REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs on standing orders and procedure (No. 3).

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned this on June 21, little did I believe we would be back here in three months to debate it. It is an indication of the importance of this report that it is being debated so quickly after it was first introduced to the House. I am certain the level and length of debate will reflect this importance as well.

First, may I say I agree with the five points in the summary. In essence, the standing committee on procedural affairs concluded that the committees of this House are creatures of the Legislature and must report first to the Legislature. To release a report before that time is unethical and a contempt of the Legislature.

I expected my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) to be here and I had some comments to make on a subject brought up by him. The procedural affairs committee is a consensus committee rather than a voting committee. My friend from Oshawa brought to the committee's attention last June the tendency of the committee to meet in camera rather than on public record with Hansard.

I did wish to refer to this as far as the procedural affairs committee is concerned. Being a consensus committee, very often when we meet in camera, positions are put forward by various members playing devil's advocate, perhaps putting an extreme position to try to get others to go with them or perhaps just flying a flag. Usually, being a consensus committee, we end up compromising. We almost always compromise.

When we are in camera, it is very easy for a member to compromise and retreat from his former position. If we were on Hansard, we would get stuck in extreme positions and we would have great difficulty and perhaps would end up becoming a voting committee. It is, therefore, my contention that often in a consensus committee such as ours we should be in camera when framing a report. Perhaps my friend from Oshawa will have some comments to make on that.

That is all I have to say on this report. The presentation of reports to the media and how they are released to the media and discussed by the media, I will leave to others.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome you back. I must tell you we missed you this afternoon. I am sure you were away on very pressing government business. It is good to see you back. I must say the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) did a most commendable job in your absence and there was no difficulty continuing the business of the House, despite the fact that you probably would have liked to have felt we had to recess this House in your absence. Nevertheless, that did not occur. Business went on as usual. It is good to see you back.

I am pleased to be able to speak to this report. As a member of this committee for about three and half years, I find this is one of the shortest reports we have had, although it is an important report. As the chairman, the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), has indicated, it deals with the procedures regarding reports from committees.

The fact this report even has to be discussed is somewhat surprising to me because I would think members of the House, all 125 of them, being mature, intelligent individuals -- and I say that with all the respect I can muster -- should know that if a committee has its dealings or its debates in camera, then those discussions should stay private, should stay in that particular room until it reports to the House.

I could see an exception being made if members had discussions in camera and, after some discussion within the committee itself, they felt it was necessary to make those discussions or their conclusions, their recommendations, public prior to being able to report back to the House, particularly if the House is in a state of recess so they would not have an opportunity to report back for another month or two. I could see exceptions being made then, but those exceptions should be arrived at only after the committee has had a chance to discuss them.

I find it somewhat surprising that members -- and I lay no blame on any particular side of the House -- would give information out to the media, either in printed reports or just through telephone calls or a "but do not quote me" type of thing. It is okay if the media can quote an unnamed source. They give this information out as to the conclusions and the discussions in a committee. As members know, these recommendations were made only after we had instances in this House where information was leaked to the media, either in full reports or in part from discussions that were held in camera.

I say I find it somewhat difficult to understand why people would do that, but I suppose they have their own agenda and have their own reasons for doing it. I would hope this report would draw to their attention how their colleagues expect them to act in the future.

I leave it at that. I think the report speaks for itself. I endorse the five recommendations that are presented on page 4 of the third report and I hope in the future we will not encounter any lapses by members of this Legislature in giving information out.

I might just add that on occasions when information was given out, I think it was given out by members of the Legislature. I do not think we could hide behind the fact it was given out by the staff. I trust the staff would keep information private and confidential. I think where it has been given out, someone in the Legislature has felt it was to his or her advantage to give it out. I do not think in any instance it was given out by the staff, at least not without permission from some elected official.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to speak on this report from the standing committee on procedural affairs. I was not a member of the committee last spring when it dealt with this matter, although I was a member of that committee for about five years and am now again a member of that committee. This is an issue that concerns all of us, but judging from the comments I have heard around the halls over the course of the last two or three days it is an issue that many members take far too lightly.

This matter was referred by the House to the procedural affairs committee because it is a very serious matter. As my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) mentioned in his comments a few moments ago, in the spring of this year we had three instances where committee reports that were finalized in camera were released in part or in whole before those reports were tabled in this Legislature.

There are a number of reasons why the in-camera procedure exists and why the precedents around this place are to keep that confidentiality until such time as a report is tabled in the House. In the three instances we had, fortunately, some personal embarrassment was the only visible result. We did not have any serious catastrophes.

As the Speaker is well aware, the procedures in our committees in the developing of reports to this Legislature often deal with matters, as does the budget and other things around here, that can have an impact out there in the real world if they are dealt with inappropriately; in this case, inappropriate being the release of a document before everybody has equal access to it at the same time. There is the potential to create serious problems both for individuals and for the community in this province as a whole.

That makes this a very important issue. We may abuse the rules of confidentiality for committee reports umpteen times and get away with it, and manage to avoid causing any serious harm, but there is the potential for the one time when the premature release of a committee report and the information in that report could do serious damage if it happened to be a report on tax issues or something such as that.

For example, we had a precedent-setting situation about two years ago when, after the budget, for the first time to the best of my knowledge we had a budget matter, a tax bill, referred to a standing committee for consideration and public input. As we all know, in the case of tax matters confidentiality is crucial up to the point where something is going to transpire, so that no one can gain an advantage as a result of prior knowledge of the matter in question.

We will continue to have matters such as this and others considered before the standing committees of this Legislature, so it becomes imperative that we understand the whole question of respecting the procedures, the procedures in this case being that if the committee decides it is going to deal with its report and the recommendations in its report in camera, the committee has reasons for that. The reasons are not that the matter should not become public; the reasons are that the matter should become public here in this House so that everybody has access to the information at the same time, so that the members of this House are all aware of the report at the same time, and so that the movement of information out into the public domain outside of this legislative structure occurs in an orderly and acceptable way.

As my colleague the member for Waterloo North did before me and as the chairman of the committee expressed in his remarks, I support and I think the members in my caucus support the five recommendations set out in the summary of this report.

I will pick up on another issue the member for Waterloo North mentioned, and that is the situation where there can be exceptions. I do not think anybody objects to exceptions. We have any number of procedures here in this House for exceptions, to change the rules by unanimous consent, to do any number of things that seem appropriate at the time, but as long as those changes are made with the consent of everyone then the exception is an acceptable route to go.

Exceptions can arise in the case of committee reports. The member for Waterloo North mentioned the situation where a committee may be making a report and recommendations of a very important and perhaps urgent nature at a time when the Legislature is not in session. That committee has two choices in a case like that. It either deals with the writing of its report and its recommendations in public, which obviously would then automatically put that report and those recommendations on the public record -- on Hansard and hence on the public record -- or the committee as a whole can discuss and make a decision about the release of its report.

Unfortunately, in the three situations we had last year the matter was not a matter that was discussed and decided by the committees in question; it was a matter of perhaps inadvertent and perhaps intentional leaks of parts -- and substantial parts in some cases -- of committee reports that the committee intended should remain confidential until they were tabled here in this House.

This is very important. You, Mr. Speaker, are probably more aware than anyone else of the very partisan nature of this institution which we are a part of here. We have three political parties, and you know all too well that the debates in this institution become very partisan.

Mr. Nixon: Does the member have two hours left?

Mr. Charlton: Oh, perhaps.

Mr. Swart: Is the member afraid that he will not get on, on this very important subject.?

Mr. Nixon: No, I think the fix is in here.

Mr. Charlton: I can assure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) I will not speak for two hours. If he wishes an opportunity to speak on this report he will have plenty of time to do so. As a matter of fact, I am coming very close to the end of my remarks.

Mr. Nixon: I like listening to you, but I think this subject --

Mr. Charlton: Now the member has broken my train of thought and I may have to start all over.

Mr. Nixon: Okay. Start at the beginning.

The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if the members could leave the speaker alone, please.

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I was discussing the situations we had last winter and spring with the premature release of reports, and the fact that the release of those documents was clearly against the wish of the committee that had developed the report and the recommendations. That is the essence of the problem with which we are faced and the problem that resulted in this report.

I have no objection to any committee, even if it should develop its report and recommendations in camera for whatever reason, releasing its report before tabling it in this House, on the decision of the committee. In the same way this House makes exceptions to its rules, if there is reasonable cause to make an exception in the case of a committee report, I find nothing wrong with that, as long as it is a decision of the committee which has developed the report and is holding it for tabling in this place.

What we found, and I think this is where I was when I was interrupted, was the very partisan nature of this institution. What we find happening and what we have to avoid is the partisan use of committee reports by leaking parts of them to the media or to particular groups in the community against the wishes of the committee.

