI

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue. It concerns the assessment of homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The minister will know it is only a short time until the property assessment for 1983 taxes will be finished and the rolls closed.

For some time, the minister has had at his disposal the results of about 35 assessment review courts which, with the exception of the first few, uniformly reduced the assessment of homes with UFFI by 75 per cent where the owners had appealed. Will he today tell this House and the owners of homes with UFFI whether he is now going to follow through with the decision of the courts and reduce the assessment of these homes by 75 per cent this year for next year's taxes? Also, will he tell us what steps he is taking to locate all such homes so they can have this appropriate reduction?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, we are analysing all the results brought forward to date by the assessment review court procedure. For the past year we also have been accumulating and are in course of analysing all the sales of properties that had urea formaldehyde foam insulation installed in all or part of the building.

3 p.m.

With the correlation of these two sets of statistics, I would hope that later this fall, in time for the return of the 1982 assessment rolls for 1983 taxation, we will be able to formulate a policy that will have some application throughout the province for next year's taxes. They will not necessarily be to go along with the decisions as brought down by the assessment review court, I might say at this time. They may or may not be. Part of the investigation is to be fair not only to the home owners but also to the property tax base of the respective municipalities in question, and we do have a responsibility there as well.

We are not making any additional attempts to try to identify these properties. I think the press and the issue itself have made people aware of it. I suggest that not all home owners know that they have it even if they do. I feel -- I have only suspicions of this and acknowledge that in advance -- there are homes that have UFFI but the people do not want to acknowledge they have it. They are quite prepared to live there, they are having no problems, and they do not want it identified in a public way.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, from what the minister has said, it appears he is not going to give the 75 per cent uniform reduction, as the courts have ruled this year. My supplementary to the minister is, how can he say he is not making any particular attempt to identify homes that have urea formaldehyde foam insulation when only some 4,000 this last year appealed, when in fact the Ministry of Health has had requests from 9,300 people for tests? That is over 5,000 more who wanted the tests who are not afraid to identify their homes.

Does he not realize that if he does not locate these by the simple procedure of sending out a questionnaire or having these homes visited, one half or two thirds or three quarters of all the people who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation are not going to get the automatic reduction the government is required to give if the value of the home is reduced?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The honourable member has reached a very simplistic conclusion based on the inappropriate set of statistics and facts at his disposal, which is not unusual for that member. In fact there has been a series of decisions by the court. Also, all thinking members in this House would agree that the best guideline as to the change in value of properties is how they are affected in the marketplace, and that will form part of the decision and the policy that will come out of the Ministry of Revenue.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether, when the legislative changes are made, they will contain such changes as to reduce the assessment of urea formaldehyde homes dating back from December 18, 1980? Presumably that is the date on which it was banned and therefore the date when the property value was lowered. This is what I proposed in Bill 102 which I introduced in the Legislature on May 6.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, it will not.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade in respect to an announcement concerning a Mississauga firm that received a contract award for a helicopter system for export to the United States. I wonder if the minister can elaborate on the number of jobs that were involved in that award and the types of jobs.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is another one of the great firsts that are happening. We are getting some very important contracts that are coming from the US government for defence purposes. When the sales occur to the US government they usually lead to much greater export on a world-wide basis.

This case was a $52-million deal for a helicopter recovery system with respect to destroyers at sea. That deal will create something like 100 new jobs in the riding of Mississauga North. I think that is going to be of some value to that member.

The member should realize there was inspiration in this case. My colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) has indicated some participation, I think to the tune of $800,000 for research and development in this area.

Mr. J. A. Reed: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: It has always been my understanding that question period was to be used to address matters of urgent public importance. It would seem to me a question like that is more in line with a self-congratulatory commercial. I would suggest the Speaker be aware of just what these questions and answers are. If I were he, I would not permit it.

Mr. Speaker: If I were to apply standing order 27(a) in its strictest sense, there would be very few questions allowed in this House. Based on tradition and precedent and historic reference, if you will, the people on this side of the House have as much right to ask a question as people on the other side.

Hon. Mr. Walker: If I may finish my response, I am interested to realize the member is against jobs in the riding of Mississauga North.

Mr. Speaker: I could have sworn the minister was finished his response.

Hon. Mr. Walker: This will certainly create new jobs. Not only that, to talk about urgent public importance, there was another one this morning that saw Nabu in Ottawa selling to the People's Republic of China. So there is another deal.

Mr. J. A. Reed: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has somehow managed to indicate I was not interested in jobs. I would point out that the jobs connected with this question are already in place. There is no question that can be asked in this House that will change that.

Mr. Speaker: Just to indicate how fair I am, I allowed that point of privilege, which in fact was not a point of privilege.

GOLDMAN CASE

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Attorney General in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). The Attorney General is undoubtedly aware of the recent acquittal of Mr. Goldman on a drug possession charge. Undoubtedly he is appalled by the observations of the trial judge concerning the behaviour of the police officers during the trial in their efforts to improve their evidence by fabrication.

His Honour Judge O'Connell stated: "When they" -- the police officers -- "realized the position they were in, they proceeded to make notes unrelated to the events as to chronology, but for the express purpose of making it appear from the actions alleged that Mr. Goldman knew what was in the trunk of the car. There were discrepancies not only in the testimony between the officers but also in testimony given at the trial and at the preliminary hearings."

Does the Attorney General, in conjunction with the Solicitor General, intend to act on this unequivocal statement by His Honour Judge O'Connell? Will he urge his colleagues, the Solicitor General and the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling), to commence disciplinary hearings and to lay charges if appropriate?

Will he state clearly to police forces in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere that officers of the law in this province will not be permitted to engage in such behaviour, and that if they do so they will be subject to the discipline of their professional bodies and to criminal prosecution under the law?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have read press reports, probably the same press report the honourable member has read. I will certainly be prepared to discuss the admittedly very disturbing comments of the trial judge with the Solicitor General. Through him, we will report back to the Legislature on these comments.

Mr. Spensieri: The remarks of the trial judge were described in that same press statement as the strongest statements yet as to collaboration, possible collusion and fabrication among police officers.

Is the minister not concerned that these revelations, following as they do in the wake of the Proverbs incident along with the many incidents involving the police last year, are cumulatively undermining public faith in the administration of justice? Will the Attorney General indicate to us whether or not there is a secret report of the Justice secretariat admitting to this very sad state of affairs? Will he undertake to table the report for the benefit of all members of this assembly?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can assure the honourable member that if there were such a report I am sure it would have come to my attention and I know of no such report. The member is quite correct when he says statements attributed to the trial judge -- I have not actually seen the transcript and I would like to -- have the potential to undermine seriously the confidence of the public in the police. I share his concerns and I will be discussing the matter with the Solicitor General.

FUNDING FOR RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Justice. When the secretary is talking to the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) about the rape tests we have just been discussing, will he also raise with him the absolute necessity of increasing the funding for rape crisis centres across this province, and particularly for the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre which is about to close its doors? Many others are in similar situations. Will the provincial secretary arrange for the funding for these centres to be increased?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I intend to discuss this matter with all of the Justice ministries, which all contribute towards rape crisis funding at the present time. I have heard from some of the rape crisis centres that they need not only to obtain additional funding but to sustain their present funding which I believe terminates at the end of this fiscal year.

We are at present reviewing the function and the agreements we have with the rape crisis coalition. I will be raising that not only with the Solicitor General but also with the Attorney General and the Minister for Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk), who all contribute to that funding at this time.

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister not aware these rape crisis centres in effect perform functions which our public hospitals, emergency departments and legal aid are not able to perform in the same way? It is an essential service which all of these ministries are benefiting from and they are benefiting from it at extremely low allotments to the people who are providing this service. Will the minister make a commitment that there will be substantially increased funding in the next budget?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: As I mentioned in my first answer, I only represent part of the funding formula and cannot commit my fellow ministers to the additional funding until we have a chance to discuss it. However, I do not believe there would be a reluctance on the part of the ministers to continue to help in this area. I know what they are doing and we are very concerned about the ending of this service to the community.

VISITOR

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the members of this House would want to know that we have in our gallery today the federal member for Welland, Mr. Gilbert A. Parent, and his wife Joan. Mr. Parent is also the chairman of the Liberal caucus in Ottawa. When I was talking to him a moment ago he made the comment to me that he wanted to come here and see how we perform so he would feel good when he got back to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. We are very pleased to welcome the honourable member to the senior level, shall we say.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He lives in Brock riding.

Mr. Speaker: He lives in Brock riding, I understand.

PETITION

NIAGARA NURSES' DISPUTE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition relative to the public health nurses.

After pointing out in the petition that the Niagara regional public health nurses have been on strike since May 3; that the public health nurses have been treated in a high-handed and arrogant manner by this board of health at the expense of the public; that they serve senior citizens, school children, new mothers, psychiatric patients, etc., and that the management of that health unit are among the highest-paid in the province while its public health nurses are the lowest-paid, the petitioners say:

"We, the undersigned, request that in all due fairness to the public and its nurses the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour intervene in this strike to stop the irresponsible treatment of the public health service by the Niagara regional board of health. Furthermore, we request that these nurses be paid salaries which recognize their education and their contribution to the community and which are equitable in relation to other nurses in this region."

These were signed before the recent bill was introduced. They certainly have even more application at the present time.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to sit Wednesday, October 6, 1982, to consider Bill 138, An Act respecting the Protection of the Health of the Public.

Motion agreed to.

ADMISSION TO PUBLIC GALLERY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wish you would inform the members when you plan to reopen the public galleries.

Mr. Speaker: I have given instructions to keep them closed until the resumption of the evening sitting at eight o'clock.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: While it is within your competence as Speaker to make such a ruling, I would ask you to reconsider it very seriously. The debate that is taking place this afternoon is on a bill that affects hundreds of thousands of public servants and people in the parapublic sector across Ontario. Surely we in this House should be able to debate these matters and at the same time allow people who are affected, and who do not have political rights in many cases, at least to have the right to observe what is going on in this chamber.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, at least as much to the point is the fact that I am speaking this afternoon, and I think the galleries should be open.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very persuasive argument; in fact, that is the best I have heard yet.

If I may be serious just for a moment, I sympathize with the point that was raised by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), but in fact I think I was extremely fair with the people in the gallery. I pointed out to them I would not allow any demonstrations of any kind; then, of course, they persisted, and the galleries had to be cleared. I regret that very much, but I think I have to abide by my original decision: The gallery will remain closed until 8 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you only said that gallery; you did not mention this one, and you cleaned both of them out. Now, are you going to allow those people back?

Mr. Speaker: I did. I used the plural, if you had only been listening. Not only have you a sore throat; maybe your ears are affected.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you in the next few moments to reconsider the decision on two grounds: one, there were people who came into the galleries after you had cleared them; two, there have been circumstances where there have been disruptions in the galleries before, and I cannot recall any precedent where the Speaker has cleared the galleries for the entire remainder of that sitting or session.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: That may or may not be. I guess we have created a precedent.

Mr. Foulds: In a democracy I would consider it quite a dangerous precedent because there may be many other people who have come to this building who wish to sit and watch the business who had nothing whatever to do with what happened in the previous incident.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly right and that is the part I regret. Because of the misbehaviour of a few, everybody is penalized.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is worthy of some discussion. I do not know the government's response at this point, and perhaps the government House leader would like to respond, but may I share with you the view of our party having just briefly chatted with some of my own colleagues on the benches here.

We think what you did was justified in the circumstances but was an extraordinary action. There is no reason to clear out the galleries for some three or four hours. As was pointed out by my colleague, there may be other people who want to hear the debate this afternoon, because it is, like all debates in this House, very important.

It is important too that you, and we, do not overreact in the circumstance. Frankly, in our judgement there probably was a slight overreaction. I would suggest the gallery be opened again. You can always exercise the power you have to clear the gallery. It is to be hoped the offending persons will be sufficiently chastened so it will not go on again.

