Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House today that last Friday at the meeting of the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee I made a statement concerning provincial transfers to municipalities and the use of new assessment equalization factors for 1980.

As members are aware, our efforts to develop a formula for the next several years’ transfers have not resulted in anything definite as yet. However, I can tell members that the draft formula we have been considering did serve as a guide in setting the global transfer package in 1980.

Total transfers to municipalities and their agencies in 1980 will be $1,997,000,000, up $194 million over current funding levels. I should emphasize that the $194 million includes $22 million for modifying the impact of the new equalization factors and, of course, significant funds for capital purposes; thus not all of the $194 million increase will be available to municipalities for operating programs.

Mr. Speaker, before indicating our ministry’s unconditional grant package for 1980, I would like to mention a change we are making that will improve several grant programs.

A problem that has been brought to our attention is that of sudden population declines. A relatively minor loss in population can cause a dramatic decrease in a municipality’s resource equalization grant and other entitlements without a corresponding decrease in municipal costs. For this reason we are moving to a new method of determining municipal grants population. Next year, a municipality will be able to use the greater of either of the following: (1) 1980 grants population calculation as before; (2) the average of the 1978, 1979 and 1980 grants population.

This change will assist the municipalities subject to sudden population losses without penalizing those which are gaining in population.

It will apply not only to my ministry’s general per capita, police per capita, density and resource equalization grants, but also to those grants of other ministries which are based on population.

Unconditional transfers from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will rise to $563 million from $510 million this year.

Details of our main grant programs for 1980 are as follows:

We are introducing two long-term changes in the resource equalization grants. Farm and residential assessment will now be weighted at 85 per cent for purposes of calculating the grant. As a result, the REG will more accurately reflect local capacities to raise revenues through property taxation. Most county and regional costs are currently shared among municipalities on the basis of weighted equalized assessment. It seems only reasonable that provincial grants designed to equalize revenues among municipalities should be calculated on the same basis. As you probably know, the Ministry of Education will also be weighting residential and farm assessment at 85 per cent for grant and apportionment purposes in 1980. District welfare administration boards and homes for the aged boards will also begin doing their apportionments on the basis of weighted equalized assessment in 1980.

Next year, a lower-tier municipality will no longer be required to apply a portion of its current year’s resource equalization grant against its regional or county requisition. Instead, the province will pay this portion directly to the region or county for the credit of the lower-tier municipality. The region or county will in turn be required to reduce by this amount the regional or county requisition of the lower-tier municipality qualifying for the grant. The change will give clear recognition to the province’s support of upper tier expenditures without adversely affecting any municipality.

Starting in 1980, the one-year lag between when an REG is paid and when it is converted into equalized assessment for apportionment purposes will be discontinued. The 1980 REGs will be reflected in the 1980 apportionment. This means all municipalities in the county or region will benefit immediately from the higher grants to be paid next year.

The new 1980 standard for the resource equalization grant will be $21,200 per capita on the basis of the new equalization factors and $11,050 on the basis of the old equalization factors. The comparable standard for 1979 was $20,700 per capita using the new factors, rather than the $10,800 per capita using the old factors.

The total 1980 resource equalization grant payments will be about $144 million, up from $115 million in 1979.

General support grants: There will be no change for 1980 in the method of calculating this grant. It will continue to provide an amount equal to six per cent of the previous year’s net general dollar levies to all municipalities. This grant will amount to approximately $166 million in 1980.

Special support grants for northern Ontario: Northern Ontario municipalities will continue to receive grants equal to 18 per cent of the previous year’s net general dollar levy. This will represent about $46 million in grants in 1980.

Per capita grants: Other than the improved method for calculating grants populations, no change is being made in the schedules for these grants. The government has carefully considered municipal views on the rate structure of the general per capita and police per capita grants. However, we have decided to make no change but will continue to consider the suggestions being put forward.

The general per capita grant this year will total about $77 million. The police per capita grant will be about $94 million and the density grant will remain at about $6 million in 1980.

Further to my announcement last October, let me now give the members some further details on the government’s plan to modify the effects of the new assessment equalization factors in the municipal sector in 1980. As members know, last July the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) published new equalization factors in the Ontario Gazette. They replaced those which had been used since 1970. These new factors reflect the changes in property values over the past decade. However, they do not represent a change in our taxation policy. Therefore, if they were used without limit there would be large, and in some cases unacceptable, shifts in the burden of property taxation among municipalities in 1980.

Let me first deal with our grants program. We have decided to limit the potential tax shifts within the resource equalization grant in two ways.

First, for the purpose of calculating the resource equalization grant, a municipality’s equalized assessment will not be allowed to increase or decrease by more than 10 per cent relative to the change for the province as a whole, due to the new equalization factors.

Second, no municipality will receive less grant in 1980 than it would have received had the old factors remained in use. The calculation for the guarantee will be based on the same unweighted assessment standard as last year, adjusted for natural assessment growth.

As I mentioned in October, there will be a $10 per capita ceiling on the amount of increase of the REG that is paid to or on behalf of a lower-tier municipality over what is received in 1979.

In the apportionment area, the potential tax shifts to the sharing of county and regional costs will also be limited in two ways.

First, a municipality’s equalized assessment for municipal apportionment purposes will not be allowed to increase or decrease by more than five per cent relative to its county or region as a whole due to the new equalization factors.

Second, in those instances where a municipality’s share of an upper-tier gross levy would go up more than five per cent as a result of the new factors, even after the modifications I have outlined, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will provide a grant to cover the amount over five per cent.

Of course, a municipality’s requisition may well go up more than five per cent over last year if the county or region is spending more or if there have been relative changes in local assessment.

Counties currently have the option, under section 507(7) of the Municipal Act, to apportion on a basis other than equalized assessment subject of course to OMB appeal. Any of the regions which wish to be given the opportunity to do the same thing and to have this flexibility will have that opportunity starting in 1980. Both features of the apportionment plan will apply to conservation authorities and to northern social service boards. The Ministry of Education has also announced a similar program for school boards.

Merged area apportionments will continue to be calculated on the same basis as in the past. Today I will be introducing into the House amendments to the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975, to implement the 1980 resource equalization grant and apportionment changes that I have just outlined.

I wish to emphasize that these actions that are being taken to modify the tax shifts caused by the new equalization factors are for 1980 only. We are faced with a long-term problem requiring a long-term solution; thus the changes for 1980 which I have just described should not be interpreted as a first step towards that solution. We recognize that in 1981 and future years we cannot allow major increases of burden, for instance, to fall upon rural municipalities as a result of changing equalization factors. Since new factors will again be produced next July, we must have a solution ready by that time.

We are going to make the very best use of municipal expertise as we work our way towards a solution over the next few months. We will have an announcement next July for 1981 and after at the time when the new equalization factors are again provided.

As part of our overall program, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is holding a series of technical meetings throughout the province. The first ones were held yesterday in order to assure that everyone is fully aware of the implications of the program for their municipality.

The schedule for the workshops is as follows: yesterday they were held in Chatham and Ottawa; today they are being held in London and Smiths Falls; on December 1 in Brantford and Belleville; on December 10, Thunder Bay; December 11, Sault Ste. Marie; December 12, Etobicoke and Barrie; December 13, Cambridge and Peterborough; December 14, Sudbury and Owen Sound; December 11, North Bay; and on December 18, Timmins.

All the local members of the House living in the areas in which those meetings are being held will be or have been informed of those meetings and are welcome to attend.

[2:15]

During the overall environment of restraint, Mr. Speaker, the province has again demonstrated a strong financial commitment to the support of local governments. We are transferring a considerable sum of money, representing a sizeable increase over 1979, and we are delivering on our twin commitment on the equalization factor issue, that twin commitment being that no municipality or school board will receive less grant in 1980 as a result of the new equalization factors and we have taken steps to cushion municipalities against burdensome changes in apportionment.

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that with this information, and the information which many of my colleagues who also transfer funds to local governments will provide, the municipalities in Ontario will be able to move forward in the preparation of their estimates for 1980.

GONCOURT PRIZE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in its history the Goncourt prize, that is the highest award for French literature, has been presented to someone outside of France.

Antonine Maillet, a well-known Acadian writer, is the first non-French citizen to receive this honour. This, in fact, means that the Acadian language is a Canadian reality which now has international recognition. It is a great event, not only for Acadia but for the whole of Canada. Pélagie la Charette is the story of the return of Acadians from Louisiana to their homeland, a Canadian book by a Canadian author with a very special background and culture, an Acadian. We in Ontario are happy today to congratulate Antonine Maillet for the honour she has brought to Canada.

Maillet has many readers in this province and a great number of theatre goers in Toronto have had the pleasure of seeing her play, La Sagouine, performed in English by the talented Acadian actress Viola Leger.

Those who cannot read French can only hope for an early translation of her work so that they may share, along with those who have awarded her the prize, the pleasure of reading Pélagie la Charette.

Je félicite et remercie aujourd’hui l’écrivaine, la femme, l’acadienne, la canadienne qui, par son oeuvre, a su tailler au Canada une place importante dans la littérature contemporaine.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all the members of this Legislature will wish to join with me in extending to Antonine Maillet our congratulations for this outstanding achievement.

Mr. Cassidy: J’aimerais simplement me joindre au commentaire qui vient d’être fait par le ministre en félicitant Antonine Maillet pour l’honneur qu’elle a fait au Canada en gagnant le prix Goncourt à Paris et j’espère que le gouvernement va reconnaître les droits des Franco-Ontariens dans cette province dans le même esprit que Monsieur le Ministre vient de féliciter Madame Maillet pour son honneur.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members the presence of a very distinguished guest in the Speaker’s gallery in the person of the Honourable Tom Chambers, Minister of Housing and Public Works for the province of Alberta. Would you please welcome him?

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy: Has the minister received the same information as the Prime Minister of Canada that there may in fact be oil supply shortages experienced in Canada this winter? Could the minister tell us if Ontario is expected to be involved in the shortages and in what areas of the province there might be a shortfall of oil supplies?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer to that question is no, I have not received information similar to that received by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Prime Minister of Canada apparently does not know how severe the shortages might be, how long they will last or where the impact would be, which follows a good tradition in that area, does the province have any supplementary provincial contingency plan to deal with shortages of oil in areas of Ontario, and will the minister tell the House what it is?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the honourable member knows, there is emergency allocation legislation in place which is under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. If it is necessary, or deemed necessary, to recognize matters of shortage, there is a process under that particular allocation for that particular act to be put in place. It is my understanding from some news reports which I have read that the Prime Minister of Canada has indicated he will soon have in place the membership at the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, with which board lies the responsibility of starting the process under that legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Minister of Energy say why it is he has kept on telling this Legislature that the situation, as it regards heating oil supplies in Ontario this winter, will be tight but manageable, when we now have the Prime Minister of Canada making statements to the contrary, and when at the same time we also have the National Energy Board uttering very severe warnings about what the supply situation will be in this province this winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is fair to remind the honourable member who has just raised the question that the Minister of Energy has responded honestly to the questions directed to him concerning supply, based on the best information available to him at the time the questions were directed to him.

The honourable member goes on to point out some information with respect to the National Energy Board and I should point out to him, as I pointed out to the honourable member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) on Tuesday when she questioned me, that I have not yet officially received from the National Energy Board the results of their evaluation of the November 10 accumulation of data. The honourable member suggests she has shared with me some information that was provided to her last Friday that will be part of that release, but at the same time I pointed out to her I had a Telex from the secretary of the National Energy Board saying there were likely to be some changes to that information and that I would be receiving a media release with the update in so far as that information was concerned. I have now been advised I can expect to receive that next Tuesday.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that last night the federal government was talking about rationing and the minister has no set plans for anything here in Ontario, does he plan to have rationing in Ontario? Is he set up for that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The decision with respect to allocation of crude oil, the wholesale distribution with respect to petroleum products and what might happen retail, lies with the federal government under their legislation. All of these matters would be addressed if, in the opinion of those who have the responsibility, it is necessary to invoke that legislation.

Ms. Gigantes: Has the minister, since Tuesday when I provided him with the information I received on Friday, checked with the energy board to find out if these figures will be revised, or is there a simple delay at the energy board in releasing them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is my understanding there are some changes. I will be receiving the official documentation in connection with the November 10 accumulation of data, I was told, next Tuesday.

Mr. Peterson: Back in 1976, I believe, this government, with the support of this Legislature, gave itself the power to allocate and/or ration natural gas should that become necessary. The minister has that power and it is deemed an emergency at this time. What are his plans to participate in that type of a program for crude oil should that become necessary?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would hardly have to remind the honourable member that Ontario is a part of Canada; if there are some problems with respect to the distribution and/or the availability of crude oil and petroleum it should be done on a national basis. We have been consulted by the federal ministry with respect to the development of the program and the plans under the federal legislation; that is where the responsibility is, and should lie.

Mr. Breithaupt: Final supplementary: If the minister is correct in reminding us that Ontario is, in fact, a part of Canada, can he advise us also if there have been any consultations directly with his ministry or between him and the federal Minister of Energy, with respect to this immediate situation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I’ve understood the question, I have not talked to the federal minister since this announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister of Canada. If that is the question, the answer is no.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll allow one more supplementary, as we got out of sequence there. The member for Carleton East.

Ms. Gigantes: I’d like to ask the minister if he still feels the same sense of confidence in co-operation with the NEB these days.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s the National Energy Board.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would thank the member for Oshawa for spelling it out for me. I appreciate that.

I have no reason to question the information we are provided by the National Energy Board.

WINTARIO

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation with respect to the recent press comments concerning the possible financial difficulties in which the Wintario lottery program might find itself.

Would the minister explain, if Wintario is not facing bankruptcy, as his press release of December 5 says, how a senior policy adviser in the ministry has been quoted as saying that Wintario’s coffers could be empty by the end of the current fiscal year if funding were to continue at its present level? If that is the case, does the ministry plan to impose a freeze on non-capital funding, just as it did on capital funding a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I’m very pleased to be able to reply to that question, because I do wish to set straight a press story that appeared yesterday in some newspapers throughout Ontario.

I would like to assure this House that Wintario is not bankrupt. It is not even anywhere close to bankruptcy as was reported yesterday. In order to substantiate that observation, I could quote all kinds of statistics but for the purposes of brevity here, I will refer only to four key statistics.

We started this fiscal year with a balance of $59 million unspent in Wintario. Realistically, we are anticipating an income of $47 million. In other words, we will have a sum total of $106 million. This year we are planning to spend $67 million and we are planning to end the year with a balance of $39 million. That will be plenty to carry us for our non-capital program. No doubt next year our capital program will once again reopen.

There is absolutely no truth in the supposition that Wintario is on the brink of bankruptcy. I hope everyone in this House will convey that fact to the many people across this province who are now engaged in various stages of projects.

Perhaps I’ll wait for a supplementary, as we can engage in this quite a bit.

Mr. Breithaupt: If that same policy adviser who was quoted earlier had commented, as he did, that Wintario revenues have dropped more than 40 per cent since 1976 and that this is a pattern in lottery development which could have been predicted, then why has the ministry had to make a major review of the entire financing structure of the lottery if so many of these things could have been predicted?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I reported to this House many months ago, the reason we undertook a review of the capital program in the first instance was not because we were running out of funds. The reason we reviewed the capital program was to adjust our priorities, because we felt some of the needs had been met and others were still outstanding. It was not because we were trying to avoid bankruptcy, as has been suggested.

[2:30]

In terms of phasing out the Wintario program, I would remind members that in 1978-79 Wintario’s proceeds were $46 million; in 1979-80, namely this year, we are anticipating $47 million; and in 1980-81 we are anticipating not less but more; we are anticipating $50 million because of the weekly draws which will be selling 12 million tickets a month rather than nine million.

If some people over there want to interpret that as a nosedive, I don’t understand the word nosedive. There is a plateau that has been reached, and we are in very good shape.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize another honourable member for a supplementary, it just occurred to me that the initial question and its seven supplementaries, dealing with energy and directed to the Minister of Energy, took less than eight minutes. That is something all ministers might try to emulate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to my dear good friend Reuben.

Mr. Speaker: The questioners might also do likewise.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain, when he tries to justify --

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

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order, the member for Oakwood?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I always understood that at least in the supplementaries we do rotate.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognized the member for Ottawa East because he was the only person standing.

