Hansard Transcripts 1984-Nov-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment today to inform my honourable colleagues that Ontario Career Week will commence next Monday. From November 5 to 11, schools throughout the province will be initiating activities designed to help our young people in elementary and secondary schools to realize the advantages of career planning and to become familiar with the many career options available to them.

I am delighted that for the fifth consecutive year this secretariat has the lead role in coordinating Ontario Career Week initiatives. This year our theme, "Focus on tomorrow: take stock, take aim, take action," assists students in examining their individual aptitudes, interests and skills in order that they may make knowledgeable career decisions. We want to help them select employment areas where they will have the greatest chance of achieving their full potential.

Teachers and guidance counsellors have traditionally taken the lead in organizing local career week activities. The Provincial Secretariat for Social Development has prepared resource kits to assist them in this endeavour but, most important, we believe business has a vital role to play in preparing students for the future.

With this in mind, we have developed a special career week guide for business leaders. This new guide, which has already been distributed to the presidents of major corporations and industries throughout Ontario, suggests a variety of ways in which businesses can help to strengthen the impact of Ontario Career Week.

Participating in local career symposiums, hosting tours of their company, inviting students to spend a day at the work place learning about a diverse range of jobs or being a spokesperson at a school's career day are just a few of the suggestions we have put forth to business leaders. All these activities will give students a better understanding of different work environments and the skills required for various occupations. I also believe business leaders will themselves benefit from their participation in Ontario Career Week in that they will be helping to prepare those who will be tomorrow's job candidates.

One other important aspect of Ontario Career Week is that it provides an opportunity for young women to explore careers in which women have been underrepresented in the past. Informing all students about nontraditional jobs will give them an impetus to take courses and learn skills that may lead to better and more interesting employment. It will also increase the pool of young people who can fill employers' demands for technical and trade skills.

Ontario Career Week is a straightforward approach to helping our young people plan for their future in the marketplace. It is in the interests of all of us to see that today's students are prepared for tomorrow's opportunities.

I encourage my fellow members to assist schools in their individual constituencies with the development of Ontario Career Week initiatives. Copies of our resource guides have already been sent to each member. Should they wish additional guides, my youth secretariat will be happy to provide them.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to inform my colleagues about Ontario Career Week 1984.

PRESENTATION OF BOOK

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to present to the members Decades of Service, a 50-year history of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Copies of the book have already been given to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and to the Premier (Mr. Davis). Decades of Service is now available to all members of the House and has been put in their mailboxes.

Unfortunately the author, Dr. Clifford Williams, cannot be with us today. I want to point out that Dr. Williams writes partly from his own experience in the service of the ministry as a regional director and as a manager of corporate policy, among other duties. He brings to his book the human dimension that is and always has been the vital element of this ministry's work.

The reason Dr. Williams cannot be with us today is that he is ill. We wanted to have this presentation to the Legislature in June, but unfortunately Dr. Williams was ill at that time. I want to thank His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, who very graciously arranged a special ceremony in the middle of the summer so that Dr. Williams and the late Dr. James Band, to whom the history is dedicated, could be present.

I do apologize to the Legislature. I wanted to present this book back in June, but because of these illnesses and other things we simply were not able to do so.

The Decades of Service publication points out that it has, more than anything, been the talent and compassion of many hundreds of individuals working for a better Ontario for all that has enabled us to respond to those in need in our society during five decades of constant change.

What these men and women built has admirably stood the test of time. It has accommodated the demands of a society whose initial thrust for social services was to the elderly, then to troubled youth and broken families and now once again to the elderly. Its story is one of outstanding human accomplishment, painstakingly and fascinatingly recorded in Decades of Service, a fine contribution to our provincial history in this bicentennial year.

Last Monday I said some words in tribute to Dr. James Band, who passed away last week and who was the Deputy Minister of Social and Family Services during the 1950s and 1960s. Dr. Band is the hero of this story, and the book is indeed dedicated to him. That dedication reads in part: "His inspired innovations ranged from Today's Child, a newspaper column that found families for 10,000 children, to legislation that changed dreary, overcrowded houses of refuge into modern, caring homes for the aged."

As I pointed out the other day, Dr. Band began his social services career as inspector of unemployment relief in Ottawa in the depths of the Depression and went on to serve under eight Premiers and 13 ministers of welfare. Last year, as we know, he celebrated his 50th year as an Ontario public servant.

Dr. Band was the chief architect of an array of innovative programs that have made this ministry a model to be emulated throughout the world. That is the story of Decades of Service, and there could be no finer memorial to a man who touched and changed so many lives.

10:10 a.m.

Because of the particular circumstances, there are two very special publications I want to give today to members of the Legislature who were friends and associates of Dr. Band during their long and distinguished careers here and during his long and distinguished career as a deputy minister and adviser to ministers. One is especially dedicated to the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and the second is dedicated to the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman). I would like the pages to take these to the members. The rest get the paperback volume.

Mr. Sweeney: Talk about discrimination.

Hon. Mr. Drea: When the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has served as long and as honourably as the members for Wellington South and Windsor-Walkerville, I will give him a bound volume.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am usually sceptical any time I see the honourable minister bearing gifts; however, on behalf of my very esteemed colleagues, I thank him very much. He could not have chosen two more distinguished members of this House to honour in that way. I compliment him on his judgement. I would like to see a little more of it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONTRACT FOR RAILS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is no doubt aware of the announcement by one of his federal cousins, Solicitor General Elmer MacKay, the regional minister responsible for Nova Scotia. It appears he wrested a contract for rails with Canadian National away from Algoma Steel Corp Ltd., in the home town of the Minister of Labour, and gave it to Sydney Steel Corp. in Nova Scotia. It appears that contract will be lost to Algoma, with a subsequent loss of jobs, presumably in anticipation of the Nova Scotia election to be held next week.

How many jobs are going to be lost in Sault Ste. Marie and what is the minister going to do to protect them?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, Algoma Steel will be producing the rails for Canadian Pacific, a major shareholder in Algoma Steel. It will have the rather significant volume of work from that area. Previously, Algoma Steel shared with Sydney Steel Corp. the orders that came from CN. As the Leader of the Opposition has correctly stated, that circumstance has changed and now Sydney Steel has been given the exclusive order for the CN rails, leaving the CP rails exclusively with Algoma Steel.

I just want the honourable member to know my personal friend and former campaign manager, Honourable James Kelleher, the member of Parliament for the riding of Sault Ste. Marie and the federal Minister for International Trade, has scheduled a meeting with Mr. MacKay on this matter. We will be in touch with Mr. Kelleher. In fact, I have had a phone call from him that I had hoped to be able to return before question period and was not able to do so.

Mr. Peterson: It appears from press reports that Mr. Kelleher knows no more than does the minister about this situation. Was the minister consulted? Was Algoma consulted? My information is that Algoma was not consulted; the contract was just wrenched from its grasp for political purposes and no other. It is going to translate into a loss of at least $15 million a year to that already hard-hit community.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will be aware of that. He had a special meeting of his cabinet confrères not too long ago to try to address the problems of the depressed state of that community.

What is the minister going to do to fight to keep that contract at Algoma, where it has historically rested on the apportionment of those contracts? What is he going to do to save jobs in Ontario? Surely that is the issue and surely that is his responsibility, not only as the minister but also as the riding representative.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: At any time, did I say I was not going to do everything within my power?

Mr. Bradley: Will Hamilton be next?

Mr. Wrye: Are the Conservatives going to flip jobs back and forth from province to province every time there is an election?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am really just -- oh, shut up.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that the minister's colleague, the Honourable James Kelleher, was elected in Sault Ste. Marie in the recent federal election on the basis that if they elected a Conservative cabinet minister they would get more jobs in Sault Ste. Marie?

Is it also not the case that Mr. Kelleher read about this in the press? Not only was the minister opposite not consulted, Mr. MacKay's own colleague in the federal cabinet was not consulted. Now Mr. Kelleher is arranging a meeting with CN and with Mr. MacKay after the barn door has been closed and the horse has escaped.

What are this minister and this provincial government going to do to prevent the Tory pork barrel in Nova Scotia from robbing more jobs from Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to sit down. I wanted to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. I did not want to be rude and disregard his question, because the question is an extremely serious one. I am wondering, however, whether the two honourable gentlemen are really concerned about the jobs in Sault Ste. Marie this morning, or are they concerned about making a little political hay at the expense of the situation?

Mr. Peterson: That is out of order, Mr. Speaker. You are quite well aware one cannot impute motives in this House. I understand the minister is a decent sort of chap and under a great deal of pressure, but that is not acceptable in this House. He is the one who has been embarrassed in this situation, not us.

The ramifications of this are extremely serious and I want to discuss them, unless the minister is not informed about it. My very specific questions are: Was the minister consulted? Did he have a say, not only as the local representative but also as the Minister of Labour? How many jobs is that going to cost Ontario? Does the minister know? Was he consulted or was he left out in the cold by his federal brethren?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The answer is a simple one: I was not told. I was not consulted by the federal Solicitor General or by anyone in the federal government. I was not consulted by the officials of Algoma Steel. I must admit, and I do so without any embarrassment whatsoever -- the member suggests I might be embarrassed, but I am not -- I certainly had no knowledge of these circumstances until I read about them in the Toronto Star yesterday. Since then I have been in contact with Mr. Kelleher and I will do everything in my power to try to correct this situation; that is very obvious.

I do not have to be lectured in this House about my concern for my own riding. I worked for my riding for 25-odd years before I was ever elected to this House, and that is something for which I will never apologize.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has just got a personal taste of his federal friends' idea of the new partnership. That is what we are seeing and it has just started. Let the minister watch.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister will recall that yesterday in the House we discussed the fact that she had come into a windfall of some $13.5 million in wages that were not paid as a result of the community college strike. Today that figure is probably about $14.5 million. In other words, the ministry is benefiting to the extent of about $1 million a day.

Has the minister had any new insights since last evening into what she could do to use this money constructively in taking a leadership role in order to end this strike, which is obviously worrying her a great deal?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite put me somewhat on the horns of a dilemma. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) says I should become directly involved and the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), says I should remove myself totally.

I will continue to attempt to resolve the problem, as I have been doing for the last two weeks and before that, by attempting to establish the foundation for a negotiated settlement which will primarily serve the students but will also serve the teachers and the college system beneficially. I hope the honourable member will understand that we are using all the means available to us at this point.

At this point, I cannot verify his figure. I believe it may be somewhere in the ball park, but I cannot be sure it is. It is being examined now.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has had time to verify it. She was not aware of it yesterday. Whether she knows it or not, a committee has been formed in her ministry to determine what to do with that money. Was the minister aware of that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that the question?

Mr. Peterson: That is the information.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that the question?

Mr. Peterson: No, but there is no point in asking the minister questions any more because she does not know anything to be able to supply information.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If that is the question, sit down and I will answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The opposition is harassing me, Mr. Speaker.

