Hansard Transcripts 1981-Nov-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. T. P Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the point of privilege I raised with you the other day in which I brought to your attention the article that appeared in The Toronto Sun on Monday, November 2. I would like to read the third paragraph from the article by David Oved:

"PC back-benchers say Premier Bill Davis implied at the first Tory caucus this fall that he gave the word to Turner to clamp down on opposition MPPs, who helped create intermittent chaos in the House last spring."

I presume, since you did not start to say anything, that perhaps I should now give you the opportunity to say whether or not you have had an opportunity to read the article and whether you are going to make any comment on it today. As you are aware, sir, it calls you and your office into some question, and certainly detracts from the fact that you are supposed to be nonpartisan and the protector of the rights and privileges of all members of the Legislature.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness and implications of this article, that you now address it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

On Tuesday, November 3, Mr. T. P. Reid raised a point of privilege concerning an article which had appeared in the Toronto Sun of Monday, November 2, under the name of Mr. David Oved. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) also directed my attention to the same matter on the same point of privilege.

Unfortunately, I was not aware of the article or of the allegations. However, I did assure the House I would read the article and report back when I had done so. I have since read the article, reviewed the matter and am prepared to comment.

I would advise all honourable members the suggestion in the story that the Premier (Mr. Davis) had spoken to me and -- I quote directly from the story -- "that he gave the word to Turner to clamp down on opposition MPPs," is nothing more than sheer nonsense and is totally false. I would like to take this opportunity to advise and assure all honourable members further that never, at any time since I assumed the office of Speaker, has the Premier or any other member of government ever given me direction or advice on how I should carry out the duties of this important office.

I really do not know where the idea came from that I had met with the Premier in his office, because that was not mentioned in the article. As I assured the members when the matter was raised last Tuesday, I have never at any time since being elected a member of this assembly been in the office of the Premier of Ontario.

Further, let me take the opportunity to assure all honourable members that I will, indeed, as requested by the member for Rainy River, continue to carry out the duties of Speaker in an impartial and nonpartisan manner. I will also continue to protect the rights and privileges of all individual members of this House.

I want to thank the member for Rainy River and the member for Sudbury East for bringing this matter to my attention and affording me the opportunity to correct the record.

Mr. MacDonald: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to raise a question which affects the privileges of all members of the House.

Last Tuesday evening, we witnessed yet another example of the legislative business grinding to a halt because many members found intolerable your handling of the proceedings. It is not simply a case of whether it was correct in accordance with rule 36 of our standing orders but that, having made a decision, you then flip-flopped on it.

There is a growing feeling among individual members that the privileges are being abused by an application of the rules which is uncertain and uneven. The future wellbeing of the Legislature as the central forum of political life in this province is being jeopardized. Some expressions of concern with regard to how the House business is being handled from the chair were expressed in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, including those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith).

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, not out of any sense of personal pleasure but rather of compelling necessity in light of the circumstances, I wish to move a motion, seconded by Mr. Cooke, that this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby resulting in frequent infringements of the privileges of individual members --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I quite understand that. The motion you are moving requires 24 hours' notice, I would suggest with all respect.

Mr. MacDonald: Speaking to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, our rules do not require -- when a person has the floor he can move a motion. I would remind you that while there is nothing --

Mr. Rotenberg: That is not a point of privilege. It is a motion.

Mr. MacDonald: But it is part of a point of privilege. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I acknowledge there is no precedent in this House for this and I recognize the gravity of what I am doing. The last time it was used in Canada was in the House of Commons in 1956 when Mr. George Drew, at the end of the pipeline debate, moved a motion which read as follows, "The House resolves that it no longer has confidence in the presiding officer." That was debated for some three days and then voted upon. I suggest it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would suggest that, as I understand the standing orders -- and I am well aware of the motion which was moved in 1956 -- the House of Commons in Ottawa requires 48 hours' notice of such a motion, while we here require 24 hours' notice of motion.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. MacDonald: What rule? Direct me to the rule, Mr. Speaker -- to the standing order.

Mr. Speaker: There is no standing order, but it has been established by custom, precedent and tradition. I stand to be corrected. It comes under the ruling of a substantive motion, apparently.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if that is the rule, I hereby give notice and I will move it at the appropriate time. We are not achieving anything by this delay.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see anything wrong with putting the motion forward. But my advice is that such a motion requires written 24 hours' notice.

Mr. MacDonald: I will complete putting the motion then. The motion reads as follows: "That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: There is a proper time for presenting motions before the orders of the day, and I think the member well knows that.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, you gave me permission to complete it. Now may I complete or are you going --

Mr. Speaker: You rose on a point of privilege and I did indeed ask you go ahead and complete the motion. However, this does not preclude, as I understand it, the need for 24 hours' notice. Is that right?

Mr. Rotenberg: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if it is proper to bring a motion under a question of privilege? The member rose on question of privilege and I submit he does not have the right to put forward a motion under --

Mr. Speaker: He rose on a question of privilege to draw attention to the matters he felt are of the utmost importance to himself and this House. I understand what you are saying -- that as a motion it should come under motions. On the other hand I think it only fair, after having advised the member that 24 hours' notice of motion has to be given, in order to make me and all the other members of the House aware of what his concerns are, I would like to hear the motion.

Mr. MacDonald: The record will indicate you gave me that permission before the intervention of the government whip. I shall read the motion:

"That this House has lost confidence in the Speaker's capacity to exercise the responsibilities of the chair with adequate competence and impartiality, thereby resulting in frequent infringements of the privileges of individual members and jeopardizing the orderly conduct of the legislative business.

"Therefore, this House: (1) urges the Speaker to resign; and (2) establishes a committee made up of the House leaders of each party which would report back an acceptable list of nominees for election by members of the Legislature of a new presiding officer."

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Point of order, the member for Mississauga East.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I find this shocking that the member, on the basis of what happened on Tuesday night, chooses to say the Speaker was flip-flopping. The members well know that during the 10-minute recess you called you had been very firm on your position. During that 10-minute recess the House leader of the New Democratic Party and the House leader of the Liberal Party and myself as deputy House leader met in your chambers and discussed this. The decision that came out of that was by unanimous agreement of the House leaders and yourself, taking the advice of those House leaders. If that is a flip-flop, I think it is on the part of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification: I did not base my statement or my resolution on Tuesday night alone. It was only the latest of the persistent recurrences of this kind of thing. It was on that basis the motion was put.

Mr. Eaton: If you people would act like gentlemen there would be no problem in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

You have drawn my attention to the article that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. While I understand fully what they have said and what you have said, I think perhaps there is some lack of understanding of the standing orders and the application I have made of them.

It was quite obvious during the debate the matter under discussion was becoming very emotional. In fact things were being said that had nothing to do with the motion before the House. As Speaker I used my discretion to call a recess in order to consult with my advisers and with the House leaders to seek direction and advice. It was my view that as Speaker I have a responsibility to the House to make sure not only that decorum is preserved but also that the business of the House is addressed in a respectful and dignified manner.

So after consultation with my advisers I was assured that a precedent for what I ultimately did had been established, and with the concurrence of the three House leaders -- who, I assume, represent the wishes of the three political parties -- we proceeded. I just give you that as background material.

I also point out to all honourable members the decision to call the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) out of order is very clear, in my view, in our standing orders. I was further assured after the consultation I had with my advisers during the recess that the procedure I was using was indeed correct. I have once again gone over the background material I used to make that decision, and I feel, perhaps more firmly now than I did then, I was on solid ground and that I applied the rule correctly.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rotenberg: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Further to your rulings, I want to understand, because a precedent might be set on your ruling on what the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) brought forward a few moments ago. Did you rule he was allowed to give notice of motion today, or did you rule that as part of his point of privilege he could read a motion which would be brought up in the future?

Mr. Speaker: I thought I made it very clear that this would not preclude the notice of motion 24 hours prior -- in written form, I think I said.

Mr. Nixon: It has to be in written form.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would really like some clarification, because I am not sure whether you intend to follow precedent A, precedent B or some other precedent if we were to get into the same kind of situation again and if you were in the chair.

Last Tuesday night I was named and I was sent out of this place. Having been kicked out I was then kicked back in, and frankly --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That was the only mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I believe we jointly established a parliamentary precedent never before heard of in a thousand years of parliaments in Britain and in the Commonwealth.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, is it your ruling there are certain situations when you are not going to hear points of order under any circumstances? If so, would you be kind enough to tell the House when you intend to act in that fashion because I think members should know.

I do not intend, and I did not intend on Tuesday night, to have myself ejected from the House. I still believe I was in order and I thought when I was brought back in my point of view was vindicated. Now you are telling me I was not vindicated at all. Which position is it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Clearly, the member for Ottawa Centre has not taken the time to read and fully understand standing order 36. I asked you to leave the House because you refused -- and you said you refused -- to do as I requested. In order to preserve decorum in the House I asked you to leave, which you did.

Mr. Sargent: Join the club.

Mr. Speaker: There is ample precedent for what was done. I do not have the written copy in front of me but I can assure you it has happened before. With all respect, your statement again indicates to me you did not understand standing order 36.

It is not a question of applying a precedent on a selective basis. It is a matter of applying or looking for a precedent that has been firmly established. I did that and I think I have done that since being appointed Speaker of this House.

In answer to the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg), I will take this whole question under consideration and reply more fully some day next week when I have the opportunity to document all the precedents and former rulings I relied on. However -- and this is dangerous -- well, I won't say it because I do not have the paper here, but it is well established.

Mr. Cassidy: On Tuesday evening, as the leader of the third party in this Legislature, I was seeking to raise a point of order. I was not permitted to raise that point of order. In fact, in attempting to do so, I was ejected from the House. That is why I complained that an opposition member and leader of this party was being muzzled by the chair. Is it your view. Mr. Speaker, there are circumstances when this party does not have the right to raise points of order? If that is the case, I would contend that is a biased way of administering the chair.

Mr. Speaker: Your understanding is just not in keeping with the facts nor with standing order 36. I would direct the member's attention to section 36 which states quite clearly:

"The previous question, which may be moved without notice or a seconder until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question and shall be put in the following words: 'That this question be now put.' Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement on the rights of a minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. If the previous question is resolved in the affirmative, the original question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."

I would respectfully suggest the question before the House was, "That this question be now put."

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, could you then clarify for us? I think I raised this the other evening and my friend will recall what bothered me. The order says the issue would be decided without amendment or debate and I am prepared to accept that. However, the question I posed then and which I pose now is, does that prevent anyone from raising a point of order? In other words, is a point of order a debate? Is it an amendment? Or is it allowed? I think that has to be clarified in the ruling because we do not know whether we are in a position at least to make a point of order before the question is put. I think that question has to be clarified.

Mr. Speaker: Again I say it is very clear in my mind what the procedure is. The question that was before the House was that the question be now put; it was not the main question, with all respect. The standing order clearly says that must be decided first -- to gain the permission of the House that the question be put. Then we can address the main question.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could try again. I am not disputing --

Some hon. members: Throw him out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: May I just give you further clarification? I have just been riffling through my papers and I have come up with something I think is interesting and germane to the decision. I quote directly from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, 1958, "Standing Orders and Rules of the House of Commons of Canada," part one, "Public business." In the preface to those, it says, and I quote directly: "The previous question, an old proceeding originally introduced in 1607 for the purpose of sidetracking amendments ... " That is the main precedent.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite this matter and to get back to the regular business of the House. may I make a suggestion. There seems to be some difficulty in understanding the rules, or everybody is not reading them the same way. Is this a matter that could be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs for clarification, or at least a rewriting, so that everybody will be able to understand what they read?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it may very well be, if it is the wish of the House to do that. I will certainly take that matter under consideration.

Mr. Martel: Can I now place my question?

Mr. Speaker: Your final one.

Mr. Martel: I am not disputing what you said, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I agree with you on the interpretation of the rule. What I am asking is whether a member is precluded from raising a point of order. The rule speaks of an amendment or a debate. I am not suggesting either one. All I am asking is whether it is in order, before the original question is put, for a member to raise a point of order. That is all I am asking. That is what I am trying to get clarification on.

Mr. Speaker: In order not to detain the business of the House I will take these matters under consideration, as I said earlier. I will report back to the House more fully when I have had an opportunity to consult with the books and the people I had consulted before.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government has always recognized the important role the automotive industry plays in the economy of this province. I do not have to remind my fellow members that about one out of every six jobs in Ontario is dependent upon this sector. Therefore, it is clearly this government's duty to ensure as strong a performance as possible in this industry. This brings me to the situation we face today.

In spite of significant sales incentive programs introduced by the major domestic producers, sales of North American-built cars are slumping badly. As a result, dealers have a considerable inventory on hand. With the current high level of interest rates pushing up carrying costs dramatically for the industry I am afraid we are fast approaching a dangerous situation. Too high inventory prevents full production runs of the new 1982 model year, resulting in layoffs and job losses. At the same time, dealers are crushed under the associated high carrying costs, damaging the extensive and sound distribution network so crucial to the auto industry's success.

Members will remember that in early 1980 I reacted to the emergence of a similar situation. As I said at that time, it is not sufficient for Ontario to turn its attention southward and hope for a strong upsurge in buying south of the border. Our action at that time was successful and strongly endorsed by representatives of the auto industry.

2:30 p.m.

In the last month, I have met with representatives of both the manufacturers and the labour movement on this current situation. They have indicated to me the problem is more severe than that which existed with respect to the 1979 model year. Consequently I am announcing the government of Ontario will once again be stimulating consumer demand via sales tax relief.

Under this temporary assistance program, there will be a full rebate of retail sales tax paid, up to a maximum of $700, on purchases of new 1981 model year passenger cars and light trucks. The rebate will be in effect for vehicles delivered between November 6, 1981, and December 5, 1981, inclusive, provided the vehicle is purchased prior to November 29, 1981. Full details of this program will be made available by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

I fully expect this measure will result in brisk sales of 1981 inventory. By doing so, I anticipate this measure will provide a critical push for the manufacturers into a more solid 1982 model year, while maintaining intact the extensive distribution system so important to industry performance.

Experience with the similar measure implemented during February 1980 and with the rebate program implemented in November 1980, and the fact our action will be reinforcing significant dealer efforts to move products, support this expectation. Furthermore, I feel a strong potential for sales exists as there has never been as many older cars out there as there are at this time. In this light, I have estimated a potential cost to the province of $20 million in revenue foregone.

Every member of this House knows the automotive industry has in the past decade faced major structural problems compounded by vigorous foreign competition. It will be difficult to resolve these problems, but resolve them we must. I reiterate this government is committed to working with the industry and the unions that represent it to build a strong and vigorous automobile industry, one that will continue to grow and provide needed jobs for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You will have your opportunity during question period.

BILD INITIATIVES FOR AGRICULTURE

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure as chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development to announce to this House that since its inception the board has been vigorously pursuing its goal to create and implement Ontario's economic development strategy through a large array of initiatives.

I am especially pleased to announce further initiatives today. Two are on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), who is in London, Ontario, today. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) will announce two others. In partnership with these ministries, BILD will contribute upwards of $5.5 million on a variety of resource development programs over the next five years. Additional funding will also be provided by each of these ministries.

Recognizing the increasing need for advanced education in agriculture, including computerized farm management and high-precision laboratory procedures, a four-year program is to be instituted at the agricultural colleges throughout the province. This program will strengthen the high-technology component of agricultural education in various ways. Microcomputers are to be purchased so students can learn how to use the computer on the farm for accounting and recording systems, and for budgeting and marketing. High-precision instruments are to be provided for laboratory technology courses that include instruction in food management, animal health and agricultural laboratory technology.

Complex farm machines are becoming normal equipment for many farms, and funds will be used to lease or purchase such machines for college instruction. This Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, as my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food would tell members, helps his ministry maintain the high standards they have set for agricultural education.

The second new BILD initiative under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is the extensive upgrading of facilities at the farmers' market at the Ontario Food Terminal in Toronto, including greatly increasing the number of stalls and installing a roof, at a total cost of $3 million, of which BILD will pay two thirds, the remainder coming from the food terminal board.

