role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 10, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L131 - Mon 10 Dec 1979 / Lun 10 déc 1979

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

NATURAL GAS CONVERSION

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

PILKINGTON GLASS LAYOFFS

BRANT DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL

CLEANUP OF SPILLS

NON-ALCOHOLIC WINES AND BEERS

ROYAL COMMISSION LEGAL FEES

STERILIZATION OF THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

PARKS CANADA TRANSFER

LIVESTOCK PAYMENT DEFAULTS

NURSING HOME CHARGES

LIBRARY GRANTS

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make, but unfortunately I don’t have sufficient copies because it was not completed. If I may, I will wait until tomorrow, when I can do it properly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: If I asked where is everybody, would that count as my first question, Mr. Speaker?

I will ask a question of the Minister of Education.

Given we are now in the 26th school day of the strike in the Brant elementary schools and are continuing with the very divisive and bitter work-to-rule situation in North York; given that in Brant the teachers want arbitration but the board doesn’t and in North York the board wants arbitration but the teachers don’t; how long will it take before the minister realizes compulsory arbitration of a fair and reasonable kind is the proper way to settle disputes in the educational system and that this business of each side stubbornly clinging to its own demands and refusing to have a referee come in to take over the matter is a poor example to our children -- especially in these days when we are asking the children to be better disciplined, yet we have the boards and the teachers refusing to do anything other than use their ultimate weapons in their negotiation of salary disputes?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would heartily agree with the Leader of the Opposition that arbitration is an appropriate alternative, in some situations, in resolving labour-management disputes and that it’s one which should be considered seriously in the course of any set of negotiations.

The Leader of the Opposition is asking that at this point, in peremptory fashion, without considering the views of all those involved in the labour-management negotiation situation within the school system of Ontario -- and I refer to representatives of boards of trustees, representatives of the teachers, representatives of parents’ groups with a very direct concern, and representatives of students -- without these groups being given any opportunity to place before the external review committee their concerns about the appropriate mechanisms and sanctions which should be introduced in the context of the negotiations between teachers and school boards, that I act in a unilateral fashion, which I believe at this point to be quite inappropriate.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to develop his thesis in the best possible form to present as rapidly as possible to the chairman of the committee which is reviewing Bill 100 so it can be considered by that committee, which will be reporting to me in the very early spring of 1980. If at that time there are strong recommendations by that committee that major changes should be made to the bill, particularly changes related to the sanctions available under the act -- sanctions which I would remind the members of this House were supported by all three parties and were introduced by the then leader of the official opposition --

Mr. Nixon: That’s not correct.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, certainly the support was there for it at that time, and it was initiated in that part of the House. I do believe the democratic process must and should be permitted to take place in the review of this bill; I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to consider that action seriously.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary -- and I may say I sincerely am pleased the minister is over her laryngitis -- I would ask the minister if she’s really being serious.

Surely she understands this House is the appropriate place for the opposition to put forward suggestions, and given virtually everyone in Ontario who is politically aware recognizes the minister is at some point going to adopt our position, just as her parliamentary assistant already has, why doesn’t the minister do so now rather than wait for the excuse of her so-called external review, or wait for an election campaign before she takes our position?

Why doesn’t she do what everybody knows she is going to do ultimately; that is take our position now, introduce a form of reasonable, professional, permanent arbitration and get these matters settled rather than dragging them out for political purposes?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am persuaded from time to time that the Leader of the Opposition did relatively well in his other existence, although there are times when I would have some difficulty in being sure just what to expect as a result of the initial statement made by him. I am not quite sure of the meaning when he congratulates me on regaining my voice; there may be some ulterior motive there.

I would have to remind the Leader of the Opposition he is not a very good prognosticator either, and to tell this House I am going to adopt his position -- which I would remind the House was indeed final offer selection -- at the end of the external review committee’s activities, I believe is using a crystal ball which is either veiled in some peculiar shades or is so totally cloudy he hasn’t any idea what is going on.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr Speaker, would the minister not agree that a major reason there are problems in the working of Bill 100 right now is the chronic underfunding of education there has been across the province over the past few years by this government, the fact that the provincial share of education costs have fallen from 61 per cent to 51 per cent over the course of the last few years, and the fact that despite the minister having had the report from the Jackson commission on declining enrolment on her desk over the course of the last year, there has been no action by this government in implementing the recommendations of that report?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no; but I would remind the leader of the third party that we have already implemented some of the recommendations of the Jackson commission, and indeed we did implement them before the final report of the commission was delivered to my desk, which I would remind the honourable member was February of last year.

Mr. Speaker, we have been looking at all of the responses to the Jackson report and the honourable member knows that we will be bringing forward a comprehensive statement on education within this province in the very near future; however, I would like to remind the honourable member that if he were to take into account all of the funding which is provided by the provincial government on behalf of education in this province, the total percentage of the provincial contribution is closer to 58 per cent than 51 per cent, and the total decline is not nearly so massive as the leader of the third party would like people to believe.

Mr. Nixon: If the minister cannot report to the House anything from the Education Relations Commission that would indicate an approach to an agreement in the Brant/Brantford situation, is she now prepared to recommend to her colleagues and to the House that we take action in this House to end the strike, certainly before we think of an adjournment during the next week or two?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can report to this House that the Education Relations Commission, as the honourable member knows, was actively involved in Brant over the weekend with some progress, although not sufficient progress. There is, I am afraid, at this point a considerable amount of games playing within the Brant situation. I think that must be made public, because it seems to me the children in that area are being jeopardized by the kind of example which is being set in that area, although in fact I have no report that their educational program has been jeopardized at this point.

Mr. Speaker, there is in addition a report from the Education Relations Commission that negotiations took place over the weekend in North York as well. They were not particularly productive, but I can report to the House that at the request of the North York Board of Education I will be meeting with them this afternoon. I do not know the purpose of their request for the meeting, except that they did suggest there was an impasse and they wished to have a discussion with me about that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Given the fact that both sides are adamant and refuse to move at this time, and the fact that this Legislature will cease to function about December 20 and will not resume until about the end of February or March, what does the minister see or foresee as available options, or what actions does she intend to take to prevent any harm in the educational process of the children in Brant due to the fact that possibly nothing will be done for the next two months?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not nearly so pessimistic as the member for Brantford obviously is. It is my understanding that the Education Relations Commission is still carefully and closely monitoring the educational program for the children in Brant; it is also my understanding that they are keeping a very close eye on what is happening; but there can be no solution to that problem unless the two parties to the negotiation decide they are going to change the attitudes which have been prevalent up until this time.

It is my sincere hope they will begin to behave in a responsible way related to the children of that community in order to ensure that the very few items still in dispute are negotiated rationally by the two parties within the next two days. If that were to happen, there would be a solution immediately.

[2:15]

NATURAL GAS CONVERSION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy, if I might have his attention. Given the fact the main reasons for the backlog in conversions to natural gas from oil have to do with manpower and to some extent with weather problems, what has the government of Ontario done to get rid of that backlog, to anticipate the problem and to provide the extra manpower which might be necessary so that this fall could have been used more intelligently to get people converted to natural gas, since the government of Ontario has known for years that natural gas would be plentiful while oil would ultimately be in short supply?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in reporting to the standing general government committee on this subject matter we did share some facts and figures with respect to the tremendous increase in conversions being undertaken by the distributors. It was my understanding, in consulting with them to acquire that information, that they were proceeding to the extent of the resources that were available. There are not just the limitations imposed by manpower but rather by a shortage of some equipment, for example burners which they did not have available.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware, as anybody could be by doing what we have done and getting in touch with the two main companies, that the main reasons for the backlog have to do with a lack of manpower and with weather problems? The burners and furnaces were a small matter; they could handle those, but they’ve lacked the manpower to get out there and do the job. Why didn’t the minister, over the late summer and throughout the fall, work with those companies to give them the manpower they need? We have enough unemployed people in Ontario thanks to the previous efforts of his government.

Why didn’t we work with the companies to put those people to work so these conversions could occur?

In particular, would the minister like to comment on what he’s done with the companies regarding the matter of Pine Valley Farms in Norval, which has a large greenhouse and wants a gas pipeline? The farm is within 800 feet of a Union Gas line and three miles from a Consumers Gas line, and yet Consumers Gas has a monopoly so the farm is still unable to get the natural gas which could have enabled them to save on other fuel. What is he doing about that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the problem which the honourable Leader of the Opposition raises in the latter part of his question, but obviously I’d be glad to get information to follow up on that particular question.