Why would the minister not look at creative approaches with that money? That was my question yesterday and it is my question again today. Surely both sides are looking for some sign of goodwill from the minister. Granted, she does not have much goodwill at the moment, but she might be able to buy it with $13 million or $14 million. Why would she not take that approach? Why would she not move quickly, this weekend, rather than letting this thing drag out until Monday, Tuesday or for another week or six weeks?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not go around buying goodwill. I guess the member should be informed that about 10 days ago we formed a task force. The task force is examining all aspects of the strike, not just those that were mentioned by the member as a result of the in-depth examination by his overzealous and under -- I will not say it -- research department.

At any rate, all aspects are being examined, and that is not the only one. The member, of course, does not believe I know what goes on in the ministry. I have to tell him I know almost everything that goes on in the ministry, including the kinds of things he does to try to determine what he can dig up to try to embarrass the government on a daily basis.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is not interested in buying goodwill; I say to the minister that major policy changes of that kind should really be announced in ministerial statements rather than in a throwaway answer to the leader of the Liberal Party.

The minister says she is very acutely involved in the negotiations and is now trying to establish a basis for a negotiated settlement. We also have the statement of October 12 from the Council of Regents document that says the minister stated her total commitment to the management position. Has she changed in that total commitment in any way?

In this leading role she now says she is playing in the negotiations, is she indicating on behalf of management -- since she is clearly acting on behalf of management -- that she is now prepared to discuss with the college teachers the whole question of work load as it relates to the quality of education? Is that now on the negotiating table? Is she prepared to negotiate that since she has now become a spokesman for management in this dispute?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on the epitaph on the tombstone of the leader of the third party would be, "Here lies the great distorter."

Mr. McClellan: Is that parliamentary?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that unparliamentary? Good heavens.

Mr. Rae: Is "distortion" all right?

Mr. Speaker: She did not say that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The role I have attempted to play was to try, through examination of the issues which were under consideration or should have been under consideration in the negotiations, to find the basis for a settlement that would ensure the ongoing validity of the educational program for the students in the college system.

There cannot be any doubt that I supported the second position expressed by the management negotiating team that was presented to the trade union before the strike vote was taken and refused by the trade union as an offer, which suggested that there was a means of dealing with excessive work load on a reasonable basis.

That, it seemed to me, was addressing the issue of work load, which the trade union has suggested it will only discuss at the negotiating table. In fact, the union's prerequisite for discussion or negotiation is that the management team consider only the mechanism for dealing with work load proposed by the trade union.

It has been my understanding that even the New Democratic Party has supported the concept that negotiations should take place freely without preconditions being set upon those negotiations. I would suggest that the honourable leaders of the two opposite parties would do the students a very great deal of good if they would persuade the trade union to begin negotiations of the other aspects of the agreement and suggest that it not set preconditions for those negotiations. They would really be serving their constituents and all the young people very well if they would do so.

I have attempted to persuade the trade union that this would be useful. I admit I have been unsuccessful in doing that. Would the members opposite please use their good offices to persuade the trade union to do just that?

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's last answer to the Leader of the Opposition, she indicated she was considering and pursuing all means to resolve this very worrisome disruption in the community colleges of Ontario. Would the minister stand in her place, and specify and particularize what "all means" refers to?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the fertile imagination of the member opposite would have given him good ideas about what "all means to resolve the strike" would be. I am sure I do not have to spell them out for him.

I am still looking for a way to ensure a negotiated settlement. I think one of the ways to ensure a negotiated settlement is to open the negotiations precisely and freely so that both sides can discuss all aspects of the negotiations, not just one of the aspects.

One of the routes might be that the trade union might now offer to the members the position which was placed before it and which was finally accepted one week after the strike vote as an offer by the union negotiating committee. Perhaps that might be offered as a position and voted upon by the membership. Perhaps that might bring a solution to this dispute.

Mr. Rae: I suppose one could say that on the minister's grave will be written as an epitaph the words, "Here lies a doctor and an honest person," to which some people might say they thought it was against the law to bury two people in the same grave.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are never going to win as a stand-up comic. That is not even worth a touché.

Mr. McClellan: You can dish it out, but you cannot take it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

FAMINE RELIEF

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and it concerns an event which is grabbing hold of the conscience of the world. I am referring, of course, to the tragic events that are taking place not only in Ethiopia, but indeed all across Africa. A drought is affecting thousands of young people every day. It is estimated that 7,000 men, women and children are dying every day in Ethiopia.

At previous times, the government of Ontario has responded, and there is an urgent need today for it to respond on behalf of all the people of Ontario. I would like to ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whether it is his intention to announce today or as soon as possible the intention of the government of Ontario to provide funds for those groups that are attempting to provide food aid to the victims of famine in Ethiopia and in other parts of Africa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my friend's question, this is certainly a very serious situation. I might inform him that I was asked by the Honourable Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs for this country, to accompany him on his trip to Ethiopia this weekend, but for a variety of personal reasons and some medical reasons, it was not possible for me to accompany him on that very important trip.

10:30 a.m.

As the member knows, he is taking along the Honourable David MacDonald, who has been appointed emergency co-ordinator for famine relief to African countries. I have made up my mind that I will have a meeting with the Honourable Mr. MacDonald when he returns to talk over what the people of Ontario might do to assist in the total Canadian effort.

There is no question that we all have a resolve to provide whatever help is necessary. The question is how best we can help. In that context, I think it should be remembered that in the last four years the people of Ontario alone have contributed more than $1 million to various emergency relief endeavours.

I was a little shocked to read the comments of a Mr. Bill Newell of World Vision Canada, who made what I think were some very unnecessary and uninformed comments about the attitude of this government. This government above all governments has always seen its responsibilities. On behalf of the taxpayers of this province, it has fulfilled that responsibility in emergency situations wherever they might occur in the world.

Mr. Rae: I am delighted the minister is going to be meeting with Mr. MacDonald. However, is it the intention of this government to provide financial aid, not simply on a one-shot basis but on a permanent basis, to buy up the cereal grains that are so necessary? Does it intend to involve itself with the government of Canada and nongovernmental organizations in dealing with this enormous problem of drought and famine? This problem is not going to disappear quickly; it is going to be there for some time.

Does the minister not think it is time Ontario developed in a very major way a program that will address this issue? It should not simply be on a one-shot basis, but on a permanent basis so we can play the kind of role I am sure all members of the House would want us to play in solving this enormous human tragedy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly we are all dedicated to finding the best way we can to solve this dire human tragedy. However, until we have some indication of what the total Canadian effort will be and where we fit into that, I think it is rather difficult for me to give any more specific answer.

It must also be remembered that we are part of Canada. Matters of this nature are first and foremost handled by the government of Canada on behalf of all the people who live in Canada, including the nine million who live in Ontario. There was a refugee problem in 1980 concerning Ethiopia. The government of Canada allotted $4 million and we were asked to make some contribution. The decision at that time was no. The $4 million was an all-Canada contribution and that was all that was necessary because 40 per cent of the sum came from the nine million people in Ontario. Therefore, they were helping.

If the member for York South understands the realities of the Canadian system, he knows we work together to solve these problems. Until I talk to David MacDonald when he returns, I do not know what the request might be. We have had no specific requests as we have in other instances, particularly when disasters have occurred. When Mr. MacDonald returns and I have had a chance to talk to him, I will then be able to report to the House on what may or may not be the positions Ontario can take.

However, there should be no misunderstanding that we feel very deeply about the situation in Ethiopia. We will do what is right on behalf of the people of this province.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister does not have pretentions that he can solve this problem, as he indicated in his answer. Obviously, it is better in the circumstances to light one candle than it is to curse the darkness.

In the circumstances, does the minister feel it would be constructive at this time to give some sort of signal to Mr. Clark and Mr. MacDonald as they leave that he is willing to participate in some kind of assistance? I remind the minister there are many other international tragedies to which this government has responded if there was a constituency in that province. Just because there is not a major constituency in this province does not mean it does not require a response now.

I am asking the minister now, as a sign of good faith not only to his federal brethren but to other provinces and other people across the world, to say, "Mr. Clark, take the message to Ethiopia that we in Ontario are willing to help."

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend is behind by a couple of days. I think the very fact that they asked us to accompany them on this particular mission indicates they understand we are already committed to this kind of cooperation. In fact, the people of Ontario, for whom we speak and for whom the federal government speaks, are committed to helping in Ethiopia.

The question is, what is the best way for that help to be provided? Until we get a first-hand report, let us do it in an intelligent way. My friend may not have been through a number of these things; in this ministry, I have, and I can tell him it is best to get all the information in and find out exactly what the particular need is and how we can help. In that way, we can help in the best way.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would at least agree with this. One of the features of the minister's answer that concerns me --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I wonder if I could have the minister's attention. I know he is concerned with responding to the heckles from the other side.

I am a little concerned when the minister says it is, in a sense, the responsibility of the government of Canada. I beg to differ in the sense that this surely is the responsibility of all of us, of the people of Canada and of the people of Ontario, through charitable organizations, through nongovernmental organizations and through organizations of all kinds that have been struck by this terrible tragedy and want to respond.

People are going to respond as individuals, and that is great. All we are asking on this side is that the minister remember that we want our government to respond in the name of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware of the very strong feeling in the province that, constitutional niceties aside, it is extremely important for the government of Ontario to respond on behalf of all those people who want to see a government with a heart, a government with compassion and a government that is more concerned to help to solve a problem than to deal with the constitutional niceties of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member is looking for a government with a heart and compassion, he will find it over here, and this government can match and substantiate that statement in any way he might wish. All I am saying to my friend is that I am sure that, being a very reasonable and intelligent person, he would like this to be done in a proper and intelligent way.

I learned yesterday at noon that David MacDonald had been appointed, and he has obviously been appointed to try to focus on this particular problem and find out how all the people of Canada can help. When we hear from him after his visit, I will be happy to tell the House exactly how this government will mesh its programs with those of the federal government to meet this very tragic situation.

LAYOFFS AT SIMPSONS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to another representative of the government with a big heart, the Minister of Labour.

The minister will be aware that today is the last day on the job for more than 1,600 workers at the Simpsons company. He will be aware that many of those workers have worked for 25 and 30 years and were simply put out the door by the company and told that if they wanted to reapply for part-time work they could.

Does the minister agree with the president of Simpsons Ltd., who, in the Globe and Mail on October 6, 1984, described those employees as "sacrificial lambs, if you wish"? Does he now regret the statement he made in July, when the layoffs were announced, when he said that while it is tragic, it is not as tragic as other layoffs because many of the workers are what he described as second-wage earners?

Does he not think it is time his views came well into the 20th century and that he showed some real heart with respect to what is happening to these workers?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the matter of my comment to the media. I am really pleased to have the opportunity to clarify this.

At the time, I was approached by approximately 20 members of the media outside the cabinet office in a typical serum. I was trying to explain the circumstances. I was trying to express the devastated feeling I had about the circumstances. Nineteen out of the 20 reporters at that time accepted my remarks in the context intended.