It is very clear that there is in any case, around any report, full opportunity for all the partisan political points to be made, pro and con, when the report is tabled and when the report is made public for everybody. To allow an individual or individuals to take political advantage of the work of a committee of this Legislature, presumably in an effort to gain some personal political advantage, is not an acceptable procedure for us to allow to continue.

It is imperative that in any political arena, political advantage and political points come from the work and research that is done and the effort that is put into making a point and exposing the shortcomings of others. It does not come from taking undue advantage of a committee that has decided in its wisdom on a certain procedure and violating that procedure in order to gain some advantage of time and individual focus.

For all those reasons and for the reasons I have set out before, we are in a position where I think we have no choice but to support this third report on the standing orders and procedure from the procedural affairs committee, not only to support it but also to get through to our fellow members the importance of the procedures we have around this place and the importance of ensuring we all live up to them to the best of our abilities.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this report is one of the shortest that has been presented by the procedural affairs committee to the House. I think the summary is almost as long as the report; however, that does not mean it is not a very important report. In fact, sometimes brevity is something to be admired in a report; it brings the issue sharply into focus.

There really are two issues in this report. One is the basic question of whether committee reports should be written in public or in camera. While the committee was not asked to discuss this particular aspect, it is actually part of the general discussion of whether, when reports are written in camera, they should be released before they are presented to the Legislature.

Regarding the question of whether reports should be written in public, there are various arguments in favour of it, such as the argument that the discussion should be open to the public since it is equally important to decide what should go into a report as it is to discuss the issues dealt with by the committee. The issues raised in the hearings are of interest to the public, but the issue of what goes into the report is also of public interest. Therefore, I think there are a lot of strong arguments for suggesting that committees should not write reports in camera.

Of course, the arguments against the public writing of reports are that it may be difficult to arrive at the compromises that are sometimes considered desirable in the interests of reaching a unanimous or a consensual report. When there is a unanimous or consensual report, that probably gives the report greater clout. It is more likely to attract the attention of the government if it feels there is unanimous committee feeling on the subject and if committee recommendations are unanimous.

How to reconcile the desirability of reaching consensus with the desirability of letting the public know what the committee considered important to put in or leave out is a real problem. A further problem is that if there is report writing in public, the members have to stand up and defend their positions in public, and this sometimes takes courage on controversial issues.

However, I think that on balance there are more advantages to resisting the trend towards conducting public business in camera, and I would support more public writing of reports and only in very rare occasions in camera writing.

But if we do accept that some reports will be written in camera, then I think we have to decide the question of whether there should be any release of reports or of draft reports before their presentation to the Legislature.

It is sometimes argued that a draft report should be released so the public can have another crack at commenting on the conclusions that the committee appears to be coming to. There may be some circumstances in which this might be considered if it was made very clear that it was only a draft report that was being put forward for further comment. But if it is the final report, I think the principle enunciated by May is the correct one, namely, "Any publication of a draft report which has been submitted to a committee before such report has been agreed to by the committee and presented to the House is treated as a breach of privilege."

In effect, May points out that it is an ancient custom of parliament that "No act done in any committee should be divulged before the same be reported to the House." I think we do have to stand up and defend the rights of parliament and of the Legislature to see reports first and not permit them to be released for any political or public relations reasons before their presentation in the House.

8:30 p.m.

Therefore, my colleagues and I support this report quite strongly, but I would like to see much less use of in camera writing of reports.

Mr. Breaugh: I just want to make a few brief introductory remarks on what has actually turned out to be rather a topical committee report on disclosure. This morning's newspapers had two head stories that were based on the concept that others were getting information. In these two instances today, one on a royal commission and another on the preparation of the budget, information was disclosed in the public press prior to its being revealed to the members here.

The purpose of this report was to address ourselves to something that had started to become a bit of a phenomenon; and that is that committees were doing work and preparing reports, but then there seemed to be some confusion in the minds of members about whether they had any obligation to report the findings to the Legislature or whether they were free to go downstairs in some cases and have press conferences or do press releases or just have members talk to people in the media about the work of the committee.

By and large, since I have been a member here, no one in this Legislature gets very excited about those kinds of premature disclosures. It happens in a bit of an offhand way. We are not nearly as rigid in this Legislature about this kind of disclosure as they would be, say, at Westminster where it is considered to be sacrosanct -- and I at least see some sense behind it -- that the rights of Parliament override every other consideration.

I recall the last time I was at Westminster one of the members had released prematurely a report which had been done in committee. There were howls from members from all sides of Parliament that the member had to resign his seat. They considered it to be a very serious breach of the privileges of Parliament itself and that the member had acted, not just incorrectly, but in a way that showed a great deal of contempt for the parliamentary process and in a way that was deemed there to be in violation of his oath of office. There were some pretty serious ramifications about that.

This report attempts to deal with it in not quite such a strict and harsh light, but to attempt gently to remind the members here that the same rules do apply here. In fact, when one is working in committee, and I would extend that a little bit and say when any document is being prepared for the Legislature, it is to be tabled here first.

Most of us have been faced with the situation where we are somewhat inconvenienced because, particularly in my jurisdiction, very often the news people and the radio station will be reading the Toronto Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star in the morning and they will see that some great royal commission is about to unfold. They will have an advance story on that. On a couple of occasions they had committee reports which had been prematurely released. So they will call me at my house before I get on the road in the morning and want to know what I think about these committee reports. Obviously, if I have not read the morning newspapers, I have not had the opportunity to have those reports tabled in the Legislature.

I think from the committee's point of view and this Legislature's, this is a bit of an inconvenience. In the report that is before us this evening, we tried to point out to members that it is contempt of the Legislature, that there is a process here that perhaps people are not aware of. I think we took the stance that no one really had any malice in his mind when he released copies of the committee report or held a press conference in one instance. We were aware that members here, after they had been reminded that they really should not do that, have stood up in the Legislature and apologized for doing it.

None the less, I think my basic concern was that we did not want that to become the practice either. The committee felt an obligation to point out to the members here that there is a long tradition and standing orders and an oath of office that have to be considered here. Maybe it was time to remind members of the Legislature and the staff, who also have access to this kind of information, because they are working on committees, that it is traditionally a serious offence for someone to disclose a committee report prior to its being tabled in the Legislature.

That is the flavour or the background of the working committee.

We also addressed ourselves to the other problem of committees meeting in camera. Most of us know there is a recurring problem at the municipal level with committees of council meeting behind closed doors. It is not exactly a widespread practice here, but we were trying to refresh people's memories that they have to make conscientious decisions about when they meet in public.

It is all put on the public record. Therefore, some of the contents of a committee report will be known well in advance of the report being written. The committee will have taken testimony, had witnesses and probably have engaged in some debate beforehand. We wanted to make sure that the members of the Legislature and of committees make this a very conscious decision and that they do not slip into the practice of going in camera.

An argument can be made that there are occasions when it is best for a committee to be less formal than it normally is, to close the doors and talk about something, search for a consensus and look for ways that a committee report might be put together, for example.

I think the procedural affairs committee itself has sometimes gone in camera a bit too often, but there is solid reasoning behind that. The committee wants to work by consensus and get a good sense of what the report will look like in its final form. If there are arguments about an agency or about procedural matters, we want that opportunity. I am not absolutely convinced that it is required that Hansard record every golden word of those debates, but we try to restrict our use of in camera sessions.

As we pointed out in the summary, all these things should be done in a conscientious manner. If we want to go in camera and have a discussion, there are provisions to do that. However, that means one has to start thinking more seriously about disclosing what has been debated in camera and about disclosing prematurely a report that has not yet been tabled in the Legislature.

We wanted to remind the members that there are lots of precedents in May and elsewhere that indicate that when reports of this nature are released too early, that should be considered a serious fault, whatever the format, whether they are leaked to the media or one takes bits and pieces and puts out press releases. However one might do it, it is wrong.

The first obligation is to this Legislature. Most of the committee work begins here. Work is assigned to a committee. We felt that all members should have the same starting point with a committee report. I would extend that and say any document.

For example, it is wrong for us to pick up a Toronto morning newspaper and read about the Thorn commission. That is quite wrong. I am more than a little upset that something as substantial as major rent review provisions resulting from a long and involved commission would first be brought to my attention in a morning newspaper. Even though it is not strictly speaking members of the Legislature who are involved on the commission, it is quite wrong that we should read about that second-hand in a morning newspaper. If that information is to be presented to the public, there is an obligation on the part of all the ministries, on the part of anyone who might be operating a royal commission or doing any investigation of that nature, to report such findings to the Legislature.

One could find precedents in other areas where it seems to make sense from time to time to take legislation -- I am the critic for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; so I am aware that often the legislation we see at Queen's Park is the end result of three or four years of negotiation and consultation with the municipalities and with municipal organizations. I do not have any great problem with that, but I still think that even when legislation is introduced it ought to be here first. The members, who will be asked to decide whether it is good or bad legislation, ought to see it before it is preconditioned and moved around the province. There is an obligation on the part of the government to do that.