The BILD program for the Ministry of Natural Resources being announced today by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources is a major forestry undertaking in eastern Ontario, to which BILD is contributing $2.2 million.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You may recall that on Tuesday last I rose in my place and asked the Treasurer whether he was going to provide assistance for home owners if no such assistance was to be provided in the federal budget. You may recall that the Treasurer said he was not going to introduce any kind of economic stimulus until the federal Minister of Finance tabled his budget.

Do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer of Ontario was not being completely honest? We want to know why he is prepared to help the car dealerships and not the home owners of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I have no idea, but he has obviously changed his mind -- and, I would think, in response to the needs of the people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILD-FUNDED FORESTRY PROJECTS

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, my statement this afternoon has to do with further details of BILD funding as it concerns two major forestry projects in eastern Ontario. A total of $1,429,000 in funding has already been approved by BILD for one of the projects. Another funding arrangement, between Domtar and my ministry in the Cornwall area, has been approved in principle. However, the amount of funding and some other details still have to be resolved. These projects deal with the production of hybrid trees, mainly poplar, in which my ministry has the lead role.

At this time I believe it is appropriate to direct the members' attention once again to our new Ontario Tree Improvement and Forest Biomass Institute. A great deal of its work is concerned with the development of fast-growing trees, with special emphasis on what has been referred to lately as Ontario's supertree, the hybrid poplar. Essentially, that is what the two forestry projects are all about. The biomass institute was established as part of the BILD program to accelerate Ontario's development of fast-growing trees. The two current projects are helping us to carry out that mandate.

The funded project is at Carlsbad Springs, east of Ottawa, where my ministry will grow hybrid poplars on 1,250 acres of crown land. They will be planted on a five-year rotation basis. This project is energy-related, because at harvest the biomass will be suitable for providing a high-grade fuel supplement to the waste material which is to be burned in the Ottawa-Carleton district heating plant. In anticipation of a go-ahead for this project, we would like to begin work in 1982-83 on planting 250 acres per year of hybrid poplars with high calorific values.

In August, my ministry held a scientific review of our most dramatic forest technology development, the hybrid poplar program. It began in 1969, but has gained momentum particularly in the past five years in terms of both size and scientific content. Our program has been watched with great interest in many other countries, and we invited experts from around the world to come and give us their reactions to our work so that we could have the benefit of their comments and ideas in planning our future work program.

The scientific review represented a new departure, and, of course, the poplar program is unique in Canada; so it was a very worthwhile experience. We are going to publish the papers that were presented then.

2:40 p.m.

Benefits stemming from this program are many. A project between Domtar Incorporated and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has been approved in principle. Under this project, Domtar will lease lands from private land owners in the Cornwall area. On lands not suitable for agriculture, plantations of fast-growing hardwoods will be established.

Through this program, land owners with idle land currently producing no worthwhile crop will be able to derive an annual income through a leasing agreement during the early years and stumpage at the time of harvest. Private land owners will receive this payment from the company. The Ontario government will reimburse the company for a portion of these costs.

At the same time, Domtar will be able to ensure the long-term tenure of its Cornwall mill by securing a significant part of supply. The present patterns of land ownership will be maintained since the land will be leased and not owned by the company. By producing wood fibre in intensively managed and highly productive plantations, the wood can be grown on a smaller land base, closer to the mill, resulting in substantial savings in transportation and energy costs.

The establishment of production forests in the local area will stimulate the local rural economy in the way of jobs and supply and service contracts. The cost effectiveness of production will be enhanced since all the forest management activities will be carried out by the private sector rather than through a government agency. In addition, idle land in the Carlsbad Springs land assembly will be brought into production, and a major biomass-for-energy demonstration project will be established.

Positive results will bring an expanded knowledge of poplar-growing technology, an enhanced pulpwood supply close to mills and a significant step towards full technology in the MNR hybrid poplar program. I look forward to keeping members up to date on these exciting forestry programs. I believe wholeheartedly that this is a real breakthrough in supplying a major part of Ontario's energy needs for the future.

MICROELECTRONICS TASK FORCE REPORT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the report of the Ontario Task Force on Microelectronics. Along with the task force report itself, I am also tabling extensive background documents that were prepared by my ministry staff to assist in the deliberations. The other background papers prepared by participating ministries are listed in the task force report and are available from those ministries upon request.

In the speech from the throne of March 1980, the government of Ontario announced its intention to "establish a working group of private and public sector experts dealing with microelectronic technology to ensure optimal benefits for industry and the people of Ontario."

The throne speech expressed the government's recognition that there is a need for the development of suitable policies to capitalize on the industrial benefits that could accrue from this new microelectronic technology.

We also acknowledged that the introduction of major technological changes would bring with it significant adjustments for labour, industry and society and that policies would have to be designed to maximize the benefits of microelectronic technology while simultaneously minimizing the cost to society.

Accordingly, my ministry established a task force composed of seven members under the able chairmanship of Dr. Donald Chisholm, president of innovation and development of Northern Telecom. In addition to Dr. Chisholm, who is with us today in the Speaker's gallery, were the following members: Mr. Des Cunningham, chairman of the Gandalf Group; Mr. Mike C. J. Cowpland, president of Mitel Corporation; Mr. Tom H. Savage, president of ITT Canada Limited; Mr. Ian P. Sharp, president of I. P. Sharp Associates; Mr. Robert Butler, secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet; Dr. Ken C. Smith, chairman of the department of electrical engineering at the University of Toronto; and Mr. Glen Pattinson, president of the Canadian district of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers.

Over the past year, the task force was assisted in its deliberations by staff from the Ministries of Industry and Tourism, Transportation and Communications, Labour, Education and Colleges and Universities.

The task force report stresses that labour, government, industry and our educational institutions must work together to maximize the use of microelectronic technology and to see that adequate training and retraining programs are provided to our young people and to those already in the labour force.

The task force has advised us that adjustments to the microelectronic era have to be planned for and made as quickly as possible. This is particularly true for Ontario, which relies so heavily on its ability to manufacture efficiently and to remain competitive in world markets.

In addition, there are a great many Canadian companies, particularly small firms outside the electronics industry itself, that could benefit from the opportunity this new technology offers to improve their competitive position. They will, however, find it difficult and expensive to acquire and utilize.

The task force is cautiously optimistic about our ability to realize the opportunities associated with the development and diffusion of microelectronic technology while minimizing any costs associated with required adjustment. However, they see careful planning as essential in this process.

With respect to the role of government, the task force sees our role as that of a catalyst in the process of change. From their point of view, change must come from co-operation between industry, labour and all levels of government.

I am pleased to note the task force's support for many of our government's recent initiatives, including establishing a microelectronic technology centre; establishing centres based on computer-assisted design, manufacturing and robotics technology; establishing a microelectronics installation fund for the introduction of new process technology; providing $5 million to support a Telidon-based tourist information system; and our government's assistance in the development of a Canadian-produced educational microcomputer with associated software and courseware.

The task force has recommended the early establishment of a microelectronic technology centre, and I am pleased to report that I will be able to make a statement about that centre in the near future.

In addition to the establishment of this centre, the report makes a number of recommendations in the field of industrial development. It recommends that government develop policies to improve the climate for research and development, monitor the ability of industry to secure adequate supplies of integrated circuits, stimulate investment in high-technology ventures through tax incentives and other measures, provide support for purchasing foreign technology through licensing procedures and treat software as an industry in its own right.

In the important area of labour adjustment and manpower availability, the report recommends co-operative government, labour and industry retraining programs for labour affected by microelectronic technology, a co-operative program to monitor the impact of microelectronic technology on the health and safety of workers and develop health and safety standards where necessary, provision of income support programs to assist workers displaced by this new technology and provision of government support to increase the supply of highly skilled personnel in this vital and growing industry.

It was particularly encouraging to note the task force's view that microelectionic-based products have a tremendous potential to assist the handicapped. The task force urges government support to develop such products to help the disabled overcome their handicaps.

With respect to education and awareness, the report points to the need for programs to increase public awareness of the potential of microelectronics and to ensure that all students learn about computers.

The findings of the task force underline the sense of urgency our government attaches to the development of policies and programs for the microelectronics industry.

The task force has presented us with a substantive examination of the opportunities and challenges surrounding our emerging microelectronics industry, and indeed the report contains many sound recommendations.

As the ramifications of this report are complex, far-reaching and vital to the future of this province, we will review the implications of the recommendations contained in the task force report carefully. It is imperative that government and industry now respond in a manner that will maximize the potential benefits of this burgeoning industry for the citizens of our province.

Today, with the release of the report of the task force on microelectronics, Ontario has taken another important step forward to meet the challenge of the dawning microelectronic era. In effect, we are telling the world that we are a mature industrial nation, that we have developed a world-class capability in high-technology products and that we intend to compete successfully in international markets.

As the task force has stated, "some degree of sovereignty in microelectronic technology is regarded as essential for long-term economic growth." The fact is that we cannot stand by while other countries use the technology to automate their industries and thus erode our ability to compete in world markets. We must use this technology to enhance our international competitiveness, protect and create jobs, improve the quality of our work and home environments and raise our standard of living.

With planning and investment, microelectronics can create jobs in the long term. However, as the task force report has acknowledged: "There is no doubt that technological change can lead to job displacement and the obsolescence of hard-won skills. The challenge is to ensure that the technology does not simply eliminate jobs in Canada and create new jobs elsewhere."

2:50 p.m.

My ministry, along with participating ministries, will examine these recommendations thoroughly and report back to the House concerning the implementation of our specific programs and policies. Because of the importance of this subject, we will give this report top priority.

Finally, I know the members of the House will join me in thanking the task force and Dr. Chisholm for their report and recommendations and for making available their time and efforts and talents over the past year. I ask the House to join me in recognizing Dr. Chisholm.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, a very happy event happened in Toronto last Monday night. A beautiful young lady from London, Ontario, Miss London, was chosen Miss Canada 1982. I would like now formally to introduce to members Miss Karen Baldwin from London, Ontario, a student at London Central Collegiate, who has been very active in the United Way and really does her part in the city. We all welcome her in her continuing role and wish her well as she continues on in her role as Miss Canada, representing Canada in the Miss Universe Pageant for 1982.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on the same point: May I just say how proud all of us in Hamilton were that the runner-up, and a very worthy runner-up indeed, was Miss Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, although Miss Toronto was third runner-up, I do not rise on that point of order. I just want to express my regret that, although we wish her well, Miss Canada got more applause from this assembly than Dr. Chisholm did. I would hope that the members might try to even that off for both of them.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, for the past three days Ontario has had a very important visitor, Dr. Carl Gustav Andrén, who is --

Mr. Smith: Miss Congeniality.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Hamilton West could take lessons from me.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members that the clock is running.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, for the past three days Ontario has had a very important visitor in the person of Dr. Carl Gustaf Andrén, the Swedish Chancellor for Higher Education, who is with the National Board of Universities and Colleges of Sweden.

Dr. Andrén and his wife have been visiting the Council of Ontario Universities, and we have had the opportunity of hosting him and sharing concerns and problems with this gentleman, who represents the entire post-secondary area in Sweden.

I ask my colleagues in the Legislature to welcome Dr. Andrén and his wife, who are sitting in the gallery under the Speaker's gallery.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, while everyone is in a congratulatory mood, I want to draw to the attention of the House that Alex Baumann, a youngster from the city of Sudbury, has just been chosen the world's swimming champion of the year.

Mr. Speaker: While we are in such an expansive mood, maybe we could extend congratulations to all those people who have been mentioned this afternoon on behalf of the Legislature of Ontario.

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Statements appear to have come and gone, and we have not heard from the government about the very historic agreement reached with regard to the constitution of this country.

First of all, I want to express my own great happiness and that of my colleagues that the impasse has been broken and that the constitutional agreement between the federal government and at least nine of the Premiers has been reached in such a way as to indicate at first glance that the agreement will have a much better chance of going through the United Kingdom House of Commons.

We feel that the first ministers bargained in good faith. We are very pleased that the first minister of this province went in the spirit of attempting to reach an agreement and that he did what he could to help that agreement.

I hope that before we finish the question period today it will be possible for the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) to report to this House on what he understands to be the details of the agreement -- perhaps not the entire agreement, but some of the salient features as they might pertain particularly to the people of Ontario -- so that we in this House might receive the government's official view of the agreement and not just be dependent on what we may have heard from some reporters on the radio and television so far.

This seems to be a happy day for the country. I want to pay tribute to those who took part in the negotiations, and we look forward to a complete report on the details from this government -- I hope before question period is over.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have had only the sketchiest information about the agreement, which has been initialled by nine Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. Obviously my party and I are both happy that there has been a resolution, but at this stage we cannot comment on all the particulars, because I suspect that not even the government has a particularly clear picture.

It is a pity that we should have 54 years of confrontation over the constitution and then, in a matter of a few hours, an agreement is finally struck. That is not the best way to make an agreement, but one none the less hopes that the Premiers have devised and designed well.

It is a historic event when the provinces and the federal government can reach an agreement on this matter, which, although it is not at the tip of everyone's tongue or on everybody's mind here in Ontario, certainly is of ultimate long-term importance to us all.

I hope that, this stage being over, it will be possible to begin considering means by which there can be closer institutional co-operation between the provinces and the federal government in view of the very serious economic problems which now face our province and our country and which have had a tendency to be put on the back burner while the constitution is being considered.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the comments that have been made, and I am sure we realize as we follow the events of this particular day, that November 5, 1981, will go down in the history books of this country as a very significant day in the evolution of our federation.

I appreciate and am very grateful for the positive comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party in this regard, emphasizing as they have the importance of the events of the last few days as they show the results of negotiation between the various jurisdictions in this country.

I think it was obviously reasonable to expect that at the first opportunity -- our own first minister, the Premier (Mr. Davis), played a very key role in this; I am sure that we in this House and, indeed, all the people of Ontario are very proud of the role the Premier has played in these negotiations and, as the Leader of the Opposition has reminded us, of the spirit of cooperation expressed by all the first ministers.

In checking some of the details in preparation for the opening of the House, I was advised that the Premier himself wanted the opportunity to share the results of today's discussions and of the agreements that have been reached, and that he will use the first opportunity for that tomorrow morning.

3 p.m.

ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before we move on to the next order of business, I rise on a point of order with respect to another matter, unfortunately not quite as pleasant as the one that has just been raised.

I refer to the concerns expressed in the media in regard to certain tactics and operations that were claimed, before the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police, to have occurred and included allegations of brutality with respect to a variety of individuals within Metropolitan Toronto.

Can the Deputy Premier advise us whether there is to be a statement on this particular matter that he knows of, or will the matter have to stand over until the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) is back in the House, perhaps at the beginning of the week?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any statement and, in the absence of the Solicitor General, there is not likely to be one today. At the first opportunity, I will have a word with the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) and report back if there is any change in that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I will leave aside the rather bitter irony involved in his ministry's recent publication, Ontario Business News, which says, "For Canadian Admiral Corporation of Mississauga, attendance at a Ministry of Industry and Tourism manufacturing opportunity show 18 months ago is now paying off."

Now that we know these plants have closed and the company has gone into receivership, can the minister tell us, in this very sombre situation, what the status is, as he understands it. with regard to the severance pay for the 1,000 to 1,600 workers in Ontario, I am told, whose jobs have apparently been terminated?

What are the possibilities, as he understands them, for these workers to find other jobs in Ontario manufacturing, and what plans he has to assist them in this sort of relocation? Will he be involved in helping to find a buyer for the plant and for the company, or in helping the workers, should they so desire, to purchase the company themselves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I followed the list of questions, answers to the last two questions are yes, we will be working with the employees and indeed any other group that might be interested in looking at the possibility of salvaging that company. It is an important company to us, and we will do everything reasonable in the circumstances to reconstruct that situation.

I might say I am gratified to note that this ministry not only was involved with Canadian Admiral when it ran upon difficult times in the last little while but also was working with that company as long ago as a year and a half or two years to see that we could do what we could to make sure they got an increasing share of what was obviously a difficult market for consumer durables.

Mr. Smith: Does the minister not recognize that for these 1,000 or 1,600 workers and their families, whose lives are now caught up in Ontario's manufacturing decline, our first priority in this Legislature must be the revitalization of our manufacturing base, which has eroded so badly over the years?

