The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LIBEL AND SLANDER LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time in the proceedings today I will be introducing two important amendments to our law of libel and slander.

The first amendment modifies the defence of fair comment. This defence permits the expression of an opinion upon a matter of public interest, irrespective of the defamatory nature of the opinion, if the opinion expressed is one which its maker honestly holds and which is based upon proven facts.

The amendment ensures that this defence is available to the media when they publish the opinions of others, for example as in letters-to-the-editor columns or man-on-the-street interviews, without having to be able to prove in court that the author actually held the opinion expressed.

The amendment allows the publisher of an opinion expressed by another person to rely upon the defence of fair comment, if the opinion expressed was one which a person might honestly have held. This amendment arises from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Cherneskey versus Armadale Publishers and really reflects the minority view of the court in that case.

A similar amendment has been requested by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and at my request it is being considered by other provincial governments in the interest of uniformity across the country.

The second amendment broadens the definition of “broadcaster” in the Libel and Slander Act to bring cable television operators within the scope of the term. The existing definition does not encompass cable television because cable was virtually unknown when it was enacted. The Libel and Slander Act contains numerous provisions in respect of newspapers and broadcasters which recognize the special role played by the media in a democratic society.

Cable television operators are required by law to provide facilities for community broadcasting. Yet defamatory statements in cable television can produce legal results different from statements made on regular television. The proposed amendment would rectify this anomaly.

These amendments are the result of extensive discussions I have had with the Ontario Press Council, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and many individuals in organizations concerned with communications issues. I believe this legislation has the support of all interest groups in this field. However, I want to stress that this legislation is being introduced for one key purpose -- to strengthen freedom of speech and to encourage the free discussion of matters of public concern. I believe that the majority decision in the Cherneskey case does constitute an unnecessary and a potentially harmful limitation on those fundamental freedoms. I have no doubt that to stifle the right to communicate is to eviscerate democracy.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report about the termination of the illegal strike by correctional officers. I wish to report that the correctional institutions across the province are returning to normal following the end of the illegal strike by correctional officers which began on Monday morning at approximately 7 a.m. and ended late Wednesday night.

I wish to pay tribute and to express sincere appreciation on behalf of myself, the Ministry of Correctional Services and the citizens of this province, to the dedicated staff who have manned these institutions throughout this illegal strike. The staff included managerial personnel at the institutions, staff in the bargaining unit who chose to obey the law and not to go out on strike and a variety of managerial staff at all levels, up to and including executive director rank, from our central, regional and area offices.

I wish also to express my appreciation to the regional and main office staff who did an outstanding job in co-ordinating and directing the overall ministry response. In addition, I wish to express thanks to the staff of the Civil Service Commission and my cabinet colleagues for their efforts to resolve this situation.

The people manning the institutions worked long hours under trying conditions, and, in some instances, at unfamiliar tasks, with limited amounts of sleep to ensure that the security of institutions was maintained and the public protected in keeping with the ministry’s legal responsibilities. I am proud to report that these staff members met the challenge of this difficult situation with dedication and patience and without complaint. Everyone pitched in to try to maintain operations within institutions on a normal a level as possible.

One has only to look at the record over the period of the nine consecutive shifts which were manned during this illegal strike to realize what a superb team effort was put forward by all involved. Fifty-two correctional institutions across the province continued to run smoothly with no serious problems throughout this period.

A special word should be said about our staff who remained on duty after the illegal strike was launched. I am sure it was a difficult decision, when they knew that feelings were running high and that their actions might bring disapproval from some of their colleagues who took part in the illegal strike. I commend them for their courage and their sense of responsibility for remaining on the job. Now that the strike is over, it is my hope that the officers who walked out will respect the decision of fellow officers who remained at their posts because they felt it was their legal and moral duty to so do.

Although there were no major problems in any of our institutions, disruption of the normal routines and a reduction in regular services were bound to occur. In some instances there were delays or disruptions in preparing inmates for court appearances, visits between inmates and relatives and the preparation and delivery of food services. In this connection, the inmates throughout the province acted in a mature and responsible manner. There were few incidents of inmates attempting to take advantage of the unusual situation which existed and of the fact that some supervisory staff were unfamiliar with some of the institutional routines.

As minister, I have found it necessary on two occasions during the past year to be highly critical of the behaviour of inmates who acted irresponsibly in precipitating and participating in disturbances at two correctional institutions. In both instances, it was a minority of the inmate population who acted irresponsibly and the fact that the majority of them are prepared to conduct themselves in a reasonable manner was confirmed earlier this week when inmates responded to the situation with patience.

I wish to register here a certain sense of disappointment that a large number of the correctional staff chose to participate in an illegal strike. Since coming to this ministry, I have had a great deal of sympathy for the correctional officers’ concern over the wide differential between their pay and that of correctional staff in other jurisdictions and of the Ontario Provincial Police officers. Prior to the illegal strike, I expressed my feelings in this regard and my willingness to seek special wage consideration for correctional staff in upcoming negotiations between the government and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. As honourable members will recall, the government made a formal offer to send the issue of a separate bargaining category for correctional officers to binding arbitration and to give special wage consideration to correctional staff prior to the union taking strike action.

Notwithstanding my disappointment that some of the union members chose illegal action to back demands on this matter, I am pleased that the illegal strike has ended and that correctional staff have returned to their posts. I am especially pleased that the return to normal at institutions seems to be proceeding without rancour between those who maintained the institutions during the past few days and the correctional officers who took part in the illegal strike. It is my sincere hope that the differences and the high emotions of the last few days will be allowed to subside in order that all staff, particularly those in institutions, will restore and build a new sense of teamwork and esprit de corps.

The Ministry of Correctional Services has a responsibility to the public to provide programs of treatment and training for inmates aimed at assisting them to become law-abiding and contributing members of our society. I am urging all staff in the ministry to rise to the challenge of forgetting the differences of the last few days so we can get on with the job of meeting our responsibilities to the public.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement but, unfortunately, copies have not yet been delivered for distribution to other members of the House as per the rules. I wonder if I might have permission to proceed or we could revert later.

Mr. Speaker: Permission granted? Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: No?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Okay, let’s wait. Let’s wait.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. S Smith: I would have been happy to allow the minister to make his statement at this time but I will ask a question and he may well make his statement by way of reply. I want to ask the minister a series of questions that have to do with oil, gas and the National Energy Board figures.

The first question is really this: How could the minister repeatedly assure the House of his confidence concerning the so-called “tight, but manageable” situation with regard to heating oil based on National Energy Board figures, as he repeatedly did on three or four different occasions in the House, when, at the very same time -- on August 24, on October 3 and on November 5 -- he was in fact expressing very grave concern about the reliability and accuracy of the very figures provided by the National Energy Board?

Was he not, in a sense, providing information which could have been misleading to those who heard it, emphasizing his confidence about the situation when he was privately and secretly telling Ottawa he had grave doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the National Energy Board figures? How can he justify his behaviour in this House, given the fact that he was telling us one thing and telling Ottawa something else?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has raised this question this morning because it does provide me with an opportunity to clarify what I think has been a very unfortunate interpretation of the situation by himself and others who took part in the debate yesterday. Certainly what I wanted to convey and consistently tried to convey is that I was bringing the House up to date in response to questions with respect to the situation as it was at that time. On the assessment of the information I had available, I used the cautious expression that the supply situation was tight, but it was manageable. I don’t think one should take any great joy even in that particular evaluation.

[10:15]

As I mentioned yesterday during the course of the debate the information I have to date on the supply of heating oil to Ontario for the coming winter indicates that, barring abnormalities, there should be no shortages. In keeping with the question which has been directed to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to repeat at this time that at no time have I ever said that I trusted any one source of information over another.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Globe lying: “Trusts Oil Firms’ Data Over PM’s”?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I didn’t write the headline.

Mr. MacDonald: It was a fair interpretation of your speech.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I leave to the honourable House leader for the New Democratic Party the assignment to reread the debate of yesterday afternoon over the weekend. I’ll stand by my contribution to that debate. I know he’ll have to read it because he wasn’t here to take part in it. I know the lack of interest he has.

At no time did I say I trusted any one source of information over another. I did indicate there was some conflicting information and I was personally concerned over the potential for confusion which resulted in the mind of the public. At no time have I considered there was anything like an impending crisis in petroleum product supply.

The National Energy Board in particular provides us with figures which are certainly more up to date than the information we used to get from Statistics Canada. I understand there used to be reliance on those figures.

All I was trying to point out was it’s the use that’s made of that information, how it’s fed into the model, the estimates with respect to demand and the ultimate projections that come from that information, about which I was expressing some concern. The members will recall during that exchange I was indicating there would be great advantage in the federal government re-enacting the function of the technical advisory committee so there could be this combination of federal-industry co-operation in evaluating the information as of that time and updating it. Keep in mind we have this information coming out a little later and I’m told there are frequent changes in this market.

In summary, the information I have shared with the House in response to questions has been as a result of my monitoring the information received from the National Energy Board, information I gather from the private petroleum companies and information available from the federal ministry. Making my own assessment with respect to that has prompted me to give the answers I have given. That would be the approach I would continue to take in order to act responsibly in the public interest and to give the public the information to which they are entitled in order to formulate their own conclusions with respect to this very important matter of energy supply.

Mr. Speaker: That answer took four and a half minutes.

Mr. S. Smith: I had a supplementary which had to do with the reliability of the NEB on the matter of natural gas surplus which is used as the basis for export. I notice, however, from the statement which the minister intended to make he has a position, belatedly, which the government wishes to take. If we were to revert to statements now, would I then be able to ask my supplementary after hearing the minister’s position or would I have missed my opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the consent of the House to revert to statements?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy. This time will be deducted from the question period.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY EXPORTS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the decision by the federal cabinet yesterday with respect to the export of additional volumes of natural gas to the United States.

As members know, the federal cabinet has given approval for new gas exports to the United States of 3.75 trillion cubic feet of gas over an eight-year period. The decision to allow the export of this large quantity of natural gas at a time when the oil and gas pricing policy agreement is still not completed between Ottawa and Alberta is most disappointing and disturbing to Ontario. It is the position of this government --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not what you said before.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There’s nothing inconsistent in this statement. The record is quite clear. Our representations to the National Energy Board and the policy papers on this are all there for the member to read and he knows it.

Mr. Cassidy: We didn’t hear you say that before.

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

Mr. Cassidy: But there wasn’t a word before. You keep on saying it --

Hon. Mr. Welch: The reason the member is shouting is because his argument is so weak he thinks volume will compensate for lack of content, that’s his problem.

Mr. Martel: Why are you shouting?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am shouting so that the official opposition can hear. They can’t hear because of all the noise to their left. I want also the people of Brock riding to hear. I keep on getting comments back home as to whether or not I’m really standing up in the House and I want to make sure they know I’m here so I’m making these sounds.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Where was I? I notice there aren’t any comments coming from the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham).

It is the position of this government that natural gas supply and pricing policy cannot and should not be decided in isolation from our total energy policy. We have stated that Canada’s natural gas pricing and supply policy should include the following elements:

The price of natural gas should not be tied to the price of crude oil; opportunities should be sought to lower the price of natural gas to consumers and encourage them to convert to natural gas; there should continue to be a single Alberta border price for natural gas, adjusted for transportation.

Canadian consumers should have their long-term, 25-years’ requirements of natural gas supply protected by means of an appropriate formula. Canada’s natural gas supply forecast should not include frontier natural gas until that gas becomes available for the domestic market and should not be used to justify exports of natural gas from western Canada. There should be greatly increased exploration and development in the arctic and other frontier areas in order to prove the additional reserves which would justify the construction of frontier natural gas transportation facilities in time to meet Canada’s future natural gas needs.

Additional natural gas exports to the United States -- I think it is very important this be reunderlined -- should only be considered when Canada’s future energy needs have been assured. Compensation for the consumer, should exports of any surplus natural gas from lower-cost conventional reserves be authorized when that means future domestic requirements will have to be met from higher-cost frontier reserves.

Ms. Gigantes: What does that mean? What gobbledegook is this?

Hon. Mr. Welch: For an honourable member that can’t tell the dates with respect to statements she’s using, I’ll be glad to explain that particular paragraph a little later.

Using September information for October purposes, notwithstanding the intervention of York South and trying to gloss that over, I think it’s very interesting; and I understand the member’s federal colleagues are even being attracted to use it as well.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege. The minister is suggesting I could not tell the date attached to the material I received from the NEB. Indeed, I could tell the date. The NEB had written “end of October” on it. If the minister has any concerns about who can’t tell dates, perhaps he could address them to the NEB.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, what kind of gobbledegook was that?