Mr. Grande: I protest.

Mr. Speaker: He was. The member for Ottawa East. It is the person who catches the eye of the Speaker.

Mr. Roy: If the minister does not understand a nosedive, despite having spent some time as Minister of Energy and knowing what happened there, how does he explain the loss of revenue from $76 million in 1976 to $47 million this year? What kind of genius is he to generate that kind of increase in sales? What is he doing to stimulate the sales of Wintario? Since the minister says Wintario is not going bankrupt, where is it going when it keeps spending more than it is taking in?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Ottawa East has taken a few minutes off from his busy law practice in Ottawa to come in here to raise a question. I am very pleased about that. I know he read last night’s Ottawa Citizen as well as I did.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I should point out while it is correct that way back in 1976 Wintario did generate a revenue of $76 million, lotteries, as anybody will attest who knows anything about the field, like all other kinds of products that have to be marketed, have their day and then decline and plateau off.

Wintario has been the most durable lottery in the world. It has maintained a solid, persistent level over the last three years, and as I indicated a moment ago we anticipate an increase with the introduction of the weekly draw.

What honourable members have also conveniently forgotten is that Wintario is not the only lottery; from time to time other lotteries are introduced. We have introduced Lottario, which is now generating some $20 million a year. It is like the Ford Motor Company: you don’t keep introducing the same model year after year; you keep making some changes and introducing new models; it is a success story.

I want to assure members who would like to bring out the crying towels, including the member for Ottawa East, that all is well in Wintario and we’re going to go to even greater heights.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, one of the comments the minister made in his reply to the original question was that the commitments the ministry has made were not running ahead of the money Wintario generates. If that is correct, why is it we hear from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, from the minister’s own people, that the statement he made is false?

If what the minister is saying is correct, would he right now lift the freeze he imposed on the capital grants last November?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I would reject the statement that somebody in my ministry has indicated my statement about commitments is false. I would like to have the member for Oakwood substantiate that; and when he does, I will be able to respond more specifically to his question.

On the second part of his question, as to when we are going to reactivate the capital program, I will reassure this House, as I have in the past, that when we have determined the right priorities and what the new criteria should be, we will once again start on our capital program.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy regarding what we have been learning or not learning about the oil supply situation in Ontario this winter. Does the situation not now justify the government of the province of Ontario pressing with every means at its disposal on the federal government to go ahead and to invoke the first stage of the emergency energy allocation bill, in order to ensure the people of this province will have an adequate supply, or at least a fair distribution of short supplies, of heating oil over the coming winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment as Minister of Energy, and in all my correspondence on the general subject of supply with the federal minister, I have urged on him two matters: First of all, the establishment of the membership of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board; and also to put in place the technical advisory committee, which brings together representatives of the industry who can provide some type of advisory support.

I would simply indicate I have made that request on a very persistent and regular basis; I leave it with the government of Canada to exercise their responsibilities in the general area of emergency allocations, once they deem it necessary so to do.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: We’re beginning to despair if any advice from the Conservative government of this province will ever have any impact on the Conservative government of Canada, based on the minister’s reply and other things we’ve had in the area of energy. Will the government now demand that the National Energy Board be ordered by the federal government to make available to the Legislature of this province and to the people of Ontario all the information with regard to oil supplies, and the outlook, in terms of forecasts of refinery production and of consumer demand, so that this Legislature as a whole, and the people of the province as a whole, can judge whether or not we’re in for the serious shortages which now appear to be imminent?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the spirit of the question of the honourable member, who reminds us that in order to have some credibility in this matter it is absolutely incumbent that the people of this province, and this country, have information upon which they can come to some conclusions and act accordingly. We would not want to be contributing in any way to panic buying or to creating the very problem about which we are expressing some concern.

Having said that, I have instructed my officials that when they meet next Wednesday, December 12, with officials of the National Energy Board they have that particular matter of information sharing on their agenda. At that meeting we are going to receive an update with respect to those figures about which I was replying to earlier questions from the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt).

Mr. J. Reed: Yesterday, in estimates, when we were discussing the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, the government indicated it would take seven days to set up that board. In a news report yesterday, there was apparently some confusion over the basic rules of the game. It was suggested that it would take 60 days to put the allocation board to work and to have its work become effective. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to clarify the function of the allocation board. How soon from the time of implementation can that allocation board function?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think what the member is making reference to was the general presentation as to what would flow once the International Energy Agency triggered the shortfall; that was on the assumption that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board would be in place.

As I recall the presentation yesterday, there would be a period of seven days before that board could invoke or take the necessary steps with respect to stage one, which was the allocation of crude oil supplies. That was related, as I think the member will recall, to the steaming time, or the time between the ports in Venezuela and this country. That’s how the seven-days period was developed.

There was another period of time following the actual allocation of crude oil supply when there would be some type of allocation at the wholesale level as between companies. Finally, there were the retail implications.

The first period of time was the seven days that would elapse between the declaration, or the recognition of the emergency, and the first allocation of crude oil supply.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Since, according to the minister, he has been urging the federal government by letter and request that they should set up the infrastructure so that emergency allocations could go ahead, I would like to ask him how many times he has written to the federal Minister of Energy and how many replies he has had.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that’s a reasonable question. The answer is I’ve written frequently. I have also spoken to him frequently over the telephone.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does he say, “Bob who?”

Hon. Mr. Welch: I always identify myself on the telephone; no mysterious calls. I have some indication from him, apparently confirmed by a press release yesterday from the Prime Minister, that the membership of that board will be announced some time next week.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Since the Prime Minister of Canada indicated yesterday that there would be potential for difficulties in that part of Canada east of the Borden line, which derives its petroleum resources offshore, has the Minister of Energy undertaken any particular study to ascertain the condition with respect to supply to that part of eastern Ontario, at or east of the Borden line?

Hon. Mr. Welch: At the meeting of the provincial Ministers of Energy in Calgary a couple of months ago, that was on the agenda. Indeed, as a followup of that meeting, at the staff level, we set up a task force to go into the whole question of methods of distribution and/or storage in the event of it being necessary to get Canadian oil into that part of the country.

The task force has had one meeting. Another one which was to be held early next week has been postponed until after the meeting with the National Energy Board. So consideration is being given by all the provinces to that particular question of distribution of our own oil in the eastern part of this country if it is deemed necessary.

RADIO SHACK

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Labour respecting the Radio Shack case and the decision that was announced yesterday by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Since the labour relations board has completely vindicated the union of every charge it laid against Radio Shack in that particular case, but since the labour relations board was unable to award a first contract because it lacked that power under the act, will the government now undertake to change the law so the labour relations board can order a first contract when workers face an employer as blatantly anti-union as Radio Shack?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, may I say first that beneath the introductory remarks I assume the member is also saying that the judicial process, as it exists today in our labour relations climate, allowed that sort of decision to be made, so there is a remedy for any evils, perceived or otherwise, in the industrial community.

Now that decision, as the member knows, may or may not be subject to appeal, and my role in that particular situation is to facilitate the parties in the negotiation of a contract, so I have no other comments on that particular decision.

As to the second part of the member’s question, which had to do with first-contract compulsory arbitration, that is a matter the government doesn’t have any immediate plans to deal with.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since justice delayed is justice denied, will the minister not give us more information about the question of first-contract arbitration?

It is now not just the trade unions, the Ontario Federation of Labour or the New Democratic Party, but the minister’s own labour relations board which is involved. In a very carefully considered decision, a landmark decision which is about the toughest award against a company in the history of labour relations in all of Canada, the labour relations board in effect says specifically that it has tried to elaborate the statute to give ongoing life and meaning to the Legislature’s intent. However, there comes a point where the legislation ends and the board can go no further. Is it the government’s intention to continue to hobble the Ontario Labour Relations Board in dealing with a case like this, where a company has so deliberately set out to violate the right of organized workers to have a contract in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, Mr. Speaker, I share the member’s praise for the independence, the quality and the confidence of that board in reaching independent decisions. I can only repeat that with regard to first contract arbitrations the government has no immediate plans.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Labour would agree that in 90 per cent of the cases at least the problem of the first contract is with union security and its denial by the companies or corporations involved. Would he not agree that once the OLRB has approved the vote of over 55 per cent of the people when they want to join a union, it should then be in legislation as part of their rights, and it should be secure legislation? Does he not agree we should have legislation that provides at least a minimum of union security by law?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in this House on many occasions, the issue of union security is one under consideration. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has indicated that as well. I can give no commitment as to the policy on it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the decision of the board, as good as it is, came almost a year after the intimidation; a year after the company was able to intimidate those employees we are getting a good decision, when it may very well be too late. Surely there should be some justice for workers in the province.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only say I feel that decision reiterates the fact there is justice for all parties in the industrial work places.

BABY DEATHS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of a two-year study conducted by the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the University Teaching Hospitals Association into baby deaths and children born with handicaps? Is he aware the study shows that of the 35,000 children born in Metro every year, many of the 450 deaths at birth in Metro could be saved and many of the severe handicaps about 140 children or so are born with could be avoided through better hospital facilities and better education? If so, is he prepared to provide the $537,500 requested in that study so a natal program could be undertaken in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is a perinatal program, not a natal program; and yes, I am aware of it. I have had several meetings this fall with representatives of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the University Teaching Hospitals Association.

The honourable member would not likely be aware I have had, for a number of years, a minister’s advisory committee on reproductive care and that they have only just recently produced a report in addition to the one which he mentioned, on the whole question of reproductive care in the province, not just in Metropolitan Toronto. That report has been put into very broad circulation among health-care providers -- doctors, hospital administrations and so forth -- asking for their comments by mid-February.

I would anticipate and hope that in the first quarter of 1980 we could make some definitive statements of policy with respect to these two documents. I am told there may even be a third; the obstetrics section of the Ontario Medical Association may themselves be working on a paper. Obviously, this is a subject of considerable interest to all of us.

I would also point out it notes in that paper great progress has been made in this province in the last 10 years, although it undoubtedly points out there is room for further improvement in the future.

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Isaacs: I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs arising from his statement today concerning municipal finance, a statement which is a repeat of information he has given to everybody else before he gave it to the House.

Why has the minister now announced such a complex system designed to modify the impact of the new equalization factors that were announced last July, when he could have announced a solution to the long-term problems he admits exist? When he announced today that new factors will again be published next July, is he telling us the only thing he will announce next July is new factors, or will he begin to deal with the very serious problems of property taxes, market-value assessment and grants to municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The announcement I made today was the first opportunity I had to indicate to the House what we had indicated to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee last week. I think it is fitting and proper it be done in the context of the introduction of a bill, an Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, which puts into effect modifications in the use of the new equalization factors, modifications that allow for their use for grant and apportionment purposes this year.

However, these modifications are not just being announced at this time and were not announced as a new policy last Friday to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee. These are the same modifications that were announced to this House during my estimates, I think on October 12. All these events follow logically. The House is now being asked to approve a plan which I think the municipalities and people in this province agree is a reasonable plan for the year 1980 for the use of the equalization factors.

In so far as next year is concerned, as I am sure my friend is aware, now that we have unfrozen the factors, the Assessment Act requires my colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) to publish new factors next July. When he publishes those new factors next July the policies and the programs will have been looked at by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), and others. It will be announced at the time the new factors are published in July how those factors will be used for grant and apportionment purposes for the year 1981 and beyond. It all fits together very clearly. I am sure my friend can understand how this process is working.

Mr. Isaacs: I think the minister is answering yes to my question, but I want to ask a supplementary. Does the minister’s announcement today mean that after deducting the modifying of the impact of the new equalization factors, and after deducting the significant funds for capital purposes, the increase in grants for municipal operating purposes for 1980 will only be of the order of seven per cent or less, instead of the nine or 10 per cent increase in costs faced by municipal government? That means property taxpayers across this province will have to pay an even greater percentage of total municipal operating costs from their property taxes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend should wait to see what happens when municipal budgets are struck. As I indicated in the close of my statement, given the fact we are all in a period of restraint around here, a significant increase in money is being transferred to the municipalities by this province. When they figure out their detailed budgets, I think the municipalities will find the property taxpayers of this province are being assisted to a significant degree.

SNOWMOBILE TRAILS

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is it true the Ministry of Natural Resources will be reducing its budget for snowmobile trail grooming and maintenance this year by 10 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, the figure for this year is $500,000, as it was last year. That is the whole trails program. About $100,000 goes into cross-country skiing and the remainder goes into snowmobiling trails. Since there has been no increase in the figure from the year before and there have been some increases in grooming costs and more applications, there is concern on the part of some of the associations that our share is not as high as it should be. On the other hand, I think it is also correct to say that more of the money is now required for maintenance and very little for capital equipment, since the capital equipment, I think, had been purchased in previous years.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Supplementary: Perhaps the minister is not aware that in our area, Simcoe county, approximately 70 miles is dealt with from the Orillia area and in consultation with the ministry staff an additional 20-mile link has been constructed from the Huronia district to the Haliburton district.

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware?

Mr. G. E. Smith: If the minister is aware of this, would he not agree that it would seem feasible that the total budget for the Huronia district -- which is now I believe $57,000, of which $13,000 goes to the Orillia snowmobile club -- should be increased?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Much as I would like to say yes, I think I have to say I will look into it.

UNION GAS RATE APPLICATION

Mr. Peterson: To Reuben Baetz’s successor, the Minister of Energy: I want to ask the minister about the recent application for a rate increase from Union Gas -- from his friend, his kissing cousin, Darcy McKeough from Chatham -- which is now before the Ontario Energy Board. I am not talking about the automatic one pegged to the price of oil; I am talking about the extra 42 cents per 1,000 cubic feet the company is asking for before the Ontario Energy Board.

Will the minister take it upon himself to do something -- and I don’t want the answer that it’s the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board and he can’t do anything -- and not allow this absolutely outrageous increase in the price of natural gas for the consumers of Ontario? What is he going to do when it is under his jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure the honourable member wouldn’t expect me to indicate that I would in any way interfere with a matter that presently stands before the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Peterson: I very much expect that the minister will do something to interfere, particularly in view of the fact that --

Mr. Speaker: Question, question.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister agree with the fact that the increase is going to come out of the skin of the consumer and the small businessman, with virtually nothing coming out of the large business consumers? Does he agree with the philosophy espoused by his friends at Union Gas that the small consumers should pay and subsidize big business in terms of gas prices?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it would be far more fitting if the honourable member, rather than grandstanding in the Ontario Legislature, would appear before the Ontario Energy Board and make that case there, if he really is sincere about this.

Interjections,

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a lot of gas around here of another variety.

TRAINING OF POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Lupusella: I have a question of the Solicitor General. As a result of the involvement of the two police officers in the Bruce Lorenz investigation, is the minister prepared to review all the manuals used at the Ontario Police College to determine whether or not the methods and the practices taught to police officers are efficient and are within the existing law?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lupusella: In the light of the fact that in the past few months the role of the police officers has been the cause of widespread public concern in relation to techniques they use to implement the law, and considering that the Ontario Police College is the source of the training process to which they are bound, is the minister prepared to form a task force to review the whole operation of the Ontario Police College in order to ensure that the police officers are well trained to face their challenging role in modern society?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in my view our police officers are very well trained to face the many very difficult challenges of modem society. Obviously, we continuously review the courses that are given at the Ontario Police College, because we are aware of the fact that these challenges grow, and also vary, from year to year and decade to decade.

As an illustration of that, I announced a week or 10 days ago the formation of a task force, headed by Dr. Reva Gerstein, to review police education in the province in so far as it relates to dealing with the many minority groups and cultural traditions that are such an important part of our province.

