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

October 15, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

BATTERED WOMEN DAY

CORRECTION OF NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

RESTRAINT ON DOCTORS' FEES

MILK PRICE INCREASES

MORTGAGE RATES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

NATIVE RIGHTS

TRANSPORT COMPANY LAYOFFS

MANVILLE CANADA PERSONNEL RECORDS

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (continued)

APPENDIX

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

NATIVE PEOPLES

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

PETROSAR CONTRACT

ORDERS IN COUNCIL

CHILDREN IN PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

MASSEY-FERGUSON

PAMPHLET ON BILL 127

DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY ON THE HANDICAPPED

PARKING AT LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

KEROSENE COLOURATION

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

WAGE AND PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

CABINET ACCOMMODATION COST

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

SALES TAX INFORMATION KIT

PUBLICATION COSTS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ONTARIO PLACE

McMICHAEL CANADIAN COLLECTION

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

CONSUMERS' GAS RATES

PROGRAM 60

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

INTERIM ANSWERS

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. This matter has to do with an answer given to me by the Minister of the Environment. On October 8 the minister stated, "In communication with the officials in the United States, we have now confirmed that report has been rejected by the Department of Energy," meaning the report to expand the nuclear waste site for dumping close to the Niagara River. Yet, on October 13, 1982, the Globe and Mail quotes Mr. Donald Groelsema of the US Energy Department as having stated it is not completely rejected.

This is a very important matter, as it relates to whether the United States of America is or is not considering the expansion of an atomic waste dump site. Our minister has given this House his assurance that that is not going to happen, that it has been rejected. Yet we find later that that may not be true and that they may still be considering it. I wish the minister would respond if he has any further information.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the honourable member raised that matter. Although I did accurately convey to the House at the time the information that had been conveyed to me from an official in the United States, there may have been some slight change in emphasis in the transmission, I am not sure of that.

My officials have confirmed that I was correct in what I conveyed to the member. However, apparently the American position is that they had not accepted the report, nor had they at the time officially rejected it. It is not yet complete, so in fact no decision has been made. It is true, as I understand it, that the consultants have been asked to look further at matters relating to containment of the material that is at present on the site. There clearly has been no decision. We have been assured there will be further information given to us as it is available.

BATTERED WOMEN DAY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order or a point of privilege: I do not know how you would like to rule on it, but if I may, I would like the indulgence of the House. Today has been declared Unity Day with Battered Women in Canada by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

On behalf of my party, and I think other members would probably like to rise as well, I would like to indicate that this House should go on record today as supporting that day of recognition of the difficulties of battered women. As a person who moved the reference to the standing committee on social development for a discussion on the matter of family violence, I am very pleased with the response we had this summer and the nonpartisan approach that committee took to looking at the problems of battered women.

I think it would be wrong for this day to go by without the committee indicating that by next Wednesday we hope to have a consensus report which will deal directly with some of the practical problems affecting women who have been assaulted, and which will show that this House is not a House where we will find tittering and giggling about this issue but rather that we all take this issue very seriously.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party, I would like to join with the member for Scarborough West in giving our support to this cause of Unity Day with Battered Women in Canada.

The member has indicated that this summer we held very serious hearings on the whole issue of battered women. These lasted for three weeks. I must say, as I said to the newspapers when the hearings were over, they were very informative and difficult hearings. There were days when some of the testimony made me feel ashamed to be a man. That may be a difficult thing to admit, but I think every one of us should realize that the population of this province and of this country has to become aware of and attuned to this very serious problem as a result of which that one out of every 10 women in this country suffers physical abuse from her husband or mate.

I think we should all join today in supporting this cause, which I notice many members are recognizing by wearing a purple arm band.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I certainly want to join with my colleagues on the committee, the member for Scarborough West and the member for Prescott-Russell, in recognizing, here in Ontario, Unity Day with Battered Women in Canada.

Both members have noted that we sat in committee for a period of weeks this summer. We are now at the stage of considering our final recommendations. I certainly agree with my friend the member for Scarborough West that there are many areas regarding this issue on which we will have a substantial consensus.

10:10 a.m.

This is a very old and tragic problem. I would hesitate to say the work of the committee will completely eliminate something that probably dates back to the earliest periods of man's history, but I think there are changes we can make, both to our criminal justice system and to our social justice system, to help alleviate the problems that are being faced.

The committee held hearings here in Toronto for a period of some three weeks. We also travelled for several days and listened to presentations in London and St. Thomas. We had women come before the committee who had been victims of violence. We had men come before the committee and talk about their experiences as people who at some time in their past had themselves been abusers of women. I think it is fair to say that while we were shocked and extremely upset at some of the things we heard, we also saw some possible solutions and ways to ameliorate this problem through careful thought and deliberation.

Along with my colleagues who have already spoken, I look forward to this coming week when the report will be coming forth. I look forward also to the response of the government to that report.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, as one of the few women in the House and as a person who sat during the committee hearings this summer, I certainly join with the others in the comments, particularly today when we are wearing these purple armbands, that we should be concerned about the report that will come out of this committee.

We should also be very concerned about the implementation of the recommendations. A lot of important ideas came forward in that committee and, as well, we gained a great insight into the seriousness of the problem. The time for action is now, particularly for funding of the interval houses which are the emergency wards for battered women. We also need the preventive work which will perhaps make it unnecessary at some future day to have a great many interval houses. I join with all other parties in this House in urging more action in this field.

CORRECTION OF NEWSPAPER ACCOUNT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to correct the record. In a column in the Toronto Sun today, Friday, October 15, Mr. Claire Hoy in his column has the following lines, in reference to Bill 127: "The Liberals, after voting for the bill in principle, now want it killed."

If one were to check the record, the Liberal Party has never voted for Bill 127. The members will recall that on May 28 of this year I stood in the House to ask the minister to assure us she would not introduce such a bill. When the bill was before the House for approval in principle, our party voted en masse against it. We opposed it in committee. We continue to oppose it.

I just wanted to correct that misinterpretation of our position.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. The minister is no doubt aware of and heard the remarks of our colleagues from all three parties with respect to Unity Day with Battered Women in Canada, sponsored by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

I am quite aware the Solicitor General has corresponded with the Ontario Police Commission at the request of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), sending, I gather, a copy of the Attorney General's directive to crown attorneys across the province with regard to the matter of laying charges in cases of domestic violence.

I am sure the Solicitor General as chief policeman in this province recognizes the serious nature of the problem this committee has been dealing with. Now that it has been brought to public attention, I think there is a wide degree of understanding that it is a far more serious problem in our society than previously considered.

When the police do not get involved, the number of charges laid is very low. In fact, only three per cent of charges are laid unless they are sponsored directly by the police, but where the police do get actively involved, this results in such figures as happen in London where 88 per cent of the cases go to court and there is a resolution. In other words, it has to be the police responsibility to lay the charges and not the responsibility of the aggrieved person.

I wonder why the Solicitor General has chosen not to put out a clear and unequivocal directive to the various police forces in this province that that is clearly the policy of the government which should be followed by all police forces in this province.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware on this matter, the Attorney General did instruct his crown attorneys to proceed with these matters as they come forward and to be more diligent in proceeding with them. I emphasize that through the Ontario Police Commission the Attorney General's guidelines and instructions were followed judiciously to reinforce his thoughts on this matter. As the member knows, he is a man of concern and has been a leader in the field on this situation.

In the police matter, the efforts we have made in the area of policing and of educating police officers on domestic situations have been followed at the Ontario Police College. We have a course on domestic situations. The police officers have been educated in treating domestic situations which not only take in those between husband and wife but children who are involved in domestic situations, such as child abuse and battering.

This naturally gives me concern. The police have to treat these with the most careful investigation. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, they do not always proceed. There is an emotional component to this. Naturally, where the police can, they proceed with those charges in conjunction with the crown attorney, but there are many situations where the statistics show the initial investigations do not proceed. Sometimes this is also a result of the wife's attitude. There is not only a legal component to this, but a strong emotional and social component that must be treated. That will not always show up in the statistics. I cannot make any apology for that.

As the members know, one cannot always treat this situation in isolation as a straight, legal matter that will show up on a police docket. Sometimes that will not always be the best and only resolution of the emotional situation that is before us, emotional in regard to the relationship of the husband and wife or those individuals who are living together, because it is not always a husband and wife situation. One cannot always treat it as a hard, cold, statistical situation. But the police forces have been instructed to work on these matters and proceed where they are very evidently ones of wife battering with a criminal component that can be proceeded with through the courts.

Mr. Peterson: I think what I am saying, what the report says and what my colleagues would say is the police do have a very strong role in terms of laying of charges.

I refer the preliminary draft report to the Solicitor General. It says: "In May 1981 the London city police force issued a directive" -- and I am asking the Solicitor General to issue a directive, not just the Attorney General's directive to the crown attorneys -- "instructing officers to lay assault charges where they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe an assault had taken place. They need not have witnessed the assault. Since this policy was implemented, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of police-laid assault charges. When compared to 1979, 88 per cent of the family violence cases, as opposed to three per cent, went to court."

The Solicitor General can see the statistics. I am asking him to fulfil his role as the one in charge of the police forces, in conjunction with the role the Attorney General fills in conjunction with the crown attorneys.

10:20 a.m.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I believe that has been taken care of, but if the Leader of the Opposition desires a more forthright statement, one that is matter of fact, I think the police forces would recognize the degree of urgency and the degree of seriousness of the words put together by the Attorney General and re-emphasized by my notation through the Ontario Police Commission to the various police forces. When they look at the content of it, there is no way they cannot recognize the seriousness of proceeding with that.

As the Leader of the Opposition recognizes, these charges are the final result, after the police do the investigation. He has some legal knowledge that the final proceeding is that the crown attorneys proceed with those charges in court. They are the ones who make the final determination as to whether the charges will proceed in the court. The re-emphasizing of the Attorney General's note does make the police forces aware that they must treat these cases with seriousness, and I believe they do treat them with all the seriousness that is recognizable in that field, which we recognize as a very serious situation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the minister, I think his response reflects one of the difficulties we have in this field at the moment. I will ask the minister's response to this: All the evidence shows that the conciliation approach, that is taking the emotional factors into account and so on, does not work. What happens when one has conciliation is there is a recurrence of violence later on. What has to be given is a message to the men in this society that hitting one's wife is the same as hitting a stranger and it is as serious a crime and it is a criminal act.