That being the case, how can he justify the Suncor expenditure to those workers? Can he imagine how those workers feel when they see that $650 million in scarce, borrowed dollars has been put into a passive investment with no job creation benefits for Ontario, rather than being utilized to revitalize the manufacturing sector which has declined so badly?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This government is terribly concerned about the situation with those workers. I had a call early this morning from the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). who is just recovering from a bit of an operation, expressing his concern during a long conversation on that. The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) has been in touch with me throughout the morning to express his concern and see what could be done.

Mr. Mancini: A lot of concern but no action.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should just listen for a second. Those who have studied the industry will know that Canadian Admiral's problems have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether this government spends money on Suncor or anything else. Canadian Admiral's problems are related to the very difficult situation for consumer durables in a period of high interest rates.

Canadian Admiral has been assisted by this government before. I believe if the honourable member checked with Canadian Admiral, the company would have nothing but compliments for the efforts made by this ministry and this government in trying to make sure it had every chance to survive in this economic climate. I am proud of the fact we were not there just at the end of the cycle, but were there at an early stage with some front-end assistance to Canadian Admiral to give it every chance to survive.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The previous time the government helped Canadian Admiral it closed a plant in my riding and 220 jobs went down the drain. Now it has done the whole thing and the company has shut down completely.

Is the minister aware of the statement by Coopers and Lybrand distributed to the employees yesterday that says among other things, "The agent's primary responsibility is to protect the interests of the company's bankers," and then asks the co-operation of the workers with the company and the agent in these difficult times.

What situation have we come to in this province when a company is taken over by bankers and the bankers force more than 2,000 workers out of their jobs? What is the government going to do to ensure that workers in this province can have jobs and not be thrown out on the street as a result of bankers intervening because of their high interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the member is suggesting that a well-established and reputable firm should not look after the rights of its client, that is something he might want to take up with Coopers and Lybrand, the accounting profession or whatever. That is a totally unrelated matter.

Now that the leader of the third party has finished his grandiose speech, the question is a very simple one: What can be done in the face of a company --

Mr. Martel: The minister would know about that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should never mind his crocodile tears and those of his leader for the workers. We are working hard on this side, including looking at every single alternative to save those jobs in Mississauga and Cambridge. We have spent a great deal of time on it. We have been doing nothing else in my ministry except working on this all day today and we are dedicating every effort of this government to do what we can to save those jobs.

Political speeches such as the one made by the leader of the third party, which would purport to indicate to the workers they are being mistreated or somehow losing jobs because of the inaction of this government, do not do him or the workers any service. It creates more uncertainty and tension in the minds of people who are seeing their entire lives threatened.

I suggest to him he reconsider how important his own political imperatives are in light of the situation being faced by those workers. The member should show some responsibility. We are working hard over here to save those jobs and we are going to do that and ignore his partisan remarks.

Mr. Barlow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I would like to assure the minister I will certainly continue to work with him on behalf of the employees in Cambridge. However, I want to be assured by the minister that he will continue working with the receiver, Coopers and Lybrand, to make sure a buyer can be sought out and obtained for this important industry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. In fact, pursuant to several calls placed by the member for Cambridge and the member for Mississauga South, we have put our senior ministry staff people on the matter and they have been meeting with several people involved with the company, including canvassing some other private sector opportunities for that company. We will continue to pay a lot of attention to it.

Mr. Smith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister agree the issue is not so much whether the government has done what it could for one company? In the free enterprise system certain companies will get into difficulties for market reasons, managerial reasons or whatever. Would he agree rather that the problem is that in the entire manufacturing sector things are in decline and therefore alternative jobs are much less likely to be available for these people?

That being the case, would the minister admit Ontario's great tradition as the manufacturing centre of this country requires we do what we can to stimulate that area, rather than make an investment of $650 million in a tar sands company where the investment does not even circulate through Ontario? Would he not recognize it is manufacturing that requires an investment of $650 million and not a passive investment in the tar sands of Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to look at the dedication of funds made by this government to the industrial sector last January through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: All it was was a bunch of propaganda.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Then the member for Rainy River should stop begging for part of the BILD funds for his riding.

The fact is that there has been a massive dedication of funds. I have found my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), to be most responsive to any requests I have made in terms of the real and legitimate needs of the industrial and manufacturing sectors.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition who suggests there are no alternatives for these workers that I hope he is wrong in saying that. I know he hopes he is wrong in saying that. We will exercise every effort we can to restructure this company.

I would point out two other things. One, manufacturing employment is up in this province some 42,000 to date. That indicates this year to date we are increasing --

Mr. Smith: As a percentage of jobs in Ontario it is down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know how the member can say the manufacturing sector is in decline when we have 42,000 more people employed in manufacturing now than there were in January of this year. That is not a sector in decline.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite right when he suggests there are going to be further adjustments in the manufacturing sector. That, I think, is obvious. We are working hard to deal with that problem. I refer the member to -- and I know he will be interested in it -- the report of the microelectronics task force which acknowledges that. It makes recommendations for the very kind of retraining of the existing labour force that may be required in this kind of circumstance. As I indicated it my statement, we will dedicate every amount of effort to ensuring that retraining.

AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. Now that he has announced a program to increase our deficit by another $20 million in order to help a few automobile dealers, will he admit that his program can do absolutely nothing to help the automobile industry but can help only a few automobile dealers? First of all, his rebate will apply as well to imports, which are more or less one third of the Ontario market at this time. In addition to that it is not possible to add a single production job because of this, since the cars to be sold are 1981 cars that have already been produced.

If he says this is going to help the 1982 market does he not admit that when the former Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) did this back in 1975 the increase in the number of cars sold was at least 50 per cent borrowed from the sales of the next year, which proportionately went down, and the timing of sales was changed? If anything, the 1982 sales are likely to be lower. Will he admit, therefore, that all this gimmick is going to do, apart from giving him some good publicity, is allow the auto dealers to sell off their 1981 inventory without having to put it at sale prices, because the government of Ontario is now prepared to subsidize them to the tune of $20 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we had a lot of discussions the last time I did this in February 1980. The honourable gentleman went through a lot of newspaper ads, I recall at that time, and came to some erroneous conclusions. I believe he even made a retraction of some of the things he said that badly hurt a couple of specific dealers. He may recall doing that.

Mr. Smith: That is not so. There was no retraction.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He did not retract -- fine. He showed then, and he has shown now, an abysmal lack of understanding of the market. I have to tell him I do understand that market pretty well. I can also tell him right now, for example --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Treasurer is responding to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Will he please proceed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Approximately one ninth of the cars that are carryover models in stock in Ontario are imports. Eight ninths are North American, if the statistics we have are correct. It is not just a few dealers I am trying to save. I am trying to save the jobs of a lot of people working for those dealers. I am trying to unplug a very costly inventory flow that is absolutely stopping orders for 1982s from the factory, and I am trying to move things.

One more thing: In 1980, when I did it --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A lot of soothsayers in February 1980 said all I was doing was helping the dealer who had excess stock. The truth was that while we moved perhaps 75 per cent of the 1980s in stock that month in 28 days, we also had -- and we kept very careful records of it -- unprecedented increases in the sales of the current model, because showroom traffic was generated. That will happen again, and I am convinced members will see, along with the direct payments being made by two manufacturers plus the low-interest program being used by another manufacturer, a tremendous psychological and real reason for a number of people to decide to purchase an automobile.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Even the 40,000 or so cars he expects to be able to sell this month account for less than half of one per cent of North American production. He surely cannot believe that even if all the cars being sold are North American, which they will not be, that is going to have an effect on the production line.

Would the minister not admit that if a seven per cent reduction in the cost of a car is going to do all these wonderful things -- bring people into the showroom, move the inventory -- then all the companies have to do is announce a seven per cent reduction or have their parent companies announce a rebate to car buyers? All he is doing is taking the money of the people of Ontario and subsidizing these dealers so they do not have to put on their own sales.

If he is willing to do it for car dealers why will he not do something to help all the small businesses of Ontario, all the farmers of Ontario who are suffering from high interest rates, who are going bankrupt in record numbers this winter? And he knows that is going to happen.

Why does he not help them with their interest rate problems and their inventory problems? Why does he pick on car dealers like himself and his son? Why does he not deal with people who know something about the difficulties of high interest and who have been begging him for help these many months?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House prevent swearing, or I would swear at the member.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right -- because he deserves it.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: There is no implication, and I wish to remove any implication --

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Just let me finish. There is no implication that I am suggesting there is any effort at self-interest or interest of family. I want to remove that.

I want to say, however, that because of family involvement in that business the Treasurer is very familiar with that business and seems to me annually to be more interested in that business than in others with which he has less experience. And I think the record will show he helps the dealers every year and does not help the small businesses of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are lucky that he is retiring.

For the record, since he has impugned my family and me, I think I have the right to make certain comments.

Mr. Smith: No one is being impugned.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You did it and you emphasized it.

Mr. Smith: He knows the business -- that is all I am saying. There are lots of other businesses in just as much trouble as that business.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first. I did not have a son in the business the last time I did it. Number two, I do have a son in the business now. I have been in the business myself: I do understand it, but that is not why I specifically chose it Whether the honourable member likes it or not it happens to be the single largest manufacturing type of business in this province, and it happens to be a tax that it is within my jurisdiction to do something about.

And I am doing it. I am even pleading with the federal government to do something in the same direction. I was approached, as I said in my statement, by the Ontario automobile dealers association, which represents all dealers: I was approached quietly by labour people concerned about the state of employment in the industry.

Mr. Smith: Which part of the industry? Come on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The automobile manufacturing industry.

Mr. Smith: What is there for manufacturing here? These cars are not manufactured here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought I said that for example, Chrysler is giving cash rebates of between $200 and $1,000 on their cars; Ford is giving $500 on their cars and light trucks; AMC is giving between $500 and $1,000 on their cars; and General Motors is giving low-interest-rate financing on its cars. More power to them. They have taken those measures, and I was assured the whole state of the industry depends on this. For every person on a production line making an automobile there are quite a few people in dealerships and in the service departments of dealerships who depend for a weekly living on things like commission and on things like parts and labour. If those things go up, they create immediate local spinoffs right across this province in every town.

I cannot do anything about farm machinery because there is already no sales tax on it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday I asked the Treasurer if he would bring down a mini-budget to create jobs this winter, and he ducked the question and said he was going to wait until after the federal budget. Now he has changed his mind and come in with a hemi-demi-budget, which is an ad hoc measure. While welcome, it is extremely small in relation to the need to create jobs in the auto industry and in this province.

Can the minister explain why it is, however, that his position has changed so radically since his mini-budget of November 13, 1980, when he said:

"In current circumstances, measures to stimulate demand for passenger automobiles would not provide a significant enough boost to domestic employment to justify the expenditure.

"Many of the passenger cars purchased by Ontarians are produced in the United States. Conversely, our production of passenger vehicles is predominantly exported to the US. As a result, only the recovery of demand in the US will generate substantial production and employment gains for Ontario producers of passenger cars."

What has changed from November last year that the minister is now bringing this measure in to stimulate the sales of passenger cars and what long-term measures has the government got to offer in order to ensure that Ontario workers in the automobile industry will have jobs after December 5 this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, things have changed since I made that statement a year ago, and they have changed quite dramatically. I think my statement tried to stress the basic problem right now is an inventory problem, and it is an inventory problem which --

Mr. Mackenzie: It was an inventory problem a year ago.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, it was not an inventory problem to the same extent a year ago.

Mr. Foulds: What is different from a year ago?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed with your answer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Opposition members often accuse us of taking steps like this with immediate electoral objectives in mind. I would hope this time the honourable member would accept my statement when I say I really do not give away a dime right now without thinking it is going to pay off for the citizens of this province. That is why, after a great deal of consideration, a great deal of pressure by a lot of people, I have conceded that something was needed to help unplug the pipelines so they could begin to place orders and so that they would survive. I did not want to see a non-North American dealer network left intact while the North American market was destroyed.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer's rebate applies to imports as well as North American cars and last month 37 per cent of the cars sold in Canada were imports. Why did he not use a system where he based the amount of rebate on the improvement in the gas consumption of an automobile and then only allow those improved cars to be tax-free? This was the system they had in the United States which I brought to his attention over a year ago. Why did he not use that system so that we are not paying all this money back to imports?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons, and I think I pointed out the first one to the Leader of the Opposition when he started the question -- that is, that the carryover problem just does not exist to any real degree for the imports.

Mr. Ruston: They flooded the market with Japanese cars.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It only applies to 1981 models. They happened to have moved their stock.

Mr. Ruston: They have been coming in since July.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am talking about the ones they have. I told the members one ninth of the inventory is imported and roughly 30 per cent of the market is imported; therefore eight-ninths of what is out there plugging up the pipelines is North American.

The second reason is that it is my understanding, and I am not an authority on law, that those kinds of measures have been ruled invalid by the courts of Canada and that we are not able to enforce them. If I could, believe me, I would not give away one penny on an imported car.

Ms. Copps: Then don't do it. Don't do the program.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can't.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He can't avoid it.

Mr. Smith: It's a useless gimmick and you know it. It is going to cost us $20 million and does nothing for manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Treasurer. We are facing very serious times in this province right now. On Tuesday, the Treasurer bragged about what he said was a --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I would caution the members of the official opposition. Their leader has had the two questions to which he is entitled. Now let us show some respect for the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday when the Treasurer was bragging about the economy, he overstated the number of jobs that have been added in Ontario in the past year by 17,000 jobs and he ignored the fact there are 323,000 people in this province who are out of work now. That is an increase of 60,000 since a year ago.

Today we have learned about the layoffs at Canadian Admiral and we have learned about the shortfall, the reduction in sales in the automobile industry of 1982 cars. Can the Treasurer say what the government now intends to do to provide jobs for the 60,000 more people who are unemployed today than a year ago?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring to the month of September because I do not think we have seen October's figures yet. When the statistics came out about the 60,000 increase in the unemployed, particularly in the labour market, as I recall there was a 62,000 increase in the total number of people available for work in September, 1981, over September, 1980, with 2,000 more jobs in that month, so there was a net increase in unemployment of 60,000.

It was qualified in the notes I got. It said that of all the months of the year the most difficult to get accurate statistics for is that particular month as the school year begins. Very often retroactive changes are made in all the figures. Now that does not mean that my figure of 129, which I used and you say is wrong; that is the recollection I had. I will go back and check it in case my memory was wrong.

It does not mean that will not be increased or decreased. It does not mean the total number of people available for work will not be increased or decreased. Traditionally, the October figures tend to stabilize that and I am waiting within the next three or four days with some interest to see what they have been.

I would dearly love to think there are more people at work than last year, again in October. I suspect it has been a tough month and I am showing very real concern, as the member is. That is why some of these measures were taken today.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister telling us he expects a retroactive change in the layoff notices to the workers at Canadian Admiral? Is he suggesting there will be a retroactive change for the thousands of workers in the automobile industry in Windsor, Amherstburg, Chatham and right through southwestern Ontario who have been on layoff, in some cases for months?

What specific measures does the minister have in mind? What does he intend to do specifically for the 133,000 young workers, 16,000 more than a year ago, who are currently on the streets of our province without work? Will the government bring in a works program to put young workers back to work this winter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party and I would not disagree on the ends we are both trying to achieve. What differentiates all parties is how to get there.

I think the member would have me decree by fiat there shall be employment. It does not work that way. What we are trying to do first is counter some of the negative things our federal government has done in terms of attitudes towards this country as a place in which to invest. We have a major task there. We do our best in this province to create the most important of all the ingredients, the impression of confidence in a government so that one says, "We can make an investment there and we will be safe." Our federal government has not done too much to reinforce that lately.

Second, through the BILD program and a number of other initiatives, like the grants to Ford a year ago and the grants to Volkswagen, we are doing our best to help compete with foreign locations and we will continue to do our best. We are trying hard, as the member knows, to upgrade --

Mr. Cassidy: You ship the resources out and bring in unemployment.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us about those.

