Journal des débats 1986-mai-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) made the novel suggestion that in the 10 minutes provided for comments on ministry statements members might comment on statements made on previous days.

Apart from the fact that I am informed that the discussions leading to these provisional changes in the standing orders made the intention quite clear, I find it hard to see how a routine proceeding for a specific day -- statements by the ministry and responses -- could mean anything other than responses to those statements made on that day. I suggest that standing order 28(e) makes this even clearer. It says, "Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party." The word "comment" obviously relates back to the statements referred to in the first line.

As this is an entirely new procedure, there are no precedents to guide me, but on what I consider to be the clear import of the standing order in question, I must rule that comments may be made only on the statements of the day.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, speaking to the point just made, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member, according to the standing orders, once a decision is made by the Speaker, there is no further debate or discussion.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. Rowe: I rise today to bring to this government's attention the ongoing problem that direct care workers in psychiatric hospitals and centres for the developmentally handicapped are experiencing. These workers are upset over poor working conditions in provincial facilities, staff shortages, high levels of assault on staff by clients and inadequate on-the-job training.

On May 12, my colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) asked the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan) what she was doing to settle a contract. Her response was "...we are negotiating actively...and today I am cautiously optimistic." Cautiously optimistic has not solved this dispute as we witnessed today with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union protesting at noon in the park.

Cautiously optimistic has not solved the problems of Oxford Regional Centre where the kitchen facilities are inadequate and fire alarms were missing. This is particularly urgent in the light of the deaths at the centre last year caused by a salmonella epidemic. My colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) brought this to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) in a letter dated April 21. To date, he has not received a response.

My 12 colleagues who have psychiatric hospitals and centres for the developmentally handicapped in their ridings are not cautiously optimistic. They want action from this government to solve this issue. Why will the minister not get down to work and solve this dispute now?

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Wildman: As members of this House know, gasoline prices in northern Ontario have been higher for many years than they are in southern Ontario. Even in large northern communities, gasoline costs are at least approximately eight to 10 cents more per litre.

Yesterday, in answer to a previous question from me, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) provided a list of dates and northern locations for so-called public forums on the north-south gasoline price issue. I then asked the minister to inform the House of the name or names of the hearing officer or officers and the terms of reference for the task force, if that is what it is.

I must confess I am mystified that the minister could not answer my question, nor could he give a commitment that the provincial government was going to take action to lower gasoline prices in the north. All the minister could do was to compliment me on fighting this issue in the House over the years and to invite me to participate in the forums.

It is inconceivable that the minister knows the dates and locations of the hearings, but not who is holding the hearings or the terms of reference of that work. It appears to me that this government is not taking seriously its commitment in the accord to investigate northern gasoline price differentials over southern Ontario and that it has no real commitment to do anything about gasoline prices in northern Ontario. This seems to be more of a charade than anything else.

PROCESSING PLANT

Mr. Bossy: I wish to express my deep concern over the plans to resurrect a tomato paste plant in St. Thomas by a co-operative of tobacco farmers who are being encouraged by the Honourable John Wise, federal Minister of Agriculture, who represents the riding of Elgin.

This government is being forced into funding a dead horse to protect the political interests of the minister. The tomato paste industry is already in dire straits. What hope can there be for a small co-operative of tobacco farmers who will invest their savings in an industry that is doomed to failure?

The solution would be to impose countervailing duties on foreign imports. The tribunal assessed that there had been dumping by Italy and Spain. If these imports were curtailed, we might have a chance to protect an already suffering industry. It is totally unreasonable for the federal government to put the provincial minister in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.

Tomato producers in Kent county are very opposed to the government's plan to fund a company that would be in direct competition with the few survivors, who already have experienced declining acreage and who are losing their contracts with the processors. Only last fall, Libby McNeill and Libby announced the loss of hundreds of jobs directly related to this industry.

Therefore, I cannot understand how the federal Minister of Agriculture can justify encouraging the farmers of Elgin, when the federal government is not prepared to protect the already suffering tomato industry in this country.

PRISON FACILITIES

Mr. Gordon: I find it passing strange that a government of no walls and no barriers sneaks up to Sudbury and holds a secret meeting of a few notable municipal worthies, a few select residents, and proposes to put a wall 20 feet high in one of the most prized residential areas in Sudbury. A 20-foot wall to surround what? The Deputy Minister of Correctional Services was a trifle confused trying to explain, as the Sudbury Star relates:

"It will be a treatment centre, a secure institution. You will have prisoners who will not be able to leave, but it is not like a prison. It is more like a hospital, but secure. It is not being built by the Ministry of Health, like other hospitals, but by Correctional Services."

We in Sudbury are not ungrateful. While we welcome a project that means desperately needed jobs, the residents of the proposed area are deeply angered and upset. Why was a secret meeting, not a public meeting, held? With at least three other truly appropriate sites for such a facility, such as Cecil Facer School, Burwash or the Falconbridge radar base, why was such an inappropriate residential site chosen.

I repeat that we want the jobs and the facility, but we want no secret meetings behind closed doors by invitation only. We want honesty. We want to shape our community wisely. We do not want to be told that we either take this facility in this residential area or there will not be a facility in Sudbury. That, gentlemen, is unmitigated gall. Such behaviour by the government is building more than 20-foot prison walls in Sudbury. They should get their people up there to talk about it.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Warner: Today is Armenian Independence Day. I wish to read a statement that goes back to 1918 and still reflects today the aspirations of the Armenian people:

"Yes, our republic is small and its bounds are narrow. It is deprived of its best lands and there is not enough room for all the people. It seems as if conditions are lacking for its independent existence, but I feel that the boundaries of a state cannot remain inflexible forever. I believe that our borders will spread with the iron force of life, with defence of our just and indisputable rights concerning the occupied lands and, with a new treaty of friendship with Turkey and its allied governments. We have chosen the path of mutual agreement and peace, and we would like to believe that we are not mistaken in this."

The Armenian people suffered immense atrocities. They suffered a holocaust, which should never be forgotten. The Armenian people have a just cause. They deserve justice and they deserve fair treatment by our government and by the United Nations. We could do nothing less than to offer them our support. On Armenian Independence Day, I hope that all of us can join in pledging our support so that the cause of Armenian freedom will never be forgotten.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I cannot recognize a minister during members' statements.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to comment on a potential impact that the current free trade negotiations will have on our car-carrier industry.

The Ontario trucking industry is among the best in the world and plays a major role in the distribution of new cars throughout the province. However, even though the range and sophistication of equipment operated by this industry are comparable or superior to that of the United States counterpart, Canadian carriers will be at a tremendous disadvantage if forced to compete directly with American companies such as Ryder and Leaseways.

The car-carrier industry in Ontario is dependent upon the international movement of cars for more than 63 per cent of its revenue. This source of income would no longer exist under free trade. This situation will have a direct impact on my riding, as the Ontario car-carrier industry maintains a distribution terminal in the town of Fort Erie. This terminal could very well become obsolete if the Canadian trucking industry is not protected from American competition.

The federal government should take active measures to ensure that Ontario service industries in general and the Ontario car-carrier industry in particular are not adversely affected by free trade. Furthermore, in view of the recent actions by the US in imposing a 35 per cent tariff on one sector, the British Columbia forest industry, this province should continue to approach the subject of free trade with extreme caution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia, 30 seconds.

Mr. Brandt: In the light of the time, I will stand down my statement till another day. That will give me adequate time to read the statement that I wish to read into the record.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park-Swansea for 13 seconds.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order on the Armenian situation: Since the minister wanted to make a statement on this, would you consider that as a ministerial statement?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

2:14 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RACE RELATIONS

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Today I am pleased to declare for Ontario the second United Nations Decade for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

In joining in this worldwide effort, our province takes on a challenge that was set forth by the UN when it called upon all nations to "intensify and extend their efforts to ensure the rapid eradication of racism and racial discrimination." That is a challenge Ontarians are proud to accept. We are privileged to live in a highly diverse, multicultural society. The Ontario family tree has roots in every part of the world. Our diversity strengthens our society and brightens our future.

But no community is perfect. We still have much to do to ensure that Ontario provides for all in the future what it has provided for so many in the past: a vision of opportunity. That is why my government is proud to set forth today a clear, unmistakable statement of the principles that will guide us to that vision, the Ontario policy on race relations.

This policy recognizes that Ontario's commitment to equality has grown from benign approval to active support. It leaves no doubt that the path we will follow to full racial harmony and equal opportunity is paved, not just with good wishes and best intentions but with concrete plans and active measures.

These measures go beyond an attack on overt cases of racism. They carry forward a commitment to eliminate practices that have a discriminatory impact on minorities. They also set a tone, a tone of harmony. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will advise the House today of some of the specific measures my government has developed to ensure the fullest and fairest degree of opportunity in this province.

These measures will benefit two groups of Ontarians, those who are members of racial minorities and those who are not, because when one promotes understanding and goodwill and encourages all in the province to make the fullest use of their abilities, every single Ontarian benefits.

These principles enjoy support on both sides of this aisle and so, I am sure, will the policies on which they are based.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I apologize to the House and ask its indulgence. This statement is a little longer than I would normally want, but it deals with a number of initiatives.

It has been my honour over the past 11 months to lead an active and vigorous cabinet committee on race relations. I believe my colleagues and I have made substantial progress in the development of specific, practical and useful initiatives to promote and ensure good race relations in Ontario.

The policy just announced by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is a bolder, more imaginative and more wide-ranging commitment than has thus far been made by any other government in Canada. It is deliberately bold. We are prepared to confront the difficult and sensitive issues in the race relations field and to exercise active and effective leadership.

To encourage others to follow this lead, the policy statement will be widely distributed. Within the next weeks and months, copies will be displayed prominently in government offices, schools and other public places across the province and copies in pamphlet form will also be made available to the public.

I now wish to advise the House of some of the specific policies this government will implement in the area of race relations.

First, let me turn to the tragic situation of minority youth unemployment. Study after study has told us that minority youth suffer more severely from unemployment than any other group in society.

Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We do not seem to have received any copies of the statement on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It was sent to the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) and the leader of the New Democratic Party 20 minutes ago. We can get a copy to the Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the wish of the House to wait until those copies are deposited with the members? Is it the wish of the House to proceed?

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the confusion is arising because it is not clear why our honourable colleague is making this statement. Is he making the statement because he is the Attorney General, is he making it because he is the minister responsible for women's issues or the minister responsible for native affairs, or is he making it because he is chairman of a cabinet committee?

Hon. Mr. Scott: All three.

Mr. Speaker: Are there copies?

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I think part of the confusion here is that a copy was indeed sent to our leader's office, but to date our critic for the Attorney General, our critic for Housing, our critic for women's issues and any number of other critics affected by the statement do not have it.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I will ask the House, do you wish the Attorney General to continue? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I apologize. We made certain assumptions about the leadership of the party opposite and assumed that delivery to the leader's office would see that it was extended to whomever required it.

Let me begin at the beginning.

First, let me turn to the tragic situation of minority youth unemployment. Study after study has told us that minority youth suffers more severely from unemployment than does any other group in society. It is clear to this government that we cannot simply stand by and watch a whole generation of minority youth lose its opportunity for full participation in Ontario society.

2:20 p.m.

True equality means treating the similarly situated similarly. It also means responding to the special needs of various groups. It is not sufficient simply to make programs equally available to all groups. Where the facts demonstrate particular disadvantage, special initiatives must be taken. Accordingly, the government of Ontario has determined that all of its own youth employment and employment training programs and all of its youth employment and employment training initiatives with the private sector should contain specific strategies, goals and timetables to address the special employment barriers faced by racial minority youth. Further, the participation rates of racial minority youth in all such programs will be monitored to ensure compliance with this policy.

To implement this commitment, a broadly based training access policy will address problems associated with institutional, financial and other potential barriers. Data collection and monitoring systems will be developed, appropriate to youth programming, and other more general programs that benefit young people. This data will be used as a reference point to measure our overall effectiveness.

Guidelines developed in the light of research and evaluation will be shared with employers, as well as program deliverers, through special outreach efforts. Specific elements of the strategy will be announced, while results of the monitoring and review will be made available at the end of this year.

Next, I am pleased to announce that the government has recognized and responded to the particular needs of visible minority women. Representatives of minority women have demonstrated compellingly that they often face a double burden. They are discriminated against because of both sex and race. Their difficulties cannot be effectively addressed by programs directed only to women, nor can they be effectively addressed by programs addressed only to racial minorities.

Accordingly, the government has determined that all programs which address the needs of racial minorities should be required to take into account the unique situation of racial minority women. Further, the Ontario women's directorate will deal with racial minority women --

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We find the text of the Attorney General's statement that was given to us is not consistent with the one he is reading.

Mr. Gillies: We made certain assumptions about the Attorney General's office.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I cannot believe it.

Mr. Brandt: It is true.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Would you like to tell me --

Mr. Gillies: I could read the Attorney General's statement back to him if he would like.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the House wants to hear the policies of the government that are designed to deal with racial minorities, it can hear them. Do I have the permission of the House to proceed or do I not?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will go back to the standing orders, which say the minister shall distribute two copies to the leaders of the parties or their representatives prior to the statement. I gather that has been done.

Mr. Andrewes: The statement we have is not the one the Attorney General is reading.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will see that copies are in the leader's office again, and we will deal with the matter tomorrow, if your honour pleases.

Mr. McClellan: As far as we are concerned, we have a copy of the statement the Attorney General is reading and we would like to hear the rest of it.

Mr. Speaker: I will ask the House again, do you wish the Attorney General to continue? Agreed.

Some hon. members: More.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Ontario women's directorate will deal with racial minority women as a specific target group, and the race relations division of the Ontario Human Rights Commission will do the same. Both will designate staff members to be responsible for ensuring ongoing consultation with minority women and the development of policies and plans affecting them.

I am also pleased to announce that cabinet has agreed to ensure that qualified members of racial minorities are fully represented on the government's agencies, boards and commissions. Further, the Ministry of Housing will be implementing an active race relations program in public housing in Metropolitan Toronto. Matters such as racial incidents and tensions are by no means unique to public housing, but being a responsible landlord, the government intends to take all appropriate measures to remedy the problem in this area.

Central to the implementation of a plan of action will be the hiring of a director of race relations policies and programs for the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. Moreover, cabinet has approved more than 20 specific recommendations to ensure a harmonious racial climate in public housing. I will not take the time of the House to review them now, but the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) will announce the details within the next few weeks.

The initiative announced on May 7 by the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) also forms part of our first race relations initiative. Working with the co-operation of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the approval of the human rights commission, the government is conducting a census of the current employment situation of all groups in the government, including racial minorities. This will allow us to determine the extent and location of the need for specific employment equity initiatives in the future. As announced, the census, under the leadership of the Chairman of Management Board, will be conducted in June and the results will be available in September.

At the same time, work has begun on a study of whether there are barriers to the recruitment and advancement of racial minorities in the public service. This is another part of the planning for employment equity. It will tell us where further and better specific programs are required to ensure that equality of opportunity is a reality for minorities in the Ontario public service.

My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) will continue to offer programs and services that respond to the diverse needs of our multicultural communities. During the past 11 months, many individuals and groups have received a sensitive audience that allows for open dialogue, discussion and action. The minister is currently conducting a series of think tanks with multicultural groups to obtain a better understanding of ways in which sensitivities, including race relations sensitivities, can be addressed. In the course of such meetings, the need for the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to continue and increase its advocacy role within and across the ministries has been articulated.

The initiatives I have announced today, I believe, testify to the government's continuing commitment to intensify its efforts in the struggle against racism. This government continues to work actively on additional initiatives. I would be grateful for the help of honourable members in that regard, including important measures pertaining to education, access to professions and trades and access to government services.

Announcements on these matters, as well as further details on the programs I have highlighted, will be made in the near future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members of the House.

Mr. Grossman: First, in response to the statement by the Attorney General, I want to say that he should not be sarcastic or arrogant in making accusations about assumptions he made about the leader's office on this side. We on this side made certain assumptions about his following traditions in this House and the rules of procedure. He violated them twice this afternoon on an important matter. That was followed up once again by the auxiliary Minister of Citizenship and Culture, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), not being able to provide us with a statement 20 minutes ago about the Armenian circumstance, but the Attorney General was able to do it on a much more significant matter at two o'clock.

I want to speak to the substance of the statement made by the Attorney General --

Hon. Mr. Scott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been in the House for nine months, and I want to apologize to your honour and to my colleagues in the House if I have in any way breached the rules or the orders of the House and the decorum that is expected of members. That was not my intention, and I apologize.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General rose at four minutes and seven seconds. I respectfully request that the time be added.

Mr. Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General is quite appropriately seeking all-party support for these initiatives and for the statement made by the Premier with regard to the United Nations decade. The Premier will get that support for the United Nations declaration. However, in the spirit of all-party support, I must say it was most improper and unfair for the Attorney General not to take a moment in his statement to point out that the cabinet committee on race relations, also a very bold step, was established several years ago by his predecessor, Roy McMurtry, leading to any initiatives now able to be taken. It is unfortunate he could not have got that in his original statement.

Second, I have read the document the Attorney General proposes to display in all the schools. I anticipate it will be signed by the Premier and perhaps by the Attorney General, by the member for Parkdale and by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Having read it, I think it steps far beyond the bounds of anything appropriate or proper for posting in the schools and other public institutions in promulgating politically based circumstances. It goes ahead and promises that his government will do A, B, C and D. It does not set out a series of principles that all people in Ontario should follow. It does not commit the people of Ontario to anything specific. It says, "The Premier promises appointments to agencies, boards and commissions." That is a disgraceful thing for the Attorney General to be putting in schools, wrapped in the flag, as he is trying to do, as his initiative on the subject of race relations.