HYDRO URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It concerns the contract, the purchase and sales agreement, between Ontario Hydro and Denison Mines Limited for supply of uranium. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that the Premier (Mr. Davis) urged the select committee to rush through a contract with Denison for $7 billion worth of uranium at a world price of $40 to $50 a pound, when he knew there was plenty available at the minehead for $1 a pound, and when a committee of this House didn’t approve of it, the Premier signed the contract anyway. I ask the minister, in view of the serious financial mess this province is in now, will he tell this House why he will not take steps to renegotiate this scandalous contract, in the same way as Westinghouse did in the United States to the extent of many billions of dollars? If they can do it, why can’t the minister do it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s quite unfair of the honourable member to suggest that the Premier of this province rushed that contract through the select committee. I think the timetable will indicate that the select committee -- and indeed the chairman of that select committee might want to attest to this -- that the contract was sent to the select committee, but I don’t know that any timetable was imposed upon the committee for a detailed consideration of the contract. As far as I am concerned the time that was allocated was reasonable, and indeed the committee found some difficulty in coming to a unanimous decision with respect to the contract. The honourable member knows that. The government, following that public review, acted in what it felt was the public interest and indeed authorized the contract.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: We have a series of payments starting at $200 million a year. Will the minister tell the House why the Premier or the government gave Denison $368 million in front money when any other firm having a $7 billion contract would take that to the bank and do their own discount financing? I want to know how much of that $368 million the government has given them to date in front money.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that particular part of the question as notice and provide the member with the actual details. I don’t carry that detail with me, and I will be very glad to get that detail for him.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Where is the information that the minister promised us two weeks ago in his energy estimates concerning a review of the uranium contract?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am glad the honourable member has raised that. The honourable member raised that again yesterday in estimates committee, and I was reminded of the fact that the information had still not been provided. When I followed up I was told that it was in the finishing stages of preparation. I will see that it gets to the honourable member as soon as I have it.

Mr. J. Reed: Would the minister not agree, when he’s considering the problem, that the advice the government got on this matter was wrong, that the judgement used by the government was wrong; and at least in this case will he acknowledge that the opposition was right?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think, Mr. Speaker, the answer to all questions would be no.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister agree that if the Liberals hadn’t flip-flopped and had stuck to their original position of bringing Denison under public ownership, along with the NDP, we could have avoided any ripoff that is involved in the contract?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The present Minister of Energy always has a certain amount of respect for the consistency of the official opposition in flip-flopping.

SEATON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Dukszta: I have a question for the Minister of Housing regarding the development of the Pickering project, now called Seaton. How can the Minister of Housing justify the irrational development of Seaton, when it is clear the project will destroy 38,700 acres of prime agricultural land and undermine industrial and financial viability of both Metro Toronto and Whitby-Oshawa? In view of this very serious concern, will the minister tell us why his government continues to be committed to the development of this white elephant of Seaton? Will he, at the same time, tell us why the government refuses to scale down the development of the York-Durham sewer systems, which will only give further impetus to urban sprawl east of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member from the third party should raise the question again at this time since we went through it in estimates, which was only a matter of a week or two ago.

I indicated clearly at that time we were proceeding with Seaton and were now meeting with the Durham regional council in regard to the official plan, and indeed the subdivision agreements that will be necessary to get on with the development of Seaton, the new community, by the year 1982.

I indicated clearly there were some 6,800 acres involved; that some of them were allocated for residential development and others for industrial and commercial purposes; and that it was not our intention as a government to implement the entire project at one time, that it would be some time after the turn of the century before we will see Seaton as a complete community of roughly 50,000 to 70,000 people.

I indicated clearly we would be tapping into the big sewers we had allowed the region of Durham to construct under the Ontario Home Assistance Program, that we were going to try to use the capacity of that system into which the taxpayers of this province have put a great deal of money to open up lands in advance of need. One of the great cries we have heard from the opposition parties and a great number of other people is that government has not preinvested money to open up lands in advance of need and as a result we had some part and parcel in contributing to the high inflationary factor being experienced in the price of land.

Obviously we are going to hook into that sewer system. We hope Seaton will get under way if -- and I caption my remarks -- if and when the region of Durham makes the necessary official plan amendments and also approves the subdivision agreements to allow for that construction.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Is the minister telling us he disagrees with what the TTC land-use team had to say with regard to the government’s Go east, North Pickering and York-Durham policies? Let me quote to him from the land-use background study on transit in the 1980s: “Pursuit of existing regional and provincial policies is a waste of economic resources, a waste of tax dollars and the ways in which the policies are effected destroys the financial and economic viability of Metro Toronto.”

Secondly, is the minister aware that Mayor James Potticary, of Oshawa, has already said the further development in the Seaton area will destroy the industrial viability of the Oshawa-Whitby area and they do not need any further housing east of Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The mayor of Oshawa will have his opportunity to speak at the regional council when the plan comes up for adoption. I am not going to get into any argument with him here today. He has his opinion, he has expressed it on more than one occasion and I will allow his position to stand.

There will be other members of that regional council who, in their wisdom or otherwise, will either accept or reject the proposal of our ministry, through the Ontario Land Corporation, for the development of Seaton. As far as it relates to the city of Toronto, not everything in this province -- let’s get it very clear -- starts and stops with this metropolitan area of Toronto. There are other parts of this province that are going to continue to develop and have an opportunity for some new economic input.

Regardless of what the city of Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto thinks, the government’s policy has been to go east of Metro Toronto to create some new economic opportunities. As the member knows, the Ministry of Revenue and the liquor warehousing agency have been moved into that area to give some impetus to the Seaton program.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Roy: Ottawa East. What did I do to you that you should insult me?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You are here so seldom, even the Speaker forgets who you are.

Mr. Roy: What’s got you so annoyed?

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Mr. Roy: I have a question for the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the chief law officer of the crown. Is the minister going to make a statement at some time about his views and policy on the rule of law in this province?

One hears of police officers in a recent trial making statements about breaking the law or of the end justifying the means; and also of some crown attorneys testifying under oath they would apparently advise police officers it is okay to break the law in certain circumstances. Further, the apparent policy of his ministry is evidenced by a crown attorney who asked for a jail sentence in some circumstances involving a union leader breaking the law in an offence punishable by two years, while in the case of two police officers found guilty of breaking the law in an offence punishable by two years another crown attorney asked for an absolute discharge. Does the minister believe in a rule of law and is he going to correct that situation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ve made it clear on a number of occasions, both inside and outside the House, that no individual is above the law, a police officer or otherwise. Any police officer who breaks the law will be subject to prosecution just like any other citizen. I want to repeat that again.

I’m not sure the statements that form part of the question posed by the member for Ottawa East relate to an accurate interpretation of what was said. I’ve ordered a transcript of the relevant evidence which I expect to have sometime today. I will be reviewing the matter and making a further statement to the House on it.

For the purpose of my friend’s question at this time, I want to make it quite clear if any individual or crown attorney has suggested that police officers are above the law or can break the law -- and I’m not suggesting that was said -- then that is clearly wrong.

Mr. Roy: By way of supplementary, would the minister, as Solicitor General, be making the same statement if the press report of the views of senior police officers is accurate, namely, that they said there are circumstances which justify the police breaking the law?

Secondly, I’d like to ask the Attorney General, when we’re talking about the law being respected by the public and there being a perception that the law be evenly applied, how does he justify the differential in these circumstances, that is the approach taken by the crown in a case involving a senior labour official, while on the same day and at the same time, in a case involving guilt on the part of two police officers, the crown asked for an absolute discharge?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ve already indicated I will be reviewing the transcript and making a more complete statement, both as Attorney General and as Solicitor General, in relation to the matter. I’d also caution the member for Ottawa East to the effect that these cases are under appeal, both in relation to the sentence that was handed down this morning for the contempt of court and the matter relating to police officers.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has suggested these matters may be sub judice. Since he has taken the specific question and the supplementary as notice, perhaps you could wait until the honourable member reports back to the Legislature.

Mrs. Campbell: On a point of order, could I not place my question so it could be determined whether it was --

Mr. Speaker: So long as it does not offend the sub judice ride.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Was it the Solicitor General who instructed counsel in the Barrie case, and the Attorney General who instructed counsel in the injunction case? Could we know who instructed in each of those cases? I don’t think that offends any sub judice rule.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must admit up to about a moment or two ago I thought the caucus of the Liberal Party was in a very happy mood. I didn’t know whether it was because of the holiday season or the absence of their irascible leader. Be that as it may, I will attempt to answer the rather irascible question from the member for St. George.

Obviously, given the circumstances of the illegal strike, as the member for St. George knows I was excused from estimates yesterday morning to confer with counsel in relation to the matter that is before the Supreme Court. I was not involved in instructing counsel with respect to the Barrie matter.

BELL CANADA RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

The minister will be aware that last Thursday the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission ordered Bell Telephone to reduce its rates on two-party lines as a means of lowering costs to low-income earners, and he will recall that the CRTC made that order just two days after he refused in this House to make application for reduction in Bell rates and gave approval for the first steps by Bell to bring in a system which will further penalize the senior citizens, the shut-ins and low-income groups. Now Bell is proposing to meet with the CRTC to re-examine its proposal with respect to the special charges for local calls. Will the minister make representation to the commission that it is his view Bell should not proceed with that proposal?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few minutes to decipher what that was all about, because most of it I didn’t hear. I think I had best take that question as notice and read it in Hansard; then maybe I can understand it.

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education.

In view of the continuing deterioration in the work to rule problem in North York, and more particularly the involvement today of some students in this campaign, I think in part showing their anger and frustration, will the minister reconsider her earlier position, which I respected, not to take a role, and have a comment in the next few days about this situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be reiterated that I suggested in the House the other day I was not prepared to legislate in the Brant county situation at that time, nor am I at this point, because I do believe that is a mechanism for a cop-out on the part of both parties to the negotiations. The best solution to any of these problems is a negotiated settlement.

The situation at the present time is such that I have been informed that two proposals have been made and are being discussed today by the Education Relations Commission. I anticipate we will be hearing of their deliberations in the not too distant future.

REPORTS

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: ESTIMATES BRIEFING MATERIAL

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report:

Your committee has considered the timing of delivery to the critics of estimates briefing material. The committee is of the view that briefing material should be given to the critics as soon as it is ready, but no later than two weeks before the beginning of the ministry’s estimates.

Most problems relating to delivery of briefing material seem to be adequately resolved through the office of the government House leader. The committee, therefore, sees no need for an amendment to the standing order in this matter.

Your committee has also considered the practice of members making statements to the House concerning events or persons from their constituencies. The committee recommends that members wishing to make such a statement should inform Mr. Speaker beforehand, so that he may decide whether it is appropriate for a statement to be made.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ RESOLUTIONS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has reviewed the practice of amending private members’ resolutions.

Private members’ opportunities for presenting their views to the House for debate are very limited. In the committee’s view, it is undesirable for amendments to a private member’s resolution to shift the entire focus of the debate away from the original idea proposed by the mover of the resolution.

The committee, therefore, recommends that a new section be added to standing order 64, to read: No amendment may be made to a motion under this standing order.

Mr. Breaugh: As Mr. Speaker may recall, there has been some debate about this and practices of the House. We hope this would clarify the situation.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BILLS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee has considered the matter of referring private members’ public bills to committee, and recommends as follows:

That a new section be added to standing order 64, to read: Notwithstanding standing order 56(c), private members’ public bills given second reading shall stand referred to the committee of the whole House, unless referred to a standing or select committee by a majority of the House.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, this deals with a matter that has been of concern to some of the members about the purpose, the intent and the mechanism used to block the processing of private members’ bills.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, with certain amendments: Bill 24, an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed?

So ordered.

Ordered for third reading.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I think we would prefer that the bill go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: I put the question, and it carried.

Mr. S. Smith: I heard a “no.”

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear any “no.”

Mr. S. Smith: The member for Huron-Bruce said “no.”

Mr. Speaker: After it was carried.

Mr. Mattel: I don’t know what the haste is. If we’re talking about Bill 24, it was agreed at the House leaders’ meeting that that would be called Tuesday next.

I don’t know what kind of nonsense is going on over there. My friend the House leader knows that agreement was reached at noon today. I’m surprised we have to listen so intently to agreements which have been made.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on that point, I think it was agreed that Bill 24 would be called, either in its committee of the whole House stage, if that was the wish of the House, or for third reading, next Tuesday. I had assumed, as the report came in, that this House had decided the bill could proceed to third reading next Tuesday.

Mr. Mattel: The government House leader knows full well that it was to be announced tonight at six o’clock if that bill were going to go to committee of the whole House or be given third reading, and that would be called next Tuesday. The government can’t play that sort of game. I ask that it withdraw that effort to get it passed quickly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s exactly what I said. The bill would be called for committee of the whole House or be given third reading. I had assumed it was so when I heard Mr. Speaker put the question shall the bill proceed to third reading. I didn’t hear any other questions or any objections in this House.

I want to make it very clear that at all meetings it was always the position of our party that the bill had had full and thorough debate in committee. We were ready to go to third reading. However, if my friends wish it to go to committee of the whole House, it’s okay with me.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: This is a routine matter; those are routine questions that are put by the chair under every circumstance of this kind. If you’re going to make your little agreements behind the scenes without the knowledge of the chair, I want to tell you that you put the chair in a very invidious position. We’re just doing our job around here; unless we have unanimous consent to revert so that you can choose a different course of action the decision stands. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Mattel: I understand Mr. Speaker’s predicament; I sympathize with the position he’s in. What offends me, though, is the fact that the government House leader and representatives from the Liberal Party and our party met, as we usually do, on Thursday and drafted the order of business for next week. The order of business for Bill 24 was that it would be called next Tuesday afternoon. That’s why I wasn’t concerned about it. I would ask that the government House leader get his people to back off, as they say they’re not going to give unanimous consent, so we can get the Speaker out of the position that we have got him in, so that he can call for unanimous consent to go back and remove that bit of nonsense.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’d like to speak to the point of order. The other night in the House the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) had accepted an amendment from the NDP in regard to one of his bills which was voted down in the House. Then he got up and said it was intended we should pass it, and would we mind reverting by unanimous consent to do so.

We on this side went along in the spirit of co-operation to do what the majority of the House wanted. I would ask my friend across the way to accept this in the same spirit of co-operation and allow this bill to go to committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue at stake here is as you have put it. You have been called upon, and we must uphold your decisions and your guidance to this House.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Just don’t expect any further co-operation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Wait a minute; listen to the whole argument.

I want the Speaker’s ruling and the Speaker’s control of this House to be supported by all members of this House. The Speaker is called upon to put certain questions to this House at particular times. When the report from the chairman of the committee was made, the Speaker placed the question: Shall the bill be now read for a third time? I quite sympathize with Mr. Speaker. He cannot, and should not, be a party to the discussions we carry on in order to make this House work smoothly. Those discussions of course must be carried on, and we must have a degree of co-operation and confidence.

[3:30]

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, my recollection of those discussions is that we did agree we would call Bill 24 next Tuesday, and that it might be called for committee of the whole House or it might be given third reading. I recall very clearly the point of view being put forward by at least one of the other parties that perhaps there was no need for committee of the whole House and that any further debate on that bill could continue on third reading. My recollection of those meetings was that we would all go back and find out whether in fact it needed to go to committee of the whole House or if third reading would be all right.

Mr. Speaker, the bill will be called for third reading next Tuesday. I have to assume, as you have to assume when you put that question, that the question had been decided by the other parties and they had assumed that they were going to go. That is the only assumption I can go on.

Mr. Martel: Oh, come on.

Mr. Conway: Eric Winkler revisited.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

The motion for adoption before the House was the reporting of Bill 24 from a committee. I put the question; the motion was received and adopted. I then put the question: “Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?” There were no audible objections and so I declared the motion carried. Since then there has been some indication that some members would prefer to have it go to the committee of the whole House.

Now, is there unanimous consent to reconsider and have it sent to the committee of the whole House?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I do not hear unanimous consent. The bill will be ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just want to make it clear that I, as House leader, have no objection to it going to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Cassidy: But you can’t make agreements stick.

Mr. Bolan: We will have them here until the end of January.

Mr. MacDonald: Ayatollah.

Mr. Eaton: You wouldn’t even give the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) 10 minutes the other night.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Having put the position, which I thought was quite clear, I just want it clearly understood by all members of the House that the government has no objection to the bill going to committee of the whole House next Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: For the third time, do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I heard a no. It stands as ordered for third reading.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $5,884,000; university support program, $886,510,000; college and adult education support program, $446,682,000; student affairs program, $90,898,000; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

College and adult education support program, $8,023,400.