Certainly, if labour is the only problem being experienced by the distributors in order to step up the conversion, I’m sure they would have programs and resources and access to the labour market in order to step that up. I say to the House quite honestly that in seeking information from the distributors I was told that one of the main problems was the fact that the supplier of some of the equipment that was required was falling behind in his orders, notwithstanding how many more men they might have.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the government have a plan and projection for the rate of conversion from fuel oil heating to natural gas heating over the course of the 1980s? Has the government communicated that plan to the natural gas distributors across the province to see whether it’s feasible; and have this minister and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and other ministers, as needed, sat down to establish where there may be bottlenecks in reaching that target and taken action to ensure those bottlenecks can be ironed out so that the rate of conversion can be achieved?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that’s a reasonable question. The discussions have been going on for some time. I think a lot of people, including ourselves, are waiting for some of the final details with respect to the gas incentive program to see what resources might be available. It is my understanding that companies will then be attaching certain priorities with respect to the program, particularly as they relate to the results of extensions.

In the meantime, if the companies are doing the reasonable thing they are working in the densely-populated areas to attempt as quickly as possible to respond to the tremendous number of requests there are now for this conversion in the large centres.

Mr. J. Reed: Does the minister recall that when we discussed this matter during estimates of the Ministry of Energy that one of the bottlenecks to increasing the gas infrastructure was identified as the artificial line that was set up giving one gas company a monopoly in one area and another one a monopoly in the other area? I’m sure the minister must recall that. In the light of the very specific mention by my leader, what action has he taken in matters of this kind, where relative to this specific situation the conversion from oil to natural gas would save about 75,000 gallons of heating oil in this next winter?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is the member referring to the latter part of the Leader of the Opposition’s question with respect to Pine Valley Farms?

Mr. J. Reed: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I indicated when I gave my answer that I would get some further information on that.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism about the layoffs which have now put one quarter of the workers in Ontario’s major industry out of work; that is, in the auto industry.

In view of the fact there are 13,000 workers on indefinite layoff and next week there will be 14,000 workers on temporary layoff in the automobile industry, can the minister undertake to call together all of the major companies in the auto industry and in the parts manufacturing industry, as well as the leadership of the automobile workers, in order to bring together plans to resolve the crisis in the industry and get people back to work in Ontario in the auto trade?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Over the past few months I have met with all the persons of whom the leader of the third party talks.

Although the meeting with the United Auto Workers concentrated on the Chrysler situation, we did take advantage of that very constructive conversation we had in that lengthy meeting to discuss the automotive industry generally. It seemed to me at that time that all of the major automobile manufacturers, the UAW and all of the parts people to whom we have spoken, and we have spoken to all of the large parts firms, agreed with regard to the essential problems we are now facing, which mainly centre around the massive changes the industry is undergoing, as well as the problems in terms of markets.

The market for the automobiles being put out here and in the United States is very bad; it’s very slow for the automobiles being made here. The plain fact of the matter is that little will be accomplished in terms of putting those people back to work in the short term through all of us in the province being called together again to simply repeat everything we’ve all agreed upon over the last several months.

Let me deal with one more item in the short term: I should remind the leader of the third party that in the short term the layoffs in this country, on a percentage basis, are substantially less than the layoffs occurring in the United States.

Mr. Laughren: Our sales are up, too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is absolutely true, and the member’s leader acknowledged that was true. The member for Nickel Belt should turn around before he interjects.

The layoffs here are proportionately less than in the United States. We aren’t getting too badly treated in that sense.

It is a critical situation and we’re most concerned about it. The only point I raise for the leader of the third party is that these solutions take a lot of money and take a period of time to solve. They will be solved, I am confident. I think all of the people with whom we have met, including the UAW, are fairly confident that in the longer term, that is over the next three or four years, they will be solved. I think most analysts of the industry see that after this current year there should be a lot of those people who are currently laid off going back to work.

It’s a critical situation; we’re not happy with it; but I say to the leader of the third party I think we’ve done literally everything we can do as a province at this time to deal with that situation.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Before the Legislature is drowned in the tears being shed by the minister over the critical state of the industry, is the minister not aware that when we were out to see General Motors just a week or so ago for example, we found that company has no plans to bring into Canada, or into Ontario, the small cars which are the wave of the future in terms of providing jobs in the automobile industry in North America?

What action is the government intending to take under the auto pact in order to ensure we are making the cars that will be selling in the future, rather than being landed with white elephants, cars that are too large and consume too much gasoline to be effective contenders in the North American marketplace over the 1980s?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the third party wants to give the impression General Motors is not giving us any share of the action on the new, lighter, fuel-efficient vehicles. The member knows that’s not accurate. The member is well aware of the almost $2 billion in commitments General Motors made a couple of weeks ago, which would involve putting a great deal of money into their Windsor plant to begin to assemble the front-wheel drive transmissions that otherwise the member and others would have expected might not have come into Ontario.

The member also knows they just committed money, in both Windsor and St. Catharines, to begin to make lighter, more fuel-efficient engines which will enable them to supply their new X-bodied cars, so that Ontario will have a large portion of the new X-bodied cars, their new car of the future as it were.

Look at the press release; it’s right there. Two billion dollars directly pointed towards those new cars; these units can’t be used in other cars.

The second point is Ford was in the same situation a year and a half ago. The member knows we were there and he knows we made sure they switched to the new V-6 light engines, thanks to the contribution made by the government -- the taxpayers of this province, more accurately -- in order to ensure we had our fair share of the new jobs provided through Ford’s new vehicles.

I’ve also dealt in this House with the situation at Chrysler, where while other governments are talking about putting in bridge financing and bank guarantees, I’ve made it clear as far as the government of Ontario is concerned any financial contribution, be it grant, loan-guarantee or whatever, must be contingent upon Chrysler doing what Ford and GM have done, and that is to put components, plants, factories and employment in this province related solely to the cars to be sold in the next 10 or 20 years -- the new technology, the lighter, fuel-efficient vehicles.

These are the things that caused the changeover from the current heavy, larger vehicles being made here to the lighter, fuel-efficient vehicles, not only mandated by American legislation but required by American consumers.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Is the Treasurer -- the Minister of Industry and Tourism, rather; a slip there.

Mr. Martel: A Freudian slip.

Mr. Laughren: I refer to the minister’s ambitions that way.

Is the Minister of Industry and Tourism telling us he is satisfied with the announced investment plans of the Big Three as they apply to Ontario? Further, how can the minister talk about the need for time to resolve the problem? In the 1978 report done by the then Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, the problems expressed in that report were the same as the problems we’re facing today; as a matter of fact they’re probably worse today because of the down-sizing changes taking place.

When is the minister going to get off the sidelines and into the game and tell the Big Three we’re not happy with what is going on, and that their investment plans are inadequate for the future of jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To the leader of the third party -- sorry, Freudian slip. May I say, as I have said earlier -- he wishes he had Stephen Lewis’s job, not his -- may I say to the member for Nickel Belt, as I have said here earlier, we have quite seriously told the Big Three we are not satisfied with the current level of investment here. We’re terribly dissatisfied with what has now become a serious and perhaps even chronic trade deficit on the auto side and we have to have some things done which will help correct that.

By way of taking concrete action further on the auto parts side, the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I met last April with the multinational firms and delivered that exact message. We spent a great deal of time talking about research and development and the need to make sure the Canadian subsidiaries get their fair share of the new technology in that area. As a result, we have had one of the big eight in the auto parts side build a new plant here. I’ve got another coming in to see me and I’m rather optimistic that will result in some more new auto parts activity, involving new technology, in this province.

[2:30]

So I must say to the member for Nickel Belt that I can’t accept the analogy that we’re sitting on the sidelines. It would be hard for him to find an example of a government that has been meeting with all the players involved more often, more regularly and more aggressively in terms of asking, demanding and trying to arrange for the kinds of things we need in this province.