Finally, the Attorney General ought to be hanging his head in shame when he looks back and realizes this is in part an implementation of the infamous document of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture outlining the government's strategy for multiculturalism. He can find it indicated in three or four of these headings. If this is the way he handles race relations, that is, to follow the guideline prepared for the minister, a scandalous piece which she is trying to dissociate herself from, and he endorses it by his statement today, then he should be hanging his head and not patting himself on the back.

Mr. Gillies: I also want to speak to the statement made by the Attorney General and the various texts of it floating around this chamber. I say to the minister that while the lofty sentiments he has expressed on behalf of the government are easily supportable by all members of this chamber in what I believe is our united desire to stamp out racism in this province and everywhere else, his statement is so entirely lacking in substance and in demonstrable commitment that it leaves us somewhat mystified.

If the minister really cared about a commitment to minority youth and the rate of unemployment they face, his government would not have flat-lined youth employment spending this year in the way it did. If his government really wanted to make a commitment towards minority housing, his government would get its act together on its assured housing policy and bring it forward. If his government really wanted to make a commitment to minority women and their employment circumstances, his government would have accepted the recommendations of the combined opposition to bring in a meaningful pay equity package and not the parsimonious one it has.

I say to the minister that we cannot disagree with his sentiments, but we are looking for the substance.

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the comments of the Premier and the Attorney General this afternoon. I do not think there is any question that all members of this House share a common commitment to a multiracial Ontario and a common commitment to our job of eliminating the scourge of racism, the scourge of discrimination and the special kind of personal pain and hurt that racial hatred and discrimination always pose.

I think of the kind of hopelessness that I know affects many of the young kids in the housing projects in my constituency. They come into my office looking for jobs and faced with the problem of people saying they need experience when they do not have experience. Many of them have dropped out of school too young. The school system has not served them or their needs well. This is something we have to fight.

I dearly wish the government today had given us the tools with which to fight, but it has not done so. The Attorney General and the Premier today have chosen to give us words in what I can only assume was a very hastily concocted decision to make an announcement today. There is scarcely any new initiative announced that actually involves the expenditure of public money or a change of policy. In the time remaining I want to establish that clearly for the record, because we have to see it.

What precisely has the Attorney General said? He stated the government wanted to do something about minority youth employment. All he said was that "programs should contain" -- and he said "should contain," not "will contain" -- "specific strategies, goals and timetables to address the special employment barrier faced by racial minority youth." I do not read that as a program.

He said the Ontario Human Rights Commission is going to "designate staff members to be responsible for ensuring ongoing consultation with minority women." We are experienced enough in this House to know weasel words when we hear them. We all know "ongoing consultation" means precisely nothing in terms of hard programs. He also said cabinet is going to appoint qualified members of minorities to agencies, boards and commissions. That has been established as government policy for a long time. I am delighted to hear the Attorney General saying it is going to continue.

With respect to housing in Metropolitan Toronto, good: let us see the guidelines, the outline and the policies. The changes with respect to racial policy in public housing development are good, but let us see them. With respect to the census, again it is simply a rehash of an old announcement. With respect to employment equity, we do not have a commitment to employment equity; we have a commitment to plan for employment equity. If there is another word that tells us nothing, it is that the government is simply going to be planning for something in the future.

Finally, we have praise for all the sensitive audiences that have been held with the various Ministers of Citizenship and Culture. I have no doubt that the member for Parkdale and the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro) have been holding sensitive audiences throughout the province with every group we know. I have no question but that they have been promising and indicating steps that are going to be taken and have been showing how sensitive and capable they are at listening.

When it comes to a policy, this government and this Attorney General have offered us virtually nothing today. The decision to make an announcement was obviously a hasty one. It was taken with no announcement of detailed policy. Frankly, the Attorney General should be embarrassed. If this is the best that an active race relations committee of the cabinet can produce after 11 months, all I can say is that the Attorney General has not served the cause of racial harmony as well as he might have by putting some money and some commitment where his mouth is today.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event 68 years ago, May 28, 1918 --

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We do not have copies of this.

Mr. Speaker: There has been a request for copies of the statement. Have they been delivered to the other members?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: Copies have been delivered to both leaders of the official parties.

Mr. Grossman: This is it?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: That is correct.

Mr. Speaker: Do the members have copies?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: The members had copies five minutes ago.

On behalf of the Premier and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 68 years ago, May 28, 1918: the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia. This day is of great significance to the Armenian community here and to Armenians around the world.

The province of Ontario and the Canadian nation have prospered through the courage and industry of people of many nationalities who have come to this land in search of freedom and opportunity. On this day we are especially mindful of the important contributions that our citizens of Armenian ancestry have made to our province and country since first arriving in Canada to settle in the St. Catharines area in 1886.

The celebration of this anniversary fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, liberty and democratic ideals. Therefore, on behalf of the government of Ontario, I invite all members of this Legislature to join me in remembering May 28 as Armenian Independence Day.

Mr. Shymko: I want to join my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) regarding the announcement of Armenian Independence Day. My concern is, why there has been no proclamation for that independence day as there has been in other independence day resolutions? Why is it not being read today as it has been for others? I ask the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the minister the reason for the selection of some and the avoidance of others.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the additional comment made by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko). I am very disappointed that there was not a commitment by the government of Ontario to petition the government of Canada to bring pressure on Turkey once and for all to acknowledge the genocide and to apologize to the Armenian people. Without an acknowledgement and without an apology, there is no justice. I am disappointed that this government has not seen fit to petition the government of Canada on this issue.

2:41 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) about the possibility of appointing a mediator, something the Premier appeared to endorse a few weeks ago, to try to bring some balance to the discussions with the Ontario Medical Association and to try to avoid the potential for chaos and crisis that may befall the system as early as tomorrow. Will the Premier tell us whether he has called the OMA and suggested that a mediator be appointed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no, I have not.

Mr. Grossman: As I said, the Premier indicated several weeks ago that he entertained this as a possibility. It is quite clear that, as happened on the front lawn, the OMA has called for a truce. At that time, the OMA was not asking for major concessions; it was asking for a truce to avoid the job action and the crisis that is about to befall us. Can the Premier tell us why he will not call the OMA now and ask for a mediator?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Someone raised a theoretical suggestion about that possibility some weeks ago. I never exclude any possibilities that I think will lead to progress in this matter. As far as I know from discussions between the minister and the OMA, it was never suggested that this would be helpful in the circumstances and there is no indication that route would lead to any progress.

Mr. Grossman: How can the Premier say there is no indication that route would lead to any progress when the OMA itself has indicated it wants a truce? The OMA has said it would like more time to continue to discuss matters. It may well be that no resolution can be reached. It may well be that because of the Premier's determination to hang tough on the ban on extra billing, there will be no progress. But how can he suggest that he sees nothing of value in appointing a mediator?

Clearly, he can avoid a strike tomorrow and he can avoid a strike Friday. He can buy some time and some calm, perhaps a calm opportunity to discuss these issues further in the presence of a mediator.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier.

Mr. Grossman: How can he say that would not be helpful?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How can the Leader of the Opposition say that would solve anything? He has been commenting on this situation regularly for the past several months. He has put forward some ideas that have been dismissed by all sides as well as by commentators. The onus is on him to prove it would be helpful in some way or other.

The member would like to let these things drag on for ever, and the New Democratic Party would have liked them to have been done months ago. We are charged with the sensitive responsibility of trying to work out a solution. As we told him, at various times we thought progress was being made. Unfortunately, ultimately it was not and we had to use the best judgement we had in the circumstances. What I am giving him is the sum total of our best judgement at present.

Mr. Grossman: I have a further question for the Premier. He said a moment ago that the onus is on the Leader of the Opposition to show that the appointment of a mediator would provide some progress and some hope. That is an absolutely disgraceful stance for the Premier to take, that somehow the onus is on me or anyone else to prove that a mediator might be helpful when he himself said on April 29th that he would consider appointing an independent arbitrator to break the deadlock.

Does the Premier not agree that the appointment of a mediator could not possibly harm the circumstance and that at the very least it might take four, eight or 12 weeks to cool off feelings and tempers on both sides of this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: These discussions have been going on for not quite a year but almost a year --

Mr. Grossman: About four months.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not correct.

Mr. Grossman: It is correct. The Premier did not tell them anything until he introduced the bill.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member knows everything, as usual. Let me refresh his memory of the history of the situation.

Shortly after we assumed office, discussions started. We said we wanted to discuss the extra billing issue. There were many meetings, and I participated in them, with the leader of the Ontario Medical Association. That goes back to last summer. It may come as a surprise to the member, but I am sure it does not come as a surprise to others, that this has been going on for a long time.

The member makes suggestions from time to time on a variety of subjects. If he makes useful suggestions, we try to take advantage of them and follow them up. In our judgement, as I told him, at present it would not solve anything except delay for ever, and we would end up in the same position in three, four or five months -- however long he wants to delay it -- as we are in today.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier suggested that the alternatives put forward by the opposition party in this House have been rejected by all reasonable commentators, by his friends the media -- his only measure of how he is doing -- and by the OMA. I remind him that our four recommendations have been accepted by the OMA as things it is now willing to do, an indication that the OMA is prepared to negotiate and to listen to constructive suggestions offered by politicians.

Other than risking job action closer to a provincial election campaign, what has he got to lose by having 60, 90 or 120 days of mediation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am used to the honourable member attributing motives regularly in this House, and I guess it is his right to do so.

I guess it comes as a bit of a surprise to him that we are doing what we said we would do. He is perfectly entitled to criticize the way we are doing it, as he does regularly. His idea of tipping the doctors has been rejected by most people, and I think the minister has used incredibly good judgement in the way this thing has been handled.

One of the realities of life, and I am sure the honourable member will agree with me, is that sometimes there are such differences of opinion that one just cannot capitulate. He has experience with capitulation in these matters, and he knows what is happening. He above all knows the kinds of problems we have had to deal with in these circumstances.

The OMA was not exactly used to dealing with a government that said exactly where it stood on the issue and was proceeding on the questions. We are proceeding, we hope, as sensitively as we can.

Mr. Grossman: I want to read a quote from the leader of the government on February 28, 1982, with regard to the fee negotiations he was just referring to:

"It is so easy to kick the doctors. It is a temptation for all people in politics, but I tell you we will not win, nobody will win, the patients will lose, if we wholesale go around booting them and don't create a climate where they are reasonably comfortable. You can legislate them all back into OHIP tomorrow, but I believe that will create far more stresses and lead to a deterioration in the quality of service if we did that."

That was what the Premier said in 1982. Other than adopting a new position, which we respect -- we do not agree with it, but we respect his right to do that -- does he now disagree with everything he said in 1982 about the consequences of legislating them all back in?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his research in digging up that quote, because I think it was prophetic in many ways. It indicates our sensitivity. We were not advocating kicking the doctors. What happened was that the doctors kicked the previous government.

2:50 p.m.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General about equal pay. In his answer to a question from my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), he indicated the legislation would not be forthcoming until the fall. By delaying the introduction of private sector legislation as much as he now intends to delay it, does the minister not realize that basically he is asking all those people -- nursing home workers, hospital workers, workers for our municipalities -- to accept the very narrow public service bill in the expectation that something, but we do not know what, is going to be forthcoming in the fall?

Will the Attorney General not agree with me that this is a very unfair proposition to put to those public sector workers and to all the other workers in Ontario? They are entitled to see, prior to the summer, the legislation on equal pay that the government intends to bring forward with respect to all sectors.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We are going to have pay equity in Ontario. The Premier has indicated that the public service bill will go first. It has been introduced in the House and in due course will be debated. We have agreed it will be brought to the broader public sector and to the private sector after full consultation. Consultation means a detailed examination with the public and with interest groups of the various modalities to effect the scheme. That process is coming to a close.

When it has closed, and it will very shortly, then the decisions will be made and put before the House for debate.

The process of government in this Legislature is not fast; we concede that. But to be fair to the interests involved, including the interests that my friend has referred to, it must be thorough, open and consultative.

Mr. Rae: I have heard of Moe Koffman; I have not heard of modalities.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member should have stayed at Oxford for another month.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is having a hard time today. Nobody has asked him a question yet and he is getting upset. He is yawning.

This is not good enough. The Attorney General cannot reasonably expect more than 90 per cent of the working women in this province to simply wait and hang around on the expectation that something is going to come. The accord that the Premier signed a year ago provided very clearly that legislation with respect to equal pay in the public and private sectors would be a priority for the government.

He has delayed once and now he is announcing a second delay into the fall. Why does he insist on having that kind of delay? He knows the impact it is going to have on many millions of women who are demanding equal pay and who right now are not getting it from this government.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The reality is clear that there would have been no commitment on the part of a government to pay equity if this government had not been elected. The predecessor government --

Mr. Pope: This government was not elected.

Mr. Martel: Elected by us; did the minister forget?

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We feel like the government. How do those guys feel?

An hon. member: Take a look at the face of the Leader of the Opposition. One can tell how he feels.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

Hon. Mr. Scott: To answer my honourable friend who raised this question, I recognize there is delay in this process. It is not delay for the purpose of delaying. It is delay because the bill will be complex in its nature, if it is to be effective and to have teeth, as I think it must have. It also must carry with it the community that all of us represent, which is the community of Ontario. That requires, in a modern age, a high level of consultation. That is what we are doing in the hope that as soon as possible we can bring forward a bill that will be supported by the people and that will be effective. That is our commitment. Frankly, my colleagues and I are doing the best we can do to honour it.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Rae: No. I think I will have one last try. One does not know what the answer will be, but I would like to ask the Attorney General if he does not realize the implication of what he is saying. I remind him that Mr. Dimma, who is one of the anointed three he appointed to his panel, said the effect has been "to delay the entire process." He admitted that. That is the effect of what the minister has done in terms of his so-called consultation.

Does he not realize he is putting women working in the public sector, in nursing homes, in hospitals, women working in the private sector and in factories right across this province in an impossible position when it comes to having to deal with the very narrow bill called Bill 105? Does he not recognize that it would be far wiser --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It was only 10 days ago that my learned friend was criticizing the government for consulting with doctors to see if an impasse could be resolved. For my part, I am not ashamed of consulting with interest groups. I do not always agree with them, and I do not always accept their positions, but I think that kind of consultation is important.

Tomorrow morning we will be meeting with the pay equity group composed of trade unions from all across the province which are making a useful contribution to the process of developing a complex and, I hope, effective piece of legislation. I do not propose to short-circuit a good process which will produce a good bill simply to provide an answer that suits my friend.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It has to do with the very real problem -- I hope he is aware of it -- of the number of people working for him and working for hospitals, psychiatric institutions, and institutions covered by his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) who are being hurt and injured on the job.

Is he aware of the situation at the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital where, in the first four months of this year alone, the number of injuries arising from patient violence was 41, or approximately 10 a month? Is he aware that this represents a dramatic increase in the number of workers who are subjected to this kind of violence and this level of assault? What does he intend to do to remedy this situation, and what kind of help can he give to those workers who are putting themselves at risk every day on the job?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable gentleman will know, we have met on occasion with the representatives of the workers at the institutions right across the province. We have received some suggestions with respect to things that might be considered. I have in place within my ministry but with representation from other interest groups, or at least representation to be provided, a way of analysing the role of the employee in the work place and how we can address some of the areas that have been identified as causing difficulties for employees in the work place.

I met recently with the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. We have been taking some steps to try to activate some of the employee relations committees and other things to assist us in deciding how we best can attack that difficult situation. In addition, we also wish to address the issue of concern expressed about the number of instances in which patients have also complained about staff treatment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister is aware of how serious this problem is, not only in psychiatric institutions but also in nursing homes and in many public institutions which provide care or treatment for people. Can the minister tell us specifically what he intends to do to deal with two very real problems which have been brought to our attention and, I am sure, to the minister's attention on a great many occasions?

The first is the enormous problem of inadequate training of staff at all levels with respect to this problem. In particular, what is he doing about the tremendous problem of burnout, what I call the new frontier of health and safety in the public sector in terms of the stress problems affecting people? I ask the minister to address those two problems and to give us some answers.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Those two items were raised and discussed in general terms in the meeting with the president of OPSEU and some of the representatives of his executive. In conjunction with the members of the unions who participated in those discussions, we agreed we will try to come up with ways of addressing the issue of stress and the need for training or retraining.

Mr. Rae: I will raise one example, only because it is one of which we were made aware some time ago in the submission made to our health and safety task force by Bill Russell, the health and safety representative at North Bay Psychiatric Hospital. What does the minister intend to do about this problem in this institution? In the first four months, there was a total of 450 days lost time, some directly because of injuries resulting from attacks by patients and others resulting from tremendous burnout and morale problems and people losing time as a result. What does he intend to do about that problem at that institution to make sure the patients of this province are getting the care they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Elston: When we met with OPSEU and when we discussed those situations, we did not address specific facilities. We were talking in general terms, but we realized the reason the question was raised was that there was a need to address some concerns with respect to stress in the work place. I have no qualms about saying to the honourable gentleman that we have undertaken to work in co-operation with those people's representatives to try to come up with some way of dealing with the problems. Once we are able to identify and define the problem specifically, we will move. I will take the example and alert my ministry staff to the concerns raised by the gentleman.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to attend at the North Bay psychiatric facility for a tour, as I have done at several others. I have been at the Lakehead and Whitby and several other facilities, but unfortunately I have not been able to be there. I look forward to being able to address some of those concerns when I visit that facility.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Attorney General regarding pay equity. The combined opposition parties are going to move to expand his pay equity bill. He should get on board. He should not get caught outside on this one.

Can the minister explain why his pay equity panel, which was announced with great fanfare and is publicly funded at considerable expense, will be making its recommendations only in oral form and only to the minister and to the Premier (Mr. Peterson)?

Hon. Mr. Scott: First, I am interested to hear that the honourable member for Brantford is expressing the view of the combined opposition. I would like to know what accords that representation is based on. I very much hope the member will not introduce a proposal of the type he suggests. It will greatly disadvantage the members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, because the bill, as the member will see from its terms, will have to be substantially rewritten. The Consultation Panel on Pay Equity will be making a report of what it has heard and it will have access both to me and to the Premier, as the labour advisory committee and the business advisory committee would.