There should be dedication of at least part of the “export price differential” from any new exports of natural gas to develop Canadian crude oil self-sufficiency.

As members know, including the House leader of the New Democratic Party, Ontario appeared before the National Energy Board on August 7 of this year, on behalf of the consumers of this province. If I may, I should like to quote a few excerpts from our closing argument to the NEB, as follows:

“The selection of a policy on an individual energy source in the absence of a thorough analysis of all alternative energy sources is unlikely to result in the best energy policy.

“In Ontario’s view, the question as to whether additional supplies of natural gas should be exported should be determined only after other critical energy issues facing this country have been resolved, specifically the supply of crude oil, its price and the price of natural gas to Canadians. These are some of the matters which influence greatly the appropriateness of a decision to export.

“To approve natural gas exports at this time would be out of phase with these other essential decisions.

“If one could restrict oneself to the narrow question of natural gas surplus alone, Ontario would urge that a conservative approach by the board be taken and would support strict application of the board’s three-pronged surplus test. In addition, once the tests have been made Ontario would urge the board to satisfy itself that an export of natural gas at this time is in Canada’s national interest. To do so, this would mean that the benefits of the exports must decisively outweigh the disadvantages, which latter obviously would include an appreciation of the acceleration of the time when consumers must depend on higher-priced frontier natural gas. However, Ontario does not consider that natural gas exports can be considered alone. The problem is energy, not a particular form of energy.

“Ontario believes the National Energy Board should defer its decision until such time as there is a national energy policy in place.”

In summary, Ontario believes the decision of the federal government to allow additional exports of natural gas at this time to be premature and inappropriate.

Mr. Riddell: If I might be allowed a point of order before my leader asks a supplementary, I thought it was agreed by this House that all members should be given a copy of a ministerial statement, particularly one as important as this.

Some of the responses to the interjections and the minister’s digressions take up more time than the reading of the statement itself. Those of us who take these matters seriously and don’t particularly go along with the levity that is worked into the statement would then be given an opportunity to read through the statement and frame questions they might wish to ask of the minister.

I wonder if we could have copies of these ministerial statements sent to all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows that copies of the statement weren’t ready when we called that order. It was only by unanimous consent of the House that we were allowed to revert to statements. It wasn’t possible to make copies available to all members. The only time we will allow a statement to be circulated generally is when it can be done before the House begins in the morning or at two o’clock in the afternoon. It creates too much confusion to have copies of five statements put on every desk. There would be chaos.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

ENERGY EXPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker. He must surely recall the repeated urgings that came from this side of the House that Ontario take a clear and definite position against the further export of cheap natural gas from Alberta to the United States of America. We have repeatedly asked him to emphasize that position before the National Energy Board made its decision.

The minister kept making reference to the report he gave to the energy board on Ontario’s intervention. That report simply stated if the board in its wisdom thought there was a real surplus, then that surplus could be exported, when he knows perfectly well there is no such concept.

The question, therefore, is this: Why has the minister waited until the day after the National Energy Board decision to export further natural gas to stand up suddenly and say Ontario stands resolutely against it? Why didn’t he take the opportunity to make that clear at the first ministers’ conference? Why didn’t he make it clear at the energy board? Why didn’t he take every repeated invitation we gave him to put Ontario’s position on record, instead of weaseling and waiting until the day afterwards and getting on the bandwagon of what he knows is a political issue?

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it has been obvious to the government for some time that the Leader of the Opposition has indeed been attempting, as best he could, to rush onto centre stage to identify himself with government policy in so far as energy matters are concerned. In other words, what he has been doing is reading very carefully what the government policy is, seeing how popular it is and saying, “Me too; this is our idea.”

Anyone who professes to be the leader of a political party in this province, who doesn’t understand the system and doesn’t recognize that this government made the position on behalf of the people of Ontario prior to a decision -- it’s all there as a matter of record -- yet, who could stand up and test the intelligence of the people of Ontario by suggesting that we waited until the day after to make our position clear is absolutely beyond my understanding.

I think the honourable member should really consider his position politically in this province. We will be glad to send him memoranda from time to time to tell him what we’re doing so he can identify himself with it, if he finds that of some advantage.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could attempt to get away from the histrionics of the minister and of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition try to contain himself?

Mr. S. Smith: It’s very difficult.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention, and I remind the minister, that on many occasions the government has refused to take issue with the formula under which the National Energy Board has now decided this 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be exported to the United States. The minister’s posturings don’t hold water because Ontario did not challenge that principle of exports of more than 600 million barrels of oil equivalent.

I ask the minister now, in view of the fact that he has gone public with this opposition, is the government prepared to support and to make time in the proceedings of this Legislature for a unanimous motion of this House which would condemn the federal cabinet decision approving the export order and call on the federal government to rescind the export approval that was given yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I really feel under the circumstances that everyone is quite satisfied that the position on behalf of the people of Ontario has been pursued vigorously. We have made our position quite clear before the National Energy Board. The position of this government is well understood and the honourable member knows it. All he wants to do under the circumstances is some posturing to identify himself with the position which is quite clearly understood in the national forum.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the minister’s position has always stated clearly -- even what he told us today -- that he is in favour of only those exports which the National Energy Board believed to be genuinely surplus -- that was his position, the Premier (Mr. Davis) repeated it many times when I asked him about this, and we said there should be no such concept of surplus, does the minister remember that? -- and he stated that if the NEB said it was surplus, it was okay with him, how could he have stated that when at the same time he did not believe the NEB’s figures and had grave doubts about their capacity to derive statistical analyses in matters of oil and gas? How could he rely on the NEB and then come up a day afterwards and say they were wrong?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues to misinterpret the remarks I have made with respect to the information from the National Energy Board. I’ll leave it there because I’m sure he finds it convenient to continue to misunderstand my position with respect to that information.

The natural gas policy of this government is clearly set out and says the Canadian consumers should have their long-term requirements of natural gas supply protected by means of a formula. I would remind the honourable member to take a look at the statement. That’s the position. It always has been the position -- I assume I’m answering the member’s question --

Mr. Speaker: You are still answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Under those circumstances, we talk in terms of natural gas exports to the United States under existing contracts continuing to be honoured, but before there is any change we should see the development of a national energy policy of which the question of the export of this resource would be a part.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m sorry, it’s a matter of privilege. Does the leader of the third party mind?

The minister continues to say I have somehow deliberately misinterpreted the statement he made about National Energy Board figures. I would quote from yesterday’s Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The very fact there is obviously a difference in interpretation or a difference of opinion really doesn’t constitute a point of order or a point of privilege. There may be honest differences, but I don’t think we should waste the time of the House to reiterate what our particular positions are.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, he imputed motives.

Mr. Speaker: No, he didn’t. I listened very carefully and there was no imputation of motive at all. There is an honest difference of opinion and no more than that.

The member for Ottawa Centre with a final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware that the surplus the National Energy Board is now allowing to be exported to the United States was created by a change in its test as to what the surplus is and that Ontario on no occasion has challenged the change to a less conservative test which permitted those exports? Does the minister not agree, therefore, that what Ontario has done by its inaction in defending the consumers of this province has been to line up with Joe Clark in selling out Canadian natural gas and selling out to oil companies that want to make a profit in the US?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would remind the leader of the New Democratic Party of a couple of lines in the statement which I was given the opportunity to read to the House today. I said we found the decision “disappointing and disturbing.” As well, at the end of the statement I told the House, “Ontario believes the decision of the federal government to allow additional exports of natural gas at this time to be premature and inappropriate.”

I would draw the member’s attention to the August policy paper of this government when we set out quite clearly our acceptance of the three tests established by the National Energy Board: the current reserves test; the current deliverability test; and the future deliverability test for determining the surplus of natural gas available for export. Having said that, I would remind the member for Ottawa Centre, who, in fairness, would want to take this discussion one step further, we said there should be no decision with respect to the export of new gas until such time as other matters were clearly in place. I think that’s a very important matter to have as an addendum to the question which the member just directed to me.

PETRO-CANADA

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Premier. Since no one in the Dominion of Canada but Joe Clark believes we should allow ourselves to be totally dependent on the multinational oil companies for information or for purchases or for exploration or for any manner of supply, will the Premier now permit this House to pass a unanimous resolution, stating clearly every bit of Petrocan should remain in the ownership of the government of Canada with no ifs, ands or buts and with no weasel words about certain aspects being sent off to the private sector? Will he permit a resolution to be passed in this House, saying every bit of Petrocan should be maintained in the ownership of the government of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Energy put it so well a few moments ago in noting how intriguing it is that the Leader of the Opposition, after several years of taking different positions on energy, has now totally accepted this government’s policy on energy and the representations we’ve made to the government of Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, come off it!

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s true. He has. It’s one of the intriguing conversions on the road to Damascus.

Our point of view on Petrocan has been made quite clearly to the government of Canada and to the first minister of this country. He is aware of it and the government of Canada is in the process of determining what it is going to do with respect to Petrocan.

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s pass a resolution. What are you afraid of?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that while I don’t minimize his contribution, he is quite free to make his views known to one of the aspiring leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada; that is, if he still associates himself with that party. Mr. Macdonald might make a statement on this. He is the chairman of fund-raising and the honourable member is so close to him, so why doesn’t he get Mr. Macdonald to make such a statement?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier tell us what he is afraid of and why he can’t have this House go on record stating not that some parts of Petrocan should be kept in government ownership, but the whole thing should be kept in the ownership of the government of Canada?

Why can’t we have a resolution from this House? What is the Premier afraid of? Just because his dinner companion at Tory fund-raising dinners might not like to hear such a resolution. Why doesn’t he have a resolution come forward from the House in Ontario to let him know what the opinion of this province is?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I --

Mr. J. Reed: You are in the barrel on this one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not in the barrel at all. I just say to the Leader of the Opposition if he is seeking some Emmy award or something of that nature I understand it, but his posturing here this morning is really immature. I say that with respect. I think it is silly.

Mr. S. Smith: You can say whatever you damned well like.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He knows full well what we have said. The government of Canada is aware of it and it is their responsibility to make these determinations.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the resolution?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not concerned about any debate in the House. Why doesn’t the honourable member call for a debate if he wants to have one?

Mr. S. Smith: A resolution. We will call a vote.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A resolution from this House is not going to alter whatever decision is made. The honourable member knows that and I know that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, as the government is now taking the position

-- advanced from day one with no ifs, ands or buts -- by the New Democratic Party both of Canada and of Ontario, will the Premier explain why at the first ministers’ conference on energy, there was not a word to be heard from the Premier of this province to tell Joe Clark and the federal government to keep Petro-Canada in the hands of the people of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, all of our documents were filed at the first ministers’ meeting. There is only a certain amount of time he is aware --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, why doesn’t the honourable member phone his friend, Mr. Broadbent? Ask him to ask the Prime Minister whether he understands that Ontario is in favour of the retention of Petro-Canada by the government of Canada. Mr. Clark’s answer to that will be very simply, “Yes.”

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, arising out of some of his statements yesterday. Since the Energy minister has told us he has a special pipeline to the oil companies and other sources of information apparently ‘denied to Joe Clark and other people in the National Energy Board, could he tell us if there have been leakages of refined product or of heating oil from this province into the United States? To what degree has that been affecting the oil supply and stockpile situation in this province? Specifically, would he tell us what is the stockpile situation in this province for gasoline and heating oil compared to a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there is an unfortunate implication in this question that the Minister of Energy should not be utilizing his office to obtain information from as many sources as he can in order to monitor the situation and to report in a responsible way to the people of Ontario to give them some factual basis upon which they can conduct themselves, rather than all the fancy we heard about yesterday from several of the members from the honourable member’s group.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am expecting to receive today some update on the situation. Once I have that information I will be glad to respond, particularly to the third part of the honourable member’s question on inventories.

I don’t know what the honourable member means in his second question referring to leakages. I have no information in connection with that subject.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that the NEB figures show about 375 million gallons of middle distillates have gone from New Brunswick into the United States over the course of the last 10 months or so.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You said Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t know what the situation in Ontario is.

How can the minister now get up in this House today and say he doesn’t know about any potential leakages or shipments of heating oil from this province to the United States? How is it that he is telling us that he is waiting for figures from the NEB?

How then can he tell us that on the basis of his information, which is better than Joe Clark’s, the situation is tight, but manageable, when he now, in response to my question admits he has no such information whatsoever?