8:40 p.m.

When a group or individual is writing a substantial report for the Legislature of Ontario, we ought to see it first. I am not very happy reading in this morning's paper that our budget is discussed in New York City before it is discussed at Queen's Park. What appeared to me to be a substantial statement by the Premier (Mr. Davis) concerning restraint programs and cutbacks that will have to take place in certain areas was made in New York too, as opposed to being made here in the Legislature.

In a number of ways, this Legislature is going to have to address itself to the problem outlined in this committee report, which by inference affects other areas as well. I believe, without question, that when a royal commission report, a summary or version of it or the first draft of it appears in Toronto newspapers or in anybody's newspapers, that is cause for concern.

I know the Speaker listened carefully this afternoon to complaints from members that their privileges had been breached. The Speaker did not consider that to be the case. I believe it is the case. I believe there are some rules to the process, and one of the rules is that reports come in and out of this chamber.

When a royal commission starts, we should be told about it here. We should know the outline under which that commission will work. We should have some concept of how long and how big a deal it is going to be. The culmination of that process is a report being tabled in this Legislature, not being leaked to a newspaper, not being talked about at some dinner speech somewhere, but being brought back to this Legislature.

In future, I for one am going to put my oar in every time I see that happen. I believe it is quite wrong to read about that kind of commission report in the popular press in the morning without so much as any kind of statement on behalf of the minister in the Legislature. There is an obligation on the part of the minister, if he wants to test the waters, to table an interim report in here and let it go out that way. That would seem to me to be fair.

However, there seems to have grown up in the past few years a practice that whenever there is some controversial matter, and some not so controversial, and somebody wants to fly a kite, some member of staff, I suppose, makes available to some reporters a draft, bits and pieces or whatever. That allows the minister a lot of leeway. He can then say: "I did not do that. Maybe somebody who worked in my office did that. Maybe somebody at the printers did it. I did not do it." He can also put a disclaimer out and say, "That is not the final report." However, I think that is wrong.

If someone wants to come in here and table an interim report and say, "Here are some options," that is fine. All of us get to see that report at the same time in the same place. All of us have access to it. All the media have the same opportunity to write their stories about it. That seems to be fair.

What I think is wrong is to disclose a portion of that report to some people, or to fly a kite in that sense, and then give the minister all these other options, that he or she is not responsible for the contents, did not know it was going out or does not believe it will all happen. There is a time, and this is it, for the Legislature of Ontario to take a look at how reports coming out of committees of this Legislature, or out of royal commissions or task forces or study groups or anything else, are made public in the first instance.

The traditions of parliament are clear. One is very simply that reports should be made public in parliament first. Then everyone in the media, the public and the members of the Legislature have equal access to that information. They can all begin their discussions about the pros and cons of a particular report from the same starting point. There is a good reason for that. To do otherwise is to allow a gross distortion of a process that is hundreds of years old.

This report from the procedural affairs committee addresses itself to that problem. It is meant to try to serve as a warning to members that in this Legislature we generally do not deal with matters of national security; so they are not going to bomb Oshawa harbour if a committee report from Queen's Park is leaked a little early. There are occasions, however, when committees here do deal with rather sensitive matters, in which case a process ought to be clearly laid out by a committee on how it is going to write and release the report. We tried to put out as gentle a warning as we could, but I suspect there will be those who will pay some attention to it for now and then quickly forget about it.

I caution the members to read this report. It is not that long. It will not take a great deal of time, but it is important. We have clearly reaffirmed the principle that to prematurely disclose material in a member's possession because he is a member of this Legislature shows contempt of the Legislature. If we follow the logical process that is possible -- not that we would always do it, but if we follow it according to the rule of proper procedure -- contempt of this Legislature is a serious charge.

We are trying to point out to members here, to the people who work here and to those involved in the preparation of these reports that we consider this to be a serious problem. Ignoring it and simply allowing things to bubble along so that reports get put out at somebody's convenience and members of the Legislature get to see them or not see them just by happenstance should not be allowed to continue.

We tried to say that in as gentle a way as possible. We do not particularly want to see someone embarrassed by a charge of contempt of the Legislature. The procedural affairs committee would probably be the group that would listen to the arguments about whether or not it was contempt. We are not anxious to proceed on that.

I recall on a couple of occasions we have got into areas where members' privileges were involved and we found it uncomfortable to sit and judge the actions of our peers. We would prefer not to do that. According to our own standing orders and parliamentary tradition, it is clear that is exactly the position in which we would be placed. If people show contempt for the Legislature of Ontario, for the legislative process and for all that parliamentary tradition, there is not much of an option.

Oddly enough, there are some rules to the parliamentary process. There may not be any rules to the political process, but there are written rules encased in the tradition of parliament that have to be followed.

In this report we are trying to remind members in as quiet, dignified and rational way as we can that this is a no-no and should not happen again. I hope all members of the Legislature will take the few brief moments it needs of their time to read through this report.

We took the position in committee that this was not a deliberate attempt on the part of any committee chairman or any member of the Legislature to scuttle the works. Perhaps through not being as aware as they might have been of the rules and procedures of this House and the traditions of a parliament, people had done things that were real no-nos, but it had not been a conscious act on their part; they were a bit sloppy or unaware of how it should be done.

We tried to lay out as succinctly as we could exactly how this is supposed to happen. We are trying to put together a gentle warning here. I caution the members that if the gentle warning does not work, obviously something else has to be done. Unfortunately, something else is the old tradition of accusing someone of showing contempt for the Legislature. That is not something we are anxious to jump right into, but I believe it is not unfair to say the majority position on the committee was that this is the next thing that has to happen.

If this warning or reminder does not work, then somebody from this Legislature will be charged quite properly and in order with contempt of the Legislature. We do not want to see that happen. We do not want to build up a lot of precedents around that. We prefer to think that every individual here is an honourable member and that if an individual has made errors in the past, it was simply because he was not aware that it was an improper action.

8:50 p.m.

In a nutshell, that is the recommendation of the procedural affairs committee on the premature disclosure of committee reports. As I say, I personally would extend that somewhat. These are solid guidelines, not just for reports coming out of committees but also for reports from royal commissions or anywhere else. This Legislature is the place where it is supposed to start and stop. The beginning of a report happens here, usually when a minister of the crown rises to make some great statement of the day. It should end in the same manner.

When a report is finally done or when we have an interim report, it should come back in here and a minister of the crown or the chairman of a committee should rise in his or her place and tell all the members at the same time, "Here is the report," "Here is the interim report," "Here is the discussion paper" or "Here is a document." Everyone has equal access to it; everyone gets it at the same time; all the media people can write their stories at the same time; all the public out there will at least have an equal shot at understanding what they are to do.

It is another occasion when the committee responded in a commonsense and practical way to problems we were getting into. It is our hope as a committee that the Legislature itself and all those who work here will pay heed to this. We think it has the potential to be a serious problem. We are not suggesting that we have had a serious problem yet, but it could come, and we wanted the members to be aware of all the ramifications of it.

Motion agreed to.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad my friend the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) is here. I do not know what I would do without him.

Mr. Van Horne: Does he have his bag with him?

Mr. Martel: He has his money bag with him. He has spent the past three years running back and forth every week with a bagful of money. In fact, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) said to me today: "Sudbury gets everything and Sault Ste. Marie gets nothing. Jim Gordon just takes it all back to Sudbury."

By the way, this is a totally nonpartisan brochure.

Mr. Gordon: Can we have a copy of that?

Mr. Martel: Totally nonpartisan; that is what they keep saying. My friend the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), the former chief government whip and now a Minister without Portfolio, knows full well that when a New Democratic Party member put the NDP name on his brochure that minister used to just about go bananas because that was identifying the party. It does not identify the party when you have a picture with Larry Grossman. I do not know whom he is supporting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member will refer to other members by their offices or by their seats.

Mr. Nixon: What colour is that?

Mr. Martel: They come in blue; oh, yes.

But this fellow is busy. One thing about it is that it saves me carrying it, and he makes all the announcements for me. I am glad because I do not have time; I am too busy working. He makes all the announcements: for his riding, for my riding, for that of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). He makes them all.

Mr. Gordon: The whole region.

Mr. Martel: He is going to start making them for the Minister of Labour pretty soon. There is nothing the member for Sudbury does not announce. I want to congratulate him for bringing all that money to Sudbury, Sudbury East, Sioux Lookout, Thunder Bay, Kenora and Rainy River. If it moves and it is in northern Ontario, it is done.

Mr. Gordon: There are not enough hours in the day.

Mr. Riddell: What does the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) think about that?

Mr. Martel: Oh, he is dead in the water.

Mr. Gillies: The member must work 24 hours a day.

Mr. Martel: Twenty-four hours? Is my friend kidding? Thirty-two hours a day, eight days a week, no less. It takes that much time to make all these announcements and to gather up $100 million in three years. The Premier (Mr. Davis) does not get that much money for his riding. If I send this to the Premier -- I had better not; he is going to cut the member off.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: He is the busiest little beaver I have ever seen. That man is so busy he does not have time to eat or drink, not even a little libation.