The difficulty is that we train our teams to go in and try to solve the domestic scene rather than treating this as a crime. I would ask the minister to please read our report. What I am saying is that if charges are not laid, then it is not treated as a crime. In most of the cases, charges are not being laid and in many cases there are not even reports being made of the incidents that take place. That is the evidence we received.

There has to be a directive that this is a criminal offence, that the responsibility needs to be taken by the police officers and not by the women, who will back down from taking it to court, as the minister knows, because of all the social pressures. There has to be a change in attitude and a basic change in --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am asking the minister if his response is a recognition of the basic failure of the system at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Yes, I recognize the comments the honourable member has made and I do take it very seriously as I think all police forces do.

As I recall from my days of practising law, one of the most heinous situations I ever had to face was the battered wife situation and the situations from which the wives, for many reasons, could not extricate themselves.

I would not say that in all situations the laying of the criminal charge would be the best and only solution, but as the honourable members and as the committee have made us aware, I find no difficulty in re-emphasizing and putting out another statement to the police forces for which I am responsible in this province to make sure that they are aware of our concern as a government, as it is the Attorney General's concern and as it is the committee's concern. I would not find it difficult at all to give a further statement to the police forces for them to treat this with the concern that this Legislature shows for the matter.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister, in the initial part of his reply, stated that police officers were well-trained in the area of crisis intervention as it related to wife battering. Could he then explain to the House why it is that of the 360 hours of the nine-week instruction course police officers get at the Ontario Police College, only 24 hours are devoted to the subject of crisis intervention?

Could he also explain to the House why it is that the issue of wife assault is dealt with in the same manual under a

section known as non-criminal order maintenance duties? Does he consider that wife battering is less of a crime than any other kind of assault charge? If that is not the case, will he clearly indicate to the House that they will be laying charges in all cases from now on?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the document recently that the member has quoted from, but yes, there is a course at the Ontario Police College that deals with the domestic situation. That is one part of it. Of the many duties of the police today, that is one of them, but there are only so many hours at the police college which can be devoted to this particular subject.

I am sure on another particular day there would be many people wanting more hours spent on education, on criminal investigation, on driving, on pursuit training, on any number of areas. This is only one of the many facets that police officers are called upon today to handle in their duties. But the fact is that it is a course at the police college; it is one that is recognized and one that shows our seriousness and concern about the particular subject.

As to whether one can lay charges in each and every instance, I think I have explained to the House that it is the final determination, after investigation of a situation in conjunction with the crown attorneys, that a charge is proceeded with. I could not, and I am sure the Attorney General would not say that in each and every instance a charge can be laid.

There are some situations where a component of that charge is the co-operation, diligence and concern of the complainant that she will be a witness, and there is also the evidentiary feature. Although one cannot categorically say that a charge can be laid in each and every situation, as I have indicated the police forces will diligently proceed with the charges if the evidence is there and will proceed with the investigation.

I have given the House the confirmation that I will indicate a more firm direction to the police forces and give instructions to them to proceed, investigate and lay a charge where the facts and circumstances warrant.

RESTRAINT ON DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. Peterson: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has had at least one meeting with the Ontario Medical Association, and perhaps more, with respect to the doctors' compliance with or working along, in some form or other, with the restraint program of his government. Would he care to bring the House up to date on those discussions? What did he ask of the doctors and what was their response?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have had one meeting with the relatively new president of the OMA and the executive director. I did not make any specific requests of the medical profession during the course of that meeting. I outlined to them in rather general terms the objectives of the government program. I reviewed the legislation with them, not in great detail but in terms of the general direction.

I did say to them we would be encouraging other sectors of the economy to follow the spirit of the legislation but not necessarily in every detail. It was an opportunity that I used to explain to the profession -- when I say the profession, I mean the two representatives of the OMA -- what the general government policy was. I did not ask for any specific recommendation at that time.

I indicated to the president of the OMA that I would hope he and his colleagues would discuss this and would think about it. We did not threaten. We did not exert, in that sense of the word, any pressure at this time. I expect I will be having further discussions with the OMA over the next period of time.

Mr. Peterson: Does the Premier mean that we just wait for this thing to unfold in the fullness of time, or does he have some recommendations? What is he going to ask? What is he going to do if they do not comply? Is he going to bring them under the terms of the law? This is a very critical question. In my judgement, it is very fundamental to the kind of acceptance this program will have across this province.

10:30 a.m.

The Premier must realize, of course, the disparities he is creating in a number of people's minds by not including the doctors. Of all people, he should recognize the sensitivity of what he has done or has not done in the circumstances. Is he telling me today: "We'll just wait and see what happens. At some time in the future, at some undetermined meeting, we may discuss our intentions"? He must surely have some plans for the medical profession, as they did in British Columbia.

Everybody has to contribute to our restraint program, which the Premier believes to be so fair and equitable. He must have some plans. What are those plans? What is he going to demand? How much time is he going to give them, and when will he be back to this House with an answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the time frame of the existing agreement. Even if the medical profession had been included in the legislation, the impact of that would not take place until April 1983. There is some time for thoughtful consideration of this matter.

I fully appreciate that the Liberal Party would include the medical profession within the legislation. That point was made clear by the deputy leader of the party in his question, and I understand that. I understand the official position of the New Democratic Party is that it would not. I found that out, somewhat to my surprise, in a release by the leader of the NDP, who says --

Mr. McClellan: We don't support the program.

Mr. Swart: We don't believe in breaking contracts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not what the leader of the NDP said in a release from Goderich to district whatever it was of the OMA. The members of that party are marvellous, they really are. One minute, when the bill is introduced, they say --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but they did interrupt a little bit. I was just trying to develop a resumé for the members of this House. I felt the day the bill was introduced that the New Democrats said the doctors should be in and the leader of the NDP has said the doctors should not be in.

I think the question of the Leader of the Opposition was very fair. Quite frankly, I expected the question two weeks ago, because my meeting was two or three weeks ago yesterday.

Mr. Bradley: You were not here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I was here the day after the meeting and no one on the other side of the House asked me about it.

Mr. Sweeney: We expected to see a statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, you did not expect a statement. Do not make up excuses.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know what the problem was. I simply accused the Premier of being a hypocrite.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: I accused the Premier of being a hypocrite for nailing workers and ignoring doctors, but that does not mean I support any shred of his program. My supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Just before you proceed with your question, you did use an offensive word and I draw that to your attention. I ask you to withdraw it, please.

Mr. McClellan: Which word was that?

Mr. Speaker: "Hypocrite."

Mr. McClellan: I think our precedents have enshrined that epithet as acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I believe you will find ample examples of that, but if it is offensive to you, I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Did you withdraw it?

Mr. McClellan: I am trying to.

Mr. Speaker: Please do. Never mind the speech, just withdraw the remark.

Mr. McClellan: I was in the process. I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: The clock is still going on.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, I realize that. If I may ask my supplementary, I did withdraw the remark.

Mr. Speaker: Did you? Thank you. Now to the question.

Mr. McClellan: My question has to do with the double messages being communicated by the Premier. When the Premier met with the OMA, did he discuss

section 26 of Bill 179? Did he tell them it is as plain on the nose on his face that the Ontario health insurance plan fee

schedule is an administered price under the

definitions in subsection 26(b); that the Ministry of Health is a public regulatory agency under the terms of subsection 26(d); and that he is having negotiations for a group which he has either deliberately or inadvertently already included under the terms of the so-called wage restraint program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that question has been dealt with very effectively by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). I understood the lead question was, "What was the position of our discussions with the OMA?" If the member is really saying to us that his party is ambivalent as to whether the medical profession should be in or out --

Mr. McClellan: The Premier must have a hearing problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I was here the first day the bill was introduced. Everyone over there was calling for the inclusion of the medical profession. They are now trying to work their way off the hook to try to show some degree of consistency. The New Democratic Party has been caught, it is embarrassed and it does not know what to do about it.

Mr. Peterson: On a point order, Mr. Speaker: I think the Premier was a trifle unkind to the member for Bellwoods, who wanted to purge his conscience publicly here in this House and admit to the duplicity of his party's position, which is equalled only by the duplicity of the position of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: What is the government's position? Does it want them in or does it want them out? The Premier can make fun of the NDP all he wants because, God knows, they deserve it, but they do not go both ways any more than the government goes both ways. The Premier should not get morally superior with us.

My question is, how long is the government going to wait and what is it going to ask for? It has obviously heard the noises from the OMA saying they are not going to make their contribution. What is the government going to do about it if they do not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the enthusiasm of the Leader of the Opposition for including a group of self-employed professionals within the context of the act. I understand that. I should caution him that there are some members of his caucus who are a shade reluctant because they know there is some modest differential. I know he does not have any great measure of patience, but I would suggest to him --

Mr. Peterson: Why waste time meeting with them if you don't want to include them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is very obvious that our --

Mr. Peterson: Do you want them in or do you want them out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, if the member will let me answer and not keep on interjecting --

Mr. Nixon: You are not going to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course I am not going to answer it in the way the member wants me to answer it. If I could put questions in his mouth the way I would like to have them asked, I could not do any better than he is doing at present. I do not intend to answer what it is he wants me to answer. We are having discussions. I expect they will continue.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I have a matter of very real personal privilege. I do not often take exception to what the Leader of the Opposition might say, but it is a matter of personal privilege and one that I know he will want to redress, because he always quotes my speeches.

From the very forthright speech he made last night, it seems obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has become a sexist. I really feel bad about that. He knows the Tories have a woman candidate in the riding, yet he says, "Send a man from York South to Queen's Park." The women of this province will be up in arms over that.

Mr. Peterson: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, let me say that was --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I have noticed a very serious deterioration in the quality of the luncheon club humour of the Premier over the past two or three weeks. This is probably the lowest it has fallen. He substantially embarrassed himself the other night in my home town of London, Ontario, where I gather he promised three or four judgeships before his speech in order to get a crowd at the meeting. Then he comes into the House and accuses me of that.