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Isn’t that an interesting, illogical way to put a question. I have never heard the equal of it in my life. If there was a prize for it, the member would have to be the winner of the most circuitous flipping around in a question. Let’s take a look at what he is talking about. I said to him on the basis of the total accumulation of information that will be available to us --

Mr. Cassidy: You haven’t got any.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute. I said we would have that information available and it would be more accurate and more up to date because it would be a result of the November 10 accumulation of data on a total basis, to which I will make a response.

The honourable member then quickly jumped into a document provided to him by the member for Carleton East which has a National Energy Board report with respect to the end of September.

Ms. Gigantes: I provided it to the minister too.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He drew attention to the change in the figures for middle distillates, 1.7 or some such figure. He was told yesterday that represented the in-out situation of a refinery in the Maritimes and that the exported heating oil is that which is derived from foreign crude oil processed in Canada, with the explicit understanding it is for export only. It simply comes in, it is refined and it goes out. It is part of the deal for that particular refinery in the Maritimes. It has nothing to do with Ontario.

Here we are, as usual, with a shotgun approach. Then he can hardly wait to knock over about three people to get out to the television cameras to try to attach some answer to question one that should have been attached to question three. He is an expert at that.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister if he can give this House an assurance today that the part of eastern Ontario which is more dependent on the Montreal refining base will not find itself in any special jeopardy as a result of the Prime Minister of Canada’s remarks of a few days ago.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Barring abnormalities, there should be no shortages. That is my commitment by way of answering that question.

Mr. Martel: I have a supplementary, a very simple question for the minister. Is there leakage out of Ontario or not?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Would the honourable member tell me what he means by is there leakage out of Ontario?

Mr. Martel: Am I allowed to get up again on that?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact there has been leakage out of New Brunswick into the United States, can the minister tell me if the same thing is occurring in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the honourable member is asking me whether or not the situation which is going on in the Maritimes, to which I made reference, is going on in Ontario, I don’t know of any such situation.

Mr. Martel: That’s what the minister should know before he gets up.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I didn’t say I didn’t know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Halton-Burlington. Will the Minister of Energy sit down?

Mr. J. Reed: Would the Minister of Energy undertake to share with the House a strategy for utilizing the reserves that are available to Ontario in case we do have a shortfall? Would he be able to draw up his strategy and share it with the House so that the people in Ontario would know and would be reassured that these supplies will not be cut off, understanding there are some reserves of heavier fuel oil in this province that could be either refined or taken out of stock?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The honourable member does raise some questions which would support the advisability of the federal ministry’s getting the technical advisory committee in place so that there could be some co-operative effort between the industry and government to respond with the sorts of solutions to which the member makes some reference.

If he is talking in terms of the hopefully unneeded implementation of the federal legislation with respect to emergency allocations, I attempted to assure him and others during my estimates that there has been a fair amount of consultation between the officials of the provincial Ministry of Energy and the federal ministry with regard to the implementation program which will have to start, as the member knows, by the appointment of the members to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. That board will make the determinations on the situation and then certain things fall into place.

I would be happy to keep the House advised on any decisions taken in that regard. Hopefully, simply having the board will provide some assurance for the people of the country that there is a group charged with the responsibility of monitoring the whole supply situation, and in turn allocation.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism regarding the future of Chrysler Canada.

Given that there are 13,000 Chrysler jobs in Canada, and since the company has been asking Canada for sums of money that may approach half a billion dollars in various kinds of assistance and much of that will come from the taxpayers of this province, can the minister say why the Ontario government has dropped out of the action and left the very critical negotiations completely up to the federal government?

Is it true, as the Financial Post reported this week, that the reason this occurred is because Bob de Cotret is a good friend of US Treasury Secretary William Miller? How can the friendship between two ministers justify Ontario dropping out of negotiations so crucially affecting so many workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that of course, the relationship between Mr. de Cotret and Mr. W. Miller, if there is one, is not a factor in terms of our involvement or our non-involvement.

Second, our involvement has been intense right from the start. I have been in perhaps weekly contact with Mr. de Cotret on the issue. He has been sharing information with me on the discussions that have been going on. My officials have been to Ottawa several times to meet with his officials. My deputy minister has spoken to his deputy and other senior officials there on a regular basis, so we have been totally briefed and updated on the progress of those discussions.

The first phone call placed was from myself to Mr. de Cotret before any approach had been made from Chrysler to him, I believe, to indicate the types of things Ontario would want to see occur in this province whether there was any provincial involvement or not. Mr. de Cotret assured me that whether the Ontario taxpayers, the Ontario government was going to be looked to for any assistance or not, no decisions, no undertakings would be made with regard to Chrysler without having our specific input into that decision.

It is obvious, and it was made obvious by me to Mr. de Cotret at that time, that in the event any participation by the government of Ontario was required we were not going to be tagged along on any decisions or undertakings made by the federal government but we would insist upon laying down our own circumstances, rules, conditions and undertakings to our direct participation.

So notwithstanding the words the honourable member used in asking the question, we have been terribly and deeply involved in those discussions on a very close basis from the first word Chrysler would be looking for any assistance from governments anywhere.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In the light of the very active role this government played in the Ford negotiations, can the minister explain why Ontario has chosen to take a passive role in relation to Chrysler Canada by communicating exclusively, as it appears from his answer, with the federal government, with Senator de Cotret and his officials?

Since the chief government negotiator in Ottawa, Mr. Craig, is saying publicly Chrysler didn’t even know how to put a financial proposal together and had almost no analytical research to put forward to justify their case, why wasn’t this government in contact with Chrysler Canada about what it was they were demanding? Why wasn’t this government talking to Chrysler Canada to lay down tough performance guarantees? Why wasn’t this government involved directly rather than just passively in protecting jobs and protecting a vital part of the economy here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The proposition the leader of the third party is putting would be equivalent to the governor of the state of Michigan having gone in to do the negotiations with Chrysler instead of doing it as part of an overall negotiation led by the federal government of the United States. It would be foolish for this government to try to make a deal with Chrysler and put our money on the table before all the other pieces have been put into place. Obviously our bargaining position would not be very good. If we had been in a position of putting money on the table at that stage, then we would have been the first of all the jurisdictions, including all the American states in which Chrysler does business and the national governments of the United States and of Canada, we would have been the first, under your scenario, to make a substantial offer.

That is no way to do business. The way to do business is to see what other jurisdictions are prepared to do and make sure the federal government of this country extracts the proper and careful undertakings necessary before we get into the specifics of what Ontario is prepared to do.

I want to stress to the leader of the third party that I do want to know how strong Chrysler is going to come out of this situation before I make an offer of taxpayers’ dollars. I do want to know the federal government has acted responsibly enough, that federal governments of both the United States and Canada have put enough money on the table and required enough commitments from Chrysler in order to ensure it will survive over the next 15 or 20 years, before I commit my taxpayers to put up any more money to support Chrysler. There is no other responsible course other than to ensure that Chrysler is going to be in business and have all the necessary pieces put in place before the Ontario taxpayers go to the table and offer them money.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is repeating himself.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary: Has the minister given consideration to making land available, in view of the large investment in the Townsend townsite in the city of Nanticoke, including the water intake, for Chrysler in that area of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The question of specific site location for any new investment in Ontario has not yet been discussed. We have to first make sure if Chrysler is going to be in business; and second, how many more jobs and what kinds of plants are going to go into Ontario. When we know the type of plant that might come here, then we will be able to talk to them about specific site selection.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, I assume the minister has read the quote attributed to Mr. Craig, the federal government’s chief negotiator, which states the branch plant has no capability whatsoever. The president of Chrysler of Canada is here to sell damn cars in Canada and he reports to his superiors across the river. In view of that kind of statement by a senior official responsible for negotiations, has the Minister of Industry and Tourism made it perfectly clear to Chrysler that we are not simply interested or satisfied in maintaining existing jobs out there but we want a major commitment to our fair share of new investment, we want a major research and development facility in the province of Ontario, we want our share of new investments for small cars which will be the ones sold in the years to come, and that there be iron-clad guarantees attached to any plants that any part of the public sector provides to Chrysler and that equity be part of that?

Hon. Ms. Grossman: With the exception of the last five words, equity be part of that, I can assure you we have made that decision absolutely clear from day one of the exercise. If the member will check Hansard he will see I confirmed that to the House many months ago.

CORN SHIPMENTS

Mr. Riddell: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Is the minister aware Ontario corn producers are in danger of losing the last 20 per cent of their crop because they can’t get it to market due to the fact the corn elevators along the Great Lakes can’t accept any more corn as they can’t move it through the St. Lawrence seaway system? Is the minister aware of the terrible situation the producers are in this year? It is not the first year it has happened.

Mr. Conway: Where is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson)?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those questions should more properly be directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

[11:00)

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Surely the Minister of Industry and Tourism should be taking more interest in the agricultural industry, particularly where there is a good export market for soybean, corn and other grains? Would he, along with his federal counterparts, engage in some kind of an initiative to either deepen the water of the locks at Port Colborne or proceed with the twinning of locks at Port Colborne and Thorold so we can move these ships through and get rid of the corn, rather than lose 30 million bushels of corn this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell the member that, in a move with which I’m sure he would agree, it was decided between the then Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself about 12 months ago that we should finally make quite clear that agricultural products and their export from this province should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in order to deal with the perception at that time that perhaps agricultural products were taking some sort of a back seat in terms of our trade missions and our export efforts on behalf of industrial manufactured products in this province.

That wasn’t an accurate picture of what was happening but the perception was there. In order to clarify that, it was decided about a year ago that all of the export transactions involved with the export of agricultural products from this province would lie properly in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I know the member would agree with that move and I didn’t hear any objections from him at that time. Which is a simple way of saying, as he well knows, that it lies with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. When the minister is here --

Mr. Riddell: Where is he? Where is the minister?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’s out working for the good of the farmers of this province, instead of coming here every Friday morning and posturing as though he is the only one interested in that subject in this province.

Mr. Riddell: Every day of the week? Why doesn’t he come in here so we can ask him a question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not like the other members who want to come here and posture and ask questions while he’s not here.

Mr. Riddell: Are you afraid to bring him in to the House? Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food embarrass you? Is that why you won’t let the minister in?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have to say if the member for Huron-Middlesex is here on most Tuesdays and Thursdays he’ll find the minister is here. There was nothing stopping him from asking that question yesterday, or Tuesday when the minister was here, unless the member himself was absent on those days.

Mr. Ruston: The minister wasn’t here all week.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On the matter of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I would just say to the member for Huron-Middlesex the minister is not here because he is unwell. I know the member has never missed the House for any purpose whatsoever. I know the member wouldn’t understand that on occasion the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a touch of the flu, that’s why he’s not here. If that upsets the member I can’t help it.

ENERGY EXPORTS

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy arising from his statement this morning on natural gas exports. I wonder if he would care to elaborate in clear and simple terms the bottom paragraph on page three of his statement, in which he says, “Compensation for the consumer, should exports of any surplus natural gas and low-cost conventional reserves be authorized when that means future domestic requirements will have to be met from higher cost frontier reserves.” What does that mean, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, quite simply what it means is that the gas that’s presently there and available for export will go at a certain price because of its availability. It’s going to be more expensive, obviously, with respect to future reserves on the frontier; that’s going to be more expensive gas.

The point is that as we allow the export of the present gas at its price, which is bound to be more reasonable than the more expensive gas, there should be some way of compensating Canadians, who are ultimately going to have to have access to more expensive gas. That’s what the bottom paragraph of page three means.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister wouldn’t agree that instead of getting into elaborate programs of compensation for hypothetical gas in the future, wouldn’t it be wise to say clearly and unequivocally right now, “No more natural gas exports, period?”

Hon. Mr. Welch: The position of the government of Ontario is clear. We made a statement today with respect to it. We’ve intervened before the National Energy Board. We’ve talked about the fact that the decision with respect to the export of natural gas should not be made in isolation but in relation to the overall natural energy policy. That position is quite clear, and I think it’s quite reasonable.

Mr. Conway: On the basis of the minister’s statement today, with his expression of the great possibilities of natural gas, what is the Minister of Energy telling those thousands of people in rural Ontario who don’t yet have natural gas, who want to convert away from petroleum but have only a hydroelectric alternative and who see a real advantage in natural gas? What is the minister telling them today about their possibilities for conversion, given what he’s said today about the future of natural gas?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) quite rightly brought that question to my attention earlier this week and encompassed some concerns about that in his contribution to the emergency debate yesterday.