Mr. Gordon: Everybody tells me I am getting thinner.

Mr. Martel: I know. The member is just working too hard. He can cool down. There is no election coming now. The timing was pretty good, though. In the event of an election it would have been great stuff.

The brochure does not identify the party, and I am pleased with that. It does not identify the party anywhere. It is not a political document of any description; it is totally nonpartisan. My goodness, there is even a picture of none other than the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) with the member for Sudbury. They announced a new police station, an Ontario Provincial Police building. I was not invited to the press conference.

Where is the new police headquarters going? Sudbury East. They did not put it in Sudbury. They know where the power is. They put it in Sudbury East. If they had not put it in Sudbury East, imagine the trouble they would have been in.

Mr. Gillies: They knew where a police station was needed.

Mr. Martel: That is right. They have to catch all these people coming into the city so we can keep all the thugs out.

Mr. Gordon: We have seen the member speeding in his Chrysler.

Mr. Martel: I know. That is why I put cruise control on my car; I was getting too many tickets. When one gets eight points in 11 months one has to slow down. I put cruise control on to slow me down.

What else? Five passing lanes. My friend, Lorne Maeck, the former member for Parry Sound, would come to me every provincial election and say, "I am using your statements in the House against your NDP colleague in Parry Sound." I used to call for passing lanes until we would eventually have enough money to build a dual highway. I called for passing lanes and Lorne used to use that at re-election. He would get to a debate and say, "The member for Sudbury East is saying we have to have passing lanes." We finally got five in Sudbury East. Where were they announced? By golly, they show up in the member for Sudbury's brochure. He saved me the trouble of making the announcement.

Mr. Stevenson: Where else would the member put them?

Mr. Martel: He might give some credit to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and have his picture in it. I had that minister's picture in my last one when he put a new road into a community that needed it greatly. The minister appeared in my newsletter with the council in St. Charles. I am the neutral one.

That fellow does save me work. though. He makes all the announcements; he runs upstairs, phones all the television and radio stations. Better still, he sends information out at 5:30 on Thursday morning, I think it is, by courier to Sudbury, so the television station and the two radio stations all have it. Then at nine o'clock he phones them all just to make sure they have it. He makes all the announcements and saves me the trouble. I do not have to make any announcements any more.

The interesting thing, though, is that the people of Sudbury East know who has done the work on this stuff. If he saves me a little work, I appreciate it. If he makes the announcements for me, I appreciate it. I am glad he carries the money. I think for Christmas I am going to buy him a bigger packsack. If I buy him a bigger packsack, he can take more money home and we can get that up to $200 million before the next provincial election. Just a possibility: a big brown packsack.

Mr. Gordon: I have three quarters of a million right here. If the member will let me get up, I will talk about it.

Mr. Martel: I am going to speak for a while. I wish my friend from Sudbury and his party would start to deal with the real problems of Sudbury. Maybe he will speak tonight about the 19,000 people who are unemployed; 12,000 people have left the Sudbury district, and we still have 19,000 people unemployed. Then there is the housing shortage; we have 550 families on a waiting list for public housing. We also have 2,800 workers who are employable, looking for a job, and on welfare.

He is on the right track. We must remember it was in a debate here some time ago that he called for the nationalization of Inco and Falconbridge.

9 p.m.

Mr. Ruston: With the member for Sudbury East as chairman.

Mr. Martel: We might make money if I were chairman.

He called for it. It is interesting. The Pope was in town a couple of weeks ago -- I do not mean in Toronto, I mean in Sudbury -- the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). He did not talk about the problems of Sudbury either. I checked with Mel Soucie just to see how many new jobs had been created in Sudbury over the last interim of my friend from Sudbury and the provincial member from Sudbury who is a minister and the minister from Nickel Belt; and Mel Soucie came up with the total figure of about 60 permanent jobs having been created.

Those are the problems confronting the people of Sudbury. I started the other night to discuss some of the ideas my colleague the member for Nickel Belt and I had put in a document called A Challenge to Sudbury, a document we made up primarily from government studies both at the federal and provincial levels. It called for certain types of development in Sudbury based on the resources in the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Elston: Why do you not say "composed" rather than made up?

Mr. Martel: It is easier.

Mr. Elston: It sounds as if you just sort of made it up.

Mr. Martel: I am like Casey Stengel. The game ain't over until it's over and you make 'em up as you go along.

The other night I mentioned some of the things we could do with nickel import replacement. I talked about such things as $21 million worth of stainless steel cutlery coming into this country. I talked about importing $40 million worth of stainless steel surgical instruments, $241 million worth of valves made from nickel and $43 million worth of heat exchangers. All these are manufactured somewhere else, but the source of the nickel is the Sudbury basin. They are not manufactured in Canada or Ontario, but in the United States, Sweden, West Germany or France. Those are the places from which we import some of these materials.

Of every dollar spent on medical supplies, 70 cents is spent on imports. One would think we have the capacity, with the natural resources we have in abundance, to start to manufacture some of that stainless steel X-ray equipment and medical equipment. We might make some of it here and create some jobs here for young Canadians and some not so young Canadians. As my friend from Sudbury knows full well, people aged 30, 35 or 40 are out of work because of the cutbacks in the nickel industry.

If we are ever going to move ahead as a country, we cannot do what Brian Mulroney is doing already, running down to the United States on bended knee, genuflecting, scraping, bowing to Reagan, suggesting what we need is greater exportation. We have to begin to stop the exporting of our natural resources, refine them here and convert them into something we build ourselves.

That has been the great sellout of Canada, lo these last 100 years. I do not want to insult my Liberal friends, but since the time of C. D. Howe we have switched from exporting raw materials to Great Britain and have decided the United States is a bigger market, so we sell everything and send everything there. We pay the price. While the American rate of unemployment has dropped to about seven per cent, ours remains at about 11.5 per cent or 12 per cent. We have the resources. It is not as if we are some have-not country without the resources to find jobs, if government would only become the catalyst in trying to do some of the things we suggested in our paper.

We also talked about refining capacity. This government is as guilty as sin. Two years ago, it gave another 10 years to Falconbridge to send all its nickel to Norway to be refined. There are layoffs of 1,300 or 1,400 workers at Falconbridge in Sudbury and the government gives an exemption to Falconbridge to send all its nickel, unrefined, to Norway -- creating 1,200 or 1,300 jobs in Norway. I guess I am partisan when I talk about us as opposed to Norwegians.

I recall a debate we had in this Legislature in 1969 when the government of Ontario was moving a new section, section 104, to the Mining Act. It used to be section 113. It called for the refining, where possible, of resources in Canada. The New Democratic Party moved a motion saying "in Ontario." We were being much too parochial in saying Ontario, but they put it in. However, over the years there has been one exemption after another.

For example, Inco can still exempt and send to Japan, even though Inco is in consort with a company in Indonesia that sends unrefined nickel to Japan. We continue to let them take nickel from here and send it to Japan unrefined. I think there is something wrong. In fact, I think there is something perverse about a society that has that kind of resource and sends it somewhere else for refining.

It says that we do not have the capacity to refine in Ontario, that we do not have the capacity through skilled workmen to do that work, that we do not have those types of capacities. I disagree fundamentally.

We are so stupid in this province. Inco has to throw 100 million tons of iron ore into the tailings dump every year. It has already been extracted from the ore. They have to throw it away because Dofasco and the other companies will not use it. Why will they not use it? They say there is too much nickel content in the iron ore, so we throw 100 million tons of iron ore into the tailings area annually.

Tell me a country that can afford to do that. Then we turn around and we import things like cutlery and other commodities from abroad. My colleague and I said we should have a mini-factory for iron. People are going to jump up and say, "The steel industry is in serious trouble." My colleague Simon Rosenbloom from Sudbury tells me the only steel companies in the United States that are making much money are the small ones that use old scrap and the whole business. They are making money.

Tell me a society that can throw away 100 million tons a year. If my friend was making announcements like that I would be delighted, but we are nickel and diming it. We are trying to pretend to the people that there are no problems. All this largess is coming to Sudbury and we have 19,000 people unemployed in Sudbury and Manitoulin. There is something bogus.

If we were poverty stricken and if we had nothing, I could say that is part of the reason we have nothing. However, when one lives in the richest area in the country in terms of such resources as gold, nickel, copper, iron ore and platinum and we ship it all out, there is something wrong.

My colleague and I said there was another thing we could do. We hear a great deal about acid rain in this country. It is just awful what acid rain is doing to devastate the area. I think Inco has the capacity to produce one third more sulphuric acid than it is currently producing, but we cannot glut the market. It could not be sold.

