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

October 13, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

FIRST CLERK ASSISTANT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRIBUTES TO LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HEATING GRANT PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

ACID RAIN

INTEREST RATES

UNEMPLOYMENT

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

CHRYSLER LAYOFFS

MINISTRY-TEACHERS' CONSULTATIONS

NURSES' ARBITRATION

ELECTION SPENDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

ACID RAIN

HANSARD INTERJECTIONS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REVISION OF BILLS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO PENSIONERS PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

SOCIETY OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

LATVIAN CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE ACT

CHICOPEE SKI CLUB ACT

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF LONDON ACT

CANDORE EXPLORATIONS LIMITED ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

KLEVEN BROTHERS LIMITED ACT

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

INTEREST RATES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTEREST RATES (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1982, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by John B. Aird, Lieutenant Governor, Toronto, October 13, 1981.

FIRST CLERK ASSISTANT

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I am concerned about what I believe to be the most basic and the most important of all parliamentary privileges, namely, the independence of this Legislative Assembly.

I have before me, sir, your letter to Dr. E. E. Stewart, Deputy Minister, Office of the Premier, dated August 18, 1981, in which you indicate that you "will not be recommending the reappointment of Mr. John A. Holtby, first clerk assistant of this assembly."

I read your letter with great care and attention. I have also read it with greater concern and disappointment. You spoke, Mr. Speaker, in that letter of August 18, of difficulties that had to be resolved, of personality conflicts that were irreconcilable and, from your point of view, were very troubling and rendered the operations of this assembly something less than you would have liked them to have been.

There can be no doubt, sir, that your action regarding the dismissal of the former first clerk assistant has dealt very directly with some of that problem. Unfortunately, your actions, as outlined in the August 18 letter, are incomplete from my point of view and will be perceived as such on at least two counts. There can be no doubt in my mind that all honourable members share with you the very difficult job which is yours to perform on behalf of all 124 other members in this assembly. We would be dishonest if we did not all publicly and privately agree that there are difficulties, as will naturally occur when you put 125 people in the function we all share.

But in my view, sir, as I said earlier, your action is only a partial response to a very serious problem. The fact is that it will be seen as a partial response to a serious internal problem. That reality and indeed that perception, taken together with an equally important consideration, which I would briefly describe as the incomplete and imperfect consultation that preceded the actions of August 18, will in my humble view jeopardize in a significant way the independence of this Legislature.

I also say that there can be no doubt in my mind -- and I profess to speak only as a private member -- that your actions in this respect will be hailed by some but not all. I dare say that, privately if not publicly, your actions will meet with far greater approval on the government side of this House than on the opposition benches. That is the nub of the difficulty as far as the independence of this Legislature is concerned.

As the Camp commission so eloquently pointed out, this assembly has had a long and very difficult time in coming to terms with the development and evolution of a genuinely independent role for itself. In the second report of the Camp commission, tabled in December 1973, on page four, there is a very timely and useful bit of advice. I quote briefly from one sentence of that second Camp commission report: "It is the belief of the commission that the administration of the affairs of the Legislature ought not to depend on personalities. Instead, a permanent administrative framework should be created, strong and durable enough to function regardless of personality."

I will conclude, sir, by simply advising of my very personal and deep concern about the impressions and the realities that will flow from your action of August 18. As well, I strongly advise you and other members interested in this most important of parliamentary matters to look seriously and again at the recommendation of my friend and colleague the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who on April 3, 1980, discussed a private member's resolution that sought to establish the kind of administrative framework that would remove from you, sir, and from many others, the kind of difficulties into which, in the absence of this kind of framework, we have fallen in this instance.

In conclusion, I regret again that the actions have been taken without the complete consultation with the principals of this assembly. Your letter speaks of consultation, but it is my impression, having spoken with a number of members of this assembly, that the consultation of the leadership of all political parties in this assembly was not as complete as it ought to have been. I strongly encourage that the resolution of the member for York South, seeking as it does to establish and entrench the administrative framework so that this kind of consultation can be put in place, ought to be proceeded with as soon as possible.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I add a few words in general endorsation of the thrust of the remarks by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway)?

He has referred to my resolution of something over a year ago which was debated in this House. While some reservations were expressed in various portions of the House, I think the principle of it was generally accepted. I would like to believe that principle is going to be adhered to and is going to be implemented.

Even more important, the whole thrust of the report of the Camp commission some six or seven years ago was that, if we were going to be able to get this Legislature back on track in terms of British parliamentary experience, the Legislature would have to be set up as an independent body, independent of the government in many respects. It made specific recommendations, many of which have been implemented, I hasten to say.

However, there is one area that is critical, that of the posts of Speaker of the House, Clerk of the House and first clerk assistant. I could go further but I will not do so today. If we are going to live up to that principle, the people who are servants of this House and who are answerable to this House must be chosen by people who speak for this House; in my view, by the House leaders.

If I have any objection, and I do have an objection, I think the letter to the secretary of cabinet was in keeping with the old pattern which I thought was part of a closed

chapter that we were now going to forsake, namely, informing the clerk of the cabinet, and through him the cabinet, that you did not see fit to appoint a servant of this House. In my view, that is a point that should be discussed by the House leaders.

I make only this point in conclusion: I understand that process is now being grappled with. Henceforth, when we are appointing servants of this House -- you and your successors in the years ahead, but more immediately people around the table -- I trust that decision will be made in consultation with the House leaders, who can speak on behalf of all the parties in the House. If that is done, these people not only will be perceived to be servants of the House but also in reality will be servants of the House, which they should be, and not servants of the government, either in perception or in reality.

I trust the efforts that are now being made, the discussions that are now going on among the House leaders, will be pursued so that by a process of osmosis, if not automatic implementation, the spirit of my resolution a year or so ago will be accepted and implemented.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on this matter so that the perception the member for Renfrew North was endeavouring to create does not become a reality. The perception he was trying to create, that there were a number on the government side of the House who took some satisfaction or were pleased with what has transpired is just factually untrue.

While I am not going to debate today the basis of the resolution standing in the name of the member for York South, because that to me is not the issue at this precise moment, I understand from the government House leader that arrangements have been made already with you, Mr. Speaker, to discuss how the first clerk assistant, if that is the correct terminology, is to be appointed.

I must remind members of the House that, while they always take great delight and pleasure in saying how independent the Legislature must be from the government -- and I accept that principle with enthusiasm -- I also sense that, when things do not go too smoothly here in the House, it is the government by and large that is held responsible, not the independent officers of the assembly on all occasions.

Mr. Martel: And well it should be; you are accountable for your actions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is fine. But all I am saying is, my honourable friend cannot have it both ways.

I do not mean to be provocative, Mr. Speaker. You were faced with what was a regrettable situation in terms of the relationships that existed amongst officials of this House. I think it is fair to state that the former Speaker was aware of this.

I think the former Speaker could say that in my capacity as Premier I never tried to interfere with his functioning nor sought special favours, other than maybe a cup of tea -- I did not even seek that -- in all his time as Speaker of this assembly. I would be very surprised if he could say anything to the contrary. I never sought from him any special consideration in terms of debates or as to whether something was an emergency or not. That was, in my view, the proper type of relationship.

I think it would be unfair for the member for Renfrew North to create the impression that you, Mr. Speaker, exercised anything other than a reasonable judgement, faced with a difficult situation. On behalf of the members on this side of the House, in my view, a decision has been made. It was not easy. I am one of those who is prepared to stand up and wish John Holtby extremely well in his new career. I say that on behalf of all the government members in the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRIBUTES TO LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two statements to make. At the outset, I must say that the first one is not a prepared statement, and I do apologize to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) for not having it prepared in advance.

But, in that we are starting the fall session of the new parliament, and recognizing how feelings were last spring and accepting that the Leader of the Opposition and I have had, shall we say, the odd verbal confrontation, I am most sincere in saying to the member for Hamilton West -- not that I totally regret his decision; I have mixed views on that -- that as one who knows something of the sacrifice that is made being in public service, while I have not had the experience, and I hope never will, of being Leader of the Opposition, I know how difficult a task it is, particularly when I look at some of his colleagues across the House and know how some of his caucuses must have been.

Mr. Peterson: Like the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), you mean?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, don't provoke me today, because I can recite

chapter and verse some of the honourable member's antics. He is part of the problem.

Mr. Martel: You should look to your left.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), unlike him I do not look to my left but either straight ahead or a little bit to the right.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier please carry on with his statement?

Mr. Sargent: You lack class.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hope the honourable member is being as kind to his leader as I am.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, in a very personal sense and speaking for my cabinet and caucus colleagues, that we wish him well in whatever career -- I hope nonpolitical -- he may wish to pursue.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I might briefly respond by thanking the Premier for his gracious comments. I do not quite feel ready for the upper house at the federal level -- not that I have been offered it -- in fact, there are times in this House when I feel ready for retirement from the upper house at the federal level.

I do not intend to view politics from that lofty a height. I hope during the next few months to make life as interesting as possible for the Premier of Ontario and for his colleagues, who certainly vary from each other in their comments on matters such as human rights -- as from time to time even my own colleagues have been known to vary from each other.

Mr. Nixon: Very rarely.

Mr. Smith: I will have occasion to address a few comments, I am sure, when it comes time for me to actually step down as leader. At that time I presumably will speak at greater length. But today I simply want to say I intend to be as vigorous an opposition leader as possible for the next little while.

I certainly have appreciated the exchanges that have occurred between the Premier, the leader of the New Democratic Party and myself. I respect them as gentlemen and hope we can continue a relationship at that civilized level for the remainder of my term here as Leader of the Opposition. I simply want to say thank you to the Premier for his kind comments.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I too want to express my sympathy to the leader of the official opposition for the difficult decision I know he had to go through this summer. I have been that route before; so that makes two of us now. I suspect that in a few months' time the member for Hamilton West and myself could get together and write our memoirs jointly of the last three or four years in the Ontario Legislature. He could psychoanalyse the government and I could chronicle what they have done. We might come up with some truths as a consequence.