Obviously we are running a man, and his superiority over the other candidates has nothing to do with his sex or the sex of his opponents. Our candidate clearly is the most impressive candidate as a human being. We are going to win on that basis and that basis alone.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I do not really expect any objective evaluation of my sense of humour. At least I believe I have one; most days he does not.

I would only say, not only with some regret but with great regret, that if the Leader of the Opposition really believes the large crowd that came out in his community in London the other evening had anything to do with my presence, I feel bad that he does not understand there were some 350 Londoners and people from all over Ontario to pay respect to J. Allyn Taylor, the chairman of the McMichael board.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Peterson: On the point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: No, really. I think your point has been well made, and --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think, with all respect -- Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously it is deteriorating into a debate.

Mr. Peterson: It is a point of privilege. You allowed him a point of privilege. Surely you must exercise your judgement with an even hand.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the Premier a point of privilege; I allowed you to reply to it.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you something that is very important with respect to that point --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: If you will hear me out, I am sure you will agree --

Mr. Speaker: No, no; the point of privilege has been made, with all respect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Peterson: Well, why would you allow that?

Mr. Speaker: Because the point of privilege, as I explained, was originally raised. You replied to it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not arbitrary, believe me. We are in question period. We are abusing question period.

MILK PRICE INCREASES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I am taking the leadoff today perhaps gives some idea of the importance this party attaches to consumer and farm matters.

In view of the flippant nonanswer that was given by the Premier last Tuesday to my question on the impending increase in the price of milk I would like to pursue the matter further today with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He will recognize, I hope, that the farmer is going to get a 2.62 cents per litre increase in the price of milk next Monday, and I hope he knows that the habit of the supermarkets and the dairies in the last three years has been to mark up that farmers' increase by more than 125 per cent.

Can the minister tell the House today what increase there will be on Monday or next week in the wholesale and retail price of milk and what input he, or perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), has had that the markup they make this time will be reasonable and carry out his professed price restraint program?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to leave the House or the public with any misconception about the price control program of the government. As the member well knows, and I hope he is not trying to mislead anybody, the Inflation Restraint Board has the obligation of monitoring wages and prices in the private sector.

They will be doing that and they will be advising me from time to time on their views and feelings about certain price increases. But the government's restraint program, as he knows, deals only with administered prices, so he should not try to deceive the public.

What did you say, Mr. Premier? I did not hear you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was telling them about sending a man to Queen's Park.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He knows very well that the price of milk in this province has been based on a free, competitive marketplace, and by and large I think everybody in this House would agree that the price of milk in Ontario has remained reasonably stable in comparison with other provinces.

The member has to remember that the most recent statistics in terms of food as a component of the consumer price index indicate that food as an overall component has dropped precipitously.

If we look at the figures from 1979 to 1982, we see that as a portion of the consumer price index, food has dropped from 13.5 per cent in 1979 to 6.7 per cent during the first eight months of 1982. So I think there is very good evidence that the free marketplace is having a desirable effect on food prices.

Mr. Swart: It is perfectly obvious that the minister knows nothing about the increase in the price of milk taking place next Monday even though the bill that was tabled on September 21 requires monitoring. I would like to send him a copy of the wholesale price increases which are to go into effect on Monday --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: -- by Beatrice Foods Ltd., one of the largest dairies in this province. The other dairies are doing the same things. I hope the minister will take a look at that. If he does, he will notice that the price of a litre of milk is going to increase by seven cents --

Mr. Speaker: You have already sent the information over to the minister for his edification. I would ask you to place your question, please.

Mr. Swart: Will the minister note that the price of a litre of milk is going up by seven cents, two litres by 14 cents, and the three-quart plastic pouch is going up by 24 cents? I say to the minister, in today's economy --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not think an eight or nine cent retail increase in the price of milk is excessive? Does the minister not think there is something wrong with his system when the farmer gets an increase in his returns of less than six per cent, and has to justify every penny of it, and the dairies get more than 12 per cent and the minister lets them and sits back and lets it happen?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I thank the member for forwarding the data to me. As he knows, the food monitoring

section of the ministry would be receiving it in any event. As he has already pointed out, the Inflation Restraint Board will be monitoring the wage and price changes in the private sector and reporting to me from time to time.

It is intriguing that the member never stands up on his feet when there is a price reduction. Why is that? Is he glued to the floor or the chair whenever there is a price reduction?

I have to tell the member that when the food component of the consumer price index in August showed that year over year it was 6.4 per cent, he did not move out of that chair. I have to tell the member that he can have it whatever way he wants, but let us not try to fool people that he is only concerned about food prices, because when they are going down he never says a thing.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, does the minister feel that the member for Welland-Thorold, who is now the agricultural critic for the NDP, is championing the cause of the farmers when he forever advocates that this government continues with its cheap food policy? Does the minister think the member realizes the price at the retail store reflects on the farmers' price? Does the minister think he has championed the cause of the farmers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if that requires a yes-or-no answer, I have difficulty. I do find great trouble when friends start to squabble among themselves.

Mr. Riddell: I would ask that the minister withdraw that, because I have never professed to be a friend of these people on my left.

Mr. Swart: I guess the member for Huron- Middlesex has never gotten over being beaten in the ploughing match.

Does the minister not realize that the number of processors of fluid milk in Ontario has dropped in the last 13 years from something like 160 to 135 and now there are four or five -- a maximum of five -- dairies that have 80 to 90 per cent of the market?

10:50 a.m.

Is the minister not aware that Quebec and seven other provinces, recognizing the massive reduction in the ability to control the price to the consumer through competition, have enacted control over the wholesale and/or the retail price of milk? That means the price in Quebec is about 10 cents a litre lower than it is in this province.

Will the minister face up to this situation and bring in legislation like they have in the seven other provinces to protect the consumer against excessive increases?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think we are very satisfied that the competitive process in this province is producing food prices which are comparable to anywhere in the country.

MORTGAGE RATES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Since the mortgage rate has dropped significantly in the last few weeks, what action is this government prepared to take, either by meeting with leaders of the banking community or talking to the federal government, in order to have the mortgage rates for those people who have renewed their mortgages at 19 and 20 per cent lowered to reflect the present 14.75 per cent rate?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is an intriguing question. The member is leaving the assumption that those who lend money on mortgages are all big bankers and big trust companies. The fact of life is that most of them are individual home owners who have sold their homes and the mortgage rate was a negotiated rate at the time of sale. Many mortgages are through credit unions. Is he proposing that the credit unions be required to eat a percentage of the mortgage interest they have negotiated?

There are a lot of difficulties with it, but I will certainly convey the member's views to the Treasurer and to those who have loaned out mortgages to people.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister also aware that the spread between savings rates and loan rates has increased dramatically over the last few weeks? What is his opinion on that matter? Is he prepared to take action to make sure that spread is made smaller too?

He cannot have it both ways. The banks are, on the one hand, charging excessive rates for mortgages that were renewed, and now they are trying to make up for bad loans over the past number of months by paying very low rates on savings accounts.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Those rates reflect market conditions, and I think everyone who has been observing the changes that have taken place is very gratified that interest rates are falling. I think the member should be commenting on that instead of asking these questions.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister further aware that, while the bank rate is lowering, credit card interest, which is important in terms of consumer buying power, is, for example, Eaton's 28 per cent per annum and Visa 24 per cent? Is he not at least thinking that action should be taken on that matter, that the credit card facilities of Eaton's and Visa and MasterCard should be talked to and that their rates should be lowered to reflect the decrease in the prime rate?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Most of us know we have the option of whether or not we wish to use credit cards. We always have the option of writing cheques or going to the bank to borrow the money at lower rates. These are options that people choose in life for convenience.

With many of the credit cards, like Visa and others, there is a period of time where there is no interest paid at all. I have to tell my friend that he is talking about a credit system which most people think is very valuable in terms of travelling and purchases and not having to carry a lot of money around with them. Generally that is a choice people have to make.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade. Can the minister explain to the Legislature how he can justify his approval for an expenditure of $225,000 on an ad campaign directed towards small business in this province less than two months after that same ministry withdrew grant funds also directed to small business in this province, those funds being elicited to actually help fund those businesses?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly can justify it. First, the member has really asked two questions. One involves the communications campaign and the other involves the small business programs. There are four small business programs. What we discovered, after five months of the fiscal year we are now in, is that we had committed or spent 80 per cent of the funds that had been allocated for the purposes of those four programs.

The budgeted amount was substantially more than the budgeted amount from last year approved by the Legislature. The amount was larger and the money had been 80 per cent committed. What we did in that case was decide to slow down some of the approvals because, quite frankly, we were going to end up spending twice as much.

I think the member would agree with me that I have a responsibility to this Legislature to stay within the budget, if at all possible. The programs had become oversubscribed. We simply reduced the speed with which they were being considered.

The programs were not cut. In fact, the programs have been maintained at reasonable levels. The levels are above what they were last year. The money is still there. In fact, one of the boards met on September 30 and made some approvals. Another board will be meeting in a few days and will probably make some more approvals. The funds will be there and, therefore, there is not a substantial problem at all from that point of view.

The idea that we have cut the program funds is just not the case. Please put that part aside. The member may consider the stories he has heard or read to be inaccurate as they relate to the cutting of funds. We simply slowed down the process a bit, because we were becoming oversubscribed. That is the one side of the question the member has identified.

The second side is the communications program we have, which is simply this. I think I have probably negotiated about the best bargain we are ever going to see in government. We have $1 million worth of air time that we got for the production cost and a few other ancillary costs of around $250,000. It will allow all the radio stations blanketing the province to provide a very informational message with only the slightest reference to the ministry, an informational message that can be given to small businesses.

We felt we had a duty to get out to more of the small businesses in this province. There are 240,000 small businesses. We feel we are beginning more effective communications by telling some of them how to start a small business, showing them the ways they can go about it, telling them something about financial management, sales forecasting, preparing cash-flow projections, how to choose a lender, marketing and managing accounts receivable. These are examples of what we are communicating. Frankly, I think the member should be standing up here and offering us one of the best congratulations he has afforded in a long time.

Mr. Sweeney: I would draw to the minister's attention that approximately a year ago a very expensive and very flashy ad campaign was directed towards small business in this province. I have 10 pamphlets in my hand: Putting New Ideas into Production? We'll Help Finance the Expertise; Research? We'll Pay 90 Per Cent of Your Tab at the Lab; Production Problems? We'll Help You Manufacture Higher Profits; Launching a New Product? We'll Help You Get Off the Ground.