Mr. Gillies: The Attorney General answered both the observation and the question.

If the minister truly wants to demonstrate his commitment to the working women of this province, he will move to bring his bill to the broad public service and not to the very narrow definition he has used, which I do not believe lives up to his commitment during the election or in the accord. I happen to think the third party agrees with us.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gillies: I say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: You ask the minister.

Mr. Gillies: I ask the minister.

The representatives the minister has put on his pay equity panel have said they are making the recommendation orally only to the Premier and the minister. When the minister announced this panel, he said his commitment was to open and accessible government: "We will begin a consultation process available to all." How does a secret consultation between the Premier and the minister come close to meeting that commitment? Why does he not make this consultation available to the members of the House?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let me deal with the observation, first of all. I understand that an attempt to expand the bill to include the broader public sector is well intentioned. There is no question about that. The reality is, as it is advanced by my honourable friend the member for Brantford, that it is a plot to shipwreck and delay the public sector bill because it would have to be substantially rewritten. I hope the House will seriously consider that course before it is taken, as I am sure it will.

With respect to the question my friend has asked, it is the first question asked over again, and I give the same answer.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General's most recent comment imputes motive to me and to the members of this party. I want to say to the minister that we are not out to shipwreck his --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Labour in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). Will the minister explain why, in this day and age, his ministry, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Solicitor General are unable to provide adequate work-place safety for public servants working in the province's psychiatric hospitals and centres for the developmentally handicapped?

Specifically, can the minister tell us how it came to pass that Pat Chapados, a counsellor at the Northwestern Regional Centre in Thunder Bay, was attacked on three separate occasions by the same resident in a 24-male ward, the last time being choked, thrown to the floor and kicked in the stomach in the eighth month of her pregnancy, resulting in a three-week compensation claim? Why are such incidents allowed to happen almost daily in Ontario's institutions?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not know the details of the specific instance. I will take that as notice and check into the matter.

As the honourable member knows, his leader has just asked a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) along the same lines. I am sure that minister, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) and other ministers where appropriate, but particularly those three, are very carefully to ensure the greatest possible degree of health and safety, particularly, as in this case, safety from injuries arising in places of incarceration over which they have jurisdiction.

Mr. Foulds: I thought the minister was responsible for health and safety.

As a result of understaffing, attacks on workers in public and provincial psychiatric hospitals and centres for the developmentally handicapped happen regularly. Has the minister been made aware that these attacks are increasing, by 46 per cent at the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital -- that is, from 76 to 111 over the past year -- and by 77 per cent at the Northwestern Regional Centre between 1984 and 1985?

3:10 p.m.

What specific measures will his government take to rectify a situation where, as a condition of employment, Ontario's public servants are required to suffer physical assault, to be beaten or to have their lives endangered on a regular basis? What is the minister going to do to improve that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the second time the member has asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member should not confuse what I said at the end of my first answer. As the member will know, in effect, I am not the employer in those centres. We have the health and safety branch of the ministry and we will play our role. I am sure the ministers, two of whom are in the House today, have taken careful note of the question. My colleague the Minister of Health has already given a full answer to the leader of the third party. I will draw this very important matter to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services on his return.

RACE RELATIONS

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues, if he will resume his seat.

In his statement today, the minister indicated the race relations division of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario women's directorate will be appointing staff to consult with visible minority women. That work was begun in 1983 with a founding conference of both the commission and the directorate. Can the minister tell me what further specific work will be done now?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let me answer that question and also the response given by my learned friend the leader of the third party, because they both make the same point. It is a good point and I respect and value the commitment of the two members to the promise of race relations in this province.

There are many things in this statement that have been announced in other places. The point is, they have never been done in Ontario. That is the key thing. Since I got out of college, Gordon Cressy, Joanne Campbell, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and a host of people have been saying, "We need race relations policies in Ontario Housing." A report was made to the last government and nothing was done about it. Today we are doing something about it. Second, to answer my friend's precise question, in 1982 the government funded a conference of minority women, which made a report. As the minority women have told us when they have met with us, nothing was done about that report. We have started that process. We have not met all their demands. We have not begun to achieve anything like the expectations they have, but we have taken the first steps on the report they made in 1982 to the last government. That is our commitment and I am proud of it.

Ms. Fish: My supplementary question is one that derives from puzzlement at the minister's response. The previous government set the race relations division, the Ontario women's directorate and representatives of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, together with representatives of visible minority women, to follow up on not only the specific recommendations of that conference but on others that had come forward. We had identified plans of action that involved core funding, responses to immigrant women's health centres and hiring practices.

When the minister came to office, he had quite an extensive body of material in front of him that had already been developed.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Fish: He was reminded in January of further work to be done by a further submission from the coalition. Fully a year later, with all of the material that had already been under way, why is his major announcement that he is starting by appointing someone --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have now been here almost a year and maybe I am not getting into what is going on in this process. Let us be perfectly fair. I have known Roy McMurtry all his life. There is no person whom I admire more and whose commitment to race relations is more profound and more real.

Mr. Grossman: It took the minister a long time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I know that. I am not ashamed to say it. From talking to him, I know he is concerned about these things. It may have been somebody else's problem, but the reality is that when the racial minority women made a report in 1982, they could not get any of it implemented by the previous government. We do not meet all their concerns. We cannot go the whole distance. However, we are taking the first important step they asked us to take and I am proud of it.

Mr. Rae: Let us have one piece of legislation or one bill that will solve --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding Millbrook Correctional Centre which, when it was opened 30 years ago, was a modern reformatory. The minister will be aware that the institution was designed to accommodate 260 prisoners who were there because they displayed dangerous psychological tendencies. They were allowed 20 minutes' freedom a day. That has now changed. They have five hours' freedom a day.

Is the minister aware that from January to October 1985 some 40 staff people were assaulted? Is he aware that this year already there have been 54 staff assaulted in that institution? Can the minister tell me why there are so many assaults going on in institutions in the province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not certain there are. That is a very specific instance. I do not know whether that extends to other institutions. I will certainly endeavour to get a report on the general thrust of the questions being asked today. It has not been brought to my attention. If the member would like, since we have talked about correctional institutions, I will refer the rest of the question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), who is also the Minister of Correctional Services. He may have further information on the situation.

Mr. Martel: As a supplementary to this minister, will he tell me, since he is responsible for the health and safety of workers in the province, including those in institutions, what procedures he is prepared to put in place immediately to reduce the number of assaults that have occurred in this one institution in less than a year and a half, which is almost 100?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not going to stand up and give the member a list of procedures that we are going to put in place. However, I will tell him that we will immediately review the situation. We will pull together a number of disparate reports which would have been prepared by a variety of inspectors. We will see what the Workers' Compensation Board has on these matters. I will get back to the member at the appropriate time.

Let me make it clear to my friend the member for Sudbury East that if there is new activity needed in terms of the protection of workers or if there are problems this ministry can address under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we will address them. There is no lack of political will on this side.

Mr. Martel: Where has the grievance been since October? In the swamp?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. It is now his position that the separate secondary school system, when it receives public funding, should be allowed to discriminate in its hiring practices. How can it ever be acceptable to legislate discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is a red letter day when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), suggests he might lead us all in grace and class classes. Did you hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest he might undertake a class?

Mr. Speaker: It is up to you to answer the question.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The position of the government is very clear and I made it abundantly clear yesterday. In the process of Bill 30, we intend to complete a separate school system that was created before Confederation in this province and that was, in terms of its rights and privileges, confirmed in section 93 of the British North America Act.

It is quite obvious that is the intention of the government. The courts in this province and in the country have made it clear that one of the fundamental rights provided for the separate schools of Ontario and elsewhere is the right to hire teachers who give effect to the denominational character of that system.

The very distinguished former Premier and leader of the Conservative Party, when he made his statement in 1984, made it clear he recognized that fundamental principle. I find it passing strange that what is left of Mr. Davis's legacy in the 33rd Parliament of Ontario neither understands nor recognizes that important and fundamental reality.

Mr. Davis: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has just made a major statement on nondiscrimination in Ontario. No matter what the Minister of Education says, no matter how he decides to cover it up, what he has proposed is out and out discrimination, not only for teachers currently wishing to move to the separate school system but also for those who will be graduating from teachers' colleges. What double standard rationale can he find to justify discrimination in hiring practices and in legislation?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Among other references, I cite the case of Caldwell v. Stewart in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1984, the Essex County Roman Catholic School Board and Porter in the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1978 and several others in which it was made very clear that one of the most fundamental protections provided the separate schools of Ontario is the right of the trustees to hire teachers who will give effect to the denominational character of that system.

That is the case this government has made, that is the case our lawyers have already won in the Ontario Court of Appeal and that is the case we submit to this Legislature and to the people beyond -- a case that, quite frankly, I am very confident we will win when the matter is finally settled in the Supreme Court of Canada.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Premier. He has heard a list of questions from this party this afternoon about the problems of inadequate staffing in institutions in the province, which are threatening the workers' safety and the quality of care in those institutions.

I wish to bring to the Premier's attention the case at Cedar Springs in southwestern Ontario, with which he is very familiar. How can he explain in 1986 that this is appropriate care or adequate staffing? In one ward, called Elgin 1 North, there are 22 profoundly retarded residents. All are incontinent and all are incapacitated. Twenty out of 22 are in diapers -- these are all adults -- and there are only two staff people to look after them.

How can he consider that to be adequate staffing to look after those people or to protect those workers in this day and age?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot make an argument to my honourable friend on this issue. I can assure him the incidents that were brought to the attention of the House today by him and by his colleagues will be looked into. I appreciate the information they are providing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I could list a lot of other institutions, but I want to go back to this particular one at Cedar Springs, because both the Premier and I were involved in the closing of the St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre. There is a unit there for geriatric nursing, and almost all of them come from the START Centre. There are 24 low-functioning ambulatory older men, and there is often only one full-time worker on that shift to deal with them. Is it not time to review the quality of care we are providing in our institutions and the kind of pressure we are putting on the staff who have to deal with this day in and day out?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no member who understands these difficulties and pressures better than my friend opposite. I have some understanding, too, of the work we did. There is no tougher work in this province, I am sure. Those people are a very dedicated group of people.

I am not in a position to build a case one way or the other in this House and I do not want to be in that position. I assure the member I take his comments seriously and I take the comments of his colleagues seriously. I will discuss this with the minister. We will review the specific cases he raises. If there are any more that he is aware of, we will look at them very seriously. If there are problems we can address, then we will attempt to address them.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Is it his position that the British North America Act, the Charter of Rights and the courts together have said it is lawful to discriminate in secondary schools as well as in elementary separate schools?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is our view that in Bill 30 we are completing a system that is a unity, one system with one set of clearly established, constitutional rights. That is the view we have advanced. That is the view that I believe his very distinguished former Premier, Mr. Davis, advanced. I want to make it clear that in Bill 30 we believe we are completing something old, something basic, something fundamental to the essence not just of Ontario but also of Canada. We are not talking about creating a new system in Bill 30, but about completing an old system with one set of constitutional rights and protections.

Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Education does not have the courage to stand up and really speak for his convictions. I want to give him the opportunity to do that. Does the Minister of Education believe that the BNA Act, the Charter of Rights and the courts together have made it lawful to discriminate in Catholic secondary schools? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let none of us be under any wrong impression about where this Leader of the Opposition stands on this very important, historic and sensitive issue. We know. We saw what this Leader of the Opposition did in York East. A few months ago this Leader of the Opposition stood up in this city and said, "Bill Davis, notwithstanding separate schools and Suncor, was not a bad leader." That is the view and that is the position of this leader. The people of York East have already seen, and the people of Ontario generally will see, right through this kind of tactic.

INMATE TREATMENT

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. I have been told that a 72-year old male inmate of Millbrook Correctional Centre was recently kept for approximately 85 days in a former punishment cell, now used as a segregation cell, with no toilet, only a hole in the floor, and no sink. His only misdemeanour appeared to be occasional banging on his door and noisy talking, which could be classified in his case as the somewhat incoherent ramblings of a man with an ageing mind. Will the minister investigate the situation? If my information is correct, will he tell the House whether he thinks this is a proper way to treat an elderly inmate who may need a doctor more than punishment or segregation?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am aware of the incident. I will be quite happy to make known to the member the exact circumstances surrounding it. It is one of those pathetic situations. The man happens to be incontinent. He has absolutely refused to make use of hygienic facilities in the institution, no matter how much the staff has urged him to do so. It cannot be compulsory upon him. It was the request of every member of the inmate population that the person be removed from their midst for their protection.

Mr. Rae: What the hell is he doing there?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why is he there?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: He is there for the offences he has committed against the laws of the country.

Ms. Bryden: Perhaps he should be in the hospital part of the prison rather than in a segregation cell. Will the minister also investigate the case of another male inmate of the same institution, aged about 52, who was kept in a similar cell for 103 days, although he had not been charged with any breach of prison rules, as far as I am aware? If the minister agrees that this kind of treatment is inhumane, will he instruct his correctional staff to deal with minor behavioural problems in a way more in keeping with modern standards of criminology?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will certainly investigate, although I am not aware of the second incident the member has brought to my attention. I will be glad to report back to her. I assure the member that we do attempt to make sure they are treated in as humane a way as possible in the circumstances of the structures we have at our disposal.

3:30 p.m.

MINISTER'S CAR

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the usually good-natured Chairman of Management Board. Why has the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) affixed a two-foot sign to the back of her car that says, "The Honourable Lily Munro, Minister of Citizenship and Culture"? Are we dealing with an identity crisis here, or is it so everyone will know the minister is in the car and salute, as required?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am wondering whether that really relates to the Chairman of Management Board. It does. Minister.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: This looks very much as though it was part of a celebration or a parade. I will check into the date this was taken and the circumstances. I have not seen this. If the honourable minister were here, I am sure she would be happy to answer this question, which is the most important question of the day from the member for Brantford. I will be sure to see he gets an urgent response to this very pressing issue in this province.

Mr. Gillies: We do take this very seriously indeed. Is it an isolated incident, or should we look next for government cars sporting bumper stickers saying, "Honk if you love Liberals"?

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. The minister made it clear in answer to my question a few days ago that when it comes to the issue of access to abortion service, he prefers the role of prosecuting crown attorney to that of advocate for women. If he wants to resign his role as minister responsible for women's issues, he should do so. In the meantime, will he please explain what action he is taking to advance the Liberal election promise of equitable access to abortion service for women in need?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The question of access to abortion is primarily a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I refer the question to him.

Mr. Speaker: A question to the Minister of Health.

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe this ministry is responsible for women's issues, and it is in that context I asked the question.

Mr. Speaker: That is fine, and I believe that is why you placed the question to the Attorney General. The Attorney General referred the question to the Minister of Health, as I understand it. I have no control over whether ministers answer or whether they refer.

Did the Attorney General refer it to the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I did.

Mr. Speaker: You did. Is there a response from the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I did not hear the entire question, because we were discussing the content of the question of the honourable gentleman from Brantford with respect to the sign.

We are examining questions of access in general terms and we have information that there are problems in some areas. We have set up discussions with some people, and we are making progress with coming to grips with access and the definition of the problems.

Ms. Gigantes: Obviously, neither minister has an answer to my question. I would like either one of them, it does not matter which one --

Mr. Speaker: I suggest you place it to the Minister of Health.

Ms. Gigantes: I will ask it of the Minister of Health since the minister responsible for women's issues will not answer.

Given that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) most clearly and specifically promised to provide access to abortion service and that access is becoming more limited instead of improving, will the Minister of Health tell the minister responsible for women's issues, who is also the Attorney General, to respect the advice of the United Church of Canada, the Young Women's Christian Association and many other groups that tell him not to prosecute the doctors who are providing responsible service in clinics outside hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The request was that I convey those sentiments from the member for Ottawa Centre to the Attorney General, and I shall do just that.

RACE RELATIONS

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the statements this afternoon about concern for visible minority women, I noted that health was singularly absent in the statement. Does the minister intend to bring forward specific programs to serve immigrant and minority women's health needs?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have on occasion received applications with respect to programs that have been designed to address particular needs, not only for women but also for men from various of the multicultural communities around Ontario. As members know, program proposals for additions of new programs and areas are referred to the district health councils. They are rated and provided to us on the basis of their recommendations through the health councils for funding.

I can tell the honourable member there was no real indication of lack of interest on the part of the Ministry of Health because we were not mentioned in the statement. We have been taking steps to deal with the provision of services among the various cultural communities in Ontario, and we have commended the cabinet committee on race relations and the efforts by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) to bring to our attention the very real and different needs in those communities. We will continue to do that.

If the member has a particular program that she thinks would be of interest to us, I ask her to make us aware of it so we can make sure it is referred on through the district health council system.

Ms. Fish: The Immigrant Women's Centre in Toronto has been funded by his ministry since 1975. Why is the minister not prepared to provide funding of $27,000 for a mobile health unit that could provide obstetrical and gynaecological services to immigrant and minority women in this area?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have a specific answer. I can take a look and make sure I know what the proposal requires of the Ministry of Health in funding. With respect to that project, those new and expanded programs are rated and ranked by the district health councils of the areas in which they are located. We will take a look at their recommendations on the basis of their rankings.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Swart: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will recall that he said yesterday, in a rather convoluted attempt to discredit the proposal for a price control for gasoline in this province, that Nova Scotia, which has such legislation, had the highest-priced fuel in Canada. He had stated that several times previously.