It is a bit too soon to write the obituary of the member for Hamilton West. He, like I, is passing on to that role of elder statesman within his own party, which allows one a bit more licence, a bit more freedom to speak truth and to act independently. He has certainly put in long hours and a great deal of effort and energy over a period of some five and a half years in seeking to take his party to power, as I have with mine. It has been a frustrating experience for both of us, but I certainly wish his successor well as I wish my successor well.

Both of us will be watching with interest, because I understand there are not two but, in fact, three battles which may be fought over the coming years for the succession. We will be watching the government benches to see what the pretenders are doing on that side as eagerly as the government will be watching these benches here.

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to leap in and say the next statement I make has nothing to do with my political plans for the future.

Mr. Bradley: Mayor of Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not a bad job.

Again, I will apologize for the very brief verbal report on the constitutional discussions. I have had my notes updated only in the last few minutes; so I have no written report. The best information I can share with honourable members of the House is really what I said at the press conference, and they have probably read that in the press.

I made it quite clear that I was ready to go to a meeting today. I was ready to go this coming Thursday. There may be a meeting of all 10 Premiers on Monday; I am not completely sure of that yet. The Premier of British Columbia is meeting with the Prime Minister this evening, I believe. The Prime Minister has indicated he would now meet -- instead of today or Thursday -- next Tuesday.

I said to the press conference that, if there could be some greater measure of consensus, Ontario would be delighted to participate in that. We would have some measure of flexibility in terms of the charter itself. We have said from the outset that we have an open mind with respect to an amending formula, and we still have that.

As events unfold, I will share with members of the House any information I have. But at the moment it appears as though there could be a meeting of first ministers on Tuesday. There probably will be a meeting of Premiers on Monday. If I am invited to that meeting, I shall be there and will report to the House on my return.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do have a formal statement to make. I am pleased to advise the House that an agreement in principle has been reached between Sun Company Incorporated of Radnor, Pennsylvania, and Ontario Energy Resources Limited, a subsidiary of the Ontario Energy Corporation, to purchase 25 per cent of the shares of Suncor Incorporated.

The negotiated price for this interest is $650 million.

Final arrangements for the sale will be worked out over the next few weeks and will be subject to satisfactory agreements and other conditions being achieved.

As members know, the Canadianization and crude oil self-sufficiency goals outlined in the federal government's national energy program pose enormous financing challenges to Canada when one considers the very large asset base of the petroleum industry.

Mr. Cassidy: You wouldn't do this for Denison.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Denison is Canadian-owned.

Mr. Smith: That is a new distinction for you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there is a distinction; I hope the Leader of the Opposition understands it.

This purchase will assist in the Canadianization of the petroleum industry and fulfils a policy commitment announced by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) a year ago for greater Ontario participation in the Canadian petroleum industry.

The government has been assured by Sun Company Incorporated that it intends to continue to seek other Canadian investors so that at least 51 per cent of Suncor shares will be owned by Canadians as soon as possible.

The agreement provides for additional opportunities for Ontario Energy Resources to negotiate a further percentage interest from Sun, if necessary, in order to facilitate the Canadianization process.

As a result of this acquisition, Ontario Energy Resources Limited has the right to nominate a proportionate number of members to the Suncor board of directors.

Over the past several months, the Ontario Energy Corporation has considered a number of potential opportunities to determine which investment could most effectively contribute to Canadianization of the industry and other policy objectives, including a stronger voice for Ontario and its people in the energy business. Its financial consultants, McLeod Young Weir Limited and Price Waterhouse and Company, have exhaustively reviewed the assets and business of Suncor and have advised that the negotiated price is a sound investment for Ontario taxpayers.

As members may know, Sun Company Incorporated first invested in Canada in 1919. During that time its investment has grown so that today Suncor is one of Canada's largest integrated oil companies and was the first to tap the enormous potential of the Alberta oil sands on a commercial scale.

Suncor explores for and produces conventional crude oil and natural gas in Canada's western provinces and is active in the search for oil and gas in the frontier areas, including the Arctic islands, the Mackenzie Delta and offshore Labrador. As well, Suncor manufactures, distributes and markets gasoline, petrochemicals, home heating oil, heavy fuel oil, lubricants and specialty products as well as owning and operating a refinery in Sarnia.

The initiative I have announced today signals a new phase in the activities of the Ontario Energy Corporation and represents a commitment by this government to contribute to crude oil self-sufficiency for Canada and to provide Ontario with a stronger voice in the determination of energy policy in this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask those leadership hopefuls to please maintain order in the chamber.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks, not as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs but as government House leader. I do not have a copy of this but, since we are all here again for this fall session, dedicated to the beginning of a very workmanlike and productive session, I thought I might outline at this earliest possible time the business of the House.

As will be very obvious to members from the list of estimates considerations still remaining on the Order Paper, the bulk of the time in our four main standing committees will be spent on estimates. On our Order Paper today we see that there are 240 hours of estimates work still to be done. However, I am sure the committees will be able to handle this job.

2:30 p.m.

Without in any way prejudicing later decisions of the House, Mr. Speaker -- as you know, you have two motions before you for an emergency debate -- I would like to indicate the business of the House which has been arranged through the usual channels with the other House leaders.

If it is decided that legislation should proceed this afternoon, we will call Bills 100, 47, 22 and 6. At eight o'clock tonight, immediately after the supper recess, we will call Bill 84 and then return to Bill 6, the Business Corporations Act, for the remainder of the evening if time remains.

On Wednesday, the general government, resources development and administration of justice committees may meet in the morning. On Thursday afternoon we will have private members' public business, and I expect to be putting a motion to the House later this afternoon which will affect one of the two items.

On Thursday evening, we will take into consideration the final 1980 report of the standing committee on public accounts. While there is no motion for adoption of this report, I think there are a number of items in the report that will be of very topical interest to all the members.

On Friday, we will enter into debate on the final three bills from the 1981 budget, Bills 71, 79 and 80. I point out that we will also continue with consideration of these pieces of legislation next Monday afternoon.

Looking into other business likely for the House during this session, I expect that we will be calling Bill 68, the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act, as soon as it is reported from committee, which I assume will be in the not-too-distant future. The same will apply for Bill 7, The Human Rights Code, 1981, when the work of the committee on that bill has been concluded and it is back here in the House.

On the Order Paper there are about 16 bills, and we intend to proceed with all of those. Looking at the future, I see about another 24 bills that will be introduced very shortly, and we hope the House will be able to consider those before Christmas. To show that we are really moving ahead, four or six of those bills will be introduced today, and I expect by the end of the week that another six or so will have been introduced.

I trust we will be able to enjoy a very profitable session of this Legislature. I might say, in making that wish, I welcome all the members back. I am particularly pleased to see that the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) is back with us again, and I know that the members of the House would like to welcome him back. Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will all be co-operating to help you make this a very workable centre of democracy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the announcement made by the government House leader (Mr. Wells), he mentioned 240 hours and yet the Order Paper shows 375. Has this now been agreed as to all the changes?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is my understanding that is the amount of legal time left according to the Order Paper. If you add up the estimates columns, the amount of time left comes to about 240 hours. We are not yet filling up the complete time. That is the time that would remain to you.

HEATING GRANT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing two bills which will implement the program for temporary home heating assistance announced by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) on June 23, 1981.

The bill to amend the Ontario Pensioners' Property Tax Assistance Act will enact the temporary home heating grant. This grant is designed to offset some of the impact of home heating costs -- cost increases that senior citizens are likely to experience over the next three years.

Persons 65 years of age or older who have incurred occupancy costs for their family home will automatically receive their temporary home heating grants in the spring of 1982, 1983 and 1984. The amounts of the grants will be $60 for 1981, $40 for 1982 and $20 for 1983. The bill to amend the Income Tax Act will enact the temporary home heating credit. This credit is intended to reduce the impact of home heating costs for other low-income and fixed-income Ontarians for the next three years.

Individuals who own or rent their homes will be able to claim the temporary home heating credit by filling out the Ontario tax credit form in their income tax returns. The maximum amounts of the credits again will be $60, $40 and $20 for the respective years 1981, 1982 and 1983. Because the home heating credit is geared to the income of taxpayers, the credit will be reduced by one per cent of their taxable income for the year.

Other amendments in this bill to amend the Income Tax Act will bring the administrative provisions of the Ontario act into line with the federal Income Tax Act. Under the terms of the Canada/Ontario tax collection agreement, Ontario's individual income tax and tax credits are administered for the province by the federal government. The proposed amendments will facilitate the common administration of the federal and Ontario income tax.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with oral questions, I would like to draw to the members' attention the presence of Senator James Mills, who represents the 40th district of the California state Senate. I would ask you all to join with me in welcoming Senator Mills.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Premier in regard to the statement he has made concerning the purchase of 25 per cent of the shares of Suncor, could the Premier share with the House some further information? First, is it his understanding that this 25 per cent interest will give Ontario Energy Corporation a controlling interest in Suncor as of now, even before additional buyers are found within the country? Second, can he give us some indication of what return he is anticipating on the investment Ontario is making, taking into consideration the interest costs, which undoubtedly have been calculated, in raising the $650 million?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in the matter of what constitutes control, but if 51 per cent constitutes control, then obviously we do not and are not intending to acquire control. Our involvement really is to pave the way for Canadianization of this particular integrated energy company, with the desire to have somebody or some companies acquire the additional 26 per cent.

I think it is fair to state, with my limited knowledge of corporate affairs, that 25 percent, while it is not technical or legal control -- because Suncor is very closely held in the United States, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows -- does give us a measure of input into determination of what it is doing. But in terms of, say, voting rights, the 25 per cent in itself would not give control.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, may I ask the Premier if he would refer himself to the second part of my question when he rises again, namely, the return he anticipates and the interest costs on the money. Could he tell us where he is going to raise the money? Is he going to raise the money here in Canada and spend it in the United States, in apparent contravention of what Mr. MacEachen was asking the banks to do some time ago, or is he going to raise the money elsewhere? Can he tell us exactly what the financing arrangements are?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are having a press conference at four o'clock, and I would invite the Liberal energy critic to be there, when much of this detail will be made public. Of the $650 million, which represents the 25 per cent cost, my recollection is that 50 per cent is by way of notes back to, or paper back to, Suncor. The other $325 million will come from Ontario and will be from moneys obtained here in Ontario.