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $1,484,000; conventional energy program, $2,263,000; renewable energy program, $2,590,000; energy conservation program, $7,187,000; regulatory affairs program, $1,331,000; energy supply program, $550,000.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any order of the House, the standing resources development committee may meet tonight and that the House may meet to debate a matter in the resources policy field.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Renwick: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: My point of order is a question. In the event there is an emergency debate this afternoon under standing order 34, when would it be in order to move that the standing administration of justice committee not sit this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: Right now.

Mr. Renwick: I would therefore move that in the event there is an emergency debate this afternoon under rule 34 of this House, that the standing administration of justice committee do not sit this afternoon.

Mr. Breithaupt: In speaking to that, Mr. Speaker, could we inquire, since apparently this matter to be debated deals with energy matters, why it would be that the standing administration of justice committee could not get on with its separate work?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable, the government House leader is responsible for ordering the business of the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would submit this motion is out of order.

It is the responsibility of the government House leader to move the motions concerning the business of the House.

Mr. Renwick: Nonsense, it’s in order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would submit this was not agreed to, and that notwithstanding --

Interjections.

Mr. Mattel: Say that again?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think you get a little excited. We are getting towards the end of the session.

Mr. Mattel: With reason, near the end of the session or no.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I submit to members, if there is to be fault on the last little altercation it rests on all of us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is no motion before the House so therefore there can be no debate.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I did move.

Mr. Speaker: You don’t have the right to move it, with all due respect. You don’t have the right to make the motion. It may have had merit, but that is the responsibility of someone else.

Mr. Renwick: With all due respect --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, under what rule of the House do I not have the authority to make that motion?

Mr. Speaker: Because the ordering of the business of the House is the responsibility of the government House leader. Do you want to challenge it? Order.

Mr. Cassidy: They can’t do it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a different point of order to raise, regarding the same matter. I would ask your interpretation, then, of rule 34, which says if the House determines by its vote to set aside the normal business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent importance. What is setting aside the business of the House? Surely setting aside the business of the House is not only the Legislature but its committees as well.

Mr. Speaker: No; that logic is really convoluted.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 194, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

SARNIA PORTABLE EQUIPMENT RENTALS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Blundy moved first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act to revive Sarnia Portable Equipment Rentals Limited.

Motion agreed to.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 196, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify that the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine units of employees which are appropriate for collective bargaining purposes under the act.

The bill also authorizes the tribunal to make determinations affecting collective bargaining units established by the regulations when the act comes into force. Therefore, this bill will remove the present jurisdiction of the government and transfer it to the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal.

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the establishment of a conciliation board to mediate disputes between public hospitals and the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) concerning matters related to the government, management, operation or use of a hospital, or the payment of grants to a hospital. If the conciliation board is unable to affect agreement between the parties it shall report its recommendations to the minister and the public hospital that is a party to the dispute, and the conciliation board’s report shall then be made public.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 198, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, since being elected to this Legislative Assembly I have been called many things, including an MLA and MPP. The purpose of this bill is to have MPP recognized in the statute as the official designation for members of this Legislature. The bill will not only confirm the historical basis of this designation but it will also provide some consistency.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Ms. Gigantes moved that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the impending crisis in the availability of energy supplies, particularly home heating oil.

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order number 34, I did receive proper notice of intent to introduce this motion. I will listen to the reasons why the honourable member thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside. I will hear her for up to five minutes.

Ms. Gigantes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The matter I propose for discussion is a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration by this assembly. I am seeking to have the regular business of the House put aside so we can have an emergency debate concerning the shortage of heating oil supplies which will affect residents of Ontario this winter.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed this emergency yesterday when he stated in the federal parliament that figures available through the National Energy Board indicate there will be a heating oil shortage in eastern Canada over the next few months. A portion of these National Energy Board figures would normally have been released to the public last Friday, but the NEB called my office this morning to inform me that even this limited information would not be unveiled to the public until next Tuesday, a full 11 days later than expected. Supplies are no longer tight but manageable.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I went to the offices of the NEB in Ottawa and was given information about oil inventories and production to the end of October. Because of my longstanding efforts to secure the fullest possible public disclosure of the facts about supplies of oil to Ontario, I succeeded in having the NEB produce these figures for the east and west regions of Canada. Formerly, they had been made available to the public only on a Canada total basis. I should note, however, that only the big oil companies and high government officials are receiving the NEB monthly regional surveys of the five Canadian regions and the associated regional forecast of demand for oil products.

Mr. Speaker, I feel it’s the duty of this Legislature to seek and get every ounce of information which will enable us to let the public of Ontario know the full facts of the situation and enable us to provide informed proposals about the most appropriate measures the government of Ontario should be taking.

The current situation is one of apprehensive confusion, compounded by a Telex from which the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) quoted Tuesday, December 4, in this House. The minister received the Telex from the NEB on Tuesday morning and he referred to it in the following words:

“I have a Telex which I have just received before coming into the House which would indicate that I will have an update on that particular matter.

“I am told also that the media release will again stress the obvious need to curb consumption -- a point which the honourable member has shared during his question -- conservation of our resources, whatever the results of that particular survey are and will properly caution against alarm. That has always been my concern in responding to questions -- wanting to share information which the honourable members are entitled to have without creating the problem itself.”

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think any reasonable person can feel the slightest inhibition today about the fullest possible sharing of information concerning supplies of heating oil for Ontario residents. Not only should we know what is happening with supplies, we should also know the best estimates of demand. We should have a complete and clear picture of how the Ontario government intends to deal with the situation. In other words, exactly what measures it proposes in order to protect Ontario residents as far as humanly possible.

I hope the minister will agree that these reasons constitute sufficient grounds for permitting an emergency debate on this question. Thank you.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the news which the Prime Minister gave the country in terms of the impending oil shortage should have come as no surprise to people who have been following this matter closely. It did not come as any surprise to the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) who yesterday, before the Prime Minister’s announcement, made it very clear that in the view of this Liberal opposition, supplies were going to be short and an emergency was just around the corner. We endorse the statement by the member for Carleton East with regard to the need to have the fullest possible information available.

I am particularly concerned when I hear the Minister of Energy continually say all matters concerning allocation -- all emergency matters dealing with the shortage -- are in the federal realm. Yes, indeed, there is a bill in the federal realm and yes, indeed, there are federal measures to be taken, but I would hate to think that the province of Ontario would give up its own right to decide within the province certain priorities and certain measures which might have to be taken in the event of a shortfall in heating oil, an event which now seems inevitable.

It is interesting that over the last several years we have had a government in Ontario which has consistently refused to deal with the question of supply. They have been willing to stand in front of Mr. Lougheed’s hotel room, playing the violin and holding the tin cup and saying: “Remember, Mr. Lougheed, when we were young and vigorous, how we used to help you? Shouldn’t you be doing something for us now in our doddering old age?” and things of that kind. But we have heard nothing with regard to supply.

That is quite shocking when you consider that in this province we have wood from which methanol can be made; we have all kinds of brushland that could be used for that purpose. We have garbage -- for which we are seeking various sites on agricultural land -- which could be utilized for making methanol. We have various crops which could be used for the purpose. We have peat resources.

We have a province blessed with alternatives, in other words: substitutes for oil. But do we have a government that has been interested in any such substitution? Far from it. All they have asked for is to have some type of price break on oil, a reasonable enough request. But what about the plans to substitute for oil?

We have nuclear energy; we are told that might be a great substitute. Sure, there will be some people who will plug in an electric heater; there will be some, but we have far more than enough electricity to handle that. Yet all we have heard are more and more plans, in the billions, for more electrical generation capacity and nothing for the substitution of oil -- the product which we really have to worry about and for which we could substitute.

What about natural gas? I was in a small business in Hamilton today. They wanted to convert from oil to natural gas and were willing to buy a new furnace -- not just one of those burners that apparently Mr. McKeough has been unable to get a supply of. They were willing to buy a furnace -- and he has plenty of those -- and they were told:

“Don’t even leave us your name. We don’t want to hear about it until the end of January because we are swamped with people wanting to convert and we don’t even want to add you to the list.”

What has this government done to make sure we get a massive switching into natural gas? What has it done to make sure the people and the machines will be available to convert to natural gas, to make sure the communities of Ontario like Madoc and Bancroft -- the reasonable-sized communities -- would be served by natural gas?

We have been asking for this time and time again and we have had a government that sits on its hands basically, not understanding the problems of the late 1970s and the early 1980s, and uses the phoney solutions that may have worked in the 1940s and 1950s.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Hindsight is great.

Mr. J. Reed: We told you four years ago.

Mr. S. Smith: The member for Mississauga East says he doesn’t remember. Mr. Speaker, do you remember when in 1977 I said there should be a mandatory home-insulation program so we would stop wasting the precious oil resources to heat the air above our houses? The Premier said, “The government has no place in the attics of the nation.” It was very funny; very amusing indeed. He’s always very good with a quip of this kind and that’s just dandy. It may even have won him a few votes, but it has caused terrible problems in Ontario and those chickens are coming home to roost now.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is for setting aside the orders of the day, to use the wording, in order to discuss the impending crisis in the availability of energy supplies, particularly home heating oil.

I know all members of this Legislature want to approach a subject of this importance with a high degree of responsibility. Certainly, we on this side of the House would have no objection in a fairly detailed discussion with respect to this motion. However, I think it’s important to put on record two or three things with respect to the motion itself before final determination is made as to whether or not orders of the day be set aside for the balance of the day to engage in this debate.

We take the position, on the basis of information we are prepared to share, that there is no reason at this time to assume a crisis. We draw attention to the wording of the resolution which has that sweeping phrase, “energy supplies.” The honourable member who proposed that knows that includes petroleum products, natural gas, electricity and coal. To add to what I’ve already said, certainly we’ve had no indication there is this impending crisis with respect to all of our energy supplies. I think it’s important to put this on the record.

Surely the question we are invited to consider by virtue of this motion is one of a tight supply situation with respect to crude oil and petroleum products. We do need some understanding as to what the debate will be if it proceeds.

I want to say to the honourable member who proposed this motion and to those who have spoken in accordance with the rules in order that we might consider whether or not we would carry on for the balance of the afternoon that I want to assure the House that assuming no abnormalities in crude supply or refinery operations or weather conditions occur, I have been assured by the petroleum industry that heating oil supplies in Ontario will be adequate to meet the demand for this current heating season. I think it is important to recognize that.

Some reference has been made to a statement attributed to the Prime Minister of Canada. I would draw the honourable member’s attention to a statement made before the House of Commons natural resources committee today by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He emphasizes he has not seen the final report to which the honourable member makes reference.

I want to talk about that report in just a moment because I think it’s very important that she understand this. I have no reason to believe that she doesn’t honestly feel that she has a report of a situation in this country as of the end of October. We were advised an hour and a half ago the information she was given on Friday in Ottawa represented the situation as of the end of September. In fact, she does not have the information she alleges she has and to which she attaches her news release. Even the federal minister hasn’t seen that documentation.

May I now make a correction. The press release I indicated I would have by next Tuesday, to which would be attached some evaluation of the situation from the collection of data as of November 10, is to be made available tomorrow. It is information we obtained as part of the same telephone conversation -- when we couldn’t understand how the member for Carleton East got access to information which even the federal minister says before the House of Commons he hasn’t seen.

Because the federal minister must speak to the question of the so-called impending crisis, we would go back to what the federal minister says when he reports he hasn’t seen the final report. He went on to say while the supply/demand situation has tightened in recent weeks, there is no imminent shortage of heating oil. I think the people of Ontario are entitled to have that particular assurance.

[4:00]

As far as politics is concerned, it might be a very interesting exercise to have some doom and gloom predictions. But we don’t do the people of this province nor the people of Canada any service by sharing information on which there doesn’t seem to be any foundation.

I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the opportunity to expand on these remarks if it is your wish that the debate continue.

Mr. Speaker: The question for the chair to decide is whether or not the motion constitutes a matter of urgent public importance.

I have looked at all the criteria set out in standing order 34 and I rule the motion does meet the requirements of that standing order.

However, the question now before the House is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

AVAILABILITY OF ENERGY SUPPLIES

Ms. Gigantes: I think I will begin, in the light of the minister’s comments just a few minutes ago, with a story for you, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you how I came by these famous figures which the minister doesn’t believe to be of any importance and which he chooses to dismiss, assuring us once again that talk of heating oil shortages in Ontario is merely gloom and doom and that as far as anybody can tell, if imports are maintained, if refineries work perfectly and if all other things are equal in the eyes of God, we will have sufficient heating oil to heat the homes and businesses of Ontario this winter.

The story I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, begins in June of this year when I learned from a press report of the existence of the National Energy Board survey of supplies, inventories, production runs and forecasts of demand, gathered on a monthly basis by the National Energy Board. I learned of that survey and called the NEB, asking for the material from that survey. I was put off. I turned to the Ministry of Energy for assistance and they sent me material broken down on a regional basis, the kind of material I felt was important for legislators of this province -- and all provinces -- and the federal government to have available in order to discuss the energy situation in a reasonable manner.

Those figures were for May and I asked then to receive these figures on the regular monthly basis on which they are produced. The NEB gathers them from the oil companies under waiver of the Combines Investigation Act, I might point out. I was told no, these are federal figures and are gathered from the oil companies on the understanding that they will not be made public so competitors will not have this information about forecasts and supplies and so on. I sought in vain to obtain further information after the month of May.

I kept up my quest, continuing through the summer months and through the fall, calling home heating oil distributors around this province and asking them whether they knew if they would have assured sources of supply during the winter. They knew as little as I did and certainly as little as the Minister of Energy was willing to release.

After certain months of harassing, and indeed with some help from officials of the Ministry of Energy in my quest, I finally got officials of the National Energy Board to agree to release to me and to the public figures on a monthly basis broken down by two regions, eastern Canada and western Canada, not five regions and not with forecast demands for five regions.

This is inadequate information and I told the officials at the National Energy Board with whom I discussed the matter it was not the full accounting of information I wished to have and thought the public should have. But I obeyed the request of the director of the oil policy branch of the National Energy Board that I appear in person to receive this material. Evidently it is considered so important and so subject to misinterpretation by dolts like me -- stupid, uninformed public persons such as myself -- that I had to turn up in person to receive presumably not only the information but a little lecture on how it should be used.

However, when I arrived at the office of the director last Friday, at the time he told me to arrive, I happened by chance to overhear, and could not have avoided overhearing, a conversation going on in his inner office. He was discussing with a colleague how they were not able to put out last Friday the press release with the attached figures which they had expected and which they had told people they would be putting out.

Because I had overheard part of this conversation, I suspect the director felt under some obligation to give me something. I would have probably been exceedingly irritable had he not, and I guess he assumed that to be the cases.

He gave me figures showing “Review of year to end of October; feed stock receipts; refinery production; imports; exports; inter-regional transfers; pumpable stock” -- that means installations with finished and blendable products and the full line of oil products.

I was asked to keep these figures confidential because he said they were reviewing their press release and they would be putting it out this Monday past. I called on Monday and asked if the press release was ready. He said it might be Tuesday, but he expected it would be Monday. It was not ready for release on Monday. I called again on Tuesday, when I had been informed it would be released. On Tuesday they said it wasn’t ready to go, but they expected it would be on Thursday. On Wednesday, my office received a telephone call to say it would be Thursday p.m., presumably after the question period. Today, this morning, I had a call from the office of the director informing me the material would be released next Tuesday.

Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, this material was provided to the Minister of Energy. He may or may not have already had it when I gave it to him on Tuesday last. I did not raise the matter in the House because I felt under a strange kind of gentleman’s agreement, but I’m a person who is willing to stretch a gentleman’s agreement only so far.

We switched information. I gave him these figures; he gave me the Telex message to which I referred earlier. The Telex, in terms of information, is self-contradictory in nature. It does not jibe with the information I was given on the previous Friday by NEB officials. The minister knows very well what these figures are because I personally gave him a copy on Tuesday. It says, “Review of year to end of October.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Does it not say end of September?

Ms. Gigantes: Not end of September.

It indicates very clearly there is a downtrend in our stocks of heating oil compared to last year’s. In order to understand what that means for this province, we had to take into account the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday there would be heating oil shortages of some kind in the east, whatever the east is supposed to mean. We also have to try to judge whether a downturn in the inventories, such as we see, compared to last year at the same time indicates we are going to head into a fuel oil shortage.

