role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

July 14, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL BED STUDY

ELLIOT LAKE RETRAINING PROGRAMME

OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT ON PICKERING

REED PAPER AGREEMENT

CABINET DECISION ON BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT

HAMILTON MATCH PLATE CO.

MILK PRODUCTION

REDISTRIBUTION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

BENZENE LEVELS

ELLIOT LAKE POLLUTION

UNION STATION PROPERTY

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL BED STUDY

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

WATER QUALITY OF MILL STREAMS

ANTI-INFLATION AGREEMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL BED STUDY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

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

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

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

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

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

ELLIOT LAKE RETRAINING PROGRAMME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT ON PICKERING

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

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

An hon. member: It is the same thing.

Mr. Lewis: You walked into that.

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

Mr. Lewis: I am inclined to agree.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: Will there be time for replies?

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say --

Mr. Lewis: Walter, we love you --

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

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tend to agree.

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

REED PAPER AGREEMENT

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

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

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

[2:15]

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: You said that, not me.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Martel: That was sacrilegious.

Interjections.

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Why not? Why not?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Interjections.

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

CABINET DECISION ON BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT

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

Hon. Mr. Meen: This had been before the legislation committee of cabinet on a number of occasions. During the course of the various deliberations of the committee, both at times when I was the chairman and on previous occasions, it had been referred back with the suggestion from the committee that negotiations continue between the developer on the one hand and the city of Burlington and the region of Halton on the other. Over the months that ensued the various points that were raised by the parties ultimately were resolved.

At one stage -- and it was relatively recently; the time when I was the chairman -- we had recommended that the report of the lakefront study be considered with respect to the 50-ft walkway which had been recommended and at one stage, following that I believe, the city of Burlington had indicated they wanted that as one of the conditions of agreement.

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

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

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

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, if I understood correctly it was the city of Burlington that modified its position on this. Could the minister explain how the eventual decision relates to provincial policy to retain adequate amounts of lake frontage for public access in Burlington, which at present I believe only has 11 per cent,

whereas Oakville and Mississauga have 30 per cent or so and the minister’s own government suggests that that should be a minimum?

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

HAMILTON MATCH PLATE CO.

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

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

MILK PRODUCTION

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Shore: Who advised you?

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

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

Mr. Nixon: No doubt about it.

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

Mr. Nixon: He understands it.

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

Mr. Roy: Well, just answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

Mr. S. Smith: Darn right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Roy: You are not very effective.

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

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

We are working with them, specifically, to pinpoint the problem areas. If we could get a little more co-operation out of Ottawa we could do it a lot faster.

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

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

Mr. Roy: Obviously nobody is listening to you.

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

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

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

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

Mr. MacDonald: Do it now.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

[2:30]

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

REDISTRIBUTION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

BENZENE LEVELS

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

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

ELLIOT LAKE POLLUTION

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a

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

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

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

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

UNION STATION PROPERTY

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

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

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

All of the principals were there again, almost to the date that was allocated, one year.

Under Mr. McNab’s proposal, Union Station per se, the great hail, would remain. The transportation complex, rather than being moved south, which would have been a very large additional expense, will be constructed on the existing site with some expansion. It will accommodate the increased GO service, it provides for intercity rail transportation. The parties involved unanimously accepted Mr. McNab’s report. The details as to what share is to be borne by those involved, the railways and the governments, is something that will be worked out prior to this fall.

It did settle the site of the Bathurst St. -- well, it was to have been an interchange but it is now a tunnel between Bathurst and Spadina, if memory serves me correctly. From the standpoint of transportation, it was a very constructive, positive and encouraging report that received, I think it is fair to say, the unanimous approval of all the principals at the meeting.

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

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

Mr. Martel: This is a ministerial statement.

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

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

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

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

Ms. Bryden: I have a supplementary of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. It appears that various groups were involved in the planning of this expenditure of $300,000 by the province that he mentioned, but the only people who were not present were the members of this Legislature. I would like to ask how it happened that Mr.

McNab’s report, or any part of it, was not brought before the estimates committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications which, presumably, would then have given the members of this Legislature an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference of the studies that are being funded by this $300,000. It has very serious implications for land use and urban sprawl.

Mr. Singer: Speech!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member that the meeting took place somewhere between June 15 and 20 -- I forget the exact date. There were no funds, obviously, in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications because this was a request received from the mayor of the city of Toronto and those groups working with the land-use committee. Now that the transportation problem has been resolved, the detailed study for land use to relate to this transportation centre, to the land, to the harbour front, was something that was of priority for the city of Toronto; and I think for Metro.