One reporter, who is a very competent and capable one, quoted me correctly, there is no doubt about that, but did not quote the whole context of what I said or convey the intention of my remarks. Being a very competent reporter, she in turn called the respective critics. That was like delivering a slow lob. With respect, they hit it out of the ball park. I commend them for it. It was a wonderful opportunity.

The point I was trying to make then, and I am making now, is that I was disturbed and devastated by the circumstances at that time. I still am. The toughest part of being Minister of Labour and representing the government, in the two and a half years I have been here, is having to deal with plant closures and layoffs. It is a tragic circumstance and I will never get used to it. One does what one can, but it is a helpless feeling.

The only thing on the bright side is that the numbers of closures and people affected have been decreasing. In the first eight months of this year they were down by 32 per cent from the same period last year. Last year, in turn, they were down by 66 per cent from the year before. I do not care whether there is only one layoff or one plant closure; it is still a tragedy. I appreciate the opportunity to express those feelings, which are just as sincere as I can possibly make them.

Mr. Rae: The minister has to recognize the fact that he is the minister and that he has some responsibilities in this matter. Sixteen hundred workers have been laid off and the company has turned around and said, "You are going to lose your benefits, your insurance coverage and the fringe benefits you had before, but we are going to offer 800 of the 1,600 the golden opportunity to come back and work part-time." It is not lack of work that has caused the layoff. It is a systematic policy on the part of that company to fire full-time workers who have 25 and 30 years' seniority. Then the company turns around and says, "We are going to let you work for a few hours a week for a few bucks a week if you want to."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: That is an insult to every person who has ever worked at Simpsons. It is a grotesque insult. The minister could do something about it if the government had employment standards laws worthy of the name. He can do something about that. It does not have to be a tragedy. My question is, when is he going to do something rather than come in here and cry his crocodile tears?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am trying to keep my composure. I have never been more upset than by the comment just made by the member opposite about crocodile tears. I never would have expected such a low type of comment from that gentleman. My opinion of that gentleman has gone down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry. I did not intend to sit down. I meant to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: You did sit down, and I have recognized the member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems somewhat perplexed about what to do when we have large layoffs and complete or partial plant closures. I want to remind him that it was his government, immediately after the 1981 election, that abolished the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment and prevented all members of the Legislature from having input into such actions and from helping him solve these problems.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: I want to know from the minister whether he has had communications with the employer of these 1,600 people, what type of communications he has had and what type of responses he has had from the employer? What type of representation has he made to the employer on behalf of these many hundreds of workers who have had many years of seniority and now find themselves out on the street?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we have had several meetings with these people. I attended two of them personally. There have been others with officials of our ministry. I personally have brought up individual cases with the Simpsons executives that have been brought to my attention. I followed up on those personally. I wrote back to each and every person -- anyone who brought concerns to my attention -- on a personal basis, not a form letter or anything like that.

I did feel at one point that we had convinced Simpsons to provide benefits on a prorated basis to the part-time workers. At the time, I was very encouraged by that. I thought we had made a major breakthrough. I find that has not come to pass because -- and I am not being critical of the system, do not get me wrong -- there have been organizing attempts in various of these Simpsons stores. That was to be expected. It was as obvious as a hot knife through butter that this was going to happen after the action that was taken by Simpsons. Certainly there were going to be organizing attempts.

Because of those organizing attempts, Simpsons has changed its position a bit as far as benefits for part-time workers are concerned at this time. They are waiting to see what bargaining positions they will be taking. It is not a dead issue, but on the other hand it is not encouraging as it was earlier this year when I thought we had a bit of a breakthrough.

Mr. Rae: What the minister is saying is that the company is punishing people for trying to organize a trade union to protect themselves. That is nothing short of a disgrace.

Writing individual letters, which we have all had to do, or feeling sorry about the situation, which I am sure the minister does, is not what is at stake. What is at stake here is improving the Employment Standards Act so that people cannot be put out the door and then asked to come back part-time.

Why not bring in amendments to the Employment Standards Act that would protect the rights of full-time workers who do not happen to have a union, in terms of a grievance procedure and in terms of their seniority rights? Why not change the Employment Standards Act to protect part-time workers in terms of their pensions and their rights to benefits and protection?

Why not recognize in the Employment Standards Act that the most important investment a working person has is his or her job? That investment is being treated with contempt by many employers today and simply is not being protected by the laws of this province.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me remind the member that the Employment Standards Act in this province is miles ahead of that of any other jurisdiction in North America; he knows it is miles ahead. That does not mean it cannot be improved, but let us not leave the impression that the Employment Standards Act in Ontario is deficient to that of any other place on the North American continent.

I want to read a couple of sentences from a letter I wrote in response to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who I find is usually quick off the mark as far as issues of this nature are concerned. I said to him:

"Some argue, as you do, that this trend" -- we are talking about increasing part-time employment -- "leads to an erosion of the organized labour movement and downward pressure on wages. Others suggest that part-time work and job sharing meet the needs of both employers and employees. Aside from the merits of these contending positions, I agree that we must give adequate protection to part-time workers in terms of benefits and conditions of employment. This is a topic which is receiving high-priority attention by my ministry."

Also, in that same light, is the fact that the Wallace report came out recently from the federal government, and we are taking a very close look at that at the present time. I also have to remind the member that this government moved towards benefits for part-time workers in the throne speech. There is certainly an example being set to the private sector by this government.

10:50 a.m.

OVERCROWDING AT DETENTION CENTRES

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I am concerned about the state of overcrowding in the ministry's detention centres and the lack of initiative by the minister to alleviate those conditions.

For example, the Toronto Don jail, the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre and the Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre are operating at double their designed capacity. Further, 72 per cent of the people detained in the Don jail in March 1984 were on remand, waiting for trail, as was 64 per cent of the population held at the Metro east centre and 57 per cent of the population held at the Metro west centre.

In the light of the fact that the minister devotes almost 80 per cent of his ministry's budget to supporting and maintaining jails and prisons, and very little to alternatives, will he follow through today on his verbal commitment to alternatives to prison by directing the energies and resources of his ministry towards creating and supporting alternative programs for both remanded and sentenced offenders?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, that question sounds like a précis of the honourable member's recent one-man commission report on overcrowding in the Ontario correctional system.

If the member had taken the time to do a lengthy study of the crowded conditions in our facilities, he would have realized this ministry has been actively engaged in bringing a number of new bed spaces on stream. He mentioned the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre. My colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and I were there just the other day at a ground-breaking ceremony for a 192-bed addition that will help to alleviate overcrowding in the Toronto-Hamilton corridor.

In the past year we also brought on stream some 250 new bed spaces in the Toronto area, 150 at Mimico Correctional Centre, 60 at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre and a 40-bed addition in dormitory style at the Guelph Correctional Centre. This ministry has been actively engaged in bringing new beds on stream.

We have been actively engaged in finding alternatives to incarceration. The member knows full well that over the past 10 years we went from a budget of $347,000 to $12 million this year for alternatives to incarceration. We have a wide spectrum of programs in the community. If the member had taken time to research that carefully, he would have known we are doing something in that area and we are continuing to examine new alternatives to incarceration.

Mr. McKessock: The minister says he is spending time and money on alternatives. He also states that on Wednesday he broke the sod for a $4.3-million expansion at the Metro west detention centre. What concerns me about this expansion is that it doubles the space for women at that centre at a time when there is no clear need for more cells for females. However, there is a need for more community alternatives and community resource centres for women.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McKessock: The government press release announcing the expansion at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre states, "The addition will accommodate female inmates on remand, awaiting trial."

When is the minister going to start spending more money for alternatives to jail? When is he going to meet with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to see what can be done to cut down on these remands, instead of building more jails to house them because of the slowness and inefficiency of the court system?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: The member mentioned the high remand counts in some of our facilities. I want to make it clear that this ministry and this minister do not control remand counts. When the police arrive at the doors of our institutions with proper warrants of committal, we have to accommodate people regardless of whether there is double-bunking or whatever. We are not responsible for the remand counts; that is the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Second, even though the addition at Metro west is being built to house 192 women, the member ignored the information he was given by our research department which said our counts have been down in the last 12-month period. This ministry is flexible. We will continue to assess our needs -- and we have needs for bed spaces, there is no question about that. Whether we use them for women, young offenders or male offenders, those bed spaces will be used.

CONTRACT FOR RAILS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Minister of Labour that I am indeed concerned about jobs in Sault Ste. Marie and area, as he knows. Jobs at Algoma Steel affect my riding almost as much as they do his own. Obviously the Nova Scotia provincial election also affects our area.

The Sault Ste. Marie area is suffering with one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada. Legislation recently passed in the United States threatens an even greater loss of jobs in our area. Since historically Algoma Steel has supplied about 50 per cent of Canadian National's rail steel needs with a very high-quality product, can the minister tell us specifically what discussions he has had with his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) at the provincial level? What specific representations has the provincial government made to the federal government for the maintenance of the historic market share for CN rail steel in this country?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I was incorrect when I suggested the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the Leader of the Opposition were really unconcerned about the jobs in Sault Ste. Marie. I know that is not the case. In fact, they are much more concerned than the predecessor of the Leader of the Opposition, who came to Sault Ste. Marie during an election and was quoted in the media afterwards as saying in a cab on the way to the airport that he could not wait to get out of our city and did not want to ever have to come back to it again.

Mr. Kerrio: Now the minister is making hay.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I said in answer to the last supplementary, I was not aware of the circumstances. To be quite honest about it, it was the member for Algoma who saw the newspaper article and brought it to my attention late yesterday afternoon when we were here for the private members' votes at approximately 5:50 p.m.

I have not had an opportunity since then to speak with the Minister of Industry and Trade. I have had an opportunity to speak with the federal Minister of International Trade. As I reported earlier, a meeting has been arranged between him and the appropriate officials.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that the Honourable Elmer MacKay is quoted in the Sysco news release to the effect that he believes it is in the national interest that both CN and Canadian Pacific purchase rails from both Sysco and Algoma? Does the minister agree with that position? What is the position of the Ontario government with regard to Mr. MacKay's statement? Are this government and this minister prepared to arrange a meeting with the responsible federal ministers to present Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie's case? If the minister is so prepared, I will be willing to accompany him.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Now, there is a real offer.

Mr. Foulds: Darned right it is. It will stiffen the minister's backbone.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is a constructive offer.

Mr. Foulds: I take it back.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As I said earlier, I am going to do everything in my power to take whatever steps are appropriate. I do not want to make any hasty observations or announcements here today, jump on a bandwagon and that sort of thing. I want to take a responsible look at this situation, and we will do everything within our power; that goes without saying.

11 a.m.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, with what has happened to Sault Ste. Marie, what guarantee is there that Hamilton will not be next on the hit list of the federal Progressive Conservative Party government in Ottawa? What action will the minister take to ensure that contracts will not be disappearing from Hamilton now to go to some other province that seems to have more prominence in the priorities of the federal Progressive Conservative government?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think my previous answers would be adequate. Nothing has changed or is any different from what I said earlier. We will do whatever is necessary.