The members will understand, of course, there is a tremendous conversion program under way at the moment, and I suppose it would not be unreasonable to expect the companies which are presently providing the service are quite busy looking after those who are presently within serviced areas to accommodate that type of conversion.

The future, of course, is the question. The expansion of the infrastructure to cover those areas not now serviced by natural gas is of much interest in at least two or three ways. I understand the companies themselves are presently developing plans with respect to that expansion.

We have some indication with respect to an incentive plan to be developed, and about which more detail will be made available, so that in some pricing way moneys are going to be made available to encourage the distributors with respect to that expansion.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Of course the consumer ultimately benefits because he has access to the fuel.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Would the minister assure the House that if the oil companies use the possible oil shortage as an excuse to increase the price of home heating oil and gasoline, as apparently they did south of the border, he will be amongst the foremost spokesmen, speaking out against this practice?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the member knows, there’s some evidence in the marketplace now that the law of supply and demand has been reflected in some price adjustments. I hope, in keeping with the spirit of the honourable member’s question, we would not find companies taking advantage of that situation. If there was any evidence of excess, I could assure the honourable member I would add my voice to his in expressing concern.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Since the present federal government has virtually ignored all of the pleadings of the provincial government of Ontario on questions related to energy, would the minister assure the House if that eventuality does occur, that is if the price gouging does occur using the shortage as an excuse, he will explore all avenues of actions within the admittedly limited provincial jurisdiction to either penalize those who would do that or to attempt to block that from happening?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It’s a hypothetical question at the moment. I can’t add anything more than I did by way of my answer to the main question. If there is any evidence of excess then I would feel all of us would want to express some concern with respect to that.

I’m not familiar with all the details of the federal legislation, but I would think in the federal legislation part of the regulations, in the event of a shortage which results in the implementation of that, may well be some power to monitor prices by regulation.

FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Yesterday, La Presse ran a story on the Gabrielle Roy school crisis under the heading: “Le Toronto Board of Education refuse d’accorder comme prévu une école separée aux francophones.”

As this issue is no longer just of a local nature but has become part of an emotional and symbolic component of the national unity issue, like Penetang, will the minister not agree it’s time for the provincial government to provide its real support to the French advisory committee in its quest for a homogeneous school setting; and secondly, will he tell us what action the government is willing to take to guarantee to the French-speaking community a school of their own by September 1980, as they have been promised before?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), who has responsibility for those matters and I am sure would fully answer the member’s question. In terms of the general broad principle and context, I think this government, as we have said many times, has supported the aspirations of the Franco-Ontarians over many years and will continue to do so.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary; as the minister again refers to the positive history of the Conservative government in support of the French Canadians, I would look at its past support to the advisory committee when the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), a year and a half ago, committed himself to providing enumeration tools so that the advisory committee could develop the very basic democratic connections with their community, a community that is in --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question in there some place?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes. I would like to ask the minister how he can say the government is providing support to FrancoOntarians when it can’t even provide them with the guarantee they will be able to enumerate in order to find their community, so they can develop a power base to fight for their rights in the city instead of being overwhelmed by community groups in every area and a board that is not willing to support their efforts? At least give them enumeration tools.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on two counts; one, I could enumerate, but it would take me a couple of hours to enumerate, what this government has done on behalf of and with the Franco-Ontarians of this province; second, the matter of enumeration is a matter we agree should be solved, and the Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Education and myself have been working on this and will continue to work on it. We are not opposed to the identification of the FrancoOntarian community on the enumeration, it is just a matter of finding the proper vehicle; that will be found and it will be done.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Conway: A question of the Minister of Health: Will the minister make a statement today as to what he sees for the future of private ambulance operators within the health-care system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very broad question, and a very vague one at that.

The existing ambulance system, as the member knows, is made up of a variety of hospital-based, municipal-based, ministry-operated and private ambulance services. I have no plans at the present time to change that mix, although as he knows from the correspondence coming from certain operators, some quite misleading, we are certainly examining our policy with respect to ambulance services for the next 10 years, recognizing that we have made tremendous progress in the last 10 years towards the consolidation of ambulance services and in upgrading qualifications, vehicles and the general level of services.

Mr. Conway: Would the minister then undertake to have an immediate discussion with the private ambulance operators in this province, many of whom are operating under the assumption that it is the clear and private intention of his ministry to phase them out of the system without compensation? Will he take the opportunity in the next few days to meet with them and have a discussion to make them aware of what his policy intentions are?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for such a meeting. There have been several meetings in recent months, some involving my parliamentary assistant, who has been ill the last little while and some involving myself as well as others involving my staff. It is quite clear to the Ontario Ambulance Operators Association, or should be, what my intentions are. There are certain individuals who for their own personal and private purposes are misleading some of the other operators. That is most unfortunate, and I am answering any and all inquiries to that effect.

MINING MACHINERY

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I would ask him if he is aware of a recently published report by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on the Canadian content of equipment in mining operations in Canada, and that report concludes, “Canadian content in equipment increases proportionately with increased upgrading of ore.”

In view of that conclusion -- which report, by the way, this ministry should have done years ago -- is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the existing exemptions to section 113 of the Mining Act, which apply to Falconbridge -- which still has not built a refinery in Sudbury after more than 45 years in that community -- be lifted and that they be directed to build a refinery in Sudbury creating at least 2,000 jobs in that community?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, any recommendations I might make to my colleagues with regard to any section of the Mining Act would be dealt with inside the cabinet room.

[11: 15]

Mr. Laughren: I won’t ask the minister to tell us what he is going to say in cabinet. That same report says: “Open pit equipment forms a large part of the total, and is increasing rapidly.”

Since there are going to be many projects of an open-pit nature with the tar sands development and so forth out west, and that is going to be a major component in the import of mining machinery, could the minister tell us what he is prepared to do to ensure Ontario gets its fair share of investments in this new kind of machinery, creating jobs and much-needed investment in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are trying to assess the size of that market and assess the competition in terms of those persons who are already able to supply that market.

I know it’s attractive to suggest, because we have a great deal of mining in this country, that therefore all or a good portion of the mining machinery equipment ought to be made here. In fact, as the member knows, 30 or 40 years ago there was a fair mining machinery industry here, and we lost a good portion of it, very sadly.

Mr. S. Smith: During the tenure of your government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s easy to mouth things like that, as though the loss of that was this government’s fault.

Mr. S. Smith: Who was the government here in the last 30 years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I recall, it was a Liberal government in Ottawa, if the member wants to blame his predecessor.

Mr. S. Smith: And it was Conservative here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member’s leader wants to blame it on who was in office 20 or 30 years ago. I didn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right -- right here in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That loss has given competitors an enormous advantage in that market. We also must remember some of the manufacturers of that equipment are selling to mining markets that are larger than ours. They have bases in the United States and other areas where the total market is much larger than ours.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a huge market, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, to the Leader of the Opposition, it isn’t necessarily large enough to make an operation viable enough to sell only to the Canadian mines.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s large enough to give them a leg up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It doesn’t automatically follow.

Mr. Foulds: A good base for exports.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is quite right. I say to the member for Port Arthur, he is quite right. It should be a good base, and for some operations it might well be a good base. What we’re trying to do is to introduce that probability to some of the people who could go into that business here in this province. We’re also making available to them all sorts of grants, all sorts of programs, all sorts of government assistance.

I want to make it quite clear that if we get anyone who is prepared to get into that business, to supply any of the equipment the member for Nickel Belt has just referred to, I will recommend to my colleagues at that time that we consider a whole range of programs leading from grants to tax policies that might make it possible and feasible for those companies to work upon what may now be a base for new operations here in Canada.

QUEEN ELIZABETH WAY

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware of the poor road conditions on the Queen Elizabeth Way, from McLeod Road in Niagara Falls to the Peace Bridge, in the town of Fort Erie? The dips and dives in the travelled portion of both lanes create hazardous driving conditions. It is almost like being out on Lake Erie in a boat.

Will the minister consider this section in his 1980-81 construction program as a rehabilitative project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had any particular problem with that area brought to my attention. I did have a meeting a couple of weeks ago with a delegation from Niagara Falls but this was not mentioned to me. I will look into it and see where it fits into our maintenance program.

TRAVEL FUEL SURCHARGES

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will the minister introduce legislation before we recess for Christmas to control the travel fuel surcharge ripoff that is currently being engaged in by Strand Tours and Club Mediterranee Incorporated?

As the minister is aware, these two companies are charging exorbitant and totally inappropriate cancellation fees to consumers who object to or who cannot afford the fuel surcharges that are currently being levied.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will handle it in another way.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Perhaps the minister would be polite enough to tell us what the other way is. While he is doing that, would he undertake also to investigate Strand Tours to see whether or not they were involved in underpricing their tours back in the earlier part of this year, which has led to the pressure in that company to charge these surcharge cancellation fees?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will be very courteous to the member, Mr. Speaker. I am already doing that. I’m not going to tell somebody what to do.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: The minister said he was going to approach it in another way. Can he share with us what his intentions are? Can he also advise us if there will be some pattern put into place so that the various cancellation charges, if there are to be any, are clearly set out on a scale reflecting the value of the package purchased so that people who are taking on these obligations will know clearly what they might be liable for if there is a cancellation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I’m extremely reluctant to say in public what I intend to do for rather obvious reasons.

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. With the announcement of his grant structure for 1980, many municipalities are concerned as to their future planning, especially municipalities that are rural- dominated and would like to stay that way; but they’re finding that with the new assessment situation they’re going to be under a real bind. Since they have no guarantees for the next five years, they’re contemplating whether they should change their planning to more industrial than residential to get away from the totally rural area because of the high increase in the tax structure now. Can the minister give them any assurance so they will know what they’re going to do for the next five years?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, we will give them some assurance, Mr. Speaker. In the statement that I made yesterday, I said a couple of things that I hoped would assure them. One was that we didn’t believe that the kind of shift that the equalization factors brought about -- the shift of more burden on rural areas was a policy that we would support, and that this should be corrected in whatever we do over the next number of years. While the solution we’ve announced is for 1980, we will have a solution for 1981 and on, that I think will be of benefit to those municipalities, to be announced next July. Many people in the government will be working on that.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary; May I ask the minister if he can justify using one type of assessment system for equalization and another type for the actual levying of taxes? Doesn’t he agree that these should be uniform if we’re going to have any kind of fairness?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not exactly sure what my friend means. If he means that we shouldn’t have a system of modifying the equalization factors and putting some limits on the assessment for grant and apportionment purposes, to prevent some of the hardships, then I don’t agree with him. I think we should have that this year.

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

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to meet the afternoon of Wednesday, December 12, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing public accounts committee be authorized to meet at 9 a.m., Tuesday, December 11, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIBEL AND SLANDER AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 199, An Act to amend the Libel and Slander Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: I believe when the committee last met, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) had asked some questions. I don’t know if the minister has any comments.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. The member for Renfrew North is no longer with us. Oh, here he comes back to his seat. I am going to spoil his whole schedule for the morning. The interviews are cut off.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope Hansard doesn’t record that.

Mr. Chairman, the honourable member was very flattering in his description of my abilities, my leadership in the role as Treasurer. At least that is the way I read all the notes Hansard gave me. “I haven’t undertaken to maintain the same kind of profile or give the same kind of leadership, et cetera.” One can interpret that either way. I just assume you mean I am much better. With that kind of comment I will just go on.

There is no question, Mr. Chairman, I believe perhaps this differentiates me from my honourable colleagues, and I really do like it. Of the members in the House, the honourable member is one of the bright lights over there. Mind you, being a bright light in a bunch of dim bulbs isn’t that hard.

In any event, his ability to string a series of words together into a coherent sentence is probably unexcelled by anybody on that side of the House. However, that leads him deceptively into the kind of comment he made and that is, he has been judging me by my written word. That is not true of the other gentlemen who are far more able to judge me.

Mr. Peterson: Frank, at least you could hire someone to write that junk.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Well, it is true. But you see, I am a poor, humble engineer. And in the process of being a poor, humble engineer, I have always learned it is not the words one utters that one is judged by in the final analysis, it is what be gets done. Engineers have always been a bit poor on the English course, but pretty good on the production department. I would only ask that we allow history to judge, rather than Hansard.

The honourable member asked me an interesting question in the course of his remarks. He said: “The only thing I have not heard from the Treasurer or from the Premier is an undertaking to personally confront the 58 federal Conservative members representing Ontario in the Clark caucus in Ottawa, whose silence on this matter of vital national interest” -- that was oil, of course -- “and the pricing thereof has been at least stunning and consistent.”