In terms of the investment or the rate of return, it is not easy to give a guesstimate on the rate of return, because part of the judgement obviously is predicated on guesstimates with respect to the price of crude, anticipation with respect to some of the offshore potential, and what ultimately may emerge in terms of what will be produced. The people who have been advising us, who are some of the most knowledgeable people in the industry, advise us that the return will be significant and, if things go well, it will be a very worthwhile investment for the taxpayers of the province.

2:40 p.m.

Admittedly, as there always are with arrangements of this kind, there are certain intangibles related to what may emerge in terms of price, although I am constantly reminded by members opposite, particularly their critics, that the price has only one way to go and that is up. We are relatively confident the rate of return will be justified.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier is aware that any ministerial statement requires a compendium of information. With a statement of this importance it is obvious the information asked for should be tabled. Does the Premier have such a compendium as is required under the rules?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure a statement per se requires a compendium, but we will certainly make sure any information that is available for the press at four o'clock will be available.

Some hon. members: What about us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will get that for the members as well.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I trust the Premier will be tearing up some of his speeches now that the government has acknowledged what we have said for a long time, that there is a constructive role for government in investing in the major industries of our country. We hope very much the government will take this approach with respect to the natural resources of Ontario as well.

To complement this step of taking ownership of a major oil company, is the government now prepared to institute a warm-up-Ontario program that will ensure we have real conservation and save as much energy within Ontario as we will produce through Suncor now that Ontario has a stake in it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to state that this government, as well as other significant utilities here in Ontario -- including that very significant energy producer called Ontario Hydro, which the member so enthusiastically supports, as does the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) -- has introduced some significant energy conservation programs; in fact, some were so successful that some members opposite were complaining about them.

I can recall some observations made about those excellent TV commercials that were instituted in the name of energy conservation, which some members of the House thought were not totally appropriate. This government is very energy-conservation minded. Its programs are directed that way and that will continue.

Mr. J. A. Reed: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Premier could tell us if the $650 million is a true reflection of the Suncor assets that are located in Ontario? Could he tell us how much Ontario-produced oil Suncor controls?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, surely of all members opposite, the expert in energy, the member for Halton-Burlington, knows that one of the few problems we have in Ontario is the lack of large supplies of crude oil. We have some limited amounts of natural gas but, unfortunately at this time -- who knows what may be found in Hudson Bay or wherever -- crude oil is not in abundance yet in this province that we know of.

Quite obviously Suncor, and this is true of all the major companies in the business, has its prime producing areas in some of our sister provinces, although I should point out that Suncor has a fairly significant facility in the Chemical Valley just outside Sarnia. I had better not offend the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), but a part of it may be shared with the city of Sarnia. I think it is fair to state that any involvement of a meaningful nature by the public of this province in the energy field in oil, and probably in gas, means that it will be in other parts of this country.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With a statement of this significance, with no information given to this House, as was brought out by the House leader of this party, surely we have the right to question the first minister on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The members do indeed. However, I am not going to debate it since I am not allowed to debate it.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I assume he will recall the exchange last summer -- actually in May 1980 -- between his predecessor and me in which his predecessor pretended to be tough with Inco. When I demanded that he insist on a new furnace and a limit of under 1,000 tons by 1985, I was told not to be ridiculous.

In view of the fact that he undoubtedly remembers that, can the minister explain why this secret report which was leaked to me in the last few days, an exhaustive and complete report prepared for his ministry and entitled Nickel Market Conditions and Sulphur Dioxide Control and Inco Limited, has been sitting on his desk for over a year? Why has this report not been acted upon and why has it been kept a secret when it states plainly that Inco could and should clean up to 750 to 800 tons a day by 1985 by the installation of a new furnace?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not recall the specific exchange -- I am sure it took place; I am not questioning that -- nor do I recall offhand from the member's reference having seen that specific report. I think, though, in view of the action we have taken, which my predecessor initiated with Inco in terms of the control orders, that he is unjustified in suggesting that no action has been taken or that it has been too soft.

I think if the member checks with his federal colleagues he will realize we have established a federal-provincial group, which is looking at the situation in Inco to determine where we should go once the company has complied with the existing order, which will be next year. As I understand it, one of the problems is that the new technology has to be developed as the improvement takes place. In fact, Inco is working now on the technology to achieve next year's standard.

I am optimistic, on the basis of discussions I have had with them, that they will achieve that and that they know it is not the end, that there will be further steps following that. What we are now trying to determine through the work of the federal-provincial task force is what an appropriate next step would be in terms of available technology.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that in this report, Still Waters: The Chilling Reality of Acid Rain, signed by members of all three parties of the federal House who have studied the matter exhaustively, they say the subcommittee recommends that the Inco Limited smelter at Copper Cliff be compelled to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions to 750 tons per day and that this level be attained within five years; given that that is what I said should be done and what Mr.

Parrott said was impossible, and he left them at their 2,000 or 1,950 limit; and given this secret report, which the minister has now hidden for over a year, sitting on his desk and his predecessor's desk, which says that it could be done, that it should be done and that much of the technology was available in 1953, at least in the copper refinery, now will the minister finally not continue to open us to criticism from the Americans, who could poke holes in the arguments we made in Washington, and finally clean up our own act here so that we have some authority when we ask the Americans to do the same?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition knows precisely where that report is on my desk I wish he would tell me. I must say I do not believe it is or ever has been on my desk.

I think the member seriously underestimates the credibility of the arguments we have been making with the Americans. If he feels we are being less than vociferous in the pursuit of the abatement of sulphur dioxide in this province, I would invite the Americans and any other neighbouring jurisdiction to be as lax as we are being, because we are making progress and we are achieving results. That is more than most of them can say.

If the member wants to quote from the Still Waters report, the federal parliamentary committee report, in terms of its general thrust I certainly support what it is saying about the need for further abatement. I have never taken exception to that kind of statement. Where that report has fallen seriously short is that it has simply failed to take into consideration the measures that have been taken in this country, and it does not give appropriate credit either to the Ontario government or to any other level of government in this country.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Smith: It's a scathing indictment of Ontario from cover to cover.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member reads it carefully he can say it is a scathing indictment of everybody, in simply saying that more has to be done; sure it does. All I am saying is that we are the one jurisdiction that is doing something about it. I have never said there is not more to be done, and as soon as the technology is available, it will be required.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the minister's statement that he does not believe the technology is at present available to get the emissions down to the levels recommended in the Still Waters report, does that mean he has not been informed by officials within his own ministry of the 1975 internal Inco report that indicated that for $300 million they could get down to 1,500 tons a day from a level of something over 3,000 tons a day?

Is the minister not aware of that internal document which has now been substantiated by this federal task force report? If not, why has the minister not inquired of his officials? If he does know about it, why has he not put the pressure on Inco to get their emissions down to a level they admitted they could get down to? Then they decided to withdraw it because they said it was too expensive.

Is the minister aware of that internal report? Is he absolutely certain the technology is not now available to get down to the level recommended by the task force report?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any internal document from Inco. I can assure the honourable member that --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have not seen this report. Maybe the members opposite have. If they have, they have to ask themselves whether or not it said in the report that the technology was at present available.

At one time, as the members know, there was an order that required reduction to 750 tons. That was subsequently altered because of the fact that technology did not exist. On the basis of the best information I have available to me now, I do not believe the technology exists to reduce it to 750 tons by 1985 at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Smith: How can the minister say that, on the basis of information available to him, he does not believe the technology exists, when he has had this specific report from October 1980 by Brian Felske and Associates Limited, which states that the flash-furnace technology most certainly does exist and admits that Inco wants to try a different technology, the electric furnace, to see if it might be even better, but that under neither circumstance should the company be permitted to go beyond 1985 in continuing to pollute at the present or even the slightly improved level of which he is so proud?

In either circumstance, the report says -- and I am coming to a close, Mr. Speaker -- that Inco could and should clean up by 1985 down to 750 tons or so. Why is this report still secret? Why does the minister continue to say they are doing all they can?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the report is secret, it has been up to this point secret for me as well. I have not seen it. But I do not believe --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The one thing that the members ought to try to understand -- I will see if I can get a copy of that immediately and have a look at it -- is I think members have to make a distinction between the recommendation of a consultant and the development of the necessary technology. Can the members say with certainty before this House that they know of such technology that is already developed, in place, in operation and working effectively?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In which case, then, the members have to be careful in making those kinds of assumptions.

INTEREST RATES

Mr Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer with regard to the impact of high interest rates on the 200,000 people who will be renegotiating their mortgages in Ontario over the course of the next year.

Given that those people will be facing an interest rate which will be almost double what they are paying on their homes now, and given the number of foreclosures and the number of people being forced to put their homes on the market because they can no longer afford to stay in them, does the Treasurer not agree that it is now time for the federal government to bring the interest rates in Canada down? What actions will Ontario take to put pressure on the federal government to give us a made-in-Canada interest rate policy that will spare the home owners facing renegotiated mortgages?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer hardly seems moved to passion or concern by the fact that there are many families across the province right now who are losing their homes. This is not an academic question, but something that is a reality for many people in Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor and every corner of the province.

