The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMPULSORY AUTO INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, later today I will introduce the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, 1979. The purpose of the act is to identify and minimize the number of drivers on the road who are not financially responsible.

As the honourable members are aware, the current system in Ontario permits an individual to operate a motor vehicle without insurance after paying a fee of $150. The annual cost of providing protection to innocent victims through the motor vehicle accident claims fund is approximately $20 million a year and growing. The payment of claims can be a very lengthy and inadequate process and can financially ruin both the victim and the uninsured for life.

The introduction of a comprehensive compulsory automobile insurance program will serve to correct this situation and is in keeping with the requirements of all other provinces and territories in Canada. The program deals with four major areas:

It makes it illegal for a person who is not financially responsible to be on the road. It provides substantial fines for driving without insurance, along with suspensions of licences and confiscation of vehicles for habitual offenders.

It guarantees that insurance is available by requiring the formation of an insurance industry pool for high-risk drivers, known as the Facility Association. Membership in the association will be mandatory for all insurers licensed to write automobile insurance. Rates created by the association will be subject to approval by the superintendent of insurance to confirm that they are properly calculated and to ensure that high-risk drivers are treated as fairly as possible.

It stipulates that every automobile insurance contract will contain uninsured-motorist coverage for accidents caused by uninsured vehicles. This will replace the motor vehicle accident claims fund in the majority of cases, providing the insured with immediate settlement of a claim for damages from his or her own insurer and the right to go to arbitration or pursue a claim through the courts.

It sets up a system of enforcement whereby all insurers or their agents will issue an insurance card which must be produced on the request of a constable. The owner or driver of a car who fails to produce such a card will be guilty of an offence and subject to a fine and seizure of the vehicle. The enforcement system also extends to the insurer, who will be subject to fines for refusing to insure or refusing to process an application.

The present system puts the burden on the taxpayer when claims exceed revenues to the motor vehicle accident claims fund. The new act will result in a greatly reduced use of the fund which will remain in place only for the uninsured cases that cannot be resolved by the insurer. It will correct inequities in the present insurance schemes and help alleviate risks to society at large.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be well received in Kitchener.

PQ WHITE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say that very often members stand in this House to criticize the actions of the press or some story that has appeared in a newspaper. I would like to commend, as I know all the members of this House would, the Toronto Globe and Mail for reprinting today the full text of the Parti Quebecois white paper, which is subtitled The Quebec government proposal for a new partnership between equals: sovereignty- association.

I think that certainly the members of this House know that an informed citizenry in a democracy is essential. It is essential that the people of this province know what is in this report and the threat it poses to the Canada we want to preserve. I hope the citizens and public of this province will take the opportunity to read the report in its entirety as it has been reported in the Globe and Mail today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Waterloo North on a point of order, or is it a point of privilege?

Mr. Epp: I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the House leader would make available to all members of this House copies of the white paper. Since he has raised the subject, I thought it would be a good PR gesture on his part to make it available to everyone.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to do so. I could easily send my Globe and Mail over to the member.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY: GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Yesterday or the day before the minister issued a statement on the electronics industry, accompanying which was a report which his ministry has had since May 1979 on the electrical and electronic industries. The report indicates that some 24,000 jobs have been lost since 1974 in that industry and that imports have displaced approximately 50,000 Canadian workers in that industry. The report makes some recommendations. Why would it appear that the minister in response to these recommendations has basically done little, other than issue a brochure and an audio-visual aid?

In particular, may I ask the minister whether he is aware that the first recommendation in that report is that provincial governments pay a very considerable premium for Canadian-made electronic and electrical equipment? In view of that, will the minister tell us what premium Ontario is now paying for Canadian-made goods in the electrical industry, and does he agree with the recommendation on page 15 of our industrial strategy that the premium might in some instances go as high as 40 per cent in that industry? What premium is being paid and what else has the minister been doing to implement that report?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I would like to correct the impression that we have responded simply by printing brochures and preparing an audio-visual presentation. In fact, those were done with financial assistance provided by our ministry, but done by the consultative task force. That was their decision; they thought that would be a useful thing for them to do. It was their initiative, not ours. By no means does it comprise our response to their recommendations.

We met with them yesterday and have been meeting with them since they first presented their preliminary recommendations to us. We have identified several areas where we are going to be able to assist. The Leader of the Opposition will note that of the eight or nine specific recommendations that the consultative group made, this government is well on the road to implementing many of them and has been for some time. The specific item the member refers to, item one, is entirely consistent with our Shop Canadian program -- they call it a buy-Canadian program. Our policy in Ontario is to give 10 per cent preference to Canadian-made goods.

I don’t know if the member has seen my remarks over the last many months but I have indicated on occasion that I’m not satisfied the current purchasing policies and the 10 per cent preference is in all cases strong enough. That is something currently under review by my ministry, together with management board. Hopefully by February or March next year, we will have something further to report on that.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since this report is already six months old, and since there is a federal report I’m sure the minister knows about which we cited in our strategy about a year ago, there is a suggestion that in the electronics industry the government might even in certain instances go as high as a 70 per cent premium and still be of benefit to the country by so doing. Why has this government continued to sort of stagger along with the old 10 per cent premium for Canadian-made goods when in this industry we are losing thousands of jobs every year and a much higher premium would be in our own interest?

He says the government is implementing various things in this report and that’s the number one recommendation. The number two recommendation is not to have provincial barriers. Do I take it then that this government will never again do the Hawker Siddeley or Babcock and Wilcox routine in which bids were accepted in Ontario despite lower and better bids from outside Ontario? Is that now going to stop so that we don’t fragment the manufacturing market in Canada, eventually to Ontario’s detriment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that --

Mr. S. Smith: Excuse me, the premium --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order -- on a point of privilege if you like Mr. Speaker -- the premium is to be paid for buy-Canadian, for Canadian-made in any part of this country. It’s not a provincial, it’s not a provincial --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s not a point of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: The reference --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is question period. The question was asked. The Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. S. Smith: The reference is not provincial. It’s Canadian.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have been very careful over the past many months to talk about the importance of national procurement policies, not provincial procurement policies.

The Leader of the Opposition surely must know by this time that everything this government has spoken of -- be it oil prices through to procurement policies on manufactured goods -- speaks to that precise issue, that there should not be provincial barriers and there should not be provincially-based preferential purchasing policies.

I should remind the Leader of the Opposition that of all the provinces in this country, there is only one province, Ontario, that practices what it preaches and has a 10 per cent national procurement policy for Canadian-made goods.

The Leader of the Opposition feels comfortable in standing up and assuring us there will be no Babcock and Wilcox, as he calls them, situations again.

And he so easily criticized one of my predecessors for saying, “Show some preference to an Ontario-based firm, even though -- ” In that case, even though the bid from elsewhere was lower and there was more faith shown in the other product by Hydro, my predecessor said, “Never mind that. Go with this particular Ontario-based thing.” At the same time, that can hardly be reconciled with the Leader of the Opposition’s position with Canadian Applied Technology which he spoke of so grandly the last time. He criticized my predecessor for saying, “Purchase something which is more expensive and perhaps inferior, but do it for our industry.” Then he goes exactly the opposite way when it comes to CAT.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t you know the difference between a country and a province?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you not know the difference between buying Canadian and buying Ontarian?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you going to criticize us for showing that preference, or should we not show a preference?

[10:15]

Mr. Cassidy: If the government is concerned about maintaining and strengthening the electronics industry in this province, can the minister explain why the task force is only recommending that the federal government carry out studies on the true cost of purchasing foreign goods? Will the minister undertake that Ontario will carry out studies about the true cost of purchasing foreign goods and the benefits of domestic procurement; have those studies available to purchasers and governments across the country and do it over the course of the next six months?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I could say to the leader of the third party that if the federal government is going to undertake a study along those lines, I am not going to waste the Ontario taxpayers’ money by duplicating that sort of study.

If they are not, then I can assure him that the studies as currently undertaken by my ministry, together with management board, will go so far as to include those kinds of considerations.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the minister in his response has essentially repeated what the Premier said in an interjection, that somehow or other if you have a policy to give preference to Canadian-made goods anywhere in this country it is a good thing -- which I believe it is -- then I think their premium should be greater, the advantage should be greater than 10 per cent. It should be at least 40 per cent, as we have recommended.

Does the minister not understand that those preferences should be given in the Dominion of Canada? When we spoke of Canadian Applied Technology we referred to it as a Canadian firm. Does he not understand that when he gives preferences to Ontario firms, as opposed to those in other provinces of this country, he is fragmenting the manufacturing market in this country; that the premium should not be given to favour Ontario as a province over Quebec or Manitoba, but to Ontario, as a part of Canada? In other words, all of Canada should be favoured when Ontario purchases something over American or Japanese goods. Does he not understand that difference?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that in one case he was criticizing my predecessor for saying he should not have advocated that Ontario purchase something which later proved to have had a problem. The point there is that my predecessor was quite properly saying it was worthwhile for our manufacturers here to have Ontario Hydro in that case take “what turned out to be a risk” in order to help our industry. I only point out to the --

Mr. S. Smith: But Canada is different from Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Leader of the Opposition will allow me my turn. I know his manhood has somehow been insulted this morning by an interjection across the floor, but he has to learn to sit there and take it for a couple of minutes.

Mr. Bradley: Let’s just hear the answer.

An hon. Member: We have been taking it for years. What are you talking about?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition stood up and criticized my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), a short time ago because the minister at that stage said that after his ministry had analysed all the products involved in those circumstances their judgement was that he didn’t think the risk entailed in purchasing the imported goods was worth the assistance to the Canadian industry.

I understand the luxury that the Leader of the Opposition has, being in opposition, when one can wait and see how the thing turns out and then be a Monday morning quarterback and complain on the judgement call made by my predecessor. But I have to say, he ought to decide which way he wants to go. Does he want a preference to be shown, in which case --

Mr. S. Smith: Canadian, not Ontarian. Canadian.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition I have spoken at least as often, if not as articulately in his view I am sure, as he has on the importance of national procurement policy.

Ms. Gigantes: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will not have this government bow to him or anyone else in terms of our outlook on national procurement policy.

The point I am trying to make, if members opposite will stop interjecting for a moment --

Mr. Eakins: He hasn’t said a word yet.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is that they must understand that one of the costs of a procurement policy -- and I think we need one and must have one -- is that occasionally the end result of all that --

Mr. Conway: Bring back Allan.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- is simply that one purchases goods which don’t live up to some of the expectations because one has traded something off to support industry, and I am in favour of that.

I only point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it’s hypocritical for him to come back 10 years after the event and criticize this government for having recommended a preference which didn’t turn out as well as goods which would perhaps have been purchased but for our attempts to help our manufacturers. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition wants to make the difference on the basis of it being a provincial preference versus an international preference.

Mr. S. Smith: This is federal.

Mr. Breithaupt: Federal, federal.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me say -- well, if you can control your leader it will take a lot less time.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me say that I agree, so the record is absolutely clear, so the Leader of the Opposition can’t go out in front of the cameras and misrepresent our position --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yesterday and the day before and the day before that is what makes me think he would. I want to get the record clear we are 100 per cent in favour of national procurement policies.

If the Leader of the Opposition goes outside in front of the cameras and says we don’t understand national procurement policies, that will be inaccurate. If he says this government does not support national procurement policies, that is inaccurate. If he says we do not support policies which would have us give preference to our manufacturers over American manufacturers, that will be inaccurate.

Mr. S. Smith: That is unbelievable, just unbelievable.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I haven’t had much for him lately and since he’s here on a Friday the least I could do is keep him awake.

Would the minister explain to this House why it is that even though he and his party are very much in favour of privatization of crown corporations by the federal government -- with the exception of Petrocan, and I also feel Petrocan should not be privatized -- the Urban Transportation Development Corporation continues to be a drain on the taxpayers of Ontario? Why is it not being privatized in keeping with the minister’s wonderful faith in the private sector, which I’m sure he shares with his federal leader? How come UTDC is not on the block?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first, I’d like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, because I have been here in my seat every day since the House opened in October and this is the first question I’ve had. I had the feeling I was being totally ignored.

If I may proceed to answer the question, first of all, UTDC is a somewhat different corporation compared to an operating or a manufacturing company. UTDC does not manufacture anything, UTDC is a research and development organization which contracts out to the private sector its subcontract work. For instance, that great company from the province of Quebec, Canadair, has been the major subcontractor on the intermediate capacity transit system program. Many other Ontario and Quebec firms are carrying out the subcontracts on the ICTS. UDTC has entered into a contract with Bombardier for the development of articulated light rail vehicles and doing the research, development and shop work, not the design work, on the development of that vehicle.

It may be, some day in the future, that UTDC may be a viable sector corporation. They’ve been so tremendously successful in the last four years in developing the ICTS project that I’m sure the honourable member would say the same as industry is saying.

I attended the Air Industries Association of Canada convention a couple of years ago when it was holding up to the federal government the example of UTDC as the proper way for government to be involved in research and development, making full use of the private sector.

Mr. S. Smith: The marvellous reputation which the Urban Transportation Development Corporation seems to have -- and I must say I do apologize for having neglected the minister up to now; it is obviously to my own detriment that I have done so.

I would ask the minister whether he feels it is a fact, as quoted in the Toronto Star, that several Ottawa sources say there is no money to bail out Ontario’s new transit plans and help UTDC out of its hole. If UTDC has such a good reputation, is it true -- as the minister seems to have been quoted as saying in the Star -- that it may have to fold if the federal government doesn’t come through with some additional funding in the form of an industry grant, or in the form of some aid to transit?

An hon. member: Don’t let it get you down.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am surprised the honourable member neglected me for a week after that article appeared --

An hon. member: He had to hold himself back, John

Hon. Mr. Davis: Their research is slow.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have trouble sometimes. I usually speak very plainly, I think, and I am usually able to make my views understood. I had an interview with that particular reporter from the Toronto Star and the next morning I read the article. I could not believe that any reporter could write that article following the half-hour interview I had with that reporter. So many of the things in that article are the exact opposite of what I said.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You can’t believe you read what you said.