Why would the minister make a statement such as that when Statistics Canada figures, which I have here, show that Nova Scotia has consistently during the past two years had the second-lowest price for gasoline of all of the five provinces east of us and continues to this day to have the second-lowest price? Why would he give false information such as that to this House?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I should probably qualify that remark. The member may be right on the grand scale. What I meant to say was the price from the refinery, exclusive of provincial tax. There is no question that we charge 8.3 cents per litre in tax in Ontario to provide the citizens of Ontario with their roads and services. If one takes the tax out, he will find the price of gasoline in Nova Scotia is considerably higher than the price of gasoline in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: That is a supplementary statement to what he said yesterday, higher there than in Ontario. He said it was the highest in Canada, and he is absolutely wrong.

Is the minister aware that the maximum difference in price allowed between Halifax and the most remote part of Nova Scotia is 1.7 cents per litre? That is what their legislation accomplishes. Does he not think the people of northern Ontario should have the right to that kind of legislation? Will he enact such price control legislation so the people of the north will have that protection and all the people of Ontario will have price protection against a ripoff by the oil companies?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The other day, my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) announced he was having hearings in the north to talk about it. We are looking into that situation, and we will report back to the House as soon as we have findings.

CONTRACT WORKER

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I understand the ministry supports equal opportunity employment guidelines and affirmative action programs. Will the minister undertake to investigate the case of Margaret McBride of Vineland, a single parent, who for the past seven years has worked on a contract basis with the ministry but has been bypassed on several full-time job opportunities and has yet to be accorded an interview in spite of numerous attempts and applications for full-time employment? Will he please investigate that clear case of lack of affirmative action support?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I will take it upon myself to investigate the situation the member raises, but I will not let him go away from this House thinking we do not employ minorities to the best of our ability. We adopted an affirmative action program some time ago. We promoted a female employee to a very senior position only two weeks ago. That is consistent with what we do throughout the ministry. The member will also know we have a declining number of employees in the ministry, but we have an increasing number of senior female employees.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Henderson: I have a petition which reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

That is signed by Dr. John G. LaPlante of my constituency and about 150 other petitioners.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Partington: I have a petition signed by 679 residents of St. Catharines and Brock riding.

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

MILK PRICES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of senior citizens from the senior citizens' complex at 345 St. George's Avenue in Sault Ste. Marie. They belong to the St. George's Busy Bee Club of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. They are strongly protesting the rising costs of milk and they go on to say:

"We are not only thinking about ourselves as seniors but also our families and others who have to have milk. It will be a real hardship for all. I hope this government will act on this petition and equalize the price of milk, as the Liberals had promised in their campaign last year."

TOURIST BUREAU FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Rowe: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the disabled community. It is a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in support of a tourist bureau for the disabled. The petition represents nine organizations and has more than 1,000 signatures of people from across the province.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Barlow be substituted for Mr. Bennett on the select committee on economic affairs.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT

Mr. Bossy moved first reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the city of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

PAMAGLENN INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Polsinelli moved first reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Pamaglenn Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

SHERRYDALE INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT

Mr. Polsinelli moved first reading of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting Sherrydale Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Pouliot moved first reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Pouliot: The purpose of this bill is to give the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education the power to grant degrees, honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates in education.

3:50 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), Mr. Runciman moved that the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the government's failure to determine the validity of recent gas price increases to the consumers of Ontario and its failure to provide remedial action for the gasoline consumers of northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of this motion was received at 11:40 a.m., and it complies with standing order 34. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as well as to representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Runciman: The motion I have introduced today deals with a matter that is of vital and immediate concern to every motorist, farmer, trucker, tourism operator and commuter in Ontario, especially in northern Ontario, and for that reason it should be of concern to every member of this assembly.

As the members of the House are aware, we have recently witnessed a significant increase in the price of gasoline and have seen that price jump by between five and eight cents a litre in some areas. Members of both opposition parties have repeatedly called on the government to investigate these increases, but these calls have been met with derision and buck-passing.

There have also been numerous appeals from northern members, especially the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), for action on the wide disparity between northern and southern prices. Again, the reaction has been one of ignorance and indifference.

These increases have a profound impact on every sector of this province's economy. The price of food rises as the fuel for tractors and trucks becomes more expensive. The tourist operators who depend on American visitors -- there are many in my riding, for example -- find these visitors staying in the United States, where a litre or a gallon of gasoline costs considerably less and where the price continues to fall.

The members of this party believe the time has come to debate this matter fully and without delay. I hope the third party will agree. It is evident from listening to the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that there is a sense of urgency in their ranks about this issue. I sincerely hope the government will share that sense of urgency.

When the members of the Liberal Party sat on this side of the House, they were very vocal in their concern for the Ontario gasoline consumers and in their calls for provincial government action. I remind my friends opposite that in January 1985 their colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), reacting to an announced price increase of 1.1 cents per litre, said, "The provincial government has an obligation to protect Ontario consumers from gouging by major oil companies that avoid competition, competition that should flourish in a private enterprise system."

I have before me a copy of an open letter sent by the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, our good friend Dr. Robert Elgie, in which he called on the minister to take "immediate and strong action to rectify the gas pricing situation."

Similar concerns and demands were expressed by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), the present Premier. I am sure the Premier will recall that in January 1985 he issued a release --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought this five minutes was to be devoted to whether we should have the debate now, not actually to participate in the debate. There is every reason to believe we are going to be spending the rest of the afternoon on this important subject, but if the honourable member does not have any further information as to why the debate should be held now and the other business set aside, why does he not complete his remarks so the matter can be decided and we can then proceed with the debate? Why do we have to listen to this twice?

Mr. Runciman: Perhaps I should start all over again.

The Premier will recall that in January 1985 he issued a release in which he demanded that the provincial government stop being part of the ripoff and fight for the rights of Ontario drivers. The member for London Centre was merely echoing the concerns expressed by his colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), who now serves as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and who two years ago said, "When prices go up and down the way they have and stay at the higher prices longer than they do at the lower ones, something would appear to be wrong."

The honourable member was right. Something is seriously wrong. Something is wrong not only with the gas pricing system, a system that takes three months to pass through cost reductions to the consumer and only three minutes to pass through cost increases, but also with this government. The people of Ontario are losing their patience and are looking to this Legislature for assistance. I call on the members of all parties to take the first step by agreeing to this resolution.

Mr. Swart: It is obvious from the stand we have taken on this for many years that we will support the emergency debate this afternoon. We come into this debate with clean hands, unlike the party to my right, which took exactly the same position on the matter of gasoline prices as the government is taking at present. Nevertheless, we think a debate in this House this afternoon will be extremely valuable and perhaps to some extent may force the present reluctant minister to move.

We should proceed with the debate because there are new circumstances. It is true that for the past three, four or five months there has been frequent evidence from the oil companies that the retail price of gasoline -- in fact, the tank truck price of gasoline -- has been too high. However, now there is a new situation. Last weekend, after the price had been lowered, all the gasoline companies decided to raise the price of gasoline by two cents. We are confronted with a new situation, a new emergency, and I suggest that the minister consider supporting the debate's proceeding this afternoon.

We have a minister in the Liberal government who has blown hot and cold for the past several months on the matter of whether the increases in gasoline prices can be justified. However, he has never become hot enough to do a single, solitary thing about it. He has wrung his hands. As I mentioned yesterday, he said in a letter to me a month ago, "I am not yet satisfied that the consumer is paying a fair price for gasoline." Then on two or three occasions, including yesterday, he said, "There is no evidence that there is a ripoff by the oil companies of the gasoline consumers of this province."

Then yesterday, or the day before, he said, "The oil companies must justify these new price increases." I think I am quoting him almost word for word as it appeared in the paper. How is the minister going to require the oil companies to justify the new prices? Will he do it like the last time, going cap in hand to them and coming out and saying, "The oil companies told me the prices were not high enough," and then doing nothing?

We cannot make the oil companies justify the price unless we have legislation, yet the minister refuses to give consideration even to an investigation on whether those prices are too high. I mean a real investigation, not an open letter to the oil companies. We should be discussing this matter of a real investigation this afternoon.

Although the difference in gasoline prices between the north and the south has been brought to the minister's attention for months, he has done nothing. The difference is very real and very harmful. That should be debated this afternoon because of the minister's reluctance to intervene in any way. The unrealistic price difference between unleaded gasoline and leaded gasoline has been brought to his attention over and over again, but more forcefully just recently; the minister makes no investigation into that.

Even the members of his own government, when they were in opposition -- and two of them have already been quoted; I could quote the statements of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) when he was in opposition. He said the Ontario Energy Board should be given the power not only to monitor gasoline prices ongoing but also to order them held or rolled back. I wonder if the Treasurer remembers saying that in 1975.

At this time, the situation is as bad as or worse than it has ever been with regard to a ripoff on gasoline prices, and we need this debate this afternoon.

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There are many issues of importance, and this is certainly one of them. However, I do not agree we should set aside the important business that was to be undertaken this afternoon, already ordered by agreement of the House leaders, for the purpose of the debate proposed by the honourable member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman).

Since April 22, for five full weeks, the House has had the opportunity to discuss a wide variety of matters; the ministers of the crown and other members have had an opportunity to listen to the debates and to the points put forward by members of all three parties pertaining to many of these important issues, including the high price of gasoline.

I simply suggest this opportunity has been before us for five full weeks. We have been in session since April 22. This is the first day that, by agreement, we were going to approach the legislative program of the government and undertake the payment of the bills undertaken by the government itself. We have been going on warrants for the last few weeks. The warrants run out at the end of the month. I presume nobody in the opposition is suggesting for a moment that interim supply would not be voted to the government tomorrow.

We have spent weeks on general debate, including this topic. I can only think the honourable member, in responding in a fit of pique to his ridiculous situation yesterday, has vowed he is going to punish the people in the government by exposing us to yet another day of his change of opinion from when he was sitting on the government side. The honourable member who spoke for the New Democratic Party has pointed out that people's opinions do change. I do not see anything very dramatic about that.

What we are going to do, I suggest, as soon as this emergency matter is decided and the debate begins, is that the member for Leeds will rise in his place and begin a speech and everybody in the House will leave. I will stay, because I stay and the member stays, but the emergency is really just in getting this matter undertaken. It makes a mockery of the business of the government and of the House. We have had plenty of opportunity to discuss this. We have responded in detail. This is simply an indication that the honourable member is trying to get his own back for his embarrassment yesterday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is time to undertake the business of the province. It is time this Legislature quit fooling around with these undertakings and undertake the debate of the bills and the amendment of the bills that has been so long postponed. I am not like Joe Clark. I can count votes. We are not going to win this discussion, but as government House leader, I do not approve of setting aside the business of the House that has been established by agreement among the House leaders.

We have gone all these weeks talking about general and important subjects, including the one we want to spend yet another day on, and I suggest to the honourable members it is time we got down to business. We are going to be here for a long time. We have a lot of work to do. I suggest to the honourable member that his motion is not well received on this side. I hope the House will agree that we not proceed with the special debate, but go forward with the business of the province.

Mr. Speaker: According to standing order 37(a), representatives from all parties have presented their views on this motion. All members have heard those views as set out by those members. It is now the Speaker's responsibility to place the question, shall the debate proceed?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Taylor: I am happy to participate in this emergency debate. I do not see any Tory members leaving and I hope I have not disappointed the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in his predictions.

An hon. member: Does the member think there should be intervention in the marketplace?

Mr. Taylor: Oh, no. I am not going to compete with that member's party. Maybe I should start off there.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will disregard the interjections.

Mr. Taylor: I start from the premise that we have a market system in our province and country, and I think that is paramount, contrary to the views of the New Democratic Party on my left, which is dedicated to the nationalization of the resource industry. That is implicit in the resolutions of their party and it is a part of party policy. I want to make that distinction abundantly plain.

However, I am concerned about what is happening in terms of the manipulation of pricing and the way the marketplace may be working or not working in this particular case.

An hon. member: The member is not being consistent.

Mr. Taylor: I will address my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, if you will ensure that order is kept because of the concern of the socialists to my left.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is not in his seat and he is interjecting. Will he please cease?

Mr. Taylor: Carrying on from there, I have always been an advocate for the consumer. I say this whether as an advocate for the direct consumer of electricity, the rural consumer or the consumer of gasoline. I am concerned about the honesty and the fairness of the marketplace, always remembering the system. The system does not say we have to have what some of us might determine to be a fair price. Fundamentally, the system is such that one gets what one can for one's product; one maximizes one's profits. Whether we like it or not, that is the system. What is supposed to keep the system fair and keep prices in line is the competition within the marketplace.

In that regard, I would direct the members' attention to some of the historical background of the Seven Sisters and the evolution of the oil industry in this country and in the world. It was not all that many years ago when we were talking about the ever-escalating price of oil and we were accusing the Arab countries of holding us to ransom. We even accused the Albertans of being blue-eyed sheikhs. Some members will remember that.

The single issue that kept Canada together in those days of constitutional talks was the common hatred of the other provinces for Ontario. We were the single largest consuming province and we had an interest in this province on the part of the consumer.

Members will remember that in those days we were arguing here, with all the figures and statistics to back us up, that for every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil, so many thousands of people were going to be unemployed. Those figures were all worked out. We were concerned about unemployment. We also determined what the rate of inflation was going to be as the price of oil escalated and the adverse impact on our economy, on our position as competitors in the marketplace in terms of our manufactured and other products. We were concerned in an altruistic sense about the welfare of the underdeveloped nations spending their resources on the ever-escalating price of oil.

4:10 p.m.

We heard from Alberta that the oil resources were depletable resources and that it had to have a higher price for that oil in order to diversify its economy, to set up the heritage fund and ensure a healthy, diversified economy for future generations. We also heard that Ontario did not have much of a role in all of this. That is what I was confronted with. Having for part of that period a different role, as Minister of Energy, I was confronted with the queries from Alberta: "Where is Ontario's oil? Where is Ontario's gas? What are you doing at the bargaining table negotiating the pricing of domestic oil?" It did not take long to find out that the issue was not oil pricing; it was tax sharing. It was a fill-the-bucket routine. Everybody tried to grab these so-called windfall moneys or profits because of the ever-escalating price of crude oil on the world market.

Today all that has reversed. Some are crying that the price of oil is going down and the fallout from that has depressed the economy. The manufacturers of pipes and other goods used in the oil industry have lost their markets and employment is falling. The banks are concerned about their loans to underdeveloped countries, some of them based on oil revenues. The oil revenues now have dropped to such an extent that the banks have become exposed to liabilities which put them in a very precarious position. When we look at the situation today, the arguments for a healthy economy are the opposite of those used the last time. The whole thing is crazy. It is upside down.

What concerns me is the unhealthy attitudes of both government and industry. I say that because if gasoline is regarded as a consumer's product, it should not be looked upon as a luxury. It strikes me that is precisely the treatment this product is getting in today's marketplace.

I do not have the most up-to-date figures, but they are not more than a year old as far as the federal government's take, the producing provinces' take and so on are concerned. If we priced the gasoline at 50 cents a litre, 26.4 per cent of that would go to the federal government, the producing province would get 13.2 per cent, the industry would get 43.2 per cent and Ontario would get 16 per cent. One can see the heavy burden that government has placed on the consumer. I am afraid the government attitude with regard to punitive taxation through the tax régime has encouraged industry to extract as much as it can because it is in competition for as many dollars as it can get from the price of the product.

We have here both levels of government. On the one hand, at the federal level is Petro-Canada; on the other hand, at the provincial level is Suncor. Instead of leading the way and helping in the area of competition, they are leading the way with respect to excessive pricing.

The Deputy Speaker: Which member from the third party would like to speak next?

Mr. Wildman: Are there no questions and comments?

The Deputy Speaker: No, there are no questions or comments.

Mr. McClellan: What is the reference in the standing order?

The Deputy Speaker: The standing orders only list second and third readings of debates where there are questions and comments, not during emergency debates.

The member for Timiskaming. Sorry, the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Pouliot: The point is well taken by virtue of the fact we do hold Timiskaming. We have seven seats up north, including Lake Nipigon, the largest riding in the province.

I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words regarding a situation that is truly shocking and appalling when we talk about disparity and when we talk about the price of an essential service as it relates to the north and, more specifically, to the riding of Lake Nipigon.

I heard yesterday that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) intends to conduct public hearings across northern Ontario to get a first-hand reaction to what has been happening to the price of gasoline. The minister went on and on to tell us about the many communities he will be visiting, the many groups, clubs, organizations, municipalities and what have you that will be asked to give input in regard to the price of gas.

There was one omission. The riding of Lake Nipigon, which represents 28 to 29 per cent of the overall land mass in Ontario, was omitted from the minister's list.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It will be on it.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes. The minister may be ashamed to find that omission when he goes to Wunnummin Lake, on his second or third trip, and notices that the price of gas over the years has been allowed to exceed $7 per gallon, or $8.50 in Fort Severn; or when our first Canadians in some communities have to experience a rate of unemployment of 85 or 90 per cent and are asked literally and vividly to empty the last pennies from their pockets to have access to the gas pump.

When we are talking about an injustice, when we are talking about removing competition from the marketplace, we are also in favour of the free enterprise system, we also adhere to that style, method and approach. However, when we remove the important --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought the third party wanted to nationalize the forest industry. I thought they wanted to nationalize Inco. What is free enterprise about that?

Mr. Pouliot: We are not going to call it Pinco. When we remove the basic element of competition in the system we, like others, tend to form cartels and become monopolistic. Those people, and it has to be said, have been picking the pockets of consumers for a number of years. They have done so with a passion and a vengeance. They have not been their brothers' keepers.

As we stand here we are closer to the city of Miami, Florida, than we are to some parts in the riding of Lake Nipigon. We have to travel more to have access to goods and commodities that other people take for granted. The winters are somewhat longer. Consequently, we burn more fuel, and every time we do so we are penalized. The people of the north repeatedly have been asked to carry the guilt.

We travel 3,000 to 4,000 miles per year in excess of our counterparts in southern Ontario. What can be done about it? How can the government do its job to rectify this injustice? It can do it. It has the jurisdictional capacity to intervene to fix the price of electricity. The same powers are extended to the government, in terms of jurisdictional capacity, when it comes to natural gas prices.