Would the Treasurer be prepared to institute in Ontario now a moratorium that would require that any mortgage coming up this fall for renewal be renegotiated for a period of at least six months, or maybe a year, at the present rate? Would the government be prepared to bring that measure in, to enlist on the side of getting a made-in-Canada interest rate policy the banks and all the financial institutions who are, right now, profiting from the high mortgage rates rather than contributing to bringing them down?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I question whether any of us, except those who are lucky enough to have deposits on account, are profiting from high interest rates in our economy. They are affecting the economy in many areas, not just homes. That is why it is of vital interest to all of us to make sure the governments of Canada and the provinces take steps to bring down interest rates. They are higher than they need to be. There can be, to a degree, a made-in-Canada rate. I am afraid we may have a made-in-Canada rate higher than it should be, because of lack of confidence in the federal government.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since the advice given by the Treasurer to the federal government consisted essentially of, "Do as I say and not as I have just done myself," in telling them not to raise taxes and not to increase the deficit -- all the things he himself did at record levels only a few months ago -- can the Treasurer tell us whether he is prepared to take some provincial responsibility in this regard and bring in some relief, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) promised in 1975 he was prepared to do when interest rates were comparatively high then, and as other provinces have done?

Is the Treasurer prepared to do something to keep the promises made about the Ontario economy and help those in small businesses, homes and farms who are affected by high interest rates, or will the Treasurer just pass the buck to Ottawa totally?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, rather than agree with the member's statement that I have asked people to do as I say and not as I do, may I suggest to him that, at the conference in Ottawa a week or so ago, the one point made by finance ministers from other provinces was that, of the 10 provinces in Canada, Ontario provides the best example of how to tackle the major problems of growth in the size of government, growth in the spending of government and therefore contributions to inflation.

Mr. Philip: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree that the Province of Ontario Savings Office, which was set up by the farmer government in 1921, falls under provincial jurisdiction, and that it now has savings of about $650 million? Why has this government not shown the same kind of leadership as the Alberta government in expanding that office, and in making loans available to ordinary people and businessmen who need them, through this body, which is under provincial jurisdiction?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Would I agree that it is under provincial jurisdiction? Of course, but it is strictly a deposit agency, not a lending agency. It has been that for some time, and I believe it should stay that way.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer, if I can recall his attention to the statement of the government on interest rates of about a year ago. It was said quite clearly that, even though interest rates then were at 11.8 per cent, high interest rates would reduce economic growth, would lower job creation and would raise the unemployment rate.

Now that we have had in September the biggest increase in unemployment for years, an increase to almost 300,000 people unemployed in Ontario, would the Treasurer say what Ontario specifically is going to do in order to combat the unemployment, which arises in part because of the high interest rates? What does this province intend to do to get our workers back on the job?

3 p.m.

Hon. F .S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about the figures in September, nor should any of us be, but in that month the number of people employed in Ontario also increased, something the member tends to forget. It went up by 2,000 people in September, even though the overall Canadian figures were at one of their worst levels. There were about 127,000 more people at work in Ontario at the end of September than there were a year ago. Ontario has been leading in the growth of jobs in this country.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Would the Treasurer explain why he changed his views so radically when he went to Ottawa and spoke at the finance ministers' conference a couple of weeks ago? Why is it that back in the spring the Treasurer was saying unequivocally that he thought interest rates in the country should be brought down, but in the fall the Treasurer went to Ottawa and said we should cut taxes on the rich, and we should cut government spending and therefore cut government services to people on modest incomes and people who were poor?

Why, in other words, did the Treasurer go to Ottawa and advocate for Canada a policy that is borrowed from Ronald Reagan in Washington and which involves continuation of the high interest rates that are wreaking such havoc on their economy and on ours?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not believe I did.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: It is quite clear from the minister's statement that the minister has been entranced by some economic pundits who have been advising the Republican administration in the United States. This has reached the point where he now believes that if we soak the poor and spare the rich, if we continue the kinds of policies being followed there, which include monetary restriction and high interest rates, that is somehow going to bail us out in this country; and where he now believes that rather than bringing interests rates down now --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Cassidy: -- we should bring them down some time in the distant future when all these other things begin to take effect.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the Treasurer explain why he has changed his stance since then and how we can get lower interest rates in Ontario if even the Treasurer of Ontario is not prepared to fight for them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not know how to explain it to the member if I have not made him believe I am fighting for lower interest rates and doing so through sound --

Mr. Foulds: You have not done one single thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member will have his forum and his day and good luck.

Mr. Speaker, we suggested the federal government should carefully look at the growth of a number of the costs of its own direct spending. We in no way suggested that assistance programs to people in need, or in fact transfers to the provinces, should be cut.

Some people have said that was inconsistent; it was not. If one analyses the transfer payments and the growth of spending at the federal level, the transfer payments for health and postsecondary education have been among the lower percentages in growth. We pointed out they are letting their civil service grow unnecessarily quickly and not taking the tough measures we have done.

The interest rates in this country will drop only when Canadians and other investors have enough confidence in this country and in government at the federal level to leave their money in the country.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the frightening report called The Ravaged River, released yesterday by the New York State Public Interest Research Group? Does he know the most dangerous threat to the Niagara River is the Hyde Park dump in the upper Niagara above the falls?

The cleanup settlement of that site was a subject of nine days of judicial hearings in Buffalo very recently. This Environment ministry did not provide financial, technical or any other kind of assistance to Pollution Probe. It did not question the settlement on the record or involve itself in any way at the hearings, other than to send Mr. Ray Stewart, who claimed it was a waste of time to attend those hearings.

Given that the proposed settlement will not stop dioxin, one of the most deadly chemicals known to man, from leaching into the river, and given that the estimated half pound of dioxin could be joined by some 2,000 pounds resting in that dump site, why did the ministry not oppose the settlement and actively participate in those hearings, as I asked it to do on many occasions, to protect the integrity of the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question: I believe the member for Niagara Falls described it as a frightening report that was released within the last couple of days. I believe the member said yesterday, but I am not sure of the precise timing of that. I am aware of it through the media. We have been trying to get a copy of that report ever since we heard about it. We have not yet been successful.

We have been in touch with the regulatory agencies in the United States, who also claim they have not received a copy of that report. When I get a copy, I will be in a better position to comment upon the accuracy of the report and whether any new information is contained in it or whether it is simply a compilation of existing public information. I do not know that.

As to the allegations that there have been lies and a coverup on the part of American officials, all I can say at this time is that I have no indication that there has been any such withholding of information.

I look forward to getting a copy of the report. I would have thought the agency, if it were as deeply concerned as I am sure it is, would have taken the trouble of trying to ensure copies were available for those of us on this side of the river, as well as those on the other side, who have some responsibility in terms of ensuring the water quality in the Niagara River is maintained at a high level.

With regard to the Hyde Park site, we have had staff present throughout those hearings. The decision was taken not to intervene because frankly, on a technical basis, we felt we did not have any substantial grounds for making a formal intervention. However, as I say, we have been monitoring it.

It is true we did not provide funding to any intervention group, but we have offered technical assistance and have done so, I understand from my staff, on more than one occasion. To date, to the best of my knowledge, the offer of technical assistance has not been taken up by the participating agencies who are intervening. That offer still stands, and we have staff available to assist them if they wish to take advantage of the expertise of our staff.

Mr. Kerrio: I want to raise a question with the minister as it relates to the indecision to attend those hearings as it related to the settlement.

I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that when the settlement was made, the minister's director -- that was Grant Mills -- did not do an independent assessment of the settlement. Instead, he called John Spagnoli of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, who was one of the co-authors of the settlement with Hooker and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and who, of course, told Mills there was nothing wrong with the settlement. In essence, the ministry was an accomplice to an activity that could have severe repercussions for millions of people.

Furthermore, will the minister not agree that, based on his lack of opposition to the Hyde Park dump settlement and the SCA pipeline, his ministry has been almost criminally negligent in its duties in providing for the protection of the people of Ontario and the protection of that river?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the honourable member would like to reflect upon that last statement for a moment, I think he at least would be willing to retract the allegation or suggestion that the conduct of my ministry has been almost criminally negligent. That is just nonsense.

We have acted throughout this whole difficult situation very responsibly. In fact, in terms of the staff recommendations that the member referred to, I am certain there was communication seeking information and details on the proposed settlement between our staff and the staff of the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York state. I can assure the member that the opinions that came to me were the opinions of my staff as a result of an evaluation of that proposal.

Mr. Kerrio: They are the culprits.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, they are not culprits at all. One obviously seeks information where the information is available. I think my staff has acted very responsibly. If the member has any hard information to the contrary, then he should share it with me. Until I have seen it, I maintain my position that the staff have acted responsibly, and I will continue to do so.

3:10 p.m.

I might also add, the member may or may not be aware of the fact that in the near future -- the precise date has not yet been established, although the agenda is being prepared -- there will be a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis), Governor Carey, myself and Commissioner Robert Flacke from New York state dealing with the situation in the Niagara River and the Niagara Frontier. It will also deal with some of our joint efforts in acid rain. I can assure the member that on some of those things we have repeatedly gone after them about, for example, the sewage treatment plant in Niagara Falls, New York, which has not worked for the last three years, we will press them once again.

I cannot confirm that information, because I have not been given a copy of the report and I cannot get one yet, but I hope to have one before the end of the day. It is one thing to take that information and sensationalize it -- I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of the situation if any of the allegations in that report are correct -- but I have no grounds on which to assume that there has been any information withheld from us or that anyone on our side has acted irresponsibly.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a comment the minister made in his initial answer to the member for Niagara Falls. He said, "to those of us who have some responsibility for protecting." It seems to me, and it seems fairly clear to most people in the province, that responsibility means action.

Does the minister think this latest sensational report should not be the kind of thing that causes paranoia? Is it not his opinion that the information that has been available all along in the case of Hyde Park, about the 80,000 tons of extremely toxic materials in that dump, presented a very serious danger to the Niagara River and to Canada, to Ontario and to Lake Ontario, and that he has a responsibility on behalf of the people of the province to intervene in that process, to protect the interests of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I agree that responsibility means action, and this government has taken action in many instances. I understand that every polluter on the Ontario side is now meeting standards under control orders that have given them specific targets. We have made very substantial progress and have discharged our responsibility within the province.

As far as the Hyde Park site is concerned, one has to be very careful in terms of jumping to the conclusion that the proposed alternative of simply moving the waste from that site is the best answer. I am not in the position to make that judgement as an expert; however, I think one must be cautioned by the risks involved in trying to move it. It may be much more hazardous than finding an appropriate way to contain it on that site, and I understand that is what these hearings are trying to come to grips with.