So I made a decision, really, within about 10 minutes that the government of this province would assist in the funding of this project in order to get the whole thing on the road. It did not appear in the estimates because it wasn’t contemplated, but I’m sure the hon. member will have an opportunity when she may or may not be here in time for the estimates again to be considered of some ministry where that $300,000 can be discussed in great detail.

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

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

Mrs. Campbell: Is the Premier then saying that,

whereas the city of Toronto had these concerns that the transportation report would take precedence over the land-use planning report, it has in fact happened and the city is pleased with that result?

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Campbell: I didn’t suggest that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Say so.

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

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

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL BED STUDY

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

Mr. Sweeney: Watch out, Bette.

Mr. Grossman: We’re friends again.

Interjections.

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

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

Mr. Grossman: No, I don’t have to.

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

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

Mr. Ferris: Regression analysis.

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

Mr. Ruston: Now the minister is admitting it.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

[2:45]

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

An hon. member: Because he’s perverse.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Reports.

Motions.

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

Motion agreed to.

WATER QUALITY OF MILL STREAMS

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

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

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

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

Mr. Singer: Are you extending the question period?

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

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

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ANTI-INFLATION AGREEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved second reading of Bill 127,

An Act to ratify the entering into an Agreement under the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada).

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

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

Mr. Moffatt: That was an apology.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

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

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

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

Mr. Roy: And as you did in December.

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

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

Mr. Bain: Are you phoney, Albert?

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. Roy: Posturing.

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

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

Mr. Nixon: You and Joe Morris.

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

Mr. Nixon: The member for CLC.

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

Mr. Nixon: And third reading.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Peterson: Is Elie writing your material now?

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

Mr. Breithaupt: That certainly is a throwaway line.

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

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

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

Mr. Conway: What about the general strike?

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Renwick: That’s the effect.

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

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

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

[3:00]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: You wished everyone a Merry Christmas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Shore: Better caucus that one.

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

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

Mr. Roy: You should be at the Olympics.

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

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

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

Mr. Conway: What happened in December?

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

Mr. Shore: You only have two hours.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: That is an unimpeachable source.

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

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

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

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

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

A few minutes later I said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In an age when the principles of commerce were so imperfectly understood [and of course that’s true of this government even now] the most desirable end might perhaps be effected by harsh and injudicious means. The repetitions of intolerable taxes either on land or on the necessities of life may at last provoke those who will not or who cannot relinquish their country, but the case is far otherwise in every operation which by whatsoever expedient restores the just value of money. The transient evil is soon obliterated by the permanent benefit. The loss is divided among the multitudes.

If a few wealthy individuals experience a sensible diminution of treasures with their riches, they at the same time lose the degree of weight and importance which they derive from the possession of them.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: He wrote that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3:15]

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

“My remarks apply equally well to the jurisdiction of the province in the field of education, under

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

Interjections.

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

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

Mr. Martel: Get up and yell, Darcy.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s not true.

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

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

Further on, the submission of the Attorney General says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

According to the constitution, Parliament may fight inflation with the powers put at its disposal by the specific heads enumerated in

section 91, or by such powers as are outside of

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Nonsense.

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

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

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

Mr. Conway: What’s your answer?

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

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

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

[3:30]

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

We have got to.

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Before they are hung.

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

Mr. S. Smith: Not in December.

Mr. Conway: You missed one date.

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

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

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

Mr. S. Smith: I am very pleased to speak in this debate. The Anti-Inflation Board, a piece of federal legislation brought in by the federal government, is one that we feel has been reluctantly embraced by the people of Canada and by the people of this province and certainly is accepted by our party as a necessary means of trying to grapple with the problems of inflation.

The problems fall most heavily, not so much on those who are in large businesses and not so much on those who are represented by active and strong unions, but on those who are not unionized or whose unions are very weak and have little clout, on those who might be unemployed, on those who are ill or who are on disability benefits of one type or another, pensioners and old people.

Mr. Peterson: You mean the NDP.

Mr. S. Smith: As long as a situation exists whereby a strong union can bargain for higher wages to keep up with the cost of living and the company is in a powerful enough position to increase its price to pay for that and to pay for other things, as long as we are in that type of situation, then there will be only one group in society that’s able to keep up with the cost of living while the pensioners, the ones on fixed incomes, the ones who are on various government benefits, the ones who are on fixed rates of return from annuities and so on, are the ones who, in fact, go under.