There is a phosphate deposit in Cargill. It is near the riding of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). My colleague the member for Nickel Belt and I put in this report that we should take the phosphate from Cargill township in northern Ontario, extract it from the ground, refine it to whatever degree necessary in the Cochrane area, produce more sulphuric acid at Inco rather than put it up the stack and spread it around the country, and by combining those two things we would have fertilizer.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think my colleague the member for Sudbury East deserves a quorum in the Legislature and I hope you will take a look.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

9:14 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: We now have a quorum.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted we have a quorum because I was talking about the member for Cochrane North when the bells were rung. I am glad he is here.

Mr. Van Horne: He just walked in.

Mr. Martel: Do not go away, I want to talk to this fellow.

I was saying we wanted to provide some work for the people extracting the phosphates from Cargill and combine them with the sulphuric acid from Inco so we do not have acid rain. If the two are put together, we will have fertilizer. The member for Cochrane North got up in his place, as he is wont to do, and said to the Pope, "You are not going to let those beggars from the Sudbury area take our phosphates from us, are you?" The Pope said. "No way, we are not going to do that because we as a government believe in refining resources at source."

I could never use the word "prevaricate" and I will not use the word I was going to use. However, for the Minister of Natural Resources to say this government has a policy of refining all its resources at source is just so much hokum. He assured the member for Cochrane North he would never allow those phosphates to come to Sudbury.

Know what? The phosphates are still in the ground. The company that owns them wants to ship them out of the country unprocessed. My friend falls for it. Rather than two municipalities in the north co-operating and combining those two things to make fertilizer, my friend would sooner have them remain in the ground. There are no jobs for the people in Cochrane North; no jobs for the people in Sudbury; and we can import fertilizer if we want.

However, he and the Pope agreed we would not get at it. I saw the Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd. statement where they said, "We need a cheap source of transportation to take it somewhere else." This is not Canada. Guess where that somewhere else is: south of the border. Those two fellows collaborated to not produce fertilizer in the north. Therefore, nobody has jobs. We will leave it in the ground and when we take it out, we will give them another exemption under section 104 of the Mining Act and they can ship it out unrefined, unprocessed. Just get it out of the country.

Mr. Haggerty: Then bring it back in.

Mr. Martel: Then bring it back in. We will not use the sulphuric acid from Inco and the phosphates from Cargill to make fertilizer; we will leave them in the ground. The people are better off unemployed.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: How can I be out of order when I am speaking?

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Because it is very important to me and to the Minister of Natural Resources, I would like to know where the member for Sudbury East gets the information that we were against whatever he was saying. I am not too sure I can use the word "crap" here, but I am adverse to what he is saying.

All I want to know from the honourable member -- in fact, I do not think he is an honourable member -- is where he got the information that the minister and I are against it, the inference that he brought.

The Acting Speaker: We thank the honourable member. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Piché: I have information for you. It was a point of order, no matter what you say.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr. Piché: I will not resume my seat.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member will withdraw those words.

Mr. Martel: Oh, you are chicken, eh?

Mr. Van Horne: Do not let him shout you down.

The Acting Speaker: I caution the honourable member now to withdraw those words.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, you and I have known each other for a long time.

Mr. Epp: Too long.

9:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member --

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor here. I am pleased to withdraw my comments.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will continue.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell the members it is all blunderbuss from him. He just capitulates.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Sudbury East to speak to the motion.

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Piché: The member for Sudbury East is being provocative.

Mr. Martel: Would he spell that for Hansard?

He had a little difficulty pronouncing it, but if he would spell it for us, I will wait.

I just want to say that it is strange that here we have these big companies saying they could not get an adequate supply of sulphuric acid. That was one of the reasons they would not extract the phosphate; they could not get an adequate supply of sulphuric acid. So help me, I have never seen or heard anything so ridiculous in all my life.

Mr. Haggerty: There are tons of it in the lakes up there.

Mr. Martel: It is in the lakes and in the air. We have the poor Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) crying almost daily. He goes begging to Inco and to Ontario Hydro, particularly Hydro. He goes to Hydro almost daily to say to the chairman: "Will you please cut back? Put a scrubber in. Do something. Get them off my back in the Legislature."

In the Sudbury area we could reduce that if we just produced more sulphuric acid, combined it with the phosphates from cargo and made fertilizer. Then for a change we would not be destroying the ecology, but working to improve it.

That one went by the board. We tried to talk to the ministers and nothing happened. They were mute. We know lnco is in financial difficulty. Maybe the two levels of government should provide loan guarantees to ensure a new smelter.

Then they could attach to it a refining capacity for Falconbridge's nickel that it sends to Norway to be processed and for all the precious metals that go to England to be processed. They should have a new refinery. With that new refinery we could have jobs in the construction trade for 10 years, because that is how long it would take to finish it. It would reduce sulphur dioxide emissions which lead to acid rain. Both levels of government are mute.

All I ever hear is: "Here is a good project. For three experiments: $180,000 for greenhouse projects." We hear that sort of announcement when a new smelter would do something to alleviate the unemployment problem in Sudbury. We get nothing, not even a response. They are mute. We should not ask them to act as a catalyst.

I will tell the members how bad it is in the north. Some of the farmers -- and they know more about farming than I do, I can assure honourable members -- tell me there is not a quota. A man wants to farm chickens. There is not a chicken quota in northern Ontario, not one. I have had him down here with the ministry.

Mr. Villeneuve: There are lots of them.

Mr. Martel: My friend is wrong. Just six months ago we met with the head people from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food over on Bay Street. This young man was trying to get a chicken quota. He cannot get one and there is not one.

Mr. Villeneuve: There are all kinds of them in northern Ontario. The farmers are making money, too.

Mr. Martel: The member is serious? That is not what the Ministry of Agriculture and Food told me. Maybe the member is referring to egg quotas. I am talking of broiler chickens. There is none.

Mr. Mackenzie: He probably does not know the difference between eggs and hens. The egg is the little round thing.

Mr. Martel: I defy the member to check to find a quota in northern Ontario. Mr. Grandmaison in Warren and I came right down here to the ministry. He wants to improve things in northern Ontario, but he has to buy a quota in southern Ontario, farm it for two years and then maybe transfer it north.

There is something crazy when a young man wants to do that and cannot. He has to come to southern Ontario, farm for two years and then transfer his quota to the north. He cannot even produce legally for local consumption. We say to the ministry. "Do something for the north." Now there are no more quotas. The biggies would wipe you out anyway because they would undercut you until you were dead. They would use this as lost leaders in the big stores and so on and wipe you out.

It is great, is it not? We import every chicken in northern Ontario. Everything that goes there costs us money. Everything we have that is good is ripped out and brought down here or it is sent south of the border into the United States.

We do not hear Conservative members from the north talking like this. They do up north. They are tough up there. The member for Sudbury wants to nationalize Inco and Falconbridge, two companies in one swoop. He outdoes me. When I moved a bill to nationalize them, I invited him to second my bill. He left the chamber. I was so hurt when he would not second my bill. After he called for the nationalization in the debate, I gave him an opportunity to second my bill. He walked out. I was hurt.

What one puts into the newspaper for the folks back home and what one really wants to do are two totally different things. Can you imagine my shock when he declined the offer to second my bill? Maybe it was because I did not nationalize Falconbridge at the same time. Maybe I should have put the two of them in and then he would have done it. That was my mistake. I will have the bill redrafted. Take Falconbridge too. What the hell, there is no sense being a piker. Take them both.

Mr. Ruston: And take your name out as president.

Mr. Martel: No, no, I want to be president.

I go to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and say to him: "We have stage 3 of agricultural development in Valley East. For this amount of money, we could create 150 jobs by doing some reforestation." The Treasurer comes to Sudbury and he and another fellow appear on television signing this thing for 30 part-time jobs.

I have no money for stage 3 of agricultural development in Valley East. I go to the Minister of Northern Affairs and say to him, "Can you give us stage 3?" He says: "No, I cannot give you stage 3. You better go back to the Treasurer."

When all is said and done, they will not put in a cent for development. I would remind the House that in 1947, 1948 and 1949 Valley East had the world champion potatoes. We had a lot of gas in the 1930s, but the gas is gone now. We put up a big stack, and it went down to Muskoka. Valley East is without the gas, and things are growing better. What we need is a little of the green stuff to reforest that area, get some forest cover, so we can move into agriculture. I go to see them and they turn me down -- $3 million to get stage 3.

I go to the Pope and say, "You have promised $3 million." By the way, the member for Sudbury announced that too. He never attended a meeting and never wrote a letter on Wanapitei Park. I have been on it for 12 years. He was not even born when I was working on it, but now he is the architect.

Mr. Breaugh: He was a Liberal then, was he not?

Mr. Martel: No, I think he was still a Tory. He was ambivalent. He was only ambivalent on the eve of the last election. He was playing with bull. He led George Lund down the garden path. None the less, we have massive unemployment in Sudbury this year. We have 19,000 unemployed. Why does the minister not spend the money this year that he promised to spend next year to provide jobs for people who need it? We will have a nice park anyway. No, he cannot do that either.