I should remind the member for Nickel Belt that in some cases when we meet with them we find that investments that might otherwise be coming here might locate in one of the southern United States, and in those instances I’m happy to be in a position in which I can say to them, notwithstanding the opposition parties in this province, that we are prepared to offer the incentive grants to get those automotive jobs in our province.

PILKINGTON GLASS LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: Bearing in mind these frequent meetings the minister has talked about have led us to a situation where the auto trade deficit this year will be the worst in Canada’s history, I do want to ask him another question about a specific layoff in Scarborough at the Pilkington Glass Limited plant which makes auto glass. Has the minister met with Pilkington Glass Limited to talk about their problems and talk about that company’s situation?

What action does the government intend to take to protect the jobs of the 450 workers in that automobile glass plant, who now find their jobs have been eliminated because of a decision of a multinational corporation which has no other automobile glass production in North America?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The company met with officials from both my ministry and the Ministry of Labour. We have had meetings to discuss the situation. It is clear, I must say, that this is not one of those instances in which I can hold out much hope, as a result of those meetings, for the company being able to reconsider its decision.

I know the member wants to phrase it in the context of the firm being a multinational to give the full picture. He knows they had a severe loss of business. He knows they lost $14 million or $16 million in the past six or seven months. He knows the company attributes that loss of business to the fact that the firm was on strike for about six months, causing them to reconsider certain investment decisions they say they were about to take.

It is not my job, nor the job of this government, to take responsibility for the decision of that firm, be it multinational or Canadian. It is not my responsibility to comment upon whether that firm’s decision might have been different had the union not chosen to strike the plant over the past six or seven months. The member may draw his conclusions and others may draw theirs. The fact is the company has lost $14 million or $16 million in Canada this year and it has decided that it must reassess its position. It has found it has lost certain markets to its two major competitors during the time the plant was on strike, and therefore has reached certain decisions which we cannot alter.

The Ministry of Labour is working with the firm to ensure that they meet all of the current labour laws in force in this province and meet their obligations under the existing union agreement.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the fact that in 10 months we have chalked up a $2.5 billion deficit in our automobile trade with the United States, I assume the minister agrees that we should be producing more rather than fewer components and parts for automobiles in Canada. I would, therefore, like to ask the minister, since there are no other corporations producing auto glass in Canada, what plans does the government have to ensure the auto glass that goes into cars produced in Canada is in future made in Canada and is not imported into this country, with the permanent loss of 450 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say I believe that some of the business that was being done by Pilkington Glass Limited out of Scarborough has gone to PPG Industries Canada Limited in Owen Sound, the fine town of Owen Sound.

Mr. Cassidy: No.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member says no. I must tell him that as a result of our meetings with the firm they have acknowledged that their share of the automotive glass market has gone to Canadian Pittsburgh Industries Division in the fine town of Owen Sound. If that information which we have received and checked out is true, then our automotive parts deficit will not be affected by this particular closedown.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, if I can, because he has been involved in this process. Is he willing to conduct a full investigation of the labour practices of Pilkington Glass Limited, given that the company shut down the SC2 tank on September 7 as part of a systematic intimidation tactic and subversion of the bargaining process during the 16-week strike? Will he not agree to attempt to determine whether or not Pilkington Glass had actually decided before the strike to close down this line permanently?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if that allegation is being made by workers or worker representatives, then the Ontario Labour Relations Board should hear about it.

[Later (3:00):]

Mr. Cassidy: During the course of the discussion just now about the closing of the Pilkington plant in Scarborough, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) informed this House there was a plant in Owen Sound, the Canadian Pittsburgh Industries plant, which would in fact be supplying auto glass and is supplying some right now.

The minister was ill informed, Mr. Speaker; his information was inaccurate. We have checked with the company. They are not providing automobile glass right now. They may be doing it for next year. If the minister’s information in this case reflects his knowledge of the industry in general, then the workers of this province are badly protected by this government.

[Reverting (2:36):]

BRANT DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health, having to do with the acceptance of the resignations of eight members of the Brant District Health Council, with which he has been somewhat involved. Does the minister not agree with, or at least understand, the problems the members of the health council in Brant are experiencing, which I suggest are part of the problems of other health councils, that put them in conflict in that they are attempting to be an advisory group to the minister at the same time they are supposed to be spokesmen for the community?

Would the minister not agree that instead of simply accepting these regulations and throwing additional problems into the health situation in Brant and Brantford, he might very well put his mind to clarifying their terms of reference, which is really all the dissident members of the health council are asking, so that they will know in the future precisely what they are expected to do and so that they will not be seen simply as whipping boys for the minister, who is trying to shove his responsibilities off onto them?

Hon. Mr Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t accept the latter part of that question. Let me, if I may, just take a few minutes to describe the message that I consistently have given to the health councils in the three years I have occupied this position. That is that clearly the ministry must retain and must carry out the responsibility for establishing provincial standards. Whether it is the level of funding for health units or the standards for beds or whatever it might be, health planning clearly is best effected when it is assisted by local people.

We accepted a long time ago that having a large concentration of bureaucrats at the centre of the system, at Queen’s Park, is not the answer. It is interesting that a recent report prepared for the American government pointed to the Ontario system as a model for health planning, pointing out that we have fewer than one civil servant for each hospital in the institutional division of our ministry, which is a little known fact.

In the three years I have been minister I have met with countless health councils. Wherever I travel in the province I make a point of sitting down with them. We have held a conference regularly once a year for the health councils to review current issues and to explore any problems they are having.

With respect, I think their role is clear: they are advisory. We will accept our responsibility, certainly, for setting the standards: we look to them for advice on how the standards can and should be applied. Clearly that is not easy, especially when you are looking at the institution affected, because you are dealing with traditions, with vested interests, and if I may be so bold, sometimes with empires that have to be questioned before you can arrive at a conclusion.

This was a most unfortunate situation, because we are talking about some extremely well qualified people. I regret very much losing their services to the health council, but it was clear on the advice I had from the chairman of the health council, in a telephone conversation as well as a letter -- and if the honourable member hasn’t seen a copy of that letter I would be glad to share with him or any other member -- it was clear, based on that advice, that we were dealing with something which was inevitable.

In the interests of ensuring that the council did not become a lame duck council, and in the interests of carrying on their work in Brant county, I regrettably had to accept the health council chairman’s advice to accept the resignations forthwith.

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not agree that a rubber-stamp council would even be worse? If he is prepared to accept a recommendation from the chairman that eight members of the council should in fact be dismissed, although he did it by accepting their resignations, the chances are the minister is going to get a very pliable group representing the community of Brantford. Such a group will not have the confidence of the people in Brantford and which will leave the minister free to do as he is observed to have done, which is deal directly without going to the council anyway.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am glad the member raised that last aspect, because it seems to me there is a misconception abroad in Brant county which I would like to clear up right now.

There has been a variety of meetings in this last year. The council, the ministry and everyone concerned have been bending over backwards so that we can all work together to develop a rationalized plan, viable from many points of view, for the hospitals in that county. At every meeting in which I have participated, the district health council has been represented by the chairman at least and the executive director, and sometimes other members of the council.

Mr. Nixon: They have heard the word “rationalization” only from the minister; it didn’t come from the council.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I don’t believe that is correct, not in the slightest.

Mr. Nixon: That’s what they resigned about.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, with respect, I think it is broader than that. I make a point of making sure the health councils are involved, because one of the quickest ways to destroy the health council is to allow unfettered end-runs and I don’t allow them.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: I hope the minister is aware that all these handpicked Tories will be supporting the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) at the next leadership convention.

Would the minister state whether he did meet with the four administrators of the hospitals in Brant without the benefit of any health council representatives being present? Further, in view of the fact there are vacancies on there, would the minister consider the possibility of holding open public meetings for the election of other representatives to the health council?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry; perhaps because there was a comment behind me, I missed the very first part of the member’s question.

Mr. Makarchuk: Did the minister meet with the four administrators from the hospitals in Brant without health council members being present? If so, why did he, when there is a health council?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have already answered that. I said at every meeting in which I have participated with representatives of the hospital, representatives of the health council have been present. What is more, both administrators and board representatives, usually the chairman and in several cases the vice-chairmen as well, have been present.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

Mr. Makarchuk: He hasn’t finished. What about public elections?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With regard to the latter, once the health council, working with the hospitals and the medical society, has been able to complete its implementation plan for rationalization, I anticipate early in the new year we will be advertising in the area for interested individuals to come forward, and through the health council we will interview prospective candidates and appoint new members.