Mr. Martel: You have sold our resources which are the basis for making it better.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is never good enough. We are doing our best to make things better.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Treasurer has announced his government will undertake this $20-million program, I would like to ask whether this is going to preclude his taking further action after the federal budget has been introduced? Can we still expect at least a mini-budget, or better yet, a comprehensive economic package to try to stimulate the economy of Ontario and to protect home owners, small businessmen and farmers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been asked that question both inside and outside the House. Nothing I have done today would preclude me from having any options open. What I did today was something which would help people about a week or so before the federal event and which was completely in my domain -- sales tax is. No matter what some sceptics may say, the dollars given away by a government on any form of sales tax rebate program are dollars consumers trust. They have had very real effects.

The whole problem with the Canadian economy in terms of the drop in big-ticket demand is largely related to drops in consumer confidence quite properly about their job security, confidence about all kinds of things. If a person read the papers each day or looked at the media, it would be pretty normal for him, if his job depended upon a manufacturing entity, to say, "Is it safe?"

Some things can change that direction, and in the past, believe it or not, sales tax programs have had some influence.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In the mini-budget last year the Treasurer, speaking about the auto industry, stated, "A large-scale review of the industry's prospects and problems is now under way to determine what more Ontario can do to secure the industry's longer-term future." The ministry's review is completed; it gives a devastating prediction; it has now been complicated and made worse by interest rates. When is this government going to introduce a long-term strategy to build a healthy automobile sector in this province, rather than using the ad hoc approach of a grant here, a grant there, a dropping of sales tax here? There never is anything that provides for long-term development of the auto industry.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the honourable member's leader a moment ago our objectives are the same. But I would argue with the member that the kind of comprehensive planning that traditionally his party would support is not the kind of planning that works.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: You've made a mockery of ad hockery.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A mockery of ad hockery? You've got a future somewhere, Michael.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad you don't.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As long as I'm here, I am in my future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Treasurer respond to the question, please?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they are testing my vocabulary today.

Mr. Speaker: Address your remarks to me, then.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You are much better looking. Thank you; I have said enough.

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the dismissals or whatever has happened with the workers at Canadian Admiral.

The workers at Canadian Admiral have yet to receive either notice of layoff or separation slips; yet the agents of the bank, Coopers and Lybrand, are demanding they sign a waiver that absolves the company of any further financial obligations to them in return for being paid three days' wages for the time they worked this week.

Will the minister investigate the legality of this tactic and the propriety of the means by which this shutdown was engineered? I will send to him this document called "Assignment," which the workers were being asked to sign before they could get their pay for this week. It says, "I hereby irrevocably nominate the assignee as my agent and authorize the assignee to take whatever steps the assignee may see fit to collect, obtain or enforce payment of the assigned claim."

What on earth does this mean, and why are workers being asked to abandon any claim they have to wages, and goodness knows what else, in return for only three days' wages?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the honourable member that my staff are in touch with the receivers and are having some meetings and discussions with them. I certainly will explore the information the member has. It is not in my possession yet, but I certainly will be pleased to explore it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the workers at Canadian Admiral receive any form of severance pay? What kind of claims will they have on the company if it is bankrupt? And does the situation not illustrate the necessity of controlling layoffs and plant closures along the lines the New Democrats proposed in this House some time in the past year, which measures, however, were blocked by the Conservatives in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member is really suggesting there was sound reason to believe that one should block companies from going into bankruptcy, I think that is an unusual step and I do not know many people who would take it seriously.

With regard to the issue of severance pay and termination pay and the legality in this situation, certainly that is something I will explore in the particular circumstances. As a general rule, the member knows quite well that those two matters would take their place in the line of creditors as preferred creditors. I would have to explore this particular case to know exactly what is happening.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, how many more examples of this type of situation involving layoffs are we going to have before the minister will respond to an opposition demand that the select committee on plant shutdowns be reconstituted so we can consider some other options, instead of leaving these workers in the dark as to their future and their severance pay rights?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that we have in place in this province one of the most advanced layoff procedures anywhere in North America. Everybody acknowledges that. The member for Hamilton Centre does not want to, and neither does her party, but privately they know that to be so.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister why it is always the workers who are the bottom people on the totem pole? We have asked this minister before when we were going to see action to take care of workers in terms of bankruptcies or plant closures, and it is not happening. The workers are the last ones who get paid, while the bankers are protected with whatever assets are there. Will the minister tell us what has come of his promise to intervene with his federal counterparts in terms of changes in the bankruptcy legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that under the present Bankruptcy Act secured creditors are secured creditors and that wages have been listed under that legislation as preferred creditors. He also knows full well, because we have had numerous discussions and correspondence about it, that I have indicated to the minister in Ottawa my view that he should give serious consideration to altering the nature of the positioning of wages in bankruptcy legislation. He knows that already. I sent him a copy of that correspondence many months ago.

GRANT TO RACING CAR OWNER

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker. my question is to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. The minister will recall that some 17 months ago he promised that the taxpayers' $15,000 investment in one Moe Carter and his automobile, which failed to qualify for the race in Le Mans for which the money was given, would be returned.

I quote the minister's words of June 16, 1980: "I hope to have the cheque back in our hands shortly after the team returns, which I understand is tonight or tomorrow morning." I further quote: "I am so sure that we will get the $15,000 back that, if we do not, maybe I will take the case myself." On June 19, 1980, the minister stated, and I quote: 'We may even have the cheque today; one can never tell."

I want to know from the minister why the $15,000 has not been returned and when we are going to ask this former Conservative candidate to refund the Treasury.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member really read Hansard very carefully that day he just recited. If he did, he would remember that the grant was not made to the gentleman who ran against the member's leader at one time but rather to a firm called Descon Industries. Descon has acknowledged some responsibility to the ministry. My staff has been working with Descon to find a way to recompense the government and the ministry without bankrupting the company.

Without going into too much detail, it really would be oppressive for us to be unrealistic in enforcing payments. My people are working on it. Descon is co-operating at the present time. We hope to have something soon.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I fail to understand why 17 months ago the minister said things like, "We are going to get the money immediately, and the cheque is going to be returned to the Treasury." He stood up in the House and gave the impression that he was taking strong action and the $15,000 was going to be returned to the Treasury. That is his exact quote. I want to know from the minister what has changed from 17 months ago until today? Why has his attitude changed towards Moe Carter and his refund of the S15,000? That is what we want to know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the honourable member that I have to face important questions in this House that take a lot of time, be it Massey-Ferguson or Chrysler Canada, which is in the member's area -- there are a lot of auto firms and a lot of employment in his area. We spend a lot of time on those things.

In many instances, sometimes at the member's request, where the Ontario Development Corporation has provided financial assistance. this government has to write off arrears of interest owed. When people default on ODC loans, rather than putting the company out of business and sending in the receivers, we often write off part of the loan and keep the company going.

In those instances, there is no question we have enough securities to take over all the assets, as happened with Coopers and Lybrand and Canadian Admiral. We are the government, we are a development corporation, and in those circumstances we think it is important to act a little differently. We do not roll in and seize assets and put a company out of business just to solve these major problems.

When it comes to minor problems, while other members of this House asked about other matters of state -- a diesel plant and things like that -- the member happens to be concerned, as I know his leader was, about Mr. Carter and Descon. In truth, I am not about to put Descon out of business if that is what it will take to get the member for Essex South off my back during question period.

My responsibilities are larger than that. If I have to stand here and put up with the questions of the member for Essex South, and the cost of that is to keep Descon in business, I will keep Descon in business and put up with his questions. We are going to effect a reasonable settlement that is fair to everyone.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Surely the minister's quotes that I read to the House were in response to a question that had been put by him. He is the gentleman who informed the House that the money was going to be returned.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister stand in this House and talk about the possibility of Descon going into financial trouble when the minister knows full well, as do certainly the people of Hamilton, that the dealership of which Mr. Carter is the chief and principal officer is supposed to be the largest General Motors dealership in Canada?

I have a suggestion for the minister. Since he seems to have a terrific propensity for raising money, will the minister consider a collection among all the dealerships in Ontario after they have received the Treasurer's goodies today? Perhaps then we could finally write off this debt, which the people of Ontario should have received about a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Somehow Carter always causes excitement in Hamilton, Mr. Speaker.

May I remind the honourable member that Mr. Carter was the driver. He was not the owner of Descon Industries; he does not own shares in Descon. He was the driver. As I recall it, Descon Industries owned the car, and they hired a driver. The money was given to Descon Industries.

I do not mind telling the member that, if I were Descon. I would be having a couple of words with Maurice Carter. I have had a couple myself. The fact is that the liability is from that company to this government, as far as I am concerned. If the member's suggestion is that we cause extreme difficulties to Descon, I do not mind --

Ms. Copps: Because he was a PC.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Will the member take it easy? I do not mind her having fun with Maurice. I do not even mind her having some fun here; her leader and I have had some fun on this. But if she really wants to suggest that it is helpful to Descon, which was operating in good faith at all times, for us to drag all their affairs out here so she can have some political fun --

Ms. Copps: You don't really believe that yourself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Will the console operator turn that microphone off? I can hear the member very clearly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If she really wants to put that proposition, I am not buying it.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that on September 14, at about 5 p.m., a Mr. Batista of ITT Aimco in Mississauga reported to his supervisors that the condition he was working in was unsafe, and that Mr. Companion, his supervisor, refused to conduct an investigation? This is contrary to the act, which says, "Upon refusing to do particular work, the worker shall promptly report the circumstances of his refusal to his employer or supervisors, who shall forthwith investigate the report in the presence of the worker, and if there is such, in the presence of ..." and it goes on to indicate the number of people who would he involved.

Is the minister further aware that Mr. Companion then assigned another worker to work in the unsafe conditions and assigned Mr. Batista to work in another area? This again is contrary to section 23(5) of the act which states, "Until the investigation is completed, the worker shall remain in a safe place near his work station."

What action is the minister going to take against this company, which deliberately violates the intentions of Bill 70?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to have portions of Bill 70 read to me. I am pretty familiar with them, but I appreciate the opportunity of hearing them.

I think the member knows full well that I will take his question as notice and review the case. But if questions such as this about particular cases are to be put to the Minister of Labour, he really should have some advance notice if the person seriously wants an answer. If not, then I can simply say I will take the question as notice and return an answer to the question.

Mr. Martel: I wrote the minister on this item in September, and in October I wrote him two further letters. I still have no response. If the minister wants to play that kind of game with no notice, he knows he has it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have received many letters from that member. If he expects that I keep a record of them all here, I do not.

Mr. Martel: The minister said he had no advance notice, when he has had.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that on the day in question one of his inspectors, Mr. Dyson, went to this plant to investigate the complaint, and when he found the proper plant procedure had not been followed he refused to investigate the situation?

In the words of the union representative, "Dyson used the rather technical excuse that because an initial investigation was not first jointly conducted by a representative of the worker and a representative of management, he refused to conduct it and the workers continued to work in those unsafe conditions."

Can the minister justify an inspector going to a plant and, because some procedure has not been followed, he refuses to investigate it? Or is he going to put an end to that sort of nonsense?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will take the question as notice and respond.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: While the minister is looking at this, might I ask him, if management refuses to establish the proper committees or to conduct the investigation according to the act and, if the minister's investigators are not prepared to investigate a site that is considered unsafe when they are there, what action should the workers take or, better still, what action will the minister take to ensure that Bill 70 is applied and that this company is prosecuted for its violations?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The obligations of the ministry, of the inspectors, of workers and of management are clearly outlined in Bill 70, and we expect them to be followed. The honourable member knows full well that in those situations where, for example. health and safety committees have not been set up. either there have been directions that they be set up or there has been an inquiry to determine what might be the appropriate number and type of health and safety committee to be set up. There is no reluctance in this ministry to deal with matters that are presented.

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. I have copies here of 11 letters consisting of one day's problems addressed to his ministry from my constituency office. Is the minister aware that he has a huge volume of frustrated senior citizens out there trying to figure out and receive their correct property tax rebate and sales tax cheque?

Is he aware that he is wasting his money advertising a telephone number that is always busy? Is he aware that seniors who turned 65 years of age since January are now receiving the second half of their rebate cheque with a letter saying they received their first cheque last spring, a cheque they did not receive because they did not apply until September?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the issues the honourable member is referring to in a specific sense; for example, those people who turned 65 in the first half of this year. I think I alluded to this last week in the House when I read a statement in which I acknowledged that problem. There was a computer error which we found after the fact and had already started to correct before we had the many responses, and I did acknowledge many responses from seniors.

Without going into a technical explanation. since I am not a computer analyst or specialist by any stretch of the imagination, somewhere in the system the computer picked up a previous payment that had not been made. As a result. the cheques to those people who did turn 65 in the first half of the year did indicate they got a payment which they did not get. We are already in the course of rectifying this, and all the corrected statements and cheques will be going out to those seniors on or before next Monday.

Mr. J. A. Reed: What does that do to your 99 per cent track record?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is very easy to criticize something. When one considers that we have handled cheques in the magnitude of 1.4 million --

Mr. Smith: The whole thing was unnecessary in the first place. You did it for publicity.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there are hundreds of thousands of seniors in this province who do not share the inaccuracies shared by the Leader of the Opposition. That is not the case at all.

Mr. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The record will show that seniors have always received money of this kind and that it would have been received with their rebates from the federal government and the computer in Ottawa. All these new cheques, at a cost of $3 million a year, were added as unnecessary accounting expenses. The seniors would have got as much money in other ways. This was done simply so the logo of Ontario would be on the cheque for political benefit.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, that is a simplistic observation which I do not agree with at all. There is no doubt that there were many benefits to the seniors of Ontario in the new property and sales tax grant programs. They gave more money to more people faster than under the previous system. There is no doubt about that issue whatsoever.

As I acknowledged before, when we are handling 1.4 million cheques to a variety of people and when one considers the mobility and the changing statistics, which literally change every day with new people becoming 65 years of age, people relocating and, yes, people dying, it is very difficult to keep a list that is accurate for more than a matter of hours. I think my ministry has done exceedingly well in this program.

In the sales tax grant program, we have had an error rate of basically one tenth of one per cent. I think that compares very well to any program ever put on by any government in this country.

Mr. McKessock: Since the Treasurer spoke today of being careful about giving away money, is the minister aware that there are seniors out there who are still working and drawing a pension from previous work and from the Canada pension plan, and that the government is giving them $500 to help pay their taxes plus $50 to help pay their sales tax?

In view of all the problems associated with the rebate program, does the minister not feel that he would be better off and that the people would be better off if he forgot about the rebate program and added an extra $50 monthly to the guaranteed annual income system cheque?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I would like to know if the member is actually putting on the record in this question his opposition or his party's opposition to the grant program we have in effect in this great province. It would be very interesting to know if that is exactly what he is saying, and I hope he will have the opportunity in a supplementary question to put that on the record.

Again, I realize it is always very easy to come forth with some simplistic answer. Rightly or wrongly in the view of the members opposite, this government recognizes, through the property tax grant and sales tax grant programs, that the efforts and contributions to this country and this province of seniors reaching the age of 65 should be recognized regardless of their financial situation, regardless of their other situations and without their having to prove any other abilities.

We make no apologies for that program. It is working, and I want to know what the members opposite think.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether it is true that he and his government were so anxious to have high visibility and to be seen handing out the cheques directly that he prepared the system inadequately in the first place; that the number of cheques he had to send out was so great that he simply could not do it; that, as my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) pointed out, he has had to devise a special complaint and inquiry form to handle the number of complaints and inquiries he is getting from seniors who are not receiving their cheques; that when you phone the special number you cannot get it, and most our of constituency offices are receiving 30 to 40 calls a day on this matter alone --

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: Will he not agree --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member for Port Arthur has the floor with a supplementary. Proceed.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister not agree that he has completely and irrevocably fouled up the program? Will he tell us when he is going to get the program in order on time so that senior citizens are not given the expectations his government gave them and then disappointed in those expectations, as he has so bitterly disappointed them?

Mr. Speaker: The minister will answer briefly, please.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I have a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.

Mr. McKessock: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister tried to interpret my question as being against giving money to seniors. I hope the minister will take it that I was pointing out a more efficient way to run the program, which would put more money in the hands of the poor and provide savings for the government.

4 p.m.

LAND ASSESSMENT

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister, the Minister of Revenue.