When it is needed as an alternative, they have the political will to do it if they mean what they say. They have the power to legislate. It was done in Nova Scotia and it worked. Failing to have that courage, that expediency, the government needs to seek another alternative; so it lowers or eliminates the provincial sales tax on the price of gasoline. This is the way to intervene. This is positive legislation.

4:20 p.m.

Again, if they mean what they say in terms of doing their job, meeting their responsibilities, meeting the aspirations and the needs of northerners, they should do it expediently. They will have a sympathetic response from this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: After my outburst against the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), I want to take part in the debate because, as I said, it is an important issue and, as Minister of Revenue, I know there are those people who are unkind enough and ill-informed enough to think our tax policies have something to do with the prices of gasoline that we pay.

Mr. Ashe: Darn right they do.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought perhaps some members would be ill-informed enough to think so; so I want to say something about that.

First, I also want to cast my mind back to the period in which the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was referring to a quote from me when I had said that gasoline prices should be government controlled. The honourable member will recall that beginning in 1973, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel seized control of world prices, the cost of gasoline at the pumps went from, as I recall it, about 32 cents a gallon up to $1.70 a gallon in a relatively short period.

If members think this whole matter is an issue in the House now, I am sure they would understand -- those who were here at the time will bear me out -- that it really was a substantial and very heated day-to-day issue. In those days, when the price of petroleum went up in the world market, it went up at the pump the very same day. It was by dint of the efforts of the opposition -- so I do not downgrade or dismiss the efforts of the opposition in these matters; far from it -- that it was agreed both here and by the government of Canada that they could not put the price up in the petroleum industry until the higher-priced crude worked its way through the system. This took about 70 to 90 days.

This was quite a concession, because the increase in prices up until that time had been instantaneous, and the windfalls of selling what had been cheap petroleum at newly inflated OPEC-controlled world prices left a windfall to the petroleum industry. This was controlled not by passing legislation but simply by the persuasion of the arguments that it was totally unfair and unacceptable. We did not undertake -- and it was found not to be necessary in spite of the fact that I was urging it -- that they would not pass it through. They decided and agreed not to pass those prices through.

At the same time, just as the increases began to moderate a bit, the former government of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative government, decided to replace the specific gasoline tax with a 20 per cent ad valorem tax. The gasoline tax went from 19 cents a gallon just about double to 37 cents a gallon in about four years. This added tremendously to the costs, and it prompted us as a party to promise to remove the ad valorem tax.

The former Minister of Revenue, in his own inimitable style, is giggling because he may in the next few minutes make a speech indicating some dark and subversive motive to the fact that we kept this political promise. But even at that stage the honourable member would know that, as of May 9, the following were the gasoline taxes charged across Canada: in Ontario, 8.3 cents a litre; in British Columbia, 8.56 cents a litre; in Quebec, 13.65 cents a litre; in Manitoba, 8.9 cents a litre; in New Brunswick, 9.7 cents a litre; in Nova Scotia, 9.7 cents a litre; in Prince Edward Island, 9.5 cents a litre; and in Newfoundland, 10.9 cents a litre.

Members will notice that, with a possible argument about Manitoba, which has an 8.9 level only for leaded and has eight cents per litre tax for unleaded, we are the lowest-taxing province in the whole of the country.

Mr. Ashe: What about Alberta?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Alberta is not a taxing province. Its tax is zero, as it is in Saskatchewan. Because of the propinquity, they cannot live with a gasoline tax in Saskatchewan, since their neighbours next door do not have a gasoline tax. That may or may not change; I hope it does not. I just want to tell those who are handing me the petitions from the Ontario Motor League calling for a reduction in tax that we have the lowest tax of any taxing province in Canada.

That should be understood. At the same time, we should realize that the revenue from all of our fuel tax is approaching $1.3 billion, a big pile of money. I compare that with the budget allocated this year to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which is up by more than $160 million, with a special allocation of $45 million for capital projects, something to which the province has not had access for many years.

Mr. McLean: Yes, it has.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It has not. This is a substantial improvement. We are going to improve our roads around here.

I say to the people who are supportive of the Ontario Motor League and its important initiative, while we do not have earmarked revenues in this province, we are passing through more than the amount collected in gasoline tax in support, maintenance and building for capital reasons for our road program. The people who drive on the roads do not want to pay gasoline tax, but they want good roads. I can understand that.

As Minister of Revenue and Treasurer, it is up to me to bring forward programs, and it is up to members of the Legislature to criticize and support programs that are designed to maintain and improve a good road system. I say again, we do not earmark our revenues, but the thought of reducing our gasoline tax by the $300 million proposed by the official opposition seems irresponsible when we look at what we wish to do in northern Ontario as well as in southern Ontario to improve this system and bring it up to modern standards, from which it has slipped in recent years.

There are those who believe a reduction in gasoline tax is immediately reflected in lower pump prices. I am sure members know that is not so. If members have travelled in Alberta recently, where the gasoline tax is zero, they will know the cost per litre is very similar to what they would pay in Toronto or even at Earl's Shell service in the township of South Dumfries. It may be a cent per litre cheaper, but the last time I was out there, the prices were almost identical, even though we charge an additional tax of 8.3 cents per litre.

The government of Alberta gets substantial revenue from petroleum as it comes out of the ground. It feels it does not need a gasoline tax on top of that, and that is its judgement. It does not make the product at the pump cheaper, and of course, we pay the tax on Alberta petroleum as it comes out of the ground in the markup on the gasoline that is put in our cars and trucks in this jurisdiction.

I want also to point out something else. As of last year, the standard fuel bill for Ontario was about $6.6 billion. That is all in petroleum, except for natural gas. It is about another $3 billion when we are talking about the other forms of petroleum. World prices have gone down rapidly, and between $1.5 billion and $2 billion that would have been expected to go into petroleum costs in this province a few months ago are now windfall savings for people driving automobiles and fuelling industry. Particularly in industry, I am glad to report to honourable members, a good deal of that money is going into economic expansion. That is one of many reasons, probably the main one, for the economic buoyancy I reported in the budget two or three weeks ago.

I am particularly concerned about the reference in the special motion to the costs of gasoline in northern Ontario. We all share that concern. I used to live in Sault Ste. Marie. That was not recently, but I can report that the prices per gallon there were at least five cents above those in Toronto. Our argument was that it came in by tanker on the Great Lakes, but the additional costs were not that much. We complained about it in those days. It was many years ago, but there was still a PC government, as everybody knows. Saint Ste. Marie was not a city of 85,000 then; it was more like 40,000, but there were still additional costs and market forces made them as they were.

To give the PC government credit, it reduced the cost of licensing in the north. I am not sure what it is now, but it may be $10 or $12, as compared to what is paid in the rest of the province. This is a bit of a subsidy, and it covers a good deal of gasoline tax for a person driving for a year. We recognize that. I think it is a good idea. If anything, not only should that be maintained but also there may be other ways to improve on it. To go into the north and say we are going to take off the gasoline tax is not going to lead to lower prices, and that is unfortunate.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt about the importance of this issue. The thing that bothers the members of the opposition, and particularly the members of the official opposition, is the kind of flip-flop that has been taken by the government, particularly the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), vis-à-vis this total issue. In a moment I will get to the remarks by the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue and his participation in what is happening at the pumps, but for the moment I will concentrate on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

It is very convenient when the minister can wash his hands of the issue on one day and say he can do nothing about the prices at the pump and he is not sure the prices can be substantiated, yet on another day he can stand up and take credit for the fact that he was the one, practically individually -- maybe hand in hand with his colleague who sits two seats over, with a longer hand down to the Treasurer -- when prices went down some number of weeks ago.

We have had two occasions lately when there have been relatively dramatic increases in the price at the pumps to the beleaguered consumers of Ontario.

I suppose five or six weeks ago was the first time the Premier (Mr. Peterson) spoke out, answering a question and in the scrum afterwards, saying, "I am directing my Minister of Energy to head west to speak to the oil barons of Alberta to see why the price at the pumps of Ontario has not gone down, and I have directed my Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to speak to the oil industry of Ontario, say how unhappy we are and suggest that the prices should come down immediately."

Lo and behold, about 24 hours later there was a substantive change at the pumps. The price went up by about 2.5 cents a litre -- not down, but up. Immediately, of course, that was attributed to other market forces. The minister washed his hands of any involvement in that. He acknowledged that he had spoken to the industry, but he could not answer why it went up by 2.5 cents. Once again, market forces took over.

There is no doubt, and I do not think anybody would dispute it inside or outside the industry, that the greater Metropolitan Toronto area -- and I mean that in the broadest sense, right down into the Niagara Peninsula, east to Peterborough and north from there and so on -- is a very competitive marketplace.

The prices came down slowly. Until about a week ago, we saw prices for regular gasoline in the Toronto market at something in the order of 35 cents a litre; 34.9 to 35.9 cents a litre was not uncommon, and in very competitive areas in southern and southwestern Ontario, I understand it was as low as 33.9 cents a litre. The marketplace was showing and the consumers of Ontario were benefiting from that rather slow pass-through, which everybody acknowledged. The minister inquired and reported back to the Legislature that it took anywhere from 75 to 100 days for the lower prices in world markets to hit the gasoline pumps. That time was bought, the market forces took over, the pass-through took place and the consumers of Ontario benefited.

A few days ago, the minister must have been talking to the Premier again. The Premier probably said, "You had better make sure these prices stay down." I do not know that this happened -- I am just speculating that it might have -- because overnight, 35 cents a litre -- 34.9 cents is a pretty standard price for self-serve gasoline -- went up to 41.5 cents a litre. That is a substantial difference. It was up 6.6, seven and in some cases as much as eight cents a litre. What was the explanation? The minister once again said: "I am not sure whether it is justified. When I have some answers, when the prices go down again and I can stand up and take credit, maybe I will have the answers then."

That is not good enough. The minister cannot take credit one day and not take responsibility another day, but that is exactly what he is doing. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. In the meantime, the consumers of this province are paying and paying and paying.

Let us get to the tax issue. The Treasurer and Minister of Revenue stood up a short time ago and said, "In Ontario, we have one of the best pricing structures as far as taxing in Canada is concerned." That is relatively true, as are the numbers he spoke of. However, he is one of the same people, supported by my colleagues on the left, who from time to time, but regularly, criticized the previous government's policy of an ad valorem tax rate.

Ad valorem is right up front; it says, "Taxation shall be in direct proportion" -- in this case 20 per cent -- "to the cost of gasoline before taxation at the pump." People knew that when the price went up, the tax went up and the tax yield for the taxpayers of Ontario went up. The reverse of that also holds true, and when the price goes down, the taxpayers pay less at the pump. That would be recognized.

When the Treasurer brought forward his budget last fall, which was supposed to be so sound and which was soundly supported by the New Democratic Party to the left, he compromised and brought down his tax from 8.8 cents to 8.3 cents a litre. We said then that all the indications in the world market were that there was a glut on the horizon and that prices were going to go down.

If the Treasurer, members of the government party and members of the New Democratic Party had wanted to be true to the spirit of their previous criticism, they would have said, "We will set 8.3 cents as the maximum price, but if the price goes down, we will respect the spirit of ad valorem and lower our tax accordingly." Did they do that? No, they did not. They knew darned well what was going to happen, but they stuck the blade in and froze it at 8.3 cents a litre.

Let us look at some of the recent prices to see what they would have been with an ad valorem tax rate. Until a week or so ago, the price was 34.9 cents a litre, which included 8.3 cents in tax; that meant a net price of 26.6 cents. If ad valorem had been in effect, it would have been 5.3 cents a litre, or three cents a litre less; the market price would have been 31.9 cents. Even now, it is 41.5 cents a litre, an unconscionable price compared to what it was a week or so ago, but that includes the same 8.3 cents a litre for a net price before provincial tax of 33.2 cents. What would happen if ad valorem were in effect? The price would not be 41.5 cents; it would be 39.8 cents, or 1.7 cents less per litre.

The Treasurer and Minister of Revenue cannot wash his hands of the problem that confronts consumers in Ontario. He mentioned a loss of $300 million if they had reverted to an ad valorem system or to what was proposed by the Ontario Motor League. It is very convenient or coincidental -- maybe it is not so coincidental -- that this seems to be the same amount of revenue that is lost in his budget, the slush fund. He could have thrown that slush fund in to take care of the problem. It would not have made one iota of change in the bottom line of that budget.

We know the part that the oil barons play in this issue, whether they be the oil barons in Canada, Britain, Saudi Arabia or wherever. We know how a so-called undersupply became an oversupply as people became very conscious of the cost and became more conservation-minded in energy -- in all ways and not just in gasoline, but that is the subject today.

This government cannot wash its hands of this problem. If it wants to stand up to take credit, it also has to stand up to take blame. I put some responsibility on the minister opposite to get the answers he says he is looking for, to get them now while the price is up and to get the price down tomorrow to a more realistic level. Perhaps 35 cents was not realistic. I will even agree with him that perhaps that price could not be substantiated. But I think we all agreed when we talked a short while ago that something in the order of 37 to 38 cents was reasonable and responsible. The minister should get it back down there quickly.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to take part in this debate. A matter that has concerned the New Democratic Party for many years is the fact that the oil companies in this province have been able to charge whatever they liked and have never had to justify it. Of course, it has been of more concern to us in the past three or four months, when the price of crude has dropped dramatically to less than half what it was and yet the price of gasoline has not dropped proportionally, even if one wipes out the taxes and considers just the raw price of gasoline.

This is a very important matter, as the previous speaker mentioned. If the price of gasoline is eight cents a litre higher than it should be -- I am not suggesting it is, but it is substantially higher than it should be -- it means the people of this province who are consumers of gasoline and oils will pay about $4 million a day too much.

Mr. Ashe: A day?

Mr. Swart: A day. If it is four cents too high, it is $2 million a day, and there is probably reason to suspect the price at present is about four cents too high.

There is justification for believing this at present. There is all kinds of statistical information available to indicate that the price is substantially higher now than it should be. The price of crude oil is less than half what it was back in November 1985. I have the figures here, week by week, on the price of crude oil. Back in November it was US$31 a barrel. The February average had dropped to US$14.75. The March average was US$12.27, the April average was US$13.13 and the May average so far is US$15.52.

Unlike the minister, I am not one who takes the oil companies at their word and believes everything they tell me, but even if we do and assume that it takes three months to pass this through, we are working on February oil prices, which were down from US$31 to US$14.75. I realize the price of gasoline cannot be cut in half because the price of crude oil is cut in half, but I suggest to the minister and to everyone in this House that the reduction of 10 cents per litre between November and now -- and that is the real reduction in Ontario in the retail price of gasoline -- does not reflect that decrease in the price of crude oil.

If we need some more information, we have the statement by David Sellers, the president of BP, who said that if the oil companies were not making any more profit than they had been last year, the price of gasoline would be around 35 cents. Members will know he made that statement either early in April or in the latter part of March. What about Jack MacLeod, the president of Shell Oil, who said they were keeping two cents or three cents a gallon, skimming it off the drop in the price of crude instead of passing it on to the consumers?

We know too that the profits of the oil companies last year, on average, increased quite substantially. I am aware, and I say to the minister, that many of those same companies have had a substantial reduction in the price of their crude in the west and they are not making as much profit on it as they were. But that is the world price, and it is simply unfair to the people of this province and to the people of this nation to skim two, three or five cents -- whatever the situation may be -- off the refinery price to make up for the losses they may have on the price of crude oil. There is no question about it; that is exactly what they are doing.

I was amused by the comments of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) who got up to defend the marketplace but then talked about the manipulation of the price of gasoline. He cannot have it both ways. If the marketplace is working, there cannot be manipulation of the price of gasoline. The simple fact is that the marketplace is not working at present to protect consumers. There is very little competition because we have very few oil companies and they have decided on their own not to compete.

Mr. Runciman: Why?

Mr. Swart: There are a number of reasons. One of the reasons they do not compete is that we do not have enough companies refining here. Studies in the United States have shown that once one gets below five companies in the marketplace, real competition does not work. The minister must know the only time competition is working is during occasional price wars.

At present, competition is not working. The Treasurer, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), proved that in his statement. He said that when the price of crude went up, the oil companies immediately raised the price of oil, even though they were not going to use it for another three months. If competition had been working, they could not have raised the price of oil. It is simply not working. Therefore, we need some kind of control.

The inaction of the minister has been absolutely pathetic. The first argument that was given for several months by the minister was that the provincial government did not have the power to do anything about it. The minister said that in answer to questions in the House.

The minister said it so often he convinced his own Premier. On April 26, the Premier said: "Our real problem in gas prices is that we do not have control over them. They are a federal matter. The reality is that we do not have the power." A month later, largely because of what the minister said, the Premier rose and apologized to this House for having made an incorrect statement. It is in Hansard. I have it here. He said that in fact the government did have the power.

After the Premier said that, the minister could no longer say we did not have the power, and then he flip-flopped all over the place. He wrung his hands for a time and said: "We should not have these increases. It appears to me the price should not have gone up. I am going to meet with the oil companies." He did meet with them around April 1. When he came out of that meeting, he said he had asked the four executives, "Do gas prices truly reflect what is happening in the world oil markets?" Then he reported, "The most interesting thing I learned was that there is no direct relationship between the price on the world market and at the pump." That is what he told the press afterwards. He went on to say it was reported to him by the oil company executives, "The prices at the gas pumps are now lower than they should be." That is a quote from the minister. He did not deny that. He did not say, "I do not believe it." That is what he was telling the public of this province.

Even the Conservative Party is doing a bit better than the minister. The Treasurer has done a bit better than the minister. In fact, the Treasurer was misinformed. He was telling this House that no legislation had been passed. However, legislation was passed in 1975. I have the bill here. The bill was given third reading on July 7, 1975, and it provided that the price of gasoline could not be raised before September 30, 1975. We passed the legislation. That was when the now Treasurer made his comment that we should have such ongoing legislation.