CHRYSLER LAYOFFS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I am sure the minister is aware of the 1,500 layoffs that Chrysler Corporation announced last Thursday, October 8, at 3 p.m. I would like to know the minister's opinion of a corporation that lays off 1,500 workers at three o'clock and gives them less than 24 hours' notice about a mass layoff to that extent. Does the minister condone that kind of action on the part of a corporation that received $150 million in loan guarantees from the federal government and a $10-million grant from this government to build a research and development centre in Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, to clarify the facts, this government did not give a grant of $10 million and it does not take effect until, I believe, 1982 or 1983 -- the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) can correct me -- by which time it should be established whether the automotive industry can get out of the difficult time it is in. That is not a surprise to the member for Windsor-Riverside. He knows very well that industry and that particular company are under a great deal of stress at the present time.

Having said that, let us understand that nobody wants those workers to be laid off, certainly not I. The member knows very well that I have worked very hard in the area of layoffs, protection and severance pay, but those particular groups of workers have received temporary layoff notice within the provisions of the Employment Standards Act; so the action taken by the company was perfectly proper, within the legal framework.

Mr. Cooke: Some Minister of Labour we have! We might as well call him the sub-Minister of Industry and Tourism, because all he defends are the corporations in this province.

Is the minister aware that, of the 1,500 who were laid off, 700 individuals are one to two weeks short of being eligible to go back on the unemployment insurance rolls and, because of that short period of time that they need to re-qualify, they are going to have to go directly back on the welfare rolls in the city of Windsor? In fact, because of the silly welfare rules we have in this province -- thanks to the minister's colleague sitting to his left -- they won't even qualify for welfare in October since they have had an income in October.

Further, is the minister prepared to amend the Employment Standards Act so that adequate notice is given for mass layoffs like this that occur throughout the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First, with regard to the initial ad hoc remark, let there be no doubt that this minister has always interested himself very efficiently and I hope has endeavoured effectively to represent the legitimate interests of the labour movement and labour people in this province. There is no doubt about that; so the honourable member can stop that little bit of ad hockery.

Second, as the member knows quite well, the federal government has designated certain areas in this country as areas of special need because of their higher unemployment, and Windsor is such a region. It is my understanding that the federal government is now trying to determine exactly how many of those employees are short by the two weeks to determine whether they would be eligible for assistance under the special program for that designated area.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this is not the first instance of this company giving such short notice for layoffs of this magnitude, will the minister indicate to the company and to companies in Ontario in general, and amend the Labour Standards Act if such amendments are needed, that in layoffs of this magnitude -- of more than 1,200 and many as high as 1,500 workers -- notification in these cases should be much longer than an inadequate 26 hours?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, we had extensive debate in this Legislature some time ago about the issue of layoff notices. It was our opinion as a government that the layoff notices provided in our legislation are comparable to or better than any other province or any other state. Let us not talk about catching up with other places. We already are right out in front.

Let us also understand that the workers who have been laid off are on temporary layoff. If in the future that becomes a permanent layoff or an indefinite layoff, then the honourable member knows full well they will become eligible for termination pay.

MINISTRY-TEACHERS' CONSULTATIONS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: My question deals with the resolution passed unanimously by the Ontario Teachers' Federation on August 27. It refers to the deteriorating consultative mechanism between the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and themselves. Did the Premier know about this deterioration? What has he done about it since that resolution was passed to him, and what direction has he given to the minister to repair this breach?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, having spent a limited amount of time in that ministry myself --

Mr. Smith: Time enough to do harm.

Mr. Nixon: You ruined the system.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I contributed more to the system than almost anybody over there.

Mr. Smith: What about the Hall-Dennis report?.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How many has the member contributed to the system?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will boast about having five kids any time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please address your remarks to the question, Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some concern expressed by some members of the federation. I have to say --

Mr. Sweeney: A unanimous resolution.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member has unanimous positions from his caucus that I know five minutes later are less than unanimous. Who is trying to kid who? Is that correct grammatically? The member is a former superintendent. I remember when he used to extol the virtues of the ministry during the Hall- Dennis period. I remember it so vividly. I may remind him of that during a certain convention.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I have a long memory, I would say to the honourable member.

I can only say that in my experience the present Minister of Education has a very excellent relationship with the teaching profession, the trustees, the taxpayers and, most important, the students. She discharges her responsibilities with great sensitivity, great talent and great judgement; she is an excellent Minister of Education, and I am sure that is going to continue for many years yet to come.

Mr. Sweeney: Is the Premier not aware of the fact that in September 1979 the teachers of this province censured the minister in a like manner?

Second, is the Premier not aware of the fact that the minister herself said it would be immoral for her to comment on the proposals in the secondary education review program commission report until there had been consultation?

Is the Premier further not aware of the fact that in February 1981, when the continuing education third report came out, no provision was made for consultation with the public, and there was a great deal of reaction to that?

Surely the Premier, as the first minister, should be conscious of the fact that some change has to be made here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Education just leaned across and whispered to me that most of what the honourable member has said was less than factually correct. I could use the rural term that she used, but I shall not. I do not want to offend the honourable member.

Mr. Sweeney: The Premier is on weak ground.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not on weak ground at all. As I say, I can just quote back to the member his points of view and positions on educational matters over the last 15 years, which are going to embarrass him at that convention like nothing else.

Mr. Sweeney: We remember when you were the minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I remember when the member was a superintendent.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I should like the honourable member to know, at least to state publicly and to understand, that what he has been mouthing is a bunch of pious, unbased platitudes that have been developed in other areas. I respect his integrity, and I would anticipate that he would not repeat such untruths within this House.

If you are going to ask me to withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker, then I shall do so if you insist; but they were untruths, which were reported in a newspaper. The amount of consultation with the Ontario Teachers' Federation amounts to several thousand hours per year. There are mechanisms for consultation on every single major report that is developed, there are mechanisms for consultation on a day-to-day basis at the staff level and there are mechanisms for consultation on a regular basis with the minister.

Simply to mouth the kinds of things the member was saying is less than charitable on his part.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to that point.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing to respond to, really.

Mr. Sweeney: The minister raised a point of privilege. I have an opportunity to respond, surely, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A short response, then, please.

An hon. member: The untruths only.

Mr. Sweeney: Only the untruths?

An hon. member: Just the untruths.

Mr. Sweeney: Okay. In September 1979, the board of governors of the Ontario Teachers' Federation voted to censure the Minister of Education. Some called for her resignation.

The then president of OTF reported, "I really regret that she has done this on the public platform after she accepted and then rejected our invitation to speak to us."

David Hughes, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, said on August 28: "I have become very tired of dealing with the minister when the only way we can get her attention is the OTF equivalent of hitting her over the head with a two by four."

An hon. member: Even then it does not hurt.

Mr. Sweeney: George Meek, president of OTF, is "sick and tired of being surprised by the minister's actions."

Margaret Wilson, the past president of OSSTF, describes the minister as "the captain who has not abandoned the ship but indeed she has never come on board."

Those are not my words; they are theirs. They are the words of the OTF. Is it yes or no?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Nobody's privileges have been abused.

NURSES' ARBITRATION

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that nurses in Ontario are denied free collective bargaining rights by the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, which forbids them the right to strike, can the minister explain to us why he seems to have turned the arbitration procedures under that act into a pure farce by permitting the board of arbitration to stall, stall and stall since March 17, 1981, without bringing in a report, while nurses in Ontario are being paid at 1979 wage rates?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the member will read the first part of the act, he will see that the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act is not a piece of legislation for which I am responsible. It comes under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). Perhaps he would like to redirect his question.

Mr. McClellan: I will redirect it to the Minister of Labour, since the Minister of Health wants to take a bye on it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the member for Bellwoods knows there were some complications with that arbitration process. He knows there were well over 100 briefs. They were lengthy briefs. He knows that during the course of it all both of the sides' people had to retire and new people had to be obtained; so it was indeed a very arduous and lengthy process, for which I am sure everyone expresses a great deal of regret.

As the honourable member knows, many hospitals have indeed granted some interim wage increases to help overcome this very difficult time. However, I am advised that the arbitration award will be brought down before the end of this month.

Mr. McClellan: I really would like an explanation from the government as to why they think they can have it both ways, on the one hand denying workers the right to strike and, on the other hand, turning the arbitration procedures under the legislation into a piece of nonsense.

May I ask the minister specifically why he did not invoke

section 12 of the act -- at least the

section 12 of the act that I possess -- which states, "In the case of an unreasonable delay the minister may, after consulting the parties and the board, issue whatever orders he considers necessary in the circumstances to ensure that a decision will be rendered without delay"? Surely the minister will agree that seven months is intolerable.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hope the member will agree that this is a very unusual situation. I tried to point out some of the unusual circumstances. We have been in touch with the arbitrator, the chairman and the two sides, and they have had difficulty in getting together themselves to review their opinions on it. But I am now advised that this report will be forthcoming. I assure the member that I have endeavoured to keep in touch with the process, I have tried to appreciate some of the reasons for the delay and I ask him to understand that this is a very unusual event.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With this long delay in the nurses' arbitration and since his money is going to be advanced to the hospitals eventually, is there not any way the minister could tell the hospitals that they can give the nurses a partial increase for the time being until such time as an arbitration board hearing is finished?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, many hospitals have, on their own, granted certain interim increases. I am sure, if the honourable member wishes to speak to his own hospital board to discuss this, that is an avenue open to him. Otherwise, he might question the Minister of Health, who is, as he knows, directly responsible for those events.

3:30 p.m.

ELECTION SPENDING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs concerning the Election Finances Reform Act.

