POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF ENERGY
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I notice there are quite a few people visiting the Legislature this evening, as has been the practice the last few days. Many people are coming into the House wearing Bill 127 badges. I presume they are here to listen to the debate on Bill 127. Unless things have changed, I do not believe Bill 127 is going to proceed this evening.
Mr. Breaugh: They came to hear you.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, I am glad of that.
Mr. Breaugh: They want to hear about tomatoes.
Mr. Mancini: I am sure they are all here to hear me. Just for their information, at the present time we are discussing Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, and we will continue to do so, I am told, until our time has expired.
Mr. Speaker, do you know anything more about Bill 127 and when it is to be debated so we can give these people proper information?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid I cannot enlighten you.
Mr. Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to be helpful and polite to the people who are visiting our galleries tonight.
I am very pleased to see the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) here this evening. Earlier today I said the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) is probably the biggest-c Conservative on the Conservative side. I would have to say the Minister of Revenue and the member for Leeds are equal. They are probably the most conservative members in the House.
I am glad he is here to hear my comments concerning Bill 197. I am sure the Minister of Revenue has also taken the line of his fellow Tories in opposing Canagrex. They are all opposing the farm bill, Canagrex. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and all of them are making statements about Canagrex, yet they come forward in this House with a bill that is not very dissimilar and, in my view, has a greater negative impact on agriculture than Canagrex ever will.
Before we adjourned at six o'clock, I had mentioned to the House the government had been putting out figures which were not only inconsistent but wrong. I mentioned that Conestoga Rovers and Associates, the consulting firm hired by the government, had done a study and that Peter Szego, a public relations man from the Ministry of Energy, was also putting out information.
We were talking about the yield in pounds per plant of greenhouse tomatoes. I mentioned that the Conestoga-Rovers people had said there is 24 pounds per plant yield. I further mentioned that Mr. Szego had made public statements and was recorded in the Owen Sound Sun-Times as saying that 20 pounds per plant could be achieved.
The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers' Marketing Board knows different. They are the people actually involved in the production of greenhouse tomatoes and they must report their figures to the Farm Products Marketing Board. This past year's figures informed the marketing board the farmers were able to produce 16 pounds per plant, not the 20 as mentioned by Szego or the 24 mentioned by Conestoga-Rovers. That has a large impact on the economic viability of the proposed greenhouses in the Kincardine area.
If we take an average farm of four acres, using Mr. Szego's figures for production and his inflated figures as to how much he would be able to receive for his products, we would get a figure of $375,000. If we use the Conestoga-Rovers figures for the same four-acre farm, we would be looking at figures that would project revenues in the area of $492,000. If we use the actual figures the greenhouse growers are reporting to the Farm Products Marketing Board, we would see the more realistic and true figures are $254,000 for the same four-acre farm.
Mr. Szego sent me a letter in August 1979 in response to a critique I had prepared on the Conestoga-Rovers report. The letter is almost as interesting as the report itself, except the report was covered in fancy orange with a plastic cover and all that. This letter is almost as interesting as the report. It is certainly as inaccurate as the report.
Mr. Szego says, "Today the tomato market, and consequently price, is almost entirely controlled by the volume of imported tomatoes." That is completely untrue. There are no facts Mr. Szego could have relied on to back up this part of his letter. Greenhouse tomatoes, for the information of members, are not in competition with imports. Two thirds of all the greenhouse tomatoes produced in Ontario are marketed in Quebec. Furthermore, the tomatoes I presume Mr. Szego is talking about are the tomatoes which come on the market in the fall from parts of the United States and Mexico. They are in competition with the field tomatoes, not the greenhouse tomatoes.
Mr. Di Santo: I did not know that.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, that is true. They compete with the field tomatoes, not the greenhouse tomatoes. The greenhouse tomato is a specialty crop. The cost to purchase a pound of greenhouse tomatoes is far in excess of the cost to purchase a pound of field tomatoes or imported field tomatoes. These people who are telling us we need to go up to Bruce and build another 100 acres of greenhouses to compete with the imported tomatoes are totally incorrect. The gross farm gate value for last year's greenhouse crop was $30 million. We are not talking about peanuts; we are talking about an existing industry.
I hope you have given him the right facts this time.
8:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am not sure whether he knows who he is talking to.
Mr. Mancini: It is one of the bureaucrats who walked over to talk to the parliamentary assistant. I hope he gave him the right facts this time.
This industry is important, it is existing and should be treated as a major part of the agricultural economy. If the government had been willing over the past few years -- at the same time as it was conducting these experiments and futuristic plans for Bruce -- to be equally co-operative with the people in Essex county, Niagara and Bradford this may have been a little easier to swallow. They have told us several things over the past few years, but done little.
I want the members to be aware of some of the matters we have had to deal with. I asked the legislative library research department to do a chronology of certain things that had been said and activities undertaken by the Conservative government. Their work is usually excellent. They brought to my attention that in November, 1977 -- I say this for the parliamentary assistant -- a former Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Hon. William Newman, indicated the government was concerned with import replacements.
He said, "We could talk about things like lettuce -- I could list them all -- that could be grown in those greenhouses but which would not hurt the Leamington area." I presume he was talking about growing a different crop in the Bruce area than is now grown in the existing greenhouses. I have yet to be told of any lettuce that has been grown in the Bruce area; all my information is it has been tomatoes and cucumbers. This is what the Hon. William Newman, the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, told us in November, 1977.
Early in 1978, regarding the Ontario Energy Corp.'s involvement up in the Bruce, the late and former member of the Legislature, the Hon. James Auld, said the following:
"The main theme of these discussions was that the project would be undertaken" -- and I underline the following -- "by the private sector, and the small owner-grower must be given every opportunity to become involved."
I want to inform the House, so members understand this clearly, just exactly who is involved and I will name two or three of them. Involved in the Bruce development are George Weston -- small owner-operator, do you say?; Consumers' Gas -- ah, small owner-operator; TransCanada PipeLines -- another small owner-operator; Ontario Energy Corp. -- which owns many of the shares in the new crown corporation I will talk about in a minute -- another small owner-operator. At the present time we have no small owner-operators investing up there, only significant corporations that are being aided by the government.
Ontario Hydro has had a very poor record as far as giving information to the general public is concerned. Its record remains the same in this involvement. In 1980 I placed several questions on the Order Paper, asking the government to provide answers. I will give some examples of the questions and the answers.
What is the total cost to date to the government and the crown agencies of the greenhouse projects associated with the Bruce generating station? That was June 1980. We were informed at that time the cost to date for the Ontario Energy Corp. was $300,000 and that it owned six of 25 shares in a joint venture. The next one is interesting. I asked the government to inform us about how the greenhouses were being heated in the Bruce agripark joint venture. We were told by oil and propane standby, and the cost so far had been $75,000; far more, I believe, than it has cost me in the Leamington area.
However, I did not want to prejudge Ontario Hydro by some of the things it had done in the past, its being secretive and allowing itself to be exempt from certain legislation. When we had the province-wide labour legislation for the construction industry it neatly exempted itself; when we were to have an environmental assessment hearing for the Darlington nuclear plant it neatly exempted itself. That was on top of other actions it has taken and the secrecy that is behind this fool crown corporation. I was not going to allow these things to make me prejudge in my comments tonight.
The other day I called the Bruce Energy Centre Development Corp., another new crown corporation, and I put several more questions to it, knowing this legislation was corning forward and knowing the members would want this information. I asked the following questions: What is the cost to date of operating the greenhouse? Answer: Operating costs are considered privileged information. What is the staff level and annual labour costs? Answer: The full-time staff numbered four with occasional help from time to time. The cost of labour is considered privileged information. If the Russians were to get this information, it might jeopardize Ontario.
Where was the produce sold? Answer: It is sold in the local area. What was the revenue received from the produce? Answer: The revenue is considered privileged information.
8:20 p.m.
Finally, I wanted to know who was involved currently in this new crown corporation which is supported by the Minister of Revenue, the member for Leeds and the others. I asked them, "Who are the present investors and what is the breakdown of their holdings?" I was told, "At the present time there are 64 shares of Becdevco." That is the short form for the Bruce Energy Centre Development Corp. One thing this government has been good at during its 40 years in power is its ability to give interesting names to crown corporations and other agencies so that most people do not know what it is talking about.
The breakdown is as follows: the Ontario Energy Corp. owns 32 shares of this other crown corporation; Consumers' Gas Co., 10 shares; Weston Energy Resources, eight shares, and TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., four shares. A couple of other companies are also listed, the one I find most interesting being McNaughton Planning Consultants Ltd., which also has a share. Why planning consultants would be interested in the production of greenhouse tomatoes is beyond me. Secrecy and the proliferation of crown corporations is what we see here.