I wonder if the minister is not aware of the anger and frustration of the small business people in this province when they see the government on the one hand spending --

Mr. Bradley: Squandering.

Mr. Sweeney: -- squandering, that is a better word -- $225,000 on a message that says: "The Ministry of Industry and Trade -- we are here to help small business in a big way." Those are businesses that have their backs to the wall. If that $225,000 had been put into a grant program -- whatever has been done with it, whether it has been delayed or eliminated, the money is not available to them and they need that money. If the ministry really wants to help small business, why does it not give the money to them instead of more of this nonsense?

Mr. Conway: Just a flash in the pan.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Don't talk about a flash in the pan. I will tell the member something about the small business programs of this province. With the kind of commitment we have, we will put up our effort and match it against that of the other provinces and other jurisdictions, and we will come out as the better ones of the bunch.

With what the Treasurer has provided in terms of $250 million worth of tax waiving for a period of two years, if one talks about a small business budget that was a small business budget, that is the kind of thing we are doing to help small business.

Mr. Kerrio: Those people are starving.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I listened to the member carefully. Please allow me the courtesy to reply.

He stood there and raised a bunch of pamphlets. Yes, we have the pamphlets, but we are not going to take those pamphlets and distribute them around the province with an airplane dropping them over every city and on top of every small business. What we are trying to do is to get the message out.

Mr. Kerrio: The airplane is gone.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Would the member please just listen for a moment? One of the things we are trying to do with these messages is to say: "In the event that you wish to start a small business, please contact us. We have a booklet we can provide that will help you in that process. Will you not contact us?"

When the member considers what we are providing and when he concentrates on barely half a per cent of the budget and makes his concerns known, when the money is in fact there and is being afforded, how he has the gall to stand up and make the suggestions he is making I cannot understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that the program that was part of the budget on May 13 and that he is bragging about today only helps small businesses that are making a profit, that are incorporated? Does he not realize that there are many small businesses in this province that have their backs up against the wall, that are losing money and are about to go into bankruptcy, and that this kind of promotion on the part of his ministry is seen by the people in this province who pay the bill as simply a way of promoting the Progressive Conservative Party and his government and not doing anything to come to terms with the economic problems we have in this province?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Not so, Mr. Speaker. The kind of people the member has been talking to would not be the same kind I have been talking to because I have found a great deal of receptivity for the ideas. The reason is that we are simply providing a service to people just like the ones the member is making reference to.

The Treasurer's budget related to those who are making a profit. We figured the tax waiver was the best way to get investment into the hands of small business and to have jobs created. What we are talking about in helping small businesses is providing them with the kind of good information they need about the very issues the member is raising. The only way some of them are going to get it is from the kinds of material we can provide, or at least from the sources we suggest they approach. I do not know whom the member has been talking to, but it has probably been on the wrong side of the border.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NATIVE RIGHTS

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Does he recall a commitment made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) last April, reinforcing a commitment that had been made by the federal government, that within a year, in the absence of any mention of native rights in the Charter of Rights associated with the patriation of Canada's Constitution, a full-blown conference would be held under the auspices of the federal government and all of the provinces to address the question of native rights?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, that commitment is contained in the new Canadian Constitution and it is a commitment that, of course, will be fulfilled, namely that there will be a meeting of the first ministers of this country some time certainly before the first anniversary date of Her Majesty's signing of the royal proclamation on April 17.

I can assure the honourable member that this is a matter that has been given very high priority within this government. There are a number of ministers who are actively involved in preparations for that meeting.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Attorney General give any assurance that our first citizens, certainly those in Ontario, will be given every opportunity to take an active

part in the negotiations and in defining what native rights are? If so, who specifically in this government will be speaking on behalf of native people in Ontario at those very important meetings?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Premier will be leading any delegation to any meetings involving the Constitution over the further defining of aboriginal rights. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) just reminded me that some of our deputy ministers are meeting today in Winnipeg with respect to this very important matter.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in preparation for this meeting that is promised and committed before a year elapses, does the Attorney General not think that the members of the Legislature representing specific Indian communities, and those with a special interest in this, should not gather themselves together as a committee to assist the government in establishing a position, along with the representatives of the Indian community? Would the minister not think that the time for those preparations is getting rather late and that we as members of the Legislature feel the same share of the responsibility as the actual signers of the document itself?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Obviously we would be very interested in the views of any members of the Legislature with respect to this very complex matter. I just want to reiterate that already a great deal of preparation has been made for this meeting, the dates of which are still to be announced. As to this being done rather late in the day, I must say this has been given a high priority. As for the appropriate mechanism for individual members of the Legislature to express their views to the government, I am sure this is something the House leaders would like to discuss.

TRANSPORT COMPANY LAYOFFS

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the plight of almost 100 office personnel of the Toronto-Peterborough Transport Co. On October 1 these employees were called in by management, were given their paycheques and were told they would be the last paycheques for an indefinite period of time. No Employment Standards Act benefits were to be paid.

The reason offered by management for the layoff is the current strike of the plant by the local union. I have no problem with the strike; that is an entirely separate issue. Because of the unfortunate situation which brought about their layoff, these office workers are now faced with the uncertainty of no work and no recall date; and in spite of there being no recall date there are no benefits. Does the minister consider this fair and equitable treatment of these office personnel?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable member opposite. I do not feel that it is fair and equitable treatment at all.

Mr. Wrye: Does this situation not highlight the flaws and gaps in the Employment Standards Act? The regulations dealing with termination and notice requirements deem their weeks of layoffs not even to be weeks of layoffs. Therefore, they would never be entitled to notice of any kind under this regulation. If the minister agrees with me that they are indeed laid off, when is he going to close the gaps in the Employment Standards Act and deem them to be exactly that?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Because of that particular circumstance, the employment standards branch is not only investigating that aspect but also looking at the inequities that the member has brought forward today.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, can we expect major amendments to the Employment Standards Act this fall?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest there were amendments to the Employment Standards Act coming forward. I said that the employment standards branch was investigating not only this particular circumstance but also the legislation as a whole.

MANVILLE CANADA PERSONNEL RECORDS

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney General. In the proceedings of the standing committee on social development on Wednesday afternoon, September 29, while we were discussing the provisions of Bill 138, the Health Protection Act, we had the benefit of comments from Dr. E. K.

Fitzgerald, medical officer of health in Scarborough, with respect to the survey he had been conducting of families and others having close contact with the workers employed at the Johns-Manville, now Manville Canada, plant, for the purpose of tracking them and assisting in any way he could, to make certain that any persons who might develop diseases because of contact with the workers, or the workers themselves, could be assisted.

We were surprised to find that when he tried to pick up the studies some five years later to complete the survey in 1980 and 1981, this is what he found and this is what he had to say to the committee: "We had to go to Johns-Manville. Johns-Manville had been in 1975 an industry employing roughly 700 plus or minus employees. In 1981 they were employing, I think, at that point, 150.

"Because of this tremendous change in size of the Johns-Manville Toronto operation, all these records" -- the personnel records -- "were now in Colorado. To get the personnel information to identify these household contacts who would be added to the first list was going to take them a considerable period of time. Indeed, when we checked with them on the phone. . . their computers, their data and their information were still not in a state where they could guarantee providing this for another six months. As a consequence, we have never proceeded with this second phase of the study."

My question to the minister is, will he consult with his colleagues, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), to find out what can be done to retrieve the personnel records related to the workers of the Manville Canada plant because of the concern which we have that those records may be destroyed, may disappear or be unavailable in Ontario for the purpose of claims being made to the Workmen's Compensation Board?

11:1Oa.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was not aware of the testimony to which the member for Riverdale has referred. Certainly, I will confer with my colleagues with respect to this important matter.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the very wealthy Manville Corp. in the United States, which is not bankrupt or in any financial difficulty whatsoever, taking advantage late in August of very technical provisions of the United States bankruptcy laws for the purpose of avoiding the claims being made against it with respect to asbestos-related diseases.

Will the Attorney General consider the problem as it reflects on Manville Canada in Scarborough to make certain of two things: one, that the assets of Manville in Canada and in Ontario remain available to assist in defraying the claims which will be made to the Workmen's Compensation Board; and two, that Manville recognizes that it must maintain sufficient capital in the country to provide the assessments which may be levied against it by the Workmen's Compensation Board, otherwise the Workmen's Compensation Board is going to have to bear that cost itself?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The member for River- dale knows as well as anyone else that this is obviously a very complex issue. The suggestion that certain assets in some way be frozen, in order to remain within the jurisdiction pending the determination of a potential liability, is a complex issue. All I can say at this time is it is something we are prepared to review.

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

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wells moves that the standing committee on social development be authorized to sit in the morning next Wednesday, October 20, 1982.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 226, 230 to 232, 245 to 246, 250, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 272, 273, 275, 276, 280, 287, 294, 298, 307, 486 and 488, the interim answer to 487 and responses to petitions presented to the House, sessional papers numbers 177, 179 and 185, all of these standing on the Notice Paper (see appendix, page 4324). I will also, with the indulgence of the House, have the answers and interim answers to some further questions before we adjourn at one o'clock today.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the interim answers to questions 238, 239, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248 and 249 on the Notice Paper (see appendix, page 4330).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 179,

An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to find out just where I left off last night in debating Bill 179. The band I am wearing today is most appropriate. It indicates some of the problems in our society and that people are being hurt, particularly because of high unemployment. I think it is an all-time high in Ontario and throughout Canada. There are some 700,000 people unemployed, and looking at the work-sharing schemes that are available to many industries, it would be even higher if those people had not accepted that work-sharing proposal.

There are also social problems facing many people who are unemployed, such as the problem of battered women in Ontario that has come to the surface. In the last four or five years the trend in the economy has been downhill, and one of the problems of high unemployment is that this type of social evil creeps into our society because of the hardship of being unemployed.

I will try to relate my remarks to a speech from the Royal Bank of Canada president to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Ottawa on September 19, 1982. I have already quoted from that, and I want to quote some more from page 7: "That suggestion usually results in predictable objections about the political or economic difficulty of major spending cuts. Too many of these objections are simply an excuse for avoiding the painful task of cutting back cherished government programs. Of course, it isn't fun. But those huge deficits are leaving too little room for interest rates to come down to where they should be.