In view of the fact that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario spent, I believe, more than twice as much as the two opposition parties combined on a provincial basis and consistently spends more money than the opposition candidates on a riding-by-riding basis, will the minister give assurance to this House that he will introduce legislation designed further to limit campaign expenditures so that the democratic process in this province cannot be further subverted by money?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the present Election Finances Reform Act does provide for limits on expenditures in those important areas where limits are necessary. If and when a bill comes before this House, there will be plenty of time to consider all the various aspects of campaign financing.

Mr. Bradley: Will the minister not agree that in a political jurisdiction the governing party already enjoys far too many advantages; for instance, the ability to spend government money for advertising, to make appointments and to give out money on a city-by-city basis? Does the minister not feel that, to overcome those advantages and make the system fairer, it would be wise to introduce the kind of legislation that would limit all aspects of campaign expenditures so that one minister cannot spend $90,000 after raising more than $100,000, which really makes the system unfair in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Sitting over there, the member may feel that way. I think he would agree we have to campaign under the pressure of taking responsibility for all the actions, many times, of a number of governments. I certainly would not accept the member's statement that we operate under an advantage; we certainly do not in a campaign.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister tell us what other limitations there are that they are bound by, aside from the limitation on publicity, which I believe is $1.3 million? How is it that 65 of the members over there spent at least $40,000? What is happening to the democratic process when they have to buy their way back to power?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I know my friend well enough to know that he really does not mean that anybody is buying his way back to power. The fact remains that we have a very fine act in this province. No individual in this province can contribute more than $500 and basically no corporation can give more than about $8,000 in total. There are a couple of reasons why this party is able to raise the kind of money it does.

Mr. Foulds: It's called patronage.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Will you be quiet and listen?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you give the minister an opportunity to reply?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The reason this party is able to raise the money it can from all kinds of people -- and believe me, I even have labour union people who donate to us -- is the quality of the candidates we have and the policies of this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. New question, the member for York South.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Food no doubt is aware that Ontario and Prince Edward Island are the only provinces that do not provide any subsidies for the crushing interest rate burden farmers are suffering today, and PEI has a grant program to compensate for the lack of actual subsidization. In view of the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S.

Miller) promises after the protest meeting last June that some $100 million was going to be made available for agriculture -- and he was considering a range of programs; six were mentioned in one news story -- is the government considering that at least one of them might be belatedly a pickup on the subsidy for high interest rates for farmers? The government had it in its program before the election but washed it out last March 31.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, there was no subsidy program in our election promises. If the honourable member would recall, I went before the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He and the critic for the Liberals went on radio with me. It was definite that our party was not promising any subsidy whatsoever; that was quite clear.

Mr. MacDonald: In the government's program was at least $25 million to subsidize high interest rates to the farmers. They washed it out on March 31 when they had only spent $5 million. Has the minister, despite his bulk, not got enough weight in the cabinet to be able to get the cabinet to spend money that has already been appropriated, and therefore do something like other provinces by way of assistance to the farm community?

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you ensure that the privileges of this House are kept up and rule 26(

c) is enforced with regard to the Premier's (Mr. Davis) statement over the acquisition of shares in the oil company referred to this afternoon? Would you ensure that compendium is tabled in this House before the press conference at four o'clock, particularly in view of the massive reversal of government policy entailed since they sold their 10 per cent holding in Syncrude some time ago?

Mr. Speaker: I shall indeed be pleased to pass that message on to the Premier.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege which I hope will correct the record. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), in responding to the questions on emissions from Inco at Sudbury, replied that he did not know if the technology was available to lower the limits. I would like to read into the record a letter from the senior vice-president of Inco to the Ministry of the Environment, if I might, in order to set the record straight. It is to Mr. R. E. Moore, regional director of the northeastern region, Ministry of the Environment, dated September 26, 1975.

"Dear Mr. Moore:

"On May 23, 1975, we made a presentation to you regarding a proposed sulphur emission abatement program at Sudbury, written copies of which submissions were forwarded to you with my letter of May 27. Our submission pointed out that the proposed project was not without technical, financial and economic risks. It also indicated that in order to achieve our proposed

schedule we had already started engineering.

"Within the past few weeks, our engineering work, with the necessary corollary cost estimation, has revealed an increase in capital costs which indicates that our May estimate of $200 million must be increased to at least $300 million and considerably more if potentially necessary additions of ancillary equipment prove to be necessary.

"This situation obviously requires a complete reassessment of our position, since the economic and commercial feasibility of the proposed project has fundamentally changed. A program which is not economically and commercially feasible is in fact not technologically feasible.

3:40 p.m.

"Accordingly, and regretfully, we must ask that you defer any action on our proposal of last May until such time as we are able to provide you with a complete re-evaluation. I will be in touch with you in that regard just as promptly as possible, and also in regard to such alternative courses of action as there may be. It must be appreciated, as all the work we have done has demonstrated and each submission we have made has stressed, that there is no way the December 31, 1978, emission level could be attained other than by drastic cutback in our Sudbury operations.

"Yours sincerely, John McCreedy."

The point being, at the end of the letter, that that letter was based on this submission, an Ontario Inco study, which indicates that for $300 million the emission levels, which were then in excess of 3,000 tons a day, could he lowered to 1,500 tons a day by December 1979. It should come as no surprise to the minister, or the officials in his ministry, that the federal task force would now be suggesting the technology is there to get down to 750 tons per day.

There is no question whatsoever that the technology is available. What is at question, however, is whether the Minister of the Environment is being informed by officials within his ministry as to just what is possible, in terms of reducing the emissions from the superstack at Sudbury. It is important that the record be corrected in that regard.

HANSARD INTERJECTIONS

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You may be aware that over the past year and a half I have made appearances before the members' services committee to discuss the matter of Hansard and the Hansard recording of the proceedings of the Legislature. I have raised, at those meetings, the view that all comments that are made in the Legislature, which are able to be taken down accurately by the interjectionists who sit on the floor of the House, should be included as part of the Hansard record.

It has been brought to the attention of the members' services committee by the director of Hansard that he has, in the past, issued instructions to his editors that they delete as many interjections as possible, thereby not making the proceedings of the House entirely accurate.

You must surely be aware, having sat in this House for a good number of years, that an interjection could be just as important as a question, or just as important as a lengthy speech, depending on what the interjection is. I want to say to you that I do not believe it is right or proper for the proceedings of this House to be edited by a civil servant after he has, by himself, decided that the Hansard should look like a magazine instead of looking as it should, with all the interjections included.

I wish to say, having tried to raise this matter in the members' services committee and having tried to get it cleared up there, and having been unable to do so, that I appeal to you to protect me, as a back-bench member in this House, and to protect all members of this House.

How are we able to give this responsibility to a civil servant, knowing full well that the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, or one of the cabinet ministers, or the leader of a particular party, may make an interjection that he feels should not be recorded after it has been duly taken down by the interjectionist? Why should we leave this vital responsibility up to a civil servant?

My final question is, why do we have the interjectionists on the floor at all, if it is the policy of Hansard and its director practically to eliminate the interjections? I appeal to you to instruct the Hansard director to ensure that the interjections, which are able to be taken down by the people here and which are able to be recorded, appear in the Hansard reports.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I must point out to you and to all members that I am guided by standing orders. Under standing orders, all interjections are out of order.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, again on that point of privilege, why then in the past, for all these many years, have interjections been recorded? If anyone has the time or wishes to do so, he can certainly go through the records of Hansard, as far back as I have looked anyway, which covers many years. I have gone through some of the Hansards to see just how much this has changed in the past 18 months because of the new directions by the director of Hansard.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, why have they been there all these years and why do some interjections still appear to be recorded in Hansard if they are entirely out of order? My point is that some interjections are recorded, others are not. This is entirely unfair because we leave this matter in the hands of a civil servant. We leave this matter in the hands of a bureaucrat to decide how Hansard shall look. In my view this is completely not in accordance with what is going on in the House, since many of the interjections we heard today had an influence on what took place today.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I just want to say that I will be pleased to take a look at it. I just wanted to make the point that under our standing orders, interjections are out of order and that is what we are guided by.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask the Speaker what that has to do with recording what is going on in the House? There are occasions when things are definitely out of order and they are ruled out of order by the Speaker, yet they appear. What my friend is saying is that what is being stated in this House should appear in Hansard.

As the Speaker knows, it was about a year ago when I objected strenuously to the decision of the government to take out of the Legislature what we called the garbage track. At times there are statements made that are pretty cutting. It seems to me that garbage track would serve a purpose in preventing some of those comments from being made, because people who do not want them in print would not say them. I think if anything was going to be done, it would be to make sure that the garbage track was brought back and that everything stated in this Legislature should be in Hansard, because that is what this House is all about. That is where it is recorded.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be repetitive here but I think there are two points to be made. One, I think it is time we got into the real world. If our standing orders say that every interjection is out of order, it is time we changed the standing orders because that is nonsense. Every interjection is not out of order. If the interjection happens to be an interjection to the Premier, and if the interjections to his speeches were not put in, his speeches would be incoherent because half of his speeches are replies to the interjections all the time.

The honourable member's point is very valid. Who makes the choices as to what interjection is put in? I suggest we change the standing orders, join the real world and recognize that interjections, that repartee, are part of the whole exchange in public life in this day, and that we get back to putting the so-called garbage track on to the record.

Mr. Speaker: As I assured all members earlier, I will take a look at it and we will see what can be done, yes.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 68,

An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to improve methods of processing Complaints by members of the Public against Police Officers on the Metropolitan Police Force.

Report adopted.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

3:50 p.m.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 63(d), Mr. McClellan and Ms. Bryden exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

REVISION OF BILLS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that legislative counsel be instructed to revise and reprint the bills standing on the Order Paper, making such changes as are necessary to have reference to the Revised Statutes of Ontario 1980, and that the bills as revised and reprinted be considered in place of the bills as now printed.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on the Ombudsman, in addition to its terms of reference dated July 2, 1981, be authorized to complete the work of its predecessor committee on the resolution passed by the House on May 29, 1980, namely:

"That this assembly request the select committee on the Ombudsman to consult with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists and others, if advisable, with a view to reporting to this assembly on ways in which this assembly may act to make its voice heard against political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture."