9:30 p.m.

Then the Treasurer comes to town and creates 30 part-time jobs. There is something perverse about what they do, what they think and the way they think. As long as it is an announcement, a public relations job, it does not matter what it does. That is what most of it is about.

My colleague from Sudbury and I talked in our paper about such things as institutional replacement. The former member for Prescott-Russell constantly harassed this government in the three short years he was here about government ensuring that supplies in its own institutions are Canadian-produced.

We do not do that. We just looked at some studies on equipment, supplies and furniture. Two thirds of the money, $2.2 billion worth, left the country. In other words, Canadians spent about $1.4 billion on foreign goods to equip and supply Canadian public institutions. If I were in government, I might insist that before I buy these from a company, it would be a Canadian company. It is taxpayers' money.

We put all this together from the government's own studies and we submitted it to almost every cabinet minister. We said: "Would you look at it? Sudbury is in crisis." We did the same thing with the federal government. They sat on their hands. They have their fingers in their ears and their brain in neutral. They make dinky little announcements, while 15 to 17 per cent of the people in the area are devastated with no hope.

The only hope came last week. I am sure someone else will want to say "I did it," but that is not my style. We finally got a plant that is going to start to produce mining equipment. For Sudbury that could be the first major change in many years.

When I spoke at that opening last Friday, I served notice on all of the officials, whether from the Northern Ontario Development Corp. or the Federal Business Development Bank or so on. I said: "I serve notice on you now. This company is going to produce three new types of equipment and we want to ensure that those parts will be produced locally by local businessmen. If you have to put a little cash up by loan, by equity or whatever to ensure that those parts that will be assembled are produced locally, you better be on the ball to do it."

Everything I have talked about tonight and last Tuesday has dealt with what we could do with what we have if we ever had a government that had any disposition at all to economic planning.

When I started out speaking the other night I pointed out that we are in the heartland of the industrial United States. We have the greatest supply of resources and variety of resources going because in Canada we are the third largest producer of mineral wealth in the world.

If we only had governments that would sit down and work with industry and labour to do a little sound planning, to provide jobs for our kids, using the resources that are here and manufacturing those resources into a finished commodity, we would not have a million and a half unemployed. We would not have the type of unemployment we have.

When I look at the budget of the Treasurer in May, and that is what we are speaking about, there is virtually nothing in there that is going to do a thing to change the direction and the course we have been on for years. "Let it happen, and if it happens, we take credit for it. If it closes, it is not our fault. We did not do it." Willy-nilly, we will stumble every step of the way with massive unemployment, a whole generation being shafted; and yet we have the capacity to do otherwise.

I always wonder how the Japanese get away with it. They do not have coal, gas, iron, trees, wood or power and yet they lead the world economically. We have it all and we have given it all away. We do not have the capacity to make the structural changes that are necessary to change the direction we are going. We will continue to stumble, and 15 or 18 per cent of the people in Sudbury, 11 or 12 per cent in Canada and eight or nine per cent in Ontario will continue to be devastated. But as long as we are not suffering, we really will not do much; we will not change.

In conclusion, the Treasurer's budget is not going to change conditions in the Sudbury area one jot. We will come back here next year and say the same things over again. The only difference is that next year the Treasurer will try to put some funds into those job creation and retraining things he talks about. Next year he will put some money in them. All he did this year was to put the infrastructure in place. He can try to con the people. It ain't gonna work.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to rise and express my support for the budgetary policy of the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario.

I want to concentrate on the budget as it relates to this government's record of fiscal management and its commitment to providing the people of this province with cost-effective services and responsible stewardship of the public purse.

I would further like to says I hope the member for Sudbury East will not leave, since I did spend at least a good hour and a half listening to his speech. I found it very entertaining. I was also very gratified to hear him describe my record here in this House, a record I am very proud of and one I think speaks very well for the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario.

I have been very fortunate since March 1981 to have had the ear of so many ministers of the crown and to have had the support of my colleagues whenever I have brought forward a project that had been formulated, worked on and planned for by the people of Sudbury.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can the honourable member justify his position in supporting the budgetary policy of the government when even the Financial Post is very critical of the budgetary process?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member's time to join the debate will come. That is not a point of order. The member for Sudbury will please continue.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, in late January 1981 -- at that time I was the mayor of Sudbury -- I decided the only way I could do more for my community was to seek a higher office in Ontario. After a great deal of soul-searching and deliberation with my family, I decided to run for this party.

9:40 p.m.

I am very proud of my record. That record was enunciated and described quite fully in a recent newsletter in Sudbury. In that letter we talked about some of the things we have been able to do not only in the riding of Sudbury but also in northern Ontario and, in particular, in the Sudbury region.

First of all, I think we showed our sensitivity to the north, and in particular to the Sudbury region, when the announcement was made by the Minister of Health in 1982 that a cancer treatment centre would be built in Sudbury that would serve all of northeastern Ontario. Recently, the Premier was in Sudbury and turned the sod for the centre at Laurentian University. At that time, it was made clear that this centre would have all three modalities, chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy.

This kind of centre has been badly needed in the north for a long time. They tell me that in the first year of operation we can expect there will be approximately 1,400 cancer patients admitted and treated at that centre. I think that gives members some idea of the ramifications of the problem with health, particularly when it comes to that most dreaded disease cancer, in northeastern Ontario. That translates into something like 23,000 to 24,000 outpatient days a year. That is just one initiative that was referred to earlier by the member for Sudbury East.

Another initiative that has played a very real role in further laying a foundation for the future in Sudbury region is the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery, which was established in Sudbury in 1982. As I mentioned, that centre is one of six. It is not in some other municipality or in some other region; it is in Sudbury. I do not think any of the members on the other side of the House, particularly the member for Sudbury East, would get up in this House and say he did not want it in Sudbury.

As a matter of fact, since that centre was established in my riding in Sudbury -- I always talk about the Sudbury region because we live in a basin. The Sudbury basin, as members well know, was the basin formed by what some geologists believe was a meteorite hitting the earth; they believe that is how our nickel and copper ores were formed. That is just one theory.

Because we live in a basin, I never think of the Sudbury riding as the only area I represent. When I am speaking for the people of Sudbury, I always feel I am speaking for the people in Sudbury, Nickel Belt and Sudbury East. That is probably one reason the member opposite gets a little perturbed.

I feel I must represent all the people in the Sudbury region, because they are the people who receive the same newspaper, watch the same television shows and listen to the same radio stations. I think these are my people. I am sure he views the people in the Sudbury region as his people too, and I would not think otherwise.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I feel compelled to raise one point. The member for Sudbury is not compelled to speak on behalf of all the people living in Nickel Belt or in Sudbury East, because I think we have the two best representatives belonging to our party representing the people living in those areas.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Di Santo: The member should look after the interests of his own riding.

Mr. Gordon: I thank the honourable member for bringing me back again to what I really meant to refer to, because one of the things the budgetary policy of this government has done that I think is very important for the north and for the future of Ontario is that it has provided the kind of project we have in the Ontario resource machinery centre, which is established in my riding, in the city of Sudbury.

I would like to point out to the House just how much that has meant for Sudbury and for the north. Let me tell members one of the dreams all the people who live in my region have had; they have talked about this for years. They have said:

"We have the mines and the smelters, we have been extracting these resources for years and we keep seeing machinery being tested, being shaped, being remodelled, being refined, machinery that comes from all over the world, in our hardrock mines and smelters. Why can we not produce some of those machines? Why can we not produce some of those parts in Sudbury region?"

Since 1981, and even before then, we have seen --

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the place I come from, something known as plagiarism is a serious offence. I wonder whether it is a problem in this House when a speaker appears to be plagiarizing former NDP speeches on this subject.

The Deputy Speaker: I have to share with the honourable member that I do not see anything out of order in the member's debate. It is all legitimate debate. Other members will have their turn.

Mr. Gordon: As I was saying, we have had this dream for a long time in Sudbury region. One of the very interesting features of the region is that we found ourselves remodelling, refining and improving equipment, machinery and parts in our hardrock mines and smelters for companies from North America or from other parts of the world.

As a result, over the years a number of small companies were developed by men who had a strong entrepreneurial spirit and great technological and innovative skills. They hired people within the Sudbury region. They hired people who were willing to work hard and who believed in their own abilities. As a result, we have developed over the past 20 years what I would say is a respectable number of businesses that are quite capable and that do make parts for machines, both forestry and mining machines.

As a matter of fact, a number of these people are into the business of exporting their products to other parts of the world. What was a catalyst for our region was the decision in 1982 by the then Minister of Industry and Trade to establish a technology centre in Sudbury which is called the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery.