I have had that opportunity. It is not in the future tense, it is past.

Mr. Conway: You and Stan over tea.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Stan and I meet quite often. I can only assure the honourable member of the very purpose in my mind. I was asked this question both before and after the conference of first ministers at Ottawa, where a lot of people rapidly jumped to the conclusion that Ontario had been isolated in Canada. Even the federal members couldn’t agree with the provincial government on the matter of oil pricing. The other provinces all said, “Let’s go to world price.” All for very selfish reasons, when you analyse it, and only Ontario was there. Ontario didn’t have the swat it used to have.

The people in this world who have the swat, as you and I as elected people know, are the voters. The voters of this province and of Canada had an excellent opportunity on the occasion of the first ministers’ conference to start to understand what it meant to them, whether they lived in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia or Alberta, and what it would cost them from their pockets to see the demands of their governments met in terms of oil pricing.

I have enough confidence to believe that in the interval between that first ministers’ conference and today a lot of the members of all three parties, including the 58 gentlemen you alluded to, have all heard from some of their constituents as to what they think. I would bet if you asked any of them privately and off the record what kind of response they heard from their people in Alberta, in Shining Tree, they would say without question, Ontario is right.

Maybe I will leave the Albertans out of this because they see themselves as getting it all. But the bulk of the rest of them will be saying, “Yes, when it comes down to whether I spend the money or my government gets my money, I would rather not see the prices go up on commodities as important to the economy and as important to the average taxpayer’s pocket as fuel oil and gasoline.” The price of electricity inexorably ends up being tied to these in today’s society in most cases, except perhaps in Quebec and BC.

Mr. Laughren: This is a recent conversion.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. We have been very consistent through all this. If one goes back to the Ontario paper -- and everybody loves to ignore that -- Ontario clearly said the consumer had to be protected to prevent a bout of inflation and unemployment in the event of a sharp rise in the price of fuel oil and petroleum. That was the immediate short-term objective of Ontario. In fact, if anyone decided to raise the price, we said there had to be a mechanism to get the money back to the consumer.

I was quite accurately quoted one day after a visit to Ryerson Polytechnic Institute. I said I wouldn’t trust any government with the money. I wouldn’t trust my government with the money. I wouldn’t trust the Alberta government with the money. I wouldn’t trust the federal government with the money if it is acting as a dispersing agency. In other words if one has to take the money from consumers in the form of increased energy prices, pass it through governments and then give it back to them, I know only one thing about government, namely, it is going to cost.

The second thing is, I suspect, it won’t be fairly redistributed. Therefore, according to the Ontario premise, it is better not to take it at all. Ontario clearly enunciated that policy over and over again, always with the fallback position that if governments do take it, then there has to be a mechanism to protect the consumer until such time as we know the moneys are being properly reinvested in security of supply.

Mr. Haggerty: That applies to the oil industry too.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, but give the oil industry credit where credit is due. The oil industry has been pouring back into reinvestment, it tells me, 88 cents out of every dollar, not of profits. Out of cash flow, and cash flow is more than profits. The real limitations on reinvestment today are the availability of people to build the plants to a large degree and the capability of industry to provide the needed equipment, the structures themselves.

This is where some reason could be attached to the Alberta position in that there is only a certain rate at which Canada is capable of building that plant. That rate will determine, in my opinion, the price -- the amount that has to be reinvested. Anything over that is going unnecessarily either to governments or to windfall profits. That was the Ontario position. I assure you I have personally taken the time to transmit that message. And I know by the way, that others have. I am not alone in having done that.

The honourable member then went on to talk about his own riding and I am trying to get the actual statistic, maybe he will shoot it back to me quite quickly. Twice, he referred to the double digit unemployment of areas such as the one he represents. I don’t have the statistic on the unemployment rate in Renfrew county. I am not proud of it, he is not proud of it. I think though what we need to do is look at the one statistic I have, and I may have that before I am through because I sent out for it when I saw that it was not in the data my staff got back to me. Just a moment and I will see if it is here. They are just saying we can’t get that specific information.

The one I have that is specific is this: In Renfrew county last year -- last year the statistics were worse than this year in Ontario -- 6.7 of the labour force was receiving unemployment insurance benefits. That compared to an Ontario average of 5.7 per cent. That is an interesting statistic; I would have assumed it would have been higher. Last year I believe the unemployment figures in Ontario averaged somewhere around the seven to eight per cent range. So if one pro rated the increase, that should give us some measure of the statistics in the member’s county, for unemployment. They may not reach the double digit range but they are close to it in any event. However, we recognize and accept that assistance is needed there.

As I mentioned in answer to a question the other day, I hope very shortly to be signing the eastern Ontario DREE agreement. That has been finalized; the signing will take place, I think it’s safe to say, on December 20, in Kemptville. That remains as yet not totally sure, but assuming the other minister is available and assuming I can make it on time, that would be the time and place. It has been a long time coming. Ontario has been working quite hard to get it, recognizing the need of the whole general eastern Ontario region for assistance.

But let’s look not at what hasn’t been done, let’s look at what --

Mr. Laughren: You gave the back of the hand to Shining Tree, again.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, yes. Am I getting the honourable member’s goat?

Mr. Laughren: No. I can give you about 300 of them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If he can find them I’ll be happy because I was going to say if the honourable member was getting my goat I’d like to find his.

Mr. Laughren: I would rather not discuss it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He would rather not discuss it. I only want to tell the honourable member I am a director of a number of corporations and directors are held accountable for corporations. It’s a messy deal.

We have the Renfrew county development strategy. We have the design for development packages, as I am sure the member knows. Let me just put a few things on the record because one purpose of these debates is for members to let their people know what is done in the House and how incompetent this government is. I like to think in turn it’s our turn to do the opposite.

Mr. Laughren: They require increasingly less evidence.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Perhaps it’s because I can put in increasingly fewer words.

It was suggested that an intergovernmental agency be set up with an advisory rule in the co-ordination, implementation and periodic evaluation of the strategy for the development of the county. That task force was formed under the late Peter York and recently we had the reappointment of Russ Radford to that position.

Mr. Peterson: Where is Bill Hodgson today, the guy who called for a quorum last time.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member doesn’t want a quorum call does he? I will say this, one of the things I learned was the clock runs during quorum calls, it that correct?

Mr. Peterson: Maybe there is a graceful way to get out of this mess.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the member gets to the point where he has nothing to say please call for a quorum.

Mr. Peterson: Hurry up will you, I have to get on because I have to leave.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh well, I waited all of the other days to say all this stuff.

We set up a county of Renfrew and a city of Pembroke economic development board with local representatives. That has been assisted under the community and rural resource development subsidiary agreement, costs shared with DREE. Two hundred thousand dollars have been made available for the use of this board since December 7, 1977. The municipalities involved took until March, 1979, to set up the terms of reference, to appoint their members and to hold the first meeting. Assistance for the board is designed to help the city and the county pursue economic development ideas for the region. It was suggested the city of Pembroke be designated as a major growth point for development and that studies be completed to identify any environmental constraints that would have to be met to determine the adequacy of municipal water in the sewage system. We should consider assistance as the needs were found. They suggested a regional industrial park should be established in Pembroke as soon as possible.

We have funded the industrial park study for Pembroke for $86,000; the servicing study for Pembroke for $33,000; the province and DREE cost shared the design of the new water filtration plant, $317,000; the testing of nutrient removal facilities at the sewage plant, $65,000. The Treasurer sent a proposal to cost share the water filtration plant construction, the sewage plant expansion and the industrial park servicing, to DREE in June. We estimated the cost to be about $14 million. We haven’t had any official response from DREE. That may follow once we get the details of our agreement of eastern Ontario but we need that agreement before those water and sewage treatment plants can be upgraded.

It was suggested that the towns of Arnprior and Renfrew be secondary development points. We were to again assess any constraints, sewage, environmental, before that could be done. So, the town of Renfrew was given $390,000 from the regional priority budget of this ministry for trunk sewers to an industrial park and it had a loan from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to assist with internal servicing. It is also in that park that Westinghouse is going to locate; that was a fairly large deal. Also, Arnprior, is designing a sewage treatment plant with a grant from my ministry of $92,000. It was suggested an industrial promotion team be established in Renfrew. The $200,000 we gave the Economic Development Board can be used for that if it so elects.

On the question of wood inventory, your valley has always had a very strong relationship to the pine. I guess that was the historic source of the square pine, wasn’t it?

Mr. Conway: The family is still making money.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Your family is? Are you one of the people I used to come and buy lumber from?

Mr. Conway: Yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I used to purchase along with a purchasing agent for Rubberset Company Limited of Gravenhurst, pine from Pembroke. To think that I was supporting a future embryonic Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Warner: Scary, isn’t it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is that. He’s one of the few cases where two for one has worked. Okay, the inventory of the forest resources is being done I believe by the Ministry of Natural Resources. We are spending about $80,000 on that agreement and we expect once the DREE agreement is signed, there will be another $150,000 in round figures spent on the forest resource inventory.

It was recommended we have a study to determine the feasibility of income improvement and productivity gains in the wood industry and to encourage larger scale operations. That’s part of the study we are working on. I am sure if economies of scale exist, like the honourable member, sometimes economics aren’t the only answer to life.

I have always sensed in my riding and yours that many people do things the accountants would tell us are totally foolish. The scale is too small, the profits aren’t good enough, the return on investment isn’t adequate. But funnily enough, a lot of people in your riding and mine have some of the most delightful lives around and they have recognized that part of the price of not being quite as economically attractive in their scale of operation has been that there’s a closer relationship between owners and labour, between life and country. Both you and I would share the fact they are pretty nice places to live no matter what.

Mr. Peterson: Have you ever thought of the ministry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: What ministry --

Mr. Peterson: The church.

Mr. Chairman: We are doing ministry estimates now.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ve always argued that the more I accomplish here as a minister in this area, the less they have to accomplish in theirs and vice versa. If they manage to perfect the human being through their admonitions and church on Sunday, then I will not have to be a pragmatist in the House on Monday.

That put him right back to sleep.

The Woodlands Improvement Act was recommended to be expanded so that private wood owners would be able to manage their wood lots better. I want to say that having been Minister of Natural Resources, this to me -- in your riding and mine -- is one of the most attractive ways, both of providing employment and of securing a future for the wood-based industries.

We talk a lot in this House about crown lands and the management of the forests. There are legitimate criticisms of what the crown does on its land, but 25 per cent of total wood production in this province comes from private lands, which count for much less than 11 per cent of the total land mass of this province. The kinds of lands that are privately owned, absolutely and totally deserve and demand good management. The Woodlands Improvement Act is the best mechanism I know of to do that.

It’s a system by which, as you know, an agreement is entered into by the Ministry of Natural Resources with the landowner to manage the forests. He only has certain conditions involved, not costs, if that is done. I think they have a minimum acreage of something like five or 10 acres. Past that, the ministry will get in and either give advice or actually perform functions.

It’s something you and I need to encourage absentee owners to practise and current harvesters to practise, if the wood-based industries in my riding and yours, are going to have a future. We keep on hearing that crown lands can’t sustain the present cuts. Our private lands have much greater fertility in the Ottawa Valley than they have north of North Bay. They have much greater potential. I would suggest that once the DREE agreement is signed there will be moneys available to see this kind of thing enriched. We have a duty to encourage its use by anyone with the lands, whether they are actively living in your riding or not.

It was suggested that we have mapping and exploration of mineral resources on a continuing basis. The mineral resource assessment is being carried out. It’s costing $174,000 in provincial funds and $491,000 in cost-shared provincial-federal funds under the agreements we have. That kind of thing worked very well in the north. The field work is complete. The maps and reports, to some degree, are already published, and there has been some interest expressed by mining companies in the area. I guess you’ve got the only magnesium mine in Canada in your area, haven’t you, at Carp?

Mr. Conway: Haley Station.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There was some fear it was going to go across the border a while ago.

There was a recommendation that the ARDA program be evaluated and programs be devised, if needed, to buy marginal farms. The eastern Ontario agreement that we signed will have a clause to see that’s done.

There was a recommendation that short-term existing programs and promotion be used to generate investment in the tourism sector. You’ve had the Pembroke marina under the ARP regional priority budget get $148,000; the Mud Creek development got $33,000; the study on Timbertown, $240,000; the options on Timbertown about $82,000 to date.