I had hoped the Minister of Energy and Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) would have been here tonight, because this bill is going to have a great impact on many people in Ontario. I do not believe he should have left this bill to his parliamentary assistant. I would have loved to have sat here in the Legislature and listened to the minister's reply.
Usually, when he is put on the spot he gives us his Jerry Falwell imitation. He brings ins voice to a deep pitch, he slams the desk and damns us all to hell for opposing the government and for opposing anything he thinks is correct. We have seen his sanctimonious routine before. It would have been nice to have seen it again here tonight, especially with such an audience.
It is still not too late for this government to assist the greenhouse industry which is already in operation here in Ontario. The industry has had several small reports done. One report in particular, the one which was done by the Ontario Research Foundation, I found to be quite good. There are steps the government can take to assist the industry. There are steps it can take to put out proper information. There are steps it can take to stop the secrecy about what is going on in the Bruce Peninsula.
I say to the parliamentary assistant, in actual fact the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has done more for the existing greenhouse industry in the past few months than this government has done in the last seven or eight years. We are tired of public relations work. We are tired of civil servants such as Peter Szego being sent to different parts of our province to do nothing but a promotional job. We are fed up with that.
It appears that the bill will pass. It appears that the government majority will carry the bill and in the next few years will be able to do some of the things I have recommended, specifically in the area of secrecy and in the area of getting small owner-operators involved, if that is the real wish, instead of having these giant crown corporations running everything.
My last comment to the House and to the parliamentary assistant is, please do not ignore the existing industry. Do not get up and reply, "Yes, we have had this study and that study and we are going to carry on two more onsite studies." Do not give us that answer. Tell us the government is going to do something concrete. Tell us the government is going to do something beneficial. Tell us the government is going to do something positive for the existing industry.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make brief comments on Bill 197, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, since I have a very keen interest in agriculture. I come from a family which has farmed for hundreds of years. My attachment to the farming community is very well known. That is the reason I would like to comment briefly on this bill.
Before doing that, I want the assembly to acknowledge the presence of the people --
The Deputy Speaker: You are not supposed to.
Mr. Di Santo: -- who came here tonight thinking we were to discuss Bill 127; or even more, after the meeting with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am going to call the honourable member to order to speak on the bill. I want to remind all guests in the gallery that they are not to participate in any manner whatsoever in the debate. I have to remind them that if it continues I will have to clear the galleries.
Mr. Di Santo: I was not inviting the people in the galleries to participate in the debate tonight, even though I can understand their frustration after the meeting they had yesterday with the Minister of Education and the Premier (Mr. Davis).
The Deputy Speaker: I am inviting you to speak to Bill t97.
Mr. Di Santo: On Bill 197 -- Bill 127 comes to my mind because it is so important to me and to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, that is why I keep referring to Bill 127.
The Deputy Speaker: All right, you have it on the record; let's go.
Mr. Di Santo: I should say Bill 197. We support this bill because, as the previous speaker said, it is long overdue.
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did not say that.
Mr. Di Santo: He is supposed to be a good friend of mine.
Mr. Mancini: I am very disappointed. Will the member for Downsview withdraw that?
Mr. Di Santo: We support the bill. If we look at the countries that have similar weather conditions to Canada, they have used their resources in relation to agricultural products to their best benefit. For the government to come to us after it spent millions of dollars in the Bruce Peninsula in plants that are mothballed because they cannot be used -- we know very well that all the forecasts the government made relating to Hydro in the last year have been exaggerated to the point where between last February and November the forecasts were brought downwards by 30 billion kilowatt hours -- in those circumstances we do think the heat energy produced by our plants should be used for agricultural purposes.
Of course, if we look at the Scandinavian countries and also, as the previous speaker said, at the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, where there is a surplus of energy, we know the technology exists, the technology is there. I think this is an industry that should be developed not only by Ontario Hydro but also by private entrepreneurs. In fact, I think if we did this in Ontario we could remedy the balance of trade deficit in agricultural products that has been provoked largely by the erosion of agricultural land that this government has allowed by its legislation over the last 20 years.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill on the general principle that we must use the waste heat from that facility, but only on the general principle of supporting the use of that heat. I have grave reservations, as do some of my colleagues, about the way this act will be administered.
One of our fears is having it under the aegis of Hydro, which acts as a semi-autonomous -- in fact, one could say autonomous -- branch of the government and does things pretty much its own way. We fear they will use their power and forget about the economics of the matter to demonstrate their points.
I think a flag might have been raised to the members opposite when the corporation simply offered only the steam and there were no takers. Surely there was some economic message in that lack of takers, saying that this was not an economic matter. Now the corporation has decided to get into the act and perhaps add its economic muscle to make it work.
We certainly fear this and we fear the disruption it will cause in an established greenhouse industry. I am not talking about my riding in particular because, while it is very much a horticultural riding, it has very little to do with the greenhouse industry except for one particularly large operation on Highway 3 near West Lorne, called Swain Brothers Greenhouses. It is a flower greenhouse, and these are the people who are best able to weather the costs of higher energy, because energy amounts to only 10 or 15 per cent of the wholesale price of flowers, whereas it can amount to 30, 40 or even 50 per cent of the cost of vegetables, which are the main products in the adjoining county of Essex. So it is not of great local concern for me.
But it is a great concern in the way of marketing, because if you look at the horticultural industry, where the products are produced and where they are shipped, the map of Ontario shows that the anchor point is Windsor and, beyond that, the city of Detroit. The Union Produce Terminal in Detroit acts as a sort of backup to the requirements of the Canadian consumer. Whenever produce is required from the United States, it is readily available in Detroit at that produce terminal. The volumes are so large that we can make purchases there without affecting that market. On occasion, of course, we ship things to Detroit and the reverse is true. Ontario cannot really swamp the Detroit market because it is so large. The state of Michigan has about three quarters of the population of all of Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Are you going to make your way up the peninsula to the bill?
Mr. McGuigan: Yes. Coming up to Essex, in that area we have the greenhouse industry, largely based on cucumbers and tomatoes, and around that soft fruits, peaches. cherries, strawberries and raspberries, and all the matters that make up the total marketing package. As we come along Highway 3, we pick up other aspects of the industry.
Interjection.
Mr. McGuigan: I am closer to the topic than the last member was.
Mr. Mackenzie: There is some serious doubt about that.
Mr. Foulds: Only geographically.
Mr. McGuigan: But it is a good lesson in marketing. The members could do with a lesson in marketing.
As one picks up the Niagara Peninsula and all the various fruits that are produced there -- and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) knows about that -- most of the market is really in Quebec, the cities of Montreal and Quebec City, and Ottawa, in Ontario. These products end up in those destinations and, of course, some go to Toronto. The reason the system is successful is that the brokers operating in the Essex county area out of Leamington are able to put together mixed carloads or, in today's language, mixed truckloads. There are very few cities in Canada that can take a straight load of tomatoes, cucumbers or any of these other products. They want mixed loads. The reason this thing works so successfully is because it follows the lake and Highway 401, and the brokers can put these things together very well.
If there is going to be another area created a good deal distant from that pipeline, it will cause a great many disruptions to the marketing system. It will also cause a great deal of disruption if people are brought in who are not acquainted with the intricacies, idiosyncrasies and the intimate parts of this industry. That is one of the matters we are concerned with. If members listen long enough, it all comes together.
Mr. Mackenzie: I thought we were supposed to be talking about steam produced by Hydro for crown uses.
Mr. McGuigan: It takes a lot of steam to survive in this industry, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted to raise those points and point out to the people who are managing this program that there are a lot of things they have to take into consideration other than the mere fact of having free steam and some great ideas.
Mr. Andrewes: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize the last two hours of debate, and I will try to do it very briefly.
Mr. Foulds: It will take a couple of hours to summarize.
Mr. Andrewes: At least two hours.
I appreciate the members' contributions and their advice. There was some concern raised at the outset about the growth and expansion of Ontario Hydro. I think several members touched on this subject.
In my opening statement I mentioned, and I am sure we have no dispute on this point, that Hydro is a reputable, well known organization in the energy field. It has a good reputation and the ability to involve itself in a business venture of this sort, and it is entirely appropriate that it should be involved. There was some concern expressed that the electricity consumers of Ontario might bear the cost of any losses, but I want to assure members this venture will be accounted for entirely separately from the electrical generation and transmission. The province's electrical consumers will not bear the costs of any losses in this operation. This was a concern raised by the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. They are now reasonably satisfied their concerns have been answered.
8:40 p.m.
The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked whether we had done any cost benefit analysis. I suggest to him that perhaps might be a little premature. I say that with respect, because an sort of cost analysis we might do at this stage would be compounded by difficulties in estimating the potential for the development, given the current state of the economy and the energy price situation which at the present time is very volatile.
The member for Port Arthur questioned the division of responsibility within the ministry. It is a reasonable question. He talked about the residential energy advisory program. I think divisions of these responsibilities are somewhat discretionary between the Ministry of Energy and other organizations such as Ontario Hydro.