CLEANUP OF SPILLS

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the spill of gas by Bot Construction Limited in 1976 and in view of the spill of gas just recently near Coniston, both of which have resulted in the contamination of the wells of the residents living adjacent to those facilities, can the minister indicate how frequently this type of spill is occurring in Ontario and who is responsible for paying the cost of providing temporary water and bringing about permanent solutions for the lack of water for those people whose wells have been affected?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I hope my memory doesn’t fail me on this occasion. I would think there are in the order of 1,000 spills a year. I could be wrong on that and I will certainly correct it if I am wrong. There are a large number of spills of petroleum products. They are not all of large magnitude; some of them result in no harm, but some of them certainly do.

With the new legislation, the issue of who is responsible will be very clear.

Mr. Wildman: Who is responsible now?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I guess tomorrow night we will have the privilege of seeing that bill become a fact. At this minute in time it has to be done by negotiations among the companies, ourselves and the residents, which is an unsatisfactory arrangement; that is why the bill was brought into this Legislature.

In the one the member mentioned, the responsibility is clearly the company’s and I think it is taking that responsibility. It certainly isn’t finalized yet. The long-term solution will be a communal well. Right at the minute, as the member is probably aware, there are only filters on those wells. We don’t think that is the long-term solution for the problem.

[2:45]

Mr. Martel: In view of the letter which the ministry staff recently sent to a number of my constituents, a letter which I find offensive in its tone to people whose wells have been polluted, can the minister tell me why there would not be an agreement worked out to operate some of the equipment that’s necessary, whereby the people whose wells have been damaged would not have to pay for appropriate electrical systems? If there was damage caused by the equipment that was used, the constituents, the people whose wells have been damaged, are held responsible for any damage created by that equipment.

Why should the onus be on the people whose wells have been damaged as opposed to those who have created the pollution?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I had a chance to read that letter. It’s my

interpretation that the onus for malfunction of the equipment is only so far as it would affect the owner’s residence, the same as though he or she had purchased a filter or a pump from someone in the private sector, and if there was a malfunction of that pump the person wouldn’t go back to the person who originally sold him that equipment. That’s how I interpret that. If the honourable member thinks it is beyond that, I certainly would check it again, but that equipment is basically on the property of the person, and therefore if it does go wrong, it seems to me it’s reasonable to expect they would look after the rented equipment as though it was their own.

NON-ALCOHOLIC WINES AND BEERS

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in regard to dealcoholized wines and beer.

Since the Legislature amended

section 3 of the Liquor Control Act in 1975 to allow the minister to place dealcoholized beverages in liquor stores across Ontario, why has the minister not gone ahead with this matter to give people a choice of beverage for themselves and to serve to their guests? Has the minister arrived at any policy in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the availability of this product -- I don’t like to say dealcoholized because it is not something the alcohol has been removed from; it is made so that the alcohol content is very low -- the acceptance of them in the grocery store, or in the delicatessen, has proved relatively successful. Since that provides an immediate market, it’s been chosen to go that route with the product rather than carry it in the liquor stores.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: That really isn’t satisfactory. As the minister well knows, there are lots of problems in selling them in grocery stores.

In view of the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has indicated there is going to be $412 million revenue coming from the sale of alcohol in the province, does the minister not think it might be incumbent upon him to give people that choice by allowing these products in liquor stores? They would then be widely available for people who wish to provide beverages for parties and social gatherings at that same place so that they will be able to have a choice of either an alcoholic beverage or one without the alcohol in it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will be very glad to take a look at it again, but it seems to me this is the representative of a party that wants beer and wine sold in grocery stores; that was indicated at their last convention.

We are selling the non-alcoholic beverages. There is no restriction on them being sold in the grocery stores, or outlets other than those of the LCBO. If the member is so intent upon everything being convenient to the public in terms of the grocery store for alcohol products, I must admit I am a little bit baffled by the fact that unless they are sold in a liquor store they won’t have acceptance, but I will take a look at it.

They have been, within the limits that can be expected, relatively successful products for the public. If the member is here to tell me there’s a great demand out there, that’s just not so. One of the problems, too, is that the demand for it isn’t quite what people anticipated.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the minister have a poll on that?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I don’t have a poll on it. I happen to know the brewery and the other people who are the agents for that product.

ROYAL COMMISSION LEGAL FEES

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Attorney General, if I could gain his attention. The question is in reference to the rate of pay to legal counsel for royal commissions. Given that his guidelines, as stated on May 11 in this Legislature, were that legal counsel for royal commissions would be paid at the rate of $85 to a maximum of $850 per day, how does the Attorney General justify allowing Mr. Strosberg, who is the counsel to the commission looking into the confidentiality of health records, to bill in excess of $850 per day?

Can the Attorney General explain to the people of Ontario that they are getting good value for their money, keeping in mind that even $850 a day is equal to seven weeks’ work at the minimum wage this government imposes on the people?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think the figures as set out in the guidelines referred to by the honourable member are correct as I recall them. So far as Mr. Strosberg is concerned in relation to the Krever royal commission on the confidentiality of health records, Mr. Justice Krever made a request of the ministry that, given the demands being placed on Mr. Strosberg, that he as commissioner was requesting the ministry to allow Mr. Strosberg to work more than the hours than would normally be expected. Rather than be perceived as not wanting --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They asked me a question, Mr. Speaker. I am doing my best to answer it and they don’t want to hear the answer. I am surprised. What does one do about such rudeness?

Mr. Speaker: Just persevere.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Persevere; upwards and onwards. So given the very crucial importance of this commission and given the importance of Mr. Justice Krever’s task, we in the Ministry of the Attorney General did not want to appear to be not assisting him, because I am sure if we had said no, we are not going to allow any departure from the guidelines, that very New Democratic Party caucus would have been accusing us of interfering with Mr. Justice Krever’s ability to do his job.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Could I ask the Attorney General, is Mr. Strosberg also allowed to bill for Saturdays and Sundays? How does the Attorney General monitor his billings to ensure that the people of Ontario are getting X amounts of hours’ work for each hour that he bills?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I understand they are monitored by the commissioner, Mr. Justice Krever.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I understand this matter has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Attorney General, most recently just before the matter that was raised that had to do with his predecessor, John Clement, who is being paid $750 a day by Toronto to look into the size of policemen. Does the Attorney General not feel that somewhere between the minister’s policy of noninterference and handing them the keys to the treasury there is a reasonable procedure whereby we can see that there is adequate counsel provided to our royal commissioners and at the same time the people can be assured they are getting value for money?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You have to distinguish between the nature of commissions. When a judge is appointed to act as a royal commissioner we are really talking about something in the nature of a judicial inquiry. It has always been the policy of this government, and quite properly so, to allow a judicial officer conducting a judicial inquiry to choose his or her own counsel and to make some of the basic arrangements in order to enjoy and be perceived to enjoy the necessary independence necessary for him or her to carry on a judicial type of inquiry.

STERILIZATION OF THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Given the release last week of the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada on the sterilizing of mentally handicapped, given the fact the ban in Ontario is due to expire at the end of this month, and given that on September 6 the minister indicated in Charlottetown that he expected to have legislation before the House on this issue this session, where is that legislation? What is the policy of Ontario? What is going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement on that matter dealing with the question of the legislation later this week. As regards the federal report to which the member refers, it is interesting to note they have basically taken due cognizance of the options paper we released in September in Charlottetown.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: How does the minister react to the statement within the report that most such sterilizations are done to protect society from the mentally handicapped rather than in the best interests of the individual himself or herself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is one of those situations in which we, as legislators, should be careful not to presume to say absolutely, one way or the other, what is right and what is wrong. It is a very difficult situation involving the rights of parents as well as the rights of the individual, particularly the mentally incompetent individual, and one we are going to have to take very great care to resolve.