The minister is aware that the city of North York has been trying to collect property taxes from the four oil companies that hold land in the Finch and Keele area. He minister knows that this has been going on for 15 years and that those companies are paying $110,000 less than they would pay if they were assessed like all the other home owners in North York.

Is the minister willing at this point to amend the Assessment Act or, alternatively, to accept my private member's bill or a private bill from the city of North York which would help to solve the problem?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question vis-à-vis the Assessment Act is no. Let me say very briefly, without going into great detail, because I am sure that will come up in the debate on that particular bill next week, that there are many farms and farming operations of significant size which are legitimate in their nature and operation in this province and which have designated zoned land uses that are different from agriculture.

Many municipalities, as a matter of fact, in conjunction with the implementation of an official plan, put zoning on the property even though land use may not change for many years ahead. There cannot be a blanket type of change at all. This is a significant percentage; so the answer to the first one is no.

Vis-à-vis the second question about his own bill, which was, "Will I be supporting it?" the answer again is no.

As regards the third question, about the private bill being proposed by the city of North York, I have indicated to others, and I am quite pleased to indicate here now, that when I have a look at the bill and see what they are proposing, we will have a serious look at it and determine the appropriate course of action at that time.

PETITION

ONTARIO NURSES' ASSOCIATION

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that will be of particular interest to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie).

I want to present this petition on behalf of Local 51 of the Ontario Nurses' Association, protesting the length and design of the arbitration system and asking for alternatives to it.

I want to inform the House that I am presenting this on behalf of myself and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Elston for Mr. Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

[Later.]

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, apparently I goofed on the motion. I was under the impression by advisement of someone in the Clerk's office yesterday, and I might have misunderstood him; but apparently the motion should have Mr. Bradley replacing Mr. Wrye.

In case you want a new motion, I can do it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you will allow us to withdraw that motion and change it. If you will accept it in its present form today, I will be glad to present it again in that form.

Mr. Ruston: It shows anybody can make a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: That is a rather involved process, but --

Mr. Martel: Give it back to him.

Mr. Speaker: You're right. I do not hear any objections. We could give it back to him and let him start over again.

Mr. Martel: You didn't do so well after all, Bud.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I withdrew the first motion so that we could change it. Can I --

Mr. Speaker: Why don't you just get it back?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Can we do it verbally? It has to be done today.

Mr. Speaker: We will substitute the name "Bradley" for "Elston."

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Bradley for Mr. Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the following changes be made in the sequence and location of estimates consideration in the committee of supply: Lieutenant Governor, Premier and Cabinet Office be taken third; Intergovernmental Affairs be taken fourth; and Revenue be taken fifth; and that Natural Resources be transferred to the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments with the committee authorized to sit Monday nights, Thursday mornings and Thursday nights.

[Later.]

Mr. Speaker: As required by standing order 47(a), Mr. Gregory's motion will require the unanimous consent of the House. Do we have that consent?

Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this is a general omnibus bill containing routine but necessary items of administrative legislation required to clarify existing provisions of the Education Act to bring it into line with legislation enacted by other ministries and to ensure consistency between legislation and regulations. The amendments have accumulated over the past several years.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I wish to table the answer to question 174 and the interim answers to questions 169 and 173 standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, November 6.)

4:10 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM

Mr. McClellan, seconded by Mr. Stokes, moved resolution 20:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government recognizes that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, many of its candidates and its constituency associations spent inordinate amounts of money during the last general election thereby seriously undermining the integrity of the electoral process, and that in order to correct this undemocratic development, this House directs the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses to proceed immediately under sections 4(1)(d) and (f) of the Election Finances Reform Act. Specifically, the commission should investigate expenditures by parties, candidates and constituency associations with a view to recommending amendments to the said act to set spending limits for future provincial elections.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to reserve about four minutes for my windup.

I think this is an important and necessary resolution at this period in time. I should say at the outset that I do not have any particular axe to grind with respect to my own constituency and the spending of the Progressive Conservative Party in that riding. As far as I am aware, the Progressive Conservative Party has ceased to exist in the great riding of Bellwoods and has yet to file a return from the last election. So I am not aware of what the actual expenditure in Bellwoods was but it was, let me say, indiscernible, as was the campaign and as was their vote.

But in other parts of the province, such was not the case. The party as a whole spent $`8.1 million. The point I want to make in my speech is that most of that is public money. The Premier (Mr. Davis) does not seem to understand that when we passed the Election Finances Reform Act before the 1975 election, we accepted the principle of public subsidization of election expenditures.

We give a cash contribution in the form of a rebate to every campaign that achieves 15 per cent of the vote, and everybody seems to understand that. They get a cheque from the Treasury of Ontario if they get 15 per cent of the vote to help pay for the costs of their campaigns. But they seem to conveniently ignore the fact that every contribution is also subsidized through the tax credit system.

I will come back to that point, but when we are talking about the amount of money the Progressive Conservative Party spent in 1981, let us remember that a good portion of that $8.1 million was public money.

Mr. Eaton: Because somebody chose to give a donation.

Mr. McClellan: That is right, and we will come back to that. People donated to it and, as the honourable member says, they chose to make the donation. But when they made the donation they received a subsidy for that donation in the form of a tax credit. That was money paid from the public to the contributor in the form of a tax credit: so it is relevant --

Mr. Eaton: The same applies to the people who donated to your campaign.

Mr. McClellan: Absolutely. But it is relevant to raise the question of what is done with public funds during an election campaign, and that is what this debate is about.

It is important to remember the background of the provincial legislation. It followed the federal Election Expenses Act, which came out of the 1972-74 minority government in Ottawa. The motivation of the federal act was quite simply a concern for democracy.

I have had the opportunity to read those debates and, just to refresh some memories, the federal Election Expenses Act was brought in at the insistence of the New Democratic Party, with the full approval of the Liberal government of the day. It was an expression of a concern that had been felt for many years, that election disclosure was an important principle of democracy and that election expenditure ceilings were an equally important principle of a genuine democracy.

As I said, I went through the debates. The most succinct expression of the concern that was voiced by members of all three parties in Ottawa was put by Mr. David Lewis. I want to quote what he said during the second reading debate of the federal act:

'Why have we wanted this sort of bill? I suggest to you that there are three overriding objectives that genuine democrats of whatever political allegiance have always had in mind. The first is that elections ought not to he the property of those who can get the largest amount of money somewhere at election time, that elections ought not to he bought by large amounts of money by parties in the democratic process, and this is what has happened in the past.

"The second objective that all democrats of whatever political allegiance have had is that candidates ought not to be discriminated against because they themselves have not the funds or are not in a position to collect the funds to fight an election in this modern age of electronic media, which are very expensive.

"The third and perhaps most important objective which everyone has in mind is that the people of a democracy are entitled to know the sources of funds which political parties and political candidates used at election time and between elections."

Those were the three important principles of the federal Election Expenses Act. As I said, it was supported by all three political parties.

As a matter of fact, during the second reading debate one of the speakers said there should be more stringent expenditure ceilings, and he argued very persuasively that the federal expenditure ceilings were too generous. The speaker said:

"There is a tremendous difference between a ceiling of $26,250 per candidate and one of $10,000." He was arguing for a ceiling of $10,000; this was in 1973. "I think this is a very important change, because it would enable the very best people in the country, particularly young people with great ability but limited means, to present themselves as candidates for Parliament.

"Also, it would improve the type of campaign indulged in. It would require all candidates to campaign personally to let the voters see them and assess them. The candidates would need to go from door to door, hold small meetings and generally let the voting public see who and what it is voting for."

That contribution to the debate in 1973 was by the Honourable George Hees, not unknown to the members opposite. The same arguments precisely were made by the Honourable Flora MacDonald and by many other members of the federal caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party. Many of them argued that the expenditure ceilings should be more stringent than they were under the draft legislation.

There is an important contrast between the democratic sentiments that motivated the federal legislation and the origin of our own provincial legislation, which was the Fidinam affair and the activities of a certain Mr. Kelly in the employ of the Progressive Conservative Party.

The reason we had the provincial Election Finances Reform Act was not to make the electoral process more open and democratic but to put the lid on a fairly serious political scandal that involved the way the Conservative Party was funded by a relatively small number of big donors.

As a result, we had an act that dealt with the problem that had led to the scandal, an act that required the disclosure of contributions and limited the size of contributions. The act, fortunately, accepted the democratic principle of subsidization, but it did not accept the principle of expenditure ceilings, and that has got us into the dilemma we witnessed in the most recent provincial general election.

I want to go back to the fact that we are talking about the use of public moneys. Seventy-five per cent of each donation up to the first $100 is subsidized penny for penny out of the public Treasury. For every $100 that a person donates freely to the political party of his choice, he gets back $75 in cash; and 50 per cent of each cent that is given between $100 and $500 is likewise given back in cash when he goes to pay his income tax. The member knows how it works.

Mr. Eaton: They take it off; nobody gives it back to them in cash.

Mr. McClellan: Well, that is a mighty fine point, is it not? The member is trying to pretend that it is not coming out of the public purse because of the mechanism of a tax credit. Well, it is public money, and it is obvious to most of us in this House that the Conservative Party and the Premier and the apologists for the degree of wasted expenditure in the last campaign do not give the slightest damn about the expenditure of public funds.

4:20 p.m.

Most of the contributions under the current legislation are contributions below $1,000. That is clear when one examines the returns. In fact, the majority of the contributions are less than $500. The point is that for every $1,100 of contribution, as I understand it, one is eligible for a tax credit, which is a direct deduction of $500 in cold, hard cash from one's tax billowing.

In addition to that, every candidate who gets 15 per cent of the vote is eligible to get a cash payment of 16 cents from the public Treasury for the first 25,000 voters etcetera -- the formula continues.

We are talking about public funds. That is the principle of the legislation. When we start to look at the way the Progressive Conservatives spent money during the last election, it is legitimate to question some of those expenditures, to question the amounts that were spent by some of the candidates.

Sixteen candidates of the Conservative Party in 1981 spent more than $50,000 in a combination of pre-election riding expenditures and campaign election expenditures. Most of that money is subsidized at a rate of either 50 per cent or 75 per cent from the public purse; so it is legitimate for us to question the nature and amount of those expenditures totalling $8.1 million.

If one were to take the rough rule of thumb, one could argue that at least $4 million of the $8.1 million was a public expenditure on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. How did they spend that money? Did they spend it wisely or foolishly?

When the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) spends $1,000 for consultants and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) spends $3,500 entertaining her political associates at a golf tournament subsequent to the election, half of that, using my rule of thumb, is paid for out of the public purse. I hope they had fun playing golf at public expense.

There was the $4,500 barbecue of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). Again, the money was raised to pay $4,500 for this little feed on behalf of the minister and his cronies and was subsidized out of the public Treasury. The minister obviously cannot be trusted to use his own common sense with respect to the expenditure of funds that are subsidized by the public. That is obvious, otherwise he would not have barbecued whatever he barbecued for them that cost $4,500. I wonder what it was they were eating. Sorry, I am wrong; it was $5,200 for that barbecue. I had it confused with another feed.

Mr. Bradley: Must have been steaks.

Mr. Stokes: You can bet it wasn't humble pie.

Mr. McClellan: I do not think they were eating hamburger either, not for $5,200. The government House leader (Mr. Wells) spent $8,200 entertaining members of his executive and his poll captains in his riding.

Mr. Eaton: Would you do away with the subsidy on the donations?

Mr. Bradley: Don't be silly. Just limit it.

Mr. McClellan: If it is so obvious, let me continue through this stupefying list.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) spent $129,000 getting himself re-elected, half of which was subsidized out of the public Treasury. Did he really have to feed his workers $1,000 worth of snacks and munchies on election day? Did he really have to pay $2,156 for security at his committee room? Perhaps the security was necessary, because he spent $2,288 on carpets for his election committee room; he did not want to get the carpets dirty and so he had to have the committee room guarded by the police. This is just stupid.

The list also includes the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) with her boat cruise and the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) with his dinner at the Roadway Inn.

Do these people not have any sense of shame with respect to using funds subsidized by the public? Obviously they do not. Obviously there is a glaring need for expenditure ceilings in this province because of the Conservative Party's flagrant abuse of the subsidization principle in the last election. Obviously this matter should be referred to the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for a thorough review and for amendments to the act that would prevent this nonsense, this abuse of public funds from taking place.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has three minutes left. Would he like to retain that time for the end of the debate?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, please. Thank you.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak somewhat objectively on this matter, because I was not only one of the lower spenders for my party but one of the lower spenders generally.

Mr. Breaugh: How much?

Mr. Rotenberg: I will tell the member in a moment. I do not think any limits set on total expenditures would apply to me because of my expenditures in 1981 or in 1977. In 1981, my expenditures were $27,800, and I think the significant figure is 59 cents per voter.

It is interesting to note, since I gather the Liberals will be supporting this motion of election spending limits, that the Liberal opponent in my riding spent some $44,200, or 94 cents per voter, compared with my 59 cents per voter. Among other things, I think this demonstrates that money cannot buy votes: nor does it win elections -- my Liberal opponent was not even close.

The New Democratic Party in my riding simply disappeared in this past election.

Any spending analysis should be on a per voter basis. It is interesting to note that the member for Bellwoods, the mover of this motion, spent some $1.47 per voter. He spent $31,759. He spent $4,000 more than I spent in my riding, with less than half the population.

Mr. Eaton: Holy mackerel! Oh no!

Mr. Rotenberg: Please, gentlemen, do not interrupt me.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I simply want to correct the record. I did not spend $31,000. I spent $16,000 and change. I cannot put my finger on the exact figure.

Mr. Rotenberg: That includes the member's riding association expenditures as well.

Mr. McClellan: I am adding those in. I spent $16,341 on the campaign and $458 in the riding, for a total of $16,799.

Mr. MacDonald: The member is inaccurate again.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Wilson Heights has the floor.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the information I got from the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses shows the total amount spent on that member's campaign was some $31,000. If that is incorrect, I will check the record.

Mr. Bradley: Wrong again.

Mr. MacDonald: The member's researcher is wrong.

Mr. Rotenberg: Looking at other members of that party, for instance, the party leader's total expenditures, his riding association --

Mr. McClellan: Is my friend repeating that false information?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my understanding that the member for Wilson Heights indicated he will correct the record if his figures are incorrect.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are very flexible in this House about ensuring that appropriate assistance is available to cabinet ministers and those responsible for conducting legislation through this House or to a cabinet minister who needs some assistance to put his estimates before a House like this. But I really question the propriety of a back-bench member having a pipsqueak researcher in the gallery prompt him while he is speaking.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will make no comment in terms of the member for Lake Nipigon's referring to a person in the public gallery. But I do want to remind the member for Wilson Heights, and I think the security guards will confirm this, that all members and guests in the members' gallery are to refrain from speaking to members or having discussions over the rail. I think we should follow that procedure.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said to the member for Bellwoods. I will check the research I have done and, if it is not correct, I will make the proper apologies. I am not doubting his word. Also, inasmuch as the opposition has taken some of my time on their points of privilege, I ask that that time be added to my 10 minutes.

Other members of the New Democratic Party or their leader may be entitled to spend more than $1 per voter, as did the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

One of the top Liberal spenders, Mr. Pretty, their candidate in Oriole riding, spent $1.48 per voter, for a total of $81,000; as opposed to the elected member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), who spent $33,000, or 61 cents per voter, less than half.

All I am trying to say is that spending a lot of money does not necessarily buy elections.

The NDP is making a big thing of this. They have looked at all the candidates and the returns in the election offices, which is their privilege. I have looked at a few of the NDP returns. There is nothing illegal or improper about anything the New Democratic Party has done, just as there is nothing illegal or improper about anything anybody else has done.