An hon. member: Stop knocking the press.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If I recall correctly, the article said I was bitter. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I showed nothing but enthusiasm for the intermediate capacity transit system project and wanting to get ahead with it; and I showed nothing but enthusiasm with the co-operation we have had in our application to the previous federal government and to the present federal government. I have absolutely no reason to believe -- and I don’t know where that particular reporter gets his information -- that the federal government and not only the previous one which was very seriously considering our project but also the present one which is still seriously considering it -- I hope we will have an answer and a commitment from them --

An hon. member: They’ll surrender, Jim.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- before too long that we will be allowed to proceed with phase four of the ICTS, at least in that great city of Hamilton, which is so enthusiastic about having us proceed with phase four --

Mr. Cunningham: Nice to be on the record, Jim.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and perhaps in the city of Toronto as well.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are you saying our sources are no longer reliable?

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary: When is the minister going to install a GO station at Queen and Degrassi Streets in the riding of Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s a good supplementary question for what we are actually discussing. I think we should put a question like that on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker. I don’t want to go into a long answer on that particular question.

An hon. member: It’s too complicated.

An hon. member: I want one in Agincourt.

Mr. Cunningham: That supplementary causes me almost to think we should ask a question about twinning the Skyway bridge. But I do have a legitimate supplementary question.

In view of the reluctance of the federal government to participate in the financing of this program, I would like to ask the minister, if they don’t give him the money, what is the future of this company?

Mr. Nixon: Not very good.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That, Mr. Speaker, you must accept as a hypothetical question. I have no indication whatever from any of the people I have talked with at the federal level that they are not going to participate with us. In fact, I talked to Mr. Mazankowski as recently as a week ago, and he is most supportive of the ICTS program. Mr. Mazankowski has visited the test centre, which the member for Wentworth North, or wherever it is he is from, has also visited.

Mr. Cunningham: But you haven’t been there for a little while.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was overheard to say what a great project it was.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know the honourable member has had a lot of criticism over the years for the ICTS, but after he went to Kingston again last spring he had nothing but praise for the success of the ICTS program.

An hon. member: What about that other meeting in Kingston?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Mazankowski, Mr. de Cot-ret, Mr. Wilson and a number of other federal ministers are considering this matter at the present time.

[10:30]

Mr. Cunningham: The honourable minister said I had nothing but praise for this fiasco; in fact I would get rid of it tomorrow for 20 cents on the dollar if I could.

LENGTH OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Mr. di Santo: I have a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether he can assist me, as a back-bencher. For the first two questions it took half an hour to the Leader of the Opposition and to the minister. That goes on every day.

As a back-bencher, I have some questions to ask, too, and I have no chance at all. I wonder whether the Speaker can assist me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the honourable member’s point. I guess it would be a point of order.

I know it’s up to the chair to see that this House operates effectively. It’s not up to the chair on every occasion to call a minister to order on the length of his answer, or a member on the length of his question.

Mr. Philip: Grossman’s monologue had nothing to do with the question.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on energy of the Premier. Since the federal Minister of Finance said in Toronto yesterday that no one in the country had told him they were opposed to a 30-cent increase in the price of gasoline; and since the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) admitted afterwards they would have to shout louder in order to be heard by their counterparts in Ottawa, would the Premier now agree to bring in a resolution in this House which, in a simple and a direct way, sets out Ontario’s position? Would he agree to a resolution perhaps along these terms: Resolved, that in view of the impact on consumers and industry in Ontario, this Legislature and government are opposed to oil-price increases of the scale now being discussed by the federal government and Alberta?

Would the Premier agree to have that kind of resolution debated and adopted by all sides in this House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t present when the Minister of Finance made an observation, so I don’t know whether or not he made it somewhat facetiously. He has a tremendous sense of humour.

Mr. McClellan: No one was laughing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party that the government of Canada is quite aware, the Prime Minister is quite aware, that we are opposed to that kind of increase. It has been clearly stated and it’s understood, I think, by everybody, including the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that it does appear that senior members of the inner cabinet who are concerned with these matters are not aware of Ontario’s position, could the Premier undertake specifically to strongly press the federal government to unpeg natural gas prices from oil prices, and to oppose -any commitments for the export of additional natural gas which is going to be crucial for Ontario’s future, particularly for the future of our industry and our home heating?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this has already been communicated to the government of Canada.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier be quite specific, in view of the fact that the document published in the summer appeared to indicate that the government was prepared to go along with the export of an additional two trillion cubic feet of natural gas from Alberta, because of the National Energy Board’s proposed formula for determining what was needed in this country? Would the government make it clear that it has then changed its position and that it is opposed to the export of that natural gas, and that Ontario wants to see that natural gas reserved for use here in this province and other parts of Canada as a substitute for very high priced oil?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the honourable member’s caucus, if he hasn’t has done a very careful assessment as to what extent natural gas, can in fact, replace crude oil.

Mr. MacDonald: Much more than electricity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’d be delighted to have the member’s guesstimates as to what that percentage would be.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s the Premier’s line.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect I would say to the member for York South, it is not our line.

Ms. Gigantes: So there’s a new policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some areas where one can replace crude with natural gas, which we totally support, and there are some areas where one cannot do that. One cannot replace electricity in a cracking plant. One can’t replace it in many industrial enterprises. It’s just not possible to replace electricity with natural gas.

One also has to take into account the cost factor. I would argue rather vigorously that ultimately, in terms of cost, for many purposes electricity would be cheaper than natural gas.

Mr. MacDonald: But it’s less efficient.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m really answering the member’s colleague’s interjection.

Ms. Gigantes: No you are not. You are not answering either of us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I apologize, but he made the interjection, not me.

I would point out to the leader of the New Democratic Party that if he reads our paper very carefully, if he listened to what the minister has been saying -- I don’t expect him to listen to what I say, but I have also been saying it -- we are totally in support of the transfer of generation of heat, or whatever, from crude oil to natural gas wherever it is possible. There are some places where it is not possible.

It is not going to be possible, for instance, in the smaller towns or the rural areas of this province, to install natural gas. It’s quite possible within the great city of Brampton. We are well serviced by one of the major utilities. I can give their number to any of the members who would like to live there and tell them how it’s done.

Ms. Gigantes: There is no more to export.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are totally in support of that, and that will continue to be the policy.

With respect to the unpegging or unfreezing of gas as related to crude oil, we have pressed for this for many years. We have never been in support of tying the price of natural gas to crude. This has been a position of the government of Alberta supported by the former government of Canada. It’s one of those issues I expect will be on the table when we are discussing, at the first ministers’ meeting, this whole question of energy.

In fairness, the leader of the New Democratic Party should understand there has been some indication that Alberta is prepared to consider -- this hasn’t been mentioned much in the press -- that there be an incentive pricing system for increased use of natural gas. That has been a possible suggestion from Alberta, one which we would welcome. We’d favour it on the condition that by incentive pricing and the extension of gas trunk services to other parts of Canada existing consumers don’t have the additional costs for the installation of those services. I’m sure the member would understand that and would support that point of view.

This is well known to the government of Canada. Our position on this issue has been consistent for the past number of years, unlike some others, and we will continue to press it with vigour.

Mr. Mancini: In view of the fact the federal Minister of Finance made that shocking statement to the Empire Club that he had not heard any complaints whatsoever concerning a proposed 30-cent increase per gallon on gasoline at the pump, could the Premier table in the House any direct communication he has had with the federal cabinet expressing his dismay, concern and disapproval with that type of increase? What does he plan to do now the federal Minister of Finance has said publicly that as far as he is concerned there is no one complaining and that he can go ahead with this kind of increase? It will cause tremendous unemployment and inflation in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it’s sometimes hard to table the most direct form of communication which, in my humble opinion, is usually verbal.

Mr. Peterson: Nobody knows what the Premier says. That’s the problem. Why doesn’t he write it down?

Mr. Davis: I have not found a way to table a telephone call. When somebody develops that technology I will be delighted to do it.

Mr. Peterson: Write it down. We might understand it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, I was not present when the Minister of Finance made his observations. The Treasurer was. He made it quite clear to the press afterwards. I have known the Minister of Finance, not that well, but over a period of years. He has a great way of expressing things. I would question whether he was not suggesting that he had had some opposition and that he fully understands, as do his cabinet colleagues, that a 30-cent price increase per gallon is not acceptable as far as the consumers of this province are concerned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the fact that the prospects for harmony on the question of unpegging natural gas from oil prices are a good deal greater than the prospects of harmony on the price of oil; and given the tremendous potential for substitution of natural gas for oil in many uses, such as commercial and residential heating, here in this province and elsewhere across Canada; will the Premier and the government indicate in unequivocal terms to the federal government that Ontario is opposed to any additional export of natural gas to the United States from Canada?

Ms. Gigantes: Any and all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member should understand some of the realities. I know it’s not easy for him to understand these things.

Ms. Gigantes: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the distinguished member for Carleton East.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Please disregard the interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How can one ignore that lady’s interjections? It would be impolite. I wouldn’t want to do it.

Ms. Gigantes: I’m fascinated by you too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would never want to ignore her totally -- only partially.

I think we have to understand some very basic issues. First of all, the National Energy Board has the responsibility to make this sort of determination, a very valid function.

Mr. Foulds: That’s a cop-out.

Ms. Gigantes: Wouldn’t you know? It is a cop-out.

An hon. member: When in doubt, cop out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, may I just appeal for reason across the House? It’s not easy because sometimes there isn’t a great deal of it in that party, but let me try to explain some of the realities.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have filed an intervention with the National Energy Board. We have made it quite clear that we want to be assured in terms of long-term security of supply. It is the function of the National Energy Board to project the needs of the other parts of Canada, including the potential that exists of substitution. I think we have to be careful not to overstate the potential. There is some. It’s significant, but I think it can be overstated on occasion.

It is also important to point out that if, over and above that, there is a significant surplus with a very clear impression that there are further natural gas fields or potentials for us --

Ms. Gigantes: If there’s more profit in them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- just let me finish, please -- to say that Alberta or Saskatchewan or British Columbia should not have the right to export those commodities over and above the perceived needs of Canada would be unfair. It would be contradictory to those other things which we express in this House on occasion. I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we are still somewhat dependent on our neighbours with respect to some energy supply situations.

If he wants to say that we’ll not export anything to the United States, if we have it in surplus, then I think one has to question whether or not our great neighbour might say, “We’re not so sure just how much coal we’re going to have. Perhaps we should impose an embargo on the export of coal for Ontario Hydro.” That might rest very comfortably with the member for Ottawa Centre, who never really tries to look at these things on a broader basis, but it would, believe it or not, create a certain problem for the consumers of this province.

I think he has to recognize that while it is great to close our doors in terms of what we might have in surplus and ignore totally the reaction of other jurisdictions in the world, I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, before he makes these categorical statements, “Not another cubic foot of natural gas,” even though we have significant surpluses if that is what the National Energy Board judges, that is very short-sighted on his part.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Since the Ontario Medical Association has failed to live up to the gentleman’s agreement that the minister announced back in March, which was :to protect patients against extra billing if they were not informed in advance, will the minister now take steps to amend the regulations under the Health Disciplines Act in order to require that doctors must bill at the OHIP rates if they have not fully informed their patients in advance?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I don’t agree with the honourable member’s judgement of the situation in the last seven months. The number of inquiries that have come through my office, either directly from the public or from members, as compared with the number of services actually being provided on a daily basis in the province would indicate it is not a frequent occurrence. It is not a problem of the size the honourable member would have us believe.

[10:45]

Second, with respect to the change to the regulations under the Health Disciplines Act he has from time to time espoused, we have looked at that repeatedly. On the face of it I suppose politically for 24 hours it might be very attractive, yet I ask the member to consider the kind of procedure he is, in fact, suggesting people go through. He is suggesting people be subjected potentially to months and months of hearings before complaint committees, and potentially, the health disciplines board. I would prefer, given the reality and the facts of the situation, to make work a system whereby redress is available and assistance is immediately available through the offices of the Ontario Medical Association and their district groups.

I may say certainly we recognize there are certain key areas where there are difficulties. One of them, as the member knows, is in the area of anaesthesia. That is one of the most difficult ones to cover, given the way the doctor-patient relationship is developed, time frame and so forth. It is not insurmountable. It has been overcome, by and large.

The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) raised an example yesterday I was aware of about a month or two ago. I thought it had been overcome. It hadn’t been, but it will be.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why he has changed his position from last March and why, when the OMA failed to adequately inform their members in April, the minister did not act then, rather than telling reporters yesterday he intended to ask the OMA to do it right the next time?

If I could quote what the minister had to say, he said on March 29, “The OMA also recognizes, should difficulties persist with this issue, the government will have little choice but to consider some form of consumer protection legislation to address the problem.”

Why does the minister now say the legislation, which is the most logical possibility, isn’t workable? Why is he suggesting if the regulations are changed the doctors are somehow going to fail to live up to regulations or legislation from the province of Ontario? Is he saying doctors would flout the law, or doesn’t he believe, as we do, if the regulations are clear and explicit, doctors will live up to them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, there has been no change in the position since March. Certainly, the interpretation of events of the last several months on the part of the member is quite different from mine. That is understandable as he engages in this month-long campaign to save the member for Ottawa Centre and the NDP. It is not a campaign to save medicare; it is a campaign to save his butt.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is a campaign to save his butt in that dying party. That’s what it is all about.

Mr. Martel: You are even more stupid than I thought.

An hon. member: What are you going to do to save your butt, Dennis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I am saying to the leader of the NDP is the change he from time to time proposes is one that has been examined very carefully. It has been found to be wanting, not because of any relationship with medicine, but because it would be deemed to be unworkable on the part of the patient.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am suggesting it is in the interest of the individual patient that there be a system available for the immediate addressing of any differences he has with a physician. What the member is proposing wouldn’t do that. What he is proposing would tie people up in red tape for months and months and months.

Mr. Mackenzie: Baloney.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What is available and what the member refuses to use and what he refuses to advise his constituents of, is a service which can deal with any of these differences that occur immediately.

An hon. member: That’s not true at all. Your service doesn’t work.

Interjections.

An hon. member: I have tried it.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware, despite his promises back in March, the mechanisms which are put in place to resolve these differences between patients and doctors where the doctor failed to inform in advance and then have extra billing, are collection agencies to which these accounts are being given?