PARKS CANADA TRANSFER

Mr. Samis: A question to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Could the Treasurer tell the House what position his ministry has taken on the proposed transfer of Parks Canada’s Ontario headquarters from Cornwall to the city of Peterborough with a loss of 180 jobs and a payroll of approximately $3 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that issue I do not believe has come directly to Treasury. It may have. I have heard of the proposal but only indirectly, not through any direct contact with my federal colleagues. It may have been through the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), who may have heard of it.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Since the minister’s predecessor, the president of Union Gas Limited, made a very strong public statement opposing the transfer from Cornwall to the city of Guelph in 1977, does the minister not think that in terms of regional development such a change would be not in the interests of eastern Ontario, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) said to some of his friends in Cornwall on his last visit?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope I will have the chance to do the same again very shortly.

Mr. Samis: I know the minister will.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Certainly it is not in the interests of the city of Cornwall. I think I could agree completely.

LIVESTOCK PAYMENT DEFAULTS

Mr. Riddell: A question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, Mr. Speaker: As an overseer of the program of the various ministers under his jurisdiction, and in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.

Henderson), who I understand is still fighting the flu bug, could the provincial secretary tell me why the Minister of Agriculture and Food does not consider the problem of default in payment for livestock to be of sufficient importance or priority to be dealt with in this session of the Legislature, in view of the fact 11 packing plants have defaulted in payment over the last few years, five of them in 1979; and in view of the further fact that this legislation was first promised during the 1977 election, and again by the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, who indicated that legislation would be undertaken in the fall session, in other words this session?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, obviously if my colleague is not back due to ill health within the next few days, I would be pleased to reply to the honourable member.

[3:00]

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: When the provincial secretary is talking to the minister, would he ask him if he is aware of the shock and the frustration this decision not to come forward with the legislation has produced in the cattle industry, which has been working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food now for over four years in developing acceptable proposals which were to have been introduced in this session? Is this failure by the minister to proceed with the legislation an indication that this government is opposed to providing legislation for an industry-wide program of protection against default in payment for livestock purchases?

NURSING HOME CHARGES

Mr. Grande: My question is to the Minister of Health regarding the scandalous ripoff of $12.15 per month of every resident in nursing homes since 1976, with the continued blessing of the Minister of Health and his ministry.

In view of the fact that in an answer to the Legislature on April 14, 1977, the minister stated that a nursing home inspector’s report “confirmed the $10 a month charge for marking, mending and ironing of resident’s clothes was being applied to all residents, not just those who used the service,” and that on November 8, 1977, in his answer to a question on the order paper, he stated he had no statutory jurisdiction because these services are uninsured services, could the minister inform the Legislature what are the blocks which prevent him from gazetting the regulation he proposed in November of 1977 in the recommendations from the review of nursing home legislation to prevent what he calls the excessive rates to residents?

Would he also inform the House why he does not prevent nursing houses from applying the exorbitant charges to residents who do not use the services?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty hearing the question, so I better take it as notice, get it from Hansard, and give an answer later.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary: While the minister takes it as notice, would the minister realize and be concerned about the fact that the nursing home operators, since May 1976, have sponged from the residents $18 million to date, and also be aware that for every month he delays gazetting that regulation, which he’s had ready since 1977, $328,000 more is being taken from residents? Further, I wonder if he would find out in the process whether the reasons --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is abusing the privilege of the question period. If he wants such detail, obviously, it should be secured by way of an inquiry of the ministry. Is the minister going to take that as notice also?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will certainly take it as notice; and I will particularly try to determine the basis on which the member makes such allegations in such outlandish numbers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Catharines has about one minute.

LIBRARY GRANTS

Mr. Bradley: A question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation: Does the minister have any plans to channel funds from the regional library systems into the large urban libraries so that they can provide these services in a given area, since it has been proven in many cases, most particularly in the Niagara region, that the regional library systems have not performed the roles for which they were set up and have encountered many financial difficulties, which have been difficult to overcome, to say the least?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The member wanted a short answer: the answer is yes, we are actively looking into this.

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Renwick, on behalf of Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee, presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr30,

An Act to revive South Russell Holdings Limited.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 200,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: The purpose of this bill is to require that every product offered for sale bearing a product code must also be marked with its purchase price. The bill prohibits increases in the purchase price of a product above the price initially marked on it by the retailer. The bill also provides that if the price marked on the product differs from the price associated with the product code, the purchase price of the product is the lower of the two prices.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move that the business of the House be suspended in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, of which I have given you written notice, namely the crisis in the automobile industry as reflected in the layoffs and in the very large deficit in our auto trade with the United States.

Mr. Speaker: I have received the notice of motion. The notice of motion is in order. I will listen to reasons why the honourable member thinks the ordinary business of the House should be set aside for an emergency debate. I will hear the honourable member for up to five minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: Two weeks ago I was at the General Motors plant in Oshawa. I had the eerie experience of touring an automobile plant which normally has several thousand workers, but which on that day was completely empty of workers except for one or two people pushing brooms. That reflects the fact that in the single largest industry in the province we have 25 per cent of the workers out on indefinite or on definite layoffs.

In November, 27,000 men and women in the industry were on layoff. The most alarming fact is that this isn’t just layoffs of a temporary nature which one finds in the industry from time to time. Half of those workers are on permanent layoff or on indefinite layoff, layoffs that may last for three or six months or longer, because of the crisis which is occurring within the automobile industry.

This is an urgent and pressing matter for this Legislature when one reflects on the fact that next week alone there will be 8,000 Chrysler workers in Windsor who will be put on temporary layoff by that company. Next week alone there will be 4,500 workers at the Ford plants in Windsor who will be put on layoff.

The auto parts industry tells us that they have 8,000 people or more on layoff and the unemployment rate in their industry is 15 per cent, compared to only four per cent in the industry in the United States.

The crisis is compounded by the fact that the layoffs which are now the urgent matter which we wish to have debated this afternoon are compounded by the energy crisis; by the potential bankruptcy of Chrysler Corporation, which is one of the largest industrial corporations in North America; by the huge auto trade deficit, which in 10 months has gotten to $2.5 billion, a sum which exceeds by $600 million the biggest trade deficit in automobiles and parts that this country has ever had in the past; and by the dependency of our industry on large-car production, which units are the white elephants, as I was saying in question period, because of the changes in the industry and the rapid increase in the sale of small foreign cars in the North American market.

Finally, the crisis exists because of the unwillingness of this government to fight to have Canada negotiate a fair share of automobile production in order to ensure that this major industry is no longer a drain on us here in Canada.

The minister just got up and spoke. He bathed us with his concern, but he sounded about as aggressive as a tabby cat in terms of what he was saying to the Legislature or to the companies. When we asked about what he was doing in one particular sector we learned he doesn’t even have his facts straight, and that is contributing to the crisis in the industry, which has one quarter of the whole work force in that industry out on layoffs.

When in Windsor alone the real unemployment rate is running at 17 per cent, I believe there is a crisis. When the parts industry estimates about 8,000 people out of work, I believe there is a crisis which must be debated in this House. When even General Motors is forecasting further layoffs in the new year, clearly there is a crisis.

What we would like this House to examine is not just the short-term situation, but also the inadequate response of the government to the situation and the need for Ontario to step in to see that we are producing the small cars, as well as the parts for small cars, that Ontario will need if we’re going to keep in the game during the 1980s.

We had a dialogue of the deaf just two weeks ago in trying to talk to General Motors about the $2 billion investment they say they want to make in Ontario during the early 1980s. That is well under 10 per cent of their North American investment over the next few years, yet here in Canada we have 10 per cent or 11 per cent of their North American market. We’re not getting a fair share in that particular area, and the government is not prepared to insist that we get that fair share.

Ford is planning to spend $20 billion in 1985 on new facilities. In this country we have promises of an engine plant worth half a billion dollars and a casting plant worth $50 million. It may sound like a lot but it’s nowhere near a fair share. Because we don’t get a fair share of investment, the crisis we face today is going to be a continuing crisis in this particular industry, unless we get a change in policy from this government as well as from the federal government. That, too, is a reason for the emergency debate.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I want to say finally, Mr. Speaker, that learning, as we did last week, that this government has opted out of the negotiations with Chrysler Canada is another reason this urgent matter should come to an emergency debate here in this Legislature today.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression, since the leader of the NDP persisted in going over his time, that he feels perhaps his case in this connection is a bit weak. We agree, however, that the level of unemployment is a matter of concern, as it was yesterday and as it undoubtedly will be tomorrow.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) just completed his estimates last week. There was every opportunity for the matter to be discussed and I understand it was discussed in some detail.