No one in this House encouraged that demonstration. There is no suggestion they did. Our own judgement would be, if we could assist you in forming your opinion on this matter, that it would be appropriate to open the gallery at this time and proceed in the normal course.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if I might just further the points of the Leader of the Opposition with which I am in agreement, a group of people came in subsequent to the galleries being closed and they did behave themselves and there were no demonstrations. I do not know why they left or what the circumstances were --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Boredom.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It could have been boredom. But I would suggest you do have the power to close the galleries again if there is another demonstration. We have had an example that people have come in without any problems and I would suggest that we open them again. We have people here who are guests who have not been misbehaving.

Mr. Speaker: My information is -- and I do not think all honourable members are aware -- that there was a rather serious altercation which took place in the corridors on the third floor. Whether there is a demonstration in this chamber, or in this building, no demonstrations are allowed inside the doors of this building. It was of a serious enough nature that I made the decision to close the public galleries until 8 p.m. and I am going to stick with that decision.

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. Piché: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday evening when the House adjourned, I was unable, thanks to the frequent enthusiastic interjections of the members opposite, whose encouragement and support I greatly appreciated, to complete my remarks on the inflation restraint program. I will endeavour to make my concluding remarks as brief as possible.

I have attempted to impress upon the members that restraint means different things in the north than in the south. As a result of restraint priorities, the people of the north must forgo an improvement to the air ambulance service which is so vital in providing access to health care and services.

Mr. Boudria: So you want to buy another jet?

Mr. Piché: Yes.

As I indicated, we accept this because we realize that failure to adopt a restraint program at this time would compromise the government's ability to maintain and deliver existing services and programs. I concluded my remarks on Tuesday evening by urging the Premier (Mr. Davis) to reject the alternative policies being pressed upon him by the opposition. I said I believed those policies to be dangerously shortsighted.

During the course of this debate, much has been said about the need to create jobs. I have not heard anyone argue against the fact that job creation should be a priority. In fact, I believe I heard the Premier say that sustaining and creating employment should continue to be this nation's highest priority. There is no argument, then, on this point.

We differ on means, not ends. Some members advocate policies that I believe are essentially temporary relief. Were we to follow their advice we would find ourselves faced with the same problems in the not too distant future.

This government with this restraint program is attempting to create jobs. We have also, through programs I discussed earlier, created jobs. More important, through the restraint program and through its May budget this government is attempting to establish a positive climate for real economic growth. Only by helping revitalize the private sector can this House guarantee secure employment and job opportunities for the people of Ontario.

The current recession has taught us in northern Ontario a very hard lesson. We are now painfully aware of just how vulnerable our resource-based economy is to the fluctuations of the international market. The restraint program cannot alleviate, nor is it designed to alleviate, the difficulties that attend this condition. However, I believe this problem must be addressed if we are ever to have stable and sustained economic growth in the north. With this in mind, and speaking as a representative of northern Ontario, I caution my colleagues not to lose sight of the fact that this program can be one element, and an important one, in a comprehensive policy for economic recovery.

I would impress upon the House the need to continue to explore and develop strategies for the economic diversification of the north. I agree with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) that the government's role in northern development must be an active one. We must provide the basic infrastructure necessary for economic development while leaving room for private sector initiatives. The government's inflation restraint program will assist this effort by helping to restore private sector confidence.

I have addressed only a few of the issues that I believe are of paramount importance to the people of northern Ontario. I am sure those topics will be well covered, and we have heard much about them already. I wanted to ensure that the interests and aspirations of the people of Ontario, especially northern Ontario, were not forgotten in the course of this debate.

Cochrane North is a long way from Queen's Park, and sometimes I think we are prone to forget that what we do here may affect the lives of people in northern Ontario in ways we do not intend. It is not easy for us to go to them either, and it will be harder now without the jet. I wanted to ensure that the interests of the north were reflected in our deliberations and received the consideration they deserve.

M. le Président, je suis heureux de reprendre la parole aujourd'hui. Je reprends donc les grandes lignes de mon discours de mardi soir sur le programme de restriction budgétaire.

Dans le cadre de cette restriction, le Premier ministre a cru bon de sacrifier l'acquisition du jet Challenger. Cet appareil devait être utilisé également comme ambulance aérienne, s'ajoutant ainsi au systéme qui dessert le nord ontarien depuis juillet 1981.

Donc à cause de la période de restriction budgétaire avec en plus la pression constante faite par l'opposition pour contremander l'achat du Challenger voici qu'encore une fois, les gens du nord seront privés d'un équipement important, sinon vital, pour le transfert d'urgence des patients qui nécessitent des services médicaux non disponibles là où ils se trouvent.

3:30 p.m.

Le Président (M. Cousens): Is the honourable member speaking to Bill 179?

M. Piché: I can assure you that I am, Mr. Speaker.

Même si l'Ontario est le chef de file dans le domaine des services ambulanciers aériens, l'addition du jet aux cinq autres véhicules desservant déjà le nord aurait contribué à améliorer notre système ambulancier.

Face à l'attitude cynique de l'opposition au sujet des intentions du gouvernement ayant trait à l'utilisation de l'avion de Canadair comme ambulance, je dois ajouter qu'ils ont constamment ignoré le potentiel qu'offrait l'appareil comme véhicule d'urgence.

Néanmoins, le gouvernement connaissait à fond les modifications qu'il fallait apporter à l'appareil pour l'utiliser comme ambulance. Le gouvernement comptait ainsi desservir un plus grand nombre de personnes dans la province assurant donc l'optimum de service medical à la population ontarienne.

Certes, le nord de l'Ontario a peut-être perdu une ambulance aérienne, seulement pour une courte période, nous l'espérons, mais nous avons obtenu deux bombardiers d'eau. Ces appareils contribueront à protéger une richesse naturelle d'une grande valeur, ainsi que des emplois dans la région.

Le Premier ministre a affirmé être certain que les habitants du nord de l'Ontario comprendraient qu'il est nécessaire, à l'heure actuelle, d'imposer des restrictions. En tant que citoyen du nord, je peux assurer le Premier ministre que nous comprenons très bien: nous traversons une période où tous les Ontariens doivent faire des sacrifices pour assurer leur prospérité.

L'économie du nord de l'Ontario repose sur la base relativement étroite que constitue l'exploitation des ressources primaires, en particulier les industries minières et forestières. Les employés de ces industries travaillent très fort et apportent une contribution importante au bien-être économique de la province.

La recession mondiale actuelle se traduit par une baisse de la demande et elle a des répercussions néfastes sur la production, le volume des ventes et, par conséquent, l'emploi dans le secteur des richesses naturelles.

Au cours du débat, on a beaucoup parlé des problèmes entrainés par le chômage dans le nord. Je suis certain que nous serions tous ravis si l'Assemblée législative avait le pouvoir de légiférer pour augmenter la demande et permettre aux personnes mises à pied de retourner au travail.

M. Roy: M. le Président, sur un point d'ordre: Je voudrais dire au membre qui parle présentement que ses remarques sont très à propos et on va s'assurer que le Premier ministre a une traduction sur toutes les remarques qui concernaient le jet. Pour cela on va vous assurer qu'il y a une traduction. Mais, malheureusement, même si je trouve son discours fort intéressant, je veux continuer à l'encourager de parler et je lirai chaque mot dans le Hansard.

Le Président: That is not a point of order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Sur le point d'ordre, M. le président: Comme vous le savez ce n'était pas le Parti conservateur qui a changé la politique de ce parti, c'était le Parti libéral qui a demandé la vente du jet.

Le Président: Maintenant, le membre pour Cochrane North.

M. Boudria: And not a moment too soon.

M. Piché: Malheureusement, nous n'avons pas le pouvoir d'exiger de nos clients étrangers et canadiens qu'ils consomment une plus grande quantité de nos ressources.

Cependant, nous pouvons établir des politiques visant a créer un climat qui augmentera la confiance des investisseurs et du monde des affaires et qui, par le fait même, accélérera la reprise économique. Nous pouvons encourager d'autres autorités et agents économiques à agir de la même façon.

Nous pouvons aussi faire ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour amoindrir les effets de la recession sur la population et instaurer des programmes qui aideront les gens jusqu'à ce que nos politiques de relance économique donnent des résultats.

Je crois que le gouvernement a pris toutes ces mesures. On a beaucoup parlé des deux premières mesures, et je ne ferai maintenant qu'une seule observation sur la troisième.

Lorsque nous parlons de moyens de réduire le chômage, nous parlons généralement de création d'emplois. Sur ce point, l'opposition soutient que l'intervention du gouvernement est inadequate.

Bien sûr, je regrette cette affirmation. L'intervention du gouvernement a été dictée par la nécessité d'apporter une aide à court terme sans adopter de politiques qui compromettraient la reprise économique a long terme.

Le gouvernement a introduit des programmes de création d'emplois axés sur les secteurs les plus touchés par le chômage qui offrent en outre les plus grandes possibilités de création directe et indirecte d'emplois. Les cinq programmes spéciaux de création d'emplois des gouvernements fédéral et provincial, qui ont fourni jusqu'à maintenant 31,230 semaines de travail à 2,125 travailleurs mis a pied, présentent un intérêt particulier pour le nord.

Les travailleurs du nord ont aussi bénéficié du programme de stimulation de l'emploi à l'intention des territoires non municipalisés qui sont administrés par le ministère des Affaires du Nord.

Pour terminer, je demanderais instamment au Premier ministre de rejeter les suggestions peu judicieuses de l'opposition. À mon avis, ces messieurs préconisent des politiques qui mettent en danger l'avenir économique de la province. Ils persistent à croire qu'il existe une "solution miracle." La plupart d'entre nous ne partagent pas cette opinion.

J'estime que le programme envisagé de restrictions nous mène dans la bonne direction et qu'il créera les conditions qui non seulement accéléreront la relance économique, mais permettront à l'Ontario d'en profiter pleinement.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, when this debate opened up, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) remarked that he was going to sit through it all; he was going to be here, he was going to listen and, I suppose, respond from time to time. Quite frankly, I did not believe it. I thought before we were finished he would chicken out and say he had had enough. I want to compliment the Treasurer, I really do, for sticking to it.

However, I want to say to the Treasurer and to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), who just spoke, that the whole argument is typical of the problems with this legislation. My colleagues have spoken about it before. The public outside this chamber just do not believe what he is saying to them.

While I support some of the intent of this legislation, while I support what the government is trying to get at under this legislation, or at least making a beginning to get at, I cannot support it the way it is now, and I certainly cannot support it after listening to the member for Cochrane North.

I do not deny for one minute that the member's constituents in northern Ontario have many needs, but I can tell him that a lot of my constituents in southwestern Ontario have needs too. So do a lot of constituents in Metro Toronto and in eastern Ontario. If every one of those needs and wants is met, then we will not have a restraint program.

We do not have a restraint program. That is the whole problem. We have the government bringing forward a piece of legislation and saying it is restraint. Yes, it is restraint on one small group of the public of the province -- but it is not restraint on anyone else.

First and foremost, it is not restraint on the government itself. My colleagues have given ample examples of that. They have talked about the Ministry of Northern Affairs having 42 information people. It was something like that; I forget the exact figure, but it is fantastic. They also talked about the Ministry of Energy -- I notice the minister is not here now -- whose budget increase is something like 194 per cent.

The list goes on and on about what the government is doing. Just a few days ago we had a question in this House about the director of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. spending $120,000 to get facilities at a yacht club. We talked about the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) setting up a new office in Brussels. On and on the list goes.

Is it any wonder that the public outside this Legislature do not believe what the government is saying? Surely one of the purposes in this debate and in the public hearings that will follow this debate is that they are going to have an opportunity to say that to the government face to face.

Therefore, what are we faced with? We are faced with one very small step towards economic recovery in this province. But that is all it is. Let us not kid ourselves that this piece of legislation goes much further than that, because it does not address itself to the real need, which is for an economic recovery program in Ontario. It does not begin to address itself to the restraint on prices paid by all the people in this province, including the public servants, who are going to be restrained further by this legislation.

When we were given this legislation and the overview, it was very clear how tight the wage part of this legislation was. On the other hand, when we look at the price portion, look at what we see, Mr. Speaker.