Why will the minister not recognize there is a serious problem here and that doctors will be prepared to live up to the regulations if the regulations are changed? The present situation is so vague. In fact, the staff of Anaesthesia Services, which was raised by my colleague yesterday, say they understand anaesthetists were exempted from the rules the minister announced in March.

Surely this kind of half world, where things are not what they seem, should be brought to an end by clear, decisive and definite actions by the government.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the world through pink-tinted glasses like the member for Ottawa Centre, of course they are not the way they are. They are never the way they are.

Mr. Martel: What colour are yours?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: They are blue.

An hon. member: They are black.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My experience and the experience of my ministry in the last several months is --

An hon. member: Ontario to you is one continuous blue movie. You’re making me throw up.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- when the service is used, if a doctor and patient together could resolve these differences then there is no need to go any further. Invariably it seems the problems can be resolved.

I am just suggesting to the honourable member that what he is proposing is to put between the doctors and the patients an incredible bureaucratic structure --

Ms. Gigantes: Protection of the law.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- an incredible amount of red tape and lengthy delays. That’s what it amounts to.

When we talked with the medical association in the spring it was very clear to them that if the system couldn’t be made to work we’d have to consider some form of consumer legislation. I am telling the honourable member in my view the system is working and that his judgement is false. I understand it because the purpose is for him to save his butt and his party, but it is false. It does not reflect what is actually going on.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What’s the honourable member’s point of order?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, we were treated to an admonition by the Speaker yesterday about engaging in personal remarks across the Legislature. The Speaker yesterday indicated he would call members on both sides of the House to order when that was engaged in. I would point out to you respectfully, sir, the Minister of Health engaged in personal attacks on members of this side of the House that clearly should have been called to order if the ruling by the Speaker yesterday is to be enforced.

An hon. member: He doesn’t even know where his butt is.

Mr. Rotenberg: Those guys did just the same thing when they were heckling him.

Interjections.

PEEL REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Attorney General. It involves the case of one private detective by the name of William Nykyforchyn. His ministry has had some involvement with this case. Just to refresh his memory very briefly, it was a private detective.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, should I give the floor to the members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member ask his question please?

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Well I can’t hear myself, Mr. Speaker, let alone --

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: The case involves Mr. Nykyforchyn, who is a private detective who made allegations that he was personally threatened and physically abused by the Peel regional police force. He sought redress; he went to the Metro Police citizens complaints bureau. He went to the Ontario Provincial Police Commission with no success. He tried to lay charges. He went to justice of the peace, Robert Powers, who said no charges would be laid without an investigation, but there would be no investigation if he laid charges. There appeared there was nothing he could do.

I think the Attorney General’s ministry is familiar with this case. After he started to raise a fuss he was again physically threatened behind a factory in Brampton by an officer with a gun.

What has the Attorney General done about this case? What is the state of his investigation and would he please give a full report to the House?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly will give a report to the House, Mr. Speaker. I have some recollection of the matter. I don’t have the details at this moment but I will ascertain the necessary details and report back to the Legislature.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: When the Attorney General is doing this, would he make any suggestions he has as chief officer of the crown, on how a person in this position can find redress, because he appears to have pursued every available avenue with no possible redress? Would the Attorney General, when reporting, give him his suggestion as to what he should do?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, I think it is probably inappropriate for me to offer gratuitous legal advice to any individual citizen, but apart from the criminal courts and, of course, I have no suggestions to make in that respect, he might well, if he feels it appropriate, seek counsel as to possible civil remedies. Quite apart from the criminal sanction, what may or may not be relevant depending on the circumstances, he does have, as the member well appreciates, civil remedies that can be pursued by any individual citizen.

I will report back on the larger matter.

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. Laughren: In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of the Environment, I’d like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. I hope he will take some action, not just pass the request on.

Since the Minister of the Environment has now released a letter from Inco in 1975, which indicated that they simply would not proceed with their plans to reduce their sulphur-dioxide emissions, which it was indicated they had to do under the control order of 1970, would the provincial secretary make a commitment to have the Minister of the Environment table all correspondence and all documents from that time on that dealt with the emission level of SO₂ from Inco’s super-stack at Copper Cliff?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would be pleased to take this matter up with the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Laughren: I was afraid the minister would say just that. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could quote two lines from that 1975 letter and ask the minister what he thinks.

One line states: “A program which is not economically and commercially feasible is in fact not technologically feasible.” Further on, it says: “There is no way the December 31, 1978, emission level could be attained, other than by a drastic cutback in our Sudbury operation.”

Since they are using the argument of economic hardship and since between 1970 and 1978 when the deadline expired for the control order, Inco has had profits of $1.4 billion and has spent massive amounts of money in the United States at a battery plant and in the third world on development, why is it that the ministers of this government, the Premier included, always cave in to the kinds of intimidation and blackmail by the company, when the people who live in the area, the workers at Inco and the people who represent that community, never do and insist that the government implement its control order and put a new one on now so we can get the level of emissions down at the Copper Cliff smelters? When will the government do that?

I have a further supplementary. Would the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. You have asked the question. I am just going to anticipate whether there is an answer or not. Is there an answer?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to receive all the information the honourable member has, which will be included in the reply.

An hon. member: That’s a great answer. What do you do with that one?

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

Mr. Haggerty: If I can get the attention of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, I have a question for him.

Is the minister aware that there are some industries in the Fort Erie and Port Colborne area that are considering phasing out their industrial operations, adding further unemployment to an area that already has a high rate of unemployment? Is he also aware that in 1978 representation was made from the municipal councils of Port Colborne, Fort Erie and Wainfleet to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to have the area qualify under the federal government’s DREE program? The minister had indicated that, in view of the high level of unemployment present in this area, a case can certainly be made for special designation.

In the event of industry phasing out, will the minister now take some direction, along with his federal colleagues, to designate the area for federal government funding through the DREE program? Also, will the minister give further consideration to the involvement of his ministry in provincial assistance through the Employment Development Fund in the hope of maintaining existing industries and promoting new industrial opportunities?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is yes. May I remind the member that we have some meetings scheduled with the federal minister? The liaison for our government is the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who handles DREE matters. Both the Treasury and our ministry are well aware of the situation in that area and very concerned about it.

I should tell the member that we have pending before us, I would say, half a dozen applications to the Employment Development Fund out of that general area. Certainly, one of the major considerations that the Employment Development Fund board has is the rate of unemployment and the situation of industry in an area generally. That means that those areas which have a particular problem, which the member’s area certainly has, get preferential treatment out of the fund.

So I would be hopeful that we would have some direct stimulus assistance for some of their industries and I would certainly support any effort to have the member’s area included in the DREE agreement. The Treasurer and I will be discussing that further.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us when we might hear in regard to the negotiations between the Treasurer and the federal government with respect to DREE programs for Ontario?

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be surprised if it weren’t within the next two weeks. The last time the Treasurer and I talked about the subject -- and I was with Elmer MacKay, I guess, 10 days ago -- all indications then were it was just a matter of 10 days or two weeks from where we are now.

INNER-CITY EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Education. This being Career Week, I hoped to get this on before the week ended. Is the minister aware of a staff report to the Toronto Board of Education Inner-City Committee which shows the children in schools in the most deprived neighbourhoods of the city of Toronto are five times more likely to end up in lower streams in high school than children from more affluent neighbourhoods?

It also shows that 76.5 per cent of the kids who leave school early come from low-income families. If the minister is aware, what action does she intend to take to ensure that the children from poor families will get the same quality of education and the same career opportunities as children from affluent families?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware of that report which was developed by the Toronto Board of Education. I am aware that -the Toronto board has had some concern that, in spite of the fact it believes it is providing equal opportunity in educational programs for those young people, those opportunities are not being utilized effectively by the young people involved.

There are a very great number of factors related to the pursuit of an educational program by a young person within, this province. The factors include not only the existence of and the accessibility to educational programs, but the attitude -of the community, the attitude of the peer group, the attitude of the parents at home and- the expectations which the entire family has related to the educational system.

We are attempting at this point to improve the career counselling capability of guidance counsellors within the school system, which we feel has a great deal to do with the appropriate selection of careers by not only --

Mr. Martel: I have heard that crap for 12 year here.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- the group mentioned by the honourable member, but by others within our society, as well.

Mr. MacDonald: Same old story.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We feel very strongly that there has to be an increased awareness on the part of the teachers within those schools of the potential for those young persons to consider the educational program less than relevant and, therefore, depart from it at a relatively early age.

That is a joint responsibility which is shared rather heavily by the board of education and by the teachers within Toronto. I am convinced that having made themselves aware of this, they will be moving to solve the problem.

Mr. McClellan: Six years ago the Wright report came out. Have you read it yet?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: As most of these students have their problems because at grade eight level, when they are graduating, they have only got grade five education, career counselling in high schools especially has no real relevance to this side of the problem. The minister is aware, I presume, and I would ask her, is she aware that the Toronto board is already taxing to the highest degree possible under provincial legislation but is unable to meet the needs of these people?

Will she commit herself to instituting a funding program geared especially to inner-city schools and inner-city needs which would enable boards to reduce class sizes for those schools, to develop curricula appropriate to people in that income level and to bring in incentives for full-day kindergarten, ESL and special education for those areas?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I believe most of that capability rests with the Toronto board at this time, and I am sure they are examining the ways in which they may achieve it.

Mr. Martel: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Cooke: You are the biggest backward step for education in years.

Mr. Martel: You are doing as well in Education as you did in Labour.

CHICKEN IMPORTS

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) that foods were brought into this country under the Canadian Agricultural Products Standards Act, which requires that the country of origin be marked on containers. He correctly pointed out that that applied to fruit and vegetables, but not to poultry, and he raised the question of, “How do you mark a bird?

Does the minister know that all birds, poultry birds, including turkeys, are --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Leave your colleagues out of this.

An hon. member: Who did you have in mind?

Mr. Rotenberg: Including the ones over there.

Mr. McGuigan: I didn’t say who I had in mind.

Mr. Rotenberg: It takes one to know one.

Mr. McGuigan: All poultry birds have a metal mark on them that says “Product of Canada,” or if they are packaged in plastic it says “Product of Canada” on the plastic.

Doesn’t the minister think this is almost fraudulent to bring in American birds, process them in Canada, and sell them as products of Canada, especially in view of the fact that --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That’s a very good question.

Mr. McGuigan: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand why there was such an uproar in the House a week ago about fowl. I think it’s pretty common knowledge that on a bird that isn’t packaged there is a metal clip and that on the ones that are under polyethylene film or in containers there is a description.

I would presume that the honourable member, before he was so rudely interrupted, was coming to the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: We should practice what we preach around here some time.

Mr. Martel: That’s you he’s talking about.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I presume the ultimate thing is what would I do as a minister if somebody was attaching a Canadian-origin metal disc to a fowl that came from the United States or from some other country.

The enforcement of labelling for importation purposes obviously is very clearly a federal responsibility. However, we would be delighted if the member has very definite concerns about this to forward his concerns to my federal colleague. In addition, if what the member may have also wanted to know, -- are we prepared as a ministry to investigate this improper labelling of such a perishable commodity as a non-packaged fowl or groups of fowl, the answer is yes, we would. Then we would forward the results to the federal government for the proper determination, similar to when pork showed up with ground beef and was being sold to consumers under the guise of being beef.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Drea: On a matter of privilege, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that we have in the gallery a very distinguished visitor today, a former member of this House who was a Minister of Correctional Services and was most latterly and probably best known as a Minister of Public Works, the Honourable Ray Connell.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COMPULSORY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 160, An Act to provide for Compulsory Automobile Insurance.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Before we begin the orders of the day I wish to table the answer to question 313 standing on the Notice Paper.

[Later (1:00):]

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the interim answers to questions 324, 325 and 328 standing on the Notice Paper.

[Reverting (11:10):]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

On vote 101, Office of the Lieutenant Governor program:

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a two-hour introduction for these estimates, I know the members opposite will bear with me as I go through it.

An hon. member: We’ll be with you, but it will he hard to bear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I will be very brief on the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor’s office.

I would like to express, from the government, a very personal word of appreciation to the Lieutenant Governor for the excellent way she discharges her responsibilities. We have had a succession of excellent people serving in this very difficult post. I am sure the view will be shared by members on all sides of the House that this present Lieutenant Governor has shown a real sensitivity and commitment to her responsibilities. She has travelled extensively, she is available for many things in many parts of our province and she does it with real dignity and grace. I think she is really a great person in the role she fills so well.

I am sure this view doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone. My support of the institution of the office of the Lieutenant Governor is a very real reflection of our commitment to our system of government, the recognition that certain traditions aid formalities as part of our parliamentary system are really very basic to the philosophy of the people of this province.

Without getting into any of the figures, on which members opposite may have some questions, I want publicly to state through you, Mr. Chairman, to Her Honour just how much, as head of government, I appreciate the time and energy she gives, and the excellent manner and the very unselfish way in which she discharges her responsibilities as the Lieutenant Governor of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: I certainly wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the Premier. To put the matter very simply, the Lieutenant Governor is one of my favourite people. I feel she is a great credit to the office, she is a very worthy representative of our monarch, and her dedication, her willingness to go throughout the province to be at virtually every event, particularly her dedication to matters cultural at every level, is something I believe is of enormous importance to the social fabric of Ontario and to the general enthusiasm that permeates our cultural life.

As far as I am concerned, it would be hard to imagine anybody carrying out those duties in any more excellent way than our present Lieutenant Governor, and I am pleased to have a chance to say a few words in this regard at this time.

Mr. MacDonald: I would echo the comments of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Her Honour and the kind of job she has done in the position of Lieutenant Governor. Even those who may be critical of that post, I suspect have been silenced to some degree by the quality and character of her handling of the position.

However, having said that, I want to move on to one or two other things which I understand have been raised periodically during these estimates in recent years. I haven’t participated in these estimates for some years; it is like old times to come back to them.

There are two aspects I wish to mention. The last Liberal government in this province, in a rather churlish act banished, destroyed or removed the residence of the Lieutenant Governor at Chorley Park. I understand there has been some consideration by the government of getting a permanent home for the Lieutenant Governor.

[11:15]

Related to that is another factor on which I am curious to seek the thoughts of the Premier, and that is the objective set out by the Camp commission that the whole of this building should be made available for activities in relation to the Legislature. I assume one could argue constitutionally and legally that the Lieutenant Governor has an obvious relationship with this Legislature. Many other activities that also have a relationship of varying degrees of tenuousness have been moved out of the building. I think it is at least an idea that might be entertained.