Naturally question period may be used, as it was today, for the kind of specific exchange of information that is useful to all members of the House, and thereby to the public at large. The fact that concurrence in the minister’s estimates will be scheduled some time later this week or early next week would provide another opportunity.

Mr. Speaker is the person who has to judge whether under our rules the matter proposed for discussion relates to a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration. If he does so rule, we do not want to stand in the way of such a debate this afternoon. We want to associate ourselves with those on all sides who want to see the level of employment increase.

The fact is that people, not only in this province but even in this House, avail themselves of the products built by the automotive manufacturing industry in this province and built by the members of the UAW. It’s interesting that when I look over the parking lot of the NDP I see a Peugeot station wagon sitting there and a couple of Audis. While I understand they are very good cars, it seems to me their policy should begin even closer to home. If they would follow the good example of my esteemed colleague the leader of the Liberal Party and drive a Ford Fairmont, they would be well served by transportation and also serve well in supporting the industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: I’m glad to have aroused the members to my left who are expressing such concern in this matter.

[3:15]

I do recall, and perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will recall too, that before the election of 1975 we were in a period when there was some considerable unemployment. There was more unemployment than now and the government of the day took some initiative. They withdrew the sales tax on new automobiles for a few months just before the election. They committed over $600 million to the economy at that time in an attempt to buy a majority, in which they sadly failed. It’s obvious the government can take action when an emergency presents itself. It may well be there will be such action presented by the government, particularly if they sense an election in this province in the offing.

We are in your hands, Mr. Speaker. If, in your judgement, this is a matter of urgent public importance, we are quite willing, in fact anxious, to proceed with the debate.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As we’ve discussed time and again during question period in this House, we have what is obviously a long-term problem in the automotive industry. It’s one we’ve been aware of for some time and have done a considerable amount of work on, as has the federal government.

The point I want to make on whether we should have an emergency debate here this afternoon is that this situation is not one that is solved on the floor of this Legislature. Many other forums and levels of government must be involved, because we don’t have a problem that’s unique to Ontario in any way. It involves discussions in the House of Commons, in the United States Congress, in the United States Senate. It involves long-term solutions dealing with everything from the availability of gasoline and energy right through to tax situations and the auto pact, hardly matters which can be resolved here this afternoon.

In terms of the extent of the crisis, it is a difficult one. I won’t apologize to the leader of the third party, who has now left the assembly, for being concerned about the situation.

Mr. S. Smith: He’s out warming up his Peugeot.

Mr. Martel: Where is dirty little Bill?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’s out counting Peugeots.

The fact is the situation is not nearly as critical -- I’ve only got three minutes, guys -- as it was in 1975. The layoffs to date, while they’re serious, are several times smaller than in 1975.

For example, we have not received representations from the union and others, as was the case in 1975, leading to some of those very constructive measures the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has talked about that this government took at that time.

May I say there are other forums in which this matter can be discussed. We did discuss it in my estimates last week and, for the benefit of the House the third party did not take an extensive length of time on it, although we did cover the matter quite well. At that time we discussed it, as we had earlier, and yet another opportunity is coming in terms of concurrence in those estimates in this House. Treasury estimates are due to proceed this afternoon. This is another point of impact for a proper discussion on the auto situation.

Labour estimates are on, I believe, this evening or tomorrow evening, which is another opportunity where this might be discussed rather than taking the time of this House.

The main point is this: what has happened in the car and automotive industry is a severe market problem. Sales are off in terms of United States cars, if not Peugeots. In terms of North American vehicles they’re off 20 per cent this year. That is not a problem created by either this government or in this Legislature, nor is it one that can be solved in this assembly.

The sales for the Big Three North American automobile makers are down as follows: Chrysler is off 39 per cent: General Motors is off 21 per cent; and Ford is down 20 per cent. If we are to take the time of this House to discuss that North American fall-off in market, I suggest we will have to be here day after day having emergency debates as various sectors of the economy go through cyclical changes in markets. If we have an emergency debate today on this subject, tomorrow it will be on wheat, agricultural products, electronic products, electrical products or whatever. The important thing is whether this province is holding its own during those cyclical changes.

If this debate proceeds we will have an opportunity to talk about some of the structural things we are doing to buffer our people against these situations. I would remind the House that we obviously have succeeded in some of those things, because our layoffs so far in the automotive industry in this country are 9.4 per cent, while layoffs in the United States are 14.8 per cent to date.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you quite simply, if this situation calls for an emergency debate now, basically upon the North American market for the automobiles being made, then I say to you we will be having emergency debates every time there is a change in market conditions throughout North America.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

I have listened to the debate from representatives of all three parties. I listened very carefully to the question period. While everybody is of one mind that it is of great importance to everybody in Ontario, it is a question that has been raised here on numerous occasions.

There has been ample opportunity for discussion, both in question period and in estimates. As has been mentioned, there will be a further opportunity later on this week during the concurrence motion on estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

I find this matter does not lend itself to an emergency debate because it does not highlight one specific event. It must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration. It seems to me that is one of the issues we have been involved in on a continuing basis over the last several weeks. I find it does not meet the requirements of standing order 34.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

On vote 901, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments or questions on item 1 of vote 901? The member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, now that the diminutive Treasurer is back in the chamber, perhaps we can proceed. There are a number of items I would like to discuss with the Treasurer, if that is possible. I assume he is prepared for any contingency and every eventuality, because if he isn’t forthcoming in all his answers and able to answer them quickly and forthrightly we may have to take more serious remedial action.

At the outset, I would like to ask the Treasurer about the whole question of oil prices, which I have not yet discussed. I am sorry if you are having trouble hearing me, but I have a grievous disease. I came out of my sick bed this morning just for and exclusively for the pleasure of spending the afternoon with you here today. I hate to say this, but I think I contracted the disease from the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). Wherever she goes she spreads plague, disease and scurvy.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe you should ask your questions while you still are able.

Mr. Peterson: I was habitating the same chamber with her on more than one occasion -- the legislative chamber, I hasten to add. I feel I may have contracted it from her. I can tell you it is probably the most important influence she has had, lately at least.

I want to talk about oil prices to the Treasurer. I don’t want to thresh a bunch of old straw, but I want to point out a couple of my concerns. I want to take you back to what I consider was an excellent speech you made to the bar association in Calgary, when you were supposed to be on the same platform as the honourable Merv Leitch -- or was it Merv Leitch who didn’t show? No, it was Hnatyshyn, the Minister of Energy, who didn’t show.

You were discussing the rewriting of the Canadian constitution by way of petro dollars, and frankly, that was the best speech I have seen you make. I am not sure you wrote it yourself. It is the only speech I have seen you make, now that I am on the subject. It was good, it took you six months’ worth of effort to do it but perhaps it was worth it. One good one every six months is better than a couple of bad ones per week perhaps, if that is your point of view. I want to talk to you about that.

One of the things that concerns me about your government, and I am being very frank, is you have expended an incredible amount of energy, political energy, and credibility -- and I am not talking just about you; I am talking about the first minister and I am talking about the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) as well -- in taking your strong position to Ottawa and taking it across the country.

You knew from the beginning you were going to lose. I don’t want to stand here and accuse you of political dishonesty; you knew you were going to lose. There were a lot of fine headlines written out of that. I am one who thinks you substantially blew your position in that energy paper of last summer when you said it should only be one dollar, but if it is more than one dollar here is how it should be distributed.

In my judgement you should have carried the full weight, force and efficacy of your position to have a far more narrow range of options, recognizing the inevitable. Everyone knows energy prices are going to go up tomorrow. I am not happy about it. I am one of those, I guess, who has taken the view that it is inevitable and we must steel ourselves against it. I don’t like it, but there is a lot of prophylactic action we could take in the meantime to insulate our own economy and to help out our own economy. I am upset about the way you dissipated the efficacy and the strength of your argument.

What you have done, in my opinion, is use a disproportionate amount of your time, energy and resource beating your collective heads against a wall when you knew you were going to lose. I subscribe to the view of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) that you did not carry that argument well and you did not serve the province well, but what concerns me is there are two areas in which you do have a substantial amount of jurisdiction, as a matter of fact the only jurisdiction. I am referring to electricity prices and I am referring to natural gas prices.