The overview presented to us on September 21 says, for example, that such things as GO Transit, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, Ontario Hydro and Ontario Place will be reviewed. They will not be controlled or restrained: they simply will be reviewed.

Look, Mr. Speaker, at what is exempted completely: prices charged by school boards, hospitals and municipalities; they are not going to be restrained at all. Those that are completely excluded include the Residential Tenancy Commission and the Ontario Housing Corp. And the list goes on.

Once again, is it any wonder that people outside this chamber do not believe what is happening inside, when they see that one group of people in Ontario is going to have its wages restrained but that the price structure of everything in Ontario is hardly going to be touched at all?

The question was put to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who is supposed to be responsible for monitoring all this. He said, "After all, we have to allow for a cost pass-through."

If Ontario Hydro goes out and bloats its expenses and costs in ways we have argued against so often in this Legislature, we have to allow that to pass through. If landlords in this province can go out and manipulate the sale, resale and resale again of their buildings and bloat their costs, we have to allow those to pass through.

I want to ask the Treasurer and the government, what about the pass-through of the costs of the people who are having their wages restrained? How do we take those into consideration? How do we allow a pass-through of their increased costs of food, rent, mortgages, clothing and medicine? How do we pass those through?

It is tempting to listen to the argument of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations when he says we have to be fair and realistic and allow for these kinds of pass-through costs. If one is to do it on one side of the table, one has to do it on the other side of the table as well.

A group of young people, teaching assistants at the University of Toronto, visited me in my office a couple of days ago. What is happening to them? As teaching assistants, these young people have the number of hours they are permitted to work limited to 10. They are not allowed to work more than 10 hours and yet, because they come within the purview of this legislation, their increases will be only five per cent. Why? Because even though their annual incomes range anywhere from about $2,000 to $5,000, those are going to be prorated as if they were working 40 hours a week. But they are not allowed any more than 10 hours.

To what extent is that kind of injustice going to be tolerated in this legislation? I sincerely hope that before we are finished, when we have the public hearings, these clear injustices are going to be dealt with in the amendments. I am going to support this legislation for second reading only so we can get it into public hearings and so we have an opportunity to make the amendments that have to be made.

A few nights ago I was talking on the telephone to a young man, a public servant who works as a clerk in the Ministry of the Environment. He told me that in April 1982 the association of which he is a member signed a contract with the government of Ontario for an increase of 10 per cent, plus a little, as of January 1982, and an increase of 12 per cent, plus a little, as of January 1983. We know now that as of January 1983 that 12 per cent increase is going to be cut back to five. That is a contract that is already signed.

The thing that really rubbed him was that when they sat down and negotiated, they accepted the concept of a lower increase in 1982 because they knew they were going to be able to pick up a little more in 1983.

I want to say to the Treasurer that the contract with those people was signed in good faith. The lesser increase was accepted in 1982 versus 1983. Are we going to take that factor into consideration when we look at the unbalanced impact on various people in this province?

The same young man indicated to me that he, and apparently a number of colleagues with whom he had discussed this issue, would be prepared to take the five per cent increase in January 1983 as long as there is equity -- and this is the critical point we eventually have to come to in this legislation -- as long as everyone else had to bite the same bullet, as long as the government itself had to bite the same bullet and as long as prices of the necessities of life were restricted by the same amount.

I would like to make it very clear to the Treasurer and the government that this legislation's only hope of achieving public credibility and public support is in the public's perception of its fairness and equity; if it is apparent that everyone will be dealt with in the same way and that prices are to be restrained the same way some people's wages are.

We all know only too well that a large number of citizens in the private sector are already being restrained. The most recent figure shows there is something like 474,000 who are restrained to the point where they have no work at all. We know there are many more whose jobs are so tenuously held that they will be getting no increases at all. We also know that average increases over the past number of months, where granted, are below six per cent.

For the majority of private sector workers, we do not have to talk about restraint; it is already there. But there are others who are not being restrained. These groups have been described already. We know of the contractual deal with the doctors. That must be reflected in this legislation in some way or its whole credibility is in trouble.

If we want to know how bad things are in Ontario and why there is need to take some dramatic economic action, all we have to do is look at the September 1982 Economic Accounts Bulletin put out by the social and economic data centre. On the very first page it says the gross provincial product continued its downturn for the third consecutive quarter with a drop of 2.2 per cent; total business investment expenditure slumped 5.9 per cent; business investment in plant and equipment dropped 6.8 per cent; Ontario's exports fell 2.8 per cent, and corporate profits fell 17.5 per cent.

That is the economic report by the government itself. We have very serious economic problems in this province. The only way to deal with them is by some form of total action plan. We know that a wage restraint program -- and that was all it was -- was tried at the federal level in 1975. We know that during the period it seemed to work. But we also know that immediately afterwards everything went back to its inflationary state. That happened because there was no post-restraint program in place. The same thing will happen here.

There is no evidence as yet that this government has a post-restraint program in place -- I hope it has one -- or that it will use this period to get something ready. If it does not, we are asking a lot of people in the province to go through increased economic pain for nothing.

I strongly suggest that while many people in the province are quite prepared to shoulder their fair share of the burden, they are not prepared to do it for no gain whatsoever. They want to see that there is a total economic recovery package in place or at least beginning to be put into place. They want to have some sense that the economic pain and suffering they are being asked to go through now is going to lead to something better later on. That is what we have to show to the people of this province.

We have been told by some of the government officials that the total amount of money that will be saved by the government in this program is "somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million." It has been suggested by others who have spoken before me in this Legislature that that is money we are going to take out of certain people's pockets; it is money that is not going to be in the economic structure of Ontario.

What we as legislators have to remember is that it is equally true that it is $500 million that will not have to be taken out of the pockets of all the taxpayers of Ontario. We are talking about something in the neighbourhood of 8.5 million men, women and children who directly or indirectly pay taxes into the Treasury of Ontario. That money also has to be considered as out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Ontario. If we do not take it out of their pockets, they are still going to have it and that money will still be in the economy of Ontario. I think we have to look at it that way as well.

We as legislators and politicians have to be told from time to time that the entire public base of Ontario rests on the private base of the province. If we do not have private workers and business people to generate the income of Ontario, then we do not have any money in the Treasury to pay for the health, social, educational, transportation, energy services and so on that the government provides in the name of the people for the people. We do not have any money to pay for the salaries of the thousands upon thousands of public servants who are involved in those programs.

Therefore, as part of this total economic recovery program, we have to be very cognizant of the private sector in the province as well. We have to recognize that the kind of restraint it is going through right now is very serious. A few minutes ago I mentioned the number of people out there who have no jobs and who are not going to get any increases, and those who, although they may get some increases, will get very small increases indeed.

My colleagues have spoken about the agricultural community in this province. My colleague who is the agricultural critic for our party has pointed out that in every sector of commodity pricing, except those that come under the marketing boards, farmers in Ontario are going to lose money this year. They are going to lose something in the neighbourhood of $150 an acre of productivity, no matter which area they are in. When those same farmers go to their banks next April to buy their seed and fertilizer to get going for the next season, they are going to have a very difficult time indeed.

We know about the thousands upon thousands of small business bankruptcies in this province. That is part of the private sector that supports the public sector. I have not heard the Treasurer or any members of the government party who have already spoken indicate whether they are going to use their leverage through the Ontario Development Corp. or the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development to have those companies that receive grants, assistance or support in some way also restrained by this type of legislation, as has been done at the federal level. I hope some member of the government party will indicate to what extent they are going to use that leverage to spread the effect of this a little more widely, a little more equitably and a little more fairly.

4 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, if we really want to get a sense of what inflation has done to the people of Ontario over the last eight years, we need only be reminded of the fact that, in total, wages have gone up somewhere in the neighbourhood of 123 per cent; at the same time prices have gone up 116 per cent. In other words, whatever increases working men and women in Ontario, whether they be in the private or the public sector, have been able to gain over the last eight years, for all practical purposes have been wiped out by the increases in prices.

As a matter of fact, I saw a quick calculation just a few days ago which showed that if a worker whose salary in 1973 was $10,000 a year had received that average 123 per cent increase he would now be up to $22,384, but that the real net gain this worker would have made over that eight-year period would be only $658. That is not much of a gain over the past eight years. That is part of the total program we have to be aware of when we are looking at any kind of restraint, any kind of economic recovery.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) in his opening remarks indicated over and over again the need to have a national program. He pointed out all the reasons a provincial program in isolation just simply is not very effective. If the Premier really believes that, if the Treasurer really believes that and if the government of this province really believes it, then why was there not some attempt to work out a co-ordinated national approach to the entire restraint and economic recovery needs of Canada and of Ontario?

Why, for example, did Ontario need to come in with a set of figures that were just sufficiently different to cause a lot of confusion? I am not sure it was for any other reason than simply to be different. If the government is really serious about some kind of national program, then I would think it would have taken the opportunity to dovetail, to integrate what it wanted to do in Ontario with what was being done in other parts of the country.

We have said very clearly that there are needs that must be met. We have heard about a private paper, a confidential document, if you will, which was put out by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling), which indicated there could be serious social disorders, particularly among the young unemployed in this province, if something is not done. The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), who is responsible for manpower training, has said that they are now finally going to have to go to industry and insist that industry participate in the needed upgrading and training of people.

Also, the Minister of Industry and Trade has indicated that a $1-million program that gives grants to small businesses to help them improve their productivity, management, training and export expertise has been cancelled, and this is used as an example of government restraint.

Yet, what do we see on the other hand? The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has announced they are going to spend yet another $1 million on an advertising program to encourage the people of Ontario to participate in municipal elections.

We all agree participation in municipal elections is important, but is it necessary for the province to spend $1 million on advertising on top of the millions of dollars it is already spending on advertising? I have to question that. I have to wonder whether the people of Ontario do not see through that charade, where $1 million is taken out of a program that would have some possibility of building upon the economic recovery of Ontario and $1 million is used in a way which is totally inappropriate.

Perhaps the editorial writers of my own home-town newspaper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, caught it most succinctly. There was an editorial in that paper on September 14 when there was a leak about some of the possible programs of this government. I want to read one paragraph from that editorial because it really pulls it all together.

It says, "But then not even the Premier has ever pretended to be more than a smart politician whose leadership has been carefully crafted to keep feathers smooth within the bounds drawn by frequent opinion polls." Last February, the Premier of Ontario said he would not introduce such a program as he has now introduced; in September, we see the program in.

We have to ask why. As the editorial points out so clearly and so pointedly, it is simply because he, once again, along with the Treasurer and the government, has read the polls. The polls say something like 65 per cent of the people of this province support this program, and that includes union and non-union households.

We have to ask ourselves, "Is that so surprising?" Sure, the majority of the people of the province support this program. Sure, the polls say they support this program. It is not money out of their pockets, for the most part. It is somebody else who is being shafted. That is why they support it to a large extent. It is something we have to be aware of.

If the government is really serious about turning around the disastrous economic situation in this province -- and from its own economic bulletin there can be no doubt that is what it is -- it needs a lot more than this five per cent solution. We need an economic recovery program. We need the government of Ontario to show by action rather than words it is going to restrain itself. We need a clear restraint on prices so the people who are affected by a restraint on their wages are going to get half a chance to make up, at least.

I want to say to the Treasurer of Ontario and to the Premier, they can ram this bill through. They have the majority and we know it. But if they do not include those other criteria as well, they are wasting their time. One or two years from now, we are going to be right back where we are today; there will be no significant change.

As a member of this party, I am quite prepared to work to have this legislation improved to the extent that it genuinely is going to help people in this province, people in the private sector as well as the public sector. I am willing to work towards that. The government, however, simply uses a majority to shove through the bill that is there now and it is going to have to pay the price -- morally, socially, economically and politically.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, as I look around me, I feel I should make a vow that I shall never again notify my colleagues when I am going to be rising to speak on legislation in this chamber. Oh, here they are now.

4:10 p.m.