The returns I looked at, and there were only a few of them, are somewhat hard to analyse. They have a lot of what is known in the trade as $99 contributors. A lot of their money comes from people who contribute less than $100. We do not know who they are, and there is nothing wrong with that. Also, they have a lot of transfers to their ridings from the central party, which again is quite in order, but --

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has it wrong again. There are no transfers from the central office to our riding associations. It is the other way around. We finance our party from the grass roots, from the bottom up, and the riding associations transfer the payments so we can --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Under the standing orders, there is the opportunity under section 19 in regard to allegations, and possibly we will accept that from the member for Port Arthur. However, the member for Wilson Heights still has the floor.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to make a note that in three provincial and two federal elections, I have never had a $99 contributor yet.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: I am sure the honourable member has had some under $100, though. I have noticed the NDP members are quite sensitive today. It is very interesting.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to bring to the members' attention that the member for Wilson Heights has the floor. However, I want to remind the member for Wilson Heights that if he is overly provocative, it will be difficult to carry on a reasonable semblance of order in this debate.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, after considerable discussion by the member opposite about the things some of our party members did, there is no intention whatsoever on my part to make any false accusations or allegations about any member of this Legislature.

Let us get around to the point of the motion, that there should be spending limits such as the federal government has. The federal government spending limits are a joke. It is very simple for any person to get around the federal spending limits. Before the writ is issued, one may go to the printer, order printing and pay for it.

Any money that is spent before the writ is issued, in the federal government legislation, does not count. If somebody wants to spend more than the limit, he can simply spend it before the writ is issued and it is not part of the spending limit. That is not going to solve the problem.

Why is the NDP so hung up on money? Because they do not get it, they do not have it and they cannot collect it. Several weeks ago, when their leader was at a press conference, he was asked a simple question: "If the NDP had more money, would they spend it?" The leader answered, "Yes, happily and gladly." If they could get the money, they would spend it. Because they cannot collect the money, they do not like the rules of the game. Because they cannot get it, they want to take it away from somebody else.

As far as I am concerned, as long as there are limits on each individual contribution and as long as there is full disclosure of the contributions, there are no problems. As long as there is full disclosure and limits so that no one person at any time can come to a candidate or elected person and say, "Hey, I gave you so much money so you owe me." There is not that much money available, but if there is full disclosure of donations of money, should there not also be full disclosure of donations of the time people give to a candidate? Supposing, Mr. Speaker, I want to send out a pamphlet to my riding and someone donates $100 to me --

Interjection.

Mr. Rotenberg: Are you allowing me the time that the member took away from me, Mr. Speaker, on the points of privilege?

The Deputy Speaker: I want to point out to the member for Wilson Heights that the chair has to use its discretion. I want to remind him that in my estimation he was extremely provocative in some comments back and forth. It is difficult to assess time in regard to points of privilege, no matter who made them.

With regard to the time I am taking, I will add that as part of the member's time.

Mr. Rotenberg: Is the Speaker adding all that to my 10 minutes so I do not get time to speak?

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on with the debate.

Mr. Rotenberg: How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker? I have only spoken for about three minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: A minute and a half.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I want to say that if someone donates $100 to me, it is going to buy close to 700 15-cent stamps which will cover maybe about four polls if the postman delivered the pamphlets. If the person wanted to spend the 12 to 15 hours himself going out and distributing them that is the same type of donation. I personally value far more the man who donates 12 or 15 hours of his time to me, which they do for $100, than those who donate $100 to me. I do not owe anything to anybody who donates, but if I did owe to anybody I would owe far more to the person who donated 12 of 15 hours to me than a person who simply donated a $100 cheque. That is so much easier.

The third party, as I said, have gone out and examined all the returns. They have found no improprieties whatsoever in any candidate. They have not found any sign of any evidence that any member of this House, or any candidate violated the law. There is no suspicion whatsoever, but the New Democratic Party is spending all its time analysing numbers.

There is an old sports adage which goes: Celebrations are for winners; statistics are for losers. There is no question in my mind that they are losers in the election and they are acting like a bunch of losers in this debate.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in very strong support of this resolution. I think it is somewhat mild, somewhat reasonable and should be able to attract support of some of the members on the government side if they are going to be independent-minded during the private members' hour. That is unlikely but perhaps it will spread to the back benches. For instance, we have seen the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) show some independence earlier in the day, as did the member for Humber (Mr. Kells) on Tuesday night. So perhaps it will spread to the back benches.

I asked a question in the Legislature of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and I indicated at that time I thought the democratic process in this province was being somewhat subverted by the use of money in election campaigns. I attempted to elicit from the minister a promise that the government would give consideration to the introduction of legislation which would deal with limitations on expenditures for campaign purposes.

Unfortunately, the minister indicated the government was not prepared to do so. Subsequent to that, the Premier (Mr. Davis), on October 13 I believe, was asked as a result of my question in the House whether the government intended to bring forward such legislation. He indicated the government was not prepared to do so.

This to me is very unfortunate, because as I pointed out during the question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the government already has many built-in advantages when it heads into an election campaign. First we saw the marvellous advertising program that took place. In the year just prior to the election we saw some $24 million of identifiable government advertising used to provide information to the people of Ontario. But I think it was used more to make this government appear in a rather favourable light. Some of the advertisements, as we know, were rather blatant such as: "Life is good in Ontario; preserve it, conserve it," and "because Ontario cares we have a grants program for the seniors." This kind of blatant advertising was justifiably criticized by those of us in the opposition. However, it was allowed to continue.

The government also used members of the civil service when they announced the big Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. They had the advantage of the advice provided by senior members of the civil service to cabinet ministers in the formulation of policy and so on. That is a built-in advantage.

4:40 p.m.

In addition to this they have the ability to make appointments and to exercise the levers of power in an appropriate fashion. Because of these advantages -- and I could list many more that the levers of power allow a party in power -- I think this party in power would be pleased to see that, at least during the election campaign, there would be some degree of fairness.

When we see the kind of campaign contributions we have seen the suspicion arises -- whether it is justified or not in some cases is difficult to say -- that somehow government policy is influenced. I do not wish to create the impression there is wrongdoing in a particular case, and I want members to know that.

The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) wags his head. He cannot discuss these matters on a nonpartisan basis at all, can he?

I look at the contributions that are made, for instance, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). A large number of these contributions are from people who are in the transportation business. When the public looks at this they are bound to suspect that somehow the policy of the government might be influenced in this direction. The same could be said for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), people who have an opportunity to influence very much the direction in which the government moves. So this suspicion arises in the minds of members of the opposition and, I think, to a large degree in the minds of the public.

How do we overcome that? We overcome it by legislating in favour of lowering the expenditures that take place in election campaigns and by better controlling the contributions that are made to political parties.

I mention those ministers to show examples of how the public might feel if the democratic process were being subverted. It is quite clear the Progressive Conservative Party spent substantially more than the opposition parties. According to one report it was $8.1 million, just $2 million less than their federal counterparts spent nationally during the 1980 federal campaign. It is overkill as far as funds are concerned.

We are building in Ontario a situation in which the government in power has an advantage because those who want to make substantial donations feel perhaps that policy can be influenced by their contributions. Second, we find a situation in which the party that is able to accumulate the most funds -- that is, the party that is most popular with the moneyed people, the established people in the province -- is able to gain a competitive advantage over the other two political parties in the province. This is not healthy.

If the Progressive Conservative Party had won an election simply because their policies were better or because the public perceived the personnel in that party to be more attractive, as the Premier claims, then I think one could accept that. What throws that suggestion out, however, is the great spending we see by that party on the central campaign and on a riding-by-riding basis.

If they were prepared to rest their case simply on the merits of their candidates, on the basis of their senior personnel and on the basis of their policies then they would not see any need to spend these great sums of money. They would agree, surely, there should be limitations on expenditures and on contributions.

One aspect of this which I think is just being zeroed in on today is that the public is subsidizing to a much greater extent the party which is able to attract the most funds. Suppose we use the example of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, because his riding association and the minister himself were able to attract the most funds. One could conclude that if they were all $100 donations -- they were not, but if they were -- $75 out of that $100 is coming back to the individuals who made those contributions in the form of an Ontario tax deduction. We know that some 66 per cent of those people who decided to vote did not vote Progressive Conservative, so those people are sharing in paying the Tory campaign fund.

Mr. Eaton: They are in yours too.

Mr. Bradley: The member should be quiet for a moment.

While we recognize --

Mr. Eaton: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: Sit down.

The Deputy Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Eaton: He is indicating that rebate just comes back to the Tory party, when he knows full well they get it. Everybody gets the same rebate.

Mr. Bradley: I am not indicating that at all. He should sit down and pay attention.

Mr. Eaton: That is what he just indicated, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bradley: I am pointing out the party that attracts the most funds benefits most from the tax system we have in Ontario and the subsidy system. Certainly, everyone benefits from the system which has been implemented.

We are saying there should be limitations on it. If the member is not afraid to have his policies and program put before the public of Ontario on an equal basis with members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, then of course he will not oppose restrictions on expenditures and contributions.

Because all of the people of Ontario subsidize this and to a much greater extent the party in power in this province is able to attract large sums during a campaign, that is another built-in inequity. If the member for Middlesex cannot understand that, he is nothing but a party hack.

At least I think some of the other members who may disagree with me on the government benches recognize the argument I am making. I am hopeful some of them will place pressure on the other members of their party to institute a fairer system in this province, and as a result of the resolution brought forward by the member for Bellwoods we will have enacted in this Legislature before the next election limitations on all expenditures during election campaigns and greater limitations on the contributions that can be made. If we do that we best serve the democratic system in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East. Might I point out to him that he has approximately till two minutes to the hour; the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has indicated he would like to finish off.

Mr. Martel: I want to contribute to this debate. When the question was first raised the Premier said: "It is our candidates and our policies that got us elected." Except they have to spend like hell to make it, don't they? They have to spend money like it is going out of style. Let me just tell members how they do it.

They do it in polls, they do it through government advertising --

Mr. Rotenberg: How much did you spend? Tell us how much you spent.

Mr. Martel: I spent less than $17,000. Government polls, government advertising, government giveaways -- I am going to come to them all -- and perverse spending via media coverage.

The Tories, right in the middle of the election campaign, came up with a province-wide poll sent out from the Premier asking certain questions. It was to get the attitudes of the people. It was then the PC organization started to make the telephone calls. If they do not think that is perverse or sick to use that sort of thing, there is something wrong with them.

Mr. Rotenberg: Point of privilege.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, will you shut him up.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please; order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to have my time used up --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order, I say to the member for Sudbury East and the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I want to remind all members that interjections are considered part of the routine of this House. However continued conversation is not. I want to remind all members of that. The member for Wilson Heights on a point of privilege.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I find my privilege being taken away from me when they spent all my speech heckling me and did not stop interrupting, and now you take me to task for trying to interrupt him.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order; order, please. I have heard the member's point of privilege and it is well taken, but I want to remind him, that a continued conversation while another member is debating is not part of the standing orders of the House. I want to remind him when there were previous interjections I was very careful to note that the interjections were from various members and not in the form of a continued debate from one member.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: The Tories spent $603,000 in polling to get the pulse of the people of Ontario before the election. That had an advantage. The poll came out of the Premier's office and then the phone calls came from the Progressive Conservative organization. Call that democratic. I want to quote from a report about what advertising does to the public: "Instead they are subjected to subtle and sophisticated attempts to develop product associations or loyalties." Let me go on. It says in addition, "It is pointed out that the product differentiation and other anti-competitive effects of advertising further distort the -- "

The Deputy Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Eaton: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know what he was quoting from.

Mr. Martel: I am not going to be interrupted by that twerp forever. I have 10 minutes. Now sit him down.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order to the member for Sudbury East. I want to also remind all members that under the standing orders there is a reference to parliamentary language in the House. Would all members please keep that in mind.

Mr. Rotenberg: He can give it out but he cannot take it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, this report is from the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism dealing with advertising. Let me quote again: "In addition it is pointed out that product differentiation and other anti-competitive effects of advertising further distort decision-making."

What did the Tories do? They went out in the middle of the election. The year previous to the election they spent $20 million in advertising. The year of the election they spent $29 million in government advertising -- a 44 per cent increase. It takes a lot to sell those birds, does it not? Does the House know what that came to per day? The Tory party was advertising at a rate of $80,160 a day; per day.

Mr. Rotenberg: We win elections.

Mr. Mattel: To get the Tories elected to government -- that is right, they were using it.

Mr. Rotenberg: If you had the money you would do it too.

Mr. Martel: In fact, Mr. Speaker, during the election the Tories escalated their spending in some ministries. In the Attorney General's ministry it went up by 1,100 per cent or 1,300 per cent.

Mr. Foulds: He needed it.

Mr. Martel: What else did the government have at its disposal? Giveaways. Let us look at a couple because there are some interesting ones. I remember when my friend from North Bay was in the running, hot to trot, and the figures started to come out, and the promises; and they did the same in Sudbury, but they did not have enough money.

In Sudbury the Tories spent more money than the Liberals and the New Democrats combined. As if that was not good enough, the Premier came in and promised $10 million for a science centre and a couple of other goodies. He promised the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development campaign was going to come there and he promised that we needed something to diversify industry in the Sudbury basin.

They then went on to Cambridge and what did they do in Cambridge? The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) knows what they did. They have lost more jobs but the promise was there.

Let me just go back to the spending in Sudbury: $59,000 for the Tories; $24,000 for the Liberals; $27,000 for the New Democratic Party -- more than double. They came in with the goodies: the Premier flew in three times and he made all the election promises.

Thunder Bay was a targeted riding. They went into Thunder Bay and made a series of promises. The Tories spent $42,000. My colleague spent $23,000 and the Liberals spent $15,000. They then started to make announcements: $30 million to $50 million for a contract with Hawker Siddeley Diesels and Electrics Limited --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: They then went to Cambridge and in Cambridge they outspent us: $37,000 for the Conservatives, $19,000 for the Liberals, $13,000 for the NDP, and they promised a microelectronics industry in Cambridge. This went on province-wide: and the Tories wonder why we object.

The Premier says, "It is our party and our policies." They make giveaways, they poll, they spend $30 million in advertising -- then the Tory campaign starts. They spend $8 million in 47 days. I have the figures before me so I will not do like the member for Wilson Heights. I will know what I am talking about. Let me see what the Tories spent --

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

The Deputy Speaker: A point of privilege. Member for Sudbury East, you know I recognize all members' points of privilege. The member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Sudbury East is implying that I do not know what I am talking about. That is not parliamentary.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I assume I am right. The Tory organization spent $8.058 million to sell that bunch of hooligans. They could not do it without it. They had polling, they had government advertising to the tune of $30 million, they had giveaways and they are proud they had to come here via that route. What did they spend? There were 33 Tories --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Martel: Let me just say in conclusion that in this racket he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to remind the member that he is infringing on his own colleague's time.

Mr. McClellan: I cannot remember when we had a livelier debate in private members' hour, Mr. Speaker. I wonder why that is.

Let me just continue the theme that my colleague was pursuing. The government spent $30 million as a government in pre-election advertising. Preserve it, conserve it, blah blah blah blah.

An hon. member: Good things grow in Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: Good things grow in Ontario. And the increase at a time of government constraint and retrenchment -- blah blah blah blah -- the increase from 1979-80 to 1980-81 was $9 million of public money siphoned off into government advertising for pre-election purposes. That was on top of the $8.1 million spent by the party in the election campaign. That is a travesty of the principles of subsidized election expenditure. Would the member please try to get that through his head?

The money that is raised is being paid for by the taxpayers through tax credit. It is subsidized money and the government is squandering it. It is as simple as that. They are squandering public moneys in the way they pay for their election campaign. It is an absolute disgrace. How the member can try to justify it is beyond me. The only way the member for Wilson Heights can try to justify it is to give inaccurate facts in the Legislature. That is easy enough to do. It gives one some idea of what kind of an election campaign he must run.

But if one looks at the facts and looks at the act, one can reach no other conclusion than there is an abuse of public funds involved here. What we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. That the matter be referred to the election expenses commission with instructions to investigate campaign spending of all three parties during the past election campaign with a view to bringing recommendations forward for amendments to the act. I do not think that is unreasonable and I think anybody who would vote against a resolution as eminently reasonable as this must have something they want to hide.

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPANSION

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Mr. Robinson, resolution 23:

That this House urge the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to encourage the expansion and development of the petrochemical industry in Ontario, through sector rationalization, negotiation of assured feed-stocks and increased international export marketing.

Mr. Eaton: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the figures as quoted by the member for --

Mr. Martel: That is a Liberal's point of privilege.