They are reducing the availability of funds for productive development of the economy.

"Cutting costs has never been more important. And if it is important in the sectors of society that create the wealth, it is even more important in the sectors that spend the wealth. A government that is not cutting its deficit, cutting inefficient, nonproductive spending, is contributing more to the problem than it is to the solution."

As I indicated previously, the chairman did mention some causes at the root of inflation. My opening comments related to the banking institutions here in Canada, the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act itself. We have the money- changers controlling our market of available money and even controlling the Canadian dollar, just by a telephone call from day to day. I tried to indicate to the members last night that this is an exclusive club made up of bank investors and the Bank of Canada.

If one looks deeply enough into the area of the Bank Act and those persons who are the money managers, the money-exchangers, whatever we may call them -- I could use the word "manipulators" -- they are using every source at their disposal of Canadian savings, insurance companies, trust companies and the banks themselves.

The Bank of Canada has a similar role to the Treasury Board in the American banking system. The Treasury Board in the US can control the shots. As I indicated last night, the good news in the past week is that interest rates have dropped considerably and it is to be hoped they will go down to a level that will be affordable to the Canadian economy. We can be thankful there is an election in the United States this year. That has brought about this change, not government action or the banking system here in Canada, but the American government and the banking institutions there.

11:20 a.m.

If we look at the recent amendments to the Bank Act allowing foreign banks to operate in Ontario and throughout Canada, I suppose it means there is some influence by the American-controlled banks on our economy. We can say that whatever happens in the United States pretty well follows as a trend here in Canada.

The capital necessary for a dealer to operate comes from day-to-day bank loans and in certain instances from the Bank of Canada. It is evident we do have a cartel operating under the Bank Act of Canada. This special group of bankers, trust companies, insurance companies and speculators have far too much power. They can make that one phone call day by day that can change the bank rate. They can perhaps change the value of the Canadian dollar to suit their own personal gains. Perhaps the members of the Legislature have not really looked into the area of bank profits and their origins so I thought I would bring this to their attention.

When we look at inflation, we should be looking at the cost of borrowing money from the banks in Canada. The historic difference when borrowing money from the bank at one time was a spread of between two and three per cent. Today the spread is generally between five and six per cent. In fact, if one were to look at the charts, and I thank the Legislative Library for providing this information, the Royal Bank had a loan rate of 23.75 to 25 per cent within the last year. Meanwhile, the savings rates were 17 and 19 per cent. In other words, the spread was 4.75 and eight per cent.

The Bank of Montreal's prime rate was 21.25 per cent plus 2.5 and even three. The savings rate was 19 and 17 per cent, depending on which way one's money was put in the bank. The Bank of Nova Scotia was another high one with a 25.25 per cent loan rate and its savings rate was 18.25 and 17.25; the spread was between eight and six per cent. The Toronto Dominion Bank had an exceptionally good thing. I suppose we should all have had our money at the Toronto Dominion Bank. Its loan rate was 23.5 and 26 per cent and its savings rate was 19 and 16.75 per cent; the spread was 9.25 and 4.5.

When we talk about inflation: we have a particular group of managers in banking and other institutions who can control the money market, they can increase that spread. Normally, the historic figures were two and three per cent. They could operate on that and I think everybody was happy; we were borrowing money that was affordable. But the banks stepped into the picture, changed the rules and can have that enormous spread, generating huge profits at the expense of the consumers and the taxpayers of Ontario.

When we talk about inflation: the Bank of Canada in a banner year last year showed a profit of $1.85 billion. That was taken from the general public to generate that source of income. If the Bank of Canada made a $1.85 billion profit in 1981, think what all the other banks and trust companies generated in huge profits over the year.

When they single out the government as being at fault for its deficit spending, borrowing money and removing some of the capital from trust companies, banks and loaning institutions, they are very critical and say, "You are the ones who are causing inflation." I believe when companies or banks can make that much profit, and all the other profit that has been generated by the banks at a time of economic difficulties, bleeding the people of Canada, it is time we took some strong measures to review the Bank Act and bring in some legislation so this does not happen again under the economic condition Canada faces today. There is no way we should permit that type of blackmail.

When we look at the cost of inflation on the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer dollar in 1981, it took one Canadian consumer dollar to buy what 42 cents could buy in 1971. The consumer price index indicates that consumer prices in Canada have risen approximately 137 per cent during the past 10 years. I suppose if I look at the government members, who are the managers of our economy and of the tax programs in Ontario, I feel that they can be held responsible for that area because the last year that the province came in with a budgetary surplus was under the Robarts government.

We have found in the last 10 years that this government has continually gone downhill by huge deficit spending, and yet unemployment increases.

I was looking at the Fraser Institute's Tax Facts highlights. It says: "In 1961 the average family had an income of $5,000 and faced a total tax bill of $1,675. By 1980 that family was earning $22,000, but a total of $10,306 went to the tax collectors at the federal, provincial and municipal levels." There is some indication that because of the heavy government expenditure and so on the people of Ontario are being taxed to death.

I suggest that it is time we look at these two areas, the banks and the government and their expenditure. I think it is time that the public in Canada and Ontario asked for accountability for the tax dollars that have been taken from them and other areas of savings.

Last night I mentioned that I would get into the bail-out of the Dome deal by the federal government and the Canadian banks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Does this tie in to Bill 179?

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, it does. We are dealing with restraint programs for Ontario. We are singling out the working man as the cause of the high inflationary costs, and I am trying to pinpoint the idea that it is the other side that has more responsibility and has shared some of this high cost of inflation to the taxpayers. I feel that Bill 179 as it relates to one sector, the public service sector, is an unjust and unfair type of bill to bring in at this time. There are other areas that this government should be singling out. I mentioned the banks and government expenditure. I suggest that I am right on the principle of the bill.

As we look at the Bank of Canada along with all the other banks, it is interesting what their deal with Dome Petroleum netted -- I should not say netted, cost the banks, and I suppose when I look at it that there is some sense of greed in this deal. The government, the industry and the banks were looking for the high price of oil that was forecast to be somewhere around $85 within this decade, perhaps higher than that. Everybody jumped on the bandwagon and said, "Here is where we can really generate huge profits at the expense of the citizens of Canada and Ontario."

I want to put this forward to the members of the Legislature so they will see what investment there was to bail out Dome. When I get into this report, it questions the prudence of the banks and raises the issue of the banks' social responsibility to ordinary Canadian customers, particularly in the loans that have an adverse effect on the liquidity of the banks.

According to the Bank of Canada, the total amount of money lent by Canada's chartered banks to the petroleum industry for all purposes by the end of 1981 was approximately $16.2 billion, which is the projected size of the current federal deficit. About $11 billion of that could be attributed to acquisition spending.

When one looks at that much capital that has been taken off the ordinary market for the purpose of the banks -- I think in the first place it was for short-term loans -- the adverse effect on small businessmen in Ontario is obvious; particularly on those looking for capital to expand or just to carry their cash flows because of the high interest rates and cost of operating an industry or business today.

11:30 a.m.

It is estimated that the company owes approximately $200 million to the Bank of Nova Scotia, $500 million to the Royal Bank, $900 million to the Toronto Dominion Bank, $1 billion to the Bank of Montreal and $1.2 billion to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. He also mentions operations of Dome in other areas which the banks have funded.

Inco is facing severe difficulties in trying to survive the tough economic climate and selling its products and creating jobs in the Sudbury basin and, in particular, in the Port Colborne area. The management board of Inco has taken a policy to assist in reducing borrowing requirements because of high interest rates. To maintain a stable industry here in Ontario and Manitoba, they have taken the option of selling off some of their assets.

Dome Petroleum, which has about 50 subsidiaries worth billions of dollars throughout the world -- there is no doubt it is a multinational corporation -- could have sold off some of them to create capital without going to the banks to borrow money.

The Acting Speaker: With all due respect to the honourable member, I have a great deal of trouble seeing how the present aspects of his presentation apply to Bill 179.

Mr. Haggerty: We are talking about the government restraint program, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: We are talking about the Ontario government restraint program and the honourable member is going into areas beyond the application of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Ontario government?

Mr. Haggerty: Whether it is the provincial government or the federal government, this report and the legislation before the Legislature deal with the possibility of further restraint programs in the companion bill which may come before this House very shortly, relating to government expenditures.

I am suggesting that allowing this type of transaction to be carried on throughout Canada affects the economy of Ontario. This government will have to tax Ontarians through personal income tax and other taxes, including increased sales tax.

If the banks had not gone so deeply into financing short-term loans with Dome Petroleum, there would have been a sufficient supply of money in Ontario for private sector borrowing. I do not have to talk about the difficulties small businessmen are having today to get money from the banks. There is just no money available. In fact, banks are calling in demand loans today and that affects the agricultural sector of the province.

These difficulties in the farming sector mean this government will have to increase taxes next year to bail out or to assist the farming community and some small businesses in Ontario. I suggest that is not a restraint program. It is compounding the problem, in a sense. The capital is there and the responsibility lies with the Bank of Canada.

The Acting Speaker: I can only ask the honourable member to find his next point as quickly as possible because I have great difficulty seeing how that applies to the present bill before the House.

Mr. Riddell: You have no sympathy for the farmers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Haggerty: No, he is not for the farmers. I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I know time is important to the Legislature and that other members wish to speak, but that letter from the Royal Bank singled out the government as one of the corporate bodies that are running huge deficits which should not take place because of the cost of borrowing money.

The budgetary principles set forth by the Treasurer of Ontario show that it takes about 10 per cent of the 1982 budget just to carry the interest charges for the huge deficit of this government. If that is not in the area of restraint, I do not know what the bill is all about.

I am sure many others do not understand it either, except that the government is going to place the penalty upon the public sector of Ontario. Somebody has to be the fall guy, so I guess it is the public sector.

My leader has indicated there is inequity in the bill the government has put forward. He says it should cover all sectors of the economy. Looking at what he is saying and suggesting to the government, there is no doubt there will be amendments in this area by the official opposition. We want to tie in the high interest rates, to control the interest rates in this country.

As long as interest rates are this high we are going to have industries and farmers going into receivership. We could almost have this government or even Ontario Hydro go into receivership if it were not for the backing up of this government by the people of Ontario to provide security.