I have asked and my colleagues have asked the Minister of Energy about those matters in the House and received extremely flip, superficial, and I would say juvenile, answers to our questions. You will recall last week I asked the Minister of Energy what he was going to do about the rate application from his friend Darcy McKeough of Union Gas.

Just in case you are not aware, I am going to tell you what that rate application is for. I am not talking about the automatic increases pegged to the price of oil, because we recognize the federal system, for that is pegged at 85 per cent on the BTU value of the price of oil. I don’t like that either; that should be unpegged, that should be unhinged. I agree with your position; you should fight it very hard. I will get into that particular aspect in a moment.

The Minister of Energy had the temerity to say to me, “If that is your view, that Union Gas shouldn’t get the 42 cents per thousand cubic feet, non-stepped price increase, then you should go to the Ontario Energy Board and make a submission.” He accused me of grandstanding because I disapproved of a system whereby the small residential consumer and the small commercial consumer are going to subsidize large business and the large consumer. That is virtually what Union Gas has asked for.

I am telling you that you have jurisdiction. You can’t just fob it off and say that is the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board is a creation of your government, of this Legislature. It is not good enough to say you don’t have jurisdiction. You should be there; you should have made a presentation.

What is your position on that rate application of Union Gas? Are you for it or against it? I don’t know what the Minister of Energy’s position is because in his charming little squirt way he weaselled out of the question and didn’t deal with it.

[3:30]

What worries me about this Minister of Energy, who is a man of a capacity in my opinion, and certainly he has the greatest capacity of anybody I’ve seen in that ministry, is that so far he has used all of his energy to be charming and avoid the question and avoid the real issues that this province is facing in trying to keep the government out of problems, as opposed to using the creative potential in that job to do something for this province over the next 10 or 20 years.

I regard the job of the Minister of Energy to be creative as probably the most important one in the ministry today. I have said that of all the ministers to date; I have said that for four or five years. I am concerned that he is going to take the position that his job is only to survive, keep the government out of trouble and not be creative. I haven’t seen any creativity out of him whatsoever.

Where it relates to the Treasurer is that everything he does bears so very directly fiscally and economically on the prospects of this province. That’s why the Treasurer has to be concerned. He cannot let the Minister of Energy run on his own; he must be involved in his decisions.

When the Treasurer allows the Minister of Energy the 16 per cent increase in Ontario Hydro for next year; when he allows what I consider this excessive, unfair, unrateable increase -- if he does -- of Union Gas, then it’s going to reflect very badly on the consumers and on the economy of this province; because at the same time we are stuck with automatic increases which there isn’t very much we can do about, barring some new redistributive mechanism from the federal government.

In brief those are some of my views. I am very interested in the Treasurer’s opinion about what I have just said and what he is doing about it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The basic assumption of the argument the honourable member just made was that the paper, and the arguments that followed the paper, including my speech, were all made in the certain knowledge that Ontario would not win. If by that it means there would be no change past the one dollar per barrel on January 1, 1980, he is correct, I am sure. Obviously with world prices themselves escalating on an irregular and unpredeterminable basis, one really can’t tell what the world price alone will be, let alone what something that is used internally will be.

Mr. Peterson: If in fact there is a world price, and there probably isn’t.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The more we have problems, such as Iran, the more likely the, let’s say, monolithic world price set by OPEC is going to hold, because the spot price market appears to be taking over and panic buying then takes place.

I was told Japan, for example, paid $40 a barrel for the oil the Iranians either refused to ship to the US or the US refused to accept from Iran, whichever was the case.

Mr. Peterson: That’s a big quantity.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That, of course, is the very kind of action which can add fuel to the fire, which is a poor metaphor.

I would have to say that Ontario entered that debate recognizing that a win would be hard to define, because no one wanted to see any increase at all. But Ontario argued strongly and I think, though I won’t know for a while, with some measure of success, that Canadian prices should bear some difference from world prices since the whole economy is going through the kinds of strains so clearly demonstrated in the debate about the emergency debate today.

We know that any increase in the price of energy, or in fact anything that adds to the cost of living, the cost of manufacturing Canadian goods that can’t be recaptured within our own economy, can only eventually weaken our economy, cause some uninflation and perhaps re-enforce a recession.

So we entered the lists knowing when we came out we may be winners but would be blamed for losing, blamed because some change took place. That makes it a difficult political decision, however we are satisfied that the changes would have been of a much greater order and would have had much less regard for the Ontario scene had Ontario not entered into the argument. This is because a number of other provinces, for very widely varying reasons, had no good governmental reason for opposing massive increases in the price of oil and they were letting the federal government know that.

Obviously if you produced it you had no reason to oppose it, even though it isn’t in the interest of your taxpayers to some degree.

If you lived in Quebec, or if you were a member of the Quebec government, you had two good reasons for supporting world price. First, all the oil used in Quebec comes in today at world price and it is subsidized by the federal government. This is something that that government hates to recognize. With a referendum coming along it hates to admit there’s any umbilical cord of federal money flowing in one direction only to that province.

One very visible example of that flow of money -- I’ve seen the figures; they are in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year -- is the federal government payment to offset the difference between world price for all the oil used in Quebec and the price the consumers pay.

The second good reason is one much more understandable, and I would think it is one much more readily accepted by all of us, and that is that obviously the government of Quebec, having made a huge investment in electric energy and having a number of reserves untapped yet, can see that it will have a pretty predictable price for its electric energy for the foreseeable future. Once committed to development the only thing one has to worry about today is the change in the costs of the capital plant between the time one decides to construct it and the time it’s finally built.

Once it’s built one doesn’t have to worry about fuelling it. Labour costs are a tiny part of the cost of operating a hydroelectric system, a hydro-based, that is water-based system. However in Ontario 37 per cent of total energy is from water and 73 per cent is from some kind of fuel source, so we don’t have that assurance of the cost in the future.

Obviously Quebec would say, “In our industrial planning interests, anything that makes our electrical energy even more competitive relative to other kinds of fuel makes our province more attractive to potential industrial investors vis-à-vis the other parts of North America, or indeed the world.”

I was always mystified by the arguments from any place but Newfoundland on the east coast -- Newfoundland at least hoped to get oil -- had some reason to believe it might find oil as a result of the newly awarded offshore rights. I believe every bit of electricity in Prince Edward Island is oil-produced, but I am not sure how much of Nova Scotia’s electrical energy is generated from oil. I know the bulk of it is --

Mr. Laughren: Do you agree with Clark’s position on that, by the way?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am only discussing the answer to the question on energy today. I am mystified because they say, “Yes, we are quite happy to see our people pay world price for oil for their cars, for their home heating, but when we use it to make electricity you will have to subsidize it.” If they got that they would be gaining the best of both worlds. They get a federal equalization transfer because the price of oil has gone up and they get a federal government subsidy to burn the stuff. I think that can be seen through patently.

I am intrigued, too, by my friends who operate the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund loaning money to those provinces at prime triple rate A rating -- or whatever it is called, the triple A rate -- for some of their utilities or some of their government purposes or both, in effect lending money at less than the rate that the credit would traditionally warrant -- in effect, I believe, buying support for an oil pricing policy by subsidizing an interest rate for government spending. That is a very interesting set of circumstances.

Mr. Peterson: That is something the teachers have done for you over the years.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I find that hard to follow.

Mr. Peterson: The teachers superannuation fund charges you below market rates.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would challenge that currently.

As to the second part of your argument, you said we made our case weaker by broadening it to indicate how to redistribute our revenues if increases took place. In all the rhetoric on this matter that has gone on in the last four or five months, really every bit of it that has been reported in the press dealt with absolute price. Very little of it dealt with the redistribution of income and the fundamental structure and mechanisms of the transfer of moneys within the Canadian confederation on an historic basis.

We argued that should we be wrong, should the increases exceed those we thought should be put in place because of an impending recession, because of the oil industry’s inability to use more investment dollars in the short term, we must have a formula to prevent a government, a provincial government in particular, being the major beneficiary from the transfer of funds, simply because in the Canadian context that was not the historic mechanism or way of doing things.