As a necessary social document, we see the Anti-Inflation Board as at least one constructive attempt to deal with the hazards and the perils of inflation which are racking the country.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Come on.

An hon. member: You know it is unfair.

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Not the NDP.

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Because of the control on wages.

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Mackenzie: As usual.

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

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

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

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

whereas the Province of Quebec is only spending $1.5 million and --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: As usual.

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

Mr. Warner: A coalition government.

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

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

Mr. Renwick: And you support them.

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

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

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

Mr. Swart: And you keep them there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

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

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

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

Mr. Renwick: You are sure of that?

Mr. Lewis: How do you like that?

Mr. Nixon: Socialize. Nationalize.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: Here comes the bogy man.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you fantasizing this afternoon?

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

Interjections.

[3:45]

Mr. S. Smith: I appreciate that referring to the NDP as socialists is very offensive to half their members who represent, in fact, very conservative labour union sentiment instead of true socialism, but nonetheless there is suspicion of the socialist

part left in at least some of the members here who haven’t totally gone over to the more conservative labour unions. There are still enough of them that surely they are willing to stand up and accept the socialism, the dream, the Utopia which they have in mind, and not repudiate it the way some of the members have attempted to do.

Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with Utopia?

Mr. Mackenzie: Explain yourself.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: I like the last one.

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

Mr. Moffatt: Familiarity breeds contempt.

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

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

Mr. Wildman: How many court decisions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

An hon. member: What about the textile workers?

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

Mr. Davidson: It is a matter of fact.

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: In

summary, what I am saying is that --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Davidson: How were you going to vote?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Four years of deficits.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

[4:00]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

part in controlling national inflation.

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

Mr. S. Smith: With whom?

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

Mr. Breithaupt: We call it the federal government.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: No so.

Mr. Roy: And protect provincial interests, yes.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Conway: First things first.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Singer: Why go to that terrible Legislature?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. S. Smith: Not federal.

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

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

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

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

Hon. B. Stephenson: There were many cries which were raised about Ontario participation in the programme, and they were from the constituencies which I deal with in my ministry, very happily. They were from the public service unions and from the private sector unions stating that our commitment to this anti-inflation programme would be the death-knell for collective bargaining. That is patently untrue.

There may have been some misgivings in the early stages of the anti-inflation programme about the survival of collective bargaining, but it has become obvious recently that collective bargaining is very much alive and well and surviving in the Province of Ontario. This period of time, as I suggested in January, is being used as a pause period to consider other important aspects which may have been dealt with inadequately in other bargaining sessions.

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

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

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

Mr. Wildman: Food prices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- of the joint governmental initiative against inflation. It is important, to realize that this Act to ratify the government’s decision in January be passed as rapidly as possible, because the chaos which could result if there were a delay in enacting this, I think, is just inconceivable. During the period from October, 1975, to the present time, the Anti-Inflation Board has examined a number of contracts which have been established within the Province of Ontario and they have affected approximately 145,000 employees.

Of these, 58,000 were public employees and 87,000 are private-sector employees. But under the anti-inflation programme at the national level there are decisions pending which affect another 125,000 employees, the majority of whom are public-sector employees and the minority private-sector employees. If at this time we were to remove that large number of public-sector employees from this specific programme, we would, in fact, encourage inequities which I think would be insupportable in our efforts to control the inflation spiral and the problems which it has produced for our society.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Also nattering nabobs of negativism too.

Mr. Lewis: You said that quite mellifluously.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. S. Smith: Your worship.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the member for Hamilton West, the leader of the Liberal Party, as I’m always interested in the comments of any member of the Legislature. I listened with particular interest because I thought perhaps this time he was going to tell us something about the way in which their policy is arrived at. Strangely enough, I did get a little glimmer of what they really believe.

It seems the Liberal position is that if a government imposes some kind of hardship, some kind of acceptable measure on any sector of society, he would then move with haste to impose it on the remainder. That seems to be exactly the position that he takes, as he took during the debate on the rent control legislation.

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

Mr. Sweeney: What is your position?

Mr. Roy: You are confused, your worship.

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

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

[4:15]

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

Mr. Shore: Don’t try, Ian.

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

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

Mr. S. Smith: What nonsense.

Interjection.

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

Mr. S. Smith: Read Hansard.

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

Mr. Conway: Like your EMO position.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s right.

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

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

Mr. Shore: Your cousins down there like it.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Conway: Read your December speech.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Shore: You are nuts.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: Time, your worship.

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

Mr. S.