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. It concerns capital grants to small communities, such as the town of Haldimand, that have made requests for Wintario grants as far back as 1982 and 1983. They would like to know why they are not receiving the money. They also want to know what plans the minister has for making money available for small requests such as those for baseball park lights and improvements to parks and arenas.

They are concerned because Wintario is taking money out of communities and they cannot bring their ticket sales up because of the competition. They would like to have an answer as to why the money is not available to the community.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically what case the honourable member is referring to. He mentioned small towns such as Haldimand. I am under the definite impression that if they had made an application for a Wintario capital grant as early as 1982, if the money has not been paid by now it certainly will be in the very near future.

I suspect it has been paid. The member shakes his head. I am prepared to look into that case, but any application as far back as 1982 would surely have been paid or, if not, will be paid in the next short while.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The people in Port Dover are planning and collecting money for a new arena. The criteria are not very clear on what portion the province will pick up through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Can the minister indicate what portion will be provided through his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I indicated to the member and to the delegation from Port Dover, the arena would seem to be eligible when the new Wintario capital program is initiated. I hope it will be initiated in the not-too-distant future. It would seem to me that arena would certainly be eligible if the criteria are essentially the same as they have been over the last seven or eight years.

I am aware of the condition of the arena in Port Dover; I know the people there badly need a new one. When the new Wintario capital program starts, I assume we will be there to help the people of Port Dover build a wonderful, fantastic new arena.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer willing to put Ontario's public interest ahead of ideology? Is he conscious that the last time the federal Conservative government abandoned the aerospace industry it led to the cancellation of the Avro Arrow? Now that the federal government has put de Havilland on its hit list and auction block, will the Treasurer, who is responsible for the economy of this province, take it upon himself to keep de Havilland in the public domain to maintain jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think the important thing is that we are committed to doing everything possible to maintain the jobs at de Havilland. I think it is quite another step to take to say the only way that can be done is through public ownership. I have spoken to the ministers of the federal government; the Premier (Mr. Davis) has spoken to the Prime Minister. The issue of de Havilland has been raised by us many times and they are well aware of our interest.

They have indicated to us unfailingly that it is their desire to ensure that de Havilland continues to be economically viable and productive and employing a lot of people. It is their view that it is appropriate to look and see if a private sector option is available. That is one I do not think we can quarrel with so long as we ensure that economic viability is the guiding light. I believe we will find out those jobs can be maintained in the private sector.

Mr. Foulds: Whether the industry is maintained in the public or the private sector, because the aerospace industry worldwide is heavily subsidized by the governments where the industries exist, the minister knows there will be some public participation, whether it is in public ownership or private ownership.

Is he aware that his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade is on record as saying he considers de Havilland to be an exception to his usual right-wing views, because it is important that Canada maintains a presence in the aerospace industry, and he considered proposing that the Ontario government buy it when it was previously put on the chopping block?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Frankly, no, I was not aware of that view. I am glad the member raised it and brought it to my attention. There is, with respect, nothing inconsistent in the views of the Minister of Industry and Trade, myself and the federal ministry. The common thread for all is to ensure that de Havilland survives and thrives and gives employment.

The particular mix of public, public-private or private is something the federal government is looking at. I think my colleague is absolutely right in saying that, if necessary, public ownership ought to be maintained, if not necessary, private ownership ought to be entertained and, if appropriate, a mixture. I do not see anything inconsistent in that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer intend to advise the Premier to establish some sort of a cabinet committee to protect Ontario from the depredations of the fulfilment of the Conservative federal election promises, or is he just going to sit back and grit his teeth as, day after day, the implementation of these promises has a continuing bad effect on the province?

For example, next week we are going to be treated to world price for oil, something this government has fought against for a long time. Surely the Treasurer is in a position to see that the effects of this on employment in Ontario are going to be removed. Why stand there and allow these things to happen when he can see them coming? Is he not in a position to assist the province in this regard? Is he going to take some formal steps through a cabinet committee to see his views are known in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me say that, quite apart from the long-standing and very effective cabinet committee on federal-provincial relations, which does exist and is effective --

Mr. Nixon: I think they have a staff --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have a staff, they are very good, and leading ministers are on it.

Second, all of us have spoken many times to our federal counterparts in the old government and in the new government.

Third, and more constructively, before question period this morning I had the honour of signing the economic and regional development agreement, ERDA, with the Honourable Sinclair Stevens. That is an agreement to replace the general development agreements that expired on March 31, 1984. Those agreements have been discussed in this House many times. We told the old government we wanted to be ready to have an agreement to kick in on April 1, 1984.

The former government refused to have serious discussions with us and wanted only to enter into an overall umbrella agreement without any specific agreements following. It also insisted upon direct delivery as opposed to being serious about co-operation. Since September 4, we have been able to conclude negotiations on the overall agreement and to reach agreement on a tourism agreement, which the member's tourism critic will tell him has been talked about since as long ago as when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism. A tourism agreement has now been arrived at with the new federal government, as has a forestry agreement for forest management.

Those are very major steps forward and will be providing a great number of jobs and employment opportunities, particularly in northern and eastern Ontario. It is due specifically, as the clear evidence indicates, to the degree of co-operation being lent by both levels of government, something that was totally absent until September 4.

11:10 a.m.

CRAIGWOOD YOUTH SERVICES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Given that Craigwood Youth Services in Ailsa Craig, Ontario, has now changed from a youth services facility to a facility to accommodate young offenders, which happened on November 1, and given that this new function is not compatible with meeting the needs of children with special needs, how can the minister allow some of these special needs children to remain in the centre with young offenders?

Further, a parent in my community who has a son at Craigwood has had it suggested to her that she apply to Family and Children's Services of London and Middlesex County to have her son made a ward of the court so that funds can be made available for placement in another centre. I find that totally appalling.

Is the minister aware of this situation? How can he allow such needy children to fall between the gaps in our social network, to use the words of one of the co-ordinators at Craigwood?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about it. I will look into it. The case is probably overstated, as usual, but I will look into it.

Mr. Van Horne: How can one overstate a case such as that? That is a stupid remark.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If he had given me the details, I could have given him an answer.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Mancini moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the actions of the Minister of Natural Resources in his attempts to enforce certain federal and provincial fishing regulations in deliberate contravention of the declared law of this province, actions which resulted in the confiscation of fishermen's property and which have led to a great uncertainty regarding the current state of the relevant rules and regulations governing fishing among commercial fishermen.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have already received notice of this intention.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It sounds like a real emergency.

Mr. Speaker: I want to advise all honourable members that I have indeed received notice and it was received within the proper time limits as set out in the standing orders. I am prepared to listen for up to five minutes as to why this member and other members may wish to set aside the ordinary business of the House.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) does not think this is a real emergency, but perhaps he should listen.

Under the rules of this Legislature, I have five minutes to prove that we have an emergency situation in the province-wide commercial fishing industry. Before I can prove that point, I must take a moment or two to put into perspective the historical details of this matter.

The present Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and three of his immediate predecessors have at one time or another discussed the matter of implementing quotas on the commercial fishing industry.

I must say at this time that the present minister has been, in my view and in the view of many fishermen, the most accessible and the most considerate of the three most recent ministers. I and many fishermen who have dealt with the minister appreciate his easy accessibility and the fact that he had time to listen to our proposals.

What confounds me no end is that, after a good number of meetings and a great deal of discussion, the minister moved ahead in a rather unilateral fashion to implement the quotas. This in itself was a shock to the industry, but what was even far worse was the manner of the implementation.

Late this winter, just prior to the commencement of the fishing season, we received a proclamation from Queen's Park, a proclamation from the minister stating that quotas would be effective immediately, meaning the commencement of the fishing season.

I want to reiterate that this was not done a year in advance of the fishing season, six months in advance of the fishing season or even three months in advance of the season; it was done literally days before the commencement of the fishing season. Fishermen, processors and everyone involved in the fishing industry had no time to plan or reorganize their plans in view of the shortness of notice given them by the minister.

I and many people in the industry pointed out to the minister how grievous the situation was. We begged and pleaded with him for more time. Either on his own volition or on instructions from cabinet, the minister moved forward with his plan.

When the quotas were given out to fishermen, many of them found numerical errors that had been made by the ministry. When the ministry officials were approached with this fact, they said their hands were tied and the matter had to go before the quota hearing boards. This is all fine and well, of course, but it took the ministry more than two months to activate these quota hearing boards properly, and the fishermen who had been unfairly assessed were left to languish in the mistakes made by the ministry. So if the quota allocation could be caught in two days and the fisherman had to wait two months for a hearing in order to appeal, that was his own tough luck as far as the ministry was concerned.

It was this frustration and the fact that many fishermen and fish processors had invested literally their total resources in the industry that finally led a small group of fishermen to take the Minister of Natural Resources to court.

At the Supreme Court of Ontario, Justice Smith ruled that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources had no constitutional right to implement quotas. This sent shock waves not only through the Ministry of Natural Resources but also through the commercial fishing industry itself and started the process of collapsing prices that continues to this day.

A few days later at the Court of Appeal, Justice Houlden informed the Minister of Natural Resources and his representative, a lawyer from a Ministry of the Attorney General, that he could not grant the ministry a stay and that the quotas therefore continued to be invalid.

In a craftily worded press release issued by the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) with the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources, the government tried to fool the public about the outcome of that court hearing, which was held not in court but in the judge's chambers.

It was not mentioned in this press release that the minister had failed to obtain a stay. As a matter of fact, a stay was not available and, further, the judge had ordered the ministry to pick up all costs. The press release emphasized the fact that the minister would press charges against anyone overfishing his quota and that his licence would be suspended, thereby leaving the impression that Justice Houlden had overturned an earlier decision.

I see my time is running out, but I do want to point out one incident that took place in the port of Wheatley. The minister had sent his officers to Wheatley to confiscate a tugboat. The officers appeared, guns in their holsters like the Lone Ranger and Tonto, not only to confiscate these boats but also, in my view, to put fear into the hearts of the fishermen. That in itself was also found to be illegal by the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Time, please.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I need more time and I need your assistance to have this matter debated adequately.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to indicate our support for the motion for an emergency debate presented by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

The recent decision by the court has led to considerable confusion about the ministry's approach to the modernization of the fishing industry in this province. It has, in the minister's words, declared individual quotas technically invalid. As the minister stated in the House, he has gone to court to request a stay of the judgement, and the ministry is continuing to operate as if the quotas should be obeyed.

This is an emergency because we are facing chaos today in the commercial fishing industry in this province. The rules and regulations brought in by the ministry after some meetings with the fishing industry across the province did not, in my view, really reflect the desires and the concerns of the commercial fishing industry.

