Journal des débats 1982-déc-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order or a point of privilege. As you are no doubt aware, last night I was expelled from the House for challenging a statement of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) which was factually incorrect. Reading from the record, the member for Welland-Thorold said:

"There is something that bothers me most of all about the position of the member for Huron- Middlesex. I guess I am not surprised when he comes out in favour of high interest rates for farmers. We are not surprised to have him come out in opposition to the removal of the property tax on agricultural land."

I permitted the member to complete his speech on the part of the estimates that we were dealing with, and then I rose on a point of privilege and, as recorded in Instant Hansard, stated:

"Mr. Riddell: I should not be bothered getting up trying to correct the record, but the former speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold, has said that I advocated high interest rates for the farmer. I am going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that he has perpetrated an outright untruth because never have I advocated high interest rates for farmers.

"I have said in my speech on Bill 179 that high interest rates happen to be part of a restricted monetary policy."

Mr. Swart: Which you support.

Mr. Ruston: He is starting again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: That is right.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland-Thorold then rose on a point of privilege, and said:

"On a point of privilege: I am not sure I heard exactly what the member said on his point of privilege. I rise to say that I quoted from Hansard rather extensively where the member, and as he has now admitted, said that he was supporting high interest rates."

Now get this: "and as he has now admitted." I never admitted in my correction when I got up that I was supporting high interest rates. I said that high interest rates flow from an anti-inflationary monetary policy, which is a method that governments use to control inflation.

Mr. Swart went on to say, "He supported high interest rates in general."

I rose and said: "Mr. Chairman, I have heard him say this so many times and it definitely is not the truth. He cannot prove anywhere in Hansard where I have advocated high interest rates for farmers or anyone else."

In order to preserve the dignity of the House, I am prepared to withdraw my accusation that the member for Welland-Thorold misrepresented the facts, but I do so not understanding in any way the reason that so often in this Legislature the truth is disregarded and is subject to a penalty whereas the distortions of the truth are very often allowed to go unchecked.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I am pleased that you have corrected the record, and I accept your withdrawal.

Mr. Ruston: What about the member who accused him? What proof has he got?

Mr. Speaker: There is no recourse, and I am not to be the judge of that, of course.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last week there was a report in the media concerning lead contamination in a Westinghouse paint shop in Hamilton. In one such article in the Toronto Star on December 3, I am quoted as saying that a report prepared by Dr. Ann Robinson, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour, is "so erroneous I conclude she set out to be deliberately misleading. She has to go." I am advised that Dr. Robinson has stated unequivocally that her report is accurate, that there was no attempt on her part, deliberate or otherwise, to be misleading and that she deeply resents my remarks as an attack on her personal and professional integrity.

I am prepared to accept that there was no attempt by Dr. Robinson to mislead, deliberately or otherwise, and I apologize for having suggested there was. I make this apology since my remarks imputed improper motives to her conduct, which I now realize was unfair. I withdraw unreservedly any remarks that may have reflected on the integrity of Dr. Robinson as a public servant.

At the same time I wish to make it clear that the report of November 26, bearing Dr. Robinson's name and released on November 29 by the minister, with respect to lead contamination in the Westinghouse plant contains some statements with which I am in disagreement. I will continue, and my party will continue, to raise fundamental questions about this government's administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, most specifically in relation to the Westinghouse plant and throughout the province. We shall continue to hold this government politically accountable for the health and safety of the working people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on my friend's statement. I must say that while I was deeply troubled by the attack on Dr. Robinson's integrity, an attack that was published twice in the Toronto Star, I am pleased that my friend has seen fit to tender his unqualified apology. No one finds it easy to admit error, and I therefore wish to emphasize on my own part and on behalf of Dr. Robinson that the member for Sudbury East has taken the honourable course of action in making amends without undue delay.

I can only hope that Dr. Robinson's ability to continue to serve the public of this province has not been impaired by this regrettable incident. However, I do wish to advise the House that she has indicated to me that she is satisfied with the statement made today by my friend and she will not pursue further action against him.

The newspaper responsible for publishing the story has, in my view, a very clear obligation arising out of the statement. Dr. Robinson awaits with understandable interest the response from the Toronto Star flowing from the honourable member's retraction.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE PROTOCOL

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues in the Legislature of a new initiative that my office is undertaking. This is the development of a standardized protocol to guide the medical-legal investigations of child sexual abuse.

The child sexual abuse protocol will provide very detailed, step-by-step procedures to be followed by teachers, children's aid society workers, police, physicians and other professionals, when child sexual abuse is discovered or is suspected. It will set out the specific procedures to be followed to ensure effective, multidisciplinary co-operation between health, education, justice and social services personnel. It will detail the technical procedures to be followed to ensure the medical and emotional wellbeing of the child. It will also specify procedures for the collection and retention of items for forensic evidence, where this is deemed appropriate.

The development of the child sexual abuse protocol represents a continuation and a major refinement of one of our earlier initiatives, the standardized sexual assault evidence kit. The kit has met with a high degree of success in helping hospitals and police to ensure that proper procedures are followed, both for the medical care of the sexual assault victim and for the collection of forensic evidence. It is designed, however, for use with adult victims and it does not contain any guidelines for the care and treatment of sexually abused children.

Child sexual abuse is particularly difficult to deal with because it often remains hidden, even though it may be suspected by other family members, neighbours and teachers. It also requires a particularly complex response because each case must be approached on the basis of its own particular circumstances.

It is anticipated that the introduction of a standardized protocol will go a long way to dealing with many of the problems that still characterize child sexual abuse cases. Despite recent initiatives by our government, and by community agencies, which have greatly improved the handling of these cases, serious problems still remain. While some of these problems are due to the lack of education and understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse, others are due to the lack of standardized procedures. I believe that the adoption of a protocol would ensure a positive and co-operative approach for all child sexual abuse cases.

It is hoped that the introduction of this protocol will represent a major step forward in helping local communities to deal more effectively with the problem of child sexual abuse. The protocol will be developed and implemented in close consultation with all the relevant agencies. It will provide detailed guidelines for the investigation of child sexual abuse, and for the care and treatment of the child victim. It will also promote the establishment of mechanisms in local communities to build in an effective approach to these cases. It is believed that such an approach will enable us both to deal effectively with current problems and to prevent future damage to the sexually abused child.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR'S REPORT

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Treasurer about the litany of mismanagement that we have recently received from the new Provincial Auditor.

Incidentally, I have been here 15 years. It is obvious some of us should have thought of a way to quiet down the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) a long time ago.

However, I want to ask the Treasurer -- I suppose I may ask a rhetorical question -- if he is not embarrassed about what is going on as reported by the Provincial Auditor, given his so-called restraint program. Would the Treasurer have a comment on the fact that of approximately 5,200 employees eligible for merit increases during the 1982 fiscal year, only 22 employees had such increases deferred when he is prepared to hit the people at the other end of the scale?

I will not go on again about the $44 million being spent on Minaki Lodge to protect an initial loan of $550,000.

My specific question to the Treasurer relates to the Future Pod at Ontario Place, as reported in the auditor's report. How can he countenance the fact that a $400,000 contract was awarded without tender to the agency of record sister company -- Foster Advertising being the agency of record -- something that was cleared, presumably, by the deputy minister without tender, shutting out everybody else in the industry? How can he countenance those things occurring year after year in the auditor's report?

This year the public accounts committee has spent numerous meetings talking about the advertising and the way it is tendered or not tendered in the government. How can the Treasurer countenance that kind of patronage of $400,000? What does he intend to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my friend started his comment by saying that only 22 employees did not get "merit increases." I am sure he knows the word "merit" is used when --

Mr. Kerrio: When you are a Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I am talking about civil servants now, many of whom are not members of our party, if any party. In fact, as the member knows, most of them are very loyal employees of this government.

The fact is that in the classifications of salaries within this province there are, as there are for teachers, increases based on seniority, and those increases are automatic unless a reason is given specifically to require that they not be given. I am not sure that the term "merit" is a very good term for those increases, because they really are seniority increases in most cases.

We have pointed out that just the opposite of what the honourable member inferred is true: that in bringing in the five per cent program we really only prevented merit increases from being given to those people earning salaries in excess of $35,000 a year; that we are passing it through for the people on the lower end of the scale because we felt they were in greater need; and that if the agreements we have with our employees entitle them to a seniority increase, they will get it. I am sure the member would be the first to say that is proper. Certainly during --

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, I would be the first to say it is wrong, and an all-party committee said it was wrong two years ago. Mind you, there were Tories on that committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want to hear the answer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I feel that probably my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) is a better expert than I am to discuss this particular aspect, because I believe the Civil Service Commission comes under him. But if at a later point the member wants to ask him a question, I am sure he will.

With respect to the rest of the auditor's report, my understanding was that we were seen to have done a better job than in many years; that the auditor's report this time around was generally laudatory of government. How could it help being laudatory when it is run by a prescient, compassionate government like ours?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, just by way of information for you --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We in the public accounts committee suggested when the government does something right, which is --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are taking far too long in placing your questions. I will have to ask you to be more brief and precise.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Future Pod, how can the Treasurer justify the $400,000 contract going without any tenders when the project was approved by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development or by the cabinet in January and the rationale being given is that it was not until March that they had the funds? How can he justify time after time either Foster or Camp or some emanation of these two companies getting the bulk of the advertising and the contract business in Ontario? And when is he going to bring a halt to it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will refer that question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Pass the buck.

Mr. Roy: Here we go. Can we take notes?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Go right ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of reasons why Mr. Cooper, a well-known businessman and chairman of the board of directors of Ontario Place, and his entire board decided to place this order with a company called Display Service Co. Ltd. They had to act quickly because they did not know until March 17 that the funds for Future Pod were available.

As the honourable members know, Ontario Place opens on May 12. That indicated the construction had to be fairly well finished by that date because it was to close again after the summer by September 12. If one wanted to have Future Pod as part of that magnificent Ontario Place, one had to move fast.

To delay for another three or four weeks to call for tenders was not felt to be in the best public interest. It was seen as not having due regard for the economy because Future Pod, in addition to being a wonderful tourist attraction, is, as the member knows, a wonderful place for displaying the high-tech industry of Ontario. They felt they should not wait for the long drawn-out process of tendering.

As the member opposite probably knows, the other thing is the deputy minister has the power to waive requirements for competitive bidding for technical and consulting work. Anybody who has been to Future Pod and has seen the exhibit there knows this is not an ordinary edifice or ordinary structure; it is a creative place. It included a lot of technical details, drawing and creativity as it was being built. The creative planning and the construction go hand in glove. It was for this reason the acting deputy minister at the time felt he was operating completely within the guidelines for tendering as set down by Management Board.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in light of the absolutely astounding answer from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, can the Treasurer please tell us whether it is still the policy of this government, when projects of this size, $400,0000, are being planned, to put them up for tender or not? What is the policy of this government with respect to the tendering process?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation answered that question. The member said it was an astounding program. It was. I thought it was tremendously well received around the province. It is the policy of this government to call tenders.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the Minister of Tourism and Recreation not understand he made a complete farce out of Future Pod by saying they did not plan far enough in the future for Future Pod? In other words, they are talking about the future but they had to do it yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: I trust you do have a supplementary question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is the most asinine defence I have heard here in a long time. The supplementary question is, will the minister give us a guarantee that there will be no more deputy ministerial or ministerial discretion, that friends of the government will not get these contracts without tender and that this government, which presumably has had 40 years of planning, will plan far enough ahead so we will not get caught in these situations?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can assure this House without qualification that for next year's edition of Future Pod there will be plenty of time for competitive bidding because we have now been advised the funds will be available. We will proceed along the normal guidelines set by Management Board.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. Is he wearing the tie of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) today? That is not the question. Perhaps it just has his lunch on it. Let me ask the Treasurer a question.

I am sure the Treasurer will remember that in April 1979, when that year's budget was being proposed, the unemployment rate among young people between 15 and 24 was 13.4 per cent, the gross number of unemployed was 142,000 and the number employed was 914,000. By April 19, 1982, when he was creating his budget for this year, the unemployment rate had risen to 16.2 per cent, the number of unemployed young people had increased by 25,000 and the number employed had fallen by some 43,000.

When one looks at the programs that the Treasurer has applied to youth unemployment, we find that in real terms there has been a cutback of some 16.5 per cent in real dollars. When we take the change in the unemployment factor into account, when we look at the amount of money required to bring that up to meet the contemporary needs in real dollars, it would require a $41-million increase to come back to the funding level of 1979.

I want to ask this prescient and compassionate minister this question. Would he not feel that it would be a better sense of priorities to spend the $41 million, which is roughly what he has invested in Minaki Lodge at this time, according to his supportive friend the Provincial Auditor, to solve the problem of youth unemployment in this province which is at record levels today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Am I allowed to answer the first question first, Mr. Speaker? It is sometimes dark when I put my tie on in the mornings.

Mr. Speaker: That really was not the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Besides, it is one my wife bought for me.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Doesn't she like you either?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now to the question please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: After 33 years, she has her ways of getting even.

Just as yesterday, I am not sure how the Leader of the Opposition does his arithmetic. It happens that a number of the programs that are administered for youth employment have not seen the same depreciation in their value that a quick calculation would show by using figures like the inflation rates and so on. A good many of them, such as the Ontario youth employment program, have been aimed at supporting the hourly rate paid to young people employed by small business companies around this province, with great success. We have always had a total takeup of that. We have usually had a problem in overspending the OYEP budget, not ever in spending it.

I would argue that the Ontario career action program, which has been very successful, really has not been geared to market rates for employment but has been aimed at allowing young people to gain experience on the job, recognizing that the salaries they received were not at market rate, but bringing employees who could not find jobs into contact with employers who not only taught them something but who, in many instances, formed an appreciation of the young people's capabilities that led to future employment.