If a residence for the Lieutenant Governor to succeed Chorley Park is found elsewhere, it would facilitate the realization of the objective of the Camp commission recommendation that another portion of this building should be made available for legislative activities.

I would be interested in what the Premier’s thoughts are on these two related points, of an outside residence and the resulting freeing- up :of still more space for the expanding work of the Legislature within these buildings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t personally recall the activities of the last Liberal government in this province. When I say I don’t personally recall them, I was far too young to remember them. However, I think at the same time as that Premier sold Chorley Park, he sold everything else.

Mr. Kerrio: All the problems are yours.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ultimately, he couldn’t sell his party, but he put it in the position where it is still today -- recovering from some of his activities.

Mr. Foulds: Are you still reading the book on Napoleon?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was I reading a book on Napoleon?

Mr. Foulds: Four years ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was I? No, I was not; it was Wellington. Oh, yes, I finished it. A very interesting book.

Mr. Foulds: And have you read any history since?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve read your personal history. It took me 30 seconds.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s just his personal contributions to history.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad your contributions in the House weren’t that short.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I know, but I just have to try to match yours.

Mr. Acting Chairman: They’re being extended now. If the Premier would just get down to business.

Mr. MacDonald: I’m having a little difficulty relating this to my question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m having trouble with your colleague. He’s interrupting me.

Mr. MacDonald: You have trouble over there, and you have trouble --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m in trouble every day of my life, whether here or at home. I’m used to it.

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, you’re in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know just how much trouble the member for York South thinks we’re in.

Mr. Martel: You used to say that when I first came here. You used to say that when we had five seats.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order, please. The Premier has the floor.

Mr. Conway: I don’t think Hepburn could have sold you at a sale.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. My market price would be zip.

Mr. Conway: You’re like Duncan Marsh’s prize bull.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect to the use of this building, Mr. Chairman -- to get back to the question after all these interruptions, which I didn’t provoke --

Mr. Acting Chairman: Oh, I don’t know about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But Mr. Chairman, how can I ignore you when you interject?

The concept of having this total building for, shall we say, the day-to-day functioning of the Legislature, I think as an objective has merit. I’ve never debated this. I’ve bad some very informal discussions with Her Honour.

I think it is important, if at some point a move were to be made, that whatever accommodation is found be within easy access of Queen’s Park. I can recall five or six years ago there was a suggestion about one of the properties owned by the University of Toronto -- I think there was some mention of this in the press -- but it was away up on Bayview Avenue. I think in terms of the economics it might have been accessible; although that is debatable, because a certain amount of renovation would have had to be done, et cetera. In terms of a residence, I think it would have perhaps been appropriate, but in terms of her responsibilities, which are fairly demanding here, and her access to the building, I think probably it would have been inappropriate.

I think Her Honour feels comfortable in terms of her accommodation, which I think some of us would argue on occasion is limited in terms of her responsibilities. There are those occasions when it is necessary for her, in the discharge of her duties, to seek accommodation above and beyond her present facilities in this building. I sometimes regret that this is necessary, because in some provinces it isn’t. There are two or three provinces where they have a facility, where the government or the Lieutenant Governor, in the name of the people of the province, can have certain gatherings that are appropriate. We don’t have that sort of facility available here.

I certainly do not reject the possibility of this. I think Her Honour is a very sensitive person about how it might be perceived by the public in terms of additional expense, the cost of acquiring different or larger accommodation. Certainly she has not in terms of her responsibilities, been pressing for this, but I don’t think we as a Legislature should close our minds to that possibility at some point in time.

If the right situation were to develop, I think it’s fair to state -- and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) can correct me if I’m wrong -- that in terms of our needs here that particular part of the building would be helpful.

That should only happen, Mr. Chairman, if there is some reasonable alternative for the Lieutenant Governor in ways that she could function properly and that would be appropriate for that particular position. I certainly haven’t closed my mind to that possibility if, at some point, the right sort of arrangement happens to come up.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, some 15 years or so ago we were fortunate to have a family in Toronto designate or let a building to the government for the purpose of the use of the Lieutenant Governor. It may have been that that was not acceptable or convenient for the use of Her Honour, or His Honour at that time, but was the money derived from the sale of that set aside for such future purposes as a residence for Her Honour?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will check this out for the honourable member. I don’t recall the particulars of it at the time. I think the decision was made that probably in terms of its maintenance, renovation or whatever, the government of the day felt it was probably a larger financial obligation than perhaps should be entertained by the government. As to the proceeds of those funds, I will check that for the honourable member and get that information for him.

Mr. Blundy: I want to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in saying a few words about Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor.

As the members know, the Lieutenant Governor was born in Sarnia and lived most of her life in Sarnia. She has very many relatives and friends there and, indeed, all of the people in Sarnia consider her as their friend.

The Premier mentioned how dedicated to her position she is. I want to share that view. I believe the Lieutenant Governor has gone to areas of this province where no other Lieutenant Governor has gone in many years. The wonder of her filling that office is the untiring effort that she puts into it. I just wanted to put on the record that the people of Sarnia, who know the Lieutenant Governor and her husband so well, are extremely pleased with her performance and are very proud of the fact that she had the opportunity to represent Her Majesty in this province.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Sarnia and Wellington South, in paying tribute to Her Honour. I had not intended to speak, but my colleague from Sarnia twitted my memory.

I would like simply to suggest that this past summer we had, in my constituency, a very pleasant visit from Her Honour to Algonquin Provincial Park. She was, I believe, the first Lieutenant Governor in the history of the province to have made such a visit. It was greatly appreciated, not only by the local member but also by the many people she visited in the small communities of Whitney and Madawaska, the YMCA camp at the park, as well as the ministry staff who are charged with the responsibility of operating that marvellous facility in the public interest.

I must say, as well, I am always interested to hear the member for York South talk about the disposition of Chorley Park. I too would be interested in some response to that ultimately, because I do believe that not only would it be appropriate for the functions to which that person is appointed but also, as the Premier commented in his remarks, the time is fast approaching when we ourselves may require all that this building offers in terms of physical space.

There is a great article in Ontario History that I might recommend to the honourable members who might be interested in the fate of Chorley Park. It’s a great journal which is timely for those buffs with an antiquarian interest in such matters.

The debate about Chorley Park and its fate was recounted to me not so very long ago by my grandfather, who happened to have been here when the then Premier and member for Elgin was in the process of trying to streamline government after long years of Progressive Conservative rule. In that particular connection, I think the Premier of the day did make a mistake and I certainly would be most interested in any proposal that might be brought forward to reinstate a vice-regal residence, not only for Her Honour but for the members of the assembly and the people of Ontario.

Again I want to thank the members for their comments. Certainly speaking for the people I represent, her activities as the vice-regal representative in this province have been much appreciated. She has, in fact, as the member for Sarnia said so well, made herself available on very short notice on many occasions to travel to the far corners of the province. In my particular constituency, her efforts in that connection have been greatly appreciated.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Prior to the conclusion of the debate, I would just like to join with the other honourable members to pay tribute to Her Honour. She has been in Simcoe East on many occasions and has always discharged the duties of her office, I’ve noticed, with a great deal of enthusiasm, and as has been said, untiring energy.

It seems to me she relates very well to groups and people of all ages. I can particularly recall when she came to Waubaushene to visit the public school, the class enacted a day in Parliament, the opening of a session. One of the pupils played the part of Her Honour. Her Honour sat through it and I’m sure she enjoyed it and was very enthusiastic about it.

I would also like to make mention of her interest in historic items pertaining to the province of Ontario and, I think, more particularly her support to the Simcoe Foundation and her interest in my private member’s bill honouring John Graves Simcoe.

An hon. Member: A little promo.

Mr. Martel: Oh, no.

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have always appreciated that, and I’m certain that she at some point in time --

Mr. McClellan: The first Tory.

Mr. G. E. Smith: -- would be very pleased to proclaim that bill and give it royal assent. I hope at some point in time I will have the pleasure of seeing her do that.

Mr. Martel: Never.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I too would like to rise in honour of the Lieutenant Governor and say thanks through you, Mr. Chairman, for Her Honour’s dedication to all the residents of Ontario. She has been in my riding in my short stay in the Legislature, I think four times. The people love her and she carries out her duties with distinction. I am always proud to have her come into my riding.

The constituents recognize her talent and the royalty she represents. I think a real tribute should be paid to her through your chair, sir, and it’s my pleasure to have this opportunity of doing so. With these few remarks, I’d just like to wish her well in her duties and may she carry them out for many years to come.

Mr. Acting Chairman: The member for Durham West.

Mr. McClellan: The Premier set this up.

Mr. Ashe: It’s indeed a pleasure to rise --

Mr. Conway: Have you lost your sight from reading that teleprompter last Saturday night?

Mr. Ashe: I’m still mesmerized by the movements. In any event, it’s indeed a pleasure to rise and add a few words to the support already indicated by the honourable members to the job that is being done on our behalf by Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor in this great province.

[11:30]

I might just say my experience over the last couple of years has shown that the Lieutenant Governor has great perception in the political ridings in and around Metropolitan Toronto. Having said that, I would go a step further and suggest that, apart from the area where she lives and this particular jurisdiction right here, she has been to the great riding of Durham West probably as many or more times than to any other political jurisdiction in and around Metropolitan Toronto.

She recognizes the potential of that great area immediately east of Metropolitan Toronto and, hopefully, recognizes that the local member, namely, myself, appreciates greatly any opportunities that he has to join with her at a particular function. Whether it be recognizing a particular institution, opening up a new museum or recognizing some local establishment or accomplishment, it is indeed a privilege and an honour when Her Honour does come to Durham West riding.

Most particularly, in my case, it does offer me an opportunity to be in Her Honour’s presence and to recognize her great qualities and her great abilities. She just shines in Durham West riding as she does in every place she appears.

With those brief remarks, I would conclude by saying how fortunate we are in this province to have a Lieutenant Governor with the great stature she has brought to that great office.

Vote 101 agreed to.

Mr. Acting Chairman: This completes discussion of the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 201, Office of the Premier program:

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, it is customary, which I assume would apply as well to the Office of the Premier and Cabinet Office, for ministers during estimates to give a resume of what the office is up to and to take some time in doing so, so that we can all discuss these estimates in a proper perspective.

Mr. Conway: It is painfully obvious what you are up to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, before the member for Renfrew North leaves for home -- and I know he wants to ask me some penetrating questions -- I will not make an opening statement of that kind so that we can get at the details of the estimates, except for one personal observation.

Over the past number of years there has always been somebody under :the gallery to assist me with the estimates, Mrs. Irene Beatty. Mrs. Beatty is not with us today because she is the president of the public service group that this evening will be celebrating, along with about 2,000 people, their 25 years of service within the government of this province. Mrs. Beatty is president of that particular organization this year.

I know it is not customary perhaps to pay tributes to public servants, but Mrs. Beatty has been with this government for 32 years. She has served Mr. Drew, Mr. Frost, Mr. Kennedy very briefly, Mr. Robarts and myself. I think that she is the only public servant in this province who has been that involved in the administration of the Premier’s office or with that number of Premiers in the history of this province.

I would just like to take this occasion, in that she is not with us because of her task for this evening, to pay a personal tribute to Mrs. Irene Beatty for her many years of dedicated service. She is the one who keeps everything in order in our office and deserves a great deal of credit because it is not very easy to do.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the way in which the Premier’s office is carried out, the main concern I have about that office is the incumbent.

Mr. MacDonald: Is that a personal remark?

Mr. S. Smith: I have been in politics now for only a brief four years, but I believe there is a very serious leadership problem in Ontario. Very frankly, I believe the conduct of the leadership of Ontario on the national scene with the issues of the day, and I might even say in this House, has brought us to a point where leadership is now very much in question.

Certainly my own feeling has been that the House has, under the leadership of the Premier, sometimes degenerated in a way that I have a lot of difficulty explaining to myself. When I think back to my previous days in medicine I often ask myself whether this was really what I imagined parliamentary practice was like. I also have talked to some of the school children from our area who sit in the galleries sometimes and they wonder the same thing.

I believe we have a very general problem and I place it at the doorstep of the occupant of the Premier’s office. I realize in so doing we might end up in a personal wrangle and I don’t really want that, but I have some comments I feel have to be made,

I have been sitting here day after day, this session and during the previous sessions, and I must say that every now and then, when I can sort of remove myself, in a way, just to become an observer, almost, to the very scene in which I am participating, I seriously have to ask myself how it is that we have got into a situation where those of us who are charged with the leadership of public affairs in the province of Ontario -- a very great province, a heavily populated, wealthy province, with a great future in my view -- how we seem so much of the time, to be wrangling on a personal level, to be insulting one another and not, in fact, occupying ourselves with what should be the major issues of the day.

It is interesting that the same problem exists when one stands back and looks at federal-provincial matters. I remember, because I wasn’t in politics then, when Mr. Robarts was the Premier. I remember that Ontario’s view was always regarded as very important. Even when I lived in Quebec -- and the Premier is fond of reminding me of my origins in Quebec; that’s fine, I’m very proud of those origins although I have chosen to live in Ontario and intend to be here for the rest of my life; I love Ontario -- however, I recall that the Premier of Ontario was always regarded by Quebecois as a very important force on the national scene. I remember an issue would not go by, if it dealt with the economy or the unity of the country, in which the opinion of the Premier of Ontario world not be made known in a very forceful and energetic manner to the citizens of Quebec.

I feel that has changed. Some of the change, I guess, was inevitable with the movement of wealth to the west of the country. Some of the change, I guess, was because of some political changes within Quebec itself, an inward looking attitude which has developed among some people in Quebec. I am hopeful that that will not break up the country. I personally believe that the country will survive that inward looking attitude and that we will find that most people in Quebec are good Canadians who want to remain part of this country.

But whatever the external reasons for Ontario’s lack of leadership in the national scene, I have to say that some of it, in my view, has to be placed at the door of the Premier. The present incumbent in the office has gone about his work in a very different way. We all have our personal styles, and it’s not a question of whether I like his style or dislike it or whether the Premier likes me or dislikes me; I don’t think that’s at issue, that is not at issue at all. Nonetheless, the actual style of carrying out the job has led to a decline in Ontario’s importance, in my view, and a decline in the importance of the Legislature generally.