The member for Essex South indicated that he thought the Minister of Natural Resources has been accessible on this matter. I must disagree with that. In my view, although meetings were held with members of his staff, the minister himself has been most hesitant about dealing with this issue in the way it should be with the commercial fishing industry.

As a matter of fact, he has specifically refused to meet with the Eastern Lake Superior Commercial Fishermen's Association. I wrote to him on May 22 pointing out the dangers of the quota system with regard to the commercial fishing industry and requesting a meeting. The minister has not even deigned to answer my letter although we have made repeated telephone calls to his office about the issue.

The problem with the quotas seems to me to be that they were calculated on the basis of individual catches, the best three catches over the last seven years, rather than on the basis of any scientific information about the actual numbers of fish of different species in the lakes. As a matter of fact, the ministry itself will admit it does not know how many fish there are in the lakes.

11:20 a.m.

It does not make sense to be imposing individual quotas on the basis of sales in the market over the past number of years. In eastern Lake Superior, the area about which I know the most in this regard, the Oshawong Lake trout allocation was calculated by providing each licensee with a base of 200 pounds, with the balance based on past performance, that is, the best three catches over the past seven years. I am informed the total inshore lake trout allocation is 49,900 pounds, but we have been unable to figure out how this figure was arrived at and how the individual quotas for this total catch were determined.

We are in favour of the rehabilitation of the inshore lake trout stocks in eastern Lake Superior, but I am concerned about the viability of the inshore commercial fishing industry in that area. For example, one commercial fisherman in my area has been allocated an individual whitefish quota of 1,405 pounds this year. His other quotas are 763 pounds for lake trout, 1,266 pounds for herring, 100 pounds for yellow perch and 300 pounds for round whitefish. Frankly, this fisherman could fish out these quotas in two or three weeks to one month and he would be out of work for the rest of the year.

This whole industry needs to be discussed. We have to discuss the modernization program. I regret very much that the Minister of Natural Resources is not present in the House to deal with this issue, but this assembly should be prepared to deal with what threatens the livelihood of the commercial fishing industry in Ontario and the respect of commercial fishermen for the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Commercial fishermen are being put out of business in my area. They face complete loss of their livelihood. The ministry has not been prepared to respond in any way to requests for compensation, whether compensation for loss of business or help to purchase licences or equipment.

We face a serious crisis in the commercial fishing industry in this province and I support the member for Essex South in this regard. It is an issue that needs to be debated and discussed by the members of this assembly. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and hope you will find the debate should proceed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources could not be here today and I am going to respond on his behalf.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working closely with commercial fishermen since the 1970s to modernize their industry. An integral part of this modernization involves the imposition of individual quotas. The challenge brought against individual quotas by three applicants from the commercial fishing industry resulted in a ruling by Mr. Justice Smith that on the basis of the constitutional issues of subdelegation and interdelegation, the federal government has not effectively delegated authority to the province to impose individual quotas.

I would remind honourable members that in an earlier case, referred to as the Shoal Lake case, similar matters were considered in the Supreme Court of Ontario, which found the Minister of Natural Resources did have the authority to impose individual quotas.

Since the release of the reasons for the decision of Mr. Justice Smith, the Minister of Natural Resources and others in his ministry have met with or otherwise had representations from the commercial fishing industry, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association.

I emphasize that each of these groups has urged that the province do its utmost to control the harvest of fish within the limits imposed by individual quotas. After the judicial decision was made public, the province immediately sought leave to appeal the decision, sought redress of the authority for individual quotas with the federal government and sought clarification of its ability to enforce individual quotas pending the application for leave to appeal.

In the interim the court has ruled that the Ministry of Natural Resources may not enforce individual quotas. Leave is being sought to appeal this ruling.

It is not the attempts of the Ministry of Natural Resources to enforce reasonable limits on fish harvest that have caused uncertainty and confusion in the industry. Regrettably, the action brought by the three individuals has clouded the authority of the minister to regulate the fishery, thus causing concern in the industry.

In fact, during the past four days, the Ministry of Natural Resources has received numerous telegrams and telexes representing a very large cross-section of the fishing industry, urging the minister to find a way to enforce individual quotas. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Natural Resources has also sought leave to appeal Mr. Justice Smith's decision and has been seeking some redress of the issue of authority for individual quotas with the federal government.

Today I am pleased to advise all members of the House that on application yesterday not only was leave to appeal Mr. Justice Smith's decision granted, but the hearing was expedited and will be heard before the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 15.

Recognizing that effective solutions to the concerns of the fishermen are being sought by the Minister of Natural Resources and that resolution of the matter before the courts is proceeding quickly, I cannot agree that the matter is an emergency at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forth by the three members and have found the matter to be most interesting.

I find the motion to be in order. Therefore, the question to be decided is, shall the debate proceed?

11:47 a.m.

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bradley, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Kerrio, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Reed, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Birch, Dean, Eves, Fish, Gregory, Grossman, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Leluk, McCaffrey, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Walker, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Ayes 27; nays 31.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

On vote 1001, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, these estimates are now in their third round with perhaps only one more round to go, plus a reference to the standing committee on procedural affairs, plus a no-confidence debate.

This seems to be interfering with the personal agenda of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), but it may work out to be the best thing all around. In the long run, he may decide his destiny for another few months lies at Treasury and in support of one of his colleagues. The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), it appears from every independent poll he has put forward, is leading the field. With our assistance in delaying his announcement, it could be that the Treasurer is going to find we have done him a great favour after all.

Since our meeting on Monday, the whole matter of the triple-A credit rating assigned to this province by Standard and Poor's and other credit raters has been a matter of great concern. It was discussed in the House when there were only three or four people present: the Treasurer, myself, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and one or two others perusing the Toronto Sun.

It was not really a matter of great concern because the Treasurer had successfully calmed down speculation by indicating that this was simply a routine procedure. Then the Premier (Mr. Davis), whom we have not seen around here much, although I regularly see him on television doing his thing, was asked about the situation. He said he had been asked by the Treasurer to drop everything, rush to New York and participate in an appeal tribunal.

When asked about this matter in the House, the Premier did not say, as President Nixon said, that he had misspoken himself or misthought himself or something like that. He said he never said there was an appeal tribunal, but on the other hand, he had not been misquoted.

It is difficult to determine what his meaning was in that regard. There is a feeling on this side that the whole story has not yet been told. It probably would not have surfaced to this extent if it were not for people on the other side getting more involved in the leadership rivalry than is healthy for them, who simply could not resist letting the world into some of the actual difficulties and uncertainties at the Treasury which, with the front the Treasurer puts on to the House and the world, do not seem to appear as any grave concern. The fact remains that the Treasurer saw this as a routine procedure and the Premier saw it as something extra special.

I was interested in the responses of both those senior political officials of this province, particularly since we know how important the credit rating is considered on all sides, at least by the government party, and I join in its concern in that regard. It would be too bad if the richest province in Canada, one of the richest jurisdictions in North America, were not at the top of the list.

I was further interested to note that the Treasurer, in his comments both to the press and in the House, somehow managed to indicate that this was simply routine, and yet it appears to those of us who are less sanguine in this connection that Standard and Poor's had at least decided Ontario did not merit a triple-A rating.

It seems to me that if its rating were going to be reduced, it would be by one of those minuscule notches down to what would be next, double-A-plus. This would not have been the end of the world, but it would have cost us a quarter of one per cent on our borrowings that are rated by that credit bureau, as I understand, so it is a significant number of dollars.

The real damage would have been to the credibility of the Treasurer and to some extent that of the Premier, but particularly the Treasurer, who does not want anything to interfere with his crusade to win the leadership of the Conservative Party and the premiership of the province. So it is a matter of great concern for him and a different type of concern for us. In this instance, I think our motives are somewhat less political than are the Treasurer's.

Since we do have a couple of hours and a bit more and since none of us here is in any great hurry to complete these estimates, because by agreement over the years they are rated at a certain level of importance and this time remains, it would be a good opportunity for the Treasurer to describe in some detail the process whereby Ontario has learned over the years to respond to the requirements of Standard and Poor's, providing information it requires in making its ratings on a regular basis.

It has been apparent in this House during the last few days that all three parties have used the telephone and have been in touch with officials of that commercial organization, and it has been quite amazing how free those officials have been in responding to questions about the process.

While the Premier indicated there was a special review of all Canadian jurisdictions, the individual, who is a relatively high-ranking one -- in fact, responsible for preparing the information on which the rating for Ontario is based -- said there was no special review whatsoever and that it was a continuation of bad economic reports from Ontario that had led Standard and Poor's to consider a downgrading to double-A-plus.

That particular person further indicated that three years of deficit plus an overall deficit of 12 per cent of our revenues were sufficient to trigger the downgrading procedure. We are aware that this has occurred in other provincial jurisdictions across Canada. It did not spell the end of the world for those jurisdictions, although it will cost them money, that is certain.

It appears that when this news came to the attention of the Treasurer, in a panic -- and I have a feeling that what he does behind the glass walls of the Frost building is somewhat less composed than what we see him present to us here -- he undertook to see that this was not actually going to occur and he was successful in having Standard and Poor's reconsider the matter after they talked to him and the Premier.

There is another matter he should perhaps refer to. He stated clearly here in response to questions that Standard and Poor's does not look into the future; it does not question the government of Ontario or its Treasurer and its Premier about what the future would hold. Its rating is based on a retrospective analysis; it is our record and that only.

Of course, Standard and Poor's in its printed reports has stated clearly that it has decided, on the basis of the assurances of the Treasurer, that our recovery is going to be "stronger than expected," not to move for the downgrading. It is interesting that in the past few weeks the Treasurer has been trying to persuade us that our recovery will be stronger than expected and has pooh-poohed the comments made by independent economic observers and observing organizations in Canada, indicating that only he knows what the future holds for Ontario and that in the immediate future it is an economically bright prospect.

12 noon

He has been so insistent about this that I had the feeling he was talking to another audience. At first I thought he was talking to prospective delegates at the convention. Then I thought perhaps he was talking to prospective voters at an election. But I now feel the main audience was some nice lady in New York in a corner office at Standard and Poor's on Wall Street, or wherever it is located, who might see some reference in a Canadian publication to the fact that our recovery is going to be "stronger than expected."

Anyway, it made it easier for the Treasurer and the Premier to convince them down there, not in any retrospective sense, that the future was going to be brighter for us than all the indicators, independent and otherwise, would indicate.

There is another thing that struck me as peculiar. In justifying his attendance, the Premier said he wanted to explain to the officials in New York that the economic and fiscal relationships between the provinces and the central government of Canada were somehow different from the fiscal and constitutional relationships between the states and the federal government in Washington.

I say with sincerity that for him to expect us to believe that is a bit much. I believe the officials at Standard and Poor's know more about these constitutional responsibilities and how they have worked over the centuries -- century for us; centuries for them -- than the Premier of Ontario ever dreams. It is quite obvious that their responsibilities on Wall Street are specific. A lesson in constitutional history and law might have filled up some of the time in that meeting but really would have been redundant, completely unnecessary.