I want to express my dismay about what happened earlier this afternoon. If the Speaker had wanted to, I think he could have allowed the galleries to be reopened and then cleared them if a problem arose, but by closing them for the afternoon, he was making an assumption, which I think he had no right whatsoever to make. If this chamber as a whole wanted to make that assumption, then perhaps the chamber could make such an assumption, but not the Speaker himself.

It is a credit to our discretion that we allowed the decision to be made as it was and we did not challenge the Speaker's ruling. Quite frankly, as I look back upon it, I wish now that we had. Anyway, perhaps that can be worked out; I understand the House leaders have been talking about it. But fundamentally, that was a wrong decision to make.

When governments bring in legislation that is as arbitrary as this legislation is, it is inevitable that people are going to react in a way that does not please the government. No matter what group of people in society that applies to, that is simply inevitable.

I do not feel as the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) does about the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) being here all during these debates. I thought that member was most gracious in his comments to the Treasurer, but I would have been more impressed if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) had been here.

It is completely beyond my comprehension that the Minister of Labour -- of Labour, not of labour and industry -- first, could agree to this kind of legislation and continue to sit in that cabinet, and second, even if he agreed to it, would not feel compelled to sit in this chamber and follow the debate and listen to the arbitrary measures we feel are being imposed on working people -- those whom the Minister of Labour is supposed to be looking after -- and hear how this legislation is going to have an impact on those who basically are his constituents all across Ontario. It is very sad indeed that the Minister of Labour is not here.

The last time I looked at the list, he was not even on the speakers' list.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: He will be on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Please ignore the interjections and continue to speak to the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps I can add him to the list now.

Perhaps it explains why the Minister of Labour responded in the way he did this afternoon, when he referred to the "monkeys" over on this side. If one is as embarrassed at one's own legislation as perhaps he is, I suppose one then resorts to that kind of language when one is responding to the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone should have led off this debate for the government it should have been the Minister of Labour, because basically this is an antilabour piece of legislation. The Minister of Labour should be here explaining how he views it, at least. Why is he not here listening to what we are telling the government about what this legislation is doing to the people of Ontario?

We in this party are accused of wanting too much government, wanting to control too much, to intervene too much. Here, we are opposing this kind of intervention, intervention in the collective bargaining process.

We are saying to the government: if ever we thought that there could be controls that are equitable, then we could support them too. We are not in principle opposed to the whole idea of wage and price controls, but we are saying that these are not fair. The labour movement is telling the government that this legislation is not fair. My colleagues have laid it out very clearly.

The previous speaker for the Liberal Party indicated he did not like this legislation. I am not going to try to put words in his mouth, but if I heard him correctly, he was saying he did not like this legislation but was going to vote for it to get it out to committee to try to make it better. I think that is what he was saying.

I would just suggest that one does not have to vote for this bill in principle to have it go to a committee to be amended. There is no relationship between those two things at all. One can be fundamentally opposed to this legislation and still have it sent to committee and still have it amended. There is no contradiction in what we are saying. It makes no sense to vote for this bill in principle -- in principle, I emphasize -- and justify it by saying he wants it to go to committee. I do not understand that kind of reasoning at all.

Mr. Mackenzie: He does not understand the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps they do not, but I would guess that by the time this debate is over, by the time the people affected by this legislation have talked to the members of the Liberal caucus, and other trade unionists have talked to the members of the Liberal caucus, and they themselves have looked at it with some kind of thoughtfulness, there will be some people in that caucus who will have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to supporting this bill in the end -- even more so when finally they justify it to their constituents.

I really believe that. I am not saying that to taunt the members of the official opposition. I believe it is going to become increasingly difficult to live with the decision to support this legislation because basically it is very unfair legislation.

I have always felt that collective bargaining was something special and was one of the measurements of a free society. I do not believe that it is just my view as a Democratic-Socialist or as a member of the New Democratic Party in Ontario. I believe that if a survey were to be done around the world of what it is that makes a society free, one of the common components to be found would be free trade unions. There cannot be a free society without free trade unions. This does not allow for a free trade union movement in the public sector in Ontario. I do not think that is simply a partisan statement from this side. That is one of those fundamental measures of freedom in a society.

Only about a year or so ago we were debating -- and deploring, as a matter of fact -- the action of governments in Europe and the crushing of the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland. It is ironic now to be debating the crushing of free collective bargaining in the public sector in Ontario.

This will go down in the annals as one of those fundamental errors the government made. I believe the government made the error when it responded to what it sensed was said by the Gallup poll. When a Gallup poll is taken there are all sorts of ways a question can be asked and the sins of omission in a Gallup poll are more than what is actually contained in the question that is asked. We all could put questions out there. I have seen some questions on members' riding reports -- not in this caucus, of course -- that were designed to elicit very obvious responses, so there was no doubt what the replies would be.

Mr. Boudria: Do you mean they were loaded questions?

Mr. Laughren: They were loaded questions.

Mr. Boudria: Would members actually do that?

Mr. Laughren: Absolutely.

When they put a simplistic question on the Gallup survey they are going to get back an answer that does not take into consideration all aspects of what that question involves. I believe that is what has happened in this case and that the government will come to understand that. They will not back off now. They have their majority and it is a couple of years away from a provincial election. That is why it is only a one-year program with some spillover into the second and third years. It is basically a one-year program, and that is why they are doing it. I suspect that is why the Liberals are supporting them too.

I have always thought that arbitration was more an employer's tool than an employee's tool; yet, here even that is being taken away because of the possibility that some arbitrated award might be more than the government wants it to be in the public sector. I really did not think that I ever would have to stand in my place in this assembly and argue, first, that contracts be honoured by the government, and second, that there be rights to collective bargaining on behalf of the employees of this government.

I knew that we would always have our ideological differences when it came to the ownership of resources, the distribution of income, and equal pay for work of equal value. I always knew that we would have such differences but I never dreamed that I would be on my feet arguing for the obligation of government to honour its contracts and to recognize the rights of people who work for the government to bargain collectively. I never thought I would be standing in my place and doing that. Well, here I am.

4:20 p.m.

We know the government has to be seen to be taking some action. That is basically what it is all about. The economy is in bad shape and it must be seen to be doing something.

When I see the Treasurer sitting there, I look back two or three years to when I had the pleasure of being the Treasury critic for this party. I can remember laying out some of our concerns and quoting from some of the government's own documents about some of the structural deformities in the Ontario economy. I remember the Treasurer standing in his place and telling me we always looked on the dark side, that we were talking of doom and gloom and we were simply trying to scare people. He would stand up and lay out his scenario, his figures.

One that sticks in my mind is his argument about investment intentions, how investment intentions were up 41 per cent for the following year. Now that the Treasurer is living with the silliness of his projections because of what has happened to the economy, I hope he gets some satisfaction that in those years he was able to pull it off, to get away with his view of the world through pink-tinged glasses -- sorry, rose-coloured glasses.

Mr. Wildman: Never pink.

Mr. Laughren: I retract the word "pink." He was not being honest in his projections. It is as plain and simple as that.

It served the Treasurer well to give us those loaded projections, which I believe to this day were deliberately misleading projections. I have absolutely no doubt the Treasurer was laying those projections on us because it suited his purpose well to be looking at the economy as though it was better than it really was. Otherwise, he would have had to answer questions he simply could not answer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is unparliamentary.

Mr. Laughren: What did he say?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt might want to reconsider his earlier remarks as drawn to my attention by the Treasurer.

Mr. Laughren: I do not really think I did anything that was unparliamentary. What I said was --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, he said I was using deliberately misleading information.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Nickel Belt to reconsider that remark in light of the Treasurer's comment and to consider whether he wants to leave it on the record or withdraw it at this time.

Mr. Laughren: I will withdraw that remark and mischievously substitute a word that still gives the impression. I am not trying to be antagonistic but I firmly believe the Treasurer used figures that would give the impression the economy was in better shape than it really was and than he knew it really was. That is what I am trying to say.

When a Treasurer stands on his feet and says things are quite bad and we simply have to make some structural changes in the economy, he has to deal with his friends in the private sector who say: "Keep your hands off the private sector, Mr. Miller, my friend. We will look after the problems out there." The Treasurer did not want to do that.

Mr. Wildman: He is just a Pollyanna.

Mr. Laughren: Well, I am very hard on this Treasurer because I can remember clearly how hard he was on us when we tried to say to him that the structural problems were more serious than he was admitting. He heaped scorn on us and said we were being typically "doom and gloom." I do not forget that because, as is customary when a Treasurer of a province speaks, people often listen much more closely than they do when opposition politicians speak. I recall that vividly. I have always resented it. I get no satisfaction out of drawing it to your attention today, Mr. Speaker, because I know you must find it offensive too.

This legislation has really been put in place to give the impression something is happening. It is easy and it is breezy. It does not accomplish anything but it is easy and breezy. There is a third word I was going to add that rhymes with easy and breezy but I thought, no, I will have the Treasurer on his feet again accusing me of being unparliamentary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What word would that be?

Mr. Laughren: Well, what goes with easy and breezy?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Queasy?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sleazy?

Mr. Laughren: I do not want to pursue this any more.

I would ask the government members whether or not they would agree that what they are doing is primarily symbolic in that they are saying, "It may not solve all the problems, but it is a signal to the rest of Ontario that we are serious about containing inflation." I do not think I am being unfair when I capsulize it in that way. It is a symbol or a signal that the government is going to be serious about containing inflation. That is what I think the government members believe.

Mr. Jones: I think it would be one of the things.

Mr. Laughren: Okay, that is one of the things they would say. But is it fair for the government members to be so selective in the symbols or signals they are giving out there? They have not done that to everybody. That is what we find so terribly offensive.

Considering the cost of living in the last year, I do not know how the government justifies being so selective. If we were living at a time when there was no problem, then they might find it easier to justify picking out one segment of the population. But I do not know how they do it.

In these figures that are for the year ending August 1982, I see that the overall index is up 12.7 per cent. The government is not dealing with the reality of that and what it means to people. Housing is up 13.1 per cent; food is up 11.7 per cent. In Toronto, it is 12.8 per cent, as a matter of fact; in Thunder Bay and in Ottawa it is 12.2 per cent. The control that is being put on bears no relation to what is happening out there.

I know members will say, "Of course, if you want to lower that figure you have to lower expectations and wage demands and settlements." But that does not for one minute deal with the whole question of selectivity, of how the government picks out this one group and says, "You have been designated as the symbol." That is what is so grossly unfair. We do not understand how the government can put in place a program that does not include some redistribution. We think there simply must be redistribution of income in any control program.

That is what I was trying to say earlier when I said that the Labour Party in Great Britain imposed controls, but before it did, it established a social contract with the trade union movement. In my view, this government could not establish a social contract with the labour movement in this province. There is no trust there.

But rather than say, "Well, there is no trust, so we will just impose controls," the government should work towards the day when there will be that kind of trust between government and the labour movement. If they ask, "How do you do that?" I would mention their occupational health laws that are not being enforced. There are ways in which you build trust with the trade union movement. The government simply has not done it and is not even working at it.

I will not get personal about what is happening with the Minister of Labour, but it is not good. There is no reason for labour in Ontario to trust this government, to have any sense that what it is doing will be done fairly. There is no trust out there.

We have great difficulty with this legislation. It is for the public sector only and the lower end of the income scale is going to be hurt the most. I have grown used to seeing what I would call working-class-biased legislation in this chamber, but this has to be among the worst. It is so obvious.

Look at the minimum wage. My colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has done a yeoman's job of highlighting the inadequacies of the social assistance programs in the province. In connection with the minimum wage, about which my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) talks so much, there are 13 jurisdictions in Canada, including the federal government and the Yukon, and we rank 11th out of 13 as far as the minimum wage is concerned.

We are still the most industrialized province in Canada. We have our problems, but we are still the most industrialized province. Why do we rank 11th out of 13? Government members wonder why we and labour in general do not trust them. They wonder why there is the anger they saw spilling over this afternoon. They wonder why there is such cynicism about what they are trying to do.

4:30 p.m.