I would argue that the money has been well spent and that there have been increases in it. I am told it was a 14 per cent increase this year in total dollars that were relative to the marketplace and were quite useful. We have always argued we did not try to solve all the employment problems of youth. Several ministers over the past have pointed that out. We do determine that the marketplace has to do some of that. We have done quite a bit.

This has been a tough year for youth because many companies which had to lay off permanent full-time people felt they really could not be in the marketplace offering casual employment to youth when people in the unions or on permanent staff were on short time or laid off totally; so it has been a tough year. Even so, I think our programs were surprisingly successful.

Mr. Peterson: Given all the good things the Treasurer says about these programs, and I agree, why would he cut back the funding level in real terms? In real terms, and I am using 1971 constant dollars, the funding level in 1979 to 1980 was about $40 million, and in those same constant dollars, given inflation, the minister's funding level today is about $33 million.

I remind the minister again that I am using 1971 constant dollars; in real terms, therefore, his funding levels have gone down over the past three or four years even though youth unemployment is up dramatically.

2:30 p.m.

I juxtapose that with his commitment to building a lodge in the north for some $45 million. I ask the minister again, would it not have been a better priority to have not built Minaki Lodge at a cost of about $45 million, but to have put those funds into youth employment programs in this province?

I remind the minister that, at best, Minaki Lodge will create about 150 seasonal jobs starting from here on in. Does he not think that is a totally misallocated priority for government spending?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who has always been a strong advocate for Minaki, could go on at length about its regional benefits.

I point out that the leader of the New Democratic Party went to Minaki one day in 1977, as I recall --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He tried to.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He tried to go to Minaki in an attempt to denigrate the investment that Ontario was making there.

I recommend that the members opposite do the same thing. I recommend that they go up to the north and talk about it. I recommend that they tell the people up there that they think we are wasting our money. I recommend that they tell the people it is not important to have a major destination resort there to catalyse the business for the smaller resorts. I recommend that the members opposite do all those things, because the then leader of the NDP had to retire after he tried it.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, could I address a supplementary to the Treasurer with respect to the Provincial Auditor's report and youth unemployment as well? I simply say to him that in addition to the mis-expenditure on the spending side, the auditor's report has some very important statements to make with respect to the way in which this government collects taxes, in particular the way in which the Tory government collects mining taxes from mining companies, and with respect to mining leases.

Will the Treasurer not agree that if the government collected taxes from the mining companies in the same way it collects taxes from other corporations and from private individuals, that is to say, on the instalment basis, and if the government collected market rates for crown lands in terms of its leases, this would free up and make available to the government a substantial sum of money which could then be put into youth unemployment? Does he agree with that conclusion?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the honourable member take the time, as I did when I was Minister of Natural Resources, to work through the arithmetic of the Mining Tax Act; then he will realize that the tax is applied only to the value of the ore at the pit mouth and not to the rest of the process, and that the calculation of that mining tax sometimes is several years in the appraisal. An assessment is made based upon the company's year-end figures.

Let us go to the member's favourite area, the area of Sudbury. Does he think there is more money to be obtained today out of Inco on a mining tax? Does he really think so? Does he really think that companies such as Inco and Falconbridge, which cannot even cover the direct costs of producing nickel at today's world prices, have money left over through the Mining Tax Act to put into these programs? No.

The member should be very happy to realize that we have always had a tax on mines that has reflected the profit on the ore which allowed those companies to weather some of the worst years so they could be there in the good years.

Mr. Peterson: By the figures the Treasurer employs in his own job creation programs this year, for $45 million he could create 6,000 to 7,000 jobs anyway. Will he not agree with me that for his expenditure of $45 million in Minaki he has created about 150 seasonal jobs at a cost of $300,667 per job? Will he not also agree with me that he is not getting very much productivity for the dollars expended and that there are far better ways to expend that money to create jobs here in the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, every so often I get lulled into believing that the fellows opposite are commonsensical people -- not that party but the member's party, who really are not that bad. They would be second-class government, but not disastrous government. Then he stands up with arithmetic like that, which makes me all the more determined that this party should stay in power.

The way he does his arithmetic is fascinating. I do not know where he thinks that $40-odd million, or whatever the figure is, went to. Does he think it went into thin air? Absolutely not. That was spent on jobs right now. The jobs were created in all the trades that were required, and the purchase of goods benefits the contractors in the area, all of whom are employing people now. That is a fact.

This is in a part of the province where we badly need, according to all members, a diversification of the income base. The members often say: "Get off the mines. Get away from the single-industry towns. Get off the forests. Give us something else to do in the north." That is what we are doing with Minaki.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I point out to all honourable members that we have spent 24 minutes on the first two questions.

WELFARE PAYMENTS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Treasurer as well. It concerns the very dramatic increases in the number of people on welfare in Ontario and the impact that these increases are having on municipal finances. In Waterloo, for example, November figures show a 56 per cent increase over November 1981. In Sudbury, it is a 51.5 per cent increase. In Metropolitan Toronto, there has been a dramatic 15O per cent increase in the number of employables who are on welfare.

Given these figures and given the fact that 20 per cent of the cost of this dramatic increase in welfare payments is coming out of people's property taxes, one of the more regressive forms of taxation in the province at this time, will the Treasurer consider introducing a special program that would place general welfare assistance on the same 50-50 basis that family benefits are currently on, so that the pressure is taken off the municipalities and the property taxes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the answer in that case again is no, but it is a qualified no. We recognize, and I have heard this from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), that there will be municipalities where the base will not be able to carry the 20 per cent. The fact is that they are paying 20 per cent and the other two levels of government are paying 80 per cent. Let us remember that.

The fact is we are talking about the same pool of taxpayers in this province. I also suggest to my friend that municipalities, because of their closeness to the people in need, have done a commendable job of assessing the real needs of individuals. The moment we make it 100-cent dollars from some other source, their interest in that close analysis will disappear.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer seems to be saying it is a good thing that some municipalities have a stake in keeping people off the kind of assistance they need to survive. That is a remarkable statement from the Treasurer.

I remind him of the reliance of this government on the work of the private sector. In Sudbury, the United Way goal was $700,000 and they achieved $282,000. In Windsor, the goal was $4.5 million but they have achieved only $3.5 million. In Hamilton, the goal was $5.7 million and they have reached only $4.6 million.

Given that shortfall and given the impact it is going to have on the provision of social services in these communities and in communities across the province, will the Treasurer not agree that relief to the municipalities on the welfare costs would give these municipalities a stake, not in cutting people off public assistance but in providing a decent level of social services which the private sector is going to be increasingly unable to provide?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Nothing in the remarks I made about the sharing of the costs should be construed in any way to mean that the assistance is not available for people in need. This government will not see that happen because of any municipality's problems. I can assure the member of that.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Treasurer almost exactly the same question as the member for York South (Mr. Rae). The slant I want to put on my supplementary to him is as follows.

If the Treasurer is concerned about an overall increase to all municipalities just because we are in difficult times, will he not give consideration perhaps to some unemployment threshold points at which time he would be prepared to add, say, an additional percentage point or two to the amount of money he would provide to the municipalities?

For instance, if they hit a threshold of 14 per cent in unemployment, would he be prepared to assume, instead of the 30 per cent, 32 per cent or 35 per cent of the cost and so on as the unemployment situation gets worse in the community? Will he consider that kind of program as opposed perhaps to a blanket program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will be guided by the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Community and Social Services on that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that accounts for his trouble then.

Mr. Boudria: No wonder you're in trouble.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes. I think it is a dangerous precedent for him to be referring to those particular ministries --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Treasurer no doubt is aware of complaints and concerns of certain municipalities about the possibility that they will have to cut other discretionary services if they maintain their mandatory payments of welfare, which they have to do.

At this point has he received notification that the region of Durham is quite concerned about its capacity to maintain social services and is cutting back on family counselling, as is the community of Waterloo?

What is his response to the analysis by Mr. Kruger of the Metropolitan Toronto government when he says their 38 per cent anticipated increase in welfare costs will mean they are probably going to have to cut back on all sorts of other programs? In fact, many programs that would be jointly funded by the United Way and Metro may receive no Metropolitan Toronto funding at all next year if they have to meet these 38 per cent increases.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have had great confidence in the municipal governments of the province to set their priorities. One would not need them if they did not have the ability to make that appraisal. One would have to look to the track record of this province in its general support for both education and municipal spending and recognize that, in total dollars, the taxes at the municipal level are a smaller part of the family income today than they were some years ago. That is because of our enlightened policies in grants.

I can only say that within that overall grant network, we depend upon them to make those priorities. If it were not so, we would not need them.

SIX NATIONS NURSING HOME

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Chairman of Management Board. It concerns another example of government cutbacks and it is a question of some real importance to a great many people across the province. I am referring to an apparent decision by Management Board of Cabinet with respect to the construction of a nursing home on the Six Nations reserve.

We understand that the reserve has received Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. approval for a new 50-bed home, providing for a grant of $1.5 million, and that this approval is good until December 31. We further understand that the Ministry of Health staff worked for several months to develop the design to meet Ontario regulations.

We also understand that on Friday, the band chief had a conversation with Dr. A. E. Dyer, who is the associate deputy minister for institutional health services. The band were advised on the phone that there was a letter in the mail to them stating that Management Board of Cabinet had not approved any additional nursing home beds for next year and could not approve the additional 14 beds that would be in the new facility.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister confirm that there has been a decision made by Management Board of Cabinet in the instance of the Six Nations reserve home, that this home will not be given approval by Management Board of Cabinet? Can he indicate whether this is part of a general position by Management Board with respect to the construction of nursing homes in 1983?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that this has not been considered by the board.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There can't be a supplementary. He got his answer.

Mr. Rae: My supplementary question is this: Can the minister indicate to us what the attitude of Management Board is with respect to the construction of nursing homes in Ontario for 1983? Has any decision been taken with respect to that?

Hon. Mr. McCague: We look at everything on its merits. We will be glad to look at that too when it gets to us.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister will consider referring the answer to the question to the Minister of Health, since it was one of his assistant deputies who phoned the news to Chief Wellington Staats last Friday. Is that possible?

Hon. Mr. McCague: With the concurrence of the gentleman who asked the question.

Mr. Nixon: I assume we have concurrence. Perhaps the question could be directed to the Minister of Health.

Is it not true that the minister in his own office responded quite positively to Chief Wellington Staats and the members of council, in my presence, having to do with the extension of at least nine nursing home beds, and that the minister had even agreed to come to the Six Nations reserve to preside at the opening of those beds?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You invited me as well, I remember.

Mr. Nixon: Why don't you come on down?

Mr. Breithaupt: There will be enough chiefs.

Mr. Kerrio: Chief to chief.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want to hear this answer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, under an extraordinary amount of pressure brought to bear on me by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), I had agreed to appear at the ground-breaking and opening of the new facility. He no doubt felt it might aid his political career if he could get a minister down to the opening.

I did meet with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who has been dealing with this matter for some time. He brought Chief Wellington Staats to my office to discuss this matter relating to the time limits put on by CMHC.

We indicated quite positively, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has indicated, that we felt it was a good project, but that our current problem was simply that the allocation my colleagues had made to us for this year of 500 new nursing home beds had been totally allocated, and that before we could give commitments with regard to next year we would have to go through the allocation process in this government to see how many nursing home beds, if any, we would be able to fund this coming year.

Mr. Nixon: Additional.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Additional beds; the member is quite right.

Therefore, in view of the CMHC time limit, we indicated in as clear a way as possible to Chief Staats that we felt he would not be acting recklessly or negligently if he undertook to accept the CMHC funding and proceed with the 50-bed addition. That was a pretty clear indication that whether the additional funding for the additional beds should be accepted by Management Board when I shortly make the submission for the entire province, and whether it is accepted for early next year, late next year or perhaps the following year, the chief will find that excellent proposal is funded by this government somewhere in the next period of time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tack this down. Will the minister not agree that there is a potential problem here and that the project may not be able to go ahead? CMHC may have its own requirements with respect to approval from Management Board in Ontario. Will the minister not agree that it would be a tragedy if that occurred and that it would represent a loss of jobs as well as a loss of provision of a vital social service on the reserve?

Will he not agree that the process should be speeded up here so the chief can have the clear approval and the go-ahead from Management Board in Ontario with respect to that so they can be assured of getting CMHC funding to allow that project to go ahead?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from some colleagues of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), from some of mine and from some members of the official opposition with regard to making an exception and approving some nursing home beds now, for next year, even though we have not been through the allocation process. That would be a patently unfair way of doing it and would create all sorts of inequities and pressures which really would not be the right way to operate the system.

I have indicated quite clearly that I am fairly positive we will be able to fund additional beds at some stage of this current fiscal year, the next fiscal year, 1983-84, or the following fiscal year -- whenever the additional nursing home funding becomes available.

What we have said clearly is that CMHC should show the same degree of flexibility we are showing so that this does not fall between the rad and the wall. I have read the member's House of Commons debates. I know he has railed against CMHC on several occasions, and I know he or his colleagues have spoken about their inflexibility. We too have let CMHC know that if there is any degree of flexibility we can use to make sure this stays on the rails, and gets completed, we are willing to co-operate.

I know they are ready to go, but in point of fact the time limit being put on is not one that Chief Staats is putting on in isolation. It is one that is imposed on him by CMHC. We have gone a great deal farther than CMHC has in making sure that whatever time limits and impediments might be placed on it do not cause the project to fall off.