What we are asking for is information. Is it too much to ask in 1979 that the Canadian public and the Ontario public get the fullest of information? Is it not time the Minister of Energy said at least to the provincial government we must be provided with full information and to the fullest extent possible? Is it not time this Minister of Energy undertook those conservation programs which would make sure we would meet the objective of dropping consumption?

We are going to have to conserve. We are going to have to become energy efficient in this province, as sure as sure. If it’s not this winter, it’s going to be next winter or the winter after that that we’ll run out of heating oil.

For years this minister and this government have done nothing to provide financial support, through government initiatives, for people in Ontario -- both residents in family situations and businesses -- who very much wish to undertake conservation programs. These people have demonstrated, through the Canadian Home Insulation Program, that even with a miserly $350 per family for insulation 114,000 families have undertaken home insulation over the last eight months -- from April until now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Where’s your evidence of the impending crisis? That is what the debate is about.

Ms. Gigantes: We know that Ontarians will pick up programs if they’re offered programs. We know they will help contribute to conservation and energy efficiency if they get some financial support. It’s time now for the system of loans, on an energy payback basis, that this government has refused to bring forward. I think it’s time that the Minister of Energy and the government of Ontario took this problem seriously.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Ms. Gigantes: If he wants to scream about hysteria he’s whistling in the wind. You ask the Prime Minister what he was talking about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West.

Mr. Ashe: When we have this kind of a motion --

Interjections.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, can you get a little order from the big fellow over there?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Durham West has the floor.

Mr. Ashe: I’m not surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the intent of what we’re discussing this afternoon coming from the party and coming from the member it does. They seem to thrive on creating scare tactics as being a means to an end.

We all know the rise and fall of the socialist philosophy in Canada We’ve been going through it. We’ve seen them try the scare tactics relating to the health-care system in Ontario -- world-renowned as being one of the best in the world. We now see them starting on some other course of action, namely energy.

When I read this notice, as has already been drawn to the attention of the honourable members by the Minister of Energy and Deputy Premier, the wording is just appalling -- “impending crisis.” There has never been any suggestion that a crisis, if and when it ever came, was around the corner, which this implies.

I will be very interested, too, when the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs reconvenes. When the member for Carleton East brings up the issue of the overabundance of our electrical energy, as do her colleagues from time to time, draw her attention to this item we’re debating today: the availability of energy supplies. It’s a very poor choice of words but I’m sure we’ll be drawing it to the member’s attention at the appropriate time.

It is amazing when these kinds of tactics are used for political gain, to try to bring the province to a crisis situation. We have lots of evidence of what has happened in other jurisdictions with a similar problem.

Go back and look at the situation in California not that many months ago. The record proves that a good part of their gasoline supply and demand problem was the fact that because of the crisis situation imposed upon them or suggested to them, everyone was trying to drive on the top part of his tank. Pretty well every day of the week that was the difference between being able to cover the supply and demand scenario. People weren’t driving traditionally. They drove on three quarters of their tank or seven eighths of their tank of gas; they drove on the top third and the top half. That is exactly what this particular situation is trying to imply.

[4:15]

We have also an indication, Mr. Speaker, of what a little knowledge is and how dangerous it is. I think it has been suggested to the member for Carleton East and she has been cautioned, not only by this government but also by the National Energy Board, that sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be damaging and dangerous. We have one more indication of that today.

For example, it was suggested in the press conference I had the pleasure to attend a little earlier on, that a million cubic centimetres of middle distillates probably was smuggled or slithered across the border. That is really the basis of our problem. If we had that million cubic centimetres here in Canada, we probably wouldn’t have a problem.

Mr. Cassidy: What are you talking about, cubic centimetres?

Mr. Ashe: Pardon me, it is not cubic centimetres; it is cubic metres. I apologize. At least I err on the right side.

Really, Mr. Speaker, the number is irrelevant. The situation is the million cubic metres in question was not intended as part of the Canadian supply. It never was and never will be. It is strictly a matter of a refiner on our eastern coast using its refinery capacity to, in effect, be a jobber on behalf of another country. They processed it and it went back out on its natural course. To draw to the attention of the press and those others present that this was possibly our problem I really find very, very difficult to accept.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Energy and this government have been putting forth their case regularly to the government of Canada as to our concerns and desire to be involved and up to date on the information available. Speakers following me will put that on the record in due course.

Mr. Haggerty: You are getting no pipeline to Ottawa; you had it when we had Trudeau.

Mr. Ashe: Is that right?

One of the other concerns I have about this suggestion of an impending crisis is that people do have a tendency, if they get overwrought and distraught, to hoard. I use the example of the problem in supply and demand, but beyond that -- and the member for Carleton East should be very concerned about this one -- there is safety. She has brought up very regularly concerns about safety vis-à-vis the nuclear industry and I have some concerns with this one.

We will put people into the situation where they feel they are going to have to go out and hoard. They won’t just hoard supplies of furnace oil; they will try to hoard supplies of gasoline. We know quite often inappropriate containers end up being used and this in itself is a safety hazard. I realize the argument of safety is only appropriate when it is in the case the members opposite are trying to make.

Another thing I find very difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, is as late or as early as yesterday, depending on how you perceive it, the honourable member --

Mr. S. Smith: What about the Prime Minister’s statement?

Mr. Ashe: Did the Prime Minister suggest we go out and hoard in any kind of container possible? He said there might be a shortage in eastern Canada. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should think about what she said yesterday and what she is saying today, in terms of our position as a responsible province, our position as a responsible government, in the supply/demand situation that may come about as a crisis at some point -- and I say may -- vis-à-vis our responsibilities in the western world.

Yesterday the honourable member would have us believe Ontario, let alone Canada, should put up a Berlin wall around us and not worry about the problems of our friends and neighbours. I would suggest that is really what is now on the other side of the issue here -- even in drawing attention to an incorrect figure of that one million cubic metres that didn’t slip unobtrusively south of the border. Again, it just depends what kind of an argument you want to make and in what direction you want to go.

I won’t get into any new issues. I just want to assure the House, as has already been indicated and I am sure will be indicated from this side many times as the afternoon goes on, we do not have an impending crisis. We do not have a shortage of energy supply.

We may have a shortage of some energy supplies. I know we in this House are all interested in faith and hope. With the faith and hope of the other two parties, I hope we don’t get down on our knees and beg for the crisis being looked for by the third party to help draw the attention of the public of Ontario and of Canada to their declining star.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the government is in the barrel and not the oil. To listen to the debate, there has been a note of crisis on the part of the NDP. There has been this persistent failure to acknowledge any kind of move toward the future on the part of the government. It is this kind of thing that is so typical in the way this government behaves on almost every issue of the day.

In this case, more urgently than any other, if we hang around and wait until we can define the word “crisis,” however that definition may evolve in the mind of the minister or whatever, then --

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is an emergency debate.

Mr. J. Reed: Of course it is an emergency debate, because there is a time line involved in ensuring supply for the people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Let’s talk about it.

Mr. J. Reed: That’s exactly what I am talking about.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Give us the evidence.

Mr. J. Reed: I have to point out to the minister, I am talking about today because today is a day more than yesterday and the day before tomorrow and if we wait until tomorrow whenever that thing arises, we are going to be in deep trouble.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Today is urgent. Let’s talk about today’s emergency.

Mr. J. Reed: The minister should know it.

Mr. S. Smith: What are you going to do, set up a royal commission like you did on the declining enrolment?

Mr. J. Reed: On October 11 this year the leader of the third party asked a question about the refusal of oil companies to bid on contracts for heating oil in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Name me a school that hasn’t got a contract today. Name me one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to be a considerable amount of repetition and interjection. I will agree it is an emergency debate under discussion here and I wish all members would give the member who has the floor the opportunity to speak.

Hon. Mr. Welch: A point of order: I think it is important for the public of this province to appreciate at this very moment in the Legislature of Ontario we are debating a resolution talking about the impending crisis.

Mr. Wildman: That’s not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is. It speaks to the question of relevancy in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is your point of order?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The impending crisis in the availability of energy supplies. No one is questioning the need for conservation. No one is questioning the need for alternative energy supplies. Let’s debate the impending crisis in the availability of energy supplies, particularly home heating oil, today. Facts. Let’s have them.

Mr. J. Reed: The advice from the Minister of Energy is well taken. I would like to proceed with the debate on the impending crisis.

The question, I suppose, is what constitutes a crisis in the mind of the Minister of Energy? Is the crisis when the first thousand people run out of heating oil for their homes and can’t get it? Is that it? Is that what constitutes a crisis in the mind of the minister? I would like a statement from the minister when he speaks to tell us what it is that constitutes the crisis.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You are supporting the motion.

Mr. J. Reed: Of course we are supporting the motion, because the crisis is impending if the Prime Minister’s statement is worth anything. The members over there are the ones who sold him to the people of Canada, for heaven’s sake. Now the Prime Minister has made a statement about heating oil shortages and now they are denying any impending crisis.

The first thing they might do is level with the people of Ontario and tell them exactly what is happening. They are big people; they are grown up and they know how to bite the bullet when the bullet has to be bitten. For pity’s sake, share the truth with them.

The member for Carleton East talked about the information from the National Energy Board. Certainly it is essential that that information be brought out before the public so the public can see it and understand the reality of it, but I have to tell the minister and the member for Carleton East that information was available and has been available on a continuing basis both from the Ministry of Energy itself and from all of the various people who are concerned with petroleum supplies in this province and it led this member to believe a long, long time ago that we were headed in this direction.

I’ll just go back to a couple of press releases. Here is one from October 31, 1979:

“New evidence comes in almost daily that oil companies are either reluctant to or refuse to bid on institutional oil contracts this next winter. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the companies cannot guarantee supply and therefore will not bid.” That was evidence. There was nothing extravagant about that claim. I am sure the minister had access to that same kind of information.

When the minister stood up on October 11 in this House and said the supply was “tight but manageable,” he also knew that every oil company that had talked to him, every person concerned with the distribution of petroleum who had talked to him -- if indeed he had been talking to them as regularly as I have -- had told him, “Yes, it’s tight but manageable, but if there is one breakdown in the delivery system we have a problem.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Maybe there will be a fire. All sorts of things could happen.

Mr. J. Reed: The minister should realize that had there been a fire last year or the year before or the year before that, it would not have brought about a supply shortage, but because the domestic supply is declining, because we have all of these other factors coming in, we do have an impending crisis. Let’s face it honestly. Let’s understand it and let’s share all of the information with the people of Ontario so they know exactly where they stand. For heaven’s sake, the government to this point has done nothing but try to feed phoney placebos to the people of Ontario. They tell us -- and twice this has happened in this House when I have asked questions -- “Oh, don’t be an alarmist. You don’t want to raise an alarm.” It’s fine to lead people over the cliff and say, “It’s all right. We don’t have to be concerned about this,” but the very least this ministry could do is share the real facts with the people.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Would you recognize it? You haven’t shared one since you started to speak in this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. Reed: I want the minister to look back at his own Ontario Energy Review, look at the graphs there and tell us there is an impending crisis. I want him to look at his own facts, to look at his own statistics and then tell us whether he thinks there is a crisis or whether there isn’t. Next February or March when we are dealing with some of these shortages, then he can stand up and tell us how correct he was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does anyone else wish to speak?

Mr. Laughren: I’m on my feet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: That hurts, Mr. Speaker, when you don’t know I’m on my feet.

We are indeed here, as the Minister of Energy interjected a couple of times, to debate the problem of an imminent shortage of supply --

[4:30]

Hon. Mr. Welch: An impending crisis.

Mr. Laughren: -- an impending crisis of a shortage of heating fuel and gasoline. But I would put to the minister that the ramifications go beyond an immediate shortage. It’s hard for me to believe that we in this country are debating the supply of gasoline and heating fuel to drive our cars and heat our homes. I find it hard to believe that we are even engaging in this kind of debate in this country because we are a people who cope with the cold climate by heating our homes with fuel oil and cope with the vast distances by driving our cars. I have a very, very strong sense and I don’t think the minister has, that we fuel our economy by depending on people to make major commitments to large capital investments in this country based on the assumption there’s going to be a supply of things like energy in the years to come.

The Minister of Energy has not seemed to come to grips with the psychological importance of fuel supply to the health of the economy of Ontario in the years to come. As an Ontarian and as a Canadian I have every right, as do all the people, to be very angry with the federal government, both the one now in Ottawa and the one that preceded it, because they have played the role of grovelling messenger acting as go-between for the people of Canada and the oil companies. We could hardly be blamed if, as a people, we resorted to that old practice of shooting the messenger who brings bad news.

The Canadian people have acquiesced too much, in my view, as the oil companies led us by the nose through phoney shortages, phoney surpluses and manipulated oil prices. That’s what they have done to us and Ontario, Canada’s largest oil- and gas-consuming province, has failed in so many ways that I believe history will look back on us and say we were victims who didn’t even put up a fight. That’s how history will judge us when they talk about energy in the 20th century.

This government has participated in a conspiracy of silence with the federal government over the availability of supply. That’s what it has done and that’s why we are having this debate this afternoon. The minister’s blind allegiance to the federal government is a testimony to his getting into the same kind of trap as the federal government; they are more concerned about their own petty fortunes than they are about the future of supplies of oil and gas in this country. This government sits by benignly and watches the federal government proceed to put the machinery in motion to dismantle the only safeguard we have against price and supply manipulations by the multinational oil companies. The minister sits there and watches it all happen.

This government is willing to sit there, make all the proper noises about protecting Ontario and, at the same time, do nothing to prevent the sale of Petrocan, absolutely nothing. Petrocan should be expanded but the government is sitting by and watching as it is about to be dismantled.

It’s fine to have all the rhetoric in place. That’s very nice. It makes this government heroes in the eyes of some Ontario citizens. But when it comes time to challenge the federal government about its programs, this government sits by and does absolutely nothing. I don’t believe I am a unique Canadian when I say my national integrity is as important to me as my pocketbook. That’s how I feel about the dismantling of Petrocan and what it means in the long term to the supply and pricing of oil and gas in this country.

I believe I’m a typical Canadian when I say I don’t want to be whipsawed between oil companies more interested in profits and a federal government more interested in revenues. That’s all. The provincial government has made all the right noises but has never insisted on anything that would protect the Ontario consumer. They have made the noises but acquiesced when the federal government indicated they were going to proceed anyway.

It’s simply outrageous for the Minister of Energy to sit there and say nothing in public while the Prime Minister talks about selling more oil and gas to the US and in the next breath talks about an impending shortage, the possibility of a supply shortage.

The minister should understand this is the industrial heartland of Canada. The spectre of shortages of home heating fuel or of oil and gas will exacerbate a problem already there, namely, the deindustrialization of the Ontario economy. That is something that will be exacerbated even by the psychology of the possibility of the shortage of supply in the years to come.

We in Ontario do not have to sit idly by as our auto industry, for example, goes into a tailspin -- not because Canadians are not buying automobiles but because we are producing large automobiles here and are unable to sell them in the American market while we import small automobiles produced in America. There is something wrong with that kind of system. How long is it going to be, even though the sale of big cars is up in Canada this year, before that comes home to roost here and Canadians stop buying the big cars and start buying smaller cars as the Americans have done?

This will mean two things. It will mean, first of all, we will have an even more difficult time producing the big cars here and we will import more of the small cars produced in the United States and elsewhere in the world. That’s unacceptable to us. The minister sits there and does absolutely nothing about it. I don’t believe we have to take that. We should not have to take that. And it is no small matter of concern.

I am glad the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) is scheduled to speak later. I hope he will talk about that. I hope he will say what it means to the Ontario economy to even have talk of shortages of home heating fuel and gasoline in this province. That is a very serious concern. I wonder if the Minister of Industry and Tourism really understands it, because there is a very direct relationship. We are talking about the health of the Ontario economy, not just in heating homes, but in keeping going the machinery that makes the whole thing go around.

The minister insists he is relying on the figures provided by Ottawa, by the National Energy Board. We know where they get their information. We have seen the information they have given us in the past. To say the least, in years gone by it has been unreliable. I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker. As long as the minister has only the National Energy Board and the major oil companies, foreign controlled and owned, then he has no alternative. That is a pretty sad commentary, isn’t it?