Admittedly, some of these things are still saying, “These are what can happen,” but you know the process requires a lot of this to be done. If your people are saying, “Studies on studies on studies,” I can sense their frustration, but you’d be the first to agree that you won’t get the results without the studies. They’re done. I think we’ve shown our willingness to see that the potential be examined.

The eastern Ontario agreement, as you know, will have $50 million, in round figures, for development in the general area over the period of its life. That’s combined provincial-federal money.

The Westinghouse plant had a $1.6 million grant to locate a turbine and generator in the town of Renfrew. That was announced in October.

The company will invest $23 million in land, buildings, and equipment and about $7.5 million in training the required personnel. We hope 325 jobs will be created in Renfrew. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is going to contribute $6.3 million towards the capital cost. The federal Department of Manpower, which is being useful, will contribute $1.7 million towards retraining. In Renfrew South, the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation has given 93 loans and guarantees worth $10.5 million -- $464,000 in round figures to assist the town of Renfrew with an industrial park. In Renfrew North, it has made 27 loans and guarantees with a value of $3.4 million.

I could go on to Ministry of Culture and Recreation projects, but I won’t. All I wanted to put on the record is that no matter how one is able to tackle us and make us look as if we aren’t interested in an area, I can only assure you we are. We’ve been working consistently to try to help eastern Ontario. We will continue to do so, recognizing the realities of life, namely, that there are certain geographic areas that attract certain kinds of industries while other geographic areas attract others.

Mr. Conway: I know my colleague from London Centre wishes to participate, so I won’t belabour the point. I appreciate the Treasurer’s remarks in all respects. I have a frustration, which I know a lot of my constituents and friends in the eastern region have, about government trying to deliver services and programs from a point here in Toronto, 250 miles distant from the area requiring the attention.

I’m going to tie those remarks to the remarks the minister made in his opening statement where he talked about his humility as an engineer with respect to the political trade he now engages in

I’m almost finished with the biography of C. D. Howe. I know my friends on the left would not particularly enjoy some of the policy thrusts. In that personality, was an engineer in politics who certainly was not prone to great Disraelian oratory, to be sure, but in his own right he was able to determine the kind of policies and practical projects that would be applicable in many parts of this country, and he got on with the job.

I certainly expect my friend from Bracebridge or Gravenhurst or wherever to exhibit the kind of decisiveness we normally associate, rightly or otherwise, with the engineering trade. I hope he takes it upon himself to cut through the myriad studies that are entertained. He rattled off a list of several studies involving probably a million dollars or thereabouts. These are studies which in some respects have probably committed this government to some of the most hare-brained schemes ever concocted. I will watch with great interest as the government opposite squirms its unhappy way out of some of the studies and commitments that I think have been improperly entered into.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Could you be specific about those?

Mr. Conway: I would do so perhaps at a later point, given my opportunity to speak very briefly here, and for reasons that I would not wish to embarrass the honourable member with, to be quite blunt about it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Are you against Timbertown?

Mr. Conway: I shall watch with very great interest the development of Tiimbertown, knowing what I know about the kind of advice that is coming from the senior economic planners in this government. I shall watch with great interest the attitude of this government to that project over the next 18 months.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My interpretation is you are against it.

Mr. Conway: I am neither for or against the government’s commitment to Timbertown. I shall say -- and maybe it’s time I said it since the minister has provoked me -- from my point of view, if we are going to marshall $8 million or $10 million with respect to an economic program that will in one particular way generate a response to the very serious structural employment problems of the eastern region, and particularly my own county, then for me Timbertown is not the answer to that particular problem.

It is being offered by this government as a solution to part of the serious economic unemployment problem in Renfrew county. I have to think that now Joe Clark is giving us $2 a gallon oil, we will see some very immediate and significant changes in the way in which the tourist dollar is spent, not only on the continent, but in the country, and in the province, generally.

When Timbertown was discussed, I looked at the St. Lawrence Parks Commission report to see what impact the OPEC 1973 situation had on the corridor parks along the St. Lawrence. I was quite impressed to see there was a very sharp drop post 1973 in many cases, and in many of the parks, in Upper Canada in particular.

I must say I would not be against a kind of initiative that brought about a major tourist creation into the county, but I have said repeatedly this Timbertown project is not going to be an answer to the employment pattern of the region.

The honourable minister knows better than anyone in this House that the kind of investment involved here will, by and large, result only in seasonal 10- to 14-week employment. I must tell you that is not the answer to the unemployment problems in Renfrew county. Go forward with Timbertown in its tourist capacity and you will have my blessing, but as far as a major government-supported project to do something about the unemployment in Renfrew county, I want to see this government undertake a project or a series of initiatives that will offer full-time, 12 months of the year employment. I must tell you Timbertown will not do that in this particular way.

When you talked about the unemployment statistics, I was quite interested. You people have more luck than I have. Ever since my friends in Ottawa the late deceased federal Liberal administration, made that change some years ago about the way in which unemployment figures were made available through regional manpower offices, it is very difficult to get the information. In 1978, according to the Treasurer’s figures, we had a 0.7 per cent of the labour force in Renfrew county in receipt of UIC benefits. Did I understand you to say that? I want to be sure of that. My recollection is you said that in 1978, 0.7 per cent of the labour force in Renfrew county in 1978 was in receipt of UIC benefits

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Conway: Fair enough. In 1978, as you know and as my family tells me, the lumber trade was at the top of one of its very best cycles and there is no question from my own experience on a general anecdotal level, that unemployment was reduced in many parts of my county as a result of the cyclical high being experienced in the lumber forest industry.

As the minister knows that cycle is now carrying it somewhat downward, and probably we’re not at the bottom yet. I simply want to tell him that I raise the spectre of local unemployment because there are some communities, some of them not too far from Bracebridge, where the winter unemployment is not unknown to be in the order of 20 to 30 per cent.

Joe Clark has now stripped them of their winter works money, and this government has done precious little to fill the vacuum. The people in areas like Whitney and Stonecliffe look at a winter of very considerable discontent with respect of their economic and employment prospects.

I want to say the government has a responsibility which hopefully will be exercised in a provincial sense by strong local political leadership.

The sad thing for those of us who are in our embryonic political stages, is to look across and to think about the goodness of the eastern region over these many long years in generating a plethora of quiet, silent backbenchers to fill the government majorities of the past, and minorities of the present. We see them and remember the old days when the eastern region produced Premiers like Whitney and Ferguson and Frost and very strong regional spokesmen for the far and near eastern region.

What have we got today? What we have today is pathetic, and pales in relation to the historic greatness. If anything points to your end, Mr. Minister, it is the pathetic recruitment of your Tory friends on the back benches from eastern Ontario Because when I look, in my embryonic way, at the new occupants of the shoes of Frost, Ferguson, Whitney and the rest, I see a very sad effort of third rate mediocre people insofar as the representation in this government and in this cabinet of the serious and real needs of the eastern region.

I have always expected those regional interests to be represented in a strong way in cabinet. The members for places like Ottawa South and Ottawa West are surely no answer to the kind of expectation some of us have.

The government has a tradition, I would that it were otherwise, but it is there and I will acknowledge it. Gone are the days when that tradition recruited and generated truly outstanding regional, provincial and national spokespeople. I certainly have to tell members opposite that at the next election we shall not only note the absence of the present members from at least Carleton East and Cornwall, but I dare say others from across the way, everywhere from South Renfrew to Durham West.

I point out to the minister that I expect him to go forward in his capacity as Treasurer to do something about the many studies being generated, to bring them to some kind of conclusion, to give the people of Cobden, Deep River and elsewhere in my region, a kind of commitment that doesn’t offer pie in the sky, doesn’t offer some hope for another millennium, but will offer their kids and their friends and neighbours an opportunity to work and to live in that part of this great province.

I see from the Minister of Labour the beginnings, after many years, of doing something in a very weak and shameful way in some respects, about keeping people such as myself, who are otherwise driven to less noble occupations to justify our staying in the area from which we came.

I invite the minister to go to Kemptville on December 20, or wherever it should be, and to make a clear policy statement of the ongoing, full-time employment strategy that will do something about the double-digit unemployment. Do something.

Mr. Ashe: We could add to the unemployment by adding the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: I’m speaking to my friend from Bracebridge and that’s all the audience I feel I need at this point.

Mr. McClellan: Can we leave?

Mr. Conway: The member for Bellwoods has every dispensation to leave.

I want the Treasurer to do something that will deliver long-term employment to the people I represent and to others in the region. I’ve got to tell the Treasurer again, the frustration with the task force, for example -- what does it say about this government’s leadership? What does it really say about this government’s leadership?

It took three or four months to just replace the chairman. I certainly thought the late chairman had done a rather adequate job, but in some respects I am deeply disappointed this government took three or four months, or however many months it was, to fill that vacancy.

Does the Treasurer know what the interpretation of that is at places like Renfrew county council? They don’t care. They have no appreciation for the urgency of the obligations that fall to us as a result of these requirements. The Treasurer has got to do something to move that task force forward, to decide upon the priorities that are going to mean something for the 1980s, will deliver the jobs to the young people, and to the not-so-young, looking for employment in that region, and to make it clear what his strategy is going to be.

Save us, please, from the strategy of the 1970s which has impoverished regions like my own at the expense of many of the Treasurer’s friends in the consulting business who have reaped the benefits of a government strategy which seemingly has had more to say and do about the delivering of big contracts for people to study and restudy and study again the very kinds of issues looked at for the last 36 years, without bringing to any conclusion the strategy required if we’re going to do something about the 6.7 per cent of the labour force that is dependent on UIC.

Let me tell the Treasurer, those figures are not as accurate as we would like them to be, although they’re all we’ve got to go on.

I would anticipate, and hopefully I will be in Kemptville on December 20 to watch the glare of the television lights, as we have, at last, this promised agreement which I raised, together with my friend from Victoria-Haliburton and others, as late as December 1978 at which time -- and I don’t have the Hansard here to prove it -- we were told we were on the verge of signing at that particular time.

We must have a strategy. We, in the eastern region, must know what it is. It must concern itself with an accommodation to what’s already there, recognizing the energy resources around places like Chalk River, the tourist potential of the upper valley, the forest industries that have been there, the agricultural base that exists there. Those four areas are, surely, well established in the tradition of the economic history of the particular region.

I want to see your government move to introduce, in a meaningful way, new and creative programs that will supplement those already there. As the minister knows, the record of DREE in my part of the province, has not been very good. The record of DREE, in the words of my federal associate from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, “is less than what we would like to have seen.” The governments, both federal and provincial, have acquired pretty bad names as economic players in the local region, sponsoring many fly-by-night operators who have left a residue of unhappiness and obligation that do not reflect very well upon government in its responsibilities.

To conclude these remarks, I look forward to the engineer from Bracebridge getting on with the Job; defining some strategic possibilities that will deliver the kind of employment we want; employment that we need, not for 1985, but for the winter of 1979-80, a winter which, thanks to Joe Clark, is, as I said earlier, going to be a winter of some considerable discontent for many disadvantaged people as a result of federal Conservative mismanagement.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, C. D. Howe, a man whom I think all of us respect regardless of our party affiliations, would have one advantage or disadvantage, depending on how one looked at it. He had a war going. There is something about a war that allows certain decision-making processes to be shortened.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Minister, which war was going on between 1948 and 1957?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course, there was one war going on. The member may not remember it, but we had the Korean war on for a bit of the time. It takes a bit of time to unwind after a war.

Mr. Conway: Read the book, Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’d be glad to.

Let me talk briefly about Timbertown. The member is quite right when he says it’s not a solution. But a solution is a series of parts, I hope he would agree.

The member’s own area is dependent upon the wood industry, tourism and one or two other things. The potential for tourist development is good. It is on a major corridor through Canada. While there may be changes in the types of traffic, I sense there may be, still, a good deal of Canadian-based tourism. As a matter of fact, I’ve gone so far as to say that I sense the world shortages of fuel are changing the patterns of vacationing enough to make Canada, and particularly Ontario, the net beneficiary of the change. I believe that change was evidenced this year in perhaps the best summer the resort part of the tourist industry has seen for some years. That was true across Ontario, and it may be true across Canada.

I have some experience with attractions, as you may well know. Last night I dropped out of character and, in fact, acted as Santa Claus for a party, dressed in a costume. Of course, having read the long list of the kinds of things your riding has got from us, I think the member would be the first to agree that is just simply an extension of my real life operation into my after-working hours.

Timbertown’s real use is not just the number of jobs it may create per week. Any major attraction, like the one being built north of Toronto, has to have a fairly lengthy season today to survive. It can’t be 52 weeks, but it may easily be 26 weeks, or 28 or 30 weeks.