That is what we need. We need ongoing legislation, because the marketplace is not working. People are paying too much for gasoline and for fuel and diesel oils. If the marketplace is not working and they are paying too much, as the minister himself has indicated, the alternative is to put in some kind of controls and use the power he has to protect the public of this province.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure to rise and participate in this debate. I want to start by assuring my friends in the opposition parties, those who have spoken before and those who will continue, that the issues they have brought forward today are issues that are well known to this government and, in particular, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter).

Let me tell my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that the minister is responding in a manner that is both responsible and realistic. There is the equation: responsibility and realism. Once more, he is demonstrating a sensitivity to how the issue affects all the people of this province. He is doing that by learning and knowing all the issues --

Mr. Swart: In what way? What is he doing? Tell us. Explain what he is doing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Offer: What?

The Acting Speaker: Continue.

Mr. Offer: Thank you. I did not want to be provocative.

The issue before us affects all persons in this province. It is reflected not only in the price we pay at the pump but also in the prices we pay for food, clothing and housing. Indeed, it permeates all phases of life within this province. The motion we have before us is to debate with respect to gasoline pricing. It seems the person who has brought such a motion is encouraging regulatory practice, restriction of competition and a lack of freedom in the marketplace. That is not to say we are not aware of the issues and aspects surrounding this matter. We are aware in a realistic and responsible manner that there is a discrepancy with respect to north-south pricing, and that regulation does not always have an advantageous effect; it can be disadvantageous to all persons in this province.

In discussing this issue, we realize we must have regard to the pitfalls of lowering competition, what its effect might be and what price we might have to pay if one embarks on a course by having government lessen competition. There is a relationship that must be explored and investigated between crude oil prices and gasoline prices. We have to investigate that relationship and how one affects another and evolves. Finally, we must have regard to the effect of gasoline price wars as to why, where and how they occur.

To ignore these aspects is not to be realistic or responsible. I believe the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has acted in a most realistic and responsible manner because he is aware of all these problems that can evolve because of the lack of not investigating these elements and aspects that are contained in part of this motion.

Of course there are differences with respect to pricing in the north and in the south. Because there are differences necessarily requires an investigation as to why there are differences; the question should not just end there, that there are differences and that there should not be. It is irresponsible and unrealistic not to look at the reasons for the differences that appear between north and south and at the differences that appear in prices among southern Ontario, eastern Ontario, central Ontario and the western portions of the province.

We cannot leave the question at differences. We have to investigate why there are differences. When we talk about differences in prices, we have to investigate whether extra costs are incurred. We must talk about market factors that are existent or nonexistent in the north as opposed to the south, central, western and eastern Ontario. Not to do that is to blind ourselves to what is going on and is to be unrealistic and irresponsible. We will not be that. We will investigate these problems because we know that "because there is a difference" is not the end result; it is the beginning of an investigation.

We know it is nice to say, "Let us regulate." We also know the price of regulation may be a price that is too high to pay for persons throughout this province or in the north. It may be a regulated price as Nova Scotia regulates prices, and its prices are among the highest in the country. It may be uniform pricing as we find in Italy, but private sector companies have withdrawn from remote areas and there has been a lessening of the freedom of competition.

We know the price to be paid, the price we all pay, if we blind ourselves to what happens when someone withdraws from freedom of competition. We know the lesson we saw with respect to Petro-Canada. With the removal of one competitor from the marketplace, there was a large decrease in price war activity. Price wars are applauded and looked forward to by persons throughout this province. With a lack of competition, we will have a lack of price war activity. We know that not to take a look at and investigate this aspect is not to act in a responsible manner.

We also realize there is a difference between crude oil prices and gasoline prices. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations especially understands the makeup of these differences and that it is not sufficient to say, "There should not be a difference." That is irresponsible and unrealistic and is not what the people of this province want. As the minister knows and is doing, they want an investigation as to why it is. What are the elements of those types of differences? Are they realistic and responsible?

We know we always have to be cognizant of the effect of gasoline price wars. They have become a regular occurrence at irregular times in competitive markets, especially in southern Ontario. They are looked forward to and are applauded by many people throughout the province. When we lessen the freedom of competition and when we lessen the number of people who partake of this market, we lessen price war activity.

These are some of the issues this government and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations understand. These items and aspects must be understood before anyone can properly, responsibly and realistically meet the concerns of the people of this province. In closing, I want to applaud the responsibility of this minister.

5 p.m.

Mr. Stevenson: I am very pleased to join this critical debate today on the situation of gasoline pricing. As we look at what has happened in the past few weeks and, indeed, in the past few days on gasoline pricing and try to examine what the government might have done or could do, it is important to look at the provincial budget to see exactly what the province can do in situations such as this, what money is available to it and so on, to address some of the problems gas pricing creates. I will give a few examples from southern Ontario, but because of the great distances involved, everything magnifies substantially when one transfers the situation to the north.

I want to point out to the House that the province has 32 different sources of income. There is taxation revenue. Under taxation revenue, there are 12 sources of income, such as personal income tax, retail sales tax, corporations tax, gasoline tax, diesel fuel tax and so on.

Under other revenue, there are items such as the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, Liquor Control Board of Ontario profits, vehicle registration fees and so on. There are 12 other sources of revenue in that section of the budget. By the way, this is the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon); it is not my document.

The third major area of income is transfers from the federal government. Under that, there are eight sources of revenue.

If we look at the Treasurer's own table of revenue inflow into the province's Treasury from the last budget until this one, of the 32 sources of income, three are down, three are even and 26 are up. That will give members some indication of what the economy is doing and what the inflows are.

With a 4.2 per cent growth, which the Treasurer used and which everybody admits was extremely pessimistic, he somehow or other cooks the budget to have an expected total inflow in this coming year of less than the past year. If he were going to fudge the books, why did he not cook them so at least they looked realistic? The point I am leading to is that from the last Tory budget of 1984-85, just two years ago, and using the Treasurer's own figures, which we know are unrealistically low, the revenue to this province is up by 22 per cent in those two years.

Mr. McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The information we are being given is all very interesting, but what has it to do with regulating the price of gasoline as we would regulate the retail distributors?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Stevenson: That is precisely the point I am coming to.

There is a 22 per cent increase in revenue which the government has at its disposal to use for something useful for the people of Ontario. We look at some of the things it has done -- and I do not argue with some of them -- but with the increases in revenues from the last Tory budget, the $40 million from the gasoline tax and the motor vehicle fuel tax up $40 million, some of those funds could have been used to even out some of the disparities and some of the problems in northern Ontario.

I wonder why the New Democratic Party members from northern Ontario chose to vote with the government in the fall budget of 1985 in supporting a freeze of the gasoline tax at its highest value. We said repeatedly at that time that the prices of gasoline and crude oil were going to be decreasing. The members can check any number of our speeches at that time. Very clearly, the government did not believe that was going to happen. It has happened. Now, it has an absolute windfall of money that could have been used to address some of the very critical problems in northern Ontario and our resource industries here in southern Ontario. It could have been used to try to deal with the tremendous impact of these fuel prices on industry and to help it out but, no, it chose not to do that.

Very briefly, I want to mention tourism. Unfortunately, I missed some of the earlier portions of the debate, but tourism is very important to the riding of Durham-York. It is also extremely important to northern Ontario. When we look at people coming from the Golden Horseshoe area, the Metro Toronto area, into the area I represent, which has a part of Lake Simcoe and a part of Lake Scugog in it, we are talking about a one- to two-hour drive.

The cost of travelling is not excessive, but it is also safe to say that people look at those costs when considering how they are going to spend the disposable portion of their income for the family. When they consider travelling, the cost of travel is a very real consideration. When we expand the situation to those people going to northern Ontario and consider the tremendous distance involved in getting up there, plus the tremendous distances between towns and attractions when one is there, as well as the significantly higher cost of fuel, it seems to me there could have been some way in which the government might have assisted in dealing with that situation and in helping the tourist industry of northern Ontario. It could use some considerable help, because it is a very important part of the economy of the province and, more important, is an absolutely vital part of the economy of northern Ontario.

Agriculture also is a very significant sector. However, let us not limit it to agriculture; let us talk about the resource industries, many of which right now are in pretty serious financial situations. Certainly, agriculture is in one of the most critical economic situations since the Depression, and when we look at mining and at various other areas, we see none of them is smiling all the way to the bank at this time. The cost of transportation in resource industries is a very significant portion of their budgets. In a farming operation, many times it costs more to keep the car and the pickup truck on the road than it does to do the ploughing, the cultivating, the planting, the harvesting and maybe the drying of the crops that are harvested on those farms. I am sure the situation is very similar in many of the other resource industries of northern Ontario. Again, the problem could have been addressed by assisting with the controlling of prices and by looking seriously at the price of fuel and gasoline in Ontario. However, despite this tremendous windfall of money, the government has chosen to do nothing about it.

In my area, commuters buy many houses. Many of them are young couples coming out of the Golden Horseshoe area, moving out of apartments and buying their first houses in my area. It helps with the housing situation. If we cannot keep fuel prices under control, we are not going to have those young people buying in that area the way they have done this year. That is something we must continue to give positive assistance to so as to ease some of the housing problems in this area. Therefore, I cannot help being critical of the way this government has handled its financial resources.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: I rise to speak this afternoon in what I consider to be a very important debate, but it appears that most of those speaking in this very important debate have failed to understand its importance.

It amazes me that many of us appear to have learned absolutely nothing from the past 13 years in the world of oil. All through the 1970s, while oil prices were escalating dramatically, we saw repeatedly in this province, right across this continent and, for that matter, right around the world the impact that oil price increases had on the industrial world, on industry and specifically on manufacturing concerns in our province, in the United States and throughout the western world.

Let me say to those members who were not here in the 1970s -- and for those who were, I remind them -- that we documented in this Legislature how escalating oil prices and the decline in manufacturing in Ontario ran in parallel. They were directly related.

Earlier this afternoon I heard the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) speak about the importance of oil prices versus industry in Ontario on the one hand and yet still try to applaud the marketplace on the other. "Let the marketplace set the price," he said at the same time as he contradicted himself by saying the market is being manipulated because it does not work.

I suggest to members who are here this afternoon that the marketplace for oil prices in the world has not worked for 13 years. It has been manipulated, it has never stopped being manipulated for 13 years and it continues to be manipulated. There may be different players doing the manipulating from time to time, but the marketplace for oil in the world in which we live has not worked for 13 years. We all know that. Unfortunately, we somehow do not seem able to admit it as regularly as we should.

We had a federal budget in 1979 that caused the defeat of the Clark government, the cousins of those to my right here.

An hon. member: The Conservatives.

Mr. Charlton: That is right. And so it should have, because the Premier and the Treasurer of the day documented for us what the impact of that budget would have been in terms of job losses in Ontario.

The Clark budget and its impact were only the beginning of what would have come about with either the party to my right or the party across the way in power in Ottawa. All through the decade of the 1970s and right up until last fall, the oil producers in Canada screamed to have regulations removed. They said: "Give us a free market. Let us have the world price. Let us deal in the marketplace." What has happened since they were allowed to do that? Who is now screaming for help? The oil producers, who spent 15 years telling us they wanted deregulation, they wanted to be able to operate in Canada without regulation and they wanted to operate in a free market.

Is that what the companies that are taking oil out of the ground in Alberta and Saskatchewan are saying now? Are they happy with the free market now? Do they like the way the market is operating, or are they asking Ottawa for help and going cap in hand to Edmonton for help? That is the marketplace everybody in this place keeps defending, and that is the marketplace that has caused such industrial instability for the people of this country, the people we are supposed to represent, and yet the majority of members in this House continue to defend that marketplace that affects the lives of every individual in this province. In this very important debate, at the very least we can expect to get accurate information from the government of this province. Twice now in this House, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) have stood up and said that Nova Scotia, where oil prices are regulated, has the highest oil prices in Canada. That is not a fact. As of today, Nova Scotia has the second-lowest oil price in the five provinces east of Ontario. We all know that oil prices east of Ontario have always been higher than in Ontario and west.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What is the price in Nova Scotia?

Mr. Charlton: Nova Scotia does not have the highest price in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What is the price today?

Mr. Charlton: It is 50.1 cents, and the prices in all the other provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, are higher than that.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What is the price in Toronto?

Mr. Charlton: What does the price in Toronto have to do with highest versus not highest? All I am suggesting is that we in this House expect accurate information. The minister said Nova Scotia had the highest price in Canada, and it does not. That is the relevant point here; so let us not sidetrack. Yes, it is higher than in Ontario; and if I were in Nova Scotia, I would be seeking to deal with that, but I am not. I am in Ontario, dealing with an Ontario situation and suggesting that the minister not try to sidetrack the issue by saying Nova Scotia has the highest price when it does not.

Let us go back to the issue of regulation or no regulation. I sat in this House for nine years, eight of them listening to my colleagues across the way when they were in opposition and to the things they suggested they would do if they were the government. One of those things was the suggestion of the Treasurer that the Ontario Energy Board, which has the powers to carry on a continuing review of energy prices, now and in the future be able to make recommendations to the government so only those increases that are justified actually come about in this province.

The minister wants to do his investigation. The member for Mississauga North said it would be irresponsible to take action now without doing those investigations. However, I suggest that the minister must make up his mind not only to do an investigation to have the facts to know what is going on but also to put in place the mechanism to continue to do that on a regular basis, so he will not be in a position a year from now, when the next round of whatever happens with oil and gasoline prices happens, where we have to delay month after month because we do not have the information to make a reasonable comment about whether those price increases are justified.

The minister has identified a problem and said he needs to know the answers. We are saying we need the mechanisms in place in Ontario so we have those answers on an ongoing basis and we are not left in the bind we are in now. Energy, oil and gasoline prices are extremely important in the operation of the economy of Ontario. As my colleague has said, roughly $1 million a day is being lost by the people of this province because we do not know the answers. How much money will have been lost by the time we have done the studies and gotten those answers? It is far too important to leave to chance and the occasional investigation, when we know and repeatedly say in all three parties how important those prices are to individuals in Ontario and to the overall economy of this province.

We have a responsibility to the people of this province to ensure that we are in a position to protect them from unjustified and unwarranted price increases for gasoline or for any kind of oil. We have a responsibility and we have an agency that has the capability of providing that kind of service for us. Let us get on with the job of altering its mandate, giving it the power and letting it do the job on an ongoing, regular basis.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. McGuigan: I am glad to take part in this debate. I have to note that an hour or so ago it was a most important event that was going to take place in Ontario today, and now the party that made that allegation has only six people in the Legislature.

Miss Stephenson: Which is twice as many as you have.

Mr. McGuigan: They are the people who think it is the most important item in Ontario. Where is the item of great importance to Ontarians?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) has the floor.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to speak to one issue, and that is the issue of regulating prices. I would not for one minute defend the people who run our refineries and own our gasoline industry or those who concentrate their powers in a number of our industries, such as banking, retailing and insurance. We have in Canada one of the worst records of conglomerates securing a stranglehold upon industry. A very few families control a great deal of the industry and commerce of this country.

We need some competition laws. We have a government in Ottawa that has been in power for almost two years and because of the total confusion of that government, we have nothing in the way of addressing this very serious problem. The government of Ontario is not the proper body to do it but, given default by the federal people, the government of Ontario is looking at this matter.

While we are concerned about gasoline prices, I would suggest the way of lessening competition and the way of bringing about stable prices -- and by stable prices I mean those will be high prices -- will be by regulating prices. If we want an example of it, we simply have to look at natural gas utilities, which are currently allowed to earn 14 to 15 per cent on the shareholders' equity. The people who control the strings in financial matters will withdraw their funds from any company that does not give them a return of 14 or 15 per cent. They will do it in a cold-blooded manner, regardless of what happens to the consumers or the employees.

When we get into regulated prices, these people have the capacity to bamboozle us and bring out figures that will prove their prices are justified. If we want to see gold-handled faucets in the executive washrooms, look to those companies that have regulated prices. I, along with other members of the Legislature, happened to be a guest in the executive suite of Bell Canada at the tower down University Avenue a few years ago. That is one of those regulated industries. We saw luxurious offices at the top of that magnificent building. That is all built into the regulated prices. If we want to see executive jets poised on the runway, look to companies that have regulated prices, because they have them regulated high, not low.

I am old enough to remember the example of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board. Under the conditions at the time of calling upon the best factions of the country to try to maintain prices, with the pressure of the war along with the pressure of regulation, prices were maintained fairly well. People said: "Wait until the war is over and these regulations are taken away from us. That will be our day. We will really boost the prices of our commodities upwards." What happened? The sheikh from Welland will recall, he is old enough.

Mr. Barlow: The member is getting tough on the oldtimers here.

Mr. McGuigan: We oldtimers are tough, and we have long memories. We are long in the tooth but long in the memory too.

What happened when those regulations were taken away was that prices went down. They did not go up; they went down. There is a psychology in the public mind: "This is a regulated price. We have government commissions, lawyers and economists looking at it -- everybody is looking at it -- therefore, it has to be a proper, acceptable price." They accept those prices. When they removed the wartime regulations, competition came in and prices went down. There is a reason for that; it is called market share.

If people in the New Democratic Party were business people, they would have some idea of what market share does to the bottom line of a company. If one can add a one or two per cent greater market share to one's company, one does not enhance the bottom line by one or two per cent but by an exponential figure that could be 10 or 20 times that, because one has fixed costs. Taxes, insurance and upkeep on buildings all remain the same. Labour changes very little, if any, especially in the refining and gasoline handling industry, because the product is pumped.

All the fixed costs remain the same, but one's throughput goes up and one's profits increase dramatically. At a time when there is a bit of extra gasoline on hand and these companies want to keep their refineries operating because it costs money to stop refineries, it is cheaper to operate them at a bit of a loss than it is to close it down. Whenever those conditions occur, that period is used to try to grab the market share, so we have these price wars.