If one looks at the individual issues -- and we don’t have time to go through them all, but I just want to touch on them -- I feel in any position of leadership one is faced with trying to figure out how far ahead of the population a leader should ever be. There are those who say a leader should actually be trailing behind the population; that seems to be a course for slowing down changes that occur and so on. There are those who say that proper leadership reflects what the population wants. There are those, and I guess I am among them, who feel that leaders have to be just a little ahead of the population, if they get too far ahead, I accept that the results can be pretty disastrous for all concerned, not only politically but for the population; but I also think there is a need for some leadership and that requires some courageous stands. It requires, occasionally, some stands which may be unpopular. I guess that’s where I fault the incumbent in the Premier’s job. Whether the people ever will it -- which may seem outrageous to some though it may seem likely to others -- whether the people ever will that I ever have that particular opportunity, and further whether I would be equal to the task is something that one has to wait to find out, but I do believe it’s fair game to speak of the way in which the job is being carried out at present.

On the national scene, I remember that Mr. Robarts had a great deal to say about constitutional matters. His voice was always primary among those who spoke on the subject of Canadian unity and on the relationships between the French and English communities in this country. I can tell you right now that if you ask them in Quebec who is the most popular English-speaking politician in Quebec, a great many people would still tell you John Robarts.

The Premier of Ontario now does not occupy that position of leadership or affection or great respect in Quebec.

That may be partly his fault; it may not be partly his fault. I believe it is partly his fault.

Whereas Mr. Robarts made a special point of always trying to understand the Quebec situation and made a special point of speaking on the relationship between the French and English communities, I feel that the present Premier has assessed the situation in Ontario somewhat differently, has assessed what I think he sincerely believes to be a dangerous propensity for backlash in Ontario. I think he sincerely believes that he serves Ontario well by playing it cool, and by not taking stands that would provide, for instance, the kind of bill that the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) presented in this Legislature.

It was an imperfect bill to be sure and maybe administratively it had many flaws, but we remember the veto and the way in which the veto was spoken. I have to feel that since the Premier has moved on things like French language in the courts, for instance, that the man is not, as a person, prejudiced. I do not believe he is; I honestly don’t believe that at all. I also believe that the man wants to see progress for the Franco-Ontarians.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It almost sounds paternalistic.

Mr. McClellan: You outdo him when you get up to speak.

Mr. S. Smith: I believe the Premier genuinely feels that somehow to put on paper a charter of rights or something of this kind for the Franco-Ontarians, to give them a somewhat different deal in their schooling and so on than is presently being outlined recently by his minister, could result in a backlash which would hurt the Franco-Ontarian community.

All I can say to that is he may be right or he may be wrong. My view is he’s wrong, but he could still be right. However, on the national scene, taking that view has caused an abdication on the part of Ontario of national leadership on the French-English matter, and on the constitutional matter to some extent. It’s my view that Ontario is not looked up to in Quebec in the way it used to be.

On other issues, if we take the current wrangle on oil prices, I think the Premier of Ontario was widely perceived as speaking up for Ontario consumers in this very difficult battle. I have some criticism of the way he did it and he has some criticism of my policy, but the point is I understand that he has been perceived as speaking out for Ontario.

However, I believe that there has been a lack of leadership there too. I say that very sincerely. I think it would have made more sense for the Premier to have called together some other Premiers from the producing provinces and tried to attain some degree of commonality, some common front where possible.

[11:45]

I recognize the problems he would run into with Mr. Levesque, for instance, who I think would not like to admit there’s anything good that Canada could ever do for Quebec.

Mr. Levesque’s white paper has gone through the history of federal-provincial relations in this country with a mind like a vacuum cleaner, picking up only the dirt and leaving all the substance behind. He has a litany of everything that is wrong, but none of the benefits of Confederation are mentioned in that white paper.

So he would have been a difficult one, but he could have been put on the spot, I feel, as the Premier of a consuming province. Quebeckers don’t like to pay for gasoline at $1.30 a gallon any more than Ontarians, and I think he --

Hon. Mr. Davis: They also, as you well know, are as jealous of the resources as the Premier of Alberta, something you totally ignore. See the reality. Face up to it.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier points out that in Quebec there is quite a feeling for resource ownership, and of course --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just as there is in Newfoundland.

Mr. S. Smith: Indeed, especially now that they think they have some that feeling has increased enormously.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can laugh and chuckle about it, but it is a fact.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course it is a fact that there are these feelings --

Mr. McClellan: If you really cared about it you would find some oil in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: -- but I still believe that the consuming provinces could have been brought together and that they could have achieved a greater degree of leadership. The Premier clearly disagrees and that’s why he didn’t do it; all right, that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Look at the history of it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The provinces have for years agreed with our position. And we’ve been together many times.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier is entitled to say that he is doing it the right way, and I am entitled to say that he is doing it the wrong way. I will certainly listen to him with interest, as I always do when he speaks, and I have been in the House every time he has made a major address; a courtesy which hasn’t always been returned to me, but I will listen to him. However, I say to you, that just as it is his right to say he is doing it the right way, it is my right to say he is doing it the wrong way.

Mr. Martel: He was playing tennis one day when you spoke.

Mr. S. Smith: I think he could have called together the consuming provinces. I feel that the document he issued, for instance, was a strategic error. I think it would have been better to have a very clear position as to how much of an increase Ontario could tolerate in the economy; what the damage would be and any other circumstances; and a very clear position on how that money was to be raised. But all right, he chose to do it differently. There are many who agree with him. All I can say is I think it should have been done differently.

Most important, however, I believe the Premier has failed to carry much weight on the national scene so far. We hope he will succeed, but so far he doesn’t appear to be doing so. He has failed to carry much weight on the national scene because he has provided no alternatives.

One thing that has to be said for Mr. Lougheed’s argument is it is true that an increase in price does promote some conservation -- I suspect not as much as Mr. Lougheed suggests -- and of course it does make renewables look an awful lot better, and consequently it speeds the production of substitutes for oil. I don’t think anybody would deny there is some validity in that argument.

But the Premier has called for the price to remain low without making very plain how it is that Ontario would achieve conservation and substitution in the absence of the price signal, and I think that is a problem.

When I tried to put the Ontario argument out west -- and it may be that I am not as persuasive as the Premier -- I found that I was pretty well hit with the usual responses: “You have had an advantage for a long time and you haven’t used it very well” -- I will have something to say about that when I discuss manufacturing -- “You have no program for conservation,” and “You have no program for renewables.”

The Premier will remember his famous statement about the government having no role in the attics of the nation, an amusing statement to be sure and many of us laughed, but the laughter is a little more hollow as the years go by and we realize that a good mandatory insulation program might have been a very great aid to the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is an insulation program right now.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: There are other fields, for example the field of education. We have strife in the schools. I presented a viewpoint, admittedly different from what the viewpoint was five years ago --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You were going to present a bill.

Mr. S. Smith: -- in which I have called for an end to teacher strikes and lockouts and a replacement of that by an arbitration mechanism. People, in good faith may disagree with that. If the Premier wishes to say these strikes and lockouts, regrettable as they may be, in his view are still better than the previous system and that my system is no good, then he is free to do so. But interestingly he has not done so. Instead he has said, “We’ll just have to keep studying the matter;” and so on and so forth.

This has become a technique in Ontario, as in all governments. It’s not a political technique used just by this government, but it is somewhat overused by this government. Whenever there’s a touchy issue whenever there’s a difficult and thorny issue it’s relegated to a royal commission of some kind. I believe that although that’s a clever tactic -- and these folks would not have been in power for 36 years if they were not politically clever, they most certainly are -- little by little it erodes that indescribable sense of what leadership is about.

Once in a while I think it’s important to say: “Look, this is wrong. This has to be set right and we’re going to do it and this is the date we’re going to do it. If we need some more facts we’ll get some people to study as rapidly as possible, but we feel basically that something is wrong or something is right.” The business of taking every issue as it arises -- freedom of information, the impact of declining enrolment -- and setting up a royal commission to study it I feel has taken away from leadership. People would have more respect for the incumbent’s leadership qualities if he would say yes or no on certain issues rather than always playing the political role of setting up royal commissions.

Let’s look at the question of industry. The manufacturing sector in this country has been in serious decline, and Ontario, of course, suffers as a consequence of that. It’s evident to me that only by the revitalization of manufacturing can the Ontario economy improve; otherwise we’re doomed to a downward spiral.

Yet we see the key issues in manufacturing have to do with the foreign ownership of most of our manufacturing industries; because the Canadian-owned industries are doing quite well, but the foreign-owned industries, the branch plants, are a very serious drain on this country.

We see absolutely no willingness on the part of the provincial government to deal with the fundamental question of the foreign ownership of industry in Ontario. There’s no willingness to come to grips with that whatsoever. Until that’s done the drain of billions of dollars out of this country in dividends, profits and service charges will continue. The unwillingness of the various companies to compete on a worldwide scale, that will continue.

In the absence of a proper procurement policy, in the absence of a proper policy of demanding a code of corporate behaviour from the foreign-owned companies, nothing is going to happen. Yet the Premier continues to give the indication, as he goes around the world on his trips and so on, that we are a province that needs foreign investment, that we have to have money brought in if we’re to have technology, that we’re somehow technology poor and capital poor and we need more foreign ownership rather than less.

That abdication of responsibility --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not what we said.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier says that’s not what he has said. I haven’t bothered to bring with me all the quotations. If the Premier says we don’t need foreign ownership and foreign capital, then that's very different and I’ll accept being corrected.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We didn’t say that at all.

Mr. S. Smith: But he has given the impression that he believes that Ontario requires foreign ownership -- that is, foreign investment. All right, I believe that we do not require --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some people who would say there is a distinction.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes indeed, there is a distinction.

I do not believe Ontario requires foreign investment; I state that plainly. I say that most of the foreign holdings in Ontario today, upon which we have huge service charges leaving the country, giving us a chronic balance of payments deficit -- because of which we cannot now have an independent economic policy it would appear -- most of that balance of payments deficit is based on foreign assets in this country, financed by Ontario capital.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you opposed to GM’s investment?

Mr. S Smith: I am opposed to the notion that we have to have foreign capital coming in from elsewhere. GM of Canada is perfectly able to invest from its profits in Canada. The auto pact is one of those areas in which the Premier knows full well we have thrown in the towel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That doesn’t make sense.

Mr. S. Smith: We have no choice but to have a North American auto industry, as far as that goes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So you are not opposed to --

Mr. S. Smith: Because we have already accepted that we are not going to have the great difficulties here of the lower wages, the more expensive automobiles and so on, that would have been required to have a Canadian auto industry. Frankly, I think in the long run we would have been better off if we had bitten the bullet and had a Canadian auto industry. But that is one of the industries where we have pretty well given up and it would be difficult to start today to build a Canadian industry.

I say to the Premier he should consider that most of the dividends and interest payments and so on, that leave this country -- the service charges, the charges for patents, et cetera -- are leaving based on American or other foreign assets in this country, the purchase of which were financed by Canadian capital: not by foreign capital at all but by foreign guarantees upon which Canadian lending institutions loaned money to allow Canada to sell out its economy in this way.

I say it not to get sidetracked at great length onto this matter, but the Premier has continued to give the impression that we are technology poor and that we have no choice but to invite foreign companies to set up branches in this country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not true.

Mr. S. Smith: He will have his chance to say it’s not true. I believe that has been the impression given and that he has not dealt with the matter of foreign ownership.

In the matter of interest rates in the economy, Ontario, as a manufacturing centre, will be very badly hit by high interest rates. Our small businesses, upon which I think we have to depend if we are ever to get out of foreign domination, our small businesses that have potential to grow are the ones that are hit worst; and of course our farming communities are hit very badly.

Reasonable people can differ on the question of high interest rates. I have heard it argued, as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has heard it argued by some, that we should have an independent policy because our inflation is not as bad as the Americans, that we don’t have to be in lock-step or near lock-step with them. I have heard others argue that we have no choice, with such a chronic drain on our balance of payments, but to be in lock-step with the Americans.

Reasonable people can argue on that matter. I tell you I believe we should have an independent policy with lower interest rates, even if the dollar falls a few cents.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How many cents?

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t have to predict that. The fact is, it wouldn’t fall as far --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course you do.

Mr. S. Smith: How many cents does the Premier think the dollar is going to fall if we have slightly lower interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t have to make that prediction either.

Mr. S. Smith: Well you do, unfortunately. You see that is just the point, Mr. Chairman, that I have concluded over the years, watching this Premier. He will fail to take a stand on issues if he feels that somehow it might lose him some popularity or some votes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now listen, you should be very careful, very careful on that sort of line; you leave yourself wide open; you really do.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is when Mr. McKeough was the Treasurer of this province, the federal government always knew where Mr. McKeough stood on matters of sales tax, revenue sharing, federal deficits, the various means of transferring tax points -- on any federal policy, be it to do with interest rates, taxation policy or anything else. The federal government always wanted to know where Mr. McKeough stood, because they regarded him in some ways as the top financial man in this country, and at the very least as the number two financial man in this country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are finally recognizing his abilities. The things you used to say about the former Treasurer.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is that Ontario was always regarded as being the leading province on money matters in this country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But not always accepted.

Mr. Conway: It sounds like Pierre Trudeau talking about John Turner.

[12:00]

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is, as in so many other matters -- federal-provincial matters, energy matters, French-English matters, educational matters, industrial strategy -- in the question of economic policy, Ontario used to be regarded as a leader. It would never have happened in previous years, that a Treasurer of Ontario would go to meet with his federal counterpart without having an Ontario position to put before him on a fundamental issue of the day, which is, in fact, hurting the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are quite wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: I find it absolutely incomprehensible that the present Treasurer of Ontario and the present Premier cannot come out and say either they regrettably find it necessary to support the federal interest rate policy or they feel there is a better interest rate policy which should be found. To refuse to state a position may be clever politically -- and I’m not saying it isn’t a smart move in Ontario politics -- but I will say this --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t be so cynical.