In simple terms, I have had all sorts of requests for additional nursing home beds, and I have had to tell each and every one of them that I do not know whether there will be enough money available to fund them. I have told that to everyone, save and except for this one, where I have indicated that somewhere, be it early or late next year or the following year, I am sure funding will be available and will rank very high, if not highest, on the list. Therefore, Chief Staats should feel fairly secure in undertaking this new project with CMHC knowing that --

Mr. Roy: If you do not stop talking --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member for Ottawa East is very dedicated. He almost understands what we are talking about, but not quite.

Therefore, Chief Staats should go ahead with the project. In point of fact, because of the representations made to me by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and because of the dedication of our ministry to that project, the project can be undertaken and the CMHC moneys drawn down.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. As many members of the Legislature are aware, the minister is a dedicated man who has shown concern for his fellow man. As the Legislature hopefully enters into the season of goodwill, can the minister indicate to the Legislature when the government of the day will announce changes in the workmen's compensation benefits to upgrade additional compensation to those permanently injured workers, perhaps in line with the province's guidelines or above them, which perhaps will add a measure of good cheer, and whether it will be retroactive?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the legislation has been prepared and it will be up to the House leaders as to when it is introduced. I am very optimistic that it will be introduced before this House rises prior to Christmas. As far as the details of the legislation are concerned, I do not think it would be appropriate to indicate those in the House right now. I think the right time is when the bill is introduced.

Mr. Haggerty: Will it be retroactive? I believe it is true that they have not received any increases for approximately the past 18 months.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not reluctant to give that information; on the other hand, I believe the contents of the legislation should be made public only when introduced in this House.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the injured workers have not received any increase in their benefits since July 1, 1981, and in view of the fact that the minister made a statement to the effect that he would introduce legislation that would remedy that, can he tell the House right now that the legislation at least will give benefits backdated to July 1, 1981?

Above all, can the minister make a commitment to the House that, contrary to what the member of the Liberal caucus said, the benefits will not be based on the restraint program, in view of the fact that injured workers have lost more than 20 per cent since the last increase?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the legislation will honour any commitments I have made in this House, and we hope to have that legislation introduced before Christmas.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Westinghouse. Given that the lead levels now are known to be 20 times the acceptable level at Westinghouse and given that the Ministry of Labour has had two control orders in there to establish a lead control program, the first on September 15 to be complied with by October 6 and the second on October 28 to be complied with forthwith, neither of which has been complied with, can the minister indicate what action he now intends to take to force a lead control program, since the meeting last Friday at Westinghouse confirmed that there was no control program in place and that no agreement was reached that would result in a lead control program?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I agree that no decision or agreement was reached as far as a lead program is concerned. There were 22 people at that meeting, eight representing management, eight representing the union and the balance from the Ministry of Labour. I have a complete summary, and I will not read it into the record because it would take too long, but from the report that has been given to me I am pleased with the progress that has been made, and I am optimistic that the matter will be brought under full control in a very short time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in many other aspects of the enforcement of justice, if an order was not complied with in September, an order was not complied with in October and an order was not complied with in November, the inevitable result would be a prosecution by whichever government ministry one wants to name.

Can the minister please tell us why in this instance, as in countless other instances across the province, his ministry has failed and refused to take employers to court and, rather, has relied entirely on this second-chance, third-chance, fourth-chance, fifth-chance procedure?

Why should we believe that Westinghouse will comply now when they did not comply in November, they did not comply in October and they did not comply in September?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that will be short. I am more concerned with getting solutions in the problem areas than I am with taking anybody to court. The wellbeing of the worker is foremost. That is our first priority. After we establish the solution, then I will worry about prosecutions, but not before.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, how many meetings is it going to take before the company begins to comply with the orders? Will the minister tell this House right now how much longer he is going to wait before compliance and what he is going to do if he does not have compliance by that date?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the easiest way to answer that question is to send a copy of this report over to the honourable member, which will indicate the definite progress that has been made.

LAKE ONTARIO WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during my absence from question period while chairing a meeting of the provincial environment ministers from across Canada, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) directed a question to the Premier (Mr. Davis) relating to the very important issue of the S area dump site in New York state and, in particular, asked whether the government had considered action on the matter of the Hooker Chemicals dump site.

I want to say at the outset that I welcome the interest of the leader of the third party and in particular the implicit support he expressed in his question for the policy of the government with regard to intervention on matters of this nature, particularly as it relates to the statement I made in the House last October, outlining our strategy for dealing with this.

3 p.m.

It is obvious he had not been brought fully up to date by his staff, in that earlier this fall I indicated that on this dump site, the S area site, we had indicated our intention to intervene and had instructed our lawyers in the United States to proceed to prepare the necessary documentation. That has taken place.

I hope the position he has now taken is the new position and the permanent position of the third party in this House, since shortly after my announcement in September there was a press release issued by his caucus attacking the policy and position I had taken, suggesting the intervention was a very dangerous and ill-advised course. The person whom I presume had a hand in writing that had only a short year ago written a letter to me in her previous incarnation with Pollution Probe, pleading with me to intervene, using the words, "We urge the Ontario government to intervene where the federal government cannot. I hope this is the end of the flip-flopping on the part of that caucus, because I am sure some of the member's colleagues must by now be suffering whiplash from that constant flopping back and forth."

The simple answer is that we do intend to act and we have consistently intervened in the United States, not only in this matter but also in terms of acid precipitation. No other government in this country has intervened to the extent we have and has consistently taken strong positions with good success.

In response to the member's supplementary question, which related, as I recall, to granular activated carbon filters, that is something I have discussed with people who are very knowledgeable in that field and I have also sought advice from our medical advisers on their advisability.

To this time, I have been consistently advised that the very low levels of chemicals that are detected in the water in those areas do not merit such action. We will certainly continue to monitor the situation closely and we will not hesitate to act anywhere in this province where levels appear to be rising and approaching a level medical advisers indicate may be hazardous.

Mr. Rae: If I may ask a question of the minister arising out of that statement, which hardly clarifies the issue -- in fact, it raises several new ones -- he was not here yesterday so perhaps he has not had a chance to read the question I asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) yesterday. My question had nothing to do with whether the minister was going to intervene or not.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Rae: The approach of the government changes daily.

My question was this: Why has the government of Ontario not filed a separate suit, not sued Hooker Chemicals Co. with respect to its chemical pollution of Lake Ontario? That was the question and I still have not had an answer. The minister has referred to a lengthy process of intervention, which he knows is a totally different process with totally different implications and totally different results for the people of Ontario. My question to the minister and to the Premier was: Why has the government not sued Hooker Chemicals? We still have not had an answer to that question from the minister today.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One thing the member has failed to indicate is what remedy he would seek in his lawsuit. I suggest our highest priority in matters relating to chemical sites such as that is appropriate remedial action. When there are processes that are available and that are contemporary in terms of consideration being taken at this time, it seems to me the appropriate thing to do is to respond through those processes.

In terms of the kind of language the member's caucus has used, I would use it back, and say that embarking upon action that is divorced from and without the support of all the interests that are basically sharing the concerns we have would be ill-advised at this time. I suggest if he went off half-cocked on an independent and separate lawsuit he would be up the creek without a paddle before long. The way to approach this is consistently, using the processes that are in place and with the support of the interested parties in the United States. That is the action I have been proposing.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister might be aware of the fact that I asked a supplementary on this very question yesterday. Of course, I would not be satisfied to put filters in to filter out the contaminants as they exist in our waterways. I am more anxious to see what the minister is going to do to clean up the water so we do not have to do those things.

I ask the minister if we would have any kind of case, as it relates to agreements that were made between Canada and the United States just after the turn of the century, as it related to agreements of protecting each other's water and air? Might not Ontario have a case against the US government or New York state under the clean water and clean air laws as it relates to those agreements that were entered into so long ago?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last October I believe, and since then as well, we will leave no stone unturned in terms of options. I have asked my legal staff to explore all of those options and to advise me. At the moment there is some discussion taking place on whether, if action were taken under the treaties to which the member refers, it would be open to Ontario or be more appropriate for the Canadian government to take that action.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Premier (Mr. Davis) chickens out every time I get up --

Mr. Speaker: I would rather you had a question.

Mr. Sargent: -- so I always direct my questions to either the Premier or the Treasurer, so I hope I can go to work on the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question please.

Mr. Sargent: Before I do, I would like to compliment the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) on the trauma unit at Sunnybrook under Dr. McMurtry. I think it is one of the finest things in the world and I want to congratulate the government for that.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question please.

Mr. Sargent: Having said that, today the United States Congress is putting through legislation for five cents a gallon on gasoline to raise billions of dollars for job programs across the United States -- a multibillion-dollar massive program for jobs in America. This morning's Wall Street Journal reports that Alberta is going to the market to borrow $1 billion -- as the Treasurer knows, he is shaking his head -- to help its people with things like mortgages, while my small businessmen and farmers are dying like flies. May I say that this province belongs to the people of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: I would rather you asked a question.

Mr. Sargent: I want to build it to the point I am trying to make. The Premier of this province is like a bomber pilot flying high above the clouds. He has no idea of the damage he is creating below or what is happening here.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Sargent: It is time something was done about it. He has no program at all -- $5O million. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Sargent: My question is this: He has used the funds of the province to keep his party in power and not for the people of Ontario.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I recognize the member for Grey-Bruce on the condition that he will place his question.

Mr. Sargent: How can I, when you keep interrupting me all the time? Why don't you sit down for a minute?

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: For 35 years we have heard horror stories here and we are getting fed up. We want to know why we cannot get some action for the people of Ontario.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure my friend, and he truly is my friend --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He is?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, he is. I am not sure he would want me to raise the gasoline taxes; I have heard from the front benches of his party that they are already too high. I am astounded that a province as wealthy as Alberta has had to go cap in hand to borrow money, because in trying to run that province it is already spending twice as much per person as we are. I can only say we run ours very well and on a relative basis we do a much better job. One of the best ways to create jobs is to leave money in the pockets of taxpayers so that they can make a free choice themselves.

Mr. Sargent: I will make it pretty simple for the Treasurer. Will he tell us, without any stickhandling, what he thinks is more important to people in Ontario: the government's investment of $650 million in Suncor, or jobs for the people of Ontario? That he can turn around, as well as the $7.5-billion deal with Denison Mines. He can turn that around too. Let the Treasurer tell us, what is more important to him?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend knows they are not either/or matters. We are doing a good job.

The member was going to quote Mr. Axworthy or something in Hansard when he got cut off there -- cut off the reading, that is. The member was going to tell us --

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is costing us $100 million a year in Suncor. Let's hear more about Suncor.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague on Friday did an admirable job of telling members about Suncor and I am sure it is indelibly emblazoned in the minds, if there is a mind --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member for Algoma, new question.

Mr. Sargent: What is more important?

Mr. Speaker: I think he answered it, with all respect.

RADON LEVELS IN BLIND RIVER HOUSES

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I appreciate the written answer the minister gave me, confirming that 2 per cent of the homes in Blind River that were tested were above the 0.02 working level standard for radon daughters for underground uranium workers. Could the minister explain why the letter that was sent to the home owners whose homes were above that standard appears to leave the discretion for retrofitting simply to the home owner?

It says: "However, it might still be advisable to avoid spending long periods in the basement such as by using it as a regular sleeping area. Another approach would be to reduce the level of radon daughters by providing additional ventilation in the basement." And further: "Any remedial measures such as additional ventilation would be required to be undertaken at your expense."

Why is the minister not considering providing funding or at least approaching Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to provide funding, as it did for retrofitting in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that no decision has been made with respect to any subsidies for the home owners. Therefore, it was not appropriate for me to make any commitment in the letter that went out to the home owners.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

In addition to presenting this petition on behalf of the people named herein, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that many of them are from Welland-Thorold. I am happy to represent those good people from Welland-Thorold in presenting this petition.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows: "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We request that the honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

I support the petition.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I have the co-operation of everybody in carrying on their private conversations outside the House rather than here?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads: "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

As my colleague has pointed out, I have some names from Cambridge, outside my own riding. I am pleased to represent those people.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I was just ready to leave when my friend mentioned the name Cambridge. I would like to advise him that the petition I submitted had signatures from both Kitchener and Waterloo and I was pleased to submit those.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Kerr from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented the committee's sixth report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved its adoption.

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on procedural affairs considered five agencies in September 1982: the Wolf Damage Assessment Board, the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses and the Ontario Land Corp.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BETH SHOLOM SYNAGOGUE ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, first reading of Bill Pr51, An Act to revive Beth Sholom Synagogue.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, first reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved, seconded by Mr. Foulds, pursuant to standing order 34(a) that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate the following matter of urgent public importance: that the impact of the dramatic increases in the welfare rolls as of November 30, 1982, and impending further increases in December and January threatens the capacity of municipal governments to deliver adequate services in this recession period.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the motion was received in time, it is in order and I shall be pleased to listen to the member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I gather you are ruling it in order. I am very pleased to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Just to clear up any mistaken impression, the notice has been received in order, not the motion.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I see.

Mr. Speaker: We will decide that later.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was wondering.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time because the November statistics on the welfare rolls in the various municipalities across Ontario are starting to come in and because they are showing a continuing dramatic increase in the numbers of people on welfare. We are starting to hear of difficulties municipalities are going to have, not only in meeting this mandatory requirement but also in providing the services necessary in a time of recession to cushion the blow of recession for people in their communities.

In Sudbury, the increase over last year is 51 per cent, as my leader said in question period. They are projecting a further increase of 40 per cent on top of that in the first four months of the year coming up. In Waterloo, the increase is 56 per cent and they are projecting a further increase of 33 per cent next year.