I look at the minimum wage as a percentage of the average industrial wage, so we are not comparing a minimum wage in Prince Edward Island against a minimum wage in Ontario when the average industrial wages are different in the two provinces. Let us look at the minimum wage as a percentage of the average industrial wage to see how they compare over a period of time.

In May 1975 the minimum wage was 47.1 per cent of the average industrial wage. In 1976 it was 47 per cent. In 1978 it was 42 per cent. In 1979 it jumped up to 43, in September 1980 it was 37, and in May 1982 it was 36.3 per cent. So according to the most recent figures I have, in Ontario seven years ago the minimum wage was 47.1 per cent of the average industrial wage and in May this year it was 36.3 per cent. So the minimum wage is falling even further behind the average industrial wage. On a comparable basis, people at the minimum wage are worse off now, compared with their fellow workers in the province, than they were seven years ago.

Governments should not allow that to happen. I do not know how often my colleague the member for Hamilton East has been on his feet prodding the Minister of Labour to do something about the minimum wage. We know where the lobby comes from on the other side, but the government has an obligation to make sure the minimum wage does not get to that embarrassing level of 36.3 per cent of the average industrial wage.

That means people earning a minimum wage get not much more than a third of the average industrial wage. Do they think that is right? Those people are out there working too. They happen to work in an industry that is probably not organized with a trade union. It may be seasonal. It may be a service industry probably employing a lot of women. What has that got to do with equity and being fair to the work force out there? Nothing at all.

What does this legislation do? It does absolutely nothing in terms of redistribution of income in Ontario. So we get very angry when we see legislation being brought in that does this to people when there are all those other obvious problems out there that they simply refuse to deal with.

We know it does not cure inflation one bit. I defy anybody to give us any indication of how this legislation is going to cure the rate of inflation or reduce it. I am going to go through my interpretation of this bill. I am glad government members are here because I know they will correct me if I am wrong on my interpretation of any parts of this bill. I would expect they will interject to make sure I do not get it wrong.

On the control program: These collective agreements which are now in effect and which expire between October 1, 1982, and September 30, 1983, will continue unaffected until their expiry date. At that time, the compensation plan in the agreement is extended for a period of 12 months following the scheduled expiry date and compensation rates for people covered by collective agreements shall be increased for that 12-month period by five per cent.

All other terms and conditions of the collective agreement which do not have a monetary impact may be amended by agreement of the parties. I underline "agreement of the parties," and will come back to that.

The compensation rates and all monetary benefits are frozen except for the allowed five per cent increase in compensation rates. Further, all other provisions of the collective agreement are continued in force except those which do not have a monetary impact and which the parties mutually agree to alter.

Does the government really think the civil servants in this province are so stupid they are going to buy that hogwash? What kind of nonsense is that? How dare the government call that bargaining? The Treasurer is going to be responding to that.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do not think they are stupid; I think they are dangerous.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, that is probably true. Those employees now covered by a collective agreement that expires after October 1, 1983, will continue to receive the compensation under that collective agreement until the anniversary date of the agreement which falls between the period October 1, 1982, and September 30, 1983. On the anniversary date, the collective agreement is extended for a period of 12 months without any change except those which may be mutually agreed upon, as outlined above, and subject to a five per cent increase in compensation rates.

For example, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union's collective agreement for its clerical workers is in effect for the period January 1, 1982, to December 31, 1983, and provides for an 11 per cent increase scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 1983. The next increase will take place this coming January. It will not be allowed. Rather, the five per cent increase in the compensation rate for the period January 1, 1983, to December 31, 1983, is mandated, and that rollback to five per cent from the 11 per cent already agreed on -- a binding contract, everybody thought -- will get rolled back to five per cent. That means a loss of $1,084 for the average clerical worker.

Does the Treasurer understand what I am saying? Workers go out and bargain very hard with their employers, collectively, under the laws of the land, and they come to an agreement, the second part of which is to take place in January 1983. Then this government, in as arbitrary a measure as I have ever seen, says, "No, we are tearing up that contract. You are getting five per cent."

Why were they told they could bargain collectively in the first place? Did it not mean anything? What about every single contract made with people out there from this day forward? It means nothing. They are saying, "We do not trust you."

If one signed an agreement to lease furniture for an apartment in Toronto for a two-year period, and at the end of one year the landlord said, "I am tearing up that agreement. It is not good. I want more," the landlord would be told, "You cannot do that. That is an arbitrary measure. I will go and see my lawyer." But the government is preventing that because it is changing the law itself.

I hope somebody will tell me that is fair and explain it. I do not know how they will do that. It is not as though they are starting after everybody's contract has expired. Then we could have a different debate about whether or not it was fair. But to apply it to people who have already signed a contract in good faith, to tear it up on them: They would be furious if someone did it to them personally, but they do not mind doing it to someone else. I do not know how they justify that. That is breaking a bond and it is fundamentally wrong. It shows a disrespect for the law among people who are often calling for more law and order. I do not understand it. They are the law and order freaks, not us. Then they tear up a contract based on the rule of law.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Please ignore the interjections and continue addressing the bill.

Mr. Laughren: I am not a lawyer but I have been told all my life that I have to obey the law and that I have to obey contracts when I sign them.

Constituents often come to my office and say they do not like something that has happened -- they bought a car or they did not like a lease they signed after they bought something from a vendor. I say, "Did you sign a contract?" "Oh, yes, I signed a contract." Then I say, "Boy, that is a binding contract. You are not going to get out of that one."

From now on I am going to tell them to tear up the contract. "Why should you obey it? Your government does not." I am going to tell them that, because the government has taken away respect for the law that a lot of people had, by tearing up contracts and by rolling back binding agreements. Those people would not for one minute have been allowed to change those contracts, but the government hesitates not a minute to tear them up.

4:40 p.m.

It is the selectivity of it that is so outrageous. I want to hear from the government members on this point. I have heard government members on their feet during this debate but I have not heard them talk about that. I have not heard them plead they were not really tearing up contracts. I have not heard one of them say that. I have not heard any of them say they were not rolling back negotiated increases.

One day the Treasurer tried to say, "We are not taking money out of anybody's pocket." But if somebody has negotiated a binding contract to get an increase of 11 per cent on January I and the Treasurer says, "No, it is five per cent," can he tell me that is not taking money out of his pocket? Of course it is and he knows it. If somebody increased the Treasurer's rent arbitrarily, he would know it and say, "That is taking money out of my pocket." He cannot have it all his way.

Some of the government members look a little dubious about the argument I am making respecting laws, but the government has taken something away from the people of Ontario. I think it is respect for law. I know I do not have the respect I had before and I am supposed to be a lawmaker in this chamber. But I do not trust the government any more. I do not respect the way it makes laws and then tears up those laws when it suits its own politically expedient purposes. That is what I do not like.

Third point: All employees whose collective agreement expired during the period October 1, 1981, and prior to October 1, 1982, shall have the compensation plan -- as it is called -- extended for a period of 12 months immediately following the expiration date, and the employees may receive an increase in compensation rates not to exceed nine per cent for that 12-month period.

It is arguable that the parties to the collective agreement are free to negotiate other terms and conditions under the agreement, provided the increase in the compensation rate does not exceed nine per cent. At the expiration of the 12-month transitional period -- as it is called -- the compensation plan is to be extended for an additional 12 months with an increase in the compensation rate of five per cent.

Thus, for example, if a collective agreement expires on November 10, 1981, and has not been renewed, the compensation rates will be increased by not more than nine per cent for the period November 10, 1981, to November 9, 1982, following which there will be an increase of five per cent for the period November 10, 1982, to November 9, 1983.

I might add the legislation speaks of an increase of not more than nine per cent. It does not say it must be nine per cent. Disputes between the parties as to the amount of that increase up to nine per cent are to be resolved by the Inflation Restraint Board where the parties are unable to agree.

Somebody must also tell me why employers should agree, if it will just go to the Inflation Restraint Board and Mr. Biddell will make the decision -- that is, assuming he has enough money to get to the meeting. I am a little worried about Mr. Biddell being able to meet all his own personal obligations during this period. It is a one-year program presumably, but in some cases it is a three-year program. I do not know whether Mr. Biddell is on a one-year program of his own on this or whether he is on a two-year or a three-year program. I did not get from the press release as to when Mr. Biddell was to be disposed of.

Mr. Cooke: He will probably get five years' severance pay.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. He will get $70,000 a year. That has to be supplemented when he leaves.

I have dealt with one-year and two-year agreements. Now let us look at the three-year. I hope government members will understand that certain agreements will have expired a year ago but in some cases new agreements have not yet been signed.

Collective agreements that expired prior to October 1, 1981, are dealt with in the following manner: The period from the date following the expiration of the agreement, the anniversary date prior to October 1, 1982, is determined. The amount of increase in compensation rates during that period is to be set by the Inflation Restraint Board.

Thus, for example, if the collective agreement expired on July 1, 1981, compensation for the period July 1, 1981, to June 30, 1982, is to be determined by the Inflation Restraint Board. That is year one.

The compensation rates for the next 12 months shall be increased by not more than nine per cent. That is the example I am using.

The compensation rates for the period July 1, 1982, to July 1, 1983, may be increased by not more than nine per cent with disputes between the parties as to the amount of the increase to be determined by the Inflation Restraint Board. So now we are up to the second year of that contract. Compensation rates will be increased by five per cent for the next 12-month period. Accordingly, for the period of July 1, 1983, to June 30, 1984, the five per cent increase in compensation rates is in effect.

What I have tried to outline is what happens with people who have not signed a contract since 1981 and are faced now with being under controls for a three-year period. Is that equitable? Who knows what they would have been trying to bargain for during this interim period up to now? He has taken that all away from them.

My colleague the member for Hamilton East raised a devastating example today during question period -- the Niagara region health care nurses -- and got no answers at all from the Minister of Labour.

The more I think about it, the more offended I am at the Minister of Labour absenting himself during the debate on this legislation. It is his government's legislation. It affects the people he is supposed to be protecting. Here we are debating it and he absents himself. I know he has all sorts of important meetings. He is a cabinet minister. I want to tell the members that the working people in this province would have more respect for him if he absented himself from a meeting, listened to the debate in here and perhaps took some advice from the opposition. He will not do that.

Mr. Wildman: The invisible Minister of Labour.

Mr. Laughren: The invisible Minister of Labour, yes. I do not understand how he can justify people being under this legislation, some for one year, some for two years and some for three years.

There has also been a lot said about the Inflation Restraint Board. I will not dwell on it but the Inflation Restraint Board has the right to determine compensation increases with no hearings necessary and no reasons for the decisions required.

There was an interesting exchange in this chamber on September 27, Monday last. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) said:

"Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Can he confirm my impressions and interpretation of Bill 179? Can he confirm that the arbitrary powers of the Inflation Restraint Board include the following five: one, the right to not hold any hearing whatsoever on any matter referred to it; two, the right to make any order, decision or determination without any hearing and without giving any reasons, written or otherwise, for the decision; three, the right to deny any increase at all for the so-called transitional period when a dispute is referred to it. Therefore, the so-called nine per cent solution could be a zero per cent solution if Jack Biddell so decides.

"...the board, for a collective agreement that expired before October 1981, has the sole right to determine unilaterally the increase which could be as low as zero per cent. Finally, a fifth is the board has the right to award to non-unionized public sector workers an increase of as little as between zero and five per cent in the control year itself. Can he confirm whether these five immense arbitrary powers are in fact within the purview of Bill 179?"

The member for Port Arthur sat down at that point and the Treasurer stood up and said, "Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is correct on each one."

I am telling the government members, and I should be talking to the Liberal members too, it is beyond belief what they have done in this legislation. I ask them if they really, in their hearts of hearts, believe that in a free and open democratic society any board should have any one person with the kind of power not to hold any hearing whatsoever on any matter referred to it, the right to make any order, decision or determination without a hearing, or, without giving any reason, the right to deny any increase at all?

It is incredible legislation.

Mr. Treleaven: It was an incredible performance this afternoon up there.

Mr. Mackenzie: You want to put some people in jail, do you?

Mr. Treleaven: You want anarchy in this chamber.

Mr. Mackenzie: Horse manure.