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the estimates of the various ministries and offices be deemed to have been referred to the committees of the House as outlined in his statement of June 23, 1981.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MILK AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Henderson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 136,

An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Milk Act requires the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to distribute to the producers moneys received from the sale of milk. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Milk Act to permit the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to distribute such moneys on the basis of the amount, content and grade of the milk supplied by the producer; the amount and kind of quota held by the producer, and the sales to the marketing board of the various classes of milk.

ONTARIO PENSIONERS PROPERTY TAX ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Leluk, first reading of Bill 137,

An Act to amend the Ontario Pensioners Property Tax Assistance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in an earlier statement the contents of this bill and of the bill I would now like to introduce.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Leluk, first reading of Bill 138,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

SOCIETY OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, first reading of Bill Pr 17,

An Act respecting the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

LATVIAN CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, first reading of Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting the Latvian Canadian Cultural Centre.

Motion agreed to.

CHICOPEE SKI CLUB ACT

Mr. Sweeney moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Chicopee Ski Club.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill Pr16,

An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Mr. Van Horne, first reading of Bill 149,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify the fact that the lender is responsible for delivering to the borrower at his last known address a clear, written statement showing the current status of his account.

4 p.m.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Pr8,

An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

CANDORE EXPLORATIONS LIMITED ACT

Ms. Fish moved, seconded by Mr. Piché, first reading of Pr27,

An Act to revive Candore Explorations Limited.

Motion agreed to.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton, first reading of Bill 140,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give a greater degree of permanency to official plans and to establish the principle in the Planning Act that the minister shall not refer official plans or parts thereof to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing when the same subject matter has been dealt with by the OMB within a five-year period preceding the request. Provision is made for the minister to waive the five-year limit if the matter is essential and urgent.

KLEVEN BROTHERS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Piché moved, seconded by Mr. Treleaven, first reading of Pr13,

An Act respecting Kleven Brothers Limited.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, prior to the orders of the day, I move that the ordinary business of the House be set aside --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I do not want to be too technical, Mr. Speaker, but I know what my friend is about to attempt to do. Since we placed our motion last Friday, I believe, on the question of mortgages, and it was therefore on the Order Paper first, I ask Mr. Speaker to recognize my leader, because that is the way the business runs in this House.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: While the remnants of the NDP are applauding that comment, I bring to your attention the fact that the deadline for the introduction of those notices to you is 12 noon on the day of the debate. You got the notice from the official opposition well before the deadline, and I certainly call on you, sir, to do your duty and recognize the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. However, I must in all fairness accept these in the order of priority. In actual fact, Mr. Cassidy had filed his motion last Friday afternoon. I was here and I received a copy of it -- late in the afternoon, I might add. In all fairness, I think there is no option -- in fact, I know there is no option -- but to accept Mr. Cassidy's motion.

An hon. member: Well, then, you ought to write new rules. What are you basing the ruling on?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I was basing it on priority. Mr. Cassidy had his in first.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can you table with this House the standing order under which authority you are acting?

Mr. Smith: I will solve it for you, Mr. Speaker. We will abide by your ruling, of course. What I would like to say --

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Frankly, there is no standing order under which the Speaker is acting, and the member knows that. But the --

Mr. Martel: It is a precedent.

Mr. Smith: No, there is no precedent, either, on that. But as a general --

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Let us not be silly. The only precedent, as the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) knows, is that the official opposition is normally recognized first. But, as a matter of courtesy, it is perfectly understandable that the Speaker may wish to rule otherwise.

I might just explain, however, that this is not a very important question, frankly, and it is not a question for us of who has the privilege of putting the thing forward. It is simply that the motion suggested by the NDP, although we can support it fully, does not include some groups that I know they would wish to have discussed during the course of this debate. We merely wish to broaden the motion that the NDP presented to include small businesses and farmers.

Mr. MacDonald: It is out of order.

Mr. Smith: That is fine, but the problem is that one cannot amend a motion like that, as the member for York South is aware. And, frankly, it is our wish to be able to discuss more than just the impact on home owners, however severe that might be. But it is certainly up to the Speaker to rule as he wishes, and we have no grave objection to it. We might just make some comments about those other groups when we have an opportunity to speak.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the five-minute time available to talk about why we should have this motion now and why we should suspend the regular business of the House in order to talk about the impact of high interest rates on home owners.

As the Leader of the Opposition says and as we are very much aware, because we intend to raise this issue again and again this fall, the interest rates are driving thousands of people across Ontario out of their homes through foreclosure or by forcing them to sell their homes. They are also having a punishing impact on small businessmen, farmers and every other sector of our economy.

We intend to raise that because all through the summer, while this Legislature has been adjourned, people have talked to me of nothing else but the impact of the interest rates. At 16 per cent, the government itself admitted back in June 1980 that 20,000 home owners would face hardship in renewing their mortgages. Now we have mortgage interest rates above 20 per cent, 200,000 people who face having their mortgages renewed in the course of the coming year and unprecedented high interest rates, which mean the price of housing for those people is going to be far higher than the 30 per cent of income which it was traditionally felt they would be able to afford.

Up until now, the situation was that people in the assisted home ownership program houses were losing their homes because they could not afford to stay in them. Now it is extended to all in the market who are on modest incomes and who cannot face just about a doubling of the cost of their mortgages when they come up to have those mortgages renewed.

Not only is the effect now being felt in sectors of the housing market for home owners but it is also being passed on to people who are tenants, because the landlords are renegotiating mortgages and have to pass those costs through, as they are entitled to do under rent review.

The effects of the high interest rates are now hitting home owners who are drawing on income that could be used for buying cars, for buying durables, for buying goods in the market to create jobs in Ontario. They are sucking that money out of the market and, as a consequence, they are helping to contribute to the high unemployment we are facing in our province today.

We believe this matter has to be discussed now in the Legislature as a matter of emergency because, if we do not take action in Ontario now to protect people who are home owners from losing their homes, we are going to have a situation that will get more and more critical, not just in the coming year but starting right now. It is an emergency that has built up over the course of the summer.

In addition to that, we feel the government of Ontario has to take action and treat this as a matter of urgency and emergency. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), unfortunately, does not believe that to be the case, but we think there has to be action by the federal government to bring interest rates down. That will benefit everybody in this province as soon as it is done.

We think there has to be action by Ontario, not just to make speeches but also to put pressure on the federal government. That pressure could be brought in particular if we legislated in Ontario to put such pressure on the financial institutions that they would tell the federal government to bring the interest rates down.

Today in question period I called for a moratorium that would ensure that any mortgages coming up for renewal over the next six months would have to be renewed at the existing rate. That would be a means of enlisting the banks and financial institutions on the side of the people of Ontario to get action by the federal government to bring the interest rates down.

That would be a period of pause, a period during which it would be possible to put new measures in place that would ensure we had interest rates that people in this province and in this country could afford.

I have said before, and I say again, it is time now for Ontario to look at a tax on the excess profits of the banks and financial institutions. Why should they pay a tax rate that is one third the tax rate of the average family in Ontario when their income has gone up by 46 per cent in the first half of this year compared with last year? Why should the banks profiteer and not contribute at all to relief for people who are being hit by the high interest rates?

We believe that Ontario is in a position as the largest province to take action and not just to debate the matter here. We believe the Legislature must first be seized of the urgency of the question and begin to indicate to the government that we care about it, that it is a priority and not just something that is way down the line.

We believe Ontario must do more than what the Treasurer was saying two weeks ago in Ottawa when he suggested we should have Reaganomics in Canada rather than a policy that would bring our interest rates down and give us a made-in-Canada interest rate policy. We need the debate right now, because we need to initiate action to protect the people of this province who otherwise will lose their homes.

If a roof over one's head is not a basic social right in Ontario, I do not know what is. This province should be committed to assuring every family in Ontario that they have the right to have shelter at a price they can afford, and that means at an interest rate they can afford.

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, pursuant to standing order 34, that the business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the crisis confronting vast numbers of Ontario home owners who are facing usurious interest rates as they renew mortgages over the next six months.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a fundamental responsibility of government to ensure that citizens in the province have access to decent housing. The government has failed to meet this trust, either by pressuring the federal government to abandon its disastrous interest rate policy or by acting on its own to alleviate the disaster facing many home owners in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received in time and complies with standing order 34. I will be pleased to listen to the honourable members for up to five minutes as to why they think the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Smith: You have already heard from them, Mr. Speaker. It certainly seems to me that the ordinary business of the House should be set aside to discuss not only this very important matter but also the closely related matter of help with the high interest rates that have to be paid by people renewing mortgages, by people who want to build rental accommodation -- a problem that has reached crisis proportions in Ontario -- by farmers who are at risk of losing their farms and by small businesses that will be going bankrupt at a record rate this winter.

The Treasurer is well aware of the fact that Ontario's small businesses, the backbone of our economy, will be going bankrupt at a record rate this winter, and he cannot deny that.

It seems to me that in Ontario we have always taken the view that free enterprise meant the ability of ordinary individuals to go into business for themselves, to have a family farm or to own a home if they were able to work long enough and reasonably enough to put away some savings. These fundamental values in Ontario are being undermined now by a high interest rate policy which derives not so much from Ottawa, although certainly they have followed it, but from Washington, from President Reagan, whose policies the Treasurer is entering into so many rhapsodies about in recommending the same Reagan policies for the Dominion of Canada.

There was a time when the Ontario government was listened to in the federal-provincial annals of this country. Unfortunately, that time has passed. The parish-pump attitude of the present Premier (Mr. Davis) and the totally incomprehensible do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do attitude of the Treasurer have combined to render Ontario into a laughing-stock at federal-provincial meetings.

The real question is whether we are going to continue the fundamental values that Ontario has stood for over the years or whether we are going to allow these to be eroded by the high interest rate policy.