It is important to note that in the last month alone the number of people on welfare has increased in the Waterloo region by 8.6 per cent. Windsor has already been hard hit. They thought two years ago that they had hit record levels, but they are up 23 per cent this year. That is the highest level in Windsor since 1938. They also had an increase last month of 7.5 per cent in the number of people on welfare.

The case of Metropolitan Toronto has been well documented: a 150 per cent increase in the employables and 30,000 people on welfare at this time. In Cornwall, the increase has been 21 per cent in the last 10 months. In Thunder Bay, there has been an increase of 42 per cent of the single employables. In Hamilton, there are 7,000 people on welfare now, with projections that this number is to be very much increased in the next number of months.

The difficulty is that the property tax has to pick up the cost of this, and the property tax can no longer bear that burden. It is a mandatory cost that has to be picked up by the municipalities. They have no choice in the matter.

But tough times require other kinds of support to people, and those discretionary programs are in danger of being axed across Ontario as municipalities try to meet their welfare payments while not increasing their taxes by more than five per cent, as they have been instructed by this government across the way.

That is why the region of Durham is crying out for some help from this government. That is why Waterloo and Durham are cutting back in their family services counselling capacity. That is why Metropolitan Toronto is looking at ways to cut back on improvements to the homes for the aged that we learned about last year and saying: "We cannot rush that. We cannot go for day care increases. We have to hold back in discretionary funding."

In fact, Mr. Kruger has said in Metropolitan Toronto that there may be groups out there in the community that will not be receiving any funds at all from Metro Toronto this next year and that will, therefore, be reliant solely on the United Way.

What is happening, of course, with the United Appeal across the province was also outlined by my leader. In places like Sudbury they have achieved $252,000, whereas they projected a need for $700,000. That is going to mean a dramatic underfunding of those programs, and the municipality is not going to be able to help them, since the municipality will not have the funds because they have to go into the mandatory welfare cost. That municipality needs help.

The same thing goes for Peterborough. This is the first year in which they have not made their projected target in the last 10 years. In Windsor, there is a shortfall of $1 million so far in the United Appeal and, as I have already indicated, they are suffering terribly under the increased numbers of people on the welfare rolls.

In Hamilton, there is a $1-million-plus shortfall projected at this point and the director of the United Way has told us he believes the chances are good that many agencies will suffer cutbacks. They cannot suffer those cutbacks this year: it is impossible. We can help each of these communities right now just by making up the difference between what its costs for welfare were last year and what they are this year.

For $15 million or less, by intervention by this government right now, we could guarantee that those extra costs of welfare would be assumed and that these municipalities would be able to support those social agencies in giving extra support in our society during these hard times.

We are at the end of this session and it is vital that the government makes some statement immediately that it will take action in this area. That is why we need to debate this issue today, to draw attention to this major concern in our province.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of the motion from the member for Scarborough West. As I indicated in this House nearly two weeks ago, we had noticed that our own area of eastern Ontario was experiencing exactly those problems at that time, and we announced it very clearly then.

We now see that the problem is even more widespread than I had anticipated. The phenomena of the shrinking municipal tax base and the growing welfare rolls are happening simultaneously. What is most troubling about this, using the case of the municipalities in my own area -- the city of Hawkesbury, for instance -- is that if the Canadian International Paper Co. plant there is dismantled, the tax base will be reduced by 20 per cent at the same time as 15 per cent of its work force is added to the unemployment rolls and subsequently to the welfare rolls because there are no jobs.

Amidst all of this we listened earlier this year to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) addressing the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and telling them not to expect any increases beyond the inflation rate in the coming year. I would like to remind the minister that the welfare rolls do not grow with the cost of living index or the inflation rate or any other factor. They grow with unemployment, and that is a phenomenon we have to live with.

The increases we see there have nothing to do with the statistics the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced at that time. It is troubling indeed to see that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) earlier this year announced increases in welfare that were very small; 75 per cent of welfare recipients received little or no increase at all, and the reason the increases were so small is that everybody realized at the time that the municipalities were going to have to foot a large part of that bill, almost as much as the province does, and that they were in no position to be able to afford it. It is all coming home to roost now.

As the situation gets worse and worse, the municipalities have to cut some voluntary programs in order to pay for their unduly large share of welfare payments for this province. Meanwhile, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not giving any hope to the municipalities of this province that they will get special assistance in this kind of situation.

The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) stated in the last election that there should be a threshold and that when we get beyond that threshold municipalities should receive special assistance. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), who represents an area that has an unemployment rate of 19.1 per cent, raised the issue contained in the motion last Friday, and again today in question period he suggested that the province should assume a greater percentage of the cost of welfare and other social services in those municipalities hit particularly hard by unemployment, since to go to the municipal property taxpayers in an area ravaged by the recession would be both economically unwise and unfair. To tax social services by the acre is an absolutely ridiculous situation given the economic context we live in now.

We see a shrinking tax base and an increased welfare and social services load. I guess the ministers of the crown and the government are caucusing right now to see who will be speaking on behalf of the government on this issue. We now hear that it is the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I certainly hope that in his address he recognizes, being the person who is so concerned about welfare and the social services of this province, that he will allow the emergency debate to go on so that we can all participate in a very full discussion of this very important issue.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I find the sudden interest in social assistance rather remarkable. Neither one of the critics has bothered to ask me a question about social service payments, in terms of dollars, case load or anything else, in weeks.

Mr. Breaugh: Why would they do that?

Mr. Nixon: The minister was not here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I rather expect that the reason they raised anything today is they did not think I would be here.

Mr. Boudria: He does not show up. How can we ask him?

Mr. Nixon: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) answers his questions anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: You created a hardship on the developmentally handicapped people, that is for sure.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That member said last week that he was producing 731 confidential letters to me. He produced 237 of which more than 161 were written by one person. That is his level of credibility.

Mr. Riddell: It is time you met with the people of Goderich.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is what he did last week. I do not want to take any more of the five minutes on that.

Mr. Speaker: Speak to the motion, please.

Mr. Riddell: The letters were sealed and I had no idea of their contents.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member was had as he always is.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Huron-Middlesex please contain himself. Order.

Mr. Riddell: The minister should go down and tell the people that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I just did.

With regard to social assistance in this province, there is no question that the impact of the recession has brought about, in terms of the amounts that have to be paid, both to the individuals who have exhausted their unemployment insurance and to those who have never qualified for unemployment insurance, a burden upon the municipalities, a burden upon the province and indeed, after my meeting last week with the federal minister, a burden upon the federal government.

Mr. Nixon: Madam Begin is great.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would like to tell the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) who wanted more dollars for social assistance. That was him opening his mouth, was it not?

Mr. Van Horne: The minister has the wrong member.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There is no question the matter is serious. However, since the beginning of this summer, this government has anticipated the seriousness of the matter.

In November we produced a recession package of $52 million which was specifically aimed at the months of December, January, February and March. Part and parcel of that was an extraordinary approach that involved the churches in the downtown core of Toronto being able to provide supplementary assistance, particularly to transients and to families. That has already spread into Hamilton where there have been meetings with the regional council.

There is no question, this has an impact upon the property taxpayers. However, I ask either of the people who want 100 cents on the dollar paid by the province and the federal government, if the municipalities in turn will cut their tax rate. They will not and the members know it.

I have been in consultation with the municipalities of this province, the regional governments, the counties and the townships and some individual municipalities that still administer their own social assistance. They have assured me they are capable of meeting the welfare demands this winter. With the exception of some smaller ones, not one of them has asked for additional payments or a new type of formula.

It seems to me the fundamental question now is, do we want to take away from the job creation programs of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the federal government, and the Treasurer by himself, and instead take that amount of money and put it into welfare where there is no guarantee -- in fact, I can guarantee there will be no change in relief to the property taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker: The minister's time has expired. Having listened intently and with great care to the propositions put forward by the three members, I must advise the House that I do find, in my opinion, the motion is in order and does comply with standing order 34(a). Therefore, the question before the House is, shall the debate proceed?

3:55 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. R. F. Johnston's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston. R. F., Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller. G. I., Newman, Nixon, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Miller. F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson. B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 44; nays 65.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 519, 520, 521, 522, 616, 644, 645, 646, 666, 667, 668, 669, 671, 672, 673 and 674 standing on the Notice Paper and the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 270 (see Hansard for Friday, December 10).

4 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT

Mr. Watson moved second reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SARNIA FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Brandt moved second reading of Bill Pr35, An Act to incorporate the City of Sarnia Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF STRATHROY ACT

Mr. McNeil moved second reading of Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Town of Strathroy.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CEEPHIL INVESTMENTS LTD. ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved second reading of Bill Pr40, An Act to revive Ceephil Investments Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF TINY ACT

Mr. McLean moved second reading of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the Township of Tiny.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

Mr. Kerr moved second reading of Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TORONTO BAPTIST SEMINARY ACT

Ms. Fish moved second reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Toronto Baptist Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Mr. Williams moved second reading of Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF ORILLIA ACT

Mr. McLean moved second reading of Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the City of Orillia.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

UKRAINIAN CULTURAL CENTRE ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shymko moves second reading of Bill Pr47, An Act respecting the Ukrainian Cultural Centre.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, may I address myself to this bill?

I wanted to bring to the honourable members' attention that I raised a matter in the standing committee on general government dealing with this bill. I have some concern about the type of legislation the government is bringing forward. My comments are not intended to be prejudiced, but I do want to --

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the honourable member that this is not a government bill.

Mr. Haggerty: It is a private member's bill, but I wanted information as to the intent of the government in bringing in general legislation that would cover this under some other bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) could respond to that.

Mr. Haggerty: No, but I would like to continue with my comments.

Mr. Speaker: The member wants to make some observations.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to make some observations about the bill and its intent.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Carry on.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I drew to the attention of the committee members, and some of the members agreed with me, that we seem to be setting a precedent here that members now will be bringing forward private members' bills in this area. I recall under the Municipal Act there is an area where the Royal Canadian Legion was given some leeway in that municipalities --

Mr. Speaker: I call the member to order again. It is not a private member's bill either. It is a private bill. The applicant is not the member.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, you are asking me to concur with the voting on it. Surely I should have a right to comment.

Mr. Speaker: I am not saying the member does not have a right to speak on it. I am just correcting any false impressions he may have. It is a private bill.

Mr. Haggerty: The point I am making is that it is a private bill, and that it seems we have been bringing forward a number of bills in this area recently allowing certain tax exemptions to real property, particularly for cultural centres of that nature. I mentioned the Royal Canadian Legion. Under the Municipal Act, they have always had the right to apply to municipal council for tax exemptions on real property. Of course, they had to pay for the hard-core services such as water and sewage services.

I am not opposed to the bill, but I think it is time the House had a clear-cut policy from the government on its intention to bring in broader legislation that would cover every municipality in the area without having each individual come forward with a private bill.

I know it may cause some difficulties with local councils which may not like a bill of this nature pushed upon them -- I do not know whether it has been concurred in by them or not -- but I suggest it is an area where the government should be coming forward with a clear-cut policy on the direction it wants to move at a time of difficulty when municipalities are doing some soul-searching themselves to find where their next tax dollar is going to come from.

4:10 p.m.

I can see that it may cause some difficulties, and I can cite communities in my area in the riding of Erie where 10 different groups can come in and ask for tax rebates on real property. It may cause problems; so I suggest it is time for the government to move into this area and bring in a clear-cut policy so that we do not have to have a private bill once every year. I feel there should be legislation applied across the board so that every municipality can make this decision itself at the local council level.

I still think the bill is good. It says the local council may bring in a bylaw to exempt property taxes on that base. I think this is good, but I suggest it should be province-wide.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the remarks of my honourable colleague, let me simply point out that I know the officers of the Ukrainian Cultural Centre quite well, and I know of the terrific programs they have. Our party will certainty vote in favour of this bill, and I hope it will be passed unanimously.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for Scarborough West an affliction? A point of order?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No. First, a point of privilege -- no. I will let that pass, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of Ms. Fish, I wish to move second reading of Bill Pr13 in the spirit of co-operation we have got here today -- An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: It is not on the Order Paper, I must point out.

House in committee of the whole.

INFLATION RESTRAINT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration 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.

The Deputy Chairman: We have completed the amendment that had been presented by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), and we are on clause 1(a).

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, clause 1(a) gives the definition of the board, and it says, "Board means the Inflation Restraint Board." We will be voting against this clause. We feel that to use the word "board" to designate an Inflation Restraint Board in the context in which it is used in this bill is no more real than the shadows were in Plato's cave. It is a device that creates the illusion of reality, an illusion of doing something in a concrete and real way, but when one examines it, the reality disappears into the vapours and shadows, as happened in Plato's cave.

Clause 1(a) is really doublethink, in the same way in which 1984 dealt with it. It is a way, through the use of fancy words, of perpetrating a fraud on the public. It is an advertising fraud. It is a fraud that gives people the illusion that somehow this bill is dealing in a concrete way with the problems of inflation. If the word "inflation" were removed, one might be able to look at this and see exactly what it is. It is really a wage restraint board. It has very little, if anything at all, to do with inflation.

When one looks at a principal area the average person in this city and province is faced with in terms of inflation, namely, the cost of housing and rents, one sees that this bill completely exempts that kind of inflation; it specifically exempts the review of rent. Therefore, to talk about an Inflation Restraint Board that does not deal with some of the basic problems we are faced with as consumers is to perpetrate a fraud on the public.

Specifically, this government has failed to launch a full public inquiry into the sale and subsequent resale of nearly 11,000 units in Toronto owned by Cadillac Fairview, despite evidence of massive profiteering and misleading information being given to a minister of the crown by private financial interests.

We in this party outlined to the minister in very specific terms what could be done to deal with not just the Cadillac problem but also the problem of the constant flipping and speculation in apartment buildings in this city. Yet this act exempts that kind of inquiry. That might be acceptable if the minister had brought in other legislation we had suggested time and again over the past few years to deal with these problems, but he has not done so.