5 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Sarnia has moved resolution 23. I will dispense with the reading.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the two honourable members please have a little bit of self- control.

Mr. Brandt: May I carry on, Mr. Speaker? This does not come off my time, I hope.

The Deputy Speaker: You are starting now.

Mr. Brandt: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the outlook for Ontario's petrochemical industry and to describe the major issues that will bear on the industry's future development. The petrochemical industry has been characterized by high past growth rates and advanced, sophisticated technology. Together with its processing industries, such as plastics fabricating and synthetic textiles, it has a substantial multiplier effect on the Canadian economy through the upgrading of petroleum and natural gas resources.

Manufacturing proceeds through a number of stages in upgrading petrochemical raw materials derived from both crude oil or natural gas into a variety of products and end uses in other industries. The petrochemical raw materials derived from crude oil are naphtha and gas-oil, and from natural gas, ethane, propane, butanes and condensates.

Mr. Kerrio: You make more sense than the government.

Mr. Gillies: Listen, you might learn something.

Mr. Brandt: This is good stuff, so the member should pay attention.

Mr. Gillies: Don't let an opportunity to learn pass you by.

Mr. Brandt: These raw materials are the feedstocks for the first stage of petrochemical production, products referred to as primary petrochemicals. Examples of these would be ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, toluene and xylene. These first stage chemical products are then upgraded to secondary petrochemicals such as phenol, vinyl chloride and styrene. These important intermediates in turn are the raw materials for a further wide range of petrochemicals, including synthetic rubber, polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride. Finished petrochemicals are used in a wide range of industrial and consumer applications, such as plastics products, paint and varnish, insulation, synthetic textiles, floor tiles, et cetera.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is hardly an area of human endeavour that does not use petrochemical products in one form or another. The point of the motion we have before us today is that we appear to have taken many of these petrochemical-derived synthetics for granted. I would ask members to imagine a world that is deprived of these very important products. Key sectors of our economy are directly dependent upon the petrochemical industry for raw materials. For example, the plastics industry uses polyethylene, polypropylene, styrenic resins and polyvinyl chloride, which are converted into products used by the construction industry as thermal insulation, weather stripping and protective coatings. They all help with our energy problem.

They are used by the transportation industry as lightweight body mouldings and other automotive parts, and, of course, we are going to be selling a great number of additional cars as a result of the very positive measures brought forward by our Treasurer earlier today.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Wait until you hear from the other retailers.

Mr. Brandt: The home appliance industry uses petrochemical products as body mouldings or as components for refrigerators, stoves, television sets, washing machines and so forth. Another industry that uses petrochemicals is the textile industry which must have ethylene glycol to produce polyester fibres. Our agricultural industry is directly dependent on such petrochemicals as fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.

Petrochemicals have a very significant job- creating impact on downstream industries. The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) would be interested, for example, to know that for every one job created in the extraction of ethane, four jobs are created in the manufacture of ethylene; 26 jobs at the first-line derivative stage, which is vinyl chloride; a further 46 jobs at the second derivative stage, which is polyvinyl chloride; and more than 1,000 jobs at the third derivative stage, such as the production of pipe and tile.

Mr. Gillies: See how productive that Suncor deal is? Thousands and thousands of jobs.

Mr. Brandt: We have not even begun yet. Petrochemical products are also very energy efficient. Recent studies have demonstrated that petrochemically-derived products often require less energy in the manufacturing process. For example, a polyvinyl chloride bottle needs only half as much energy to make as its glass counterpart. A plastic produce bag requires 10 per cent less energy to make than a paper bag. Moreover, other ramifications of a totally petrochemical-free world would be disastrous. To replace the world demand for synthetic fibres with wool would require one and one-third billion acres of new grazing land, an area greater than continental Europe.

The Canadian petrochemical industry is presently concentrated in Canada in three regions; Albert, Sarnia, and Montreal, with some limited facilities in eastern Ontario and others that are announced or under consideration in British Columbia.

The Ontario petrochemical industry has its roots in Sarnia where the first Canadian petrochemical plant was established during the Second World War. This plant, known as Polysar, manufactures a wide variety of synthetic rubbers, paints, latex and polystyrene and has become a multinational corporation with plants in most major countries of the world. Recently the petrochemical industry in Ontario completed the largest capital expenditure in its history. In Sarnia, a new investment of over $1 billion was completed in 1979 with the startup of the Shell Canada polypropylene and isopropanol plants.

Other investments include Canada's first world-scale petrochemical refinery owned by Petrosar and built at a cost of over $700 million to produce ethylene and other primary petrochemicals. New polyethylene manufacturing facilities and expansions by Union Carbide, Dupont of Canada, Dow Chemical of Canada and a styrene plant owned by Polysar are either under way or are proposed to be under way shortly.

The point that I think is of interest to some of the members of the House is that Ontario accounted for $2.2 billion of the petrochemical production in 1979, about 67 per cent or two thirds of Canada's total. The industry in Ontario has over 12,000 direct employees, but in addition there are 25,000 employees in the plastics processing industry which depends directly on the petrochemical industry for the supplies of plastics and resins. On the whole, Ontario accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the activity in the Canadian petrochemical industry in terms of employees.

The US petrochemical industry, one of our major competitors, is concentrated on the gulf coast, primarily in the states of Louisiana and Texas. This industry in that particular part of the world represents the most efficient industry in the world. Clearly the American industry is the major competitor of the Canadian industry, both in the Canadian market and in the export market.

Since a high proportion of the Canadian industry is controlled by multinational companies, investment decisions are frequently based on comparisons between Canada and the US environment, specifically in the gulf coast.

Some of the more important considerations and factors that must be taken into account for these investment decisions include the initial cost of facilities, which would also include labour, materials, engineering and construction supervision; the price and the supply of feed-stocks and energy -- a very important component; the taxation environment; ownership; industry structure and influence of foreign control, and finally, the state of existing production capacity.

Examining these factors more closely one finds that the Canadian petrochemical industry faces a cost disadvantage in comparison with the US industry. The major causes for higher Canadian costs include the costs associated with northern climatic conditions. It is simply colder in Canada and more expensive to operate here because of a lack of specialized petrochemical construction services and equipment and job site supervisory experience; a more costly construction labour compensation package when compared with our US counterparts; higher material costs and the additional costs of securing the necessary engineering and project management expertise.

Another factor which is critical in the comparative position of the Canadian industry is the cost of oil and natural gas feedstocks and energy. This cost represents approximately 50 per cent of the cost of production of primary petrochemicals and 25 per cent of the cost of the second stage derivatives. As long as crude oil prices remain competitive with those in the US, the gas-based petrochemical industry in Alberta will be in a competitive position with the US industry.

5:10 p.m.

At the same time, however, a competitive situation exists between the gas-based petrochemical industry in Alberta and the oil-based industry in eastern Canada. The widening gap between oil and gas prices means it will be increasingly difficult for eastern Canadian producers of oil-based petrochemicals to expand production and to remain competitive.

Nevertheless, the eastern Canadian industry remains vital to the Canadian economy. A number of products including rubber, polypropylene, nylon intermediates and plasticizers are only made in eastern Canada. Furthermore, some products can only be made from oil-derived feedstocks and not from natural gas. Thus it is essential that Ontario and Quebec have access to supplies of crude oil and crude oil products.

Mr. Dean: Scratch that Quebec thing.

Mr. Brandt: We have to share with our neighbouring province, of course.

Given the availability and price of natural gas, most of the new petrochemical expansions will use feedstocks derived from natural gas. Another weakness in the Canadian industry is the lack of concentration which creates economic inefficiencies in providing support services. The domestic Canadian market is simply not large enough to support more than one or two world-scale plants. Clearly the problems facing the Canadian petrochemical industry, particularly the Ontario industry, are --

Mr. Kerrio: Bad government here.

Mr. Brandt: What's that?

Mr. Kerrio: Bad government here; Tory government.

Mr. Brandt: The problems facing the Ontario industry are, if I can ignore the interjections, the size of the Canadian market, the supply and price of feedstocks, as well as the apparent fragmentation of the industry. Both the federal and provincial governments must take the initiative to ensure the wellbeing of this vital sector of our economy.

What is most needed is a policy direction that guarantees a continued growth and expansion of both eastern and western petrochemical centres, improved access to export markets and last and most important to Ontario, a secure supply of feedstocks at competitive prices.

A price differential below world or US prices is necessary to offset the disadvantages encountered by the Canadian petrochemical industry in comparison, with its US counterparts. The government must ensure that the blended price of crude oil will never exceed 85 per cent of the international price or the average price of oil in the US, whichever is lower.

Currently, the rapid growth in Alberta is driven by abundant natural gas at competitive prices. The Alberta industry is planning construction of major installations and equipment with an estimated cost of between $7 and $8 billion by 1985, a very substantial undertaking. At least 10 new plants, most of them world-scale and almost all based on natural gas liquids, which as I mentioned before have a price advantage over crude oil, are scheduled for construction in the next few years in the west.

Currently, growth in the west is not precluding growth in Ontario. Over the next few years, close to $2 billion will be spent on new plants and expansion projects in the Sarnia region alone. Petrosar will spend $50 million this year to refine more of the crude it uses and to cut the amount of residual oil produced by some 8,000 barrels a day. It also plans a $500 million expansion by 1984 that would further refine each barrel of crude and result in additional savings of barrels of crude oil. Major polyethylene expansions in Sarnia are also planned by Esso, Union Carbide and Dupont.

Given Alberta's advantages of cheaper and more abundant supplies of natural gas, continued expansion in the future for Ontario must be guaranteed through a policy of sector rationalization. There is no reason for Canada's traditional petrochemical centres, Montreal and Sarnia, to suffer because of a shift of new projects to Alberta.

Certainly, the concentration of three petrochemical centres is necessary to keep transportation costs down. Alberta should continue to serve western Canada and the Pacific export market. Sarnia should serve central Canada and the midwestern United States, with Montreal output being sold in eastern Canada and along the eastern seaboard.

To be economically viable in Canada, the petrochemical industry must operate on an international scale and compete in international markets. While the Canadian petrochemical industry has aimed primarily at satisfying domestic demand, improved access to foreign markets is of increasing interest, particularly in the scope it provides for high capacity utilization of world-scale plants, and the economies that brings with it. To achieve this, Canadian companies must at least export the excess which the domestic markets cannot absorb.

As major new facilities in Sarnia and Alberta complete their early years of production, there will be a need to increase exports because, obviously, there will be a period of overproduction. Currently, about 60 per cent of the Canadian petrochemical production is sold in the domestic market and the remainder, which totals about $1 billion, is exported. Imports amounted to about $1.5 billion in 1979, and the import penetration of the Canadian market has stayed around 40 per cent for the last 10 years. However, a favourable trade balance in petrochemicals will be achieved as Canada increases its exports of those products for which world-scale plants are feasible.

Governments need to take necessary action to aid our petrochemical industry in gaining access to foreign markets. Selective bilateral trade agreements, particularly with the United States, should be pursued as a means of developing international trade.

In improving trade relationships and expanding export markets, both the federal and provincial governments must follow policies that are conducive to facilitating healthy trade relations. Dialogue with the United States, Europe and the Pacific Rim countries must be pursued. At the same time, this trade development thrust must also be extended to encourage those downstream finished product manufacturers who depend on petrochemicals for their penetration of world markets. Conversion of primary petrochemicals into more complex derivatives provides an opportunity for more profitable exports.

Other areas in which governments can have a low cost transportation network can reduce some of the disadvantages associated with feedstock prices. The government can facilitate and encourage the establishment of an infrastructure conducive to the expansion of the petrochemical industry, as well as create a healthy investment and regulatory climate that supports large capital commitments.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to examine some of the proposals undertaken by other provincial governments in an attempt to rationalize their petrochemical sectors.

In British Columbia, for example, the government has introduced a new natural gas pricing policy designed to encourage the upgrading of natural gas within the province. In Quebec, the government has announced the formation of a consortium known as Petromont to purchase the existing ethylene production assets of Gulf and Union Carbide and to eventually expand these facilities. In Alberta, the government is committed to diversifying its economy through the development of its petrochemical industry.

Through an amendment to its Petroleum Conservation Act, Alberta controls the use of all hydrocarbons within the province and can thus influence the development of the industry. Ontario, on the other hand, does not currently have a comprehensive strategy to facilitate the future growth and expansion of an industry that is vital to the wellbeing of Ontario's economy.

Mr. Wildman: We have been saying that for years.

Mr. Brandt: That is why I am saying it now -- to put it into perspective for the members and to establish a policy that we can all agree on. I am hoping I get unanimous support from the other side of the House.

Mr. Wildman: I thought Suncor was going to do all that. Isn't that why the government bought Suncor?

Mr. Brandt: That is only one small step for this House and a very large step for the citizens of Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: The member sounds like he just landed on the moon.

Mr. Brandt: That is where I stole the line from.

Governments are continuously aiding industries that have no hope of developing a comparative advantage in world trade. It is time that governments also concentrated their efforts on winners.

The petrochemical industry in Ontario is a winner. It is a healthy industry, and with government support it can maintain its leadership of the Canadian petrochemical industry.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Ontario's petrochemical industry faces certain disadvantages when compared to its United States counterpart, and to the emerging facilities in Alberta. In order to compensate for these disadvantages, both levels of government must pursue a policy of sector rationalization which would include continued growth and expansion of both western and eastern industries; the clustering of the industry to ensure economic efficiency and viability; secure supplies of feedstock and a price differential of feedstock below the world price; improved access to export markets and a trade development thrust encouraging downstream manufacturers who depend on petrochemicals to penetrate world markets. I also mentioned the low transportation costs.

By way of summation, I believe that by developing a comprehensive policy direction, our government can assist the industry in maintaining its healthy posture.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the honourable member for Sarnia clarified the one buzz phrase that I really did not grasp very well in the resolution, and that was "sector rationalization." We get them all in here, from time to time, and I am very glad that he explained what that was because I really wanted to support this resolution, and shall support the resolution, but I was a little bit hesitant about just what he meant by sector rationalization. So now we know.

It is interesting that some of the members on the back bench there have a better grasp of Ontario's needs than do those people on the front bench. I often wonder why it is that a back-bencher has to make a resolution like this because the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), and everybody else, is always telling us they are doing everything possible to ensure the health of whatever industry it happens to be at any time. Why does he have to introduce a resolution like this? He knows why he has to; it is because everything is not being done to see to it that the petrochemical industry maintains its health and viability and its very important place in the economy of this province.

It is through that recognition that our party took a position years ago, which is that as a fundamental idea or concept, petroleum was too valuable a commodity to be left to simple combustion. That is a fundamental policy on our part. We have directed all of our energy ideas and concepts towards that end.

Then the federal government came along with the off-oil policy. That was another idea that recognized that there were uses for this valuable, strategic commodity other than simple, pure combustion. It was as a follow-up of that, if you like, that our party did our power alcohol study in 1978, and that we supported the idea of Ontario producing its own fuel resources right here in the province. One of the positive spin-offs of that thrust would be to leave petroleum for its highest end use, which is as a petrochemical.

I am always disturbed when I hear the comments by the Premier (Mr. Davis) over the purchase of Suncor, committing $650 million for Suncor, because he has tended to convey the notion that he is going to secure transportation fuel in the future for the people of Ontario. That is exactly what he did, because Suncor is basically a marketing organization in Ontario.

The member for Sarnia and I know that purchase will not secure one more drop of oil for the people of the province. That brings up the one question I have about this resolution, the negotiation of assured feedstocks.

About a year and a half ago, as the honourable members will know, when the argument was going on between the federal government and the government of Alberta over an oil-pricing agreement, there was a rumour that came through this Legislature that somehow the government of Alberta would have something to say about who the customers of its oil would be.

Members will recall that. It got into the news, certainly in Sarnia, and concern was expressed by the former member for Sarnia about that. I went to Ottawa and talked to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about that specific question. He said to me, "You do not have to worry about assured feedstocks. The federal government controls the allocation of all petroleum in this country."

Understood properly, that meant that there would be no discrimination against one particular sector, and at that time the concern was for the petrochemical sector.