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I find it very strange that the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) is interjecting, because there is a member who takes great pride in the legal profession. I have heard him express in committee how he is very proud to be a lawyer, to have worked in his community, to have built up his reputation and to represent the legal profession. He really believes that. I am not making light of that.

But I do quarrel with the fact that somebody who takes such great pride in the legal profession, and presumably the rule of law, could get more upset about a demonstration over arbitrary legislation than he does against breaking faith and legally binding contracts, and destroying people's faith in the law itself. He takes more offence at a demonstration against arbitrary measures than he does at the arbitrary measures themselves.

Mr. Treleaven: I understand what happened in the gallery but I don't understand the NDP members.

Mr. Foulds: The member feels free to yell but denies them the same right. What kind of hypocritical double standard is that?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: When you call order, Mr. Speaker, call order on that side too.

The Acting Speaker: I called order on that side first, I would draw to the attention of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds).

Now we have order all over, and I would ask the member for Nickel Belt to continue.

Mr. Laughren: I really am offended by the member for Oxford's contention and concern about decorum, as opposed to civil liberties, because that is basically what we are talking about here. One cannot have civil liberties in a society that makes binding contracts under existing legislation and then condones the tearing-up of those binding contracts. One cannot have it.

I do not understand how a member such as the member for Oxford can condone what is being done. It is one thing to be discriminatory in the distribution of income. I understand that; it is an elitist view of the world but at least we understand it. We understand the pecking order out there.

We understand that for a long time people on social assistance had been regarded as less than honourable people in our society by the government. We understand the way the government views those people. We disagree with it fundamentally because the government has built a society for the young and the swift, both physically and mentally. They are the ones for whom we do not need to build a society. The young and the swift, physically and mentally, will be able to compete and get along out there just fine. But what they have failed to do so miserably is look after those people who are not so young and so swift. That is an ongoing condemnation of this government.

We know that wages among the labour movement have not kept up with inflation. We know that low-income people are already suffering, that Ontario is 10th in Canada in social assistance levels. We know that we rank 11th out of 13 in the jurisdictions in Canada in the amount of the minimum wage. We know the Inflation Restraint Board has arbitrary powers not becoming a democratic society. We know this bill tears up contracts already negotiated in good faith, and makes mockery of those people who plead respect for the law.

Put simply, this is class-based legislation of the very worst kind. The arrogance of power is not a new phenomenon in Ontario. We have seen it before. What is new is how selective its application is in this case. Previously we saw discrimination against minimum-wage workers. We have seen discrimination against women, discrimination against injured workers and discrimination against people who receive social assistance.

I am sure somebody on that side sat down and said, collectively I am sure: "Who is the next most vulnerable group in society? None other than our own employees, the civil servants of Ontario."

Think about that for a moment. Think about who is at the bottom of the scale in that respect out there. Put them on a scale: social services recipients, minimum-wage workers, injured workers, women, elderly people. Tell me who is next on the list. We know who is next. It is the people to whom this legislation applies.

That is why a lot of people out there are nervous; they do not know who is next. But I will say this much: If I were a member of a private sector trade union and I saw what this government was doing to its public sector trade union people, I would be extremely nervous. They know, because of the second bill that is going to be coming in, the government is simply salivating for the chance to apply this kind of legislation to the private sector as well. Of course they are or they would not have introduced the second bill. I would be quite happy to hear something that explains it differently as to why they want to do that.

I have had some calls to my home and to my constituency office since this legislation was introduced and, I might add, not all from public sector employees. As a matter of fact, there were remarkably few from them. They have been phoning here in Toronto. In my constituency office a lot of the membership of steelworkers and mine-mill workers -- private sector trade unions -- have called. They expressed surprise at -- and I always have difficulty communicating this to them -- the support of the Ontario Liberals for this legislation.

For years I have said the Ontario Liberals are more antilabour than the Ontario Conservatives. I have always made that point in my speeches to constituents and elsewhere in the province. Now finally this is the first clear exit from the antilabour closet of the Liberal Party of Ontario. It is truly remarkable to see the social services critic, the Education critic and the Labour critic for that party supporting this legislation. I am puzzled by it.

I know it is simplistic for me to say the Ontario Liberals are more anti-labour than the Ontario Conservatives because there are several ways one can measure degrees of anti-labour sentiment. I have always felt that and it has been confirmed by their behaviour on this legislation.

When this legislation was introduced, this party did not simply oppose it; we said we had some alternatives. We recognized there were problems in the Ontario economy; that we should be saying it now again, when we have been saying it for so long, is a bit ironic, but that is the way the system works. We have always said that when the economy is balanced, the budget will be balanced.

The budget will be balanced when we have an economy that does not have the structural deformities which the then so-called Ministry of Industry and Tourism admitted about three or four years ago in a report. Its own report talked about the structural deformities of the Ontario economy; that report was dead on. It talked about the number of imports we should be replacing. It talked about how our economy did not have a good balance in terms of more sophisticated high-technology goods. The science centre has been telling them that. Everybody has been telling the government that. But they know on balance what they always said; what the government has always said: too much intervention. They were afraid of intervention and they still are.

What has happened very simply -- and I do not think I am being unfair -- is the result of lack of intervention. The priorities of the people who make the major investment decisions out there are not the priorities of most us in this chamber, not even of members of the government party. Their priorities are not ours, but we allow them to go on as though they were. Certainly, even if their priorities were those of many of the members of the government party, they are not those of the people of this province.

5 p.m.

I do not have to look beyond the Sudbury area. The members of the government party are pleased with Reaganomics. I can remember one member sitting over there who had Ronald Reagan up to speak to his riding association as a fund-raising event. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is an indication of which altar he visits; that is where he is wrong.

I look and I find some things very offensive. In the Sudbury area we are experiencing probably the most dramatic fallout of Reaganomics in Ontario, and this is the invitation I received when I opened my mail the other day: "The president of Laurentian University and the president and chief operating officer of Falconbridge Ltd. announce the first in the 1982-83 Falconbridge lecture series, called The New Economics, by Robert A. Mundell, on Thursday, September 30, 1982." That is tonight at 8 in the Fraser Auditorium at Laurentian University.

Here is Laurentian University, a public institution, in co-operation with Falconbridge, sponsoring a speaker on the new economics. Laurentian is going to suffer, as all other public institutions will suffer, because of the new economics, because of Reaganomics. We understand what high interest rates do in terms of repatriating dollars from all around the world back to the United States. We understand that. Some of the members should understand that. Laurentian University should understand that. Falconbridge sure does.

As we look at the situation in the Sudbury area, we wonder whether we really need this person to come to Sudbury to rub our noses in it. Do we need that? I am offended by this. I just came to this in my mail or I would have spoken about it before now and I would have spoken publicly in Sudbury. I am offended by this and I wish there were more time to organize. I wish there were 500 people there tonight to listen and to ask questions of Mr. Mundell. God forbid that there should be a demonstration; it might offend the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven).

What we find so offensive is that there seems to be no understanding over there of what is happening to our economy. I could talk for a long time about problems in the Sudbury area. There is no shortage of recommendations for turning that community around. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and I will make a major presentation in Sudbury on what we see as the solution. It is very reasonable and thoughtful, I think, and I hope there will be some response. We will be sending our suggestions to the members of the government party and to the appropriate cabinet ministers.

Over the years I have read virtually all the reports that have come out dealing with the Sudbury area and how to resolve some of the problems there. There are shelves of reports, federal and provincial, recommending at least partial solutions. They are put out by their own bureaucrats and their own ministries. What do they do with them? They do nothing with them. I am not exaggerating; they do nothing with these reports.

I have one report about an inch thick, called Toward a Nickel Policy for the Province of Ontario. It is a well-written report. I do not agree with everything in it, but so what? There are some extremely positive and constructive recommendations in there. That was published in 1977; it is now 1982. If the recommendations of that report had been put in place, even selectively, we would not be in the dire straits we are in now.

I cannot solve all the problems. But every time this government commissions a study or a report -- going to some expense to do it, with the people of Ontario paying, of course -- and then ignores it, it is doing an injustice. It is dishonest; it is really and truly dishonest.

I can remember the select committee that looked at the Inco and Falconbridge layoffs in 1978. It was an all-party committee -- I think the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was on it as well -- that worked very hard. It was a tough committee -- it heard a lot of testimony, hammered out some compromises and made some specific recommendations -- but not a single recommendation was acted upon by the government, not one.

Mr. Jones: Is this a Sudbury debate, or is the member speaking to the bill?

Mr. Laughren: We are talking about the economy in Ontario. I want to get to the contribution of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) to the debate, but that can wait for now.

When there are recommendations that will help turn things around, the Treasurer ignores them. After a while people get discouraged and cynical.

I recall earlier this year that the regional municipality of Sudbury passed a motion to spend $78,000 to improve Sudbury's image. Quite frankly, I was horrified. Then the layoffs came along, the shutdown, the extension of the shutdown and more layoffs. The region decided it had better not proceed with that $78,000 until the air had cleared a bit. I thought, "My goodness, if there is anything that destroys Sudbury's image, it is its roller-coaster economy and pollution."

One could take a survey and ask people their impression of Sudbury. Those are the things that would come back: pollution and roller-coaster economy. They might not use those exact words, but that is what it would be; not the nice lakes, the people or the forest, but those two very negative things. That negative image of Sudbury will change when the reality changes and not before; nor should it.

The Treasurer cannot con the world that way. Change the reality and the image will change quickly. The Treasurer cannot play games of that kind with people. Who is he kidding? We are not all stupid. I am always puzzled by how this government manages somehow to -- I should read the note I just got. It says:

"Please work in the bill -- Bill 179. The Speaker." Yes, I will get back to that.

What I am trying to get at in a roundabout way is that the answer to Ontario's problems is not to clamp down on employees of the government; it is to get on with a serious program of replacing a lot of those goods that we import into the province right now.

When I think of some of the things that members of the government party have called for -- my goodness, I heard the member for Cochrane North, in a very eloquent speech the other night --

Hon. Mr. Leluk: It was a great speech.

Mr. Laughren: I just said that. Stop repeating what I say.

In a very eloquent speech the other night, the honourable member said the Premier should not have sold his jet; he should have kept it so he could use it for an air ambulance. I am not misquoting him. He was very eloquent in his demands.

Then I heard the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) last week calling for a public inquiry into Inco and Falconbridge. He said, "It is time we looked into the possibility of a crown corporation for Inco and Falconbridge." Can members imagine? That is what he said.

Before that, I heard the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) call for standardized gasoline pricing across Ontario. I heard him call for that. I heard the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) say he did not think the province should put money into mining machinery in Sudbury because it would take away from the mining machinery business in North Bay.

I heard the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) and the member for Sudbury say that the discriminatory pricing practices Ontario Hydro is going to put in place this winter is wrong and that they will fight it. Then I picked up the paper and saw that Ontario Hydro was going to do it anyway.

5:10 p.m.

I look at these very prominent members of the government party because, after all, one of the reasons they got elected was that they said if they were on the government side they would have more power and therefore people should vote for them. There are these very prominent members of the government party making these demands, and not one of them is listened to. Does the government not care about them? They might as well be opposition members.

Mr. Gillies: Oh no.

Mr. Laughren: Well, what are the advantages of being a member of the government party? To the constituents, I mean; we know what the advantages are to the member himself. I wonder what the advantages are to the government or to the constituents.

There are all these demands for action, and their government does not listen to them. I think it is time we had some defections. But we have a very tough litmus test on this side. We would rather defeat them at the polls than welcome them as defects.

Mr. Kolyn: That's "defectors."

Mr. Laughren: Unless, of course, one happens to be a country lawyer who has seen the error of his ways and decides that after all it is time to respect the law. Then we would seriously consider it.

Mr. Martel: You are not calling for processing at source.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I forgot that.

Mr. Martel: That's a key one.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) was calling for processing our minerals at source.

Mr. Foulds: His ministry.

Mr. Laughren: His own ministry. He does not even obey himself. That is the danger of talking to yourself, I suppose.