I find it impossible, therefore, to vote for something that pretends to be what it is not. This government, despite evidence of the need for such measures, sets private financial interests ahead of the consumer.

It has imposed a set of rent review guidelines that continue to impose on tenants the cost of speculation and intolerably high interest rates. It has failed to introduce legislation to embody the principle that comprehensive, and not just temporary, rent review and rent control or a fight against that form of inflation will be a permanent part of the legal and economic landscape of Ontario.

It has also failed to introduce a speculation tax on the speculative transfer of land and housing. That is not contained in this bill. Nor will this board have the power to investigate the role of speculation in Ontario on creating inflation. This board, which is called an Inflation Restraint Board, will not have that kind of investigative power and, therefore, we find it impossible to vote for it. It will not even be able to measure whether a speculation tax as we have proposed would have any effect on the inflation of rental or housing accommodation costs.

This government has conducted fire sales of lands previously purchased and banked by the government that could have been used as a lever against inflation in the housing market. Yet this board again will not have any power to look at that. This government has failed to recognize that shelter is too precious and important a human need to be left to the caprice of the speculator and the whim of the marketplace which has created such inflationary problems.

To call this board an Inflation Restraint Board is simply nonsense. The name tries to create in the public mind the idea that somehow this bill is dealing with inflation when, in fact, it avoids some of the principle issues in the inflationary cycle. This is not a new problem to this government. Ontario tenants are in trouble because the Conservative government and the Liberals have constantly blocked efforts to write the kind of protective legislation that would make us able to accept the Inflation Restraint Board as it is defined in this act.

4:20 p.m.

I remind members that in June 1978 our party filed a dissent to the report of the standing committee on general government on rent review, specifically focusing on the inflation problem caused by refinancing. At that time, we pointed out, and I read: "Point number 6(h), sub 7, in the report allows a pass-through of financing cost that result from the sale of property." In our position, we argued that the rent review program should be neutral with respect to the way a building is financed. "The inclusion of financing costs for pass-through is a major loophole in the present program, and we do not feel that the committee's position is adequate to close it." This board will not have that power to close it either. The Liberals and Conservatives did not accept our position in 1978 when we filed that minority report.

On November 4, 1976, we moved an amendment to the Corporations Information Act which would have required disclosure of information about any corporation in which a company held more than a five per cent interest. The Conservatives and the Liberals voted against this amendment. I wonder whether this act would have been necessary, at least from the point of view of the Cadillac tenants and a few others who have suffered from the recent flips and speculation in the housing market, if that amendment had been passed.

We pointed out at that time, and we had it from fairly good sources in the real estate industry, that there was a considerable amount of offshore money flipping buildings and speculating in the Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa areas. We had reports that similar money was going into Montreal and had earlier gone into Vancouver, perhaps to an even larger extent.

Yet in spite of this, in spite of the fact that tenant groups, and indeed MPPs appearing on behalf of tenants before rent review boards, constantly were suspicious of transactions that were not at arm's length or were suspected of not being at arm's length, and in spite of the fact that we pointed out over and over again to the government that the offshore ownership of these properties made it more difficult to trace those kinds of non-arm's-length dealings, the government did nothing about it.

On November 4, 1976, as I stated, the Conservatives and Liberals voted against our amendment, which would have made it more possible to obtain that kind of information.

We strongly suspect that with the new legislation the minister is building in, his argument will be that the reason he does not need rental accommodation or the inflationary problems of tenants under this bill and under this board is that he has brought in new legislation that will deal with the problem. Of course, it will not deal with the problem. It will not deal with the problem of the buildings that have already been flipped to a large extent, sometimes more than twice, before October of this year. It will not deal with the problem of who really owns those buildings.

I was at a rent review hearing the other day in which the rent review officer asked the company to reveal the owner, the principals, in the building --

Mr. Chairman: Will you help me for a moment?

I have listened to the past five minutes. Bring me up to date on how this comes into clause 1(a).

Mr. Philip: Are we flipping chairmen again?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we are.

Mr. Philip: Oh, that is why. Okay. I explained it to the previous chairman and he understood the point.

Mr. Chairman: Was the minister here previously?

Mr. Philip: No, the minister was not here.

Mr. Chairman: No, I meant the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Philip: No, the minister was not there; it was the chairman who was there.

Mr. Chairman: I know, but I want you to continue to explain it to me.

Mr. Philip: That is what I am trying to do. As I explained to the previous chairman -- and I will be happy to go over it with you -- the reason we are not voting for clause 1(a) is that it defines board as an Inflation Restraint Board. What we are saying, in no uncertain terms, is that there is nothing in terms of restraint and nothing in terms of fighting inflation on this board.

In terms of the very basic problem, namely, the inflation of housing and rental accommodation costs, in this clause 1(a) the board will have no power and no control over that. It is for that reason that we are compelled to say the minister is simply playing with words. He calls the board an Inflation Restraint Board when, in fact, a major part of inflation is not being dealt with under that board.

I was in the process of trying to go through some of the proposals we have made over the years that would have made this acceptable to us. It would have made it perfectly acceptable for us to vote for a board meaning an Inflation Restraint Board if it had included these kinds of powers.

Then I went on to say that part of the minister's argument will be that he is bringing in new legislation, Bill 198, and that is why he will want us to say, "Well, even though it is not covered here in clause 1(a), it is covered in Bill 198."

Is the new bill numbered 198?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not going to help you. You are on your own. Do the best you can.

Mr. Philip: I am sure that if the minister waits around for another hour and a half, he will find I have not done all that bad a job by six o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have had reason to admire your lengthy speeches in the past.

Mr. Philip: I always enjoy this minister's interjections, because he interjects in an appropriate spirit. If there is one good thing I can say about this minister --

Mr. Cooke: Which minister?

Mr. Philip: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have the responsibility of shadowing three ministers, but when I talk about the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I always talk with a certain amount of admiration and camaraderie, unlike certain other ministers whom I may have to shadow.

As I was saying, though, there is one good thing I can say about that minister. I cannot think of it at the moment, but if I do, I will tell him later on. I have said to him in the past that there are only three weaknesses in most of the bills he introduces. Those weaknesses are the beginning, the middle and the end.

In any case, back to this amendment, which is what you asked me about.

Mr. Chairman: Amendment? No, the section.

Mr. Philip: As I was saying, if the amendment had passed, much of the mystery surrounding the Greymac deals would not have been a mystery. In fact, it may well have been that those who wanted to take part in that kind of activity would have been dissuaded from doing so.

I remind the House that on December 11, 1975, we in the New Democratic Party moved amendments to restrict the cost pass-throughs to unavoidable increases in financial costs. As I remind the Chairman, because he was not a member of the House at that time, for the purposes of the act increases in cost shall be deemed to mean increases in maintenance, heating, supervision and utility costs and other appropriate operating costs as prescribed by the regulations, the reasonably amortized costs of rehabilitation where such costs do not result from work orders issued under municipal housing standards bylaws and increases in financing costs which are not avoidable.

I remind the House that the Liberals and Conservatives voted against this amendment and in favour of allowing landlords to have tenants pay for their buildings two, three, four, five or six times.

We are still faced with that problem in clause 1(a). There is nothing in clause 1(a) that deals with the problem of that kind of inflation.

In 1975, we were the only party that fought to have rent review introduced. Unlike the Conservatives, we have done everything possible to make rent review as workable as possible.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: I believe we do not have a quorum.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

4:36 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: A quorum is present.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, clause 1(a) defines the board as meaning an Inflation Restraint Board. We have some concerns about the words "Inflation Restraint Board" because we do not think this act deals with the problems of inflation.

When I was last speaking, I was dealing with some of the problems faced by tenants in terms of inflation. I was pointing out that in 1975 we were the party that encouraged and fought to have rent controls introduced in the first place. The whole concept of rent controls was to deal with the problem of inflation among tenants. At that time and since that time, unlike the Conservatives, who have done everything possible to make rent review as unworkable as possible, we have introduced 16 or 18 private members' bills to strengthen tenants' rights and to make rent review more workable.

One would have thought that when the minister introduces an Inflation Restraint Board he would have included rents under this, if for no other reason than to at least examine in an impartial way what it was that was making the present rent review system so unworkable. I say unworkable because we are not talking unworkable in the sense of a majority of tenants. We recognize that for all of its faults, 80 per cent of buildings did not go before rent review this year.

In fact, it is those 20 per cent that have gone before rent review or those not covered under rent review at all that are most affected by the inflationary process. The whole concept of rent review is still a valid one. The very fact that 80 per cent of buildings covered under rent review -- that is those occupied before January 1, 1976 -- do not feel a necessity to go before rent review, and are not asking for more than six per cent, is testimony that at least for a majority of buildings rent review is working.

So what we are talking about is simply repairing a system that is not working for those 20 per cent and for those buildings occupied after January 1, 1976, that are not covered at all or those where rents are over $750 and are so-called luxury buildings. It was under pressure from the New Democratic Party that the government made a prohibition on rent review commissioners from resigning their jobs and appearing immediately before the same body under which they had acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. In fact, one would suspect that an Inflation Restraint Board would want to deal with the problem of conflict of interest and the effect of inflation on such conflicts, but it has not.

It is a voluntary decision signed by those who are already rent review officers under a certain amount of pressure from the minister or from the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission. It does not deal at all with those who have at one time been rent review officers and are hiring themselves out as hired guns to those landlords who can afford it.

I was at a rent review hearing the other night. Do the members know the fee for one of those hired guns? It was $6,000, and that was passed on to the tenants. Yet the tenants have no way of hiring someone with the time and the expertise -- particularly the time -- to do the kind of preparation to give a balance on the other side. They have no way of deducting that. In fact, what they are doing is having an inflationary process added on -- that extra $6,000 -- to their rents as a result of the fact that this government is not dealing with that problem. This board does not deal with that problem. It exempts rents completely. It exempts completely the --

Interjections.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry. If the member for Mississauga North wants to interject, I hope he will interject in a nice loud voice so I can reply to him. Mumbling is simply a disturbance.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am curious. I hear the member making comments about other legislation. He is commenting on the work of the rent legislation, but these are two different programs. This bill today deals with the inflation program. It deals with a relatively short-term program. The other program the member alludes to goes back to 1975-76. To be sure, in the bill we are considering today there are some similar philosophies such as some of the pass-through philosophies, but I suggest the member is straying far from the bill before us today.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, to answer the point of order, I do not know if the member for Mississauga North was in previously to hear the earlier part of my speech --

Mr. Jones: Yes, I was.

Mr. Philip: Oh, he was. Then he is either a poor listener or a slow learner. I would be happy to repeat exactly what the arguments I was using were. I was saying that for us to accept this board under this definition, meaning an Inflation Restraint Board, we would have to deal with the problems of inflation for tenants.

He is quite right when he says there is other legislation, and that is part of the minister's argument, that deals with the problems of inflation for tenants. It is called the Residential Tenancies Act or the rent review act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. He has also introduced a new bill called Bill 198 which tries to come to grips with some specific problems related to the Cadillac Fairview sale and to other recent flips.

What I explained earlier is that all these are inadequate. Therefore, the minister's argument that the Inflation Restraint Board should not cover tenants' issues because it is covered in the legislation the member for Mississauga North mentioned, and some other legislation he did not mention, is a spurious argument because it is not covered.

I agree with the member for Mississauga North that this is temporary legislation. We in the New Democratic Party see that the inflation created for tenants has to be dealt with, not in a temporary way which will mean in a couple of years' time a very large run on increases in rents, but rather in a permanent way until such time as other programs can be put in place so we can deal with those issues.

It may well be that they can be dealt with under the Residential Tenancies Act or under another ongoing board that will be a permanent board, maybe even a board called an Inflation Restraint Board, which are the words used in clause 1(a), but that is not in place now. That is why we find it hard to identify with this section of the bill.

We also believe that to pretend to be dealing with the problem of inflation and to have an Inflation Restraint Board, while at the same time those tenants who are living in buildings occupied after January 1, 1976, are not covered, is to miss the whole point of inflation for a large number of people. There are some communities such as the one the member for Mississauga North represents where, I am sure he would admit, a large percentage of the tenants in the buildings have no protection under rent review because they are in buildings occupied after January 1, 1976. He nods that he agrees with that.

To say one has a board that means an Inflation Restraint Board that does not even cover these people, does not even cover his constituents who are living in those buildings, is to miss the whole point. It is to create a shadow that is unreal.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the honourable member still speaking on the point of order that was raised or are we beyond that? I have not heard your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: That is an excellent point and I missed that. Could you clarify for us if you are actually speaking to the point of order or if you are back on clause 1(a)?

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I was back on clause 1(a) of the bill. I was trying to make sure the member for Mississauga North understood, and would not rise on a future point of order by trying to relate it to his own community. The member quite rightly, and he was paying close attention this time, admitted there are a large number of tenants in his riding who are not covered under rent review. The very point he made, that this board was not designed to deal with tenants, is a valid point and that is one of the reasons we find it unacceptable to vote for clause 1(a).

Perhaps it becomes a harder job for me to relate it directly to Mr. Jim Taylor's riding --

An hon. member: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. Philip: Prince Edward-Lennox, but in committee we use people's names.

Mr. Charlton: Not in the House.

Mr. Philip: Even in the House I believe we use names.

Mr. Chairman: You are not supposed to.

Mr. Philip: All right, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox: I know there are not many high-rises in Prince Edward-Lennox but I am sure, as I continue with my remarks over the course of the next hour or so, I will think of an example that will make him understand why he should not be voting for clause 1(a). I hope he will give me a little time to do that. I will come up with an example for him.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification: The honourable member was talking about shadows on the wall of the cave. I wonder whether he is confusing it with fog.