Mr. S. Smith: In the federal-provincial halls in this country, when you talk to the reporters in Ottawa, when you talk to some of the civil servants in Ottawa, they are quite dismayed at the extent to which Ontario has now abdicated what used to be a leadership role in economic matters. A good example of that is the degree to which you don’t even have a position on the fundamental economic issue of the day, which is whether or not we should be going to high interest rates, following the American lead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t like it.

Mr. S. Smith: The question is not whether anybody likes it; nobody likes it. Even Gerald Bouey doesn’t like it. The question is whether Ontario has a policy on the major economic issues of the day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The fact of the matter is the interest rate is determined by the Bank of Canada. You know that.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is the interest rates are determined by the policy of the federal government in conjunction with the Bank of Canada.

Mr. Haggerty: Right.

Mr. S. Smith: That is well known. The Premier should know it. The opinion of the province of Ontario on economic policy must be made known to the people, but the Premier chooses not to. Let’s not labour the issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re very vulnerable, but go ahead.

Mr. S. Smith: The other day, I asked a question about whether the matter of Alberta’s view of what ownership means in terms of resources is something which should go to the Supreme Court. I suggested it should. The Premier had an opportunity at that point to say it shouldn’t and to give the reasons why he felt my idea was wrong. Obviously, I thought my idea to be correct, or I would not have put it forward, but it’s possible the idea could be wrong.

It’s possible the Premier of Ontario may have arguments to make, perhaps even cogent arguments, as to why taking the matter to court at this time would not be a good thing to do, but he didn’t make those arguments, and consequently he’s left me somewhat puzzled. I hope he will clarify this particular matter today.

Alberta seems to take the view it owns the resources and consequently, can set the price of those resources in interprovincial trade. There is a federal statute which says the federal government can set that price in the absence of an agreement with Alberta. I guess Alberta feels that federal statute is unconstitutional and in fact, Alberta has the right to set the price because that’s part of what ownership means. That’s how Alberta, I would imagine, sees the situation.

It would appear from the potash rulings of the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court tends to feel as I do. You don’t have a country, when you have provinces able to set the price of commodities for interprovincial trade, and you no longer have free trade. That goes to the heart of the very question of what federalism means.

I would personally believe the constitution speaks very clearly on this matter, and the decision on the potash ruling by the Supreme Court --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You want a confrontation in the courts. I don’t think we should at this time.

Mr. S. Smith: -- makes that very clear.

However, when the Premier answered my question the other day, what he said, in addition to a number of adjectives describing my character, intelligence, maturity and everything else, was he believes this country requires, to settle this matter, a new constitution or a reform of the existing constitution.

I don’t understand what he meant by that. When we’re discussing the question of whether Alberta is allowed to price its own resources outside the province, why does the Premier feel that kind of question requires a reform of the constitution? It’s my view that the constitution presently is very clear on the matter, and that the Supreme Court has been equally clear on the matter. I would assume that Alberta does not have a case, and the Premier agrees that Alberta does not have a case. Why, then, does he feel we need a new constitution to settle the matter?

If the Premier feels Alberta does have a case, and could successfully argue that it has the right to price its resource interprovincially, then I wish he would say that, because it puts a very different complexion on the way in which he’s going about doing his bargaining with the federal government and with Alberta. If he believes in his heart that, in the last analysis, Premier Lougheed could set the price interprovincially, then I would begin to understand why he might be taking certain conciliatory postures and issuing documents about $5 increases, and so on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on now. Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition has tried to present his discussion in a reasoned sort of way. I have my observations on what he is attempting to do.

Mr. S. Smith: What is this, a point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a point of privilege because the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting implicitly in what he is saying that we support a $5 price increase --

Mr. S. Smith: Absolutely not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which he has said in many places around this province.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a point of privilege on the Premier’s point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition has said so.

Mr. S. Smith: I have never said so. I want to be clear on this, because this is one of the points of personal animosity between the Premier and me, and we’d better get it straight.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t have any.

Mr. S. Smith: I have said that the Premier came up with a document which said he didn’t want any increase in price --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not right either.

Mr. S. Smith: -- beyond the $1 in January.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not correct either.

Mr. S. Smith: But that if there were to be an increase in price it would have to be divided up differently, so the first $2 would be divided the old way and then any further increases be divided a new way. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, that isn’t quite right. The Leader of the Opposition tries to oversimplify it.

Mr. S. Smith: Tell me what the document said?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not going to get into it, because while the member may feel some personal animosity I have never let that sort of feeling enter into my --

Mr. S. Smith: No, of course not. The Premier is above all that. I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no, I’m not above it; I just don’t feel that way.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Sympathy, pity and some other things, but animosity, no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would make this point, if the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he hasn’t said to other groups in this province that we have accepted, or we support, or by inference at least, suggested we are prepared for a $5 increase then I will be delighted to hear this. But I have a lot of press clippings where, in fact --

Mr. S. Smith: They’re all from Claire Hoy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. I have others.

Mr. S. Smith: Then the Premier should get them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the Leader of the Opposition never said those things I’ll be the first one to say hallelujah, or anything he wants me to say.

Mr. S. Smith: On the point of privilege, I want to be fair on this, because it would be nice to have it settled, and there is another matter to be settled, which is the Premier’s speech saying that I was for world price. Let’s deal with the $5 one first of all.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member was always for it. He was always in support of the federal position.

Mr. Cunningham: Be polite, Bette.

Mr. S. Smith: On the $5 issue, I have stated that the Premier issued a document which stated that he wanted virtually no increase except the $1, or whatever, but then went on to say that if there was to be a greater increase it would have to be divided up differently, and that most of the examples given in the document --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now the Leader of the Opposition is getting close.

Mr. S. Smith: -- have to do with how the $5 increase should be divided up. I’ve said in this House very plainly -- and I wish the Premier would get out my speech on that -- that that was a poor strategy. Mr. Clark would take that document and say to his cabinet colleagues, Mr. Davis says he wants virtually no increase, or $1, or whatever, but he has issued a document saying that if the increase was $5 it would have to be divided up differently.”

I say that the implication taken from that by any reasonable person reading it is not that the Premier is adamant that it must only be $1 but that he would settle for a larger increase provided it was divided up differently.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t settle.

Mr. S. Smith: All right, the Premier may say he doesn’t settle, and I believe him, but what I’m saying to him --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is making progress.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and I’ve never refused him of wanting a $5 increase -- but what I’m saying to him is this, I am saying that his document practically ends up creating the impression that a $5 increase would be acceptable if it were divided up differently. That is, in fact, what your document shows. That is how it will be taken.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It certainly isn’t how the Premier of Alberta is taking it or how the Prime Minister of Canada is taking it.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s my view that anybody reading that document will take it that way. We’ll see when the price goes up how they’ve taken it. Then we’ll know how they’ve taken it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Who said the price was going up? You’re the guy who wants world price.

Mr. S. Smith: This interjection by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations brings up the questions of the matter of world price.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I heard you say it in here.

Mr. S. Smith: I defy the minister to get the Hansard and produce that. What I have said plainly -- and if the minister is interested in knowing my position I’ll tell it to him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am.

Mr. Ashe: That’s the November 2 one.

Mr. S. Smith: It would be useful if we could in some way clear the air on this, but if you don’t want to, if you’d rather just keep spreading distortions, you’ll carry on anyway, I suppose.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Talk about spreading distortions.

Mr. S. Smith: The position was this in 1976, which is the one you’re talking about --

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought that you said -- oh, never mind.

Mr. S. Smith: I see, the Premier’s allowed to stand up and correct what he thinks are my distortions, I’m not allowed to correct the minister’s distortions.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m not distorting anything. Why don’t you say it?

Mr. S. Smith: Are you interested? Okay, I assume the minister is. What I said at that point -- and I have re-issued the statement so it’s there, The statement was that we would be running out of the cheap oil, the western sedimentary basin oil in a number of years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In a short period.

Mr. S. Smith: I said at the time that I thought it would be a relatively short period, that’s correct. I said, in fact, that it was necessary therefore -- you’ll remember at that time the government of Ontario was arguing that there should be no increase in the price of oil whatever. All right?

The government of Ontario was arguing that there should be no increase whatever in the price of oil -- at that time. I was saying at the time that there had to be some increase in the price of oil because ultimately, when we run out of the cheap oil, we would have no choice but to import the expensive oil. I made the assumption that we would then have to pay world price because naturally, if you’re importing it, you have to pay the world price. I said therefore, to avoid a drastic dislocation, we must move our prices up towards the world price because ultimately, when our cheap oil runs out, we’ll have no choice but to buy the expensive oil.

I made one assumption at that time which was reasonable in 1976 -- it may still be reasonable today -- that the Canadian supply -- apart from the western sedimentary basin, the oil sands of Alberta, for instance, or the frontier oil from the Beaufort Sea which they were just exploring for at the time -- when it came on stream would come on also at world price.

You’ll remember that in 1976 the tar sands were slated then to come in above what was world price, if you’ll recall. I also made the assumption that world price would be likely to track, itself, the substitute price. In other words, once shale-oil, for instance, was available in large quantities, whatever it would cost, the world --

Hon. Mr. Davis: World price is above that of Syncrude.

Mr. S. Smith: Now it is, but it wasn’t then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But it was anticipated it would be.

Mr. S. Smith: You say it was anticipated. It wasn’t at the time. The assumption was going to be, at the time, that world price would be the likely price of Syncrude oil which was above world price at the time; similarly it was widely accepted at the time that we were going to have to pay something like world price for new oil. In fact, even your blended price proposal said that. Okay? That’s what the point was.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There were three.

Mr. S. Smith: Today I recognize it’s possible that frontier oil may be cheaper and Syncrude oil may be cheaper. We must therefore speak of replacement price. I understand that. Either way, it’s going to be more expensive than the western sedimentary basin, and that’s why there has to be some gradual increase in price. That’s what I’ve been saying.

I have never said world price should be here in Ontario unless it had to be paid because we had no more cheap reserves. That’s very clear from those statements and I invite the minister to go back and check that. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding, let’s get it cleared up.

To get back to the question I wanted to raise, the more important one on the constitution, why is it the Premier would say we need a new constitution to settle this question of who can price interprovincial --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t say that.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier says he didn't say we need a new constitution. I am just trying to find what he said. Here he said: “I would make this observation to him as well. One could maybe get a determination from the Supreme Court on this issue, but that isn’t going to put the issue to bed. This is one of the concerns expressed by other first ministers ... because the Supreme Court may or may not make a ruling.

“I happen to be one of those in this country who thinks ... the long-term solution has to be by way of some constitutional change.”

Interjection.

Mr. S. Smith: Give me one sentence and I will listen to the Premier. I appreciate there has to be some long-term change in terms of clarifying who owns resources because there are some provinces that feel their constitution’s should be changed to give them more ownership, and there are some that feel maybe there should be less ownership. The question I was asking had to do with the pricing of interprovincial resources. I don’t understand why the Premier felt we have to have that wait for a new constitution.

I hope the Premier feels, as I do, that Premier Lougheed does not have a case on his present ability to price interprovincial resources. I will let the Premier answer that. I just want to conclude my remarks as soon as he has answered that point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make a note of it.

Mr. S. Smith: All right, if you would prefer to make a note, that’s fine. That will be very acceptable.

In summary, I believe Ontario has lost its leadership in economic matters in this country. It has lost its leadership in constitutional matters in this country. In general terms it has lost its leadership in taking strong positions and bringing in new legislation. My heavens, there has hardly been a new initiative in the last two years that I can think of. There is occupational health, but it hasn’t even been proclaimed. Then today we have had the insurance bill, which I welcome, but that is the first thing we have seen in about two years. In fact, the leadership of this province, in my view, has been very seriously lacking.

Somehow it is epitomized, if I may use that word, by the performance of the Premier in question period. I realize some of his style is political. He is very good at trying to pick up interjections and respond to those and I think he does his thinking while he is doing that. It assists him.

It is a good technique, there is no question about it. If we are dumb enough to keep giving him interjections to respond to, I guess we deserve everything that is coming to us because when we don’t interject and he has to answer the question, then in those situations we realize how empty his leadership is at the moment.

However, apart from these stylistic things, and apart from the fact we are all political from time to time, I truly believe in the last several days the Premier has gone to the point where there is almost no substance in the answer, but lots of personal invective and personal remarks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are too sensitive.

Mr. S. Smith: I may be sensitive, but I have only come to politics in the last four years. I believe the level of debate in this House can be raised somewhat above what it has been in question period in particular. Frankly, I think there is too much emphasis on question period. I would welcome a chance for the Premier, the leader of the New Democratic Party, myself and others actually to debate issues thoroughly in a respectable and respectful manner. I really would.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Hear, hear.

Mr. S. Smith: We are stuck with this question period format. The media seems to be built around it for some reason and it becomes sort of the place where we play out the issues. We have it and we are not going to change it immediately. Let’s face it. We are stuck with it. I believe we ought to use that format, and I say with great sincerity that we ought to use that format to try to deal with the substance of the questions and the answers. The questions are sometimes very political and the answers are sometimes very political. I understand that.

If the Premier would take time to read Hansard of this last week, I do believe we have reached a new low in the sense we are having personal comments substituted for real policy. Unfortunately, not only is the Premier doing this, but some of his ministers are copying him. This morning was a perfect example with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and yesterday we had the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry).

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is nothing improper with what he did this morning.

Mr. S. Smith: It is not a question of impropriety I say to the Premier, with respect. It is a question of substituting personal attacks for policy questions and answers. I think we’d all be a lot better off if we’d see more leadership in this House on the subject of trying to answer questions factually. If the question is clearly political and has no substance in it worthy of response, then the questioner can be shown up as having asked that kind of empty question and it will be obvious to all concerned. But it would be shown up better by the Premier or some minister saying there is no substance in the question, rather than by ignoring the substance in the question and making personal attacks.

It’s not that I can’t take personal attacks. Believe me I can. I can think of better ways to spend my time, but if it is part of the job I can take personal attacks. I don’t believe, however, the people are being well served by the Leader of the Opposition having to stand day after day to ask questions -- which may be good or may be poor questions -- and not have them answered. I think a good many of them are good questions; a good many of them are less than that. But I believe they deserve substantive answers and I do not believe that the process is improved by a Premier who resorts to personal attacks as a substitute for answers. I think that unfortunately his ministers, who aren’t even as good at it as he is, are making crude attempts to copy that style. The Premier is setting the pace and they are following it.