I did want to talk about Sudbury a little bit, because we could bring in this bill and apply it to every civil servant in Sudbury with the addendum of reducing their salaries to zero and it would not solve a single problem. It would make matters worse, as a matter of fact.

Most civil servants in the Sudbury area right now are very concerned, because the government and I know that as the economy of that community declines so will go jobs in the public sector: teachers' jobs, civil service jobs, jobs at Laurentian University, jobs at Cambrian. The public sector in that community is dependent to a very large extent on how the private sector thrives. That is why there is so much concern.

I look at a community like that with so many problems. For a year now we have known there are serious problems, and I defy the members opposite to tell me of one substantive measure taken by this government in a community facing 30 per cent unemployment.

Mr. Foulds: Name one.

Mr. Laughren: I am not asking for 50; I am asking for one substantive measure.

You look a little scared, Mr. Speaker. I was not expecting an immediate answer, but I ask members of the government party to tell me of one substantive measure. There are all sorts of make-work projects that have a very limited life --

Mr. Brandt: What about the regional workmen's concept? Did that help at all?

Mr. Martel: That was 1976.

Mr. Mackenzie: That's how far out of it he is.

Mr. Martel: What about the wiping out of the Ministry of Correctional Services' 225 jobs? You Tories wiped out Burwash and opened up a new institution in Snow's riding. Don't tell me what you've done for Sudbury, you beggars.

Mr. Foulds: Go back to sleep, Andy.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the action that caused the most concern in Sudbury was not the job creation but the destruction of jobs when the government closed Burwash. Is that not remarkable? The most substantive thing the government has done in the Sudbury area was negative. That is a very sad commentary on one of the major communities of this province.

Let us talk about very basic wealth creation for a moment. I do not know of any community in Ontario that has created so much new wealth as the Sudbury basin -- I mean real new wealth -- for 75 years. When I see what is happening to it now, I know it is simply not right. One does not take a community, squeeze it like a lemon and then, when finished, throw it away or discard it. One cannot do that. One minute those members are extolling the virtues of the work ethic and the next minute they are punishing those who believe in it so strongly. I do not understand that.

I hope some day the chickens will come home to roost, because the government has done precious little in the Sudbury area. When my colleague the member for Sudbury East and I make our presentation tomorrow, we are going to be sending members copies of our presentation; and we are going to expect some answers, not only from the government side but from others as well, and we will not let them just shrug off our suggestions.

I am glad the member for Oxford is still here. Does he really believe the government can take a group of miners, smelter men, people who have worked in the mills for us for years and years, and move those people from jobs with a relatively high wage level to unemployment insurance, and from unemployment insurance to social assistance, without some very serious repercussions? Does he really think they can do that?

I am glad the member is shaking his head. May I suggest that he bloody well do something about it? He is not doing anything now. If he thinks we have problems now in Sudbury, wait until next spring when unemployment insurance benefits expire. We are going to have very serious problems. I am warning the members of the government party that the day is gone when one can do something glossy, without substance. That day is gone.

I recall the then Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), coming to town on his white charger and announcing a resources machinery development centre, which was going to spend $19 million or $20 million and create --

An hon. member: Nineteen jobs.

Mr. Laughren: Nineteen jobs; $1 million a job. We have found out since then that this resources machinery development centre is going to consist of no scientists and will make no machinery. I ask, what is that? What kind of beast is it? It is a resources machinery development centre that will have no scientists and make no machinery.

The report we received in a brown paper envelope said it was going to be 10,000 square feet and would be located next to Sudbury's new tourist attraction, the science centre of the north. Does that not tell one something about the attitude of one's government? We demand, the people in Sudbury demand, that a mining machinery complex be located there, and the government's response is to build a machinery centre that will neither build machinery nor have any scientists who can design machinery. What kind of a response is that? It is a serious problem and they do not give a serious response. I put it very seriously that those days are gone. The government will not be allowed to continue to do that.

Back to the bill. I do not want to go on any longer, but I did want to make a couple of points this afternoon. First, the government is not responding in a serious way to the problems in the economy out there. The Treasurer who is still the Treasurer has deliberately avoided intervening even though the problems were brought to his attention many years ago; he has deliberately avoided it because he does not believe in that kind of intervention.

When it comes to the bill, the bill itself is grotesque; it is arbitrary. My colleague the member for Hamilton East has used the word "vicious." It will breed disrespect for the law in Ontario, and it will breed distrust between the labour movement and the government which should not exist in any jurisdiction. That is what is going to happen.

5:20 p.m.

The Inflation Restraint Board has been given such arbitrary powers that the government should be ashamed of it. No free society needs to have a board with those kinds of arbitrary powers unless it is trying to do something it knows will require those arbitrary powers or it would never get it through; and that is what it is. The government is fundamentally wrong in this legislation. If they want to bring in legislation that turns this economy around, if they want to get a commitment from the people of this province, they can do it, it can be done; but it can only be done universally. They cannot say to one group of people, "We have decided to launch a crusade and you are the cannon fodder."

People in Ontario understand there is a problem. Everybody I talk to says, "Look, I know there is a problem out there. I know we have to do something." The people of Ontario would be willing to work towards a common goal, but only if they know it will be done fairly. They can see this is not fair. They understand. They are not stupid.

Just as I said earlier, the injured workers and the welfare recipients are at the bottom of the totem pole, so the government thinks it can pick on the civil service with impunity and that there is no support for them out there. They think the public at large does not really think much of them and the private sector trade unions do not like them. That is fundamentally wrong because this deals with principles that everybody respects; that is the difference.

By the time this debate is over, people will understand what the government is doing and, increasingly, people will rally against this bill; not because there has been a change of heart towards the person who answers the telephone when they call the Ministry of Health, but because they can see that rights are being taken away from somebody else. I wish I could remember the saying about taking rights away from other people until it finally gets to you, but that is going to sink in.

If the government thinks it can pit the public sector unions, primarily OPSEU and CUPE in this case, against the private sector workers, it is terribly wrong and it underestimates the intelligence and sophistication of working people in Ontario. They are not going to buy it. The government thought they would. It thought the Gallup poll covered attitudes of trade unionists as well, and it does; but it could not slip the bill through in the dark of night or I suspect it would, because when it comes to the light of day and is scrutinized and talked about in every union hall and every public meeting in the province, it is going to be seen for what it is. Opposition to this bill is going to mount. The government will live to regret taking the easy way out.

The victims of this bill are workers in the public sector; perhaps, some day, workers in the private sector; and finally, the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this program that I consider to be a demonstration of economic leadership by the government, by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

There has been a lot of rhetoric, such as we have just heard from the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). Not a lot of it is new. We had a sales pitch for him and another of the members for tomorrow, Friday, and we drifted back again into the Sudbury debate.

For a few moments I would like to touch on some of the points I believe we need to be reminded of, points that came out in the first comments the Treasurer shared with us as he made his statement on the introduction of this bill. I heard comments about what the people of Sudbury may say and think, so I would like to share with the members what some of my constituents in Mississauga think.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) made quite a to-do about the fact that apparently there was no public support for this program of wage restraint. I am really curious about that. Certainly, that is not the feedback coming to us on the government side. I would have some questions and some curiosities to share with him.

I have talked with my constituents and they see this program as a very important step towards helping to return vitality to our economy. I think most people are aware that the responsibility for economic recovery does not rest with any one sector alone, either the private sector or the public sector.

Today, we had the demonstration in the public gallery, which has been mentioned during the debate. They appeared to be people from the public service who were complaining this package was not fair. When we talk about fairness and whether there is a difference between members of the private sector and members of the public sector, I think it is important to be reminded of a very basic fact. People who are employed by any level of government or by its agencies have one promise which no other worker in this country has: their employer is not going to go out of business and put them out of a job.

Mr. Philip: That's interesting. What about all your temporary workers?

Mr. Jones: Just a moment; we know full well this is a tough time in the economy. The member for Nickel Belt shared with us the impact it is having on his home city and constituency and, as the members well know, that is felt across the land. It is in Mississauga as it is in Sudbury. As the member for Mississauga North, I know we have workers at McDonnell Douglas, de Havilland, Canadian Admiral and other stricken companies who would be glad to have a job at a five per cent increase.

It is not something that is strictly for Sudbury. Let us be reminded this legislation comes forward as an important step towards helping the program of returning our economy to the strength it has had in the past and must have again soon.

The Treasurer in his comments shared some important points with us. For example, last year we had an increase in our public sector employees of some 15,000 people. Projected over the next three years, that would be some 45,000. Those are dramatic figures, to be sure. As I recall those statistics he shared with us, I believe a large number were in the area of teaching and health care workers, but it was in the public sector.

Some 50 per cent of government spending is in the area of salaries and benefits, and in hospitals and schools. Over 70 per cent of those budgets go towards payroll. If we, as a government, do not take serious measures to limit areas such as salaries, if they continue to grow in the public sector, this province faces a very real prospect of having such things as a change in the triple-A credit rating. I suppose it is easy for the member for Nickel Belt to talk about this legislation merely being symbolic and all of that rhetoric, but the fact is that a change from a triple-A credit rating to a double-A rating would mean increased costs on a $2.5 billion contract, or on an issue of Hydro, of $200 million of increased costs to taxpayers and people of this province.

5:30 p.m.

I think we had best not forget that one impact of a change of rating would be to send some very important signals. It is not just symbolic, it would send very real signals to the people who have the responsibility of creating new jobs and choosing this jurisdiction versus others, and it would be very much a deciding factor in whether this is a place where people should invest and create new jobs and have confidence in this economy.

The opposition takes some delight in saying in its criticism that this is just a symbolic matter, but it is not symbolic. It is very much basic dollars and cents, and the measures we take as we go forward to give the kind of leadership this province must give at this point are very basic to the economy.

In the earlier part of the debate, members of the opposition very conveniently mentioned people they have heard complaining about the legislation. They were not too often prepared to share with us some of the comments that came from some very important parts of our economy. For example, I would like to share with the members a letter that was written to the Premier from the chairman and general manager, Mr. Ian Kennedy, of the Canadian Organization of Small Business. He says in part: "The five per cent ceiling is realistic and indeed overdue, a measure which recognizes the limits to which the Ontario taxpayer is prepared to support the growth of government, while all other sectors of the economy are being required to make drastic economies. The small business community strongly supports the restraint program and its application to prices administered by the provincial government."

In closing, he says: "While your government has shown an ongoing commitment to responsible financial management in many areas, COSB is encouraged at your decision to take this important step."

We know full well that the small business sector in this province is responsible for no less than 50 per cent of all new jobs. We know the attention this government gave in its last budget towards assisting that small business community so they could benefit in these difficult times; and of course we see them replying, as they did to the initiatives by the Treasurer in the recent budget. They are responding again and are saying to this government: "We know the reasons for your bringing forward this program and we support you in it."

We have not heard that from the other members and I thought I would share it with the House.

The member for Nickel Belt, in his comments, talked about jobs lost. He and other members from the NDP particularly mentioned jobs lost during the debate. They use rhetoric to tie this program in, claiming that this government, in concert with this further package of restraint, is not doing anything for new jobs being given priority in this province. Again, without going into the whole litany of the individual programs that were contained in that last budget, let us just be reminded that there are some very substantial, important numbers.

Let us take two programs as examples. Our co-op program has some very important issues and areas of work which the two members from Sudbury maybe should include in their comments when they are giving their speeches up north tomorrow. For example, in the forest program of the co-op section, some 3,215 new jobs have come on the scene and a lot of projects are pending at the same time. That makes 47,000 or more work-weeks that have come out at a provincial cost of some $10,571,000.

I wanted to share with the members that, while we have had comment during this debate that tends to say this government is advancing only this restraint program, it also has other programs that are bringing into place and preserving new employment opportunities. For example, the accelerated capital program in both the forestry and fishing industries, and the co-op program in forestry, mines, fish and parks have already brought about an additional 2,575 jobs --

Mr. Wildman: Temporary jobs.

Mr. Jones: -- and we see projects pending at this time that indicate another 5,000 jobs on top of those already created.

Mr. Wildman: Temporary.