When we look at this situation, it appears that some leakage from a government official first triggered the press gallery, then the Legislature and the community. Something was rotten in the state of Denmark, as Hamlet said. Something was rather peculiar in the Treasury of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: It was Marcellus.

Mr. Nixon: Was it Laertes? Sorry.

Mr. Foulds: It was Marcellus in the play.

Mr. Nixon: One of those guys.

As far as we were concerned, we were treated to three things that were difficult for us to rationalize. First was the question of whether this was a special review for Canada or whether it was a routine proceeding. The argument cuts both ways. If it was a special review, it justifies the Treasurer and the Premier dropping everything and rushing to New York to explain what was going on in Ontario.

The second thing that was difficult for us to understand was whether Standard and Poor's does its ratings only on a retrospective review, as the Treasurer has said, or whether it looks at the prospects for the jurisdiction, as Standard and Poor's has said in its own statements. Obviously, a continuation of our deficit at a rate of 12 per cent or more of our revenue is something it finds difficult to understand in an jurisdiction that continues to want to be rated triple-A.

Third, there was the strange statement by the Premier that he had to go to New York to explain the constitutional relationship of the province with the government of Canada as compared to that of the states with the government of the United States. I cannot believe that was so. It was the sort of wordy filler the Premier often uses to justify a very shaky position.

When the final story is written here, I think we will find the whole thing was caused by internecine, bloody warfare in the cabinet, something that is very strange indeed to surface at this level. We might have thought we would get to that a couple of days after Christmas or early in January. To start off with knives slashing around and heads rolling in the gutter is really strange. It makes us on this side think that perhaps we will not bother with the Christmas holiday; we will stay home with our feet up and read the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Sun. The Toronto Sun does not get to St. George until three or four days later. We have been able to live without that, but we will change it.

After this little crack in the monolithic structure of cabinet solidarity appeared, we got all this dancing, this fandango by the Treasurer and the Premier. The Treasurer tried to put a good face on what apparently was a nasty leak. The source of the leak was referred to on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. the other day. I will save it for another occasion. Since it was discussed on CBC, I feel it is in the public domain.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member should discuss it with his colleague.

Mr. Nixon: I think the minister is right. Does she mean to say it was not the Minister of Industry and Trade and perhaps it was she who leaked it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) who made the allegations -- not anyone else.

Mr. Nixon: That sounds sensible to me. It was on the CBC. I heard it.

Then when the Treasurer had successfully smoothed the feathers of the opposition -- and the two financial critics are quite readily soothed, Mr. Chairman, as you know -- we heard the Treasurer indicate that all was well. These were just base canards, as he sometimes calls them -- something like that -- and we went on to other matters.

It was not until later that the Premier made his comments to the press. Then he said yes, this was an appeal tribunal and he had to go down to New York to stop his successor from having to face a downgrading in our credit rating. This was in association with his already reported statements that he had instructed his cabinet colleagues to ease off on their increases in expenditures in the present budgetary review so we would maintain our credit rating.

It started with a leak and went on to the Treasurer being less than frank with the press and the House. Then the poor Premier in the dying days of his administration was forced into a position where those usually sympathetic observers in the press gallery said his credibility factor was less than triple-A.

One could see it happening. What could he do? Could he come in and say: "Yes, I did have to go to New York to save the minister, who has been Treasurer for only a little while. He has obviously screwed this thing up. He was not able to convince the people in New York that the grand traditions of this jurisdiction were supportable"? No, he was not going to say that. He probably did not even want to come in to save the Treasurer's leadership expectations and campaign. I am sure the Treasurer is quite capable of looking after that himself. He has a bevy of supporters and minions and explainers who are ready to fan out across the province to undertake that project.

I think it is worth while to discuss this now, when we have plenty of time away from the heat of the cameras and the observation of the world at large. When a bunch of us are sitting here earning our money, a bunch of the guys and a few others, it is a good opportunity for the Treasurer to level with us and tell us what really happened. He should explain how this process evolved. We would appreciate that, and I think the Premier would appreciate a straighter approach to this situation as well.

Although there are no politics in it for us, it will benefit the political aspirations of the Treasurer if he is seen to be explaining, in a frank and full way, what actually happened. He should explain what our prospects are as far as credit ratings are concerned.

12:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I regret to disappoint the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), but the fact is that I have not been less than frank, nor has the Premier. This is not the first opportunity we have had to be frank. We have been frank, candid, open and honest on every occasion. Therefore, there is nothing I can add to what we have already said. In our view, that represents a totally accurate and complete discussion of what occurred in August.

In order that the record will not be sullied by suggestions of things occurring that did not occur, let me say the honourable member's suggestion that we decided suddenly, in a panic, to drop everything is just not accurate at all. We discussed the possibility of a visit to New York early in August. I had decided it would be prudent to go there. I quietly mentioned it to the Premier at a cabinet meeting; I obviously do not know which meeting it was. He said, "We will chat about it again."

As it happened, he was able to join us for the Standard and Poor's part of the day and we had that meeting. There is no question that I wanted him there, and there is no question that I impressed on him that one should always take ratings seriously and that I thought he should come. However, there was no sense of panic. We did not drop things at the last minute. It was well planned, long in advance, in quite an orderly and understandable circumstance.

The member has suggested that perhaps my optimism about the recovery was addressed to a special audience and was not accurate. I need add nothing except the facts, which are that when I stood here on May 15, 1984, and predicted 4.7 per cent growth and a good deficit reduction this year without tax increases, essentially the only response that the then Treasury critic and the member's leader had was to say: "Larry is dreaming. We will never get 4.7 per cent. It is wildly optimistic. No one else agrees with him, It will not happen."

The one thing we know is that whatever audience they were speaking to, they are the ones who were dead wrong. Not only was 4.7 percent achievable, but it now looks as if we will get five per cent. I would not want the record to imply, as a result of the remarks just made by the member, that I was in any way presenting overly optimistic, unsubstantiated predictions to convince the credit rating agencies or anyone else that the economy was better than it has turned out to be in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Why would they say it was stronger than expected?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because it has turned out to be stronger than expected.

Mr. Nixon: It was not stronger than the minister expected.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was: five per cent, and I expected 4.7 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: We are only in about the second quarter from the minister's budget.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member wants to predict, as his leader did in May, that we will not get 4.7 per cent or five per cent, I invite him to do that. I caution him that we are right. I caution him that even his good friends at the Conference Board of Canada, who as we all know are somewhat less than optimistic, are now predicting about 4.7 or 4.8 per cent for Ontario. Although we are only halfway through the year, lest the member's leader try to lead once again on the pessimism side, I caution the member very carefully that we are going to exceed 4.7 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: I will go on the record and say that I think the Treasurer is overly optimistic.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would my friend like to make a wager?

Mr. Nixon: The minister should write it down or carve it in his desk.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Barlow): None of the rules provides for wagers.

lnterjections.

The Acting Chairman: Could we go back to the Treasurer's response, which we are all interested in hearing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only other thing I should like to point out is the business about explaining constitutional responsibilities. The reason we chose to draw attention to it was that during the recession of the past couple of years, US municipalities have taken what I consider to be quite extraordinary and very harsh steps, mostly at the expense of the most needy in society, to cut their budgets so as to get their deficits down.

When we talked about constitutional responsibilities, we were pointing out that in Canada the provinces play a major role in the delivery of social and employment programs. That is not always the case south of the border. When we point out that our deficit improvement has not been as quick as that of municipalities in the US, part of the reason is a constitutional division of powers in which we take it upon ourselves in part to play a major role in fiscal stimulation and delivery of social programs and, therefore, those things have to be kept in mind when decisions are made with regard to relative deficit levels.

Yesterday in question period, until I was unfortunately interrupted, I was reading into the record Standard and Poor's International Credit-week on the Canada-wide review. The purpose of my reading it was to point out exactly what I have just said. Let me read it again, quoting from International Creditweek.

"The gradual adjustment in budgetary imbalances reflects both necessity and policy preferences." That is one of the exact points we were making. "In the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, policy options for reducing budget deficits are limited by high tax burdens and unemployment rates." Implicit in that is the fact that Ontario is deemed not to have that kind of high tax burden and the acknowledgement that our unemployment rate is also significantly lower.

International Creditweek goes on: "In Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan, sufficient fiscal flexibility exists for more-rapid deficit reduction, but the governments have chosen to make minimal use of revenue-raising capabilities because of the potential for undermining the economic recovery.

I am proud of that. Lest the member or others think I would have anything to apologize for or worry about in the event of a change of circumstance in New York, let me say that I would not apologize, and never have apologized, for the fact that we have not increased taxes. That was a conscious and eminently right economic decision. To deal with what the member is suggesting, I would be pleased to place that decision in front of any group of people, inside or outside my party.

Not to take an unusual part or even a lot of the credit for it, the reality is that one of the reasons our economic recovery is going very well this year is the fact that we have a relatively low-tax environment and that we have not chosen to jump immediately to major tax increases either to get the deficit down for whatever reason or to give ourselves more fiscal flexibility so as to provide more funding for certain things.

Our decision was not to increase taxes, and I think that was eminently right. We were able to reduce the deficit, and our recovery continues to go very nicely. That is due at least in part to the fact that this government did not choose to come in this year with major tax increases, which in my view would have been inappropriate and wrong economic policy.

Others can challenge that economic policy, and some may, although I have not heard too many people advocating that we should put in tax increases. The fact is that we were able not only not to have tax increases but to reduce the deficit at the same time. Those are the kinds of things that are fundamentally important.

Let me continue to read the Standard and Poor's analysis: "Reflecting concern about the economy, many provinces also implemented stimulatory fiscal measures to help support employment growth, thus further slowing the budgetary adjustment process."

12:20 p.m.

I pause here to say that some provinces in Canada have chosen to decline any need or demand to introduce stimulatory fiscal measures. Provinces could say the national economy, employment and job creation are all federal responsibilities. One of the reasons it is important for us to be in touch with those people who analyse financial and fiscal performance is to say that while on paper it might be a valid analysis of responsibilities to leave employment and stimulatory fiscal measures to the federal government, we in Ontario, with a $27-billion budget that has some impact on the economy, see our responsibility to be one that includes a mandate to do something in this area, admitting that we cannot, for example, compensate for national high interest rates, runaway inflation and a lot of other things. We have discussed that in this House many times.

I think it is appropriate that we do the kinds of things we are doing. We can debate whether we have done the right things, but one of the points we make is that it has become a custom and it has become important for a number of economic and social reasons for governments in Ontario to play a role in this area, and we have played it.

Let me also say, in fairness to my successor five times removed, that the day could come when Standard and Poor's, our rating agency, might say:

"You are probably doing absolutely the right thing governmentally, you are probably doing absolutely the right thing for the unemployed in your province and you are probably meeting your responsibilities very well. We admire that. Whether you as a borrower have a small-enough debt, a small-enough deficit, a small-enough public debt interest to warrant absolutely the best credit rating as opposed to almost the best is a different question.