I would say in summary: I believe that in the House; on energy matters; in terms of having a conservation policy; in having an industrial strategy; in French-English relations; in constitutional matters; in economic points such as the interest rates in the country; on the educational system; on many of the issues of the day and on the style of the day; the incumbent in the Premier’s office is not conducting himself in a way which makes Ontario the leader it should be in Canadian affairs, nor the Legislature the leader it should be in Ontario affairs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would like to reply to some of these points but I won’t take too long this morning. I will just read one thing from a communiqué to give a little bit of perspective: “Finally if he had known Mr. Clark’s intentions, why then are we being treated to the charade of Mr. Davis’ so-called fight ...” These are the honourable member’s words.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: “ -- with Mr. Clark and Mr. Lougheed on the whole oil price issue? Is this not dishonesty in the starkest form?” That’s hardly the non-provocative type --

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege. The first sentence was, “If he knew what Mr. Clark’s policy was.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: By implication the honourable member is suggesting that I did.

Mr. S. Smith: No, I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.

Mr. S. Smith: Read the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I have been here a number of years. I know the Leader of the Opposition these days feels frustrated and perhaps overly sensitive. I try to treat these things with a little bit of good humour. I don’t think the last five or six days, from my perspective, have been any more provocative, or less so, than a year ago or five years ago. Heavens above, I was in this House when the member for Sudbury was Elmer Sopha. If the honourable member thinks we on this side are provocative, he used to realign the whole government, the cabinet, the Prime Minister. The only one who was exempt from that honourable member’s observations was his own leader.

I could resort to the same sort of thing in terms of what it was like when the honourable member’s predecessor was there. We tease a bit about it. I don’t mind the Leader of the Opposition saying the Honourable Mr. Robarts was better liked in the province of Quebec. I don’t know how he analyzed this; it doesn’t disturb me at all. It doesn’t disturb me that he feels that Darcy McKeough, now he has left, was a greater Treasurer than our present Treasurer. That’s the oldest ploy in the game, and the simplest thing to say. But he should please remember what the honourable member used to say about Darcy when he was here; what he said more importantly outside the House than inside the House.

When I read a statement such as this -- because he is not an unintelligent person; I have never quarrelled with one’s intellectual capacity -- but when he issues a release -- and he did make speeches around the province -- and it implicitly identifies $5 as the basis for his proposals to the federal and Alberta government -- The honourable member can read that any way he wants.

I have got to tell you how the average person reads that, how the average person reads the press reports. There was an indication on your part -- I am only going to deal with this one issue, because I don’t want the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) not to have his chance, and I will deal with this at greater length on Monday -- that there was no question in the minds of a lot of people that you were suggesting the government of this province was in some way or other tied to a $5 price increase. I have to tell you that’s a perception that is not my own alone. It’s a perception held by many people, including those people who objectively report the activities of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I have had my leadership capacities questioned. They are questioned every day of the week. They have been for eight and a half years. Well, it is going on closer to nine years, and I expect they will for the next X number of years. I don’t doubt that. It’s one of the easiest things to do. It’s simple. It’s simplistic.

I notice when all of the MPPs were polled as to what are the basic issues in this session, out of the 36 who replied from all sides of the House, leadership was an issue with one person and that is the member for Hamilton West. I just ask myself if, when he attacks my leadership, and I don’t take it personally and I hope he doesn’t take anything I say personally and he would know more about these things than I do, it is a sort of internal problem or his own insecurity, perhaps in terms of leadership, which has to manifest itself by being critical of mine in such a personal way.

You are far more knowledgeable on how people’s minds work than I am, but I think you would understand that when you take this sort of approach -- I don’t disagree with your doing it; that’s your right; that’s your privilege -- I have to ask myself is there a certain basic insecurity in terms of your doing it in this fashion. I don’t know. As I say, you could answer that better than myself.

I think one has to look at some of these issues you have raised. I am not sensitive, once again, in terms of the constitutional debates. The Leader of the Opposition may not recall this, but I was somewhat associated with these discussions during the 1960s. I give every credit to my predecessor for the initiatives he took. The reality is the first real opportunity for constitutional reform took place at the conference in 1971. That was the first opportunity and I am one of those who regrets, and the Leader of the Opposition I guess can blame me, the former Premier of Quebec didn’t sell that package to the people of his province.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, we were somewhat instrumental, I am a modest person and it is very difficult for me to stand up here and extol my virtues and I don’t intend to. That’s not my way, nor do I want to be overly critical of the Leader of the Opposition because I know of his sensitivities.

I would also point out things have changed. We have a new government in the province of Quebec. Perhaps he won’t recall that on the question of language the former Minister of Education was very directly responsible for the introduction of the bill that provided French-language secondary school services to the young people of this province. He might read some of those debates, some of the discussions leading up to the introduction of that legislation.

Mr. S. Smith: I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is fair to state, Mr. Chairman, with some of the things I have said in the past two years, I don’t doubt for a moment there are some people in Quebec who don’t agree with me, who are less than enthusiastic about what I say, except for those who happen to be federalists. I do get some encouragement to keep restating that sovereignty-association is not acceptable to the people of this province.

I receive a great deal of encouragement. I receive some thanks in terms of my visits to the province to say this. It’s not the easiest thing for a person to do.

Mr. S. Smith: What’s difficult about that?

[12:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, all right, I am just saying you have your perspectives, I have mine, I think that what we are attempting to do, in what is a very different situation from 1971, is the right route that should be taken. I think we were the first government -- I won’t put it on a personal basis -- that rejected the concept of sovereignty-association. I don’t think there was another Premier who pre-empted this sort of position. I think you will find Ontario was the first on the record.

I think if you go back a short period of time, you will find that, at the last meeting on the constitution, Ontario probably provided more initiatives in terms of trying to reach a solution, than any other province of Canada. Quite frankly, Ontario was prepared to assist the former government of this country in a way that other provincial jurisdictions weren’t prepared to accept. In fact, it was not preconceived in terms of patriation.

But this province, in order to unlock the debate that was going on, perhaps not with the same flair the Leader of the Opposition might have done it -- no trumpets, et cetera -- but it was clearly understood by everybody at the conference. It was well received by those who agreed with what was attempted; that our decision to say, “Let’s have patriation if we can’t get agreement,” I think had a degree of impact. If the constitutional conferences had continued -- we had a federal election that intervened and the process now has to be restructured in some fashion. I can’t really tell the Leader of the Opposition just how this is going to be done. I don’t know.

As I say, without being immodest, I really question whether one can say in today’s climate, in today’s environment, that Ontario in the field of constitutional chance was supportive of the concept in terms of the things that we would like to have seen. The accommodations that we were prepared to make were very definitively stated, but this is where the Leader of the Opposition perhaps doesn’t quite understand.

In 1971, when we came so very close, the provinces had agreed. We had agreed on an amending formula; we had agreed on patriation; we had agreed on distribution of powers; we had agreed on the supreme court. I guess there was no outstanding issue at that time where there wasn’t agreement.

Mr. S. Smith: I understand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine. Then please understand that the position of some of the provinces in that intervening period of time has altered and altered substantially.

What were the things that were delaying any progress in terms of constitutional reform? I will tell you very simply: this position of one or two provinces who now insist that there be total unanimity with respect to an amending formula.

The Leader of the Opposition might say, “Why doesn’t Ontario give some leadership; accept that proposal?” I can’t accept that proposal in conscience. A lot of the provinces were prepared to make resource very clearly a total provincial responsibility. I guess one could demonstrate leadership by saying, “Sure. This will bring happiness, it will bring a consensus.” I don’t happen to agree with it, and I said that. It is one of the reasons a consensus was not reached for unanimity on that issue.

I think it is important as we relate it -- and I will get around to pricing and these other issues that you raise, where you say there is a lack of direction or leadership. It comes down to the very crucial consideration, as well, as to whether the provincial governments, and the government of Canada, at this precise moment can in any real sense move ahead with constitutional reform or discussions, knowing full well that one of the participants, or one of the important participants, might not even participate in such a conference at this moment. I think that has to be weighed. It has to be weighed very carefully.

I really can’t quite understand why the last five or six days have upset the Leader of the Opposition. I don’t pretend --

Mr. S. Smith: I am not upset.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. You were obviously upset. You were suggesting that there have been personal attacks.

Mr. S. Smith: I am disappointed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. If you are disappointed, I can share some disappointments. Because you read your questions, read your speeches. It’s fine to come in here and take --

Mr. S. Smith: You read your answers and read your speeches.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, sure. So I acknowledge --

Mr. S. Smith: Read your speeches.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, my speeches are in terms of portraying in a personal sense. They don’t match yours. They don’t come close.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes. The ones saying that --

Hon. Mr. Davis: They don’t come close.

Mr. S. Smith: -- you have a disagreement with Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Smith, who both want world price immediately. That was totally wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is our perception.

Mr. S. Smith: Totally wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will tell you, there are a lot of people who will argue that.

Mr. S. Smith: Totally wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, ask some of those who are totally objective. There are a lot of people who will argue that. I have some friends in Midland, they were there to hear the member speak.

Mr. S. Smith: How about the one Hugh Segal wrote for you in southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no, that’s not correct. The member was up at the Midland Rotary Club -- a very nonpartisan group. We all go to Rotary clubs to deliver, shall we say, explanations of our own approaches. I have a few friends at Midland Rotary Club. They’re nice people. Most of them are Tories, I confess that to the member.

Mr. S. Smith: That was before my speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Afterwards, those who weren’t before, they are now. I want to tell you that. No, I can’t say that. I think only 95 per cent of those who were Liberal became Tories after the member’s address. I know what their perception is as to the member’s approach and what he was suggesting was our approach in terms of energy. It’s not too different from the perception that I have.

Mr. Chairman, if we’ve upset the Leader of the Opposition in the give and take of the question period, I don’t determine the questions and I don’t determine the preambles. There seems to be a feeling on the part of the Leader of the Opposition that we can have a preamble that is sometimes quite provocative, a preamble that quite often states a point of view, and then he expects to get question back with a yes or no answer. He expects to get ministers or myself on this side of the House not to defend or to seize the opportunity to point out inconsistencies.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to alter the question period, if he wants to do away with preambles, if he wants to ask precise questions that don’t reflect any political bias, et cetera -- which I think would be unfortunate -- then we would be quite prepared, if we could, to give a straight yes or no answer. Please, when the member reads my answers -- and I don’t read my answers, because when I read the Instant Hansard and see the number of dangling participles and split infinitives it really distresses me.

Mr. S. Smith: You should really read this week’s, I would really suggest it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Read some of your questions, and don’t confine it to this week. I stand here and I sit here and on occasion I listen to some very sarcastic observations on the member’s part, and in terms of the personal approach to some ministers and what he says about them, please don’t expect us to sit here and not react in reply. There’s an old saying, it was Truman: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Mr. S. Smith: I’m enjoying it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right then.

Mr. S. Smith: You people are touchy lately.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not touchy. He’s the one who, three quarters of an hour ago, said he was touchy, that he wasn’t enjoying it and that he didn’t like it. I haven’t said this. If the member is now saying that he, in fact, doesn’t object to what has been going on in the question period than I accept it. However, I think that really is an issue that is not worthy of debate.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s only because you’re touchy and we’re getting to you that you’re resorting to insults.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is, the reason he is concerned at the moment is because he knows he’s not making very much headway and that bothers him.

Listen, we all have egos. No person in political life is without an ego. But there are some who have much larger egos then others -- much larger. I won’t even identify those who I think have much larger ones.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think this is getting more and more personal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member for York South is correct. I will soon be provoked into saying who I think has a tremendous ego, but I won’t. Let’s deal with the question that was raised as to whether or not we should have a reference to the Supreme Court. I think it was premature and immature. Is that offensive?

Mr. Martel: How long are you going to be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was three quarters of an hour. I’ve only been 25 minutes.

Mr. Martel: I just want to be assured you won’t quit before Monday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have five hours scheduled and I assume we’re going all Monday afternoon and part of Monday night.

Mr. Martel: I will be here Monday then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’ll be here Monday? I may finish any minute.

Mr. Martel: No, no, keep it going.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I may not be able to keep it going.

Let’s deal with the member’s -- not suggestion, but why haven’t I the courage to take a reference to the courts. It’s not a question of having courage to take it to the Supreme Court.

Mr. S. Smith: I’ve never said it took courage to go to court. You’re making up your own words and then refuting them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am just trying to point out to you there is a great deal of complexity to this issue.

Mr. S. Smith: I never used the word “courage.”

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think in an interjection you did. But that doesn’t matter.

Mr. S. Smith: No. I was encouraging you to go to the Supreme Court.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Okay, so you were aggressively suggesting we should take it to the Supreme Court.

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t see why you don’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, and I am trying to explain to you. I know because we didn’t agree with you, you became upset. I understand you were out there, before the TV cameras, quite upset.

Mr. S. Smith: All you did was call me immature and naive. You never explained why you wouldn’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I had. I will try to tell you even more.

Mr. S. Smith: Excellent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a certain sensitivity, and I think the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) really made it quite clear.

Mr. S. Smith: I don’t believe so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, he did. If you want to debate with the member for Riverdale --

Actually, as I said, he put that day in very succinct terms, what it took me a little longer to say. I thought he summed it up very well.

What I was trying to say, and I will go through this very carefully with the Leader of the Opposition, is during the course of this debate -- and the rhetoric isn’t that much different from what it was in the 1974 debate on oil and gas pricing, some of it perhaps a little more heated; I am not sure -- I think it would be most unfortunate and premature, and I won’t go any further than that, to seek a legal interpretation or decision when the issue is there for discussion by the first ministers.

If the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about national leadership, a national view of Canada, I have got to tell you, if there is one thing that has emanated in the past three or four weeks that is disturbing, it is the policy that there should be $1 in January and $1 in July, which I understand is your policy -- correct me if I am wrong --

Mr. Haggerty: That’s already agreed upon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a minute now --

Mr. Haggerty: You agreed to it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- with not a penny to the producing provinces. Alberta should get nothing, I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition, if he thinks that leads to some degree of reconciliation of points of view, then if I lack leadership on a national basis, I don’t know where he would be in the batting order of things, in terms of trying to resolve these issues on that kind of approach.