If the minister thinks without an expanded Petrocan he is ever going to have a handle on the proper statistics, he is dead wrong. That is one of the major reasons why Petrocan must be retained in the public sector and why it must be expanded, not dismantled. He doesn’t even seem to understand that.

He seems to think the National Energy Board will provide him the figures and he will just accept them, even given the fact of where the National Energy Board gets its figures.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I sat here and heard the Minister of Energy interject a couple of times when my colleague from Carleton East was speaking. He said a couple of times, “We are not here to talk about conservation; we are here to talk about an impending crisis.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: I said there was no argument. Speak to the resolution.

Mr. Laughren: That show is the kind of view the Minister of Energy has about the problem. He sees it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We agreed on that.

Mr. Laughren: No, no. The Minister of Energy said, and I roughly quote, there is no imminent danger of a shortage. He said in the current heating season -- he uses those phrases -- there is no imminent danger of a shortage, as though we were just witnessing a blip on the scope. Not to worry, says the Minister of Energy.

I want to tell him, if he says that, he compounds that attitude with no commitment to energy conservation in this province. When he combines those two, a failure to understand that it is a long-run problem and, secondly, no commitment to conservation, he really does exaggerate the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying there is a credibility gap now between the federal government and the Canadian people. And the Minister of Energy in Ontario is adding to that credibility gap.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada stated in the House of Commons, and I’m quoting, that “there may be,” and I underline “may be,” “limited shortages this winter in Canada’s home heating oil.”

I would like to advise the House of our perception of the situation and what steps Ontario has taken, and is taking, with respect to crude oil and petroleum product supplies.

Over the past 10 days or so I have met with almost all the chief executive officers of the major oil companies. In all cases I have been assured that, while supplies are tight and there is no room for complacency, Canada should be able to meet its demand for heating oil this winter.

The only caveats, which are usual -- and the member for Halton-Burlington, of course, makes reference to them -- are with respect to statements such as that would be conditional on there being no unusual circumstances that would alter the whole situation dealing with any breakdown of refinery operations, or problem with respect to crude oil production and other international situations to which he has made reference. I think it would be a normal list of caveats to add to a situation such as that.

Similarly, my staff have been keeping in day-to-day contact with the petroleum industry, with officials of the National Energy Board in Ottawa and with the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have no basis for believing, on this information, that the supply situation for fuel oil has deteriorated to the extent implied by the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday. Clearly, I’ve been assured that the supply of home heating oil in Ontario for this winter is adequate to meet normal demands.

While this is encouraging, I think all members would agree with me that should Atlantic Canada have home heating oil problems this winter, Ontario should do what it can to relieve the burden and share in the solution of that problem.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I believe it’s important at this time, as members have emphasized, to review with you some of the actions taken by the Ministry of Energy on the question of petroleum products supply since just the beginning of this year.

As has been pointed out, the ministry receives on a monthly basis documentation from the National Energy Board covering the crude oil and petroleum products supply and demand situation on a regional basis for all of Canada. The text is a composite of oil-industry data combined with an analysis by the board. Historically, this information has proven to be a reasonably reliable indicator of events.

During the first quarter of 1979 there was some concern expressed over the petroleum supply situation. Major factors at that time were the Iranian upset and some operational problems among the refiners in Eastern Canada. On May 10, my predecessor, the member for Leeds (Mr. Auld), advised this assembly that prospects for both motor gasoline and home heating oil were good this year. He further indicated that the ministry was monitoring supplies of heating oil for the 1979-80 heating season and that with reasonable care there should be no need for allocation or rationing.

During that time there were numerous occasions when various representatives of the ministry, including myself, contacted the federal government and the petroleum industry to seek clarification of developments and to request that certain actions be taken.

In the interests of time, may I quickly outline only a few of the more significant events? I feel this particular information should be on the record at this time.

On June 20, we requested assurance from the petroleum industry that everything possible was being done to ensure that home heating oil supplies would be adequate for the 1979-80 heating season. At that time we stressed the urgent need for formation of an industry-government committee similar to the technical advisory committee -- popularly referred to as TAC -- established at the time of the 1973-74 oil supply problem.

On July 20, a month later, recognizing conflicting information at that time -- which was available to the public -- we asked the NEB to clarify the data being obtained from the industry and again repeated the urgent need for TAC and assurance with regard to home heating oil supplies. On July 27, at the request of Ontario, a federal-provincial staff meeting was held with the NEB to review the latest information.

[4:45]

Ontario tabled the following requests at that meeting: Immediate formation of the technical advisory committee or its equivalent; second, revision of federal crude oil compensation programs -- very, very important, particularly at this time; immediate cessation of light and medium crude oil exports; establishment of regular meetings until the supply problem was relieved; and the establishment of a formal communication process to make the public aware of developments.

An assessment of the information at that time led to a conclusion that the supply situation could most accurately be described as tight, but manageable. On August 9 a formal request was made to the federal government to cease all further exports of light and medium crude oil to the United States, or at least have these exports continued on a swap arrangement with an equal volume of comparable quality crude oil being made available to eastern Canada.

On August 24 my ministry advised the National Energy Board it was not convinced of the accuracy of some of the data being provided by way of the board’s analysis and again stressed the need for industry-government contact through the technical advisory committee.

On August 29, I advised the federal minister of four main areas of concern we felt must be dealt with before Canada could be considered in a reasonable state of preparedness in the case of a supply emergency. These are the administration of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board programs; the distribution and availability of heating oils; motor gasoline rationing; and operational readiness in case of an emergency.

On October 3 federal-provincial officials again met with the National Energy Board to receive a revised outlook and to debate any further action that might be required. We continued, as a province, to express concern over the quality and accuracy of the information being provided and restated the request of July 27.

On October 18 we again expressed serious concern to the Honourable Ramon Hnatyshyn with regard to the potential for misunderstanding and undue concern by the public as a result of speculation and misinterpretation of information being made public. As an example I cited two red headlines in the Toronto Star of October 16. One in the two-star edition read, “Winter Outlook Bleak For Heating Oil Supplies.” It was followed by the four-star edition two hours later which read, “Oil Firms Confident There Is Enough Heating Oil.” So the need for reliable and current information for the public at large was again stressed. Little wonder the public would be somewhat confused with respect to this situation.

On October 23, at the urging of the Minister of Energy for Ontario, the Council of Provincial Energy Ministers at their meeting in Calgary unanimously agreed to an expression of concern and Telexed the federal minister outlining the need for reliable and public petroleum products supply-demand information, revision of the federal crude oil compensation program, and the immediate establishment of a group similar to the technical advisory committee. The council also established a task force to examine security of supply for petroleum products to eastern Canada.

On November 1 federal-provincial officials again met with the National Energy Board to discuss the most recent supply-demand information. It was agreed the supply situation could still be described as tight, but manageable. However, it was recognized the overall situation had not improved as was expected.

On November 5 Mr. Hnatyshyn was again advised of Ontario’s concern with regard to the availability of reliable public information. In addition, the urgent requirement for some evidence of the federal government’s preparedness in the event of an emergency was again stressed.

I report to this House that next Wednesday, December 12, my deputy minister and other senior staff will be meeting with federal officials to review the latest National Energy Board supply report for the period up to November 10, 1979, a copy of which I have not yet had as part of that media release and to which I made some reference in the preliminary remarks prior to the Speaker ruling on this debate.

In addition, I have asked my deputy to propose to the federal minister that the agenda for that meeting also include the need for the immediate establishment of a technical advisory committee composed of representatives of the petroleum industry, the federal government and the provinces, because only in this way do we believe we can get an accurate appreciation of the inventory picture and the supply outlook --

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable minister’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and, secondly, changes to the federal government’s oil compensation program.

I should be able to give to the House a fairly full report on the motor gasoline and fuel oil supply situation following next week’s meeting in Ottawa and I will be pleased to do that.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow one of the most astonishing speeches I have heard in the short time I have been in this House. At the same moment the Minister of Energy was telling us we had no choice but to have confidence in the National Energy Board data, at the same moment he was telling us that he could state confidently everything was tight but manageable, he was also expressing very serious concern about the quality of the National Energy Board’s data; he was expressing very serious doubt about whether we could depend on that data; he was expressing the opinion there might not be a sufficient state of readiness in the event of emergency. And he was doing all that privately, while this House was kept completely ignorant of the doubts which he and his ministry had about these particular pieces of information and the memos going back and forth between Toronto and Ottawa at the time.

If there was ever a clear example of the need for open government -- and, I would say, in all seriousness, a need for new government which would be genuinely open -- this has to be it.

What did he have against the members of the Legislature and the public, especially when he is quick to criticize the Toronto Star and others for giving what he considers faulty information? Why did he not take us into his confidence and tell us that he was concerned about the quality of data being provided by the National Energy Board? Why could he not tell us the doubts he harboured?

Furthermore, he tells us today the oil companies tell him one thing and the Prime Minister of Canada says another and he has no particular reason to believe the Prime Minister of Canada over the oil companies. That’s a very interesting statement concerning the credibility of the Prime Minister of Canada.

It makes one wonder how much research the minister’s leader did into the credibility of the present Premier when he went up and down Ontario inviting Ontarians to elect that man as Prime Minister. He did it without even knowing the energy policy of the man who is now Prime Minister of Canada. It makes one wonder why, after he did find out what the energy policy was and after he did find out how damaging it was to Ontario and after he did begin to harbour doubts about the federal policy concerning possible shortages, he still had the true blue Toryism in his veins to stand up at the same fund-raising dinner as the Prime Minister of Canada and introduce him as the person, presumably, still worthy of the support of Ontarians. He should go up and down this province to make sure that every federal Conservative elected from Ontario will be defeated next time, because Ontario still counts for something in Confederation.

Let’s come back to this. Here we have a situation where the minister does not believe the National Energy Board’s figures and yet continues to spout them here in the House as something about which we should all be confident. The secrecy of this government, which I have repeatedly pointed out, surely has reached some new record level in this regard.

Look at what’s happened since the election of Mr. Clark, Mr. Speaker. Petrocan was making arrangements with Mexico which might well have supplied the extra oil we needed. But instead of giving the proposal the government’s blessing, they had to spend all their time trying to convince the government they had a right to exist, trying to convince themselves and others of the possible impact of some of the hare-brained schemes put forward by the federal leader of the Conservative Party, the man we must unfortunately tolerate for a little while longer as Prime Minister of the country.

It’s all very well for the oil companies to tell us everything is tight but manageable; to calm down, everything is fine. But they’re out there on the stock market. There are reports of the oil companies buying oil on the stock market at prices as high as $50 a barrel.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Not for Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister says not for Canada. I hope the minister will walk into this House with proof tomorrow that it’s not for Canada, because that’s not what the reports indicate.

Let me make it clear, furthermore, the “tight but manageable” statement was made before the cutoff of supplies from Iran. Furthermore, the minister knows we’re in agreement with the United States whereby we have to make up certain shortfalls, if necessary, just as they would have to make it up should we have been boycotted in some way. He knows very well all these things have happened since the statement “tight, but manageable.” Now he says there’s no impending crisis today.

It’s like declining enrolment. Until the schools were empty they couldn’t bother to foresee that for every kid born and for every year that passed, the chances were the kid would get a year older. They couldn’t figure that out until the schools were empty. Then they set up a royal commission to tell us we had declining enrolment. They can’t play those games now. It won’t be good enough to set up a royal commission when people are without heating oil. They know they’ve done nothing. Their federal government has been stupid and they’ve been complacent.

Today there are greenhouse operators in Ontario not more than several feet from natural gas lines and they can’t get that natural gas because of the stupidity of the technical monopoly setup whereby you can’t gain access unless you’re in a particular territory or within a particular boundary. What has the government done to gain access to natural gas for the small communities? What have they done to make sure they wouldn’t be swamped with requests and they would have the manpower -- given the unemployment we have, heaven knows we have enough people -- and the furnaces and the burners to get people on to natural gas since we have enough of that, apparently? We have so much they’re going to export the cheapest natural gas and leave us with the expensive stuff down the road, I suspect.

What has the government done to substitute for oil, apart from standing around telling Hydro to put ads on television saying, “Isn’t it great we have electricity when we might not have oil?” We know electricity is only partially substitutable, and the minister should know that. That’s not going to solve our problem. What about a fuel-alcohol industry for Ontario? What about using the resources of this province properly?

Instead of that we’ve had a government fatigued from 36 years in office, now led by an incompetent federal leader and a complacent provincial leader, facing the technical and difficult problems of the 1980s with the shopworn attitudes of the 1950s and 1960s. Sure, the Premier and the Minister of Energy like to give the public the view that everything is fine, everything is under control, that there’s no need for any concern about any problem, it’s all allegedly under control. A steady hand at the wheel is the impression the Premier likes to give. I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it’s steady because rigor mortis has set in, and the ship is heading for icebergs.

When we should have been encouraging Petrocan to arrange a deal with Mexico and a sure supply, we were busy threatening Petrocan’s very existence. When we should have been producing fuel alcohol we were busy pooh-poohing those notions and putting billions more into electricity when we already had more than enough electricity for the foreseeable future, no matter if people plugged in their heaters, as the Globe and Mail is fond of saying.

We know perfectly well that when we should have been converting to natural gas, expanding natural gas lines into various communities and across various boundaries within our province, we were sitting on our hands paying extra for natural gas so more could be found in Alberta. Now we’re going to let Alberta export the natural gas found as a consequence for our paying for it when that money should be used to expand the natural gas access into every part of Ontario where even remotely feasible.

What we’re left with now, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where suddenly supply has become a matter of some interest to the minister. Suddenly he is ready to admit to us he has no confidence in the figures from the federal scene. Suddenly he is prepared to say, in the middle of a debate at five o’clock today, that his Prime Minister is not to be believed when his Prime Minister’s view is in conflict with the minister’s friends in the oil companies. Why didn’t he have that view of the Prime Minister when he sold him to the people of Ontario?

[5:00]

I will tell him this: The time is coming when the people of Ontario will send a message to Joe Clark as to how we like being treated this way, as to how we like having the Alberta tail wag the Canadian dog, as to how we like to be given information which is not accurate and up to date, as to how we like to be left at the mercy of these oil companies when we should have been in a position where we would have access to cheap natural gas. We will send a message to Joe Clark. The only message he will understand is not one that will be whispered in his ear by his friend the Premier at their next fund-raising dinner; it will be when Conservatives are defeated throughout the length and breadth of Ontario and replaced by Liberals and then he might start to listen to the province of Ontario.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are two absolutely incredible aspects to this debate. We have had the Minister of Energy get up in his place in this House and say that the Prime Minister of the country, his kissing cousin, Joe Clark, made a speech in the House in which he was wrong. He came to the wrong conclusion. Indeed, he came to the wrong conclusion, so our minister concludes, on the basis of information from sources he now confesses he has doubted all along the way.

What sort of posturing is this? How can the minister get up and say the Prime Minister is absolutely wrong and then quote sources about which he himself is doubtful? It is absolutely ludicrous. I thought this minister was one of the more astute, the more politically sophisticated, but he has a capacity to be suckered to an extent that I wouldn’t have believed of virtually any member in the cabinet. He now believes the information which he doubts and, on the basis of that, he gets up in his place in this House and says the Prime Minister is wrong. That is one incredible thing. The other one is even more incredible.

This minister doesn’t know what the situation is. That is the problem. He has constantly told us down through the months, and particularly down through the last few weeks, that on the best information he has been able to get from the oil companies, who have conned and misled the public when it served their purpose all down through the years, and on the basis of information from the National Energy Board, which -- there has been plenty of experience -- has been inadequate and often wrong, there is nothing to be worrying about. He browbeats his Prime Minister.

Is this Minister of Energy in effect saying that Joe Clark is an alarmist? After all his caution to us about being alarmist because we face the realities and the facts is he, in effect, saying that Joe Clark is an alarmist? The minister had better have a good night’s sleep. He is not informed. The fact is he doesn’t have the information. What makes it even more incredible is where he got any information he has. He got it from the member for Carleton East. She went over to him last Tuesday and asked for a copy of a Telex he had and the minister said, “I’ll give you this Telex if you give me the information you got from the NEB.”