"You are a very good, first-class government, meeting all your responsibilities. But implicit in the circumstances in Canada and your responsibilities as you choose to exercise them is the fact that in order to meet those responsibilities you have to spend a certain amount of money, which means you are not in circumstances equivalent to those of, for example, Alberta or some other province with a lot of resource revenue."

Mr. Nixon: I have a feeling you have been preparing that rationalization.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is just not so.

So in fairness, and I am being quite serious, I do not see this day coming; we are in quite good shape. But I must point out that it is important to try to assure those whose rating could cost us a lot of money that we are managing both to meet our broader responsibilities -- and we outline those responsibilities and how well we have met them -- and to run a fiscally conservative administration. We obviously have for many years been able to achieve both goals.

Let me continue: "Reflecting concern about the economy, many provinces also implemented stimulatory fiscal measures to help support employment growth, thus further slowing the budgetary adjustment process. While the economic and social arguments for gradual reduction of budget deficits are recognized, this course of action is riskier from a credit rating perspective because of the danger of an economic slowdown."

This furthers the point I just made. This is, I remind members, in the section of the overview that talks about Canadian provinces generally. I read it not from the Ontario section but rather from the overview on the Canadian circumstances.

If one wants to discuss constitutional responsibilities and all that, this kind of overview explains why it is important to discuss those kinds of things and to talk openly and frankly so there is a good understanding not only of constitutional responsibilities but of how they have evolved over the years and how we have taken other and broader responsibilities upon ourselves.

I do not think there is anything I can add to the record. Everything that is factual is now on the record as a result of several days of discussions here. I am reviewing the suggestions, and everything has now been said on the issues. Members know everything there is to know.

Mr. McClellan: You hope; you wish.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everything that we have to say.

Mr. Nixon: I just want to put it to the Treasurer that from our point of view it appeared that after its review, Standard and Poor's was not worrying about our credit. As the Treasurer explained and as his successor five times removed may say, the agency did seem to suggest that while the province is properly carrying out its responsibilities as it sees them, the continuation of a deficit of more than 12 per cent of revenues and certain other matters to which the agency made specific reference would not allow it to continue a triple-A rating. It did reduce the rating and so informed the Treasurer.

Before this is actually rung up on the big board or put out in its news releases, Standard and Poor's has a process whereby one has an opportunity, if not to appear before an appeal tribunal, at least to go down and say, "We think perhaps you have not fully considered the facts in our specific case, the things that make us as a province in Canada different from your states, the things that make us as the province of Ontario different from our sister provinces."

The highest officials of the province went down there and met with Standard and Poor's in what the Premier called -- incorrectly at the time, he said -- an "appeal tribunal." They convinced Standard and Poor's not to announce a reduction, but to give us at least a temporary reprieve and re-establish or continue the establishment of the triple-A rating.

Can the Treasurer assure us Standard and Poor's had not informed him it had either reduced the rating to double-A-plus, or was contemplating that reduction?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I have told the member what happened. I have told him our circumstance. We have been over it many times. Given the fact the Premier and I both visited New York, I can understand and appreciate why he would wonder and extrapolate all these presumptions from it. I should remind the member there are many contacts during the course of the year and the Ontario Treasury is well known for staying in close and constant contact with all the rating agencies, and that includes at the ministerial level. The Premier sees the rating agency people when he is New York.

Mr. Foulds: This is the first time in 14 years that he has gone.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said he sees them when he is there, often at other functions, talks with them often.

Mr. Foulds: It is the first time he has gone to a rating hearing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was not. All l can tell the members is that the level of contact between the Treasury and the rating agencies is ongoing. It is normal. It is not once a year. It is many times a year and all I can say is it is ongoing. That is why we understood so well about the review of Canada and why our people said, "I think the ministry should go do this."

I understand why all the alarm bells went off. They should not have. Let the member read the conclusions of Standard and Poor's if he wants to suggest that somehow we got a temporary reprieve. That is not the way it happens. I remind the member that Standard and Poor's, Moody's and Dominion Bond Rating Service have an obligation to their people who buy bonds based on the rating. They are paid rates based upon the rating given by these neutral, very objective analysts.

12:30 p.m.

They have an obligation to give their best and most objective understanding and conclusions based upon what they have learned. If they thought there was a difficult circumstance here, if there was any sense it was fragile or temporary as the member suggests, their obligation is not to us. Their obligation is to the bond buyers. In no way would they compromise that obligation if they thought there was any weakness. It is their responsibility. Their entire reputation is based upon what they print, the ratings they rely upon. It is upon that basis that billions of dollars of money is invested.

Let us read into the record from Standard and Poor's again:

"S and P affirms its triple-A ratings on long-term debt issues that are guaranteed by the province of Ontario. The ratings are based on the strength of the province's continuing economic recovery from the 1982 recession, its low financing requirements relative to the provincial economy and a relatively stable debt level."

I draw members' attention to that statement; it is quite a credit to this government, having taken the largest industrial jurisdiction in the land through a recession that hit right at the core of the auto sector, which is so important to our economy, and coming out of that recession without having compromised social programs and still having "low financing requirements relative to the provincial economy and a relatively stable debt level."

That surely is the definitive answer to any suggestion the member or anyone else wants to put out that this is in any sense temporary or fragile. It is not a speech given out by the Treasurer, by the Premier or by anyone else in this government. It is from the people who are accountable for billions of dollars of money being lent, and that is what they are saying to those money lenders. That tells it all. Nothing more need be added in terms of the security of our credit rating than the conclusions of those very objective analysts.

Mr. Nixon: The thing that does not hold up in all this is the Premier's role and the Premier's statements as reported in the Toronto Sun. The Treasurer must have had a few palpitations when he read the report by Claire Hoy in the Sunday Sun last week. He probably got on the blower immediately to find out what that was all about.

The actual statements of the Premier in this matter prior to his being forced to come into the Legislative Assembly, backtrack and cover the differences between his approach to this and the Treasurer's, are a cause for some concern in my mind as the Treasury critic for the Liberal Party and as a long-time observer of the Premier. It is not the Premier's style to say anything he does not mean. It is not his style not to check with all the officials associated with a matter of this grave concern.

The Premier said he was not misquoted. He implied there was a lack of understanding between himself and the reporters, which is questionable. I am not particularly a fan of the major reporter on the Sun. He once said about me that he personally disliked me, and I would say this feeling has grown strongly mutual over the years. However, I have never known him to be unreliable, in spite of the fact that I do not like reading what he says. He indicated the credibility of the government in this matter is less than triple-A; I think that was the headline used.

There will be a time when all the details of this are exposed. The Treasurer has given us his assurances as a man we know well and respect, a person with great expectations and an honourable member of this House, and we accept what he has said. He has denied there was ever a concern about the downgrading of our rating in this regard. But when one looks at the story in total, and in many respects it is the Premier who is the weak link in our acceptance of the story, our concern has to be expressed to you, Mr. Chairman.

We will certainly observe this matter as it unfolds further over the next few weeks, or over the next few years, with the greatest attention.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, in reference to the Premier's visit to the House here on Tuesday, I would simply say I think he used the words "appeal tribunal" or "appeal court." There is literally not a member on this side who has not heard the Premier use those words on dozens of occasions. It is vernacular on this side of the House. It applies to everything from circumstances when we sit at --

Mr. Foulds: It is funny how it has not crept into his common speech with the public.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He understands and discusses with the public and relates to them a whole lot better than the member does.

Every time somebody comes into the policy and priorities committee on those delightful Thursday afternoons this time of year --

Mr. Nixon: Claire Hoy is not a patsy in these matters. He may be lots of things, but he is not that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not accuse anyone of being a patsy. I am just here to answer members' questions and explain to the House, because of the House's concern which is a proper concern, what happened. I want to tell members that every Thursday afternoon when ministers walk in, as I used to trundle into that room as Minister of Health, they have been told: "The court of appeal is now in session. What have you got to say, Minister, and why do you need so much?" It goes on --

Mr. Nixon: Did he say, "The appeal tribunal is now in session"?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has said that as well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He says everything. Indeed, in cabinet, I would tell the member quite honestly, there is rarely a Wednesday that goes by when the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) are not invited to sit later, as the court of appeal, to hear a particular matter that cabinet has not been able to resolve with a minister who absolutely needs an additional sum of money or else he cannot get by in the next two weeks.

If we cannot resolve it at cabinet, the Premier often says, "The court of appeal, with the Chairman of Management Board and the Treasurer, will convene or stay back after cabinet." He often says, "If that is not resolved, the appeal tribunal, the appeal court, or whatever, will convene in my office before next Wednesday and we will resolve this matter."

It has even been known to occur in a constituency matter. The member will be surprised to hear that once in a while there are constituency matters ministers cannot resolve for members. I know that we ministers resolve almost all constituency matters the members across the way raise, and you people take credit for all that. But occasionally there is one of these matters on this side of the House that is not easy to resolve. The Premier says< "The tribunal will meet after caucus, or before the end of the week, before you go home, in my office and we will resolve this." That vernacular is common over here.

Mr. Nixon: I think some of the ministers have done him in.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think that is the case. That would be a dangerous thing for anyone to do.

Mr. Nixon: No, I do not think so.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes. There is another thing I should like to tell members. I know the members and their people pore over every word on this thing to see if, at any length, they can draw any diversion between an adjective that I used or an adverb the Premier used, a phrase that Marie Cavanaugh used, and all that stuff.

Mr. Nixon: What the Premier said must have scared the wits out of the Treasurer.

12:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the member saying it scared the wits out of me? I will tell him the truth. "Appeal court," or "appeal tribunal," whatever it was -- this is exactly the way I can tell the member, my staff will tell him this -- is so normal that when I read it, it did not set off alarms. I did not call or speak to the Premier until some time on Tuesday, when I spoke to him about a totally unrelated matter on Tuesday around noon. At the end, I was kidding him about the article.

That was it. I will tell the member quite directly there were no calls, there was no panic and there were no urgent meetings. That is the reason that on Tuesday, having been here for eight of 12 question periods, estimates Monday and estimates last Friday, and having had 45 minutes of question time on it, at two o'clock, when I had a whole host of meetings scheduled in my office, including about an hour and a half with my deputy because I had been spending so much time out of the office -- on cabinet business, I might add, right here -- I chose to get some of that work done in my office.

Had those words spoken so ominously to those of us who live on this side of the House as they obviously had to others, it would have only been good and smart politics -- and the member will acknowledge this -- for me to have been here at two o'clock on Tuesday to get the issue resolved quickly. There would be no conceivable reason, if this was festering or if we had thought it would fester, I would have said, "Oh, let us just let it fester for two more days until Thursday." The honourable member might accuse me of other things, but he would not accuse me of having such inaccurate political judgement as to say: "Here is a big issue. Let it fester for another 48 hours."

Mr. Nixon: I am surprised you missed the fact that it was an issue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The reason we missed it is that "appeal tribunal" is kind of the way we talk over here. It just did not send up all those alarms. That is exactly what happened.