Mr. Jones: The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) can interject about such things as temporary jobs. I would venture to suggest that people are pretty grateful for those jobs, and I am glad to see him nodding in accord. As with some of his other interjections the member for Algoma sometimes must be kidding us just a little bit. He certainly was when he talked about the invisible Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). He was not very invisible during question period when he was here setting the record straight about some of the people over there and some of their comments that go completely off the track and away from all reality.

The Canadian Organization of Small Business wrote and conveyed their thoughts to this government, but I think it is also important to share the comments that are coming into our constituency offices from people in every walk of life. One letter from which I would like to share a couple of highlights with the honourable members is a letter that was written to the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and received here September 28, so it is extremely current. A man by the name of A. J. Brown wrote to his member and referred to the decision to freeze the salaries of public service employees for a one-year period, and he sincerely believes this is an important step that has been taken by this government. He says, "Please, please, do not give in to any pressure from the public sector, because in the long run it will benefit us all."

I think we need to be reminded the thought this man puts to his member is the type that people are increasingly sharing with us all. The member for Nickel Belt said the whole world waiting out there was not in support, but I suggest he should be taking a broader cross-section of the comment that is coming to us as members and that has been coming to this government.

One other thought that disturbed me in the recent comments by the member for Nickel Belt was his indication that somehow the members of the government of this province sat down and decided: "Now, who can we pick on? Let us pick on our civil service." It was clearly suggested that somehow or other there was a clandestine meeting and it was decided: "Aha! There's the target, and someone we can easily pick on."

This government's record in its relationship with its public service has been looked to by other jurisdictions around the world as one on a high level and with a rapport that has spanned many years and will go on for many years. Just as this man indicated in his letter to the member for York Centre, there is great awareness that this program has at heart the best interests of all sectors of our economy and this province, be it public or private.

5:40 p.m.

The last two speakers tended to pretend there has been no difference between public and private sector salary increases. We heard it implied, as we talked about the consumer price index, that the price indexes were somehow or other identical between the public and private sectors. I think we have to face the reality that is not so.

We saw consumer price increases in the first half of 1982 of some 11.5 per cent. Yet even excluding oil and gas those in the nonmarket index were 14.5 per cent and those in the private sector market index something like 9.5 per cent. So there is a distinct difference.

There is an important gesture in both sections of this bill that is not just symbolic. It is the very important economic fact that this government is taking the lead in helping to reduce the inflation villain that is hurting our economy so badly.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to the debate as it continues in committee.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate briefly in this debate.

The problem with Bill 179, known as the restraint bill, is of course with the people who wrote the bill. They do not know too much about restraint.

An hon. member: You would make a tougher bill?

Mr. Ruston: Yes, I think maybe I could.

I noticed recently while reading the help wanted columns in the newspapers -- a habit I picked up from the years I had to keep an eye on them to find a job, and I have not quit looking -- I noticed one of those jobs I have never been able to figure out: the public relations people the ministries need. The ads I have noticed in the past few weeks state applicants must be able to write up proper news releases and put to the public the good things the government is doing. Further down one reads that the salary range is $35,000 to $45,000.

I do not know why a government has to have such highly paid people to tell the public what is being done for them. I am sure most of the public know what the government is doing for them, and some of the public are not sure what the government is doing for them and wish it would do a little less. But I have not been able to figure out why they have to hire such high-priced staff to convey to the public the good things of the government.

Another strange part of it involves the great gallery behind the Speaker, where the 35 to 40 young ladies and gentlemen who report the news gather during question period. It has seemed to me, in the few years I have been around, that about 15 to 20 per cent of them end by coming down out of that gallery and into the one over behind the Speaker on the right-hand side and back behind the doors over there, where there are hidden walls and so forth -- where they do the little work for their ministers, the executive assistants and so on.

It would appear to me they come here to report the news back to wherever they came from. After they have been here for a while they start eyeing up: "I am going to get a job from that minister or that minister because I am kind of specialized in that ministry and I will get his news out good." First thing we know, when they are hiring somebody he or she has a job.

I am not saying just the men; it is the ladies too. There have been articles in recent days about the new appointment in the Ontario Status of Women Council that has been handed to one who was a former press person and then right-hand person to the Premier (Mr. Davis). I am not sure whether her husband is connected with some public relations job in Kingston.

I do not know why the government needs to spend this kind of money. I have never been able to figure that out yet, although I have been involved in municipal government for eight years and now here going on close to 15 years. I must say this is one area where I think the restraint package should start immediately.

I am sure if this government ever sincerely put in a restraint policy, Greyhound and Travelways and all these other companies that furnish transportation would need special trains to haul them out of Toronto, because there are so many back around these little crevices in this building. There are an awful lot of crevices in this building where they seem to hang out.

The Speaker has sent me a little note here regarding Bill 179. I resent that, because if we are not talking restraint what are we talking about? That is what Bill 179 is. I really think that is a very important part of it. If they are going to restrict people's wages then they should restrict other things with it. I agree with the principle of what we are doing.

There are about 11,000 people working for Chrysler of Canada. Chrysler in the United States have just had a union agreement lately that they are voting on. The biggest increase they can get in the Chrysler contract in the United States is about 50 cents an hour over a period of one year from the contract date. That is including cost of living. They make $9.70 an hour at present. That figures out at pretty close to five per cent. That is the maximum they can get for a whole year. They already make $2.75 an hour less than those workers at General Motors and Ford.

Ford has come up with similar contracts to those General Motors accepted. In the General Motors contract, they are paid under the cost of living bonus that is allowed in the United States.

But they did get in their new contract a provision that within a year and a half they will come under the cost of living -- that is in Canada. Of course the cost of living increase in the United States is about seven per cent a year while here it has been running about 11 per cent.

We must also remember that those employees of General Motors and Ford will be giving up something they received over the past six years -- which is now increased to 10 days a year. This is a personal-day paid holiday they can have. At certain times of the year they may take one day at a time. But there were 10 days, so if the 10 days were taken away from them at a basic rate of about $11.50 an hour, it is pretty close to $1,000 that each of those employees is giving up for 1983.

There are many people who are under the restraint plan even in private industry. The real concern in my own area now the Ford settlement has been agreed to -- at least by the union and it will be coming up for ratification shortly -- is that they are now dealing with Chrysler.

5:50 p.m.

As the members know, Chrysler apparently is under some public funding in the United States and, of course, the government of Canada has agreed to supply funds if necessary beginning in 1983. Until now, Canada has not had to use the funds it has agreed to assist Chrysler with.

Another thing, if one really wants to have restraint, no one with any common sense or even a brain in his head -- and I may be using a little strong language -- would have gone out and bought Suncor for $650 million. We are paying $350 million this year, with interest on that at 15.5 per cent, and 14.5 per cent on the other $300 million. That is not restraint. That is absolutely ridiculous. The government talks restraint. We feel it is time we had restraint, but if we can just get it into their heads, they have to use restraint on everything.

Mr. Kolyn: What do you think of Dome Petroleum?

Mr. Ruston: That is another disaster and so is Petro-Canada -- gas stations scattered up and down the highway. I would say about that interjection I do not like to --

The Deputy Speaker: Even if he is not in his seat.

Mr. Ruston: After all, it is an interjection and it is recorded. Unless it is replied to, someone reading Hansard may be confused. They will probably be confused after my speech anyway; I would not want to do it intentionally.

Speaking of Petro-Canada and having government getting involved in business, my thought is that it is nice to have a window to look out. The government of Canada bought that window so Ontario did not need to buy it. As to Petro-Canada, if I were the Prime Minister of Canada or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would have all the retail outlets sold to private industry.

[Applause].

Mr. Ruston: I would have distribution centres put up in Ontario and all the rest of the provinces. Where people wanted to buy it, they would buy it from us as a distribution centre only.

I notice a little applause from those on the other side of the House in the blue chairs and blue suits. They applauded when I talked about getting rid of Petro-Canada service stations. I say the same thing about Suncor. It is absolutely ridiculous to be involved in that venture. It is really the height of stupidity.

For a Premier who seems to have a feeling for people to commit the province to a $650-million debt when we are already in debt -- and the Premier of Ontario knows more about debt than anyone in this House and any other Premier in Canada. He is the only Premier who even in the best of times has run a deficit. He has always had a deficit. He has always had what some Treasurers call a shortfall, but I call lack of cash. Mr. McKeough had that favourite saying --

Mr. Edighoffer: Net cash requirement.

Mr. Ruston: Net cash requirement -- that was always a funny saying. People would ask, "What do they mean by net cash requirement?" I would say: "It is just to confuse you. In other words, if you farm all year and do not have any money at the end of the year then you have net cash requirements, I am sure."

I heard the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) the other night speaking briefly. He spoke for two or three hours. I listened for four or five minutes because he was not saying too much. But he said an interesting thing. I am no lover of the banks. I do most of my business at the credit union because I figure that is where people help one another. That is where they help me when I need it and maybe some day I can help someone else.

He said, "The only ones that made any money on high interest rates were the banks and their shareholders." But he forgot to talk about his own members, other members around here and people in the public who put billions of dollars in government bonds last November at 19.5 per cent interest.

Mr. Wildman: Name one.

Mr. Ruston: It was not me. But there were thousands of people in Ontario who did that and made 19.5 per cent interest.

I have never been in favour of high interest rates as a way of fighting inflation. The president of the Ford Motor Co. of Canada agrees with my feeling about high interest rates, which is that one does not have high rates to fight inflation.

The government has to do something similar to what we had after the last war when it put on credit controls. Over the last two or three years when inflation became high -- and there were houses in my own area involved -- when the Ford Motor Co. announced that it was going to expand, homes went from $70,000 --

[Interruption.]

Mr. Ruston: Would the member shut his mouth back there or go and sit in his own seat.

The other night the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) spoke for two hours and never spoke on the restraint bill at all. All he talked about was rent controls. If he wants to talk on this one, let him get down to his seat and ask the Speaker for permission to get up and speak or forever hold his peace.

The Deputy Speaker: Did he use parliamentary language?

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not just speak on rent controls. I talked about the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada home warranty program. I talked about high interest on development. I talked about the construction industry. I talked about the terrible programs of the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: I am simply trying to correct the record, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: It is corrected.

Mr. Philip: I talked about Ontario Housing Corp. I did not just talk about rent controls.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

Mr. Philip: I even talked about the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn).

Mr. Ruston: What I was saying is that the member for Windsor-Riverside said the only people who made money on high interest rates were those who owned the banks. Some of the large credit unions are certainly operating, to a degree, like a bank. They do not have high profits. The first time our own credit union had a loss was last year; it had a major loss.

But the high interest rates have certainly helped those people who have been savers all their lives and have been salting money away in that time. If we could only get them to spend that money now we could probably get the economy going a little better. I believe there is more money in savings accounts in banks and trust companies in Canada now than there has ever been. So we have to consider that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I said I would be brief. I want to say that the farm population in my riding would thank me, and I am sure would re-elect me for as long as I want to run, if I could get them five per cent more for the next year than they got last year. In fact, I suppose I would be re-elected by acclamation. I would think the other parties would be afraid to run against me if I could guarantee them that, because in Essex and Kent counties, as the members know, we grow corn and soybeans -- cash crop farming.

Our tomato crop is very good because it is under contract to the marketing board. It has done reasonably well. But the price of corn today is $2.25 a bushel, I believe. The price of soybeans is about $5.75 or $5.80 a bushel. I defy anyone in this House, I do not care how good a ploughman he is or how straight a furrow he ploughs, to plant corn, look after it and harvest it for less than $3.75 a bushel. I am sure some would say we need $4.50 a bushel, and maybe we do, but I am saying that is about the minimum. For soybeans one has to make at least $8 a bushel.

Mr. McClellan: Sounds like more than five per cent.

Mr. Ruston: The price last year was higher than it is now. The member would understand that if he read the market pages of the agricultural papers.

So maybe the biggest thing we have to do here is for the government to go on a restraint plan and stop wasting money, and the rest of us will get along with that five per cent for a 12 month period to get the economy going.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

30 septembre 1982