It is entirely appropriate Hydro should be the deliverer of that program, Hydro and the municipal utilities. They are the people who are in the action and they are best equipped to do it. They are closest to the customer. I think the same logic should apply in the Bruce energy centre development.
The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) raised several points and I will mention one or two of them. He talked about excess steam. We are not looking at this venture in terms of utilizing excess steam. The Candu reactor is an entirely proper vehicle to produce steam, steam for industrial uses at a very economical price.
The member feared a nuclear accident or mentioned a potential for a nuclear accident. I think all of us realize the Candu reactor has a world reputation as being one of the safest and soundest operations. Ontario Hydro's record in that regard is clear and obvious.
The member for Erie had some problem with the word "acquire" -- acquiring assets." He feared Hydro, in using that terminology, may be exercising powers of expropriation.
This bill does not confer on Hydro any rights of expropriation for purposes of this project. It confers on Hydro the rights to purchase, acquire, the assets of the Bruce Energy Centre Development Co.
Unfortunately, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) has left.
Mr. Haggerty: He is listening outside.
Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, he started off this evening by mentioning the guests in the gallery. I think in all likelihood, the direction of his debate being all over the map, that he was really in a state of transition. He was moving between Bill 197, moving down to Bill 127, probably along Highway 3.
To suggest the intent of Bill 197 moved us into the area of state agriculture, I think is a little farfetched. He suggested the legislation allowed Hydro to get into the greenhouse business.
If he talked to his colleague the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), he would realize the greenhouse component of this proposal is really one of the smaller components.
This proposal is what we see as being a larger energy megaproject. We are talking about industrial steam for greenhouses, for manufacturing, food processing and for dozens of other uses.
To talk about this bill allowing Ontario Hydro to get into the greenhouse business is absolute bunk. That member does himself and the industry he claims to represent a great disservice; and if I can be so bold as to offer that member some advice, I would encourage him to rise above being personal. That would improve the level of debate in this House and it could make some constructive contribution to this debate.
He suggested that I lacked the knowledge of the industry to give it the kind of perspective and interpretation he gave it. I would remind that member and any other members opposite who want to debate the subject of the greenhouse industry with me that I got my hands dirty in the soil in greenhouses 25 years ago, and I am not sure there is another member in the House who can make that same claim. I was deeply involved in the production of greenhouse crops and in the marketing of those same crops, and if they want to debate those subjects, I am quite prepared to do that.
The kinds of exaggerations, the kinds of inaccuracies that were represented by the member for Essex South totally misinterpret the purpose of this project and this legislation. As an example, he talked about the Bruce Energy Centre Development Corp. as a crown corporation. I am not all that familiar with what constitutes a crown corporation, but he cited all the various owners of that corporation. It seems to me there is not a crown corporation in this province, in Canada, probably in the world, that has private ownership, private-member participation. The Bruce Energy Centre Development Corp. certainly is not a crown corporation.
He is suggesting that the government has given no consideration to the existing greenhouse industry. I want to remind the member and other members who have shared in that concern that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) have identified in a greenhouse report, various and sundry places where the government can assist the existing industry, and programs are being developed and announcements are pending, particularly in relation to retrofit.
I want to remind members about the research programs into improved greenhouse culture, the latest being a $400,000 investment by the government at the Vineland Station in the great riding of Lincoln.
With respect, I think I have covered most of the points brought forward in the debate, and I appreciate the members' contributions.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for third reading.
8:50 p.m.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF ENERGY
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, we will not take very much of the minister's time in these concurrences because many of the things I am going to say have been said many times, but some of them are worth repeating.
As far as this party is concerned, the real disappointment we have in the ministry lies in the fact that it is completely lacking an energy policy. That is why we have such a problem with the corporation known as Ontario Hydro. The minister has not seen fit to develop an energy policy that would tell Ontario Hydro where it should fit into the scheme of things to best serve the people of this great province.
By that I mean we can hardly have a corporation that has been given the kind of mandate that has been enlarged on today for Ontario Hydro without having those who would abuse the system. In that sense, we feel Ontario Hydro has grown out of all proportion to what its first intention was, that is, to generate power at the best possible price for the people. We feel that when Ontario Hydro becomes involved in alternative energy, it cannot possibly not have a conflict of interest, because it would not do Ontario Hydro any good to sell its surplus power if it had done a real job in alternative energy. One could say the same about a conservation program that really should be done by another entity that would be in competition with Ontario Hydro.
I am not so concerned about it being a public or a private company. I am more concerned that there should be some competition, that each segment of a ministry and each segment of Ontario Hydro should be put in a position where they should compete with each other to justify their existence. I could live with that kind of a setup. What have we seen as the alternative? We have seen Ontario Hydro grow to the point where it is involved in so many diverse things now that the chairman himself makes the boast that Ontario Hydro has become very much involved in the economic future of the province. That is because that government also lacks an industrial strategy, just as the minister lacks an energy policy.
For that reason Ontario Hydro participates in decision-making that it should not. Many of those decisions should be made right in this Legislature. Where we are going to go with job creation and what are going to do with those various things should really be part and parcel of the decisions of elected members of this assembly. That is not happening and the minister knows it. The fact that it has to have a couple of hundred public relations people in this monster, to justify its existence, only proves they have to do something as apologists for Ontario Hydro.
There are many other things that are going to be pushed by Ontario Hydro that we know are not in the best interests of the province. When we talk about alternative fuels and alternative energy, when we talk about hydrogen as an alternative fuel, it is well understood that too much energy goes into the breaking down and making of hydrogen to make it a viable alternative fuel. There are certainly grave problems relating to the storage and use of it in vehicles.
I cannot believe we should have given Ontario Hydro that kind of mandate and that we are enlarging on it again today to let it go into fields of endeavour where it really might do a great deal of damage to some private sector people and small entrepreneurs. If we had the kind of energy policy that should have been put in place a good number of years ago, we might have addressed ourselves to the kind of peat there is in northern Ontario and to other alternative fuels that would complement the fuel needs of the people of this province.
I think it is a constructive criticism when we suggest we should be looking to the minister to set up an energy policy and to make certain Hydro fits within that policy framework. We should have Ontario Hydro participate in a very meaningful way with other facets of an energy policy that would cause the best energy policy alternatives to be put to the use of the people of Ontario, and not let that huge entity have such a wide and varied interest in the future of this province.
If I had only one more area I would like to mention, it would have to do with the huge investment this government made in an oil company. It goes against the philosophy and principles of the Conservative government. It comes as a real surprise to me.
There are those who would throw up the fact that the federal government got involved in an oil company. I do not think there is any room for comparison. The federal government is a Liberal government, not a Tory government that sets itself up as a free-enterprise government to the fullest extent, if the Liberal government gets involved with an oil company which it owns 100 per cent, there is a great deal of difference.
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average citizen of Ontario when he sees a Suncor station, of which he owns a minority, on one corner and a Fina station, which he owns 100 per cent, on the other. I wonder what crosses his mind when he decides at which station to buy his gas.
The thrust was supposed to be that they would have a window into the industry. But that kind of feeling about the industry does not exist.
It is something that has not provided any jobs for the people of Ontario. It has not added anything. It is a bit like the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. The minister stood up to take advantage of some of the Suncor expenditures that were on the books the year before it was acquired. The sad part of the whole operation was that for the first time in the history of that company, they declared a dividend and conveniently sent back huge amounts of cash to the American stockholders.
Those two issues are paramount in the concerns I have relating to the government's lack of an energy policy. If the minister were to present an energy policy that held some kind of real future for the people of Ontario, that would cause Ontario Hydro --
I must make this comment because it is very important. I think it is a Tory ploy that we have something against the people in Ontario Hydro. Nothing is further from the truth. I take great pride in the development at Niagara. I know the operators, the construction people, are the best in the world. I have no quarrel that they are of the finest. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about management. It seems that management is giving us trouble everywhere we turn. We do not have too many problems with the teachers in the classroom. The problem exists at the management level, where things do not get right down to what it is all about.
I hope in the immediate future the minister will develop an energy policy that will have Ontario Hydro and every other group that is involved -- the private enterprisers, if you will; although they are not private enterprisers in the truest sense when they have a monopoly such as the gas company's -- fit into the scheme of things.
The gas company went before the Ontario Energy Board, and I think it has been accepted that it has been told it is going to get a return on its investment. That is a very dangerous thing. Gas consumption goes down when our economy goes into recession, but we are going to guarantee the gas company a return on its investment, which means the average individual is picking up a larger share of the cost of natural gas.
That is why inordinate increases are taking place in gas prices to the small consumer. If the gas company is going to get a return on its investment, and that is practically guaranteed through the Ontario Energy Board, I have to think the small user is now picking that up.