I believe the one north of Toronto was aiming at 34 weeks a year, a fairly lengthy time. For the 18 weeks it is down, I am sure a large number of people will still be on staff.

That is true of the little business I run called Santa’s Village. It is true of others, but what does that one do, in an area that has suffered all the economic problems, for the area? It brings 120,000 people a year through the town. It lets the main street merchant sell them something; it lets the restaurant business sell them something; it immediately stimulates the motel and hotel business in the area.

The spinoff effects of any major attraction, in terms of the support and service industries, is absolutely astounding. What do those industries, in turn, do? Right now at my place we are busy building, as I am sure many tourist operators are, whether they are employing themselves or doing what I do, hiring local builders, plumbers, electricians and contractors. People are at work right now. The tourists have gone home, but the tourist dollars are being spent in the off-season.

The quick dismissal of the small numbers that may be on site overlooks the spill-off effect, which is the very reason for having it.

Ste.-Marie-among-the-Hurons, which is hardly comparable, as it was put there strictly because of its authentic, historic fact, draws tens of thousands -- hundreds of thousands of people per year.

Upper Canada Village specifically, located where it was, and I haven’t the attendance figures, but something strikes me they attract in the range of 300,000 people a year. That may be going down slightly.

I’ve had a great fight for the last few years to maintain a steady attendance figure at the village, although sales go up, because we are seeing demographic changes as time goes on. Some people in this world aren’t doing their share to maintain the population. I wouldn’t want to impugn the member for Renfrew North, but I don’t think he has been too productive in that area.

Mr. Conway: My colleague from Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) and I, on average it works out to --

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s true. It’s 11.5 each on average. No, maybe we better keep him in Renfrew South -- oh no, we need some in Renfrew North because it is getting closer, isn’t it? In any case, I just like to say those things.

I would also like to point out to my colleague -- no, I wouldn’t like to point out to my colleague. The points we just brought up --

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I mustn’t be taunted this way. I think simply, to say to my honourable colleague, “Let us not discount it.” There are some risks, but surely, that is the only time government is justified in becoming involved in these things.

The province of Ontario wasn’t required to put up any money for the Canadian Leisure World, or whatever it is called, at Maple. That is because a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, let’s not argue the pros and cons of that, especially with my deputy living how close to it? Well close. Let’s not argue any of those kinds of issues, the fact is simply that a series of investors, after an analysis, decided they could make a profit on it and decided to do it. They are estimating two to three million visitors a year at that location. The economic spill-off of that would be absolutely fantastic.

I know each person who enters Santa’s Village spends about $6.50. They would estimate each person entering there would spend $15. That doesn’t mean too much, but how much do they spend in the area? In the area, the multiple is probably 10 to one in total, and that is the multiple we are after.

In the honourable member’s area, if the study for Timbertown doesn’t bring private money out of the woods through a small business development corporation though an employment development loan, then possibly the role of government is to see that it happens. That is the difference; a few years ago I wouldn’t have seen that as necessary.

[12:15]

In Muskoka we had a steam-theme park study, much the same as your Timbertown study. The statistics all show that, given that attraction X-number of hundreds of thousands of people will visit every year, and the benefits to the area will be thus and so. So I say, let us not put it down the tube too quickly.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, one final comment to the Treasurer. I want to be very clear on this, because I know other members may find this a little too parochial; but it is important to the county of which I am one of the two members. I have no objection whatsoever to this concept being generated and being advanced as part of the tourist sector. Bravo, fine. However, I do want to reiterate my concern with the impression that is clearly being left by the government that this is a centrepiece for long-term structural readjustment within the local economy. It will not do simply what many will expect it to do, and that is deliver full-time employment to many people in the area. It must not be advanced as a solution to that very serious local concern.

As far as a part of the local tourist economy, as I said earlier, I can certainly support it and live with it under the terms that have been advanced by this government. I would not wish to be on the record as being anything other than supportive of it as part of the local tourist mosaic. But it cannot be understood and it must not be advanced as a major job-creation scheme that will somehow deal with the serious unemployment problems under which communities like Renfrew and Pembroke have suffered since the decline of the great lumbering period earlier in the century. That is my concern.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Do you mean when your grandparents cut more trees than they should have?

Mr. Conway: That’s right.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I missed one point, Mr. Chairman, in my wrap-up.

Mr. Chairman: Are you going to reply to that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am just responding to a point I meant to reply to earlier where he and I both agreed, and that was on DREE assistance in general to Ontario, and he of course was interested specifically in his area.

I would have to say Ontario has never been satisfied that it got its fair share of DREE money. The statistics are simple. DREE expenditures in Ontario were not quite six per cent of its budget. The national per capita spending by DREE was about $20. The Ontario spending was $332. One province, Prince Edward Island, got $265 per capita DREE spending. DREE was aimed at helping less fortunate parts of this country to expand, or to do works that would generate and generally improve their economy.

Our argument with the previous government -- and so far we haven’t had to stress this too much with the present one, we may have to -- has been that they look upon Ontario as an economic whole, rather than a very large province with regions that are just as much in need of economic assistance as any of the other provinces; greater in population, and therefore deserving of special attention. That is why we will continue to press to see that the northern and the eastern parts of Ontario get the kind of assistance through DREE that we believe is fair for the province.

Mr. Warner: It is fascinating to sit here this morning and listen to the economic plans for the province being revealed by the Treasurer. Your answer to our economic ills, it seems, is to create a Florida of the north, turn it into a Walt Disney World. I am surprised you don’t want to plant palm trees down University Avenue. In the face of the serious economic problems which this province faces, serious to a structural point in our economy, your answer is to build a Disney World up near Maple, or some place.

Like the member for Renfrew, I will raise a parochial matter, but it touches on a problem that exists throughout this province. In my riding there was a plant, ESB of Canada, part of the infamous Inco holdings. A more irresponsible corporate citizen one can’t find on the face of the earth.

They decided for their own reasons -- wanting to get out of a collective agreement, wanting to exploit cheap labour somewhere else -- that they would close the plant and relocate it somewhere else. One hundred and sixteen men were thrown out of work. It didn’t mean anything to Inco of course. But I will say Mr. Treasurer that some of those people had spent a good portion of their lives doing nothing else but working at ESB. After 20 or 25 years, the thanks they got was to be thrown out on to the street.

I ask the minister, if some workers have only limited skills and training, and if they are aged 45 or 50, in today’s world where do they go to find a job when they have been thrown out through no fault of their own? What compounded the matter for some of those men was the fact that they had some Workmen’s Compensation Board claims. They had a minor injury on the job and they were still working, but because they have a WCB claim, that’s another strike against them when they go to look for work. No recognition of seniority, no recognition of the fact that they had poured 20 years of their lives into creating profits for Inco.

I asked the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the Minister of Labour to do a couple of very simple things to help stop the runaway plants, because ESB isn’t alone. I don’t know if there are any runaway plants from the Renfrew area, but in total there is apparently somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,100 in the Metro Toronto area that have run away, to locate somewhere else. So thousands of people are put out of work as that happens. There is no protection for those employees, no protection.

I asked the minister if it didn’t make sense, if a company wanted to relocate somewhere else, that they must first guarantee that the wage rate will be the same where they move. Second, the contract will carry through. Third, the first job openings will be given to the present employees and fourth, where those employees agree to take the job in the new location, that the moving expenses be paid. Four very simple, reasonable conditions.

Surprise, surprise. Neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Industry and Tourism could agree with that. They would much rather leave those people to be unprotected and out of work.

Unemployment is a serious problem. No matter how affable the present Treasurer is and no matter how pleasant a person he may he, he cannot hide from the fact that there are thousands of people in Ontario who want jobs and can’t get them. Some of those people happen to live in my riding. It is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. What makes it tragic is the fact that it doesn’t have to occur. If the Treasurer had any idea about how to plan the economy of this province, we wouldn’t have people out of work.

I’ll touch on one of those, one which the Treasurer has done absolutely nothing about and that is foreign ownership. I am right now having the distinct pleasure of reading over the personal opinion letters that are mailed back to me from constituents, there are about 500 of these letters right now.

Mr. Conway: Read them all.

Mr. Warner: I’d be happy to read everyone of them. Almost every single one of these makes a comment on the extent of foreign ownership. Most people are writing down comments to the effect that foreign ownership is costing us jobs. How much longer will we tolerate foreigners owning our economy? Why doesn’t the government demand that any foreign investment can be only to the tune of 49 per cent? of course I have to write back to them and tell them that, in answer to their questions, the government has no intention of limiting the amount of foreign investment. The government has no intention of making sure we retain our economic independence.

What really scares me is that down the line if we don’t have economic independence, we may not have political independence. That’s not important to this government. It doesn’t mean anything. But it does cost jobs, and the minister knows it as well as I do. It costs jobs in two main ways. Foreign ownership of our natural resources and of other industries normally precludes any secondary industries being developed. That’s where the jobs are.

My good colleague from Nickel Belt can tell you about the tragedy in the mining machinery industry. He will tell you how we have lost our opportunities to develop real jobs in the secondary industries related to mining, the real jobs that would have been created by having a machinery industry located in the north. My other colleagues from the north can tell you similar stories related to the other natural resources there, forest products or iron ore, you name it. We have lost jobs and they are not about to be recouped.

The second major way in which we lose jobs through foreign ownership is that when things get tough in the United States, where’s the first place to have a plant closing? Canada. Would an American shareholder demand of his company that it close an American plant first, ahead of a foreign one? Of course not. The plant closings we have seen over the past few years have been the result of the economic pressure on the American industry.

This government stands idly by, watching passively and suggesting we can solve the problem by creating a Disney World some place. I think the government lives in a Disney World. I wish the Treasurer would reflect for a moment back to the history of the province of Saskatchewan. He will recall in 1946 --

Mr. Conway: I remember it well.

Mr. Warner: You would.

Ms. Gigantes: He wasn’t born then. Don’t let him con you.

Mr. Warner: No, but he has read every history book going. In 1946, when the CCF came to power, Saskatchewan was the second poorest province in the country. It couldn’t borrow money. A third of the provincial budget was used to pay off the interest on the debt. In the midst of that economic problem, they began what is the most important social program Canadians have ever had the benefit of, medicare. They also set out an economic plan whereby they could develop the economy of Saskatchewan.

Thirty years later, they now have what I would guess to be the most strong and viable economy of all the provinces, except perhaps for Alberta which is dripping in oil. The main reason why the province of Saskatchewan has been able to attain economic independence, as much as a province is able to do within Confederation, is that it zeroed in on its natural resources. The delicious irony, about which many of us are so pleased, is that it culminated when the Premier of Saskatchewan went to the money market in New York and borrowed money from the Americans to buy out the American companies in Saskatchewan. That was a landmark for Canadians and something about which every Canadian should be justly proud.

For the first time, the people of Saskatchewan would have some control over the development of their natural resources and every penny of profit would remain within the province of Saskatchewan. It wouldn’t be flowing south of the border as the profits from this province do. Further, it would be the people of the province who would be employed to run that industry, not foreigners.

Guess what -- production increased, profits increased. The province, I understand, shortly past Christmas will show a plus of $1 billion in its heritage fund.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Thanks to our oil money.

Mr. Warner: No, the Treasurer hasn’t been listening, has he? He’s tuned out He’s thinking about selling used cars someplace. He’s lost between the used car market and Disney World. Why doesn’t he put the two of them side by side?

Hon. F. S. Miller: At least I can understand the real world. I’ve been in it.

Mr. Warner: The real world, Mr. Chairman, is where a province says, “We will develop our natural resources for the people of the province and not for some foreign multinational.” That’s the real world. That takes courage. It takes courage, but when you get the courage you find out that it works.

The Treasurer sits there shaking his head. I’m not sure whether he is falling asleep or disagreeing with me. If he’s disagreeing with me, take a look at the balance sheet for the province of Saskatchewan. Also take a look at the unemployment figures and the cost of living and the social programs they’re able to supply.

We’re fighting desperately to hold onto OHIP in this province. In Saskatchewan they’re expanding their health-care program; free dental care for children up to the age of 12. They’re looking at programs for eye glasses and for dentures. They’re expanding their social programs. Meanwhile, in this province, we have to fight every inch of the way to protect our health-care system because this government wants to dump it out and give it back to private insurance companies. It’s a sad and pitiful day.

It all comes back to the fact that this government doesn’t know how to manage the economy of this province. It knows the answers and refuses to do anything about it.