Mr. Philip: Pardon me, I did not catch that; confusing what?

Mr. Chairman: Confusing it with what?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member was referring to Plato's Republic, if I am not mistaken. He talked about Plato and the shadows on the wall of the cave. I assume he was referring to Plato's Republic and the dissertations within that work. I was asking as a point of clarification whether he did not really intend his reference to be to fog.

Mr. Philip: As a matter of fact I was, and I used the word in my opening statement. I will repeat it because the member was not here. I said that to use the word "board" designated as Inflation Restraint Board is no more real than the shadows were in Plato's cave.

It is a device which creates the illusion of reality and the illusion of something concrete or real but, in reality, when examined disappears into vapour and shadow. I would take it that vapour would be a synonym for fog. Vapour sometimes comes up from an artificial source such as heat and fire, or is man-made, and fog is usually nature-made, but none the less it is the same substance, meaning water.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I accede to the member's superior expertise in the area of fog and vapour. For the member's information, I was here from the beginning.

Mr. Philip: I specialized in the human sciences and not the physical sciences, but I am sure I can give the member a chemical analysis of H2O and give him a more detailed explanation of the definition of fog and vapour if he wants. I gather that I have satisfied the curiosity of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox for at least another three or four minutes, so I will continue.

Mr. Cassidy: I think Plato has more to contribute than the member for Prince Edward-Lennox does.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Plato? I wouldn't compare myself to Plato.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Try Pluto.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, one thing about Pluto is that he at least had ears and he listened. That is more than has ever been done by that member.

Mr. Havrot: I wouldn't want to listen to you because you have nothing to say anyway.

Mr. Philip: You have to have a certain amount of intelligence to understand and to use your ears.

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: I can understand that the member who has just spoken cannot hear because he lost his toothpick.

Mr. Havrot: Do you want one? It might do you some good. It will match your wooden head.

Mr. Philip: He is shaking his head. Yes, he is, I can hear the rattle from here. I know that he wants to respond.

An hon. member: He swallowed his toothpick. That is the rattle.

Mr. Philip: I think he has swallowed his toothpick.

Mr. Havrot: I will pass them on to you.

Mr. Philip: He said he has just passed on and I do not doubt that.

There is a myth in this province that rents can go up only six per cent. I have people who call me as the New Democratic Party housing critic daily, saying, "How is it that in this province, under rent review, I am being asked for more than six per cent?" The problem is that many people, over a period of time, have not been asked for more than six per cent. That is part of the rent review system.

We mentioned earlier that 80 per cent of buildings, even this year, have not gone to rent review. Yet we notice that the ones that are going to rent review are experiencing substantially higher increases than the six per cent. We are talking about 18 per cent, 19 per cent, 20 per cent. Indeed, we have run into examples such as 56 per cent, 57 per cent and even 60 per cent rent increases.

What one must question is, how can this section of the bill talk about an Inflation Restraint Board when it does not come to grips with that problem? We in the NDP are committed to the right of fair rents and security of tenure. When other parties claim to protect tenants, they are actually writing laws which will make the six per cent ceiling meaningless.

The argument heard from developers and other opponents of rent controls is that they have caused the current crisis in vacancy rates in many Ontario municipalities. That, of course, is a phoney argument. We saw what happened in Alberta when the Conservative government eliminated rent review there. There were no increases in residential rental housing starts; in fact, they hit a 13-year low.

We hear the federal minister who was until recently responsible for housing, Mr. Cosgrove, argue that rent review is somehow responsible for stopping rental construction starts. We know that is not true. It is the federal government's high interest rate policy that has a more direct relationship to sparse construction, be it in rental accommodation or in any other form of construction.

Mr. Haggerty: I thought it was Reagan economics.

Mr. Philip: Yes, but it is also Trudeau economics. Trudeau followed the Reagan economic formula. It did not work in Great Britain. It did not work in the United States. It is not working in Canada, and the Liberals, whether large-L Liberal or community Liberal, still follow the same inflationary high interest rate policies.

Mr. Charlton: He is a Social Credit Liberal.

Mr. Philip: At least Social Credit were concerned about interest. They may have had a funny money policy but at least they were concerned about the problem of interest rates. In their earlier tracts, they even called usury one of the greatest sins. They talked about that and even referred to the Bible for an example.

This is the party that this particular speaker, or interjector, is supporting. We heard his speech the other night on that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Let us get back to the Bolshevik revolution.

Mr. Philip: He is making my speech a lot longer and I find that delightful.

Mr. Kolyn: You are lucky he has given you a topic.

Mr. Philip: I have a topic. I have several folders here with which I can continue.

We have warned over the years that the government must take immediate action against the large rent increases being experienced by Ontario tenants living in buildings that are sold and refinanced. The most recent case, which we pointed out in the House at the start of this session, concerned Kendale Court in Hamilton. The members of this party from Hamilton are very familiar with the case. This falls on the heels of the sale of 1,500 units by Cadillac Fairview and the sales of the units by Greenwin. The two buildings in Hamilton consisted of about 200 units. They were sold in January 1981, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. to Steveston Investments for about $2.5 million.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have been listening quite patiently, but, with respect, I suggest that sales of buildings in Hamilton have nothing to do with what is before us, which is clause 1(a) of the bill. I would ask that the Chairman call the member to order.

Mr. Philip: What we are dealing with is the definition of board as being an Inflation Restraint Board. What we have here in the case of Steveston Investments, which I was trying to explain to the member, is a building that is sold by CMHC for $2 million, of which Steveston paid only $37,000 --

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order --

Mr. Chairman: I want to hear this through and then I will rule.

Mr. Rotenberg: He is not talking to the point of order. He is just continuing with his speech.

Mr. Philip: How can the member say I am out of order when he has not heard the example I am giving and whether it is related to the Inflation Restraint Board? It is the Inflation Restraint Board I am talking about.

The Inflation Restraint Board has no power to deal with the fact that Steveston investments paid only $37,000 and financed the building. The buildings were then sold in April 1982 for $4.8 million. That is inflation. One takes $37,000, buys a building for $2.5 million, sells it for $4.8 million and passes on that inflationary cost to the tenants.

This Inflation Restraint Board exempts any kind of review, any kind of examination of that type of activity. The sale resulted in a net return on investment of 6,212 per cent. When we have speculators -- I distinguish between speculators and investors -- flipping over buildings at a profit of more than 6,000 per cent on investment, then we have a very strong inflationary problem in this province. This board, which is called the Inflation Restraint Board, will have no powers whatsoever to even investigate that kind of activity.

What we have, in terms of those tenants in Hamilton, is a 12 per cent increase first of all --

Mr. Rotenberg: Is he talking to the point of order or is he back into his speech?

Mr. Chairman: I am not overly happy about it either. I would like to get this bill moving. He is on clause 1(a).

Mr. Rotenberg: May I speak to the point of order? With respect, we are discussing only the definition of the board and not the powers of the board. The discussion of the powers of the board and inflation and so on are further on in the act, around sections 29 and 30.

Right now we are dealing only with the definition of the board and not the powers of the board. I suggest, with respect, that we deal with the definition of the board being the Inflation Restraint Board. If the honourable member wishes, as is his right, to discuss the powers of the board, I would suggest he do that under the proper section of the act and not continue this delay of the bill.

I would ask you to so rule, Mr. Chairman.

5 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: That is a valid point of order.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) seems to feel that the name of the organization is mutually exclusive from what it does. First, that is just not the case.

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is trying to set out the rationale for why we cannot support the name which is proposed for this organization, because it does not reflect what the organization is going to be doing in terms of inflation.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I would ask the members of the New Democratic Party if they do not want any inflation restraint because, in effect, that is what they are saying if they do not want an Inflation Restraint Board. If that is what they want, then let them put their cards on the table properly instead of trying to play games the way they are.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if this board were to be called the peace, joy and leadership board, or something like that, people would have a very proper objection to the mistitling of a board which purported to be something that it is not. That is exactly the point that is being raised in the debate right now as to whether or not this is genuinely an inflation restraint board or not.

The title of the board is a misnomer. We believe it is misleading. We think it is wrong that the public or the province should be misled because of this kind of thing.

I think the member for Wilson Heights would agree with me if I said that it would be wrong to title this commission the peace, joy and leadership board. If you do not like that title for it, then we surely have the right to object to the title that has been given to it because we think it is mistitled and is a misleading appellation. In fact, as well, it probably comes under federal legislation.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to rule simply that in dealing with the definition section that says what a board is, we deal with that definition only. With respect, I would suggest that the powers of that board -- unless the members of the party opposite are saying they are against any inflation restraint, which they sound as though they are -- I suggest that we deal with that board and get to the powers of the board --

Mr. Cassidy: The problem is that it is misleading.

Mr. Rotenberg: That party is the most misleading party on this bill that has ever been seated in this House. They are misleading not only the House and other people, they are misleading themselves.

I would suggest that we confine ourselves to the definition only and not the powers of the board which are not before us.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would like to move an amendment to this particular section so as to let the board have its true name, and call it the workers' deprivation board.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to clarify that from the chair's point of view what the member for Wilson Heights brings up is a valid point. However, I believe you also have to appreciate from my reading of the words "Inflation Restraint Board," there is a fine edge between what he brings up in terms of powers and what you are discussing in terms of definition.

I too have been listening very closely. I have admonished the member for Etobicoke to again be called to order, so he refreshes my memory on his argument as to why it falls under clause 1(a). When I had done that he brought it to my attention how his arguments are falling under clause 1(a).

I rule he is in order.

Mr. Philip: I can understand how the member for Wilson Heights is a little sensitive on this. He is the member who has come out against Bill Pr13 that would have dealt with the problem of inflation to some extent in his own riding.

It would have given power to the city of Toronto which is not contained here under the Inflation Restraint Board, namely, power which the city of Toronto asked for under Bill Pr13, power to stop the demolition of decent housing and rental accommodation that have no structural problems.

He is the member who is on record as opposing the city of Toronto protecting that housing, protecting tenants from being thrown out of the apartments that many of them have lived in for many years; from being thrown out of their communities so that they can no longer participate in their synagogues and cultural clubs and so forth in that area, but have to go off to Rexdale or Scarborough where they have to find other accommodation as these buildings are demolished.

I can understand why he would be sensitive to not wanting to talk about the inflation problems of tenants because he is one of those who have stood up and defended the right of landlords to do this kind of thing, or the right of developers to do this kind thing to people even in his own riding.

Mr. Chairman: You are stretching it. I think I am going to have to allow the member for Wilson Heights a point of privilege.

Mr. Rotenberg: First, Mr. Chairman, I will stack my record against that gentleman -- I use that term loosely -- any time on protection of tenants; second, I would like to point out to him that none of the city of Toronto is in my riding, none of the people affected by Pr13 are in my riding; and third, I will stack my record of protecting people, any time, against the member who by his filibustering on this bill is misleading the people of Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: He can't say that.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member should withdraw the remark. It is well known we oppose this bill in principle and that is exactly our point.

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, I withdraw the remark with respect to the honourable member. I withdraw any remark that he is misleading the people of Ontario and simply say the entire New Democratic Party is misleading the people of Ontario.

Mr. Havrot: Very good. Truer words were never spoken.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I feel that he should withdraw that remark as well. That is a collective slur.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right.

Mr. Chairman: I rule that he is not misleading the House.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, with respect, the member for Riverdale on Thursday evening indicated that remark was in order.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Etobicoke, let us get back to clause 1(a).

Mr. Philip: Before I get back, I would admit to one thing contained in the point of order of the member for Wilson Heights. It is true it is not the tenants in his riding who are being thrown out on the street. It is the ones in the riding of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) who are being thrown out on the street as a result of his actions.

Mr. Jones: Get back to the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Clause 1(a); back to the bill.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, for this definition to have any meaning we would have to see, first, a denunciation by the ministry of the sale of apartment buildings to speculators by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., and for the provincial government to at least look at that problem with the federal government and to ask it to commit itself not to sell any more of its own rental buildings for this kind of speculative activity.

This board would also, we submit, look into the value of imposing a speculation tax on all buildings that are sold less than five years after purchase, in order to act as a disincentive against the flipping of buildings, which is a real cause of inflation in this province. We would have that board look at the whole problem and the need for removing the exemption from rent review of apartments renting for over $750. In the present sale of buildings, many ordinary apartment units are approaching that rent. Indeed, this board will not even have the power to look into that to find out whether $750 is a realistic figure as a luxury building or if, as we say, there is no realistic figure, that it should not be defined, that all units should be under a rent review system or indeed under an Inflation Restraint Board which this bill is defining in clause 1(a).

We would suggest that an Inflation Restraint Board would look into the other areas of coping with inflation in the housing market, including the possibility of expanding Ontario Mortgage Corp. into an Ontario mortgage and development corporation, constituting a fully vertically integrated and publicly owned development corporation capable of acquiring and developing land and building and competing directly in the housing market. That kind of constructive activity by an Inflation Restraint Board would produce the kinds of working papers that could result in action by this government to deal in a very meaningful way with inflation in terms of tenants.

We would suggest that through the Ontario mortgage and development corporation there would be selective intervention in cases where tenants would be adversely affected; or that it could be done by an Inflation Restraint Board that would have the power to deal in a meaningful way with such things as the sale of the Cadillac Fairview buildings, to acquire such projects for conversion to co-ops or to nonprofit corporations or to ownership by local housing authorities.

It is interesting that no body in this province has adequately dealt with the research into what is happening in the housing market. Surely one would expect that either the Inflation Restraint Board, as defined under clause 1(a), or some other body would be set up by this government to provide that kind of raw data and look at the problem of inflation in the housing market.