It is long past time for a meaningful policy. All those people who participate in energy in any way in Ontario should fit into the scheme of things and be competitive with other energies people are going to use and in that way make it all the more meaningful for the users in the province.
9 p.m.
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a few things I want to say on concurrence for the Ministry of Energy. I said most of what I wanted to say during the estimates and I see no need to repeat it here.
I want to welcome the citizens in the gallery, the parents and teachers from North York who are watching democracy in action tonight. However, I use the term "democracy in action" loosely, this having been a one-party province for some 40 years and action not being the most evident characteristic of the Legislature this evening.
Mr. Eakins: Did you take them to dinner?
Mr. Foulds: No. I did not even know they were coming. I gather they are engaged in a political death-watch. I am not quite sure whether it is going to be a political deathwatch for the present Minister of Education, for Bill 127 or for the Toronto Board of Education; but a political death-watch it is, because that is what is at stake in the bill we are not discussing at the moment; rather, we are discussing concurrence in the estimates of the Ministry of Energy.
Before the Speaker, who is very acute, calls me to order -- and as soon as I mention his name, notice the look out of the corner of the eye to make sure I am on the topic -- I will get back to discussing the spending estimates and the concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy.
The Minister of Energy used to be a Minister of Education, even if it was only for 10 months, and I am sure that is why these people are here this evening.
In terms of energy, the province should be urging the federal government to take a much tougher stand in terms of using the conventional fuels we have for their proper end use. In this country or in this province, we do not use oil and gasoline primarily or solely for transportation, which is its best end use.
Although there is an off-oil program, it is not nearly dynamic enough because, if we could reserve Canada's oil for the things it does best, transportation as an end use, we could preserve our reserves of that resource for a good deal longer than we currently project our reserves. If we reserve natural gas, which is our best home heating fuel and in some cases our best industrial-commercial fuel, for what it does best, we could use what we have, which for the present is an abundant resource, very wisely.
However, if we do that, that means expanding and forcing an expansion of our distribution system to many communities that do not have natural gas accessible to them. We can do that either through rigid and dictatorial legislation, which I would not like to see, or through a mixture of encouragement and regulation.
The third thing we should use is electricity, of which we have more than an abundance. I would not quite use the word "glut," but it is somewhere between the word the minister likes to use, which is "ample," and the word I like to use when I get into an extreme mood, which is "glut." I think it is closer to "glut," but it is somewhere towards the top end of that. We should use that for the things electricity does best.
The minister has heard me speak about this before, but he has never responded as to what steps his ministry and his government are prepared to take to encourage the federal government to adopt such a policy, because, for that to work, it would have to be a national energy policy.
I want to speak specifically about electricity for a few moments. One of the hangups we continue to have in Ontario -- and I say this without criticism to my friend the previous speaker, because although we disagree on many things, I consider him more or less to be a friend -- is that we often confuse energy policy with hydro policy, and I think that is because Hydro looms as such a gigantic agency in the province.
Nevertheless, I want to talk specifically about electricity for a moment. There is no doubt that we have an overcapacity. There is no doubt that the overexpansion of Ontario Hydro and of the system has added to the costs to the consumer in Ontario. There is no doubt the demand for dollars for the energy megaprojects, which include everything from the gigantic pipelines up north to nuclear installations in Ontario -- because they are, indeed. megaprojects; when you are talking about $11 billion for a project. that is a megaproject -- has drawn capital out of the market for investment in other industries: in the manufacturing sector, for example; in the diversification of the northern resource sector, for example.
I suggest the Ministry of Energy is going to have to come to grips quite soon, within the next year, with a very tough economic decision about Darlington. I know they have committed $1.4 billion at present with contracts that go to about $4 billion, I gather. I suspect that in the contracts that have not been met, or in those that have been met, there is a cancellation clause, and we could get out of those for a portion of that $4 billion.
What the government has to decide -- and a very tough decision it is, too -- is whether it is worth pushing ahead with the additional $7 billion that Darlington is going to cost. I do not envy the government that decision at this point. It is a very difficult decision, and I do not envy the board of directors of Ontario Hydro and the new chairman, whoever he may be, that decision, because they are caught on the horns of a very tough economic dilemma.
However, I suggest one of the mistakes was made back in 1976, when the then Minister of Energy, who is currently the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). responded to the first select committee report. Members will remember that what was then called the final report of the select committee of the Legislature investigating Ontario Hydro, June 1976, appeared as a book called A New Public Policy Direction for Ontario Hydro. I want to quote one of the responses of the minister to that report eight years ago in 1976.
"The government will not put the consumer, including industry, at risk by making hasty, overly ambitious cutbacks in Ontario Hydro's system capacity. The discussions and the correspondence and opinions with a large cross-section of the public and interest groups in Ontario which have been received over the summer leads the government believe" -- they left out a preposition; it should be "leads the government to believe this middle course is the most prudent one to pursue at this time."
The trouble is that the government and Hydro were arguing for a considerable period of time that their expansion program was the middle course. The select committee as far back as 1976 indicated it was an overly ambitious course, and surely to goodness we know by now, with the minimal amount of conservation we have engaged in, with the minimal amount of consciousness-raising there has been in the public, with the overuse of all energy sources, that the nuclear component of Hydro was being overexpanded.
I suggest it was this lack of will to control and examine thoroughly and carefully Hydro's projections that led us to the present difficult situation.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Kerrio: Why don't you go into the gas business instead of the agricultural business?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. Foulds: I want to reiterate one thing I said in the private members' debate two weeks ago. One of the difficulties is that there is no clear ministerial authority with regard to Ontario Hydro. The authority is shared among three ministers.
The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) has the titular responsibility for Ontario Hydro in that he is the man who reports to the House about Hydro's actions. But there has always been a direct connection between Hydro and the Premier (Mr. Davis), and at present the Premier is not willing to give up that direct access that Hydro has to him and vice versa. Finally, there is the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who has the authority to bring Hydro into control when it comes to capital expansion programs.
With the capabilities of the present minister and, frankly, for the pre-eminence of the Ministry of Energy, it should be clear not only that it is the Minister of Energy through whom Hydro reports but also that he is the minister whose recommendations take all precedence when it comes to Hydro, whether that is capital expansion. whether that is Hydro rates -- and I believe he should have a direct say on that -- or whether it is policy.
Here I disagree with both the government party and the official opposition. I see nothing wrong with using Ontario Hydro as a stimulus for economic development in this province. After all, when Gandhi won the election in India he did so on one very simple slogan that touched both the material and social consciousness of the many diverse people of that subcontinent.
The slogan was simply education and electrification. Education stood for all that was necessary to appeal to a people to move socially, to progress in the 20th century in a social sense, in an educational sense and in a spiritual sense, the sense of enhancing of what we call the human spirit. Electrification stood for enhancement of life in that subcontinent in a material sense, in a sense of moving that land into the 20th century.
It was a very powerful appeal. Frankly, I do not think Ontario is that different in that sense; there are still areas in this province that are not electrified because they have been ignored by this particular government party.
That brings me to what I think was one of the most hopeful potential developments that the ministry talked about. I refer to the small hydraulic development about which many of us talked about many times. I think that is a most useful means of supplying electricity in the remote parts of the province.
Ontario Hydro should be doing that and not necessarily thinking it has to plug every one of those small developments into the hydro grid; it should build one of those small turbines or put it into a river to supply one village. Private enterprise is not going to do that, because it is simply not profitable to do it for Port Hope, Armstrong or a number of remote places.
If it is blended into the pricing system for hydro, it is useful. It achieves a social purpose. It would achieve a materialistic or economic purpose. It would mean some of those remote villages could enjoy a standard of living almost all of us have come to expect in the 20th century in Ontario.
There are two more points I want to make, as briefly as possible, before I sit down. They are simply these. Most of us found the memorandum of understanding very disappointing; it cut out no new territory. As I said two weeks ago, both the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro laboured long and hard -- I believe it was at least a five-year labour -- and a mouse was produced. There were no new waters, or powers, or clarification that were not there, if one were to read the Power Corporation Act carefully.
That gets me to my second-last point, which is that the government must have the will to exercise control no only over Ontario Hydro but also over the energy policy of the province. That has not yet happened.
Finally, I want to know whether there is an answer to one of the last questions I raised during the course of the debates in the estimates. I have not seen an answer yet, and I would be appreciative if the minister could address himself to this important and fundamental question. Who pays Malcolm Rowan? Has he been shifted yet from the ministry budget to the budget of the Ontario Energy Corp.?
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate briefly in the debate on concurrence of supply for the Ministry of Energy. The concerns I wish to express are the following.
In the throne speech of this past year, I believe there were indications by the ministry that natural gas would be provided to many areas in Ontario. I wonder what plans the minister has for expanding the lines.
At different times during 1982, I expressed the concerns of the farming and rural communities, particularly in my area, about the supply of natural gas and pipeline expansion so that tobacco farmers in small communities might have access to natural gas, which we do have in abundance. This could meet our future energy requirements for many years.