Finally, I want to say this because I know the member watches all those words very carefully. He has said we denied it was ever a concern. We have said, and my predecessor has said, "We are always concerned about the credit rating." The fact that there was this special review, to use Mr. Taillon's words, caused us to say, "Let us just make sure everything is okay."

We are always concerned -- every year, all the time, through the recession. Of course, last year at this time, after all, we were working on a $2.7-billion deficit. Does the member not think we were concerned last year and in the previous year when it was $2.3 billion?

Mr. Foulds: Last year the Premier did not have to go down to New York.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I admit quite openly that this Treasurer is a cautious person. He did not want to take any chances and he thought it was just as well we did that. I do not apologize for a second for trying to ensure that Ontario pays prime rate, that no one pays a better rate than Ontario. Indeed, I would be subject to a lot of criticism if somehow we had neglected to do everything at all times to protect the rating.

I can tell members that I do not know what I would have done last year if I had had this job. Maybe I would have asked the Premier to join me. Maybe, like my predecessor, I would not have gone. Those are judgements everyone makes. My predecessor obviously did not think it was necessary, and he was right. All I can say is that I play it cautiously at all times, and that is what we did. I have no apologies for anything.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Treasurer a series of short questions. First, precisely when did the meeting with Standard and Poor's take place? On what date?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know.

Mr. Foulds: I find that very difficult to believe. This has been a matter of public concern for at least a week, if not more, and the Treasurer has not taken the time to find out precisely the day he and the Premier appeared before Standard and Poor's.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us be mature about this. Does the member think it is a secret? Is there any reason I would hide from him the date of my visit to New York?

Mr. Foulds: Then tell us the date.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell member the date in a minute; the staff will try to figure out what date it was. But the member should not stand up in this House and suggest I am hiding it or that I do not care and have not found out, or that this indicates I do not take it seriously.

Mr. Foulds: I asked a simple question which needs a simple answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member did not ask a simple question; he should not suggest he asked a simple question. His second question implied that I will not tell or I will not find out. I could ask the member when did he last see his riding association or what day in August did he see his riding president or something. I do not happen to know offhand which day it was in August, but I will tell him in a second.

Mr. Foulds: If it were a matter of public controversy, I would sure as hell find out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member might think the date is very relevant. I must admit the fact of the visit is very important, but the date is hardly a key to it. The date was August 28.

Mr. Foulds: Is it not true the Premier had to cancel commitments he had with Brian Mulroney's federal tour in northern Ontario on that date in order to go to New York?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That very day the Premier was with Brian Mulroney in Toronto. That is all I remember of the day.

Mr. Foulds: Did he not cancel a further commitment he had with Brian Mulroney to appear in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know the answer to that question.

Mr. Foulds: That is fine. I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give the member the length of answer I choose. Lest he wants to suggest that this indicates something very significant, let me also be clear -- whether there are any questions being asked or not -- I emphasize this was a review being done in Treasury and Economics and I said, "Let us go down to New York."

If the Treasurer of this province says to the Premier, "Premier, it is my judgement that a visit by you would be helpful and I would like you to come," the Premier would be subject to extraordinary criticisms if he said, "Treasurer, I know the credit rating is important, but I think I will go to northern Ontario with Brian Mulroney."

I do not know where the member wants to go with this, but I am extremely proud to say that in this administration, when the Treasurer of the province says, "Premier, I think it is prudent to do this," and the Premier of this province chooses to cancel a visit to northern Ontario with Brian Mulroney; that is the proper way to run a government.

Mr. Foulds: I fully agree.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not finished. I will tell my friend just who says that is the right way to run a government, so he will have something on which to reflect over the weekend. I decided to go back in history a bit and I found in November 1975 that questions were raised by the opposition about this issue then.

Here is what the leader of the New Democratic Party, Stephen Lewis, said at the time, "Imagine our rating if we had been the government." That indicates what the former leader of the New Democratic Party thought about the importance of the credit rating, and probably explains why, in similar circumstances, he would have gone on a political mission to northern Ontario. My leader goes to New York because his Treasurer says the rating is important.

Mr. Foulds: What is at stake here is the continuing difference in the stories of the Treasurer and the Premier. The Treasurer has constantly and consistently put forward the story that it was an ordinary, natural and normal process meeting. Will he tell us, if he can tell us, what stage the review process was at when he went to New York with the Premier? There is a standard five-step review. What stage was that review at when the Treasurer and the Premier visited New York?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Someone over there read out a multistage --

Mr. Foulds: Five-stage.

12:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know nothing of that five-stage process.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier indicated in his answers to the House that the meeting was unique in that there were seven or eight, in his words, reviewers across the table. Is that accurate?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are asking were there seven or eight people there?

Mr. Foulds: Seven or eight people from Standard and Poor's.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Five or six.

Mr. Foulds: Can he tell us the makeup of that panel? What various kinds of economic interest did each of the members of that panel have?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There was a meeting. I emphasize it was not a panel; it was nothing like a court of appeal. There was a group of people. I do not remember offhand if there were five, six or seven and I cannot tell the member what their backgrounds were. It was a group of people from Standard and Poor's.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer has just said it was nothing like a court of appeal. Yet he says the Premier used "court of appeal" because the Premier uses that phrase all the time about what I would consider to be an appeal process. How then can the Treasurer explain this discrepancy in the use of the term "court of appeal"?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have discussed this, I thought, at various points for the last couple of days and certainly the last 20 minutes or half hour. I can only remind the member once again that when the Premier uses the phrase "court of appeal" around here with regard to allocations, it is not an appeal either. He refers to that when we start the allocations process.

The policy and priorities board meets and each minister -- listen carefully -- before a decision is made, is invited to come in and give his or her view on what his or her ministry requires for the next year. No decision has been made. It is the commencement of the allocations process. That is how it begins. In this way, the ministries get a chance to speak to the ministers on the policy and priorities board at the start of the process. They do it then -- not after a preliminary decision has been made and they must come in to try to unravel it.

That may help the member understand the circumstances in which the leader of this government tends to use those words.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer has constantly said the process undergone by Standard and Poor's is entirely retrospective when it establishes a credit rating. It is retrospective when it looks at whether or not the province will continue to have a triple-A or double-A plus credit rating or whatever. He said that in this House and he has not yet withdrawn those words.

Can he explain, if the process is entirely retrospective, how Standard and Poor's could reach this conclusion in its Canada-wide review: "Improved budgetary results in fiscal 1985 and 1986 are expected to reduce the debt burden."? How could it come to that conclusion based entirely on a current and previous evaluation of Ontario's actions?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may not have been the next five words I used, whenever that question was asked last Thursday or Friday, but I know in fairness the member will recall the words I used during that same series of questions. I pointed out that we had indicated to them we were well on the record as wanting to continue to reduce the deficit.

Standard and Poor's says, "While the economic and social arguments for gradual reduction of budget deficits are recognized, this course of action is riskier from a credit rating perspective because of the danger of an economic slowdown."

Obviously, they contemplate what the risks of an economic slowdown are. Notwithstanding the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, there is not much the government of Ontario is going to do in reassuring the rating agency that we do not have a big risk of an economic slowdown. We can offer our view, but in essence the questions of sound financial management and how big a debt one has incurred are the main items.

Let me also remind the members that the rationale used by Standard and Poor's in its analysis of Ontario begins by saying, "The ratings are based on the strength of the province's continuing economic recovery from the 1982 recession, its low financing requirements relative to the provincial economy and its relatively stable debt levels." That is all retrospective. If the member is asking --

Mr. Foulds: That is right, but you did not read the next part I read, that is futuristic.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will read the next part.

"After a severe economic downturn in 1982, the Ontario economy rebounded in 1983 and is expected to lead the provinces in real growth in 1984." I pause here to say that Standard and Poor's does not reach that conclusion just because the Treasurer says, "Not to worry, we are going to lead the provinces."

To continue: "Manufacturing and, in particular, automotive products have led the recovery and have recently led a resurgence in business investment plans. Despite the improved economic performance, budgetary deficits have been slow to decline."

I consider from $2.7 billion to $2 billion, a $700-million reduction in the deficit from predicted 1983-84 to 1984-85, to be a significant deficit reduction.

"The fiscal '85 budget projects a third year of operating deficits and a budgetary deficit exceeding 12 per cent of revenues. However, stronger than expected economic growth appears likely to result in a lower budget deficit this year, and further improvements in fiscal '86 are anticipated."

If they want to wonder whether we have adopted budgetary policies that are prudent, i.e., relying on revenues in the past as opposed to tax increases, as I did this year, when they would have less concern about revenues because I would have boosted taxes, then one can understand why, if I had gone the tax route, perhaps they may not have put that in. I do not know.

In assessing how we are doing, they look at the last budget and the ones preceding it, discuss the taxation climate and draw certain conclusions. In discussing my budget, I said: "I want you to understand the budget strategy I have adopted. It is one that is based on the recovery and on improved revenues as opposed to tax increases." Given that, I am not surprised they would comment on the strength of the recovery and anticipated budgetary improvements due to revenue increases. I am not surprised. That is the part that is prospective, as the member would put it.

There is nothing unusual about all that.

Mr. Foulds: Except they do not talk about revenue improvements; they talk about revenue flexibility. I would like to ask the Treasurer, seeing that he took such great pride in his aside in reading the excerpt from Standard and Poor's about his reduction of the deficit, can he confirm the statement that has not been contradicted in Rosemary Speirs's column in the Toronto Star, which said, "Grossman is aiming at reducing the $2.03-billion deficit in his 1984 budget to $1.2 billion next year." Is that true or not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no figure established for the deficit next year. How could there be? I am just starting the allocations process. Obviously, we have not yet begun to look at the tax circumstance for next year and it would be early for me to predict the revenue for next year.

Let me indicate where that sort of figure would appear. That sort of figure could be arrived at by anyone reading my speeches, because my speeches say quite clearly, long before we went to New York, that I believe the percentage of revenue taken up by public debt interest has to be stabilized. If one takes a calculator to figure out what deficit level we have to get down to this year in order to stabilize public debt interest, that number would be about $1.2 billion. That is where it comes from.

I could not have arrived at that figure as a final determination with regard to the deficit for next year. There are a lot of things that could happen. Interest rates change on the money that is being refinanced. The debt is falling due and has to be refinanced. That will change the circumstance. Perhaps a $1.4-billion or a $1.6-billion level will be sufficient to stabilize public debt interest.

There are a number of variables. Given the variables extant today and certain presumptions on interest rates, that is the sort of figure that would obviously stabilize public debt interest. That is where that $1.2-billion figure comes from.

Mr. Foulds: Is it fair to say it is the government's aim to reduce the deficit?

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Treleaven): May I draw the attention of the member for Port Arthur to the clock.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, yes. I would adjourn the debate at this point.

The Acting Chairman: Is there some understanding that these estimates may be voted on today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.

November 2, 1984