I have been in the business of supplying supermarkets with various commodities all my life. I know something of what happens during price wars. The real aim is to get more people through the store or the station, because if one gets them in on the main item, one can also hoodwink them by selling them more windshield wipers, oil, antifreeze and all the high-priced items where there is a real profit. There is a real advantage to a company that engages in a successful price war.

Mr. Swart: There is a surplus of gas now. Why is the price not going down?

Mr. McGuigan: The sheikh from Welland says there is a surplus. I do not think he knows whether there is a surplus. Neither do I. I am not in a position to say there is. What I am saying is that in the course of business, there are times when there are extra amounts of material in the system, and they try to get it out.

Another thing that is not so well known is that gasoline will spoil. It is an organic chemical, and after a certain age it can be invaded by bacteria and lose some of its power. Also, during the year the mix of gasoline is varied to comply with the weather; they change the octane or the type of gasoline we burn in the winter as compared to the spring. There are times of the year they want to get rid of that inventory, so they use that to try to buy market share.

My time is up, but I want to conclude by saying that if members want to help consumers, this is not the way the way to do it. I share everyone's interest in wanting to help consumers, but as a person who has been in business and who has watched this, it is the wrong way to go.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to join this debate initiated today by my colleague the member for Leeds. We are having a very important debate on gasoline prices.

During the past several weeks I have observed what has been in the press and what the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been saying. He has been talking very strongly about how he anticipates negotiating and investigating and fording out what the problem is. It is about time we did find out what the problem is. If the minister is not capable of doing that, a commission should be established to look into the matter in depth and find out the problem.

At this time of year we have many tourists coming to my area from the United States and from all over Ontario. The price increase in fuel in the past while will have a bearing on that. It was interesting to note not too many weekends ago, on a Friday night when I went home, the price of gas had increased by four cents a litre. I believe it was the long weekend. On Monday the price of fuel was down by four cents a litre. That tells me something. Gasoline does not fluctuate in so short a time, up and down in three days. The concern I have is that tourists in Ontario are big business, and we want them here. The fluctuation we have in our gasoline prices is not a great attraction for them.

I do not know whether the minister has the power to do anything about it. If he has, I want to hear about it. If he does not, he should tell us so, and we will try to take another avenue to deal with it.

Looking at the increase in the gasoline tax in relation to the trucking industry in this province, that industry deals with consumer goods every day. If the price of diesel fuel goes up, we pay more for our products. The emergency debate is a lot more interesting and more fruitful than the Treasurer led us to believe when he was making his opening remarks.

A little more than a year ago, there was a statement by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), then the leader of the official opposition, in which he said, "Fuel prices are a ripoff." It is said the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) "still pursues gasoline price inquiries," and in regard to another minister, "MPP demands gas action: Jim Bradley claims in St. Catharines, `Consumers are being gouged by the major oil companies.'"

Let us get to the bottom of the matter once and for all. If the minister has avenues he can pursue to do that, fine. I realize he has been to Ottawa and has talked to our federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has probably talked to others as well. If there is something he can do, fine. If there is not, then let us appoint a royal commission and deal with it properly.

When we look at the tax increases of last October, there was a proposal for a flat tax of 8.8 cents a litre on all types of gasoline. That flat tax replaced the previously existing ad valorem tax, which was directly linked to the retail price of gasoline. At that time, the Liberals faced stiff opposition from our party and the New Democratic Party, and we got it lowered to 8.3 cents a litre.

The new tax on gasoline is now 8.3 cents a litre. Previously the tax was eight cents on regular gasoline, 8.4 cents on unleaded gasoline and 8.6 on premium unleaded gasoline. The amendment put forward by our party would have replaced a tax of 16.6 per cent on the retail price of gas with a cap of 8.3 cents a litre. As members are well aware, that was defeated.

The price of oil has dropped from approximately $30 a barrel to $11 a barrel. If that ad valorem tax had still been in effect, we have heard from previous speakers how much less consumers would be paying for gasoline today.

It costs the resource industries more, but I have to say from my point of view, when I look at the tourist industry, our farmers, our truckers and our resource industries, there has to be a solution to this problem. I hope this debate today will help to do that, because it is for the benefit of all the people in the province to have that done.

Mr. Wildman: In rising to speak in this debate, I want to say it is a very important one and I welcome the introduction of this matter for debate this afternoon.

As members know, we have experienced very high and unfair gasoline prices in northern Ontario for many years. We have had a lot of discussion and talk about it, but as yet we have had no government action to deal with the very serious gasoline price differential between northern and southern Ontario.

It is our view that consumers in northern Ontario, who drive longer distances and have more serious winter conditions over a longer period of time than those in southern Ontario, have to buy more gasoline anyway. By adding to that the very high price of gasoline, we believe northern consumers are being ripped off.

I have before me a list of prices as of January along the Highway 11 corridor, in which I am sure my friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) will be interested. I want to emphasize that these are January prices. I admit they have gone down somewhat since. These are prices for regular gasoline: Cochrane, 54.8 cents a litre; Smooth Rock Falls, 54.8 cents; Kapuskasing, 55.6 cents; Mattice, 54.1 cents; Hearst, 54.2 cents; and Hornepayne, in my riding, 61.9 cents. That is outrageous when one considers the price of gasoline in southern Ontario at that time.

I welcome this debate, but I find it rather amusing to listen to the comments from the members on my right and to have that party introduce this for debate at this time. I want to refer to a debate that was held in this House in 1978 on this very matter. It was on a bill that was introduced by my Conservative colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) to equalize gasoline prices across Ontario. He wanted to get rid of the differentials between the north and the south.

I read with interest the comments made by the then Minister of Energy, the present member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz). I will just read a few of his comments into the record:

"There is no doubt that both wholesale and retail prices of gasoline and home heating oil could be made uniform across the province. But this could only be achieved through complete government regulation of petroleum manufacturing, distribution and marketing in this province....To achieve the objective would require imposing regulations on the whole commodity, which they" -- meaning the opposition -- "would like to see but which is against our" -- the Conservatives' -- "policy and which in turn... would create the need for an evergrowing bureaucracy;...something we're trying desperately to reduce, not to expand.... We want to deregulate, not regulate and all the members opposite can think of is regulate, regulate, regulate."

Those are the words of the Conservative Minister of Energy dealing with a debate on getting rid of the differentials in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario. I submit that the Conservatives have come to this issue rather late in the game.

5:40 p.m.

The member for Ottawa West went on: "Moreover, the accountability for petroleum product pricing would become a direct responsibility of government, which would be a further intrusion in the operation of the market economy." I guess that is what they want. I suppose he was also referring to his colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. He continued:

"Regulating petroleum product prices would undermine the highly competitive petroleum market that does exist in this province at this time. Such a measure could have the opposite effect." He means lowering prices. "That is why I feel the present government's policy should continue and why I cannot support this bill. I would like to assure my colleague and the public that in pursuing our policy of encouraging competition rather than state-imposed regulations, which the members opposite would like to see, on motor gasoline and fuel oil pricing, we will continue to monitor closely the petroleum industry to make certain that a competitive market system will continue to be in the best interests of the consumer."

That is the Conservative policy, despite what they have to say today in this debate. They do not want to regulate. They do not want to touch the industry. I leave members to draw their own conclusions about their seriousness in this debate today.

I would like to turn now to the Liberal government and its policy. As a part of the accord that was signed a year ago today between the New Democrats and the Liberals, the Liberal Party agreed to set up a gasoline price inquiry that would look into the differentials in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario. It took eight months for the government to act. Finally, the Ministry of Energy published a study that told northerners what we have known for years. Specifically, it told us that we pay higher prices for gasoline in northern Ontario, which is something we knew all too well.

The study found that the northern motorist can pay about $130 more a year for gasoline than the southern motorist, but then the rest of the report tried to justify this difference by elaborating on a few self-evident facts about the north: We have greater distances between communities, and the market is smaller and therefore there is less price competition than in the south.

That report by the Ministry of Energy made no recommendations and had no discussion of options for government action. It simply tried to justify the status quo. Interestingly enough, the study even tried to justify high prices in the Sault Ste. Marie area, where they cannot be explained by geographic location or by small market. In my view, it was a useless exercise.

If the government is serious about equalizing gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario, it will consider regulating the price of gasoline, but we have heard from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) time and time again his arguments against regulation and government intervention, the same as the Conservative argument previously.

This whole issue shows us that in many issues these two parties are interchangeable. What the government now says is the same as the Conservatives said when they were the government. Now that the Conservatives are over here, they say the same things the Liberals said when they were over here.

Mr. Gillies: You will never be over there, so you can say what you want.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps. At least we speak the truth.

When the Liberals were in opposition, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) urged the Conservatives to expand the powers of the Ontario Energy Board so it could carry on "a continuing review of energy prices and be able to make recommendations to the government so that only those increases that are justified are actually going to come about in this province."

Obviously the member was referring to the situation in Nova Scotia. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has tried to argue that regulation there has meant higher prices. That has been shown to be incorrect, but the important factor from my point of view is that Nova Scotia has a regulation that says no price anywhere in the province will vary more than 1.7 cents per litre above what Halifax pays. In other words, we would not have the great differentials that we have between northern and southern Ontario if we were to follow a similar policy.

After he published his study, all the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) proposed was that he was going to talk to the oil companies about the price of gasoline, much as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has done. He suggested he might persuade the oil companies to lower their prices voluntarily in the north. I wish him luck. I doubt very much that the oil companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, are going to give the consumers a break in northern Ontario.

Now we are told that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is going to institute eight forums in locations across the north. Yet when he announced the dates, for some reason he could not tell me who was going to do it nor the terms of reference of this inquiry. He could not give me a commitment that the government was going to act to lower the price of gasoline in the north after the hearings were completed.

It is time we got away from this crazy and silly political posturing in this House and actually made a commitment to the consumers of this province that we are going to lower the prices in northern Ontario and deal with the ripoff the oil companies are providing to consumers, so that we in northern Ontario and all consumers across the province pay fair prices for gasoline. The government has the jurisdiction. It has the right to intervene; I urge it to intervene. Let us have no more talk; let us have some action.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: As I recall, every five or 10 years there is a debate on the price of gasoline in the north and in the south. The previous government instituted a royal commission headed by Claude Isbister 10 years ago. When I was mayor, I received a report from Mr. Isbister, telling the previous government what to do about the prices in the north and in the south. I was in business at that time. My companies were buying more than $5 million worth of gasoline and fuel. I never saw any change or any application of the Isbister report.

At that time, Mr. Isbister told the government, as we were saying today, that there is a difference between the north and the south. He was talking about regional prices. If I recall correctly, there were 13 regions in northern Ontario. In that report, he said there should be one price at the wholesale level, which never happened. I was involved in the chamber of commerce and in politics in the north for more than 30 years. I talked to Mr. Isbister when he was up north, and I read his report. If we are going to try to have a price structure in the north, we have to address those regions.

As members know, the wholesale people today are closing their bulk plants and delivering gasoline in areas such as Kapuskasing. Imperial Oil is closed in Hearst, and it is delivered there. In Kapuskasing, one pays less than in Hearst for one's gasoline at the wholesale level. Something is wrong. Mr. Isbister touched on that. He touched on the other areas that were touched on this year by the energy report. The small entrepreneur with the small gas station has to take more money for his gallonage.

The other problem I have found in the north, which was touched on by the royal commission in 1975-76, was the difference between the wholesalers. Some were taking five or seven cents; others were working with three or four cents. In the next round, if we are going to talk to companies or do something, we have to look at the regions. There should be one price. I am not talking about the south; I am talking about the north. The south is another thing.

5:50 p.m.

Some wholesalers are owned by the companies and others by private enterprise. These should also be at one price. At the time of the Isbister report, when one added the wholesale price and the difference in regions, the difference in price was three or four cents a gallon. When we compared with other areas in the north, at that time, there was a 10-cent difference between Timmins and my riding, and we found out the difference was between the wholesale price and the regional price.

Mr. Swart: Good idea. How do we bring it about?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am talking personally. We have to close up those two prices in the north, otherwise we will never get --

Mr. Swart: How do we do it?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: We will have to do some hard bargaining. If we can do it with other commodities in the north, I am sure we can find an area of compromise.

I want to answer the question put by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). Each public meeting will be chaired by an official from my ministry and will feature a presentation by the Ministry of Energy on the north and south gasoline pricing study and related issues. The principal purpose of the meeting in the north is to seek input from northerners about the impact on them and on the northern economy of higher gasoline prices. We want to know especially how this issue impacts on the lives of the residents of northern Ontario. We all know that, but we want them to participate.

This forum will also provide the opportunity for northerners to discuss the options available to government to address this issue. I believe that is what we should touch on. I am sure the chamber of commerce and the action group I will meet with on Saturday in Timmins -- it is all the mayors from northeastern Ontario -- will recall the Claude Isbister report and will ask that those regions be equalized. They have my assurance and that of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) that all serious ideas that emerge from these public meetings will be seriously considered.

Another thing I want to touch on in regard to the gasoline issue is that the price varies week to week. This week, for example, the average price for regular gasoline in northern Ontario is 47.5 cents. In Ontario as a whole, it is 47.7 cents. If we look back to January, there was a big gap. Even between Kapuskasing and Chapleau, there was a difference of about 10 cents, and there is no reason for that.

One has to figure out those regions. Seriously, as a member of the government, I will attend those meetings, and the people will submit presentations. That is where we should look if we want to have a price that is going to be closer to the price in the south. For example, in Hornepayne it was 48.9 cents, compared with 43.7 cents in Iron Bridge. In Larder Lake it was 45 cents, in Coniston 44 cents and in White River 45.9 cents. Those are for regular gasoline, but I have all the other prices here too.

I am scared of a monopoly situation in northern Ontario. A couple of years ago in my home town, there were at least eight service stations. Now there is no Imperial Oil and no Esso. We are left with one Shell station, one Husky, one Texaco, and a former Gulf station that was reopened by Petro-Canada. The bulk plants are all walking out. In my home town we are left with only Shell and Texaco active; the rest is delivered from other towns.

We see something going on there. Eventually, when they bid on prices -- when I was running my company, we used to ask for bids every year. In the last five years, there was only one bidder on a big contract. That is another danger we have in the north.

Mr. Swart: The competition is gone.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Yes. We see that too in the prices of milk and other commodities. This is an area I want to report to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) that we as a government will have to watch. It is going on in Hornepayne, in Cochrane and all over the place. After today, if we want the price in northern Ontario to be in line, we have to work on the areas and to see about the competition; if it is not there, we could be facing big problems in the future.

I remind members that if we had an agreement, and if Petro-Canada were run as it was supposed to have been run, I am sure this recent price increase would not have happened. When it was started by the federal Liberals, I am sure the intention was to keep prices in line and not that Petrocan itself would raise prices. It was supposed to be a catalyst to help us through the bad times. However, the government in Ottawa saw fit to liberalize everything, to give it away to the companies, and now Petro-Canada is acting the same as the others. It should have been kept under the thumb of the federal government, with some direction, and not allowed to do as it pleased. But that is past now and they are doing as others do.

Mr. Gordon: I listened very intently to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), who seems to be apologizing for the fact that he has not been able to do anything. He has been the minister for only a year, but perhaps he is spending so much time flying around northern Ontario in government planes that he does not have time to think about the problems of northern people.

I wonder if the minister checked the price of aviation fuel when he was flying around. I would have thought that after a whole year of flying into every community except two, as he told this House a few weeks ago, he would have noticed there was a problem with the price of fuel in northern Ontario. I think it is shameful, absolutely shameful, that this individual, whom I have to say I respect because he is a minister, would get up and say the kinds of things he said in the House today.

The minister was hopping from one subject to the other. He was talking in an increasingly confused fashion about wholesale prices and what this means in the north. He said the government was going to take one region and pit it against another region and things like that. I am sure Mr. Speaker is confused as well.

That is why I am going to talk about gasoline prices here today. I am going to talk about diesel fuel prices as well, because I do not want to inflame anybody, particularly the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Nor do I want to inflame any of the pages who are sitting here and listening so intently to this discussion we are having.

I must say, though, I enjoyed the comments of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan).

Any time I have a conversation with him, I always leave knowing a little more about what is really going on in the world. He manages to cut through a great deal of the guff and get to the heart of the matter.

Mr. Callahan: Come on over.

Mr. Gordon: Come on over to that side of the House? No. Just because I enjoy the members opposite as individuals, and I do, that does not mean I have to get in bed with their policies. Let us not get incestuous; let us stick to the topic. The topic today is the exorbitant price that people in the north have to pay for gasoline. It is a lot.

To put this on a very human basis, a week or so ago my wife and one of my children drove down here to southern Ontario from Sudbury to attend the graduation of one of my daughters from university. When we left Sudbury, the price of gasoline was about 45.6 cents per litre. When we got to London, it was about 34.6 cents per litre.

6 p.m.

I notice the chief government whip, the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith), comes from London. She is very conversant with Ontario. I know her husband and his firm have done a lot of good work in Ontario. They built the civic square in Sudbury, and they did a terrific job. I have to say, though, at that time I happened to be the mayor of the municipality and I asked for an investigation into the building of the civic square. I do not mean any offence. I want members to know they did not find any wrongdoing. Everything has gone smoothly ever since. I know she is going to bend every effort to try to help her caucus and her cabinet to do something about the price of gasoline and oil in northern Ontario.

Perhaps Sudbury's prices are a lot less than prices that have been enunciated by one of the New Democratic Party members who talked about places like Kapuskasing, where the price was up around 55.6 cents a litre. I think he mentioned a price of more than 60 cents a litre for gasoline in northeastern Ontario. I have to believe there is some kind of skulduggery going on with these oil companies.

One of the vehicles I drive is a little diesel Volkswagen Rabbit, because I am a very frugal person.

Mr. Epp: A foreign vehicle.

Mr. Gordon: I confess, I bought it in 1979 before we started having troubles with the car industry.