That was a result of the budgetary process of this government. What it has done is this: since the establishment of that centre, a number of companies in the mining field have moved to Sudbury. One is a real giant in the mining machinery field, Gardner-Denver; it has moved to Sudbury. More and more firms throughout North America and indeed from Europe -- as far away as Finland -- have come to see the Sudbury region as the place to be if one is going to be into the development of new mining machinery and parts, not only for the Sudbury region but also for worldwide export.

The Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery has also spent money on eight projects in the Sudbury region that mean more jobs for people in the region. It has also meant that when Inco started to look at getting into the mining machinery field, it understood and saw that Sudbury was the only place to establish its new mining machinery company.

9:50 p.m.

I had the opportunity last Friday to attend the official opening of Continuous Mining Systems Ltd., a company that is financed by Inco as well as having received significant sums of money in the form of loans from both the federal and provincial governments. As a result of the budgetary wizardry of the government and the Treasurer, I was able to announce at that time a $350,000 Northern Ontario Development Corp. loan to Continuous Mining Systems. I have to admit to my fellow members in the House that was not in my newsletter, because the newsletter came out about three weeks ago.

One of the reasons I look with a certain measure of optimism to the future of my region is that in the past three and a half years we have taken some very significant initiatives in that region. We have been laying the footings for the future. It is going to take time, but the will is there.

That is not the only area in which we have been active. I mentioned the health field. Let me mention one other aspect of the Sudbury region when it comes to health. In the past three and a half years, the Sudbury region was declared by the Ministry of Health to have the northeastern Ontario trauma centre. The centre is going to be at Sudbury General Hospital.

That means we are going to be able to give the kind of health care to the people of northeastern Ontario that they deserve. It is going to help them a great deal because it means that a lot of people who are ill, chronically, acutely or for a short period of time, are not going to have to travel to southern Ontario in the same numbers any more. That is going to save them a lot of money. They are going to be close to family and friends at a time when that kind of help is most needed.

It also means that in the past three and a half years we have built up a significant number of jobs in the health care field. That is what we need in the Sudbury region. We need a balanced economy. There is the health care field and the mining machinery and forestry fields, where the footings are currently in place.

One has to talk about the conscience of this government. This is a government of compassion, a government of understanding, a government of empathy and a government that listens to its people. When one looks at the Sudbury region, one of the most modern, compassionate and forward-thinking homes for women who have been battered, and who have had to flee their homes because of the beatings they have had to endure over a period of time, is Genevra House in Sudbury.

Before there were other homes for battered wives across northern Ontario, one of the first was begun in Sudbury. Many of the programs that go on now in that house in Sudbury were developed there. The model that was developed there is now used in other homes throughout northeastern Ontario.

One has to ask a question. How did we manage to have a house such as Genevra House in Sudbury? It is an interesting story. This is what happened. The Young Women's Christian Association, a very fine organization, years ago owned its own building downtown on Larch Street, and a new building was built just across the street. They decided that perhaps they should move into bigger quarters, and so they did. They remained there for about seven or eight years. Then they found that the money they had been using -- the interest from the home they had sold before -- was not quite enough to enable them to make it financially in this rented space.

One day they came to see me in my office here in Toronto, and they said: "Jim, we have a real problem. We want to carry on taking care of women who have been battered and women who have no place to go in the Sudbury region, but we cannot afford to pay the kinds of rents we are paying in this particular building. We have been trying our best with the moneys we have had, but if we keep going the way we are going, we will soon have used up all the money we made when we sold that building across the street, and we will not be able to carry on at all."

How often have members in this House had people in their ridings come to them and say: "Look, we are really strapped; we are really up against it. What are we going to do?" Like other members, I started casting around and asking, "What are we going to do?"

Fortunately, I was able to talk to the Minister of Northern Affairs. I told him what their problem was, and he said: "I think we could find some money for these people and help them out, but it sounds to me as if what they need is to get into a building of their own. If we talk to the federal people too, perhaps we can get them to put up some money through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., and the provincial people can give them some seed money."

That is what happened. Through the efforts of the federal Liberal member in Sudbury, who happens to be Doug Frith, through our efforts here at Queen's Park and through those of the Minister of Northern Affairs, who provided $100,000 in seed money, we were able to get Genevra House off the ground. As a result, we have seen some pretty interesting things happen there, and it has been a model for the rest of the north.

One of the reasons the Minister of Northern Affairs was able to find that $100,000 was the good money management of this government and the very astute and careful work that is done at Management Board.

I am pleased to see the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) is here this evening, because I am sure that if he were asked to get up and talk a little bit about some of the things that have happened in northern Ontario as a result of our budgetary policies, he would probably talk for at least three weeks.

Nevertheless, I am not going to ask the minister to get up, because there are many other things I would like to say about how our budgetary policies are having an impact on not only Sudbury but also all of northeastern Ontario.

I do think, though, that I have to correct something that was said tonight by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). He has stood up a number of times in this House and said, "The member for Sudbury called for the nationalization of Inco and Falconbridge."

If one really wants to know what was said, one should go back to Hansard. What one will see is that in a speech about the problems of my municipality, I said that if we were going to be giving money to these companies, one of the options we could look at was the possibility of a company like lnco becoming a crown corporation. That is what was said: one of the possibilities.

10 p.m.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, this fellow has been described by the mining people in the district as the most dangerous member in the Sudbury area. Now he is trying to weasel his way out of what he said a few years ago.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Treleaven): Order. He is just explaining himself.

Mr. Gordon: I just thought I would take this opportunity to set the record straight, although I should say that the New Democratic Party members in this House realize this kind of talk is not taking anything away from the member for Sudbury and, as a matter of fact, probably has been to his benefit, but that is another story. If that is the way they want to play it, that is fine with me. Nevertheless, I am going to carry on now.

I want to say it has been the responsible, prudent fiscal management and restraint in the growth of public spending and in the growth of the public sector that has long been the key element in the budgetary policy of this administration. The budget tabled by the Treasurer last May 15 made it clear that these two elements will continue to be at the foundation of this government's economic policy.

I believe most members in this House recognize the negative effects that burgeoning government deficits, uncontrolled public sector spending and a ballooning public debt have on the economy and, in particular, on job-creating private sector investments. The very severe international recession of 1980-82 brought home to governments around the world the fact that they simply could not spend with impunity and impressed on all governments the need for and the importance of responsible fiscal management.

Mr. Elston: That is right. Responsible fiscal management means going down to New York and begging from the credit rating people.

Mr. Gordon: I really have to answer that. It is such a naive statement to make. Anybody who has ever been involved in municipal politics, educational school board politics, provincial or federal politics knows --

Mr. Ruston: How about business?

Mr. Gordon: -- or business, knows one has to show the money-lenders one is responsible and fiscally sound. Money does not grow on trees, as the NDP would have us believe.

Interjection.

Mr. Gordon: What more I can say?

Mr. Charlton: What more can one say about a member who talks about nationalizing Inco and Falconbridge and then talks about government deficits?

Mr. Gordon: I find it highly amusing to listen to the members of the third party when they talk about nationalizing Inco or Falconbridge. Just a few years ago that was the only song they ever sang ad nauseam. Do you know what they are doing now? Do you know what they say now in the Sudbury region? Should I tell you, Mr. Speaker? They say we should be giving them money. We must find ways to give these people money.

What a switch. Here are these people on the other side, the third party, who a few years ago were talking about corporate bums and now they are saying they want to give the corporate bums money. Have you ever seen such a flip-flop in your life, Mr. Speaker? It is almost unbelievable. I do not believe it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to correct the record. I would not like this to go unchallenged. I do not want to give the corporate bums any money. Is that clear enough? Even the member for Sudbury can understand that.

Mr. Gordon: I am really glad to hear that. When I first came down here, one of the things the two northern members from Sudbury used to tell me was: "You know, Jim, when you get down to Toronto, they are going to make you toe the line, boy. You will never ever be able to say anything that is not the party line."

I have found since I have been in this caucus that there is a lot of latitude. I would have to say one of the things that has kept me in the Conservative Party -- and I have been a Conservative ever since 1965 when I sought the nomination in Algoma riding to run against Lester Pearson, who was Prime Minister at that time -- is that in our caucus there is room for dissent and discussion. I am quite comfortable as a Tory.

I have noticed, however, that the members of the third party always make sure every one of their members toes the party line. I have to say I have great admiration for the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) this evening. He got up and said he refuses to toe the party line any more. I take my hat off to him. It was well done.

Mr. Breaugh: While you have your hat in the air --

The Acting Speaker: Is this a point of privilege?

Mr. Breaugh: It certainly is. I do not mind being misquoted, but the member for Sudbury should at least leave a couple of hours in between. He should never try to misquote me within five or 10 minutes of my saying something. He will have the embarrassing problem of having printed in Hansard what I said and, five minutes later, the member trying to misquote me again. He should learn the game a little bit better than that. He should at least wait until tomorrow when it would be printed in a different book.