The Treasurer talks about a triple-A rating. If one is a good paying customer one can get almost any amount of money one wants to borrow. I suppose that is where the triple-A rating comes in. It does not mean that much. It may mean one-eighth of one per cent less than would have to be paid on a normal market, or something like that.

I suggest the things I am discussing are right on the principles of this bill. I bring that to the attention of the members. That is an area we should be looking at. It is not only the government but the banks that are at fault in bringing about the high cost of inflation.

I mentioned the problems of industry having cash-flow difficulties. This government is having them today too, but the banks and every businessman are singling it out as the fault of the government.

Let us take a look at what the government is doing today. The banks should be lending money in short-term loans to industry and small businesses in the private sector. The banks have failed in this area so the government has to go out and provide funding through Ontario Development Corp. loans and small business loans to the private sector. It is to be hoped this is going to keep our economy going and employment is going to go up.

I feel it is an area the government perhaps should never have gotten into. It is the private sector that should be doing this, not the government going out and hitting taxpayers with huge taxes which in the long run removes cash flow from the ordinary citizen, the working man in Ontario, because he does not have the additional cash flow to go out and buy consumer goods.

The government is trying to encourage more production and productivity. If the working man does not have money in his pocket, how on earth is he going to buy consumer goods? How is he going to buy household appliances? How is he going to buy a home today with the high interest rates?

I suggest that is the area where this government should be looking at restraint, compelling the federal government and the banks, etc., to meet their responsibility in this area to control their expenditures. In a sense it is to say, "Do not get into deals like Dome, for example, at the cost of the consumer."

The federal government has to go in and bail them out. When the government bails out any industry, it means the taxpayer has to pick up that load through higher taxes. When there are higher taxes, the working man and the person employed in industry, even white-collar workers, demand more wages to offset the cost of government expenditure and some of the waste in the banking system in Canada.

It is a vicious circle. The bill does not go quite far enough. Apparently my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has said the New Democratic Party agrees with the principle of the bill, but wants tougher administrative regulation of those prices and monopolies. I suppose the banking institutions in Canada have a monopoly here.

"I cannot quite agree," he says. "In some areas perhaps the tough regulatory controls will work." He wants to go all the way. If he cannot get it there, the next thing the NDP wants is public ownership. That means we would be going further and further into debt and there is just no end to bailing out whatsoever.

11:40 a.m.

We should be thankful that we have some governments looking at areas of deep concern. If I can recall my views on certain things, I think many politicians do not make decisions about which way we should be spending public money. There should be more accountability at all levels of government, particularly from this assembly here. Too often, we take a look and say, "It is not my money, so we will spend it."

In my experience in sitting on council I often looked and said, "Can I afford it as a worker?" If I could not afford it, I felt government should not get into some of these areas of heavy expenditure.

It is important to look at the problems facing us today. I suppose what we should be doing here is setting an example by looking at all the different programs available in Canada to assist industries, to assist farmers and to assist everybody else who is getting some form of a subsidy. Maybe some of these subsidies are not warranted at this time. There should be a study of this area.

In 1974, speaking on a similar issue during the throne debate, I talked about the huge profits made in the oil industry and I covered quite a few areas. I was quoting from the Royal Bank newsletter -- for some reason I enjoy reading their letters -- and I want to quote this again. I said: "This is from the monthly letter of the Royal Bank of Canada, which has its head office in Montreal.

"Applying to business his principle of the basic need to survive, the deputy chairman and executive vice-president of this bank said to the Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce in London in May: 'Profit is an essential condition for the survival and growth of an enterprise. Profit is also, of course, the required incentive and reward to the providers of capital. Profit is also the most effective measure of an enterprise's operation.'

"Then he went on to speak of the second obligation: 'If corporations are not seen to act, and do not in fact act, in a socially responsible manner, their long-term survival could be threatened. We are fast reaching the point where the social and political climate almost everywhere in the world will make it increasingly necessary for businesses to justify their existence on grounds other than purely economic success as expressed in terms of profit to shareholders.'"

I think there is a good message in there, which is that the banking institutions in Canada have a social responsibility to justify their high interest rates. Too many persons and families have suffered because of high interest rates. Families have lost their homes and there is high unemployment due to funding capital not being in the right areas. I suggest it is a good measure that we all should be looking at.

I am almost ready to conclude my remarks but I want to quote something from the Premier of Ontario in his speech on September 21 in the Legislature: "The inflation restraint program which we are proposing today is but one step in a process to promote economic recovery. We are currently working on a further series of initiatives designed to generate further employment and to stimulate economic activity."

We have no objections to that. I think it is important that we have co-operative measures in solving the economic problems facing Canada. It might be called an economic war. One of the lessons we learned in my time in the Second World War -- and we had difficulties in war that related to economic conditions too -- was to have a co-operative effort by all members of government. They sat down and came up with an economic program to bring us through that war.

I can see no reasons why a similar program cannot be applied today. One area we should start with right now is to appoint a committee of this Legislature on a co-operative basis to hold public hearings, bring the public in and find out what their feelings are, rather than just taking a poll asking if it is time to move on a restraint program.

What is going to happen one year or two years down the road? The same thing that happened back in 1975-76. We will be right back where we started, with high inflation. Everybody will be saying, "It is catch-up time now," and wages will increase considerably. Some will be the benefactors of huge increases and others will remain at the bottom of the totem pole. I suggest that is an area we should be looking at.

There is the example that controls did work in certain areas in 1975-76 and 1977, so they can work now. I agree it should be a co-operative effort. I think members on this side would accept that challenge to assist the government, because it has not been very good at managing the taxpayers' money. There has been a lot of waste. I suggest it is time a co-operative effort is made by members of the Legislature to participate in government programs a little bit further with a little more input.

There are many areas I could get into. I think my leader has put forward a pretty good package on wage and price controls across the board. I support him on that measure and I think the government should continue to bring under control other areas, the ones that have a little bit too much leeway, the banks for one.

When the minister gets together with his counterparts -- and they are all members of one particular party from across the country, and he has pretty good contact with the Prime Minister of Canada -- there is no reason why the matter I have raised about the power of the banks cannot be mentioned. I feel they should be stripped of some of their control, and there should be accountability as to how they are spending the consumers' tax dollars.

Another area we might look at is the problem of capital leaving this province and Canada. Perhaps we should be following a principle that was established during President Kennedy's term of office, when he had exchange controls to restrain the export of American dollars out of the country.

We have had it looking so good for us here. The old saying was, as long as our dollar was down we would have all kinds of investment coming into Canada and into Ontario. With the Canadian dollar 20 to 25 cents lower than the American dollar, I have not seen investment coming from that side over here. There has not been that turnaround, and I think the Treasurer knows this.

I think the only place they are really getting a benefit on the exchange on the American dollar is in the gas war that has been carried on for the last two or three years down in the town of Fort Erie. Some of them are getting as high as 40 cents on the dollar purchasing Canadian gas down there.

Again, that is an area that should be looked at. Why is gas being dumped down in that area and not spread out across Ontario so all consumers could get a kickback on the glut of gasoline on the market today, instead of having a little bit of a gas war here and there? There are many areas we should be looking at.

11:50 a.m.

I support the bill in principle. I do not think it goes quite far enough. I disagree with the principle of the bill in the sense that it restricts the restraint program mainly to the public sector. I do not think any sector should be singled out to bear the burden of the government restraint program. If it is going to work, it has got to be across the board.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I remember when, in 1975, the federal government enacted the so-called wage and price control legislation. Today in Ontario we are faced with the same type of legislation in Bill 179, which I call control over wages.

I wish I had the eloquence to persuade the government to withdraw this bill and adopt a program which would really come to grips with our economic problems. We have had some time now to study this bill. I am convinced that Bill 179 will not create jobs for the people of Ontario. It will not help people with modest or low incomes. It will do nothing to bring down the cost of living.

Everyone agrees we face an economic crisis. Nearly 700,000 people in Ontario who want work cannot find it. Our factories are operating at less than 70 per cent of their capacity. Every day a plant closes, a shift is taken off in another factory, a retail outlet lays off people, workers are being forced into work-sharing programs and indefinite layoffs are increasing.

The economic crisis has not come upon us suddenly. It is the product of ill-considered policies of this government and of the Liberal government in Ottawa. It is not surprising that high interest rates are driving people out of work. Yet, Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Lalonde and Mr. MacEachen are all telling us that high interest rates must remain. They agree with the governor of the Bank of Canada. At the same time, Joe Clark tells us he has no policies other than those advocated by the Bank of Canada.

Whenever the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) are asked to comment on the problems caused by high interest rates in Ontario they agree that high interest rates are putting people out of work but say it is up to the federal government to solve the problem. The story was the same in 1975: it is the fault of the federal government and not that of the government of Ontario.

Every province west of Ontario has provided help to low-income people in dealing with high interest rates on their mortgages. Ontario has no program. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party have for years been putting forward alternatives to the government's economic policies. We have been suggesting ways of creating jobs in this province.

The government has responded twice: the first response was the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which was designed to provide flashy brochures and a little promise to dangle at every stop of the election tour. Instead of a program to create jobs, the government gave us a program to elect Tories.

The ink had hardly dried on the BILD program when the government saw that it was not working, as unemployment became worse and worse. Now we see the government's new initiative, the wage restraint program. Ontario desperately needs jobs and the government has failed badly in this regard. All the handouts to the private sector have not created jobs in Ontario. The government is short of money and has devised a program to save the government money. We need a program to save this province's economy.

I feel that Bill 179 will simply lead the government down the slippery path of even worse economic decline. As fewer and fewer people have money to spend, more and more plants and factories will close down. No matter how close the Treasurer comes to balancing his budget, it will not mean a thing if the people of Ontario cannot afford to buy the products that are made here in Ontario.

Day after day in question period my colleagues in the NDP have been asking the Treasurer how his restraint program will create jobs. He refuses to answer the question. He somehow believes that if people spend less, more people will be working. I can tell the Treasurer that the people of Dovercourt have not been engaged in fuelling inflation. They are people of modest means and modest ambitions. They want steady jobs. They want to own their homes or be able to rent an apartment at a rent they can afford. They would occasionally like to buy a new refrigerator or a new carpet. The Treasurer is making that less and less possible.