Mr. Stokes: What about production?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Well, production, as the honourable member for Lake Nipigon knows, is in the hands of the provincial government. It is interesting to note that in Ontario we have very little oil, and none of it is controlled by Suncor.

It makes it quite interesting when the Premier talks about assuring supply through the purchase of Suncor. It is pure, utter hogwash, and deep down the members of this House all know it. There may be some perception out there among the members of the public, but it is an incorrect perception because that control is in the hands of the federal government.

In the minute or two I have left I would like to ask the honourable back-bench member for Sarnia, who I believe should be on the front bench -- I say that in all sincerity, because I think he has taken the trouble and time to learn about and understand the industries that are particularly pertinent to his riding and he has expressed his concern -- how he can continue to stand up and support the cabinet ministers who are on the front bench when they are not doing the job to support the petrochemical industry in this province? How can he continue to support them when they would spend $650 million to buy 25 per cent of an oil company instead of spending it -- provided they have $650 million, which they do not -- on developing peat resources in Ontario, for instance.

Let us talk about value added. That same money could employ 7,000 people in Ontario and another 1,000 in the construction of plants, and reduce the demand for petroleum for simple combustion, thus leaving the petrochemical industry in a far more advantageous position.

I ask the member for Sarnia to give this his most serious consideration, especially when he is called on to support this kind of expenditure for an oil company at a time when spending it on the alternative, allowing Ontario to make its rightful contribution to Canadian energy self-sufficiency, is being denied. This is the situation, and the honourable member, I am sure, is very much aware of it.

A power alcohol program in Ontario would relieve the demand for those oil resources and would allow that oil to be used for its highest end use, which he and I agree is in the petrochemical industry. I do believe that as the years go by and as we sink farther and farther into this dependency, the petrochemical industry is going to be far more concerned before the matter is properly resolved.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to support this resolution. I hope the member is able to convey it to the front benches.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Sarnia for his resolution and the speech with which he backed it up. I must say, I do not know whether he did all his own research work or whether he had a pipsqueak researcher for him, but if he did, it was a better researcher that the one for the hyper member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) who had more inaccuracies in every five minutes than you could count.

Mr. Kerrio: That is not very nice.

Mr. MacDonald: It is not nice but it is accurate. The problem with the member is that he does not know the difference between accuracy and niceties.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Oh yes he does, but he is trying to be benevolent.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. The honourable member, apart from giving us a very useful update on the whole petrochemical industry in the province of Ontario, also provided us with a copy of his speech in advance so that we could make reference to it. I want to pick up and focus -- in the limited time that is available to me -- on one particular aspect because, quite frankly, I do not know what the score is and I am even more puzzled by the comment of the member for Halton-Burlington who is about to leave the House. The member for Sarnia said at one point: "Another factor which is critical in the comparative position of the Canadian industry" --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Point of privilege: I would just like to inform the honourable speaker that the member for Halton-Burlington is in his seat.

Mr. MacDonald: The member for Halton-Burlington was leaving the House and if he has come back he does not need to get up and tell people because we can see him. He is bulky enough that we can see him, without taking the time away from my speech.

Mr. Stokes: It is just for the record.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Carry on then.

Mr. MacDonald: Just for the record. I was quoting a word of wisdom from the member for Sarnia: "Another factor which is critical in the comparative position of the Canadian industry is the cost of oil and natural gas feedstocks and energy. This cost represents approximately 50 per cent of the cost of production of primary petrochemicals and 25 per cent of the cost of second derivatives."

On the next page of his speech he said: "The widening gap between oil and gas prices means that it will be increasingly difficult for the eastern Canadian producers of oil-based petrochemicals to expand production and remain competitive." And finally, "Thus it is essential that Ontario and Quebec have access to supplies of crude oil and crude oil products."

Let me set the cost factor aside for a moment. I agree that is important and obviously Alberta is going to have a competitive advantage. My problem and the area that I want to focus on in the resolution is this central portion of it, which is the negotiation of assured feedstocks. I do not know his position and I do not know whether the member for Sarnia can speak to it, if he has some more time at the end to clarify it, but my understanding is interprovincial trade is a federal matter and, therefore, the Alberta government has no control over that oil and gas once it leaves the Alberta border.

However, when we got into a squeeze a year or so ago, Premier Peter Lougheed, that "blue-eyed Arab" out there, said, "Okay, I will still control this situation. I will cut down the production." If he cuts down the production, he at least has an indirect control over what is happening to the oil and gas that might get into interprovincial trade. It simply does not get there if he cuts it down. Of course, if he cuts it down far enough, then they can fulfil that car bumper sticker, "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark," the kind of sentiment that exists in Alberta at the present time.

The thing that puzzles me about the member for Halton-Burlington is that he said he went up to Ottawa and got an assurance. I do not know why he took that assurance so readily from one of his colleagues in Ottawa because we do not always take what they say at face value. His colleague said that they have control over allocation. Where is their control over allocation? How have they got control over allocation? If the government of Alberta chooses, for whatever reason in the federal-provincial battle or for whatever other reason, to cut down on the production and there is not enough oil and gas coming out, they are allocating a scarce resource.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is allocated and you should know, I am sure --

Mr. MacDonald: Just a minute now. I am giving this speech. If they can allocate it, is the honourable member suggesting that the federal government could then say, "In Sarnia, to maintain the petrochemical industry, we will give you 100 per cent of what you need and let everybody elsewhere, outside of Alberta, go even shorter?" I may be wrong but, to my knowledge, they do not have the legal right at this point to allocate the total requirements the Sarnia petrochemical industry needs if, perchance, Alberta cut back on its production. I think everybody would agree that negotiating assurance of feedstocks is important. It is important if we are going to maintain the industry that happens to be there at present.

If the member for Sarnia, in his statement of policy -- and I agree with the member for Halton-Burlington that it is better than anything we have gotten from the front benches -- is envisaging a great expansion of the petrochemical industry so that the Quebec portion of it can meet not only Canadian domestic needs but also move into the export market along the New England coast; or if the Ontario portion of the petrochemical industry can meet Ontario's needs and expand its exports into the whole neighbouring portion of the United States, that is fine; but they cannot do it if they do not have the feedstocks. As the law exists now, I do not know how one can get assurance of feedstocks.

Let us be frank here. We in this province, and particularly in this party, acknowledge and have said that if we have a resource base, and I am referring now to northern Ontario particularly, that resource base should be the basis of building secondary industries. One of the reasons the north tends to wither on the vine, why the young people have to leave and why it has a low level of economic activity, is that we have not had government policies to ensure the development of secondary industries based on that resource base.

The problem in western Canada is that traditionally they did not have the resource base, therefore, they had to use products from the secondary industries of eastern Canada. One of the interesting developments that has taken place in Canada is that, as western Canada develops its resource base, Premier Lougheed says: "We are going to develop an ongoing secondary industry. We are not going to be dependent to such an extent on the manufacturing sector of central Canada."

It is going to be difficult to argue. In view of our own posturing here and because of the logic of the comparative positions, that is a natural thing for them to do. If Alberta is going to develop its petrochemical industry and use its basic resource, then unless we have some capacity for negotiating an assured supply aimed at maintaining the petrochemical industry we have, to say nothing of the expansion that the honourable member is envisaging, it is all a bit of a pipe dream.

Let me move on, if I may, to another comment. I do not know where Suncor fits into this. Suncor means Ontario is now going to have a measure of control over one of the oil companies. It is solidly based out in Alberta and has its sister corporations here in Ontario.

But I do not know whether, because of Ontario's influence derived from the 25 per cent share or ultimately perhaps a 51 per cent share, we can make certain that all of Suncor's production in western Canada will become available for its own sister corporations here and other petrochemical industries in Ontario. I do not know, because we are back to square one. Who has control of the production? Who has control of the allocation?

Notwithstanding the rather glib assurance of the member for Halton-Burlington, I do not know that the federal government has control of the allocation to the point that it can assure the petrochemical industry of Ontario of everything it wants and needs to maintain the industry that exists now and the expansion envisaged by the member for Sarnia.

Let me go to one other point rather quickly here.

The Acting Speaker: You have one minute.

Mr. MacDonald: One minute; very good. The member for Sarnia said, "Given Alberta's advantages of cheaper and more abundant supplies of natural gas, continued expansion in the future for Ontario must be guaranteed through a policy of sector rationalization."

Quite frankly, I am not certain what the member is saying. If he means by "sector rationalization" that one maintains the industry that is in Ontario now and the portion that is in Quebec, and in another place he says there is no reason for Canada's traditional petrochemical centres, Montreal and Sarnia, to suffer because of a shift of new projects to Alberta, it may well be that there is danger.

5:40 p.m.

If the production levels in Alberta are not sufficient to meet all the expansion of the petrochemical industry there, there may not be enough of a surplus to maintain, and particularly to expand as he envisages it, the petrochemical industry here in Ontario. So I am a little puzzled as to what he means by sector rationalization, particularly when I try to tie it in to the one point I wanted to make --

The Acting Speaker: Time.

Mr. MacDonald: The one point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, honourable member. The time has elapsed and we are being rather controlled on the time.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Interjections.

Mr. Robinson: Do I presume to be recognized, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: You were just recognized.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you. I am happy to speak in support of the resolution proposed by my colleague the member for Sarnia. Indeed, I feel that Ontario must continue to aim to have a strong position in all major areas of industry that we are currently involved in. I believe this is the nature of the commitment expressed by my government in the BILD program. It is also the thrust behind the sectoral development policies and programs of our ministers of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and Treasury and Economics (Mr. F. S. Miller).

My colleague the member for Sarnia has explained the amazing range of products that come from petrochemical industrial development. I guess that was one of the first areas that would deserve the label of high technology. I recall last spring when the member for Sarnia explained to the House in the debate on the speech from the throne that 100 gallons of crude oil could be transformed by the petrochemical industry into 46 white shirts, 13 plastic garbage cans, 46 sweaters, 365 items of lingerie, two tires, eight tire tubes and 23 pounds of filler --

Mr. Wildman: And a partridge in a pear tree.

Mr. Robinson: I wasn't going to say that.

At the same time, there still would be sufficient gasoline to last an average household for more than a month. This industry, built on the wonders of modern chemistry, is one that Ontario is lucky to have in abundant measure and one that we must do all we can to maintain and expand. Rubber, important pharmaceutical substances, detergents and fertilizers all come from petrochemicals. All the plastic and rubber substitutes we now have in our cars and appliances are also supplied from this industry. It creates an astounding range of very valuable items.

There have been people telling us for quite a number of years now that we use far more of our energy resources than we have to for such applications as transportation and space heating. When one sees the infrared photographs taken of homes at night showing the heat leaks, one realizes there is some truth in the belief that indeed we may be guilty of wasteful practices. This would be true also of our heavy gasoline consumption in automobiles. Many have argued that we should cherish our petroleum reserves because of their value for an indefinite length of time into the future, as feedstocks for such a wide range of essential products continue to diminish.

It would be somewhat difficult to obtain general public support for oil and gas conservation. Based on that aim, and for that very reason, it is difficult to believe the clothes we are wearing and all the other products actually do come from hydrocarbons by means of sophisticated chemical transformations, but the public grows more knowledgeable every day. I have no doubt that in time people will understand the need to be judicious in the use of our oil and gas reserves and to conserve them for the use of generations yet to come.

In 1981, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources have undertaken hydrocarbon exploration programs, which we hope in time will reveal indigenous sources of these valuable commodities. In one program, the Ontario Energy Corporation has undertaken a five-year exploration program in a collaborative venture along with the federal government and two energy companies. The venture will take place on an immense tract, some 72 million acres in Hudson Bay. It is very possibly the largest single exploratory parcel ever granted in Canada.

Should the exploration program, which gets under way next summer, prove to uncover hydrocarbon resources, it could significantly reduce Ontario's and Canada's dependence on imported fuel. It certainly would buy us time for bringing alternatives on stream, and it could assure our important petrochemical industries of a plentiful and easily available supply.

The hydrocarbon exploration program announced this year by the Ministry of Natural Resources is a positive and important step in this overall context. In a five-year program that complements the Ontario Energy Corporation initiative, that ministry's hydrocarbon energy resource program involves an assessment of our lignite, peat and oil shale reserves. The technical and economic feasibility of these sources will be studied and this data integrated into new policies for stimulating further exploration and development of our own energy resources.

There is a general consensus among the men and women who work within our petrochemical industry that it stands at the brink of opportunity for tremendous growth. Considering the wide range of its products and their many applications, how could it not be true? Experts in the industry believe that, to maximize the potential of our petrochemical industry growth and development, we must think and act from the standpoint from a global perspective. It is a question of the world-wide flow of trade.

Canada has a comparative advantage at this time in terms of its energy reserves, and Ontario has a comparative advantage in terms of its existing industrial infrastructure. But we certainly cannot rest on our laurels and hope that work that was done in the past will suffice. There is a major review under way at the federal level. It is imperative that our government continue to make adequate representations at that level to ensure that Ontario's interest be given full consideration and that the continuing development of the petrochemical industry here in Canada's heartland remains strong and dynamic.

In consideration of this resolution, one cannot help but reflect on Ontario's high-quality programs to ensure dynamic well-rounded growth in the economy over the rest of this decade. In particular, our Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, with its multifaceted development thrusts, will ensure the optimal development of our resources and the growth of our secondary manufacturing sector as well as the continuation and strengthening of our position in the evolving areas of computer communications, technology and biochemistry.

Important BILD initiatives with respect to petrochemicals include the expansion of our marketing expertise and efforts. Market expansion is an essential element if our petrochemical industry is to grow. Collaboration between government and industry becomes particularly important in gaining access to foreign markets for our petrochemical products.

The petrochemical industry in Ontario is poised to generate job opportunities on a very large scale. The chemical industry feels that its potential is not being fully recognized by government, and perhaps this is so. In addition to jobs, realization of the full potential of Ontario's petrochemical industry would have a substantial positive impact on our balance of trade and generate healthy revenues for government.

Mr. Kerrio: How much time is left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Approximately two minutes.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Two minutes too many.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you very much. It just gives me time to put what I want on the record.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes uncommonly good sense and I, for one, am going to support it.

Mr. O'Neil: More, Vince. Give them more.

Mr. Eaton: Vince for leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: It points up the ineptitude of this government if it is relying on someone to point out its shortcomings in addressing itself to the very serious problems they are having in the petrochemical industry.

Long before now, long before the member from the back bench got up to move this resolution during this private members' hour. it was known to all of us that the Minister of Industry and Tourism, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), and the Premier in his BILD program, should have had something in place that would help that industry, which is very vital to all of us here in Ontario.

I hope this will indicate to the government there are people on the back benches who should take the place of some of the people in the cabinet. They are running the government in such a way that is not responsive to the needs of the people and not reacting to providing jobs and doing the things in Ontario that would make it vital and a place to stand again.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM

The House divided on Mr. McClellan's motion of resolution 20, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakjns, Edighoffer, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren;

MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, O'Neil, Philip, Reed, J. A., Ruston, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bemnier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Henderson;

Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson;

Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Walker, Welch, Williams, Wiseman.

Ayes 34; nays 54.

PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY EXPANSION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Brandt has moved resolution 23.

Those in favour will please say "aye."

Those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13, I wish to indicate to the House the business for the balance of this week and next week.

This evening, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the third report of the standing procedural affairs committee re agencies, boards, and commissions.

On Friday morning, November 6, we will commence the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday afternoon, November 9, we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. On Monday evening, we will do second readings of Bills 94, 137, 142 and 138, standing in the name of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), and then, if there is time, committee of the whole on those bills.

On Tuesday afternoon, November 10, we will do second readings of Bills 2, 53, 55, 150 and 93, standing in the name of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), and then, if there is time, committee of the whole on those bills.

I remind the House that we will not be sitting on Tuesday evening or on Wednesday, November 11.

On Thursday afternoon, November 13, we will deal with ballot items 17 and 18, standing in the names of Mr. McGuigan and Mr. Swart. On Thursday evening, we will continue with second readings of any legislation not completed on Monday evening.

On Friday morning, November 13, we will return to the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

There may be a further statement on business tomorrow.

The House recessed at 6:04 p.m.