What is this ministry doing to make sure we are getting that supply distributed into areas where it is going to be useful to as many people as possible? The spinoff effect, if these lines were put in place, would be tremendous as far as the steel industry is concerned. It would generate many thousands of jobs, if the program were picked up and expanded.
The minister was not here when we debated Bill 197. We have greenhouses in my area -- something in the area of 32 acres under glass; and it is an important industry -- along with the other greenhouses that are utilizing sun heat and provide the tobacco seedlings in the spring of the year. Of the 350 acres in Ontario, we have perhaps 10 per cent.
If the minister would give greenhouse operators some tax relief, because the minister is well aware that much of the cost of our gas is in tax, it would put the greenhouse operators in a better position. If they could hook on to the gas line and have some tax relief, they could be much more competitive in their field.
9:20 p.m.
I am sure the minister realizes the small business person is the key to our economy. They are the ones who, along with big industry, are the backbone of our economy and they need a little help to make sure they can compete, not only with summer-grown products but also with the produce that is being imported from warmer climates.
Can the minister indicate whether he has any programs. Is he planning on expanding those gas lines? Just what are the plans for the coming 1983 season?
Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the comments. I know both of my friends who joined in the thorough discussion of the estimates of this ministry during the committee stage had an opportunity to go over the details of those estimates. They have been fair enough to point out that many of the points raised this evening were thoroughly discussed at that time.
I think it is important to bring some of these matters into focus; so I am grateful for their contribution and for the opportunity to review some of these concerns briefly as we get ready to move on to other concurrences this evening.
When my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) underlines the importance of the whole concept of an energy policy, he would do well to review the published statements of this ministry in that regard. Not long after I became the Minister of Energy in August 1979, the ministry published its statement Energy Security for the '80s, under different headings, in which targets were clearly spelled out and policy directions clearly indicated.
It was all done against the background of the necessity for this country of ours to become self-sufficient in crude oil and the various routes that would be followed to accomplish that purpose. These would be in the fields of exploration and discovering more, and the whole area of substitution to use fuel other than oil where that was feasible, both economically and from the standpoint of supply. Then there is the whole concept of conservation about which we hear a great deal, the rate at which we are using up our resources.
In that regard, the honourable member makes reference to a number of important points. I point out to him the investment in Suncor and the subsequent incorporation of Trillium Exploration Corp. There is the success of Suncor. I have noticed my friend has not asked me any questions recently about Suncor. He has not provided me with an opportunity to point out the successful year it had last year. There was an increase in sales of millions of dollars. Compare that to the year before. There were all sorts of questions the year before, but there has not been a question since the financial statement of Suncor for 1982 was put out.
There has been no opportunity for the Minister of Energy to say the people of Ontario have a 25 per cent interest in that important, integrated company. I am thinking of the involvement of the people of Ontario in the tar sands development in Alberta and the exciting prospects of better refining in Sarnia. Thousands of jobs -- 1,400; I guess I should be more accurate -- hundreds of jobs have been created by the investments by that company.
I was never asked a question about the recent activities of Trillium as we join as fellow citizens of this country in the exploration on Canada lands with respect to this whole matter of supply. One could go on at some length to talk about that.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Welch: When I am faced with that choice about those stations on the corner that the member talks about, I go right into the Suncor station. I think increasing numbers of Ontario people are supporting the company in which they have some interest; although I would not want to use these estimates as an opportunity to promote any particular brand. I think that is a matter of consumer preference.
It is obvious Suncor is doing very well, so obvious that it has motivated my friend to ask me not a single question about it since the House has resumed, nothwithstanding all those wonderful figures.
Mr. Allen: That is because the minister's leader takes up so much time answering questions.
Hon. Mr. Welch: When people ask questions, I am sure a man with the academic background of the recent interjector would recognize that this is a House -- in fact, was it not the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) who talked about democracy in action and the importance of education? I thought this was an educational experience. I thought that was why the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) asked questions; he wanted answers. It would not be that he did not really want any answers, would it? He provides opportunities for people to give him some wholesome and complete answers. When it comes to energy policy, I am very --
The Acting Speaker: The minister seems to be inviting some participation in his remarks.
Mr. Foulds: Isn't that what debate is all about?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I thought so. I thought, for the benefit of those who are with us this evening and who are interested in the whole educational process, perhaps it was about time we provided them with some basic information and impressed upon them, the intelligent people that they are, how important it was to know that there were always other sides -- all the other sides.
These concurrences would not be complete without some reference to the public utility known as Ontario Hydro. I join with my friend from the Niagara region in paying tribute to the early developments and so on of that great utility and pay tribute to their forward-looking practices.
The memorandum of understanding, to which some reference has been made, has made it quite clear where the various responsibilities lie. The Legislature passed the Power Corporation Act. It is the people through their elected representatives who made it quite clear what the lines of demarcation should be.
If one studies the history of this utility, particularly the history of the member's own party involvement with this utility, he will know the great care that anyone who presumed to be the leader of a Liberal Party in this province took to make sure that Hydro never became a department of the government; that there would be a clear line of demarcation between the public utility and the government of the day.
It is very important to know that the day-to-day operations are left with a board of directors, management and the many well-meaning employees of that organization. General policy, of course, is left to the government, and the minister responsible is the Minister of Energy. I simply ask the member to take a look at the memorandum of understanding --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Foulds: He is being provocative.
The Acting Speaker: No. The minister has the floor and he is speaking to his concurrence, I think.
Mr. Breaugh: Just barely.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I am not tall enough.
I would think the comments in connection with Hydro should perhaps be looked at in light of reality. A very careful examination of the memorandum of understanding would make it quite clear what the Legislature of the province, over its history, has done with respect to making it quite clear who is responsible for what. There is no question that it is incumbent on the Minister of Energy to transmit to the Hydro board information that makes it quite clear what the energy policy of this province is.
Mr. Foulds: Wrap it up, Bob. I want to see the last half hour of Smiley's People.
Hon. Mr. Welch: I think my good friend the member for Port Arthur invites us to reflect very carefully once again on this whole question of the proper stewardship of our resources and the management of nonrenewable resources. He raises in a very thoughtful way, as he always does, some interesting questions with respect to the end use to which we put the hydrocarbon resources wherever they are located in our country. I think that is all part of the energy policy as we talk in terms of self-sufficiency with respect to oil, as to whether we can find other forms of energy instead of oil to operate vehicles and heat our homes.
9:30 p.m.
Although I know the member draws some distinction, I do not really share his view that a government can ultimately dictate those end uses, but it can, through general policies of incentives and encouragement, make it possible, as far as it is possible, for consumers to have some real choices. I repeat, it is very easy, if one wants to, to get a clear understanding and impression of the energy policy of this province as it has been enunciated over the last several years and to understand the direction in which it is going.
Speaking about natural gas, I want to respond to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) who has raised this question in the House before, particularly as it relates to his own area and the possibility of access to natural gas. There are several ways in which this is accomplished. The companies themselves, on application to the Ontario Energy Board, after passing certain tests of economic feasibility, have been expanding their particular systems of distribution. Certainly, it is part of the national energy program as well, the availability of money from the federal government to assist in the expansion of the natural gas distribution system.
It was my understanding, following our last exchange in the House, that some further information had been transmitted to the member in that regard. If that has not been done, I will certainly see that up-to-date information is provided to him. I know there are other concurrences and perhaps it would be sufficient to say at this stage. when we take a look at --
Mr. Foulds: Who pays Malcolm Rowan?
Hon. Mr. Welch: I wanted to leave that as my final point. There is no sense giving that away until after everything is finished. I did not know whether I would have the member's attention all the way through these comments if I gave that away too soon.
When we come to understand Hydro, when we come to understand the wisdom of the investment in Suncor, when we come to understand the forward-looking energy policy, it is little wonder that we rush to concurrence. The only thing that stands in the way of that concurrence is the fact that Malcolm Rowan is still paid by the Ministry of Energy, as we reported at estimates time. We have not sorted out all those details with the Ontario Energy Corp. so we kept him. There are perhaps some personal reasons, but certainly the member is entitled to know that part of the estimates makes provision for that.
Resolution concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Without taking too much of the time of the House, I would like to say at the outset that we in the New Democratic Party expect this government to develop a very serious cultural policy in Ontario. Also, we expect it to become very serious about the multicultural policy that has been proclaimed for more than 10 years and has never become a reality in Ontario, if we do not consider that folkloristic dances are a true expression of multiculturalism.
I feel quite uneasy with the fact the government comes to us and asks for millions of dollars in the concurrences as a routine. We come here and discuss a little, then the show is over and it is business as usual.