5:10 p.m.

We do not have that. What we have is the kind of pseudo-study the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has turned out, called The Impact of Rent Review on Rental Housing in Ontario: A Staff Research Report. If this is research, one must wonder where they hire their researchers. This is not research; it is propaganda, plain and simple. This report is so bad in terms of dealing with the problems of housing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) himself, that extreme right-winger, had to release it during the middle of the summer when no one would see it.

This report is so bad that when the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) was questioned about it -- and he is the minister responsible for rent review, for the Residential Tenancies Act, and the minister responsible for the Inflation Restraint Board we are dealing with under clause 1(a) -- would not even pass a judgement on it. He was asked by me, in his estimates, why it was that the very topic he is trying to deal with, namely, the effect of high interest rates on inflation, interestingly enough does not appear in this report, nor will this Inflation Restraint Board have the power to delve into the whole problem of the effect of high interest rates on rental inflation, he was not able to answer.

The report does involve a questionnaire, such as could have been undertaken by the Inflation Restraint Board under clause 1(a), although it does not have the powers to do this. This report did take on that authority. It sent a questionnaire to all the landlords asking for very specific information about the effect of interest rates on their rents. It is interesting that is does not report that information. One must ask, who is going to do that kind of research? If it is not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that hires the people to turn out this blue document, should it not he the role of the Inflation Restraint Board? But it is not. It will not have these powers. They are calling it the Inflation Restraint Board but it will not be one; that, then, is sheer charlatanism of the worst kind.

There is nothing going to be done by this Inflation Restraint Board to protect the existing rental stock or even look into the need for passing legislation to allow municipalities to stop the demolition of apartment buildings, except in those instances where the density is lower than permitted by zoning or where the building poses a health or a safety problem. That was the issue to which the member for Wilson Heights was addressing himself earlier.

The Inflation Restraint Board will not even have the power to study that problem. We know in certain areas, such as the centre core of the city of Toronto, there are ways in which developers are now getting around the condominium conversion bylaws. Those laws were set up to deal with the problem of inflation among tenants. They were set up to do something the Inflation Restraint Board will not be able to do. They were set up to say to certain developers, "You may only convert if there is a certain vacancy rate in this area, and, indeed, if you have adequate structural studies so that you are not passing on structurally unsound buildings to unsuspecting consumers."

This board will not deal with that problem, and the member for Wilson Heights is on record as opposing other bills that one could accept as dealing with the problem, namely, Bill Pr13, or my private member's bill that would have given to all municipalities, if they wished, the same powers as were asked for under Bill Pr13 by the city of Toronto. So when this board does not deal with the very essential problems of restraint it is certainly misleading, if not outright propaganda, to call it the Inflation Restraint Board.

We and other members in this House have suggested that we need an all-party select committee with adequate research and staff to investigate the effects of speculation in the increase of rents in this province, with particular emphasis on examining the effect of offshore and out-of-province speculation.

We have not asked for that recently; we asked for that years ago. Now I am pleased to see that the Liberal Party has come along and has decided that this is not such a bad idea and has agreed with it. So at least two parties in this House are in agreement that there should be an all-party committee to deal with the very real problem of inflation in the housing industry and what is causing it.

This Inflation Restraint Board will not have that power, and one would expect that if we are to pass this clause, if we are to accept this, then we would have to see a way of coping with this issue somewhere else in some other legislation or through some other means.

Mr. Chairman, it was not so long ago that my private member's bill, which deals with the whole problem of buildings occupied after January 1, 1976, was debated in this Legislature. It is interesting to note that while the members on the other side of the House talked about our "filibustering" this bill, they did not even allow my bill to come to a democratic vote in this House. They blocked it. The tenants and tenant groups across the province were disappointed. The Conservatives blocked the passage of the bill, which was called An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act. That bill would have ended the present --

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member is veering off clause 1(a), "'Board' means the Inflation Restraint Board."

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out to the previous Chairman, we are dealing with the very fact that the term "Inflation Restraint Board" is a fraud, that it does not in fact deal with the problem of inflation. We could accept that -- not lightly, but none the less we could overlook it, if the ministry had brought in other legislation to deal with the problem of inflation as it affects tenants.

What I am trying to do in a very systematic way is to go through how time and again this government has had the opportunity to deal with that problem and it has failed abominably in introducing that kind of legislation and in dealing with that problem.

In some parts of Metro Toronto, such as Scarborough, Mississauga North and Rexdale, a very substantial part of the rental accommodation is not under rent review. When I questioned the minister on the act that he was bringing in and as to why under the Inflation Restraint Board he was not including rents, he said, "We have a rent review system."

In some communities a substantial part of the rent is not under rent review, therefore, to suggest that we should somehow accept this phoney Inflation Restraint Board because rents are covered under some other legislation when in fact they are not, and when in such communities as Mississauga North, Etobicoke and some of the Scarborough areas landlords are raising rents $100 and $150 a month or even more and also are not covered by this Inflation Restraint Board or by the other legislation, is simply pure charlatanism.

What is also not covered under this Inflation Restraint Board is the whole loss-leader technique that is being perpetuated in those areas such as Mississauga North. It is not uncommon for a tenant who is protected by rent review, the rent review system that the minister has argued is adequate so it does not have to be covered under this Inflation Restraint Board, to see a new building and say, "For an extra $50 or $25 I can rent in a brand-new building with extra facilities."

5:20 p.m.

What happens is that once they have moved into those buildings, once they have had an opportunity to move their children from the schools in their old neighbourhoods, once they have perhaps spent a considerable amount of money buying new drapes or redecorating the apartments they have moved into, they suddenly find the next year that rents are increased substantially.

Then they call me, and I am sure they occasionally call the member for Mississauga North, saying: "What has happened? We thought we had a rent review system. We moved into this new building and suddenly the landlord is raising the rent" -- by 30 or 50 per cent.

This happens over and over again, but this Inflation Restraint Board will not deal with that. It will not deal with a very real problem. In some of the newer communities, as more and more of the housing stock becomes buildings occupied after January 1976, we have more and more that are not covered under the rent review system and will not be covered under the Inflation Restraint Board.

We have pointed out over the years that there were a number of specific things that could be done by the Residential Tenancy Commission, by an Inflation Restraint Board or by some group that in a non-partisan, quasi-judicial way could examine the problems of the rent review system. We are disappointed the Inflation Restraint Board will not deal with this. We are disappointed because the Residential Tenancy Commission has not dealt with that, and we are disappointed because this new legislation, which is supposed to fight inflation, does not deal with that.

We have pointed out that there are constant examples of illegal rent increases. This board will not have the power even to investigate how to cope with that. A number of ideas have been suggested to the minister as to how to deal with the problem of illegal rent increases. You would think the Inflation Restraint Board at least would have the power to investigate those various alternatives and to suggest to the minister and this House the best route to cope with this.

One alternative is to proclaim the section of the Residential Tenancies Act which was before the courts and was ruled out by the courts many months ago. That called for a rent registry. A rent registry could come under the Inflation Restraint Board. It simply would be a way of requiring a landlord to list his rents on an annual basis. That would make it difficult for a landlord to raise rents illegally. That would be a positive, unbureaucratic and inexpensive way of dealing with an inflationary problem.

The new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has admitted some interest in this. But why has it taken a year and a half? Why has it taken constant submissions by tenant groups and by the New Democratic Party to the previous minister, saying, "It makes some sense to make it difficult for certain landlords -- those few who do it over and over again -- to raise rents illegally." That surely is a basic inflationary problem in this province.

Mr. Green of the Residential Tenancy Commission in Etobicoke and York areas admits he knows which landlords are doing it over and over again, but under the present act he has no way of dealing with it. He has to have someone report it immediately to him and say, "I have been charged an illegal rent." That poses some problems.

Under the Inflation Restraint Board, if it had at least a registry of rents any tenant moving into a building could find out what the previous rent was and whether his rent had been raised illegally. It would be a simple mathematical calculation. One phone call, add the percentage and one has what one should be paying. But this government has not done that. It does not give the power to either the Residential Tenancy Commission or the Inflation Restraint Board, which is defined in clause 1(a).

Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: We all have listened patiently to the honourable member talk about the Residential Tenancies Act. The point has been raised to yourself and the previous chairman that rent increases are controlled under other legislation, the Residential Tenancies Act.

I am concerned on behalf of the people of the province, and particularly the people of Mississauga North to whom the member refers. He has been making the statement that this government has not been doing anything about rent review concerns.

On November 16, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations announced several programs. There was to be an impact study of the temporary five per cent rent increase that was going to deal with the financing costs arising out of changes in apartment ownership. We also heard announced the increase in the length of time that landlords may phase in higher financing costs when ownership changes come about. We have the study by S. D. Thom. We have the inquiry by James Morrison about the 11,000 units.

This government has been very active in its concerns about the rent review process. It is surprising to hear the member leave the topic of this bill in the name of inflation. Incidentally, everybody in Mississauga North, people across this province and people who came to our hearings clearly understand what this bill is doing; they addressed themselves to it very articulately.

Some of us are having a real problem with a couple of things the member says, particularly the allegation that this government has not become concerned about rent review and is not doing anything. We have the bills, Bill 198 and others. We know what this government is doing, and some of us have a real problem with that allegation.

We also have seen people come from all sections, including tenants, who articulated their concerns. These concerns are sprinkled section by section through this bill. We are anxious to deal with the clause-by-clause and quit the horsing around with the name and the member pretending he is on topic and that somehow or other it is a serious debate.

On behalf of my colleagues, who have been patient, we urge you, Mr. Chairman, to help the member stay somewhere on topic and not kid the troops about this government not having a concern about rents and rent review and not being involved in the process to help lessen that impact.

It is a private sector matter, as the member acknowledges. This legislation does not deal with prices in the private sector, and they are not technically being held to the five per cent this bill deals with in public sector prices. You have the bill. Why not debate it?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order: The speaker is very much on this bill when he is talking about the name that is in clause 1(a). He does not, nor do I, want to be party to deceit. That is exactly what this name is.

If this bill were called the arbitrary powers act -- I thought of it when my colleague the member for Wilson Heights was speaking -- you would have us on the spot a bit in trying to argue with you. However, I note you have not called the bill the arbitrary powers act. But even if that were the case, that does not mean we could not argue against the name of the bill. I fail to see what his point of order is.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not see that the honourable member was even speaking against the name of the bill. Where we name it is in the last part of the bill. One concern, as we are in committee --

Mr. Wildman: He was talking about the name of the board.

The Deputy Chairman: That is right, but the member for Hamilton East said "the name of the bill."

Mr. Mackenzie: The name of the board is what I meant.

The Deputy Chairman: But you did say the name of the bill.

The member for Etobicoke has had the floor of the House since 4:13; that is almost an hour and 20 minutes. There may be others who may want to speak, and we are only on clause 1(a) of the bill, that is, "In this act, 'board' means Inflation Restraint Board." If he is able, will he keep his remarks to that subject? This House does not have time restrictions on speeches. Possibly the member can at least appreciate that others may want to participate.

Mr. Philip: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with it. If I may, however, I wish to correct the record on the point of order. The member for Mississauga North said, and I will paraphrase, that tenants' groups appeared before the committee dealing with this bill and were satisfied that something was contained in various sections of the bill. That is my understanding. Is that what he said?

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Jones: No, Mr. Chairman. I said they came forward and expressed their concerns with the bill and their concerns in general, and we heard that. I was asking the member to move on with the bill so we can discuss clause by clause some of those concerns as we go about our business, not to get hung up on the first page.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the very points I was making were analogous to those the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations and other tenants' groups made when they appeared on that bill. I know you listened very attentively to their presentations, Mr. Chairman, and you will note that the very point they were making was that it was sheer charlatanism to call it an Inflation Restraint Board and to call it an act respecting restraint and monitoring inflationary conditions when in fact it did not deal with the very problems of inflation in the rental market. That was the very point they were making, and that is why I am trying to outline --

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The honourable member might at least stay on topic about what the Metro tenants said. They certainly had some criticism. I will agree with the member for Etobicoke on the title of the bill, but I do not remember -- and I may be corrected if I am wrong -- that they ever had any concern about whether it was called the Inflation Restraint Board, the arbitrary powers board or anything else. I think what they wanted to get on to was the substance.

The Deputy Chairman: Member for Etobicoke, be challenged to try to direct your concluding thoughts, as long as they might take, to clause 1(a) of the bill itself.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, because I have just gone through the prologue and I am about to enter on my speech. I will follow your directions in the main body of my speech, I can assure you.

The point I was making was that the tenants were making the very same point I am making. namely, that it is nonsense to talk about this as being a bill that fights inflation when this bill and this section completely exempt tenants and their concerns. That is what the member for Mississauga North will have to answer for to the tenant groups in his riding in the next election, whenever that comes.

The member for Mississauga North talked about all the great things this Conservative government has done for tenants. That is part of their justification for not including under the Inflation Restraint Board the power to deal with tenant issues. If we look at the history of this government with respect to inflation in housing, remember that it was during the 1975 election that the Premier (Mr. Davis) first said that high interest rates, which were about 10 per cent, were too high and something had to be done, and that if he became Premier again he would deal with the problem of high interest rates and their effect on housing.

We are still waiting for it, and I do not see anything under this Inflation Restraint Board, or indeed under the powers of this Inflation Restraint Board, that some seven or eight years later is dealing with the promise the Premier made in 1975. The fact is that the Conservative government has refused to enact legislation requested by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, both appearing before this committee dealing with this bill and on numerous other occasions, to stop illegal rent increases.