Monetary policy of a high interest rate type makes people pay a price for inflation, but the price is paid unevenly. Large corporations do not have to pay the same price as small corporations. People who have assets to invest actually do not have to suffer the way people who do not have assets to invest must suffer. High interest rates cause a burden, but the burden is not shared equally or even close to equally by various members of society. The Treasurer knows that. He is reasonably intelligent and not an ignorant man. He knows that.

4:20 p.m.

Other policies, such as fiscal policies, fall on different groups in society, but the present policy is hurting certain groups. Just as high oil prices affect certain groups -- and the government has moved in a very inadequate and halfhearted way, but at least it has moved a little to help those affected by high oil prices -- surely it is the provincial government's responsibility to do something to assist those who are affected most by the impact of high interest rates.

For instance, if the government of Ontario were to insist that people be allowed to use their registered retirement saving plans to invest in their own mortgage, that would be a tremendous help to a lot of people who happen to have registered retirement savings plans. Of course, it would not help those people who are not in a position to have such RRSPs, but it would be a start. People could borrow to put money into RRSPs if required, as the Treasurer well knows.

The Treasurer will remember the exchange we had in the House some time ago when I told him that the Bank of British Columbia gave rates for their loans under prime for the small businesses of British Columbia, and I asked him to invite the bank presidents here to ask them to do the same thing in Ontario. His answer at the time was that the banks were not making sufficient profits.

Perhaps the Treasurer recalls that brilliant answer of only a few years ago when he said he could not impose on the banks because their profits were not high enough. I will read from Hansard if he likes, if his memory has dimmed in the intervening months and years. Surely the bank profits are high enough now, and if the province of Ontario can find $650 million to buy a minority position in an American company that is developing an Alberta resource --

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Smith, time.

Mr. Smith: -- surely this government can find some money to help those hardest hit by the high interest rates.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the point I will try to make today is not whether this is a serious matter or indeed an urgent matter, but whether this is the forum for the debate. It will be accepted by all of us, no matter which party we are in, that the problems faced by individuals -- be it of their own making or be it by the chance of the marketplace -- are very grave when their mortgage rates are increased, as many are, by a factor of two after a period of one, two, three or five years.

When the leader of the New Democratic Party says in his resolution that we have failed to meet this trust by not pressuring the federal government to abandon its disastrous interest rate policy, first he recognizes one thing; it is a federal interest rate policy.

On the other hand, he is quite incorrect when he says we have failed to pressure them. I have made statements -- quite vigorous statements -- last year in December and again in September of this year to that effect and to point out that we need a lasting solution to inflation if we are going to have any solution to the high interest rate problem. That depends very heavily upon the confidence Canadians have in their federal government.

Monetary policy alone cannot be used to fight inflation just through high interest rates. They have to tackle the problems of government deficits here and in the United States, and we have to work on a national economic policy to do so.

These problems do require, as I pointed out, federal initiative and leadership. We expressed that quite clearly in the document I am sure all members got a copy of, which I presented as Ontario's position at the most recent finance ministers' conference, a conference where we felt just a bit used. We were called in to give advice for the budget coming up, I hope, in a week or so. I felt we may have been called after the budget was written, and I expressed that opinion at that time. However, I make the point that a federal budget is imminent. A federal budget is the proper place to tackle this problem, and the proper forum is the federal House.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to all members of the Legislature that, on April 23 and April 27 of this year, there were two very similar motions put before the House which were ruled out of order at that time. However, I point out that the reasons for that ruling no longer exist, and I have listened to the argument presented with great care and with great interest. While it is interesting, too, to hear the remarks of the Treasurer, in my view the matter is of such public importance that I am going to put the question under standing order 34(a). The only question before this House is, "Shall the debate proceed?"

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling. I am glad you appreciate that the situation has changed since April. In fact, the very rapid increase of interest rates began again in December, acquired momentum about the time we were having the debate in April and took the Bank of Canada interest rate over the 20 per cent level, has taken mortgages up to 22 per cent and 23 per cent, and now is having an impact in every corner of the economy.

In August, I visited a home up in Ottawa, in Evelyn Gigantes' old riding in Carleton East, and there a lady came in and said, "You know, I am going to lose this house next year." As far as she was concerned, there were no if, ands or buts; she knew she could not stay. As soon as her mortgage came up for renewal, that was the end.

When I was canvassing in the Spadina by- election, I ran into people who said: "We cannot stay here. We have been here for four or five years. We have put our life into this place. We wanted it. We are doing our best to keep it, but $700 a month is more than we can afford, and we are going to have to move out."

Of course, if a young couple with children move out of a home they have struggled to buy, where the devil are they going to go and find a place even to rent in Metropolitan Toronto? Rents have been rising so high and accommodation for families is so limited that they are just as badly off outside as they are struggling to pay the mortgages.

We are faced with an uncaring federal government that has decided to follow blindly policies set in the United States. People are looking somewhere for leadership, not just for buck passing by politicians. Mr. McEachen and Mr. Trudeau try to pass the buck to Washington or to the provinces, and people like the Treasurer of Ontario try to pass the buck to the federal government.

We are looking for leadership in dealing with the crisis in mortgage rates, which, as I said earlier, will lead to 200,000 people having to renegotiate their mortgages just in the coming months, often with dramatic and unaffordable increases in mortgage payments. Make no mistake, I am talking about increases going from $350 to $600 a month, from $500 to $800 a month, from $650 to $1,000 or more a month; these are typical increases in the mortgages people are having to pay.

Moreover, the term of a mortgage is getting shorter. More and more people are finding they cannot plan their lives. They are having to pay for homes at the same kind of interest rates people used to have to expect to pay for cars. If one looks at the car market today, one can buy a car a lot cheaper in terms of the interest rate one has to pay on payments than one can buy a home for or renegotiate a mortgage.

The high interest rates in housing have led, in turn, to a catastrophic drop in housing starts. They have led to unprecedentedly low vacancy rates in terms of rental housing. They have led to a situation where we are not now building enough housing to meet the needs of ordinary people. Instead, the only housing going up is $250,000 condominiums, luxury units, high-rise palaces for the various rich, or for people who are able to speculate in today's inflationary environment, with nothing at all for ordinary people.

4:30 p.m.

We are looking for leadership in turning that situation around. That leadership is not just to come from the federal government. We believe that leadership can and should come from Ontario. This province is the biggest province in Confederation. We have 8.5 million people, a third of the population of Canada. We have enough clout, it seems to me, to put such pressure on the federal government that they will have no choice but to act.

That is why we are looking to the government for short-term action to help people out of the present emergency. We are looking for action that will ensure we bring the interest rates down permanently so that home owners, tenants and all the other groups affected by high interest rates can get through the crisis now facing them.

That is why we do not believe the government can just sit by and watch a rising tide of foreclosures and repossessions and quit claims. This government cannot just allow the federal government to follow its disastrous course and say, as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has said, "It is time to do something, but it is going to take a long time to work its way out."

We cannot afford a policy that says we have to follow the lead from Washington rather than going it alone. It is time we sought a made-in-Canada economic policy, a made-in-Canada interest rate policy. It is time Ontario was prepared even to see our borders shut with exchange controls as a means of insulating ourselves from the disastrous impact of the interest-rate policies that are now prevailing in Washington.

That does not need to go on forever; it can go on for only a short period of time. But if we do not do something, there will be tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who simply will be thrown out of the market. There will be chaos in the housing market in Ontario -- a chaos we can afford neither in economic terms nor in social terms.

That is why I am proposing that the government of Ontario should legislate the extension of all mortgages that come up for renewal for a further six months at their current rate -- at the least six months. I am proposing that should take place beginning now. We will be happy to co-operate to see the legislation passed. I propose that should prevail for six months, or for a year if needs be, as a means of giving short-term relief to people in Ontario and as a means of putting real pressure on the federal government.

It is clear that when the Treasurer of Ontario hits the Minister of Finance over the head with a handful of limp spaghetti it is not going to have the necessary impact on the federal government. It is clear that speeches by the Premier (Mr. Davis) cut no ice in Ottawa. They got Ontario's support on the constitution. They do not need this province's support any more. They do not seem to give a damn what the Premier has to say.

It is clear that words alone are not going to stop the disastrous course of action coming from the federal government. It is clear as well that the actions by the provincial Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) and his caucus cut no ice with the federal Liberals. What we need to do is to start to make the financial institutions hurt to the point that they will put the pressure on for a made-in-Canada interest rate policy.

The hurt is a relative matter. The profits of the banks are up by 46 per cent this year. They can certainly afford to bring the interest rates down on renewals of mortgages. They can afford a few months when perhaps they will be paying as much out on the deposits as they are getting in on their mortgages.

Nobody will actually lose income from the proposal we are making. It is a means of making those financial institutions hurt to the point where they say to the federal government: "Enough is enough; bring the interest rates down."

It is time to act now. Ontarians and Canadians can no longer afford the kind of long-term policy of monetarism that has had such a destructive impact on our economy, our society, our country and our province over the course of the last four and half or five years.

The government has to accept affordable housing as an absolute social right; that means housing at an interest rate people can afford. It may take a bit of time to draft the specific policies that will ensure that right is a reality for ordinary families across Ontario.

But while those policies are being created, surely those people whose mortgages are coming up for renewal should not be made the victims of the negligence and delays we have been seeing from the Ontario government and from the federal government.

We cannot, we must not, we should not allow the current crisis to destroy what so many people in our province have built for themselves. That is why we argue there should be a moratorium now.

My colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) said to the Treasurer, "Let's have a change in the mandate of the Province of Ontario Savings Office so that it can bring together provincial savings and put them in the hands of people who need mortgages." The Treasurer is so blind and so shortsighted that he replied, "That is not its mandate right now." No, it is not its mandate right now, but surely the times cry out for some imagination and some initiative on behalf of this government, not just simply stonewalling and buck passing, which is what we are seeing now.

The Treasurer referred us to his statement on building a stronger economy which he delivered at the finance ministers' conference in Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): One minute.

Mr. Cassidy: One minute, thank you.

That statement was an abdication. In it the Treasurer said we should cut the capital gains tax, we should cut taxes on people earning big incomes, we s