Recently, we had the estimates of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. We asked some serious questions that were not answered. We asked questions about the money the government is spending in and for the arts community. We know that after the letter sent by Mr. Webber, the ministry created a truly uncertain climate in the arts community all over Ontario with the proposed cutback of 15 per cent of the funds of a division of the Ontario Arts Council.
The government has created the premise for the destruction of the morale of the arts community in Ontario. We asked the minister to clarify his position, to reassure all the arts groups in the province about his personal position and what kinds of cutbacks would be brought about in the new budget. The minister was not then able to tell us the amount of the cutbacks and he did not give the people in the arts community any reassurance.
When Mr. Pitman was before the committee he expressed to us the frustration of the people in the arts community who are literally living on the grants given to them by the arts council. Perhaps as a result of the cutbacks they will no longer be able to operate. They will not be able to survive.
I want to tell the minister about one of my constituents, Mr. Arjen Verkaik. He is handicapped, legally blind and he is a photographer of the skies. He is becoming very famous in Canada. I sent the minister an invitation to an exhibit that he will have at Harbourfront from February 11 to March 13. The exhibition is called "Unseen Skies; Unusual Clouds and Weather Phenomena Accompanied by an Explanatory Text." At the bottom it says, "Assisted by Ontario Arts Council and Canada Council."
This handicapped artist has produced some of the finest photographs of the skies, which were published in the last issue of Photo Communique. They are some of the most beautiful and impressive photographs I have ever seen. They are used not only for pleasure purposes, but they are used by the schools for educational and scientific purposes.
This artist is one of the most gentle persons I have ever met. He walked into my constituency office and said, "Mr. Di Santo, if the government cuts back the grants to the Ontario Arts Council perhaps I will be prevented from working and producing these photographs, which are appreciated not only in Canada but in the United States. More than that, I will be forced to stop working altogether and will therefore lose my reason for surviving."
9:40 p.m.
We have been asking the minister to reassure us that as the Minister of Citizenship and Culture he will fight in the cabinet for the artists of Ontario. He cannot say that the arts in Ontario are an industry that is larger than the steel industry and the pulp industry, as he did on December 15, 1982, and then let that industry literally die for lack of financial support.
If we look at the allocation of this ministry's money for the Ontario Arts Council, we are talking about only $16 million. That is all. That is the money allocated for grants to the Ontario Arts Council. If the minister is really serious about the "arts industry," and if he really thinks this industry is very important because it attracts tourists and gives them something of Ontario to see when they come to Canada, then the investment of $16 million is just minimal.
If we look at the other policies of this government, if we look at the huge amounts of money this government has spent not only for Minaki Lodge -- waste like that -- but also for industries like the pulp and paper industry, which received $300 million in two years from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, then we see that $16 million is very well spent, because the artists in Ontario create 50,000 jobs.
I mention jobs because it is an important aspect and also because I think this government is more sensitive to jobs than to the artistic aspects of the arts community in Ontario. I do not think they are very sensitive to that part, because they perhaps do not understand that arts are very important in bettering the quality of life in the province. If we look only at jobs, the government should reconsider if a decision has been made to cut back the grants to the Ontario Arts Council.
During the estimates we asked questions about other important policies and about the allocation of money in areas that are very important to us. We told the minister we were not satisfied with the way TVOntario is run. It does not reflect the multicultural reality of Ontario, because there is no multicultural content in the programs of TVOntario. The many languages used by the people who settled in Ontario are unknown to TVOntario.
We had quite an incredible answer from Dr. Parr when he said that the programs are published in a catalogue and he referred us to that catalogue. I think the minister has a responsibility for setting the policies and allocating the money of the ministry, and it should be the minister who answers us and expresses to us the governments commitment to multiculturalism.
By the same token, we are not satisfied -- actually we are perturbed -- by the fact that within the ministry serious changes have been made in the organization of the staff with no apparent explanation of the reasons for those changes. I hope the minister will explain tonight what those changes mean. They could mean a different thing if they are not accompanied by a clear policy statement that will tell us exactly where the minister wants to go.
The last point I want to make is that I asked the minister during the estimates if he would give us a list of all the contracts under $20,000 that have been granted without tender. That was a legitimate question. On that occasion I think we were given the assurance that a list would be supplied. We have not received that list yet.
Concluding my remarks, our major objection is the cutbacks in grants to the Ontario Arts Council. We want an answer from the minister. He cannot keep saying, "When the moment comes, I will tell you." We asked him in December; the leader of the New Democratic Party asked him; I asked him; we asked him during the estimates.
At this time, after three months, we deserve an answer. More than we, the artists of Ontario, the small theatre groups, the painters and the writers deserve an answer. Mr. Verkaik, for example, deserves an answer. He wants to know if tomorrow he can keep on doing the excellent job he has been able to do thanks to the grants from the Ontario Arts Council and the Canada Council.
We want a declaration, a clear statement from the minister on the policy of multiculturalism. If the government for one moment thinks this is an issue that will disappear because at some point multiculturalism will be something behind us since everybody will be absorbed in an abstract model of society, the government is wrong. We will not be absorbed; we are here to stay.
In his opening statement, the minister said multicultural differences are behind us. They are not behind us. They are with us and will be with us. We can build a stronger Canada, a more vital society, if we can use the contribution of the various immigrant groups which are part of this society. We expect the minister to make an unequivocal statement explaining the multiculturalism policy of this government and also what the changes in the staff organization mean.
I do not want to prolong my remarks because I know there are other members who are waiting to participate in the debate. These are important questions for us in the New Democratic Party and I expect an answer from the minister.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments in this debate this evening. I know that my colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) has covered most of the points as our critic for the ministry, and has recently been in touch with the minister with regard to many of the concerns we have.
I simply want to reinforce to the minister my concern with regard to the need to include the county of Haliburton in the TVOntario program. The minister knows I have been in touch with him. The people there feel they should have the same consideration and opportunity for the experience of TVOntario that other parts of the province have. I believe some 90 per cent of the province is covered by TVOntario and we feel the people in this part of the province should not be deprived of this opportunity.
I know plans are now under way for Muskoka to receive this opportunity and I want to ask the minister to make sure he carries out, under his ministry, the opportunity to beam this program into that part of the province. I know he has received a number of letters from this county and I hope, come the spring session, we can have an opportunity for the people from Haliburton to sit down with the minister and some of the TVOntario people to discuss this.
I want also to ask the minister to make sure his program -- the cultural part of his ministry -- continues to serve the smaller communities of Ontario. While the larger communities have access to greater funding, I want to ask that the smaller communities that have benefited to a great degree from his ministry continue to do so, especially the smaller areas that sometimes do not have these cultural facilities on their doorsteps.
I want to say to the minister that I appreciate his response to many of the concerns which we have raised. I appreciate his attendance at the 125th anniversary of the town of Lindsay this year in which his ministry has shared in a number of the projects. I know the people appreciate it and I think it shows the concern he has for some of our smaller communities.
There is one concern I do want to raise with the minister. There is always a source of, one might say, mixup to many of our people about which ministry to contact with regard to assistance from the Wintario programs. While the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) is in charge of the Ontario Lottery Corp., there is still quite a concern among the people as to which ministry they should contact -- whether it is his ministry or whether it is the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.
Could we give a clearer indication to the people of the province about whom they should contact with regard to the various programs? I realize one must take a look at the cultural end. If it is a cultural program, they get in touch with his ministry and if it is recreation, it is in the charge of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. But perhaps we should be trying to make a greater distinction than there is at the present time, because many people -- even myself -- contact this minister when it should be the other minister. We could perhaps do more to create a better understanding among all people as to how this program operates.
I just wanted to make those particular comments, but I do ask the minister to give every consideration to giving an early opportunity to the county of Haliburton to take part in the TVOntario program.
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the subject of the cultural department of the minister's concerns and, in particular, reference to compensation in the arts and some of the responses many of us have been getting of late in our mail and personally in visits to our constituency offices with respect to that question.
I have made one or two representations to the minister on a subject of concern in my riding and I found him to be extremely forthcoming and very responsive. I know he has a genuine and deep concern for the arts himself and that he is, I am sure, listening with both ears to all our remarks on this side of the House tonight as we conclude our discussion of the estimates.
I would like to make one or two remarks in the first instance about culture and society, since I think we need to see these things in their proper context. The arts, as far as I am concerned, and I think as far as most of the members of my party are concerned, are not simply embellishments of life; they are not simply elements that add enriching moments to leisure; they are absolutely vital to our understanding of who we are. The artists in our community, whether they are in music, in painting, in the dramatic arts or whatever, explain this to us by interpreting for us new ways of looking at nature, new ways of interpreting human experience, new ways of rendering our life together as a society and so on.
When I turn to the whole question of quasi-compensation for the arts in our society, while they make a very large contribution not only culturally and spiritually, but economically, as the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) said earlier, playing a role in an economic sense in our community, I must say I am extremely distressed when I see the amount they receive as a proportion of the budget of this province. They receive some $60 million out of $22 billion, a rather small sum, comparatively speaking. Some $16.5 million is dispersed, for example, through the major instrument of spending outside the department itself in this field, the Ontario Arts Council. These sums are hardly commensurate with the significance of the artist in our community.