The government has delayed legislation requested by the city of Toronto to stop demolitions that are creating a shortage in rental accommodation and therefore forcing people into the more highly inflated, newly constructed buildings that are much higher in cost.

This government has just introduced legislation that limits salaries, as this bill does, but does nothing to deal with the present review system and the corrections required in it. And if we are to --

The Deputy Chairman: I think the problem now is that the member is starting to repeat some of the points he made earlier.

Mr. Philip: I am not repeating them, Mr. Chairman; I am simply dealing with the objection of the member for Mississauga North when he says there are other ways in which this government through its history has dealt with the problem of inflation among tenants. In fact, it has not in any way dealt with the problem of inflation by tenants other than by the original act of 1975, which has a number of loopholes in it.

The minister's justification for not dealing with tenants' issues under the Inflation Restraint Board has been the same point that the member for Mississauga North is trying to make through his interjections, which is that it is contained in other legislation. That is not true. If that were the case, then at least the Inflation Restraint Board would be a term we might accept.

In the same way that this Inflation Restraint Board does not deal in a direct way with the problem of tenants, it does not deal with the problem of the inflation to the Treasury, both federal and provincial, in limited-dividend buildings, buildings that are subsidized by the federal government, and in some cases by the provincial government, as a way of coping with the so-called inflation problem.

On several occasions I wrote to the minister asking him why it was that buildings such as the one at 2737 Kipling Avenue in Rexdale were not covered under the rent review program even though they are advertised as rent-controlled buildings. The advertisements, of course, are the advertisements of the federal government. The federal government says it is putting money into these buildings --

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With respect, I suggest the federal government's action on a particular building on Kipling Avenue has nothing to do with the definition of what a board means. I ask you to rule that the honourable member discuss that "board" means "Inflation Restraint Board" and deal with the definition. If the member wants to deal with the powers of this board, he should deal with them under the section that deals with the powers of the board.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the member for Wilson Heights. He is correct. I ask the member for Etobicoke to tie his remarks, not to a federal program or to other programs, but specifically to clause 1(a) of Bill 179.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, the point I made to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who is the minister responsible for this so-called Inflation Restraint Board, was that this board does not deal with the very problems of inflation in those buildings that are provincially and federally subsidized. The example I have given --

Mr. Rotenberg: The member does not --

Mr. Philip: If the member wishes to talk, I will give the floor to him.

Mr. Rotenberg: Would the member do that?

Mr. Philip: Sure. Go ahead. Does the member have a point of order?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I made a point of order which I think you have ruled on. The member is continuing to talk contrary to your ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: The member has heard me say it several times. I want him to speak to clause 1(a) of the bill. With the time elapsing, I would really appreciate it. I know all members would like to see him direct his thoughts purely and entirely to clause 1(a). In an hour and a half, certainly, one can do that.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, one would think that an Inflation Restraint Board would deal with such things as illegal charges to tenants. The specific case I was dealing with dealt with Park Property Management Inc. There was a $5 fee charged, for example, by superintendents to open the doors of apartments when tenants forgot their keys. One would think that inflationary charge, and other charges such as those for the use of facilities that are supposedly covered under the rent, would be of interest to an Inflation Restraint Board.

If the government were really going to have an Inflation Restraint Board, one would think that the minister responsible for that would show some interest. Did he? Of course not. He said it was not his concern. He said it was a building built after January 1, 1976. In fact, what the government has done is an abdication of responsibility.

One could accept that the provincial government would have the right to abdicate its responsibility if the federal government which is pouring taxpayers' money into these buildings were carrying out its responsibility of seeing that these buildings were operated in a legal manner under the provincial act. But that is not happening.

I received a letter from the new minister responsible for housing, who seems to be even more reactionary than the previous minister, Mr. Cosgrove, or even worse, and he said he did not consider it his responsibility whatsoever. He did not even think it enough of his responsibility. One would expect that at least an Inflation Restraint Board, if it meant anything, would consider it its responsibility to bring the law into it and say that it wants an explanation of what is going on.

5:40 p.m.

But instead the federal minister, who is pouring tax dollars in, is not carrying out his job. One would expect that at least the Inflation Restraint Board would consider that to be its responsibility. We do not have provincial --

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, you have ruled and he is still talking about the same thing. If he wishes to add residential tenancies to this bill there is a proper way to do it. I understand there is already a notice of motion to add a section to the bill which will limit the rent increase to five per cent, if that is what the member wants, and it is a valid amendment. I suggest that when it comes up he brings forward an amendment to the powers of the board. He is way beyond the definition. At the proper time, when that amendment is on the floor, all the arguments he has made will be totally valid. Now we are discussing definition only and I would ask you again to rule that he is out of order.

The Deputy Chairman: I am patiently hoping the member for Etobicoke can get off the federal aspects and deal only with clause 1(a).

Mr. Philip: What I was trying to point out --

The Deputy Chairman: Please do not repeat yourself. Deal with the motion before the House.

Mr. Philip: The minister made one very specific argument in contending that an Inflation Restraint Board should not have the powers to deal with housing issues. He said the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, through his various programs, in particular the Ontario rental construction loan program, dealt with the problem of scarcity of housing which was driving up the price of housing. This is particularly so in those areas where there is a dominance of buildings occupied after January --

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, this has been so fascinating for the last hour and a half I think we should at least have a quorum to hear it.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there a quorum?

There is a quorum.

Mr. Philip: I noticed the minister --

The Deputy Chairman: I must caution the honourable member that the chair has been accepting the points of order being made by the member for Wilson Heights that in your presentation you are going beyond the grey zone. I would appreciate it if you would tie your remarks to Bill 179, clause 1(a).

Mr. Mackenzie: When one or two members of this House keep interjecting with the same topic again and again, it is no wonder one gets away from the issue we were discussing, because one has to respond to the issues they raise. I think that should be taken into consideration.

The Deputy Chairman: We are now at an hour and 35 minutes since the honourable member began.

Mr. Philip: I do not have much more than another hour and 35 minutes to go, unless there are a considerable number of interjections.

The minister is just returning to the House and I am pleased to see him again. He has argued that the reason we should accept this definition of an inflation Restraint Board not including tenants is that the whole issue is one of supply.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, clause 1(a) does not indicate anywhere that the Inflation Restraint Board does or does not include tenants. There is nothing in that definition which says yes or no. If the honourable member wishes the power of the board to include tenants he should support the amendment made by the Liberals or make his own. But there is nothing in the definition section which indicates what the powers are. Therefore, anyone discussing the powers of the board is out of order in dealing with the definition section and totally in order when we get to the powers of the board in clause 2 or further along. I would ask you to so rule.

The Deputy Chairman: I am leaning very heavily in favour of what the member for Wilson Heights is saying. I am giving the member for Etobicoke a final opportunity to tie his remarks to the bill because I am afraid, having made the points he has, he is now in the process of going beyond what clause 1(a) could cover.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What we have in this House is pure and simple intimidation of a Chairman. You should be ruling on that.

The Deputy Chairman: It is quite legitimate for honourable members in this House to raise points of order. If the Chairman happens to see they are legitimate then the Chairman, in his own wisdom, and hopefully for the wellbeing of the whole House and the conduct of our standing orders, can follow it. I do not see it as intimidation to accept the help of all honourable members to assist us in processing the business of this House.

I have cautioned the member for Etobicoke a number of times. I feel he does want to continue his presentation, but I beseech him to tie his remarks to the Inflation Restraint Board as in clause 1(a).

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I noticed the member for Wilson Heights has been making the same point of order time and again. I also noticed that in your wisdom you did not accept his point of order previously, which leads me to believe what the member for Hamilton East said, which is that the member for Wilson Heights is trying to intimidate the Chairman and trying to convince the Chairman to accept a point of order when initially, in your wisdom, you did not think it was so.

Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the members, I would appreciate it if you could have the member for Wilson Heights refrain from making points of order that are irrelevant to the debate and allow the member for Etobicoke to keep going with the debate. You will understand that the member for Etobicoke --

The Deputy Chairman: I rule you out of order at this point. I will make this point and I will make it very clear. I am about to rule the member for Etobicoke out of order if he continues in this vein, because I have accepted the point of order of the member for Wilson Heights. Should the member for Etobicoke continue to disobey the chair as per my ruling, I will have to rule him out of order and recognize someone else in this House to speak on clause 1(a). That is the ruling I have made.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, might I ask you to explain your ruling to the House? I would understand clearly if you were declaring a member was being repetitious or not --

The Deputy Chairman: As long as the honourable member speaks to clause 1(a) in this act, "'Board' means the Inflation Restraint Board," and if the honourable member is not repetitious, and he has his version on that; but if he goes beyond what that subject entails, I would rule him out of order. I have accepted the point of order but I am giving every opportunity to that member to speak to the subject.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, just to be clear now, you have consistently --

The Deputy Chairman: If I may make it clear, the point is that comments must be relevant and germane to the bill at the time we are discussing it.

Mr. Breaugh: Right, Mr. Chairman. It is my further understanding that since this debate has gone on at some length now, the chair is still of the position that the members are free to express an opinion on a matter which is currently before the House and that the chair in no way intends to intervene and declare at what length the members can speak or on what is relevant or irrelevant. You are using those sections of the standing orders which maintain we must speak to a motion which is before the House and we cannot be repetitive and things of that nature. Is that your ruling?

The Deputy Chairman: I am trying to abide fully by the rules of the House. My ruling is only to be relevant, have honourable members speak to the bill that is before us and, if a person is going to speak on some other issue that comes up later in the bill or is of a federal matter or is a matter outside it, I am prepared to rule that member out of order. I am only following the guidelines of the rules of the House that are before us here on the table.

Mr. Breaugh: That is fine. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

5:50 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like to get back to the member for Etobicoke and have his statement.

Mr. Di Santo: On the point of order, I think the member for Oshawa --

The Deputy Chairman: I am asking now for the member for Etobicoke. At this point, the debate is --

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for your advice. The member for Oshawa asked you to clarify on what basis you made your ruling. I did not understand why you ruled the member for Etobicoke out of order.

The Deputy Chairman: I am very pleased to tell you, because as we continue in this House there are certain things we should remember. Section 19(d), on page 4 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of August 1981, is what I am following as it pertains to the honourable member who has the floor. Section 19(d)2 reads "directs his speech to matters other than (i) the question under discussion, or (ii) a motion or amendment he intends to move." The point is a member has to direct his thoughts, his words, the attention of the whole House to that which is before us. That is why I now give the floor to the member for Etobicoke, with a final caution.

Mr. Philip: Since I want to follow your ruling very specifically, I wonder if you can clarify for me, because I am concerned that I do not disobey your ruling, what is the difference between the point of order the member for Wilson Heights raised earlier with the previous Chairman, which was not accepted, and the point of order he has raised now, which you are accepting. Or are you suggesting there is no consistency between your chairing and that of the previous Chairman?

The Deputy Chairman: I appreciate the honourable member asking the chair that, because in being sensitive to the fact that you have heard me say it is the final ruling, I have listened to the honourable member for close to three-quarters of an hour and I wanted to give him every fair opportunity to direct his thoughts to the bill. The member for Wilson Heights made the point and I accepted it. I will endeavour to be as patient and understanding as is possible.

Mr. Breaugh: Surely you do not mean to say that time has anything to do with relevance in this particular matter?

The Deputy Chairman: No, but I wanted to make sure in the total context and not to make any quick decision that could in any way take away the opportunity of free speech on any issue by any member on any bill in this committee. So, with pleasure, I recognize the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: In case my memory is failing me, was it not an identical point of order that the member for Wilson Heights asked you to deal with earlier when you ruled in my favour and against his point?

The Deputy Chairman: I have made my ruling; you have the floor and you are speaking to clause 1(a) of Bill 179.

Mr. Philip: I am trying to follow your ruling, but I want to ask you for some kind of consistency in that ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member should know if he is on the bill or not. If you have something to say to clause 1(a) of the bill, then you have the chance to speak.

Mr. Philip: I argued that I was on the bill earlier and you accepted the very arguments you now do not seem to want to accept.

The Deputy Chairman: You were on topic at certain points, but then you deviated into subjects that were not germane to 1(a). At that point I was challenged and the point of order from the member for Wilson Heights was accepted by the chair.

Mr. Philip: The argument I was making was that we cannot accept the Inflation Restraint Board, or the definition of the board to mean an Inflation Restraint Board, if it does not deal with the inflation of rents. I was arguing at that point that the minister had on several occasions argued that the reason this did not deal with the inflation of rents was that it was dealt with in other legislation or by other means. What I was attempting to do was to show in a very systematic way that this was not the case.

Now the member for Wilson Heights has suggested to us that we can move other amendments later in the bill that will deal with the very issue of how to cope with the inflation of rents, and that is a point that is well taken. I would be quite prepared to see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations present that in the House.

If he would give us the assurance that those amendments we have proposed and that he knows we are asking for will be included and accepted later in the bill, we can move off this point immediately, because then the definition of the board to mean an Inflation Restraint Board will be meaningful and acceptable to us. Unless we have that assurance by the minister, then of course the argument by the member for Wilson Heights is spurious and nonsensical.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the honourable member making any more points on clause 1(a) that he has not made before?

Mr. Philip: I am finding it hard to make points when the member for Wilson Heights continually interrupts me. Now, if he has another point of order --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: I will call the member for Wilson Heights to order and ask him to patiently give the member for Etobicoke an opportunity to make his remarks.

Mr. Philip: One of the arguments --

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: As long as he sticks to your ruling, I am more than happy to let him speak.

The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. I am the one who is trying to maintain order here.

Mr. Philip: One of the arguments that the Minister of Consumer and --

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Would the honourable members in front of the member who is speaking please be quiet. Thank you.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.

7 décembre 1982