There are clerks in my riding who work for this government. They were making $15,000 to $16,000 a year and they thought maybe they would get an 11 per cent increase next year so they could keep up with inflation. The government tore up their contract.

No matter how often the Treasurer tells us his government is protecting people with lower incomes, it is shown to be erroneous whenever public servants pick up their paycheques. He says someone earning between $15,000 and $20,000 is protected by his program because he will be allowed to receive an increase of up to $1,000.

When you are at the bottom of the economic heap, the $1,000 or $2,000 you are promised is a very bitter pill to swallow. That is what this government is attempting to do with Bill 179. The Treasurer has created an illusion that it is protecting people at the bottom, but the people at the bottom will not see it in their pay envelopes at all.

I believe the root cause of the failure of the government to come to grips with the economic problems is that it is so extravagant itself that it knows nothing about restraint. I suggest that the government of the Premier is the only government in the world that, when asked to restrain its expenditures, looks first to the salaries of the lowest-paid civil servants in the province. It is incredible to me and to the people of Dovercourt how the Premier could look around his $40-million advertising budget and not touch a penny of that before he announces a restraint program.

This government, while announcing its restraint program, was also paying a consultant $20,000 American a day to come to speak to senior bureaucrats and cabinet ministers. Unfortunately, the cabinet ministers could not attend the meeting, because they were at a cabinet meeting in which they were figuring out ways to control the wages of low-income workers in the province. Nevertheless, Mr. Martin got his consulting fee.

This government is known for its excesses. Last week we found out that the government is spending $890,000 to try to encourage people to vote in the municipal elections. I have no doubt that if more people vote in the municipal elections we would have better government. I think it is very worthwhile to encourage people to vote in the elections.

Nevertheless, in a time of restraint why should the government be spending $890,000 to duplicate what candidates are doing across the province? This is the same government that refused to move the election date to October when the weather would be better and more people could get out to vote, the same government that constantly takes power away from municipal government, the same government that refuses to reform the governments in Metropolitan Toronto to make them more accountable. All of those things would have been cheaper to do, would have encouraged more people to vote and would have made our society more democratic.

12 noon

The only reason the government is spending all that money is it wants to create more of a sense of a Big Brother provincial government everywhere in the province. This government is extravagant in big ways and small ways. I think of all the silly things it does.

I think of the trip to Thunder Bay last May by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) which cost nearly $4,000 but could have been done for $800. Why did the minister go to Thunder Bay'? Because the Treasurer could not leave the House since he had to defend his unfair budget which was taxing everything that moved. The minister volunteered to take the Treasurer's place and went to speak to the Progressive Conservatives at Lake Nipigon.

However, in spite of $4,000 of taxpayers' money having being spent, that minister was not terribly popular. The local paper reported that all he did in Nipigon was speak to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Surely, in the huge communications staff of the government, someone realizes that the CBC is available in this very building and we do not need to spend $4,000 to send people up there. I want to make it clear I think it is quite important that politicians travel to every part of this province to talk about the problems in Ontario, but they can fly economy class, not on chartered airlines and chartered personal jets.

Every time I ride on a public transit bus in Toronto, I see the hypocrisy of this government. On Bathurst Street in my riding, people are waiting longer and longer for buses. The government is giving less money and forcing up transit fares.

Yet every bus that comes by is decked out with a symbol saying, "This bus is operated with the assistance of the government of Ontario." Those plaques should really say, "This bus is operated with too little financial assistance from the government of Ontario." I am not advocating for a moment that we could afford to go and put more plaques on buses to tell the truth about this government. I just advocate that the government stop spending money on improving its image that way and start improving its image by taking the action we need.

With the same principle, I would like to quote Paul Godfrey in the Toronto Star of October 1, 1982. He said, "The only way to keep taxes down to five per cent next year is to cut back drastically on services." I just wonder why people in my riding are waiting longer to take a bus. It is because the service is cut off.

Another extravagance of this government is its present plans to hold a celebration in 1984 of the bicentennial of the United Empire Loyalists coming to Ontario. What is most amazing is this government has decided to celebrate an event which two polls showed nobody wants to celebrate. I have no doubt that a modest marking of the coming of the Loyalists would be in order, but this government is so intent on creating its presence in every nook and cranny of this province that it is fabricating historical events.

The coming of the Loyalists was not the founding of Ontario. Ontario began with the native people. They were followed by the Franco-Ontarians. They were followed by other immigrants. Then came the Loyalists, and then came many other people to help found and build this province. The only reason 1984 was chosen for the celebration is that the Premier believes he will need more votes in 1985 for another majority government. We hope not.

Any government in its right mind would know that there is a better way of spending $10 million than in celebrating an event that no one in this province wants to celebrate. This government has a strange record of extravagance. It seems to know no limits when it comes to spending money to promote its own image or to take polls to find out which direction it should go. Polls will not find the solution to the economic problems. This government has taken polls constantly for the last five years. Polls may have given it a way of getting re-elected, but they have driven our people to joblessness.

This government has carefully set up working people who are really the victims of a recession. The government has gone on a careful program to blame them. It knows full well that certain highly paid civil servants are the targets of public outrage, so the government slaps just a six per cent pay increase on them.

I remind the government that it speaks out of the other side of its mouth when it frequently reminds us how successful it has been at trimming the size of its public service. I remind the Treasurer that there are all sorts of teachers walking around this province today without jobs. I remind the Treasurer that when he was Minister of Health there was a surplus of nurses in this province and they had no jobs. I remind the Treasurer that hospital workers remain among the lowest paid in this province.

I remind the Treasurer that graduates from programs in early childhood education, day care and people- oriented services do not finds jobs so readily in Ontario. Nevertheless, the government has made a target of working people. It has implemented a public relations strategy in order to solidify public opinion into blaming public servants for inflation.

It is not the public servants of this province who sold off our economy to the Americans and are contributing to the enormous capital outflow. It is not the public servants of this province who are taking home wages of $50,000 and $60,000. It is not the public servants of this province who are spending their money outside this province. This government, which is addicted to its own extravagance, begins to apply restraints to people whom it views as its enemies.

In the strangest of ways this government learns effectively to control the wages of unionized workers and workers in the public sector. It manages through a strange twist of logic, which the Treasurer has still failed to explain, to somehow put doctors into another category.

This government will succeed, if it passes this bill, in controlling the wages of 500,000 people in Ontario, but there is nothing in this bill that leads us to believe that it will have any effect at all in controlling prices. Bill 179 contains no new protection for tenants. In spite of Bill 179, gas bills for home heating will probably go up about 20 per cent in the province next year. In spite of Bill 179, electricity bills will also increase substantially over the five per cent. Bill 179 will do nothing about the cost of food or health care.

This bill we are faced with will not revive our economy, but it will place enormous burdens on close to 500,000 Ontarians. The bill must be withdrawn.

12:10 p.m.

Before putting forward some positive suggestions which I believe would be central to a program of economic recovery, I want to speak briefly about a

section of the bill I think is most reprehensible. This is the

section that gives extraordinary powers to Mr. Biddell. The bill simply gives far too many arbitrary powers to the government and to the board itself.

Section 25 states: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations. . . where it is considered necessary for the restraint of public sector expenditure, adding to or deleting from the

schedule any person or class of persons, or any agency, authority, board, commission, corporation, or organization of any kind." I see there an arbitrary power which this legislature should not give to any government. This bill would allow the government at anytime, on any whim, to designate any person or class of persons that receives money from the government as targets of control.

I would remind members that the bill also gives the board the power to make decisions without even holding hearings or giving reasons for its decisions. The decisions made by the board will have an impact on thousands of workers in this province. It will have the effect of lowering their standard of living. This bill takes away the right of appeal and even takes away the right to make a fair argument. It is too bad that everyone in the province was not here when the Treasurer confirmed our worst suspicions. He confirmed that the Inflation Restraint Board will have the right to make any order, decision or determination without hearings or without even giving a written reason for the decision.

The Treasurer confirmed that the board can deny any increase in the transitional period. It can award less than the employer wants to offer. The Treasurer confirmed that on collective agreements that expired before October 1, 1981, the board could make a unilateral determination and could give as little as no increase at all. Finally, the Treasurer confirmed that the board could give nonunionized public sector workers much less than five per cent during the control year itself.

I simply do not believe that these arbitrary powers will in any way lessen our economic crisis. I do believe they will set back collective bargaining and will lessen the amount of freedom in our society. If the government wants to pay its employees less money, it should negotiate lower wage agreements and not simply take away income by exercising arbitrary powers. In these economic times, I agree with the government that we should be shifting the burden of the recession in this society. What I find astounding is that the government is shifting the burden on to low income earners and to public sector workers.

Our party believes we must find money to deal with both the government deficit and to spend on employment creation activities. We believe the most sensible solution is to impose a surtax of two per cent on those people who have a taxable personal income of above $40,000. This will affect fewer than 10 per cent of income earners in our society. It will affect only those people whose incomes are well above $50,000. This could result in $290 million coming into the public treasury for use in all sorts of job creation programs.

Our party believes that the banks that made enormous profits in Ontario in the last five years must share the burden of this recession. We have called for a surtax on bank profits and we continue to make that demand.

Another area of taxation which is of great importance to me as a member representing Metropolitan Toronto is the question of a land speculation tax. It seems to me at a time when people are losing their homes and at a time when there are no vacancies in apartments in Metropolitan Toronto, we must begin to do something to control the cost of the land. I would call for the immediate reintroduction of a land speculation tax. A speculation tax on land would only hurt people who buy and sell land for the purposes of making a profit.

It would take nothing away from those who buy land in order to establish a home and to raise a family. Our party would exempt the principal residence of every taxpayer. We would say, "Don't buy a second, third, fourth and fifth piece of property in order to make profits, we simply cannot afford it."

We have also called for the reintroduction of succession duties in the top three per cent of estates. This is simply a way of providing funds necessary to invigorate our economy.

I have already outlined quite clearly a number of ways in which the extravagance of this government could be cut. Besides the silly expenditures and the clear wastefulness which this government has shown, it has also made a serious mistake in planning. It is for this reason that our party has called for a public inquiry to assess Hydro's spending plans and to take a particular look at the cost of Darlington. We know we are expanding our capacity to generate electricity far beyond possible demands. Overcapacity in electricity is something that Ontario cannot afford right now. The government should find that out quickly.