When I look at artists and I see the levels of compensation of those directly at work in the field, I become rather more distressed when I discover that four out of every five actors, for example, last year worked less than full-time and earned significantly less than $15,000. The actors who are able to find a significant degree of work and to maintain themselves in some fashion as professionals are obviously far down near the bottom of the professional levels of income in our society.
The overwhelming note in the set of cultural statistics produced by Statistics Canada is that three quarters, at least, of Canadian artists had to engage themselves in some other form of labour force activity in order to maintain themselves. Indeed, the line that is drawn between being a full-time artist in terms of securing income from what one does as an artist and being only a part-time artist in our country hangs somewhere around the $5,000 level.
I was speaking recently with a painter who visited me in my constituency office. He said: "Many of my fellow artists could at this very moment go on welfare. They could plead their case and they could do that without any compunction except that their conscience bothers them when they think of doing that. They prefer to be self-supporting individuals."
That is where we are in terms of the compensation in the arts. Therefore, it seems to me very unusual that we should be at this moment in history thinking in terms of a potential reduction of some 15 per cent in grants from the major granting agency in the province.
10 p.m.
When one takes into account that those persons who indirectly are receiving public moneys ought to be included within the guidelines of those who are publicly supported wage earners in the community, they would normally be considering a five per cent increase through the granting system. When one allows for the losses of inflation, one is looking at a substantial loss down the line to the individual performing artist.
One has to bear in mind that those agencies to which the Ontario Arts Council makes its grants, expend upwards of 70 per cent of their budgets on salaries. It is a highly labour-intensive industry; there is no question about that. Therefore, in talking about reduced grants we are talking about reduced salaries.
I realize the impact of these reductions varies considerably from one group to another. Indeed, I sometimes think perhaps there needs to be a good deal more differentiation, if possible, among various types of groups within single areas of the arts, such as schools of art, institutions of art instruction, symphony orchestras or even art galleries, because they find themselves in significantly different circumstances.
For example, to take an instance about which I have had a brief correspondence with the minister, there is the Dundas Valley School of Art on the one hand, and, on the other hand, an institution of art instruction known as Art's Sake in this city. Both institutions are agencies that receive grants from the arts council. They are required by that granting agency to employ professional instructors. Both are required to devote almost all their attention to the full-time training of professional artists in the making. They are urged by the council to be avant-garde and different because they are not institutions supported for art instruction in the normal course of things by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities such as the Ontario College of Art.
However, subjected to those common criteria, both of them function in a significantly different context. In the context of Toronto, Art's Sake exists in the context of a rich offering of traditional instruction in the arts, whether it is at technical schools, at universities in this community, at the Ontario College of Art or what have you.
On the other hand, the Dundas Valley School of Art, serving some 700,000 people in that region, has to serve a community in which there is almost no other major instructional centre for full-time training in the arts. It does not have the same time, latitude and capacity to be avant-garde, however much it tries to be different and responsible.
What I am saying is the context makes a significant difference in evaluating how the grants are made, their extent and their proportion of the budgets of those institutions.
One could elaborate that point somewhat further but, none the less, I think it needs to be borne in mind in evaluating them. Likewise, when one talks in terms of 15 per cent cuts, it makes a great difference whether one is cutting an institution and the artist in an institution.
In Hamilton, a major player in that setting as distinct from an institution in Toronto, even in proportion to population is a minor player by contrast so that a 15 per cent cut across the board has significant problems for our community.
In regard to symphony orchestras, it is quite obvious we range, on the one hand, from small community orchestras which are entirely amateur in nature with no professional players, right through to an entirely professional world class orchestra like the Toronto Symphony Orchestra.
In between, on the national scene there are recently arrived major orchestral institutions such as the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra. Again, the granting principles tend to be pretty much the same across the board for these institutions, but the circumstances under which they labour are remarkably different.
It is obviously possible for the TSO to attract a considerable national scale of financing from different agencies and groups, national in scope, centred as it is in the headquarters of so many corporations, and in spite of that also to secure from the Ontario Arts Council a 33 per cent increase in its grants over the last four years.
On the other hand, the Hamilton Philharmonic has to draw from a much more confined region, not an unwealthy one by contrast to many but a much more confined region, and has moved into the league of employing a significant body of professional players as its resident core. Certainly, it has much less capacity in terms of local general residential wealth to draw on, yet it has secured from the Ontario Arts Council over the last four years only an 11 per cent increase in its grants. There may be good reasons for that.
I cannot claim to have researched both orchestras right down to the ground, but it does seem to me the difference is significant, and it does seem to me those questions need to be looked at.
Quite apart from that, and not wanting to engage in any special condemnation of the arts council with respect to those figures, I just want to point out once again the impact of 15 per cent cuts in the grants. They work out differentially and, unfortunately, many of them were not spread across the board in an equal fashion.
I may be trespassing on another speaker's case, but I want to make a small reference to the fact, for example, that the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra -- I am not sure whether it has a special name --
Mr. Foulds: That is it.
Mr. Allen: All right. The Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra has recently acquired a very small cadre of professional players. For the Hamilton Philharmonic, this grant would wipe out at least three players in their residential core and thereby put in jeopardy the range of performances that it can produce; but for the Thunder Bay Symphony Orchestra, a 15 per cent cut in grants would simply deplete the professional core, and that would be that.
I am sure the minister is taking account of those differences . I am just urging him to do so with all the seriousness I can command. It will indeed mean the demise of significant institutions across the province if that kind of a funding cut is put in place.
I also had some remarks I wanted to make about the Art Gallery of Hamilton, in the constellation of the art world, and so on, a magnificent institution which -- fortunately, perhaps, for itself -- had to start four years ago in a very professional fashion by moving to new quarters and, thinking then that the times were at a low ebb, started off very economically. It looked for the light at the end of the tunnel at that point, and it is still looking. But having started with a rather economic scale of operations, it has been able to manage, for example, in a way in which the London Regional Art Gallery is not able to do.
The London Regional Art Gallery has had to close its doors for two months to balance its books. As a consequence, it has found itself in an unusual public relations position. It had just geared up the community to be used to its presence in new quarters, with a new scale of operations and so on, and suddenly is having to make a major breach in all that. It is an extremely serious budgetary development, and political development in a sense, for the London art gallery, an unfortunate one that we would all bemoan.
Again, there are differences that might have to be taken into account in the different circumstances of those two galleries, and a 15 per cent cut might be quite different in its impact.
10:10 p.m.
There are many notions being floated around as to how the shortfall may be made up if one goes into lesser levels of funding, everything from charity balls to extensions of Half-Back operations. Most of the people in the arts whom I have talked to about Half-Back extensions into the world of symphonies and art galleries think Half-Backs are rather half-baked and will not do a great deal for them.
On the other hand, they are not happy about charity balls. They have been building up images of their institutions which make them appear much more accessible to people of rather humble means, and the last thing one wants is a group of the community's elite to show up dressed to the teeth. After years of public relations and large expenditures on advertising budgets to explain to people that these are people places, suddenly they appear again on the front pages of the newspapers as the houses of the élite.
The minister gets the message. Perhaps I have said enough. Let me conclude on this note. One of the circulars sent no me pointed out we were at the point of a maturing of the arts and it would be a shame for us to move back from that. But that maturity is simply a beginning. I want to read the following:
"We have the beginning of a structure that supports professional artistic activity, which is an expression of our cultural experience. This structure was built painfully and with many personal sacrifices. Its success is recent and its condition is fragile. We are everywhere surrounded by the pressures of American, British and other cultures.
"Similar organizations and younger artists will undoubtedly suffer most from cutbacks, with financial margins too small to allow for their ability to absorb cuts. It is most often these groups and individuals who employ the most Canadian talent and produce the most new Canadian work. It is the indigenous, self-made and self-reflective part of our culture that will be the hardest hit."
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: This is a very stimulating debate, but I do not think we have a quorum.
Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.
10:17 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I recognize a quorum.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should begin by thanking the member for Downsview for bringing in such a large and attentive audience to hear a very serious and thoughtful speech.
I want to register my opposition to the proposed 15 per cent reduction to the cultural community. I know it is tempting to seek out the cultural community as a target for cutbacks in times of restraint, but I suggest a 15 per cent reduction is not restraint in terms of the restraint in the public sector.
Those in that sector are held to a five per cent increase, which in the light of the present inflation rate means that in terms of constant dollars they will receive the same remuneration in 1983 as in 1982, but the 15 per cent reduction in the cultural community means an actual cutback of 20 per cent. One must realize that in terms of annual income to the participants, this is a 20 per cent cutback to people who are by their occupation among the lowest-paid people in the country.