I think what it is essential to understand is the producing provinces are, in fact, entitled to an equitable or fair -- whatever term one may wish to use -- for what is a --

Mr. S. Smith: Not the oil companies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We aren’t talking about the oil companies. You said the producing provinces shouldn’t get a nickel --

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, that’s right -- for one year --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. We live a year at a time in this House. We live a day at a time.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right; that was my policy, that the oil companies and Alberta forego it for one year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m saying, if we were to suggest at this moment, while this matter is in discussion, that we want the courts to resolve issues that should be resolved by provinces, or ultimately by the government of Canada, I think would be extremely regrettable. I make no bones about it. I think it would be divisive.

Mr. S. Smith: Why?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Can you just picture what the Premier of Alberta and the citizens of Alberta, the people of Saskatchewan, the people of British Columbia and a lot of other people would say? Here is the province of Ontario taking this to the Supreme Court of Canada, during a discussion where the government of Canada has been able to resolve these things without this type of confrontation. If you want that sort of thing, fine. I don’t. I think it would be wrong, and there are a lot of people who agree with me on that issue. I have found no support for hauling Alberta into the courts -- none at all. It isn’t as simple --

Mr. S. Smith: Lougheed thinks he can price it. It would be nice to set him right on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Please let me finish. I know what Premier Lougheed has said. I also know what the Prime Minister has said. I know what Premier Lougheed said some years ago. I know what, in fact, has happened. The fact is Alberta has not unilaterally endeavoured to price. Alberta has not in any way attempted to cut off the flow --

Mr. S. Smith: But he claims he can.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just let me finish.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- has not attempted to cut off the flow; they have never attempted to do this. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that, in his view, legally this can’t be done. In terms of pricing, what has to be understood is this is one of the essential areas of debate in terms of the constitution. It does get down to the very basic consideration of the ownership of the resources and their control.

This is where the Premier of Alberta, with the support of others, incidentally, takes a much harder line as to what he would like to see accomplished than some other provinces.

Mr. S. Smith: What does the constitution say?

[12:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. No one is quarrelling with the concept of ownership -- that is a fact of history -- nor control, in the sense they have control over its development and the environmental considerations. There is no question about that, but there should be a paramount national interest in terms of the economics. I’m saying that is an issue that is still there in front of us. It is not going to be resolved during the current debate on the price of oil and gas. To say we should have a confrontation in the courts at this precise moment I think would be highly undesirable. I do say it is premature.

Mr. S. Smith: You say it’s undesirable. But why?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine. Then don’t get upset about it.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m not upset about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then why did you come in here today saying you were upset?

Now let’s deal with manufacturing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you want me to eat up --

Mr. S. Smith: No, I don’t want you to eat up the time. I respect the needs of the other parties.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re going to have --

Mr. S. Smith: It would appear that what the Premier is saying is that it would be better to settle the matter about ownership and so on by negotiation between the provinces and the country rather than in the courts. I can understand you might prefer to do it that way. All I’m asking is why. Why is it so terrible to settle the matter in the courts? That’s all.

Instead of getting an answer as to why it’s so bad, I’m told what an immature suggestion this is, or naive, or whatever.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m saying the history of this country has been predicated, in 99 cases out of 100, on solving these problems --

Mr. S. Smith: I think it’s constitutional.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- other than by reference to the courts.

Mr. Conway: That’s a very selective history.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. I’m just telling him most of them have. I’m suggesting that if we want to resort to the courts to interpret, redraft or bring about constitutional change, I think it would be highly unfortunate. I think this is a broader issue that hopefully --

Mr. Conway: Our mandate was determined by the courts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- will be done by some degree of consensus. I don’t expect there will ever be total unanimity. I just reject the route of the court at this present time. I think it would be wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: Then reject it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s move into manufacturing.

I think, in fairness, the NDP has first shot on Monday afternoon. I may came back to some of these matters as well on Monday -- of course, I’ll never use up more time than anyone else, in case it creates a sensitive feeling.

I asked the Leader of the Opposition, who has been interpreting some of my remarks as being anxious to have massive foreign control -- no, you used the word ownership.

Mr. S. Smith: And I accepted “investment” when you used that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. Now we agree on “investment.” Actually, what I have been saying -- and I happen to believe it -- is that investment -- I guess the word “foreign” is acceptable. I sometimes use the term “investment” to refer to sources other than within Canada. The history of this country relates to that. No one is going to debate it. There is no question that the United States went through a period when “foreign” ownership was a very dominant part of their economy. There’s no question I would like to see greater Canadian control -- and I think there is a difference. In fact, this government provided some measure of leadership on the subject of who must be citizens to sit on boards of directors. This was perhaps before the Leader of the Opposition became a member of the House, I forget; the member for Kitchener can refresh my memory.

We were in support of the philosophy of FIRA. We’re not anxious to see control, in the sense of our political destiny or anything of that nature, in other than Canadian hands. But I think it has to be understood that if we wish to maintain the economic growth of this province, we’re not going to do it by isolating ourselves from the enlightened interests of people who happen to live or have financial resources beyond the borders of this province or of this country.

You can hedge. You can say the automotive industry is different. With respect, the automotive industry is not different. It is an important part of the economy of this province.

I can understand the Leader of the Opposition objecting to the contribution this government made to the Ford Motor Company; I think that is a different issue. But if one takes his remarks to their logical conclusion, he really is saying he would be discouraging General Motors from the very major capital investment they’re making. That is foreign investment.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course not. That’s an industry that has already gone by the board. There is no hope of a Canadian car company and the Premier knows it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, if an auto parts industry comes in, the member would say that if they happen to have some foreign investment attached thereto he would oppose it.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. I prefer Canadian.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then I’ve got news for him.

Mr. S. Smith: I prefer Canadian.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, we would all prefer it if we had our preferences.

Mr. S. Smith: We have Canadian companies that can grow, that can see that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My perception of leadership is very different from the member’s, I guess. I think it’s part of my responsibility to face some of the realities. While I’d like to have the perfect world, there isn’t a perfect world. My responsibility is to give some leadership in terms of the economic direction of this province that takes into account the need to provide lob opportunities. That may not be one of the Leader of the Opposition’s priorities but it happens to be one of ours.

Mr. S. Smith: Canadian investment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The fact of the matter is you must have, in terms of joint ventures, in terms of some of our manufacturing sector, a policy that recognizes you can’t close the border as a parallel. You just can’t do it. That is not the real world.

Heaven’s above, when I was in some of these other countries what they’re looking for -- and they don’t have the same point of view as the member -- what they would like to see is Canadian investment and joint ventures in their countries. This is the direction they want to see happening.

Mr. S. Smith: They don’t have our problems.

Mr. Davis: Of course they have some of our problems. Of course they do.

Mr. S. Smith: Not like we do. No country in the world has our problems.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, they don’t, but they have different problems. They have a lower standard of living in many of them. They don’t have the same quality of life. They don’t have the same opportunities.

I listened to the member this morning when he said how bad things are and I could be prompted to say that they’re not so bad in this province as compared to a lot of other jurisdictions. I have to say to the member, in terms of his approach to the manufacturing concept, if one were to follow his logic to its logical conclusion -- and I don’t say this in an unkind fashion because we’re being friendly here this morning and not trying to provoke one another -- I believe honestly that his narrow, restrictive approach would lead to a diminution in the economic growth of this province.

Mr. S. Smith: You mean diminution in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. It would lead to fewer job opportunities being created. I happen to believe that.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier happens to be wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to think that point of view is shared by a lot of people.

Mr. S. Smith: The government has multinationals.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is not going to get me defending the multinationals. I don’t even know half the multinationals.

I listened to our friend from Edmonton before he was at the member’s annual meeting. We’ve got a parliament in Peel. It’s up in Palace Barn. This is one of the great cores of the Committee for an Independent Canada. Mel and others were there and he gave the same speech that he delivered at the member’s convention.

You’re not going to get me on the side of antinationalistic feelings. I have them, perhaps even more so than the member.

Mr. S. Smith: We are not discussing the Premier’s feelings, just his policies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, policies, but I have to tell the member what is intriguing to me. It’s that he centred a great deal on the economic side of it but he makes very few references to what I think is perhaps as significant and that is the whole aspect of “cultural nationalism.” I think this is, in many respects, as great a problem for us as a country in the economic field.

I’m digressing here, but as the Leader of the Opposition has wandered around all of the perimeter of all of this, this morning, why shouldn’t I? I share this point of view with him. I’ve said it on other occasions. I’m not unconcerned about the economic side. I want to make that very clear. But I am as concerned, in some respects, with the cultural side.

How many children does the member have now?

Mr. S. Smith: Two.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Two? He is three behind us. I’ve lived through three growing up. Our youngest is now 16 and we don’t see as much of the others.

I went through a period where they watched a little bit of television. I know, with the member’s talents, he probably doesn’t expose his children to as much television as we did, but I don’t have that same sort of parental discipline.

Mr. J. Reed: Is this conversation in order?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Halton-Burlington didn’t come in and listen to his leader’s conversation with me.

Mr. J. Reed: Where was I?

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order.

Hon. Ms. Davis: I guess what I’ve always regretted, while we are in this discussion of leadership, is that so many of our young people will know Lincoln’s birthday before they’ll know Sir John A. Macdonald’s birthday, or even Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s -- and it doesn’t offend me.

Look at Brother Hall putting his hand up. He knows Lincoln’s birthday -- a different Lincoln. I worry about this. I worry about it in terms of the feeling people have with respect to the nationalism of this country. I don’t say that in a narrow sense. I say it in terms that we don’t have the appreciation of our history that we should, because of the very predominant or prevalent, or the amount of television from the three major networks in the United States of America, that really does impose, I think, in terms of nationalism -- and this is really what you’re talking about -- a very difficult situation for us. I would even suspect the Leader of the Opposition reads a number -- if he stops yawning here -- of American periodicals. He may even read more American periodicals than Canadian, I don’t know. I would think that once again --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s irrelevant.

Mr. J. Reed: Can someone tell me how this is all relevant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You’re trying to tell me that this government’s policy, with respect to multinationals and foreign investment, was leading this country the wrong route. I’m just sharing with you that I think as significant a problem --

Mr. S. Smith: Are you going to tell me that my kids watch television too much?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I’m just saying as significant a problem -- you can smile, you can be very stately about it, et cetera. The fact of the matter is, in terms of the future of this country, our concern should be as much about the cultural impact, or the lack of identification of Canadian culture in some objectives in this area, as it is in the economic field. That’s a personal point of view, and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Hall) is nodding his head vigorously.

Mr. S. Smith: He’s just nodding off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the member for Lincoln hear that? Your leader says you’re nodding off. I don’t know what that means, whether that means he’s going to the back bench --

Mr. Acting Chairman: I don’t think this is in your estimates, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve got to tell you, Mr. Chairman, most of what’s gone on here this morning hasn’t been in my estimates; but then I didn’t set down the ground rules.

Mr. Breithaupt: The three-minute flag is up, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t reached interest rates or my final remarks on the constitution, so I’ll leave those --

Mr. Conway: If you’re like the Argos, you’ve reached the end.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tell you, 1980 will be the year of the Argos.

I was interrupted on manufacturing. It is so simple to say, and I know that it can create in some audiences an emotional response, “Down with the multinationals. No more foreign investment or ownership. Let’s do everything by ourselves.”

I have to reiterate, and I do it with some vigour, and quite frankly with some frequency, that that is the kind of policy that will lead us in economic terms into very serious difficulties. There’s a fair amount of interest in Ontario, and in Canada in terms of investment. There is a growing recognition that Ontarians and Canadians want a greater measure of control of the decision-making process in these things, a greater recognition that joint ventures are far more acceptable.

I would hope the leader of the Opposition might distinguish between a joint venture that involves foreign investment, and a non-joint venture that involves foreign investment. Maybe I can get him to come that far with me, except he would probably want the percentages to be 90-10, which would make it unrealistic. But an equitable share, he would support.

Mr. S. Smith: Sure, it would make it more interesting than --

Hon. Ms. Davis: We’re making some progress. The leader of the Liberal Party now says it’s not so bad to have foreign investment, if it is in conjunction with a Canadian organization; so that in fact it is not foreign investment, it is a joint venture using foreign capital to assist in the development of the venture. Is that a fair way of summing up your position?

Mr. S. Smith: If the control remains in Canada and the bulk of servicing charges are in Canada and it becomes a world class industry, of course.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s not insulate this thing to it having to be a world class industry in every case. I have more modest aspirations for some investments that are taking place. I really don’t expect them to be world class. Can I get you to accept the fact they don’t have to be world class in order for them to be valid and acceptable to you? We’re going to have the member for Hamilton West’s own review board, in terms of economic development of this province.

Our unemployment rate would be around 15, 20, 25 per cent --

Mr. S. Smith: Nonsense, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not. Mr. Chairman, I think it’s fair to state that in general terms, the economic policies of the government -- and I find today we’re really defending the total policies of the government on all of these issues -- that it has been realistic; it has been sensitive, and what’s more -- and this is what disturbs you people, I know that -- it has been relatively successful.

I’m not happy with the present rate of unemployment. I make no bones about it. It has gone down. I’m not happy with some of the economic things we see on the horizon, with respect to our neighbours to the south. But one can’t ignore one of the realities; that is that within this province -- I’ll take no credit for the government -- close to 140,000 jobs were created this year. That is not insignificant when you find on a percentage basis or any way you want to compare it, that there’s not another jurisdiction that can make that sort of claim of a comparable nature.

Look at the figures in West Germany, in Japan, in the United Kingdom. Look at them in the United States and in any industrialized state of the United States. Look at the percentage of people coming into the work force. Look at the number we have been able to accommodate within this province.

While the Leader of the Opposition may not like the way I do things, the only thing I can say to him is that the results have apparently not been too bad. I take no credit for it. I will be very modest here this morning. But I have to tell you, if you are talking about leadership and your perception of it, I don’t expect you to say we are a great head of government. That would shock me, although some day when I retire and your successor, whomever he or she may be, is there as Leader of the Opposition, may just say, “Gosh, what great old days when the member for Brampton was here as Premier,” as we will say about you, when you have gone and there is some Leader of the Opposition here on that side of the House.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.