Mr. Gordon: Carrying on with this budgetary debate, in listening to the opposition to our budget, which has been going ad nauseam, what I have noticed about the members of the third party is they regularly distort what is said. Maybe he will ask me to withdraw that.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mean to write this guy's speech for him, but, Mr. Speaker, you know you cannot say things like that in here. Members have had to apologize, withdraw and walk out the door. You cannot say, "lies," "distortions" or things like that in here. It is unparliamentary and I know you are aware of that. I know you will make the honourable member withdraw that remark.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, before you ask me to withdraw, I will withdraw the "distort" comment.

The Acting Speaker: Fine, thank you.

Mr. Gordon: Perhaps what I should have said was that if the member for Oshawa will read Hansard tomorrow, he will find there was a distortion in what the member opposite insinuated I was trying to do to him. However, that is neither here nor there, so we will let that lie for now. I will carry on with the speech I have here.

I am pleased to be able to say the government of Ontario did not have to wait for the bitter lessons of 1980-82 to recognize the importance of government restraint. Since 1975, long before government restraint became the political fashion in this country and abroad, the government of Ontario had pursued, as part of its commitment to the prudent management of the province's economy, policies designed to control the growth of public spending, the size of the public sector and the size of the province's deficit.

I notice the Minister of Transportation and Communications is in the House tonight. It would really be remiss of me if I did not thank him for the number of meetings we had and the number of times he listened to my pleas and to the persuasive powers of the Minister of Northern Affairs when we went to the Minister of Transportation and Communications to ask him for five sections of passing lanes between the French River and Sudbury.

After considerable discussion, he finally agreed we would have those five passing-lane sections built between Sudbury and the French River. Since he is in the House tonight, I want to serve notice to the minister that I would like to have another meeting with him. At that meeting, we would like to ask to connect up those five passing-lane sections so we will finally have four lanes from Sudbury to the French River. However, we will leave that for another day and carry on with this talk.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is only a gravel road now; there is no pavement.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: That is an interjection by the minister.

As a result, these policies have controlled the growth of the public service in Ontario; increased the efficiency of the public sector and ensured the delivery of high-quality cost-efficient services to the people of Ontario; kept the provincial deficit within responsible limits; helped the province maintain its triple-A credit rating during an extremely difficult economic period; created a positive and stable fiscal environment in the province; and helped to reduce the burden of government in our economy and the cost of government to the citizens of Ontario, as well as playing a critical role in the government's efforts to combat the recession and encourage economic recovery.

I know my friends across the aisle attempt from time to time to make light of these accomplishments and that is, after all, what they are here for, but let us lay partisan perceptions aside for the moment.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think the member just suggested that the members opposite were here to make light of things that are proposed on the other side. I would like to ask him a question or two as to whether he does not make light of his own government's document on the deficit of this province.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There is no provision for the member to ask questions. The member for Hamilton West will please resume his seat.

Mr. Gordon: With regard to the pedantic remarks of the member for Hamilton West, may I say he is not in a classroom now. I think he has been here long enough to realize that this House is a different forum from that from which he came.

Public sector growth is another subject I would like to talk about. I am a little worried that with these interjections I am not going to get the opportunity to finish speaking this evening and will have to carry on.

Let us look at the facts about the size of Ontario's public service. The facts show this province has, in per capita terms, the smallest and most efficient public service sector in Canada. As indicated in our 1984 budget, between 1975 and March 1984 the size of Ontario's public service decreased by seven per cent. That reduction was achieved during a period when the population of our province increased by slightly more than nine per cent.

In 1975 there were 11 public servants per 1,000 population and each public service position served 94 of our citizens. By March of this year we were able to provide more and better services to the people of this province with only nine public servants for every 1,000 citizens, and the efficiency of our public service had increased to the point where each public service position served 110 people.

By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in Alberta -- and as you know that is north of the Pickerel River where I believe you have a camp -- there are 17 public servants per 1,000 population. The figure is 13 in Manitoba, 14 in British Columbia, 15 in Saskatchewan and 32 in New Brunswick. In Quebec each public service position serves 105 people. In British Columbia it is only 70, in Manitoba 79, and in Saskatchewan and Alberta only 69 and 60 respectively.

I am of the opinion that a small, efficient public service is a good thing. I am sure the public feels the same way. Some members opposite may disagree, and I am sure the taxpayers of this province would be most interested in listening to their arguments on this point.

Let us look at the facts on deficit management. It is a fact that during the recession the deficit increased. Because of this government's sound record, the government was able to use the deficit as an important economic stabilizer during a very difficult period, without jeopardizing the fiscal integrity of the province.

Mr. Elston: Why was the deficit increasing through the most affluent times of the 1970s? Was that stabilizing things as well? The government has had a deficit since 1971.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: Tell us about the deficits you ran up in the boom years when you should not have had any.

Mr. Mackenzie: He has not read that far back.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the answer to that so many times from the Treasurer, from people like the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and even from the Premier, and I am surprised members opposite do not know the answer to it. It has been repeated so many times in this House that I am a little worried about their ability to retain facts. Maybe some of them have begun to go to sleep on the other side. Maybe it is time we had an election to wake some people up to the realities of the 1980s.

Mr. Elston: The realities are that you guys have been increasing the deficit since 1971.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury has the floor.

Mr. Gordon: It is also a fact that, during fiscal years 1982 and 1983, Ontario's deficit, whether measured in per capita terms or in relation to gross provincial product, was the lowest of any Canadian province. In the last fiscal year this government was able to reduce its projected deficit by 12.8 per cent, or $345 million. The 1984 budget projected that this year's deficit would be $311 million less than last year's, a drop of 13.2 per cent.

Mr. Bradley: The $100-million man.

Mr. Gordon: Is that the member for St. Catharines?

Mr. Bradley: I just pointed out the $100-million man. I read that in your brochure.

The Deputy Speaker: The member who is out of order may be the member for Sudbury, so just carry on.

Mr. Gordon: I refuse to say what the member for St. Catharines told me in the hall the other day about my brochure. I would not repeat it because it would not be fair; it would just create--

An hon. member: Oh, go ahead.

Mr. Gordon: Why does the member for St. Catharines not tell them? Well, we will carry on.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a very strong first-quarter performance, this forecast has been revised. The very strong performance of Ontario's economy generated revenues $11 million above budget projections. The Treasurer has indicated this revenue will be applied to the deficit and, as a result, Ontario's 1984 deficit is now projected at $2.028 billion.

Members opposite attempt to belittle this government's record of deficit management. I respectfully suggest to them that their view is not shared by the great majority of people in this province. By way of illustration, permit me to call the attention of my friends to an editorial entitled "A Pace-Setting Economy," which appeared in the London Free Press on August 11 this year. The editorial noted that Ontario's economy was growing at a faster rate and was generating more jobs than either the national economy or the other provincial economies.

Mr. Charlton: The member for Sudbury cannot even get his math right. In 1981, more than 50 per cent of the people of this province said you were wrong.

Mr. Gordon: I hope my friends in the opposition parties are listening because they will find this most instructive.

The editorial went on to say: "The pace-setting economic recovery in Ontario is no accident. Much of the credit belongs to the provincial government, which has maintained a more consistent commitment to spending restraint than any other federal or provincial government in Canada ... ."

Mr. Allen: Who was the editor of that paper?

Mr. Gordon: I am sure it was not owned by somebody in the third party because they do not believe in free enterprise.

Noting that the government has committed the additional revenues generated in the first quarter to reducing Ontario's deficit, the editorial stated: "That's the kind of fiscal management which helps to contain inflation, hold down taxes, and limit government borrowing so as to make way for more productive, job-creating private investment. It's the kind of responsible restraint that Canadians should get from political leaders throughout the country."

I could not agree more. This government has always provided the people of this province with responsible leadership. The 1984 budget leaves no doubt that this government will continue that tradition in the future.

The budgetary policies of this government have helped to reduce inflation to its lowest level in 13 years. This government's policies have helped to restore investor confidence. This government's policies have ensured the cost-effective delivery of high-quality services to Ontario citizens.

As I have said, the policies articulated in the 1984 budget reflect the type of leadership this government has always provided. Through the budget, the government has expressed its determination to continue its efforts to reduce the deficit.

The government will continue its practice of expenditure control and will reduce direct operating expenditures by some $75 million. The government will continue its efforts to rationalize the public sector and to make the public sector in this province as economically efficient as possible by identifying those cases where the public interest might be better served by the privatization of public agencies.

The government, through its budgetary policies, has again demonstrated that, unlike some members opposite, it is aware of the line that separates constructive participation in our economy from destructive interference in our economy.

This government has always worked with the people of this province to build a secure, prosperous future for Ontario. The policies introduced in this year's budget will strengthen and build on that partnership and, for that reason, deserve the support of all members.

Mr. Conway: We are trying to figure out what colour the member's hair is.

Mr. Gordon: I am trying to figure out exactly how many members of the official opposition will still be here after the next election.

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

The House adjourned at 10:23 p.m.