We in our party believe that money should be invested in job creation. We believe one of the best ways to stimulate the economy is to ease the burden of the recession period. We should get rid of the stupid sales tax increases which the government brought in last May. By taxing everything, that move took away disposable income and cut down on people's expenditures.

We also must provide for assistance to home owners, small business and farmers. This is a truism, but it is just as true that the government has not done a thing to provide mortgage assistance for home owners. The NDP cannot see why this government is incapable of responding to the very real needs of our province in tough times. The NDP believes the province should use its power to control prices in order to turn our economy around. We advocate decreasing the cost of hydro and home heating fuels for at least eight months.

Until the economy turns around, the government should change the ad valorem tax on gasoline to prevent it from escalating. Investing in energy conservation by decreasing transit fees is a good investment for our economy. We also believe that retail gasoline prices are growing much too fast. Since the federal government will do nothing to slow them down, then we must decrease all other prices that are being passed through, other than those which come as a result of the energy accord.

The people of Ontario must be protected from the soaring rates of auto and home insurance. We must also work to get the federal government to do something to get back Bell Canada windfall profits. If we got them back, the people of Ontario would have $50 million more to spend on products made in Ontario.

12:20 p.m.

It is also time to ban extra billing in health care. Extra billing by doctors has been undermining universal access to health care in the province ever since this government accepted the principle of a publicly funded health plan. Surely with the squeeze on everyone on every side, the government in the name of fairness and in the name of economic recovery could once and for all go to the Ontario Medical Association and say, "Yes, we will respect your contract but you must respect the sick of this province and stop your members from extra billing."

Now, when there is less and less money to go around, is the time to tighten rent controls. I endorse the bill of my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) which would see that landlords as well as tenants bear the cost of the high interest rates. The bill would plug up the holes that have appeared in rent review by extending it to cover buildings constructed after 1975 and would plug many other loopholes which the government has refused to do.

We believe that in a 12-month period no landlord should get a rent increase that is more than the increase in the cost of living, and that such an increase should only be granted when he can show that his actual costs have gone up to the same extent as the cost of living.

With more and more of our citizens lining up at soup kitchens, it is time we controlled the price of essential foods. We must limit the spread between money that is being paid at the farm gate and the money that is being charged at the supermarkets. We must prevent additional markup by retailers.

Our party time and time again has outlined in this House our programs for job creation. We would begin by investing in housing in the nonprofit sector. People need housing and are without housing. Our lumber industry is closed. Our forest products industries are shut down and our furniture and appliance industry is going under, but this government cannot make the connection.

By engaging in major investments in energy conservation and the retrofitting of homes, we can provide 20,000 new jobs for young people. By saving that energy, we can deal with Canada's balance of payments problem and move Canada closer to energy security. The opportunity is there and this government refuses to take it. Its small-time programs are not acceptable. We believe that the industrial sector, the traditional backbone of our manufacturing industry, needs help.

We need a crown corporation for auto parts so that the auto industry in Ontario at last gets its fair share. We need to review our food processing industry. The Premier has blamed the federal government, yet his government is also distinguished for its lack of action as the food processing industry in Ontario has declined. We must get busy on machinery -- machinery for forestry, pollution abatement and mining. These are all opportunities in Ontario which this government is missing.

In conclusion, I will try to make three essential points about Bill 179. First, we do not need it; it does not address our economic problems. Second, the government is so given to its own extravagance that it is unable to restrain itself. Third, instead of restraining itself, it attacks the victims of this province and asks the poorest members of our society to bear the cost of the government's neglect of the economy.

I have tried to outline the positive programs which would begin to move us out of the economic recession. I ask government to admit its mistakes. Withdraw the bill and introduce positive programs for job creation. That is what Ontario needs today.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be able to rise and participate in this very important debate on Bill 179,

An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province. I think this is one of the most important and critical times in the history of the world, in Ontario and right down the line.

Since September 21, when the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the government called us back to the Legislature, we have had the opportunity to deal with this issue. While the Premier did provide some leadership by calling the Legislature back, I think he had the opportunity, along with the government of Ontario, to co-operate with the federal government and have some continuity across this great country of ours by participating in the six and five program.

That would have given a lot more confidence to everyone and brought Canada together. There would have been a very much stronger effort, but the government did not see fit to do that. It wanted to go its own way, as it has been doing for so many years now, protecting its image and its right to represent this province. I would like to put this on record now as criticism of the government, that if it really wanted to show leadership, it certainly could do so by showing a little more co-operation with the rest of Canada and the federal level of government.

Our friends on the left have supported the right of our public sector employees to negotiate increases. I would like to pay tribute to the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), who has just spoken, for taking

part in this debate. It is good to see him back as a member.

Mr. Grande: An excellent contribution, you must admit.

Mr. G. I. Miller: No doubt about it. He is making his contribution on behalf of his constituents. It is good to see him back as the member for Dovercourt, and I would like to wish him well.

As the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, I would like to speak on behalf of my caucus. Our leader made it clear in this debate that we have opened up a new track as far as the Ontario Liberal Party is concerned. I think it really separates us from the government and from the fellows on the left. I think this is a time when we have to all work together. We cannot expect the public service to take increases over the limit, while we have many people in the private sector who have not had increases for three years.

To give an example, I was talking to a local businessman in Simcoe, who was walking down the street with a judge. They were discussing the economy and the five per cent restraint program. The judge indicated he could not live on five per cent and the businessman pointed out to him that he had not had an increase in three years and he is still living.

Mr. McClellan: What about the judge?

Mr. G. I. Miller: He will have to accept it, when it comes down to the final decision, and live within the wages he will be receiving.

Another example of the private sector not having had raises this year is a trucking firm in Caledonia which employs 125 people. The management called the employees in early in 1982 and said: "We haven't had to lay off anyone, but we cannot increase your wages. We can keep everybody employed if you are willing to accept your present wage." They did that and they managed to maintain that employment.

The thing we really have to be concerned about is to make sure that everyone has a share of the action. They have to be assured that there are going to be some opportunities and it cannot be done by continually taking more money from the working class and giving it to the public sector, whether we agree or not that they should have those rights. A couple of years ago, when we dealt with the waste disposal site in South Cayuga, the legislation was there but this government would not permit the use of the legislation. It was taking away rights.

12:30 p.m.

In this case we are dealing with it here in the Legislature. We have had a debate on it. It has gone on now for almost four weeks. I think it is time we wrapped it up and got it to committee as something we have been successful in accomplishing. There will be public input and, hopefully, we can come up with constructive ideas to resolve the employment situation so we can get the economy moving again.

As we look back, interest rates a year ago -- as high as 25 per cent -- had a detrimental effect on the overall economy. It is obvious to me as a farmer and a businessman, and I have been a farmer all my life, that no one can survive with that kind of an interest rate. It is impossible. Nobody can make that type of profit. I felt from the very beginning that was going to be the area which was perhaps going to sink the ship. Maybe the banks recognized they were in financial trouble long before the average citizen could and they had to recoup those profits to survive.

It is good to see the rates coming down now, at least within a range we can perhaps live with. Only yesterday a report came from the United States that there could well be interest rates of seven per cent by September 1983. If they come down to that level, I certainly think it would be in the best interest of us all. It would be an added incentive to get us moving. If one can make a profit of two or three per cent, one can survive, but when one has to pay interest of 25 per cent, which is one quarter of any overall income one has for one year, there is just no way a businessman, a home owner or any one else would have any money left to put into the economy.

While we are debating it here, out there in the world, as our friends to the left have indicated, is Reaganomics, which the Americans are using but we follow closely. I think they are trying to let the free-enterprise system work to some extent. I think we have to withdraw from so much government interference. If we employ government people to tell us what to do, we are going in the wrong direction. That seems to be what we are getting from the left. We have to have legislation that will assist free enterprise and lessen the red tape we have to deal with so we can use our own ingenuity and our own ideas to get our people working.

In the summertime our leader brought out a proposal. I think he showed leadership while the government was using polls to make sure it was not going in the wrong direction. We indicated as early as mid-August that we should have a program that would be designed to fit in with the national thrust and that was equitable and fair, not singling out any one body but having across-the-board wage and price controls as the first step to economic recovery, indicating that those at higher wage scales could not expect the same increases as those at the lower scales.

Our friends to the left have indicated that $13,000 or $15,000 may not be a good wage. I would like to point out to them there are many workers in small industries and small businesses in my area who are getting $4.50 or $5 an hour. That certainly does not add up to $13,000 or $15,000 a year.

Mr. Grande: It certainly does not.

Mr. G. I. Miller: That is correct, but they are pleased to have that job opportunity so they can cut that to fit their needs. They are not complaining that they should have more money; they just want the opportunity to have a job.

Mr. Grande: In other words, they want to work and starve.

Mr. G. I. Miller: They are not starving, my dear friend. They are living on it. They are not complaining. They want the opportunity to have a job, and I think that is the most important thing -- to have a share of the action, to cut it to fit your needs.

I recognize that we all want to attain a higher level in life, but going back to my own background, I can recall when I started to work at a couple of dollars a week and then it went to 50 cents an hour. We could make that fit. We did not have all the luxuries we have now. I think we really have to look back and see how fortunate we really are today.

Inflation is taking over from us, and there is no way it can continue to increase by 10, 12 and 15 per cent in settlements. At $15 an hour, these are certainly a lot different from 10 per cent at $5 an hour. At that rate of inflation we are doubling in a period of five or six years. It just cannot go on. I think we have an opportunity now to re-evaluate things, to take a second look. This committee will be established, and we certainly will have the opportunity to have input from the province as a whole.

When we are dealing with costs, I would like to indicate that the government's restraint bill deals only with the public service. I think we have to consider the increases that this government does have control over, such as Ontario Hydro, our municipal taxes, the Ontario health insurance plan and energy, and make sure they are brought into line so they are not increased at any faster rate than the increase in wages. It has to be across the board.

I would like to read to members a letter I received from Air Products industrial gas division, which has established a new plant at the Stelco industrial park. They are concerned about the fact that hydro increases for 1983 could well be 14.8 per cent.