Imagine the Minister of Energy from the province of Ontario, representing one-third of this nation, asking for basic information from the member for Carleton East, who went up there and dug it out. If she hadn’t dug it out, he wouldn’t have it even now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, the honourable member came across the floor to me and wanted to see the Telex I had, in which a reference was made to a media release to which would be attached NEB information as of the end of October. I told her I did not have that information. I disclosed to the House earlier today that the information which she thought was to the end of October was really to the end of September. It was not end of October information at all.

It is very unfair for the member for York South to suggest what he is suggesting. The honourable member did not have the information she said she had as referred to in the press release. No wonder I was surprised that she had information referred to in the press release. I would agree with the member for York South if that was how I would get the information. That was not the information that she had.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on that point: I can’t let it pass without asking the minister to read from the information which I gave him. What does it say at the top of that page?

Hon. Mr. Welch: “The National Energy Board has confirmed to me this afternoon that it gave Evelyn Gigantes September, not October, data.”

Ms. Gigantes: What does it say?

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. May I read to you here, “Review of year to end of October”? If the minister is getting up and telling us he has been informed the NEB is not only incapable of getting the information, but is incompetent and types wrongly, okay. But that is the information on which he is reporting to this House and saying there is no impending crisis. He can’t have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I haven’t got the end of October.

Mr. Renwick: Do you mean you are sitting there and you have nothing since the end of September to talk about?

Mr. Cassidy: And you are saying we are okay? That’s irresponsible.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The report is monthly and you know that.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is doubtful about what the NEB has done, but the minister has either been unwilling or unable to get the information he should have and which the people in this province are entitled to. He hasn’t been doing his job.

The member for Carleton East went up and got information which the minister should have had and wouldn’t have had if she hadn’t delivered it to him there. So don’t blame --

Hon. Mr. Welch: The October information is late.

Mr. MacDonald: I can understand why he is getting excited at this point. He is so totally vulnerable he is beginning to look a little bit silly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is absolute nonsense. I like objective and fair comment and a man of the member’s experience should know better than to be contributing this drivel to the debate.

Mr. MacDonald: What is objective and fair comment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member should know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister was rather cute a few moments ago. He is trying to discredit the information which the honourable member went up and got from the NEB with her own hands.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As a matter of fact --

Mr. MacDonald: Just listen for a moment.

Just listen to the argument. He is trying to discredit the information when he knows, because he has been told and he can’t deny that it isn’t totally correct, that the NEB has delayed releasing this information for 11 days. It has passed five deadlines and the information Joe Clark gave in the House yesterday to indicate there was an impending crisis was the basis of a release which was going to be given out today. They postponed it once again until next Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is that a fact?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it is a fact. That is a fact.

Ms. Gigantes: Now the minister tells us it will be out tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I guess when it arrives.

Mr. MacDonald: It is going to be next Tuesday now.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the situation is this. The National Energy Board doesn’t know exactly what the situation is. The minister has sat there and done nothing in terms of getting after the federal authority which he hopes --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I gave the member a whole list of things we have done.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister gave me a whole list but he has done nothing effective in terms of getting the facts. If the National Energy Board can’t get him the facts, then he shouldn’t be so reliant on his kissing cousins in the oil companies as well as on his kissing cousins politically. He shouldn’t accept the information. Let him establish his own agency if he can’t trust anybody else’s agency.

Let me deal specifically with the point on which the honourable minister has intervened a number of times. He says there is no impending crisis. He dismisses his Prime Minister in Ottawa. He says there is no impending crisis. Let’s speak to it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: He says, for example, that we have a surplus of electrical energy. True, we have. Everybody knows it. He says we have plenty of coal in this country. True. Alberta is totally underlaid with coal, but we have no cars to bring the coal down here. We have no program to mine it to meet our needs. So it isn’t here.

He says we have plenty of natural gas. True, but our pipelines are totally filled in meeting the requirements that are already commissioned. In other words, we may have plenty of electricity, we may have plenty of coal, we may have plenty of natural gas, but they can’t be transferred to take the place of oil except to a very minor degree. Therefore, we have an impending crisis because very close to 50 per cent of the energy requirements of Ontario, at present, are for oil. It can’t be replaced from these other sources which are not available.

That’s why there is a crisis, Mr. Speaker. Let the minister open his eyes, get his head out of the sand. If I may make another analogy, he should not lead the people of the province up to the cliff so they have to fall over the cliff into a crisis before they realize it exists. That is the minister’s problem and he himself has confessed the validity of our querying all of the information he doesn’t have but is willing to accept periodically and then when we don’t accept it, he cries that we are alarmists.

Mr. Speaker, we join Joe Clark as an alarmist to say to this minister and the people of this province and the people of this country that we are facing an impending crisis. We are facing an impending crisis and that’s why we needed this debate this afternoon to underline it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the speeches for the opposition parties haven’t changed in three years. That’s too much, even though the situation with respect to a variety of aspects of energy policy has continued to advance. I thought I might spend some time today reminding the House of the leadership role this province has taken over the years with respect to the development of a natural gas and oil pipeline system in the country, going back to the days of Mr. Frost.

I thought I might take the time of the House today to talk about the leadership role this government and this province has taken in the development in this country of a nuclear industry which I still firmly believe will be one of the strongest assets of this country in the next 25 to 50 years.

Mr. MacDonald: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy intervened a few moments ago and said the point of the debate on the resolution this afternoon is an impending crisis. I suggest all of this historical background is irrelevant and out of order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my honourable and long-serving colleague the member for York South, I think it is quite relevant inasmuch as this government has consistently adopted a leadership role in this country in the development of energy systems and resources from one end of the country to the other.

I thought I might take some time to talk about Syncrude and the role this province played in making sure the Syncrude project carried on and the technology was not put on the shelf for decades. I thought I might talk about the Sarnia-to-Montreal pipeline and the supportive role this province and this government took with that. But instead, I thought I would talk about a subject completely glossed over by the members opposite today. It is one which, when they talk about an impending crisis, when they talk about energy supplies of the future, is as important to the future of this country as any of the activities of my colleague the member for Lincoln with respect to ensuring supply and that has to do with the question of conservation.

I had the honour to occupy the chair of Minister of Energy for two years, When I was minister this was an area to which I devoted a great deal of attention and about which I was very proud. It discourages me no little bit, notwithstanding the collective efforts of both federal and provincial governments of both stripes, Liberal and Conservative -- and NDP in certain provinces -- to find out from officials of the Ministry of Energy that last year we returned to about a four per cent increase in the use of gasoline as opposed to around a two per cent figure the year before, which is of course a more desirable figure.

It is particularly discouraging not only in the light of all of the information transmitted to people but also in the light of the fact that more and more of the vehicles on the roads today are meeting the standards established by the previous federal government for 1980 and subsequently for 1985, I would remind members again, we completely supported and urged on them.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, it is even more discouraging when one looks at the increase in gasoline usage in the west, which I am now told is now running at something like eight or nine per cent. Clearly we have not yet broken our fascination with the motor car and perhaps even more will have to be done in terms of the revision of standards with respect to the production of automobiles.

I think it is worthwhile reminding ourselves though that we have made advances. I would point with pride to the building code changes which were given effect -- what is it now, about four years ago? -- when the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I am pleased to see that the present minister and his staff are discussing with the producing provinces, particularly Alberta, the prospect of financial incentives to the gas distributors to further expand their networks. I am pleased to hear, too, that the rate of conversion from oil to natural gas in the province is running at three times its historical rate, which is encouraging for the future.

I am pleased to be told that apparently the rate of utilization of fuel oil has been declining. This is due in part to just the simple matter of turning down the thermostat and due also in part to insulation which has been assisted in no small measure by the CHIP program established by the previous federal government -- and let’s give them their due.

I am also pleased to see how well the energy bus has been used in the province since it was first put on the road in 1974. It’s a program which has now been adopted right across the country and, to no one’s great surprise who had anything to do with it, we learn that countries such as Japan and other countries in the Middle East have now made application -- I guess that is the way to put it -- to adapt the energy bus to their countries. Why? Because of examples such as the one of McMaster University, and I think this is one that bears some examination.

In four years, from 1974 to 1977, they invested $152,000 at McMaster University in energy conservation. They have realized a return of $2.25 million on that investment; clearly an example for everyone to follow. They have decreased their use of electricity by 27.8 per cent, their use of steam by 49 per cent, their use of chilled water by 58 per cent -- and the list goes on. Apparently, the cumulative savings to the end of 1978 now total in excess of $3.65 million.

Today, sir, we are debating the security of energy supplies and to a much greater extent than has been acknowledged in this debate today. That is going to depend on individual actions, on individual initiatives, with the support of government, which has been the case over the last five years, actions which will emulate in spirit the commitment of McMaster University.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Energy has taken the view that if we are to be credible to the public -- both business and the municipalities -- we, too, must show by example what can be done. So to assist industries to identify the potential savings possible through careful energy management, the ministry, with the co-operation of Mohawk College, did develop the energy bus. That has clearly shown itself to be of great value to a great many industries,

It has been estimated that the typical municipality of 70,000 people would spend on average about $1 million a year, or about 10 per cent of the municipality’s property tax revenue. The estimates of the Ministry of Energy officials -- and I think these are reliable estimates -- are that fully $100,000, or 10 per cent of that million-dollar-a-year expenditure on energy, could be saved.

It’s interesting to note that last year the ministry initiated a program in Toronto which they called the downtown energy conservation program. Twenty nine corporations which own, occupy or manage 45 buildings in the downtown area of Toronto were brought together by the ministry and Ontario Hydro to see what could be done to reduce their energy consumption. The first results, Mr. Speaker, are nothing less than spectacular. Seventeen companies, representing 26 buildings, have shown an annual drop in energy consumption of approximately 22 per cent. That 22 per cent, the honourable member will be interested to know, represents a yearly saving of $2.5 million, enough to heat 7,500 homes for a year.

It interests me even more to find out that in 1978 the peak load demand on Toronto Hydro actually dropped for the first time in 67 years, barring the 25-cycle changeover which took place in the late 1940s and 1950s and a change in the boundaries of the service area.

With all of the concern being expressed on all sides, I think it behooves us to remind ourselves and to remind our constituents in all of our actions of what we, ourselves, can do to help ourselves. That, as much as anything this government has done and will do with respect to energy supplies and distribution systems, will be a major factor in the security of the province in the future.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and a contribution to a debate which I perceive to be the most important part of the present energy debate. The security of supply is the matter about which my constituents in rural, small-town, eastern Ontario are most concerned.

I want to speak today as a member from a far-eastern Ontario constituency, where we do have a rather special situation vis-à-vis those of the rest of the province who reside in the central and southwestern part of the province. In communities like Pembroke and Deep River and Cobden and Renfrew we are much more dependent upon Montreal refineries and, as a result of that, offshore petroleum resources.

I have this afternoon contacted a number of the fuel oil distributors in my constituency of Renfrew North and I have been told by some, not all, that yes, there is a clear indication from some of their suppliers in Montreal that it will be a very difficult winter and they have been encouraged not to take on very much additional new contract work and very little guarantee can be offered to them, given the precarious situation of the Iranian and Venezuelan supply line. That is extremely important.

I rose this afternoon on a supplementary question to inquire of the Minister of Energy as to exactly what he had done to initiate special measures to protect the far-eastern part of this province against the special jeopardy in which it finds itself. He mumbled about a task force that had met once to consider possible alternatives, should those eastern supply lines be cut.

That is not good enough. I want to hear from this Minister of Energy, if not today, certainly tomorrow or at the very earliest opportunity, what special initiatives, what special contingencies he has in place to make petroleum products available to those people whose dependence on the Montreal refinery, and therefore the offshore resources, is much more jeopardized than others.

I want to say something else about rural eastern Ontario, where we do not have the kinds of options for substitution others in this province have. My friend from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) brought to my attention a matter I think is particularly germane to this afternoon. We are told by the minister, his deputy and the Premier and lots of others, “We have all this marvellous electricity which is certainly available.”

As my friend from Ottawa East reminded me, this summer we had an indication from the Porter commission that the national capital region in particular, but the eastern Ontario region in general, is in a very serious situation with respect to the next few years in so far as transmission of the available electrical capacity is concerned. We have it, but for many in eastern Ontario the immediate future with respect to brownouts and interrupted supply is very dicey. I must say it is typical and not altogether surprising that the far-eastern region finds itself again so disadvantaged by a government which continues to express much less than the kind of interest to which I believe the people of that region are entitled.

Mr. Speaker, in communities like Pembroke we have the option of a natural gas alternative. I am one of those currently considering substituting my petroleum source for home heating with natural gas. I have seen nothing from this government about the kinds of options, the sort of decision-making process I should undertake in that connection.

As a member of the energy committee these past few months, if that’s the condition I find myself in, what must be the attitude and position of the --

Ms. Gigantes: The hydro committee.

Mr. Conway: The hydro committee, my friend from Carleton East reminds me. How must the other consumers in eastern Ontario, who are considering these kinds of options, find themselves?

My leader is absolutely correct when he suggests there has been a striking want of leadership from this government on this vital matter of public policy. Yes, we have heard and applaud the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), when he says 800,000 rural hydro consumers are being ripped off by the provincial utility. I agree with my friend from North Port. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Who better than he to know of the condition of the provincial utility?

It is said by the honourable members opposite, “We have this marvellous excess capacity in the provincial utility and why not tell your good folks in places like Renfrew North to convert?” To begin with, Hydro has told us we had better go easy for the next few years in the eastern region because our present transmission facilities are stretched to their absolute limit and brownouts may be the order of the day in the next few years.

I bring a journal that I know honourable members read religiously, the Cobden Sun, which has on the front page of its November 21 edition a story which is important to put on the public record here. The municipal utility in the little rural village of Beachburg is imposing a 20 per cent increase in the hydro rates. That, they are told by Hydro, is only just the beginning.

I want to ask the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and others across the way, what specific kind of incentives are they prepared to offer people in eastern Ontario faced with few or no alternatives? In so far as hydro is concerned they either are not guaranteed a security of supply because of the wretched planning on the transmission policy, or they’re faced with these kinds of incredible prohibitive increases which make the hydro resource very, very unattractive.

What has the minister done about making natural gas more available? What has he done about making the forest industries of that part of the province more attractive in terms of fuel utilization to people like my parents, who are a good example, living in the small rural community of Barry’s Bay, the homestead of my good friend from Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski)? They are forced with this present situation to consider their options, believing the right honourable member for Yellowhead, when he says yesterday that, “Yes, eastern Canadians might very well anticipate a shortage over the course of the next few months, at least on a partial basis.”

There they sit in rural eastern Ontario with no natural gas any closer than Pembroke, 55 miles away and with really only two options: return to the earlier days of wood burning or go to a hydro-electric alternative. But this government has done nothing about undertaking a measure of education with respect to that population who are very, very concerned about the condition in which they find themselves.

The member for Brock (Mr. Welch) stands here today and talks about what this government has done. I, like the member for York South, had the pleasure of being at a press conference he called two months ago to announce the second part of the Davis-Welch Ontario energy self-sufficiency program. I watched that distinguished 16-year veteran push forward this trumped-up document of $30 billion of public expenditure that was going to solve the problems and heard him announce that in terms of this government’s commitment, there was next to nothing.

Today we have in the Toronto Star an announcement from Jim Hawkes, MP for Calgary West. “Next week’s federal budget will contain subsidies to help Canadians switch to alternative sources.” That is more than I’ve heard from the member for Brock. It’s a heck of a lot more than I’ve heard from my friend from Brampton.

[5:30]

I just remind honourable members of a film made about 15 months ago by the NFB on the honourable Premier. Do you remember that session when they were preparing the 1978 budget, Mr. Speaker? I remember it well because I, along with the members for Brock and Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) had to review the thing. I can well remember the Premier sitting back in his chair when the question of energy initiatives was being talked about and who very casually, very laughingly, said that his mother or his wife had suggested it might not be a bad idea to introduce a little tax incentive for storm doors and windows. Ha, ha, ha.

That was in 1978. That’s the complacency, that’s the abdication of responsibility which honourable members opposite in the treasury bench have shown. This is the position in which they have placed this province as a result of their inaction.