Mr. Gillies: I got rid of mine.

Mr. Gordon: I have not got rid of my car, I can tell the member that.

One thing I have noticed is that the price of diesel fuel in the north did not go down one iota when the cost of a barrel of oil went down. It even went up a little. It just shows that because they know they have a much smaller group of people to deal with, those people who drive diesel automobiles, and they feel the trucking market is a captive market, they are going to do what they want. In other words, they are going to have their way with us in the north.

I will take a moment to bring my colleagues up to speed on this subject. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio); I would have liked to have written it earlier, but there are so many pressing issues in the north. This issue was one I could finally get to; so I wrote a letter to the minister on February 11. In it, I said: "I am aware that a study is currently being carried out by both the ministries of Energy and Northern Development and Mines with regard to the difference in gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario."

I had been sitting in on his estimates; so I thought I would remind him of something he said. I wrote:

"During the recent Ministry of Energy estimates, you outlined the general causes for the price discrepancy. Specifically, you stated that the price difference arises out of three areas: differences in wholesale costs, retail cost and market conditions. Certainly, these causes have been defined repeatedly before the study was commissioned. I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that we in northern Ontario are seeking the reparation of inequities in gasoline prices. I would hope that when the results of the study are published, they will go beyond a mere analysis of the problem and actually provide amendments to price discrepancies."

What happened? I do not want to offend those members sitting on the other side, and I do not want the member for London South to become agitated, but when this study came out -- members can just zoom in on that and they can pick it right out of the North-South Gasoline Pricing Study appendices -- what did it dwell on? It did not dwell on how we could go about improving things for northerners with the cost of fuel; no, not at all. What did it say? Let me bring this to members' attention again. I know they are interested in this.

The report concluded that the average retail gasoline price in northern Ontario during the period studied was more than four cents a litre greater than the average price in the south. The report identified several reasons for gasoline price discrepancies between northern and southern Ontario. The most important factor contributing to these discrepancies was the overall size of the two markets.

The size of the two markets; is that all they could discover? We could tell them that time and again. All northerners know there is a difference between the size of the markets. This is one of the things the minister actually found out -- north of Steeles Avenue. I do not blame him. I know he is grasping for straws and having a hard time. The consultant the government hired did not know what to do, and the minister said, "Look, you have to do something." I know this is unintelligible. That was the first point.

This is the second thing they found out about the north: "The large numbers and close proximity of retail outlets, combined with a greater number of gasoline brands available in the south, often force competitive price war situations. Such conditions are rare in the north." Let me go through that again. I want everybody to understand what the minister found out. I cannot believe he would write this. This is a press release from the Minister of Energy on the study he did. He found out: "The large numbers and close proximity of retail outlets, combined with a greater number of gasoline brands available in the south, often force competitive price war situations. Such conditions are rare in the north."

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Gordon: I was just getting warmed up.

The Deputy Speaker: The member can continue on another day.

Mr. Morin-Strom: This is certainly a vital issue to members in our party. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of gasoline prices, particularly those in northern Ontario. This is an issue that has been of serious concern to myself and others in northern Ontario, certainly since I was elected more than a year ago.

I quickly looked up some of the Hansards of the past year, and the first question I asked in the Legislature, nearly a year ago today, had to do with gasoline prices. At that time, the Conservatives were over there and the Liberals were over here.

Mr. Swart: It has made no difference.

Mr. Morin-Strom: That is what we are going to see.

I asked a question of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who was then Minister of Energy:

"I am pleased to direct my first question in this parliament to the Minister of Energy. My question concerns a government that has neglected northern Ontario for 42 years, resulting in higher unemployment, lack of industrial diversification and higher costs of goods and services in the north.

"In particular, I question the unfair prices charged for gasoline and home heating fuel in northern Ontario. Why do northerners have to pay eight, 10, and even 15 cents a litre more for gasoline than those people in metropolitan areas in the south?

"Could the minister explain why we can have one price for beer in Ontario but we cannot have fair prices for gasoline and home heating fuel in this province?"

There were a few interjections at that point, but this is the response of the minister:

"I suppose one's definition of what is fair varies, depending on whether one is selling and involved in the industry and the jobs of the industries that are selling, or whether one is in the business of buying."

That was a totally unintelligible answer. This issue was pursued by myself and other members of our party. I followed it up and tried to get a more intelligent answer from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the following week.

Mr. Martel: Who was that? What was his name?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Let me see if I can find it here. It was the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman).

Mr. Runciman: I think we have heard this one already.

Mr. Morin-Strom: We have heard this already, have we?

"I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last Friday I questioned the Minister of Energy about high prices charged for gasoline and home heating oil in northern Ontario, a serious problem that also applies to many rural areas in southern Ontario."

"The Minister of Energy at that point was rather confused about whether gasoline prices were regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is more concerned." I asked again, "Why do northerners have to pay eight, 10 or even 15 cents a litre more for gasoline than those who live in metropolitan areas of the south?"

The answer from the minister was, "It is not an issue I have had an opportunity to review, but I assume we have to look at the transportation costs involved."

6:10 p.m.

In the supplementary, I asked, "Why does the government continue to load further competitive disadvantage and penalties on the people of northern Ontario, compounding the disadvantages they already face, by allowing the oil companies to charge unjustified prices that cannot be explained by the high transportation costs?"

The minister's answer was: "I think they should get together with their friends concerning the competitive disadvantage and the free market system. There seems to be a difference of opinion when one is talking about beer in one instance, as an example.

"Some of the reasons that have been provided to me regarding gasoline prices are simply that you have less competition, higher transfer costs, higher transportation costs and higher operating costs. Gasoline prices are set by competitive prices in the marketplace. Obviously, those guys over there do not believe in the free marketplace. Government intervention is their answer to everything; Big Brother has to be involved in every facet of our lives."

Now the member for Leeds is complaining about the big oil companies and the fact that this government will not take any action against those big oil companies. It is interesting that at that time the Liberals, who were over here, had the chance to ask a supplementary, and I had one from the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), who said:

"Does the minister believe all he is being told on this subject? Has he been talking with his counterpart in Ottawa to find out just when the combines investigation will be reporting on this subject? The people in the combines division feel the gas companies in this province have bilked the people of Ontario of billions of dollars."

That is what the Liberals said when they were on this side asking questions of the Tories, who are over here now. It is Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We have the two parties reversing positions. They reversed sides of the House and they reversed their sides of the story on this issue.

Mr. Swart: Is the member for Quinte not the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Yes, and he stated, "The people in the combines division feel the gas companies of this province have bilked the people of Ontario of billions of dollars." Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) will have a conversation with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to get filled in on what the combines division is telling us about the gasoline prices in this province.

This is a serious issue facing residents of northern Ontario and one on which there is unanimity of opinion in the north. Just last fall in a survey of Sault residents, I asked their opinion on gasoline prices. Out of 790 responses to my question "Are gasoline prices much too high in Saint Ste. Marie?" only five said no and four were of no opinion. There is a unanimous response from individuals throughout the community, whether they are supporters of my party, supporters of this party over here or supporters of that party over there, or whether the parties switch back and forth. It does not make any difference.

We have asked this government to take action on gasoline prices. It is time we had some control over a key element of our costs. We have that kind of control on energy prices, when it comes to prices of electricity and natural gas. It is time this province looked at putting some type of control on gasoline prices. We have to ensure that the prices charged are fair, equitable and based on the costs involved. Given the fact that there are no competitive forces in the marketplace, particularly in northern Ontario, we have to ensure that the prices are established on a fair and equitable basis.

When the study was done by the Ministry of Energy on gasoline price differentials between northern and southern Ontario, the results clearly indicated there is no competition whatsoever in Saint Ste. Marie. During a period of two years from the start of 1984 until earlier this year, there was only one change in gasoline prices. That was the increase of two cents a litre in federal taxes that occurred last summer. There was a two-cent increase in gasoline prices; other than that, the prices were absolutely equal.

The numbers were posted on the gasoline stations for more than a year and a half at 52.3 cents a litre for regular gasoline. They had the increase of two cents a litre, and the price went to 54.3 cents a litre. That price was maintained in every gas station in the community, close to 50 stations, without one station breaking prices over the whole two-year period.

I do not know how anyone can claim that gasoline prices are being determined by the marketplace, by competitive forces, when there is no evidence whatsoever of any competition or of any price structure. From what the gasoline station operators tell me, they are not given the option. They are told what their margin is going to be, and they are told they have to work within that margin. There are no independent operators left in Sault Ste. Marie, my home community. As a result, they do not even look at what the total price is. They are told: "This is what you are going to get it for. You have three cents to work on and that is it."

The prices are being set down in Toronto. It is time that control over gasoline prices is put in the hands of northerners, into the community, so we have competitive forces there, or if there is not going to be any competition -- and there is no evidence whatsoever of competition -- then we have to see that the prices are regulated on a fair and equitable basis so we do not face the competitive and cost disadvantages facing all consumers in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank everybody who participated in this debate. It was interesting. I have a few concerns. I have no problem with my friends in the third party, which has a long and constant history of being very concerned about gasoline prices. That is their position and it has not wavered.

When I did some research, as I am sure members are aware of my doing, I saw that this debate today, although it was not an emergency debate, could well have been carried on over a period of time. I read where Mr. Handleman, Mr. Walker, Mr. Elgie and the member for Leeds were all involved. All of them took their stand on what they felt was the issue of the day.

To find that the members of the official opposition should initiate this debate today is rather bizarre. Notwithstanding that, I think it was worthwhile from an individual basis. As an individual, every member has a specific concern and a justified concern. I appreciate that.

I will try to bring into context where we are today and why we are conducting this debate. In his remarks, the Treasurer talked about the legislation in the early 1970s and why that happened. That was a world in crisis. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries became a factor that threatened the economies of many countries because of the monopoly it exercises and because of the forces on the marketplace.

It was in response to that and what it was doing to the people of all the industrialized nations that the legislation was enacted in Ontario. There was concern, and there was a real thrust for economy. There was talk of rationing. There were lineups at gas stations.

Mr. Swart: There were unreasonable increases in prices.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am agreeing with the member. Not only were they unreasonable but also they were unreasonable to the point where it was threatening the economy of the industrialized world.

We can all remember seeing lineups at gas stations because they were running out and they could not get more because of the controls that OPEC had. That gradually passed, because OPEC started to fall apart internally and we had a situation where new oil discoveries were made, there was a break in the ranks because people had to maintain their economies, and as a result the cartel was effectively broken.

If members saw the papers today, they will know the projections are that the price of oil is going to come down again. It has gone up a little bit now, but the projections are that the world price of crude is going to come down.

6:20 p.m.

That brings us to the situation in mid-March. Why did we suddenly have a crisis? I respect the members from the north, who have had an ongoing problem. There is a price discrepancy that is vexatious, to say the least, and very serious, to say the worst. It is a terrible problem, and we have to address it. Notwithstanding that, there was not any great crisis where, suddenly, people were saying, "We are being driven out of business because of the price of gasoline." What they were saying was, "If the price of world crude has dropped to somewhere in the $10 range, why is it not being reflected at the pumps?" That is not to say the price at the pumps was outrageous. If one asks anybody, "Do you want to buy cheaper gasoline?" he will say, "Of course, I want to buy cheaper gasoline."

It was not as if people were picketing and saying the price of gasoline was too high. They were asking, "Why has the price of gasoline not gone down when the price of crude has dropped so dramatically?" It was in response to this, and only this, that the Premier said to the Minister of Energy, "I would like you to contact the oil producers out west," and he said to me as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, "I would like you to contact the oil companies here and get the answer."

I am not by any means an expert in the oil business. I do not know the first thing about it. I was sent to find out what they had to say. On March 31, Easter Monday, when most members were enjoying their holiday, I went out and visited all the oil companies. I asked them, "Sirs, why is it that the price of oil at the pump does not reflect what seems to be the price in the United States and what seems to be the price on the world market?"

At that point, they said to me, "It is because it takes anywhere from 70 days to 105 days for new oil to come through the system to be reflected at the pumps." I said, "Does that mean that if we take that projection that by late April, mid-May, we should see a reduction?" They said, "Yes." I asked, "What do you think it should be?" They said, "It should be on a percentage basis." I said: "That works out to somewhere between 37 cents and 38 cents a litre. Is that correct?" They said, "That is just about where it should be."

I said, "Fine," and I asked: "How about diesel fuel? Why is there such a discrepancy when everybody" -- and when I say everybody, that is my interpretation -- "knows that diesel costs less to produce than regular gasoline?" They said: "Sir, you are wrong. It does not cost any more, but it certainly does not cost any less. Depending on when it is produced, whether it is produced in the summer or whether it is produced in the winter, the price is the same. The reason there is a price discrepancy is that only three per cent of the people buy diesel, whereas 97 per cent of the people buy gasoline. Because of the economies of scale we do not get the volume, we do not get the production, and that is the reason. Again, it is a market situation. Because only three per cent of people have diesel cars, we have them at a disadvantage. They can only come where we sell the diesel." He reported that to me.

I said: "Can you please do me a favour and put all this in writing to me so we can analyse what you are telling me?" I did not accept it; they did not con me; they just told me.

I came out, and the media asked me, "What is the situation?" I said: "I met with the oil companies. Here is what they say. They say that come the end of April or the beginning of May, we should be at about 37 cents or 38 cents." They said, "Are you happy with that?" I said: "I do not know whether I am happy with that, because I do not know what it means. I am just telling you what they told me."

Mr. Swart: Maybe we should have had the investigation.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: They said, "This is the price." No one was more surprised than I when I saw the headline in the Toronto Star, "Kwinter Says Gasoline is Going to be 37 Cents," as if I did it. I have never taken any credit for it, and I have never taken any blame for it. I just stated, "This is what they told me." When the price came down, as it did, to 37 and 38 cents, not one member in this House stood up and asked, "Minister, why is the price at 37 and 38 cents when it should be lower?" whereas I said, "Maybe it should be lower."

Mr. Swart: It passed so quickly we did not see it.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This is what happened. At that point, the other significant situation members should be aware of is that they said: "Because the Metro market is so competitive, we do not really have control of the pumps. Because we have a rack price, because we have people who go over to the United States and buy bulk gasoline, the nonbranded products, and come into the service stations and sell it, we have to compete and as a result sometimes it drives the price and we do not."

The only reason I am concerned now, and I still have not got that answer, is if that is the case, why would the price of gasoline suddenly go up? We are not talking about the 33-cent gasoline, because that could be the effect of price wars, but gasoline in the 37- to 38-cent range. Why has that suddenly gone to 41 cents when by the company's own admission the new gasoline should be through the system and it takes that long for it to come along?

All I have done is gone back to them and asked, "Why?" I have written a letter to Michel Côté and said, "Is there some kind of issue here under the Combines Investigation Act?" It does not make any sense. I am not defending them. I am just saying, I am acting as the agent, as the minister responsible, and trying to get to the solution. They may be able to justify it.

I have said in the House, who is to say the price of gasoline in Toronto is not where it should be? I do not know. All I know is it does not make any sense that if, according to their statement, it takes 75 to 105 days for the price to be reflected at the gas pump, how could it suddenly go up by two cents overnight when there has not been that change in the price of fuel?

That is where we are today. We are working on it. We are trying to get a resolution. I welcome the debate; it has been interesting and informative. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines will do his investigation to get some feedback from the people in the north. That is a problem that is totally separate from the other. That is ongoing. That discrepancy in the price is something that should not be allowed.

As a final note, I want to correct an impression. We talked about the Nova Scotia price of gasoline. At present --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Runciman: The minister can issue a press release. He is well known for that.

I want to comment quickly on something the Treasurer said at the outset. He was rather indignant about this debate taking place and resented the fact that his supply motion was going to be delayed. That is ironic. If he had been on this side of the House and been treated in the manner this party was treated over some serious questions the day before, I think we would have seen a lot more than an emergency debate.

The Treasurer talked about having all kinds of opportunities to discuss this issue. The members opposite and their kissing cousins to the left thought it was rather amusing when I was asking what we thought were serious questions in the House yesterday and we were treated with quotes from myself and other members.

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

Mr. Runciman: This man is trying to take up my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe that member spoke once already.

The Deputy Speaker: He has not spoken on the emergency debate.

Mr. Callahan: Surely the rules say that each speaker shall have an opportunity to speak?

The Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. That is not a correct point of order.

Mr. Runciman: I hope I have that time added on. I have a lot of problems with the way this minister and this government have reacted. I have some sympathy for him because the Minister of Energy should be sharing the can on this and he is not.

We have been criticized. My name was mentioned as was that of the member for Nipissing. As the minister is fond of saying, I was in that role for only about 27 days. He has been there almost a year. We have to take a look at the history and how he has handled this issue over the past year.

I go back to a number of months ago when I asked the minister about Imperial Oil and the issue of removing rack pricing or dealer support. I asked him to take a look at what was going on with the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, at least to take observer status and preferably intervener status, because of the impact that was going to have on the consumers of this province. He declined to deal with that.

We have talked about the oil companies and his negotiations or dealing with them. I have suggested he was conned and duped by those people. He was in awe of them, and I think the facts prove that to be the case.

We had a situation the other day where Suncor was first off the mark in increasing prices. He expressed surprise. He has not been on top of this issue. He has been on top of this much as he was several months ago when he was asked about the Ghermezian brothers and he described them as a couple of rug dealers from out west.

The minister complains about the federal government, but this is a major concern in this province. He has to start carrying the ball on this. His government has to start carrying the ball on this. He was quoted in the paper today as saying, "I agree, but I do not think we can slough it all off on to the federal government." I do not believe the feds are carrying the load on this, but I think we can start to do something about it. This government can start to do something about it.

The minister talked about public suasion being effective. I completely agree with him. We must air this very effectively at the provincial level; I am not sure what the vehicle is, but I suggested a public inquiry. That may not be the most appropriate vehicle, but we have to do something. The minister has to act.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.