The answer’s quite simple and the Treasurer knows it. It comes to having control over our natural resources and developing them so that we could develop the secondary industries, the manufacturing, the finished goods. Why should we send our iron ore or anything else to Norway to be finished? Why should we be sending resources to Japan? Why shouldn’t we be developing them here in this province?

The Treasurer says, “Why not? Because we don’t dare fight those multinationals. They’re too big for us. They’re too powerful.” Well, the poor little have-not weak sister province of Saskatchewan stood up to the multinationals and used the money from Chase Manhattan Bank and some of those other places to buy out the American companies.

Right here in our own province, a little closer to home, I might refer to de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited. The little gang of bumblers presently up there in Ottawa wants to get rid of de Havilland. The Treasurer knows the story of de Havilland. As a private company it was a loser. The government bought it and turned it into a winner. Now, our Prime Minister wants to sell it off. There are no guarantees, at this point, that de Havilland will not move out of this province.

Is the Treasurer prepared -- if Joe Clark continues along his stumbling path to rid us of the winners and pick up losers -- is he prepared on behalf of this government to take over de Havilland to ensure that it remains in public control and in Ontario? Perhaps he’d like to buy some of the planes and put them in his Disney World.

Surely we can get a commitment from this government, since it knows the successful track record of de Havilland; surely, if Joe Clark is determined to destroy the potential aerospace industry, surely we can get commitment from this Treasurer to retain de Havilland in public hands in this province? Nothing could be more reasonable. I’m still waiting for him to make the statement.

Despite the rhetoric, not only from the minister but from the Premier and the Minister of Energy, we still do not have the assurance that this government will oppose in every conceivable way the selloff of Petrocan. We still don’t have an assurance that the minister will oppose the sale of Petrocan in absolutely every conceivable way available to him, through our federation.

I don’t need to remind him that part of the debate we had yesterday, part of the fury that’s going on in this country from one coast to the other, would have been lessened tremendously had the Prime Minister not decided to meddle with Petrocan.

The Treasurer will recall that Petrocan was on the verge of making a contract arrangement, an agreement, with Venezuela and Mexico, the total of which would have supplied approximately 150,000 barrels of oil a day. Then along comes Joe Clark. Joe wants to get rid of the Canadian interest in the oil industry and Joe wants to turn it over to the Americans. The deal, the potential agreement with Venezuela and Mexico was just so much oil slick at that point. The agreement was never signed and the 150,000 barrels a day -- which obviously would be of immense benefit to eastern Canada -- is gone. Where was this government? Sitting on the sidelines. I reply to them and I tell them. I send them little copies of your speeches about how to turn the economy around by building a Disney World somewhere. I send them copies of those speeches, Mr. Treasurer.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how much longer the people of Ontario will tolerate a government which cannot run the economy properly. As they look at other provinces, as they look particularly at Saskatchewan and see how well an economy can be run; see a province which started from a have-not basis, so deeply in debt that no one would lend it money, move to a position where almost all of its citizens are now working, where they have social programs far in excess of what we have in Ontario, and where, on the average, the people are enjoying a much better lifestyle.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Why are you staying here?

Mr. Warner: I’m staying here to turf you out of office and to bring to the people of Ontario the kind of sound economics which the people of Saskatchewan enjoy. That’s why I’m here.

Mr. Conway: But are you going to sell their wheat?

Mr. Warner: Sure, would you like to buy some?

I don’t know, as I say, how much longer the people of Ontario will tolerate absence of planning. What I do know, through the hundreds of letters that I get, is that the people are aware of the minister’s lack of planning and they are frightened about the level of foreign ownership.

I would like to know before we adjourn today whether or not the Treasurer intends to respond to my question about de Havilland, because I think that’s an essential item; and second, if he intends to respond to my questions about the runaway plants. I’d like to know whether or not he is going to make any significant changes to that. Those are two specific questions.

Quite frankly, I don’t expect the Treasurer to make any commitment about the ownership of natural resources because I know he doesn’t believe in that. I know he is quite happy to see foreigners own our natural resources.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s not the same thing.

Mr. Warner: I will just tell you that I want control of our natural resources here in Ontario. When we are the government that is precisely what we will do -- the first order of business. I look forward to the next provincial election -- to that delicious opportunity.

While the Treasurer is sitting here not supplying any answers to my questions, my assistant is over with a tape measuring his office.

Other members may have questions to raise and I certainly don’t with to get into a filibuster competition with the member from Renfrew. But I would appreciate it if the Treasurer would answer those two specific questions which I raise. Thank you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the honourable gentleman from Scarborough-Ellesmere, with the grey vest, emulating those of us whom he despises, reminds me of the man with a blindfold feeling an elephant and trying to determine what he had hold of.

He came in during the middle of my speech, heard one of his colleagues talk about one topic, Timbertown, and assumes that in that he has seen the sum and substance of economic planning for Ontario. Then he reacted, following that, with a lot of comments alluding to that one point.

He talks about the planned economy. I am always delighted when I can get to the true philosophical differences. My colleague from Nickel Belt and I have had this chat before; you and I haven’t. I’m delighted when you stand up and differentiate between you and me because I’m proud of the differences. I haven’t got the slightest reason to stand here and tell you that I shouldn’t differentiate. I should. I should let the people of Ontario know what I stand for and what you stand for.

And I do not stand for public ownership. I stand for Canadian ownership and the two are different. I believe in the public having their ownership through the traditional routes of equity, not through government. That is the only way I have ever seen to make sure companies operate in a profitable manner in the interests of the economy and of the people in that economy.

The planned economics of some of the nations of the world that keep on being thrown at us are fascinating. I could talk about any one of the businesses I have been in but I just compare one.

You tend to forget it didn’t rain for about 10 years in Saskatchewan. It’s pretty darned hard for any government to make the economy look good in a weak province when there’s no rain. You wouldn’t remember those days, but I do. I think there is another member or two in this House who do too.

Mr. Warner: Talk about Saskatchewan.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m going to talk about that in a minute. My own summer resort handles about 120 guests. I have a staff of 16. I visited a socialist country recently where the summer resort handled 110 guests. It had a staff of 115. My friend, that is how they’ve solved unemployment problems in socialist countries. They keep giving people jobs whether there is something to do or not. That fundamentally is the difference.

Mr. Laughren: That’s so superficial.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Superficial? The fact is it’s true. Anybody can keep people working as long as they don’t have to put something out at the other end.

You talk about Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan was without question a poor province. Under the NDP government, without question, it has become a very healthy province in an economic sense. The fact that it happens to have had a Socialist government during that period of time does not explain the results.

The member has chosen to say it does. In terms of the charges on its people, the NDP government in Saskatchewan, has to raise 17 per cent of the gross domestic product to run the government, compared to 13.9 per cent in Ontario. That’s its own revenue and is apart from other sources of revenue.

In addition to that, for the one million people who live in Saskatchewan they got last year $58.4 million in equalization payments, 43 per cent of which came from Ontario. That’s roughly $58 per capita. That’s not bad. Ontario has always honoured its commitments to less fortunate provinces like Saskatchewan and sent its money to them. We’re just asking that the oil rich provinces now recognize that responsibility as being a collegial one. Now that the resources have been found, thank goodness, in Saskatchewan -- any government would look good if it found oil and potash -- let us hope its economy continues to improve, in spite of the government the people have chosen to allow to run it.

I heard some comments about de Havilland. The member asked if I would make two public commitments: to keep it in public hands and in the province. My commitment will be to half of that, namely, to keep it in the province. I am going to do everything I can to keep it in the province. If that means public hands, so be it. We’ll make every commitment to do our best to make sure that plant stays here because we’re proud of it.

We’re proud of the 5,000 people working there. We’re proud of the product they make. We’re proud of the fact that internationally it is recognized as a very fine company. We’re proud of the fact that 85 per cent, I think it is, of its production goes to foreign markets, roughly $200 million this year and $300 million next year. We’re proud of that and we’re proud that Ontario people have had a part of it. We’re going to do our best to maintain it here.

I can assure the member that whatever we have to do we’ll be doing it in the best way possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the public way. The aerospace industry has changed somewhat in the last few years since the government took it over. I think it was very important that the government stepped in there -- and I’m not a critic of that -- at a time when the aerospace industry was on its heels. I would that Canadair were as successful as de Havilland. Canadair looks as if it is but I’m not sure it is. It may be having a few more troubles.

On Petro-Canada, I can only repeat what the Premier said this morning. It intrigues me when people try to claim we haven’t said something consistently when we have. The province of Ontario has consistently, through its papers, through its statements, through its Premier, claimed it was in the interests of Canada, even though it may offend some of the basic philosophies of our party, to see that a nationally-owned oil company continues because there are problems in this country in terms of the security of supply that do require a Canadian presence at a national level and not at a parochial provincial level. That is the basic reason for being interested in seeing that no one province can control what happens with a resource.

Mr. Warner: I asked you what you were going to do.

Hon. F. S. Miller: What are we going to do? Listen, we’ve gone to every conference. We’ve produced our papers, we’ve let the Canadian public know, we’ve stood on the rooftops and yelled.

Mr. Warner: Can’t you do anything more?

Hon. F. S. Miller: What can we do, as politicians?

Mr. Warner: Don’t you believe you can do anything more?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If there is more we can do, please suggest positive things. You’ll find we’re listening to you.

There is one last thing I want to point out. This is both good news and had news. The member keeps pointing out that there is foreign money coming into Canada. It is partly by design, you know. You talk about the high interest rate policy, and whether it’s right or wrong.

Leaving that aside for a moment the design of the high interest rate policy is to attract foreign capital. At the same time, it is to insist that Canadians borrow abroad in large dollar amounts. I’m not trying to defend it. I’m only explaining the central bank’s thinking because, obviously, if Ontario Hydro is faced with a borrowing of $300 million and there is half a point to a point difference in the interest rates, or you take it out of Ontario Hydro and go to any other major corporation that is free to borrow wherever it will, those kinds of moneys over a period of time matter a lot.

I think I did the arithmetic in February, when we were in New York. One basis point in the loan over a period of 30 years cost $900,000. It was 30 times $300 million times 1/100th of one per cent. If the arithmetic works out it should be $900,000. When they are different by 60 basis points, that’s $54 million. That’s a very important point to remember. That’s not something we do by choice.

There’s a second reason why there is some borrowing done abroad. When a corporation like Hydro is required to invest, as it is now, to give us a security of supply of about $1.5 billion or $2 billion a year, in that range, of borrowings, the Canadian market can’t always be counted upon to generate that kind of saving. Therefore, one has to have sources in markets on a regular basis to ensure you’re recognized, understood, trusted and you have the sources when you need them. We’ve restricted ourselves pretty well to those.

One interesting thing is half of one per cent of the government of Ontario’s funded debt is in foreign currencies.

Over the past five years, the rate of investment in Canada has been 24 per cent of the gross national product. Savings were only 22 per cent. Is our spending rate in investment too high? Or is our saving rate too low? Let’s look at something.

In the United States, the rate of savings has only been 14 per cent, so Canadian savings have been much higher than American savings. The fact is we’ve been going through a very active development period in Canadian history. Maybe we’re growing and developing too fast, but when you develop faster than your own rate of savings, you obviously have to import capital. That’s basic to our future.

Imported capital isn’t always the drag some of us think it is. It depends on how it’s used. If it’s used to pay for the current operations of a government, or for any government structure, a new library, a new highway, that’s a drag because the money is borrowed in one place, used in the country and interest payments are made. But if it comes into this country and helps us establish an industry, which in turn sells in international markets, and the value added in Canada exceeds the interest payments abroad, it is not only not a drag, it is a positive benefit to our cash balance. Therefore, a foreign investment can not only provide employment, it can, if it is export oriented or import-replacement oriented, actually have other effects upon the economy that are positive.

Growing countries traditionally have had to depend upon foreign capital. The real issue is, are we encouraging Canadians to invest in their country at the desired rate, and by what mechanism. I would argue, as I did in my budget, that Canadians have listened too often to my friends in that party opposite and have become afraid of investing in equity and, in fact, are great investors in debt.

In the budget we took a couple of modest steps to encourage them to invest in equity. I am rather pleased that some of them are doing it, and I can only say that what we need to do is to encourage the unions, with their large funds, and the average home owner to think of Canadian investment.

The best way to make Ford of Canada a Canadian company is to buy its shares as far as I am concerned, because once the shareholders of this country own a good big chunk of it then we have that interest.

Mr. Chairman, the clock being so close to one, may I, at this point, adjourn the debate?

Hon. Mr. Wells moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m.