There is a larger question. We, as an enlightened society, in a period of economic downturn are going to abandon a part of society that is on the leading edge of the advanced forces who at times shock us, test our thinking, force us to look critically at ourselves and join with us at times in laughing at ourselves.
Just a few days ago we celebrated the birthday of Robert Burns, the immortal Scottish poet who left such a rich store of letters, songs and poems. He was acidly critical of false piety, the aristocracy and social conditions of the times. He and his family would have starved to death or he would have had to cease his writing had he not received support from some of the wealthy people of the times. I am sure members will agree that in 1983 there are very few, if any, patrons or angels who are prepared to support the arts. And I remind members there was no income tax in the early 1800s.
10:20 p.m.
One of the most quoted lines from Burns is, "0 wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us." He was commenting on a haughty person on whom a louse was seen to be resident. Poets and artists hold a mirror to society so we can see ourselves without direct confrontation but in a manner perhaps more telling than direct confrontation.
I want to turn our thoughts for a moment to another author, the second-most-quoted writer in the world, Shakespeare. I often think of one particular quote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," when we hear the government members defend the honest criticism that comes from this side of the House. Next to the Bible, his works are the most quoted, because they contain so much truth and because his plays of some 300 years ago teach us lessons in living that are timeless.
These lessons and those of countless other authors and authoresses are needed today perhaps more than in affluent times to help us keep our perspective on events overtaking us. I ask the minister, on behalf of all sectors of society, whether he will realize enough from his proposed reduction to offset the damage done to the cultural community.
I want to digress for just a minute to give the minister some arguments to use with his colleagues in the cabinet. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front that we may be coming out of the present recession. This may be rather difficult to back up when one considers the huge debts that are hanging over the heads of many countries: Argentina, $40 billion; Mexico, $80 billion; and the list goes on. There are really only two ways to eliminate those debts. One is simply to wipe them out, and I suggest that in effect this is what the banks are doing -- wiping them out -- because they are not collecting interest on them, and some day they will be wiped out.
The other way to deal with them is simply to continue inflation -- inflation itself being a tax on all the wealth of the country -- as another means of raising money. I suggest that the American government, having looked down the whirlpool and abyss of deflation, has seen something there that it does not really want to stomach because it is such a horrendous scene of social unrest and distortions within the society that it is now going to turn the money supply loose, and we will see ourselves going the other way in a year or two.
I want to point out too, in the way of economics -- and you can trace this back to the last Depression -- that governments of all stripes, whether they were left-wing or right-wing, in each case of a trough in the Depression began their stimulation too late. They waited until all the signs were evident to everyone that there was trouble, they began their stimulation and the stimulation actually hit the marketplace at a time when the economy was coming out of the Depression.
So all they really did was to add to the troubles of the boom. Likewise, governments that were trying to save money during the Depression withdrew money at a time when they only added to the depths of the Depression. What I am saying is that instead of levelling out the troughs and the valleys within the economic system, governments in the past -- and I see this government doing the same thing -- added to the Depression and added to the boom times.
The minister could take that to his colleagues and suggest we are beginning to see a change in the economic times and that it would be wrong at this point to cut back on this part of our community, which adds so much to the quality of our life.
I just want to read to members from a letter from Michael Sobota of 19 Regent Street, Thunder Bay. I am taking out the main paragraphs:
"The proposed cutback to the operating budget of OAC," the Ontario Arts Council, "would be devastating for the following reasons. At a time when Canada-wide inflation is still hovering around 10 per cent, the proposed cut would mean a reduction of 25 per cent in real dollars. This is a massive reduction in funding for any government agency to absorb. As it is, budget allocations to OAC have not kept up with inflation for many years.
"At a time when every sector of the economy is being urged to create jobs because of record unemployment levels, the proposals would directly result in further significant unemployment. The arts are labour-intensive as opposed to capital-intensive. While not applying the proposed cuts to Ontario Arts Council administrative salaries, this would affect only nine per cent of the overall OAC operating budget.
"The cut would apply to the over 90 per cent of their budget that goes into programming grants. Most of these grants go into direct and secondary job creation to groups and artists across the province. At a time when we are all being asked to tighten our belts and make do with less, it is statistically proven that most artists already work for wages well below the poverty line; the proposed cut would have this tightening further."
I have another letter, from Theatre Direct Canada. I am just reading the main paragraphs:
"As you are aware, the arts is business in this province. Theatre Direct Canada operates on an annual budget of $260,000. That budget is spent in the province of Ontario on lumber, building supplies, office supplies, printing and gasoline. We employ 47 full-time and part-time artists, carpenters. seamstresses, designers, office workers and production personnel.
"We train young people each year from Toronto and area high schools, providing them with marketable skills in theatre production and arts administration. Ours is a dynamic and viable organization whose existence depends on arts grants from municipal, provincial and federal levels.
"If our organization and hundreds like ours in Ontario are faced with a cutback of 15 per cent of our funding during a time of 10 to 12 per cent inflation, it would mean a radical curtailment of much of our activities and a loss of jobs for up to 25 per cent of our staff."
That letter is signed by Catharine Adams, general manager.
I will close by asking the minister to reflect carefully upon this proposal and if at all possible to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet to set aside this cutback. It appears a little bit mean-spirited to pick out one part of society, one probably least able to defend itself in these tough economic times, and ask them to bear burdens other people are not being asked to bear.
Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in view of the time, but other members of my caucus also want to speak to the minister.
I want to begin by echoing what was said very eloquently and appropriately by the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) with respect to the threat of cutbacks in the funding of arts organizations across the province. If I can apply this to Ottawa, I want the minister to know the arts organizations in Ottawa get the vast bulk of their revenues from the people who come to their concerts and presentations and plays.
The arts organizations in Ottawa do not only perform a cultural function; they also perform a very important economic function. As my leader has said, they perform a function because they provide a lot of jobs, and in Ottawa they add a great deal to the economic potential for the area.
One of the major industries in Ottawa is tourism. One of the reasons people come to Ottawa is because they can have a good time there. After they have seen the libraries and the House of Commons and the shenanigans that go on there, they look around for things to do. One of the things that attracts them and leads them to stay in Ottawa is the availability of a very wide and lively cultural life.
The other important consideration is that one of the reasons people in the high-tech industries come to settle in Ottawa is the fact that they can have many big-city amenities in a middle-size city and one of the amenities is the lively cultural life. I will send the minister a copy of the recruiting brochure used by many of the high-tech companies looking for skilled men and women. One thing it paints is the fact Ottawa has a culture that people can feel comfortable with, coming to the frozen wasteland of Canada from other parts of the world.
When the minister threatens his cuts, I hope he will be aware -- and this is important -- that it is not just the aspirations, the expression and the desire to have some Canadian personality; if we want to get really crass about it, we are also talking about the economic future for a lot of people who work in the arts and for a lot of people whose jobs depend in many other areas -- hotels, industry, restaurants and places like that -- on there being a lively arts community. If that is true for Ottawa, it is true for other parts of the province as well.
The other point I want to raise in the minute I have available is to ask the minister whether he would unequivocally refute comments that were made around the time of the municipal election by his predecessor with respect to the teacher's college in Ottawa.
The minister knows the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) was wont to lavish money on the Winter Garden Theatre project in downtown Toronto. But when it came to the possibility of a municipal arts centre in Ottawa, which would be located in the teacher's college in downtown Ottawa right next to the courthouse, the minister suddenly discovered the well had run dry and seemed to make it clear during the course of the --
Mr. Speaker: I direct the honourable member's attention to the clock.
Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. He seemed to make it clear that no money at all would even be considered via Wintario. I am not looking for a commitment right now, because the project is currently under review by the new city council.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister at least make it clear publicly that the member for Ottawa West was out of --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I direct the member's attention to the fact that the standing orders do say 10:30.
Mr. Cassidy: I will continue tomorrow if you wish, sir.
On motion by Mr. Cassidy, the debate was adjourned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment, I might just indicate the business of the House for tomorrow and for early next week.
Tomorrow we will continue concurrences. We will deal with the concurrences for the Ministry of Education, followed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
Mr. Foulds: Are we going to finish this one?
Hon. Mr. Wells: No. We are going to start with Education tomorrow.
On Monday, February 7, in both the afternoon and evening, we will deal with the estimates of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, the Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office.
On Tuesday, February 8, in the afternoon and evening, we will continue with the concurrences that have not been completed: Attorney General, Justice secretariat, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Solicitor General, Health, Citizenship and Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and Industry and Trade.
On Wednesday, February 9, while we will not announce any schedule, we are meeting in the afternoon only and will continue any concurrences that remain uncompleted.
I might also indicate that on Thursday, February 10, there will not be a private members' afternoon, but we are going to wind up the budget debate on Thursday, February 10, in the afternoon, with the vote to occur at about 5:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.