I say in conclusion that I found it very interesting to hear the member for Brock and the Minister of Energy say this afternoon when he worked out the chronology from August through October and November that, yes, he had doubts on various dates. On August 24 he wasn’t convinced, as he said, by the National Energy Board data; on October 3, he left the impression he had expressed a grave concern in a memo to the NEB. Finally he stood up in this House as late as October 12 to tell honourable members, “I am satisfied on the basis of the information I have that we are in a satisfactory position.”

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time is up. Do we have another speaker?

Mr. Conway: I think there is a contradiction and an indictment in all of that from which the minister is not easily going to escape.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it should be very clear that it is the responsibility of this government and the Ministry of Energy to intercede on behalf of the people in Ontario who need home heating oil. They can’t just pass the buck, saying it’s up to the multinational oil companies or the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or anybody else. It’s the responsibility of this government to have accurate information and it doesn’t have it, to convey that information to the public and it has not done that, to put programs of conservation into place across this province to make sure we use less energy and use it more efficiently and it has not done that, and to intercede to get the establishment of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board’s first phase of allocation if we need it and it hasn’t done that.

The minister got up and had the barefaced effrontery to tell this House he didn’t see why this debate was required at all. If he felt that way, he should have opposed the debate and had his party oppose the debate. Obviously they are on thin ice, because they agreed to the debate in the end.

If you just read tonight’s paper: Imperial Oil Limited is “plagued with worldwide supply troubles stemming from the Iranian situation” and the Venezuelan situation and Imperial Oil is worried here in Canada; Gulf Canada is waging “a constant battle,” it tells the Toronto Star, in order to maintain supplies for the Montreal East refinery and the refinery in Point Tupper, Nova Scotia; Shell Canada expects to face major shortages in 1981 at its Montreal refinery because its contracts with Venezuela are running out. In addition to what the Prime Minister of Canada had to say in Parliament yesterday, there are so many signs of impending crisis that I find it unbelievable that the Minister of Energy of this province can blinker himself and say there is no problem.

The member for Carleton East, our Energy critic -- and give her credit -- has told of the difficulties she faced in getting information from the National Energy Board. If a member of this Legislature and one as determined as that member, a person who happens to divide her time between Ottawa and Toronto, has that difficulty getting information, and if it arrives eventually with a mistyped heading and is inaccurate information to boot, then what on earth are the heating consumers of this province to do? What kind of information are they to get? What about small businesses or anybody else?

The ministry doesn’t have that information. It relies on the federal government and the National Energy Board and I say that’s irresponsible. Perhaps the ministry has the information and won’t give it out to the public of this province; that’s irresponsible too. In fact, the minister’s activity from beginning to end has been totally irresponsible, because he and the government have been trying to pretend there is no problem and that pretence has gone on right up until today.

Back in July I held a press conference and said that if we got though this winter it would be a matter of luck, the way we were going. Nothing has changed since then. In the Legislature we have repeatedly asked the minister what is going on and these are the answers we have had.

On October 11, the minister said the situation would be “tight, but manageable.” This in the face of school boards not getting their regular suppliers to bid any more.

On October 12, the minister said, “We are in a satisfactory position as far as the current season is concerned.”

On October 15, the minister said, “The situation in usual circumstances will be manageable.”

On November 5, in reply to another question, the minister said, “Certainly I have seen nothing nor have I received any indication from any other source that would change the assessment which I have shared with the House earlier.”

On November 8, the minister said, quite simply: “There is sufficient oil for the winter of 1979-80 available from Canadian supplies, foreign imports and some drawdown of inventory. The prospect for the winter remains tight, but manageable.”

On November 30, the minister spoke of his meetings with the oil companies, and said, “They certainly plan to honour all contracts which they have currently with individuals and with companies.”

The day before yesterday, in the Legislature, in response to the member for Carleton East, the minister said: “We have responded on the basis of the information which has been made available to us ... I have always wanted to share information.” He indicated once again everything was going to be all right.

In that case, why can’t this minister explain to us the fact that the net exports of middle distillates have gone up by one million cubic metres in the first 10 months of this year, by five million barrels, by about 180 million gallons? Surely if that oil had been kept in this country, as the minister now says he was telling the government, we wouldn’t have shortages in our stock creating an impending crisis in heating oil this very winter.

Why is it a member, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, can get up and say, “That’s just an offset deal,” when in fact our foreign feedstock imports into this country are also down by 2.3 million cubic metres over the course of the first nine or 10 months of this year?

Why did it take this particular debate to smoke out the Minister of Energy, who suddenly reveals himself as a defender of the consumers of Ontario and itemizes for us a long list of representations made to the federal government over the period of the last six to eight months?

I don’t believe it, Mr. Speaker. What I heard the Minister of Energy say was the parliamentary assistant opposed the energy allocation bill and said it should not be enacted, it was intolerable legislation. I didn’t hear this ministry saying publicly they wanted that technical committee to be created I didn’t hear this ministry saying publicly they wanted that information to be available to the public. I heard that ministry covering up, while the National Energy Board and the federal government were busily cooking the books to keep the real picture away from the people of this province and the people of this country. That’s what was happening.

We’re not getting explanations. The minister has gone to the length of disowning the Prime Minister of Canada, a man of his own party, and saying Joe Clark doesn’t know what he is talking about. We have evidence that has happened in the past. But this time around, the minister says as well, he does not have confidence in the information he is getting from the National Energy Board. What is the real picture? We don’t know.

In the absence of knowledge and bearing in mind it will take approximately 60 days for the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to actually put its plans into effect in order to ensure an effective, fair and equitable program of allocation is in place, it seems to me there may well be an almost indisputable case for the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to move into its first stage and start allocating oil to the refineries.

I would point out to the Minister of Energy that in eastern Canada over the first 10 months of this year the demand for oil and oil products has gone up by only 1.6 per cent, whereas in western Canada it has gone up over the same period of time by 7.9 per cent. The people in eastern Canada, including Ontario, are being responsible in their use of energy and in its conservation, but I suspect that’s not the case in western Canada.

I don’t want to see a situation where people in this province or in the Atlantic provinces are made to suffer and freeze over the course of this winter because of irresponsible use of petroleum resources in western Canada. The way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have an equitable allocation so petroleum resources are shared equitably, and if there are shortages the hardships are shared equitably as well. This minister is not prepared to say that; he simply says the assurances are fine and there is no problem.

What’s happening now in Ottawa is that Mr. Hnatyshyn and the government realize the Prime Minister boobed. The program of public relations flimflammery to persuade the public there is no problem goes on. Mr. Hnatyshyn now says he hasn’t seen any particular problems, even though he admits the supply/demand situation has tightened in recent weeks. They are distancing themselves from the Prime Minister of Canada up in Ottawa, and the minister responsible to energy consumers in this province has also been joining in that particular program.

Let me read what the telegram said: “A media release will again stress obvious need to curb consumption and will properly caution against alarm.” For God’s sake, Mr. Speaker, if we’re going to have a problem in this area perhaps it’s time for some alarm; perhaps it’s time for some action; perhaps it’s time for this government to say, not privately behind closed doors but publicly, that the allocation board has to go into operation, that we have to have an assurance that these supplies will be dealt with equitably. Perhaps it’s time as well for this government to stop making public relations pronouncements about the need for conservation --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: -- pronouncements which are not backed by action.

We’ve talked about action. We’ve talked about spending $200 million from Hydro’s budget for conservation rather than the $16 million which is all this government is prepared to spend. We want to see action from this government. We want to see public pressure in Ottawa, and above all we want the accurate information so the people of this province --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and the Legislature can judge what’s going on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we’re dealing in an area today which puts a very special onus on legislators, people in the private sector, people in the academic world, economists -- everyone -- to be properly concerned about the energy crisis and to express their concern, but to be realistic, honest, straightforward, direct and objective about the crisis.

Mr. Martel: Those are all Joe Clark’s qualities.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite right. We’re here today simply because of some remarks made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Canada which caused the energy critic for the NDP to decide suddenly, today, it was necessary to have an emergency debate.

Mr. Martel: That’s what the Prime Minister said last night. Don’t turn it around.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must say, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party went overtime on his remarks and now his party is interjecting at every turn.

Mr. McClellan: Poor baby.

Mr. Martel: Would you take a soother?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every member has a right to speak and a right to be heard.

Mr. Martel: I want to hear what is said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, the member doesn’t want to hear what I’m saying. What the members have been proving in the last couple of hours, and are proving as I speak now, is that they are more interested in trying to show the public that there is an oil crisis, that there is an energy crisis, than in spending one shred of one minute this afternoon talking about the things they might recommend this government do in the event there is an oil and energy crisis.

Mr. Martel: You weren’t around to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was here listening to it. The third party did not spend one minute talking about what they would recommend be done in the next couple of weeks in the event there is a crisis. They are sitting and hoping a crisis does develop so they can try and throw the blame on one provincial government in this country. This is a matter of some serious concern.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing which would constitute a point of privilege or a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fact is the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) spoke earlier about the need to understand the psychology of security of supply. This is exactly what concerns me about the debate this afternoon. As we saw earlier this year, the moment there was a problem, the moment there was a --

Mr. Roy: Can I get a copy of your speech?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member can read it in court on Monday morning.

[5:45]

Earlier this year in California there was a situation in which there was a perceived, or perhaps real, energy crisis. What happened because of the reaction there impacted on our tourist industry in Ontario.

How? It caused thousands of people in California to rush out and respond to the talk and the psychology of a shortage by transferring massive amounts of gasoline from the oil pumps and the gasoline pumps into the tanks in their cars. That created a situation which totally distorted the real energy supply problem and the realities of the allocation of gasoline in that state, and literally throughout the United States.

What happened as a result of that was that in the few months following it was difficult, if not impossible, to get the message back out across the United States that the energy crisis had, for that period of time, disappeared.

Our tourist industry in this province was affected right into September, at least up to August of this year, though by then the situation was improving. Most of the gasoline lineups, most of the allocation situations in the United States, had passed. Gasoline was available by August, but none the less we found a situation where US tourism to Canada was down four and a half per cent, and to our province down by 2.2 per cent.

By September, partly on account of our gasoline hotline, I might add, tourism had recovered. Interestingly, tourism from the United States recovered only two per cent nationally but six per cent for this province in September of this year. In October it again improved six per cent.

The point is that energy scares such as have been going on this afternoon in the face of the information given by the Minister of Energy have long and far-reaching impact. For the member for Nickel Belt to express concern about the psychology of security of supply and then to have his party -- though his party doesn’t have a tourism critic -- spend all afternoon today trying to raise the spectre of an energy crisis for the industries and the tourists we try to attract to this part of the province is irresponsible. In that context their continuing cry about a real energy crisis is irresponsible. It is an attempt to move a very sensitive item into the political arena and to do so in the context and riding on the back of our tourist industry, as one example.

Let us not fool ourselves. Studies in the United States have confirmed that the appearance and image of anticipated shortages have dramatic impact.

Studies in the United States have proved anticipated shortages of fuel decrease vacation travel. Studies show if gasoline is rationed there will be a tendency for potential travellers to use their allocation for work-associated travel rather than leisure travel.

I say to the opposition, it shows if people are uncertain about the availability of gasoline they will be more inclined to take fewer trips, select destinations closer to home and stay longer at those destinations. I say to the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) his party has been front and centre all afternoon in trying to raise the spectre of an energy crisis, yet there he was a week or so ago in my estimates saying we are going to be in serious trouble if there isn’t some rational thinking going on in terms of the whole availability of energy situation.

That’s precisely the point, and we have to be objective. I say to his colleagues if they were as calm and as reasoned today as the member for Victoria-Haliburton was last week, then they wouldn’t have undone all the good he has been trying to do and he has been doing over the last few weeks in bringing a rational view to the impact on the tourist industry of this afternoon’s discussion. I find it interesting to hear the opposition. The opposition wants to raise the spectre of an oil crisis.

Mr. Martel: What about Joe Clark? Tell us about Joe Clark.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to tell you about Joe.

Mr. Martel: Tell us about the dummy who made the statement last night in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why didn’t you say it before your leader left the House?

The entire point of this is that the opposition wants to suddenly suggest, as I heard the leader of the third party say, that the federal government should have appointed the members to the allocation board. They weren’t saying it six months ago, but because Joe Clark said last night there may be a problem, today the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) has decided we had better appoint the members to the allocation board.

Meanwhile, over the last series of months, our Ministers of Energy have been the only ones in this country who have consistently been seeking the information from the federal government; they have been the only Ministers of Energy who have been meeting with the oil companies to ascertain the realities of the situation. Our Ministers of Energy did not sit back, as did the third party in particular, and wait for the sermon from the mount last night in Ottawa to decide suddenly that we had to spend all day today raising the spectre of shortages to our American tourists and to those industries which the member for Nickel Belt today decides he wants to attract to this province by showing concern about the psychology of security of supply.

I want to say that unless the opposition wants, or is able to stand up and suggest this government has let the public down in some sense and that we could now do something to --

Mr. Conway: Build some transmission lines into the national capital.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was here listening; the honourable member didn’t have one suggestion. Frankly I expected his leader, who spent all of his time in partisan remarks, to suggest we --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in the last five minutes I am confident we will hear the next speaker for the opposition give us some constructive suggestions about what will happen if their fondest wishes of an oil strike come true. They will tell us how, in the context of our national responsibility, Ontario can respond. They haven’t to date.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to take part in this debate. However, I am afraid I am going to disappoint the last speaker in dreaming up a false crisis. I just don’t know how members opposite can say there is no crisis when they read the newspapers and realize what is happening in one part of this world.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which edition are you reading?

Mr. McGuigan: All the papers. When one reads that 600 million people have upset the balance of power in this world and have the Middle East, where so much of our present oil sources are, on the verge of revolution and possibly a third world war -- thank goodness we have a reasonable man at the head of government in the United States who has been able to avert this.

Interjection.

Mr. McGuigan: Yes, I am a supporter of Carter. I don’t see how you can say there is no crisis. If that is the case, how is it the federal minister told this government to stop its energy advertising program in the United States? The minister curtailed Industry and Tourism advertising last summer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That shows how responsible we were.

Mr. McGuigan: But he didn’t mention it in his speech, did he?

It’s in the record; members can read it. The federal minister told the Ontario minister to stop the advertising.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We acted responsibly. That is a good example of how we worried about oil supplies.

Mr. McGuigan: So there is no crisis?

I am not going to spend my time arguing with the minister. I want to speak on behalf of those people in the farming industry in southwestern Ontario who are absolutely dependent on liquid fuel. They can’t plug their tractors into hydro outlets, nor can they hook up a long hose to a natural gas line to power their vehicles.

When this crunch comes, and we have every indication that it will, if there is any sort of a supply problem this winter the person who will lose will be the farmer next spring when he goes for his diesel supplies, because diesel and home heating oil supplies are interchangeable. When we hit that spring plowing period we have to have those supplies there.

It is also to the benefit of every consumer in Canada and those abroad whom we supply with so much of our food. Just to give members an example of how dependent we are on liquid fuel, back in 1940 it took about five calories of fossil fuel to produce a calorie of food on the dinner table. Today, because of our advanced mechanization and our move to greater advanced farming systems, it now takes nine calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of food on the table.

That is how dependent we are today on fossil fuel. If there are any problems next spring it’s going to show up in that area. I just wish to emphasize that point. I am sure the minister understands what I am talking about.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are denying your own colleague the right to be heard.

Mr. McGuigan: There is a great deal this government can do for us by encouraging the consumption of locally produced foods. This Ministry of Agriculture and Food has not done the job of producing proper information on nutrition and the use of our own foods in the fresh form, rather than in the highly processed form which is so energy consumptive.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has about a half a minute.

Mr. McGuigan: There are many things that can be done. One of the areas is in the preservation of prime farm land. Yield from number 1 land is taken at 100 units, number 2 land is 80 units, and if we take number 3 land it’s down to 64 units; yet, we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) failing to back up his own food guidelines which call for the preservation of farm land. I am not arguing we should be having an absolute law that says one can’t use farm lands in a flexible manner; I am in favour of the guidelines.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired. The time allocated to this debate has elapsed.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.