That is all seen as sour grapes. I can understand it, but I must admit I feel, and I hope you feel, a bit sorry to find a number of Canadian provinces so pleased to see that they can turn down something Ontario needs, after for many years, in my opinion, profiting from an Ontario position under Mr. Robarts and under Mr. Frost -- I am thinking of prior to my present Premier -- that always emphasized the responsibility of Ontario to a relatively strong Canadian government and to its central duties to make sure that certain minimum levels of government services were available, regardless of the provinces’ fiscal capacity.

I hope it is something like the freedom of some of the Third World nations when they are finally liberated from a colonial regime. I hope it is short-lived. In other words, once the euphoria of suddenly saying “We can tell you off” passes, I hope there will be some reconsideration in a sober way as to what this country is all about, the fact that we do use and need a central government to carry out duties and redistribute moneys.

Once the decisions are taken on the price of oil, I would say the second part of that paper is going to be the major part, the part we have to spend a good deal of time working on in a Canadian context. We in Ontario recognize we will have some difficulty having credibility because we have been well off in the past and because the transfer payments from this province by any route, whether it is general taxation through old age security or equalization payments, no matter what the mechanism has been, have not necessarily been recognized as being based on Ontario’s wealth or appreciated if they were.

You mentioned something about the price of energy going up tomorrow. I don’t know what is in the budget. I am only looking at the same kind of predictions you are, predictions that we can see anywhere from 23 to 30 cents a gallon change in the price of refined products, fuels for transportation basically, I would say, not necessarily for home heating. That is not a change in the price of crude. You know that. While it is very critical, it is not the kind of argument Ontario was advancing in the papers because at that time it was not predicted.

[3:45]

We were talking about the price of the raw material supplied for industry, whether for heating or for reprocessing. As I understand the advance guesses, the money the federal government is talking about levying in the budget will be on specific uses or types of a distilled product basically for transportation. Tomorrow night’s budget will answer that question and only then will I know who’s right.

The member said our jurisdiction applies to electricity pricing and natural gas. Of course, on the natural gas I guess we’re limited to the distribution costs of natural gas, not the provincial gate price.

Mr. Peterson: That’s what I said.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I think later on you did. I made a note. I don’t think the member had at the point I wrote down my note.

The jurisdiction in terms of electrical pricing is again of the same nature. That is the variation in rate between types and classes of users or quantities of use, not as I read it, on the global gross selling price of Ontario Hydro as output. Because if I understand the Power Corporation Act -- which I don’t believe is administered by me; I believe it’s administered by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) -- ever since Sir Adam Beck, a fundamental principle has been that power from Ontario Hydro will be sold at, quote, “cost.”

Cost can be arrived at by charging one consumer more and another consumer less. I think that is a kind of argument we are going to see a good deal of discussion about before too long, because we’re going to go into discussions as to whether one should charge large consumers more to limit their consumption or recognize that distribution costs to large consumers are less and encourage their use so we’ll have a good strong industrial base.

You’re going to hear all kinds of points of view on it; I don’t want to get into them today. I would just say that I don’t believe you want to throw away yet the principle that the gross selling price of electricity in Ontario should match the gross cost of generating it. That’s a principle that has stood well for many years. I would argue though that one of the key things is what is gross cost? How much should you lay aside in a given year to create capital, limiting borrowing?

Because we guarantee a goodly part of the borrowing for Ontario Hydro, I would say we’re probably more highly leveraged than privately owned utilities -- 80 per cent or 82 per cent or whatever it is of our total equity is in debt. I’ve been told that a more normal US rate would be 50-50.

Obviously, if one elects not to add to the rate today to create capital for investment for immediate increase in output and instead goes to the market to borrow that money and therefore keeps a high debt to equity ratio, then the final cost of power will go up in total. I think that is one of the areas where a government does have jurisdiction -- I’m not saying government does, but traditionally Hydro and/or government has been involved in that process. I don’t think Ontario has ever directly leaned on Hydro, but we’ve never tried to duck our final responsibility.

That is exactly the same kind of question I assume the member implied is before the Ontario Energy Board for the distribution of gas through Union Gas. I don’t have an answer for it. I think one can argue with good logic both ways. One obviously wants to price energy no matter what its source or type today so that one does not encourage waste -- I don’t think we need to worry about that; that has become academic. The price is going up fast enough anyway.

If you’re an industrial user making steel, the price of natural gas, no matter what we do with it, is such that you’re going to take measures to save energy you wouldn’t have taken 10 years ago. I think the member would agree. That’s true of electricity. So I would say that industrial users have good immediate economic reasons for cutting back in consumption.

The real question becomes one of what costs should be apportioned to the bulk user and what to the smaller user. I am not going to prejudge that. I am going to listen with great interest because I think it is going to apply equally to electricity and to natural gas in the next while.

I think any one of you in this room could stand up and make arguments for whichever side you decided to take and sound equally impassioned in the process. There is only one political side and you know it. The question is what is best in the long-term interests of the consumers of Ontario, even if it isn’t the immediately politically saleable reason.

Mr. Peterson: On the subject of price: I am not one of those people who have ever argued in this House that we should try to cheat the future and I think you know that I’m not one of those people who has ever argued we shouldn’t pay our way today so our children have to pay it for us after the fact. There are certain realities we all face as politicians. Historically, probably the greatest mistake we have made is we haven’t faced up to the current realities, if we could possibly shuck them off on someone who was coming after us. To some extent, that argument enters into the whole energy pricing question.

I am also one of those who say it has reached the tolerance level. The abuse of the small customer, the distribution of rates -- who is expected to carry what load -- is now beyond the tolerance level. I am one who very clearly feels you should have a position on this and there is something you should be doing about it.

One of the reasons Union Gas is doing this is because of the bloody incompetence of the company. They entered into that contract for synthetic gas with Polysar and they’re taking a $10 million a year loss on that. They are trying to extricate themselves from that by shipping it down to the United States and they’re having some regulatory problems doing it. I hope they can get out of it.

What we have with a monopoly, unless we look at it very severely, is the consumer in the province pays the price for that management incompetency, not the company. Who should pay the price? The shareholders, the management? They’ve rolled a couple of presidents over that particular issue and I assume the mandate of the new president is to clean that up and try to get out of it. I hope he does.

At the same time, when they come pleading for cash to increase their price by 42 cents for administrative costs and for distribution costs, one of the arguments implicit therein, although they don’t use it overtly, is because of this management mistake of some three, four or five years ago, whenever it was. I can’t argue and I don’t think you can in conscience argue this is a burden which should be fairly carried by the consumer in a monopoly situation.

When one has a monopoly in a province like ours, one has some very grave responsibilities. Obviously, we don’t trust them to exercise their responsibilities well or we wouldn’t regulate them. Therefore, you have the whip hand. The energy board reports to the government and the government puts members on the energy board and makes sure they are being fair.

I am one who very much dislikes the attitude of the provincial Minister of Energy, who completely washes his hands of these things when it is convenient. One gets the impression very clearly that when there is something you can do about it, you opt out and say that’s the Ontario Energy Board’s responsibility. When there is something they know they can’t influence, at least very much

-- for example, the hearings of the National Energy Board on whatever -- you feel quite free to criticize, complain, carp and bellyache, but you don’t do that with something over which you do have jurisdiction. If they are concerned about what they’re doing at that level, surely when they have the power, one, they should have a position and, two, make that position very strongly felt.

I can tell you very sincerely, if and when we ever have an opportunity to change government in this province -- and that’s not all that unlikely a prospect, don’t kid yourself -- the rate structures of Union Gas and of Ontario Hydro are going to be very close to the top of the agenda for legislative action. It’s historically wrong and it encourages consumption. Any rate structure should not encourage consumption, but the rate structure, as it is presently administered, does encourage consumption because it diminishes with usage. There is a regressive rate. The more you use, the less you pay for both of them. That is completely 100 per cent backwards in our opinion.

I’m happy my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) is here today because he and I have discussed this at great length. He has yapped about this until he was blue in the face. I talked about this at great length when I was energy critic in this province. We will continue to talk about it because it is unfair and wrong.

When you say, “Quite obviously the object of energy pricing is to discourage consumption,” I can tell you, if you believe it, you’re not following it. As Treasurer, I would like to see you use your good offices to change those kinds of things. If you look at it, I know you’ll agree with it. We all recognize that over the long term, energy prices are going to go up. Obviously I would like them to go up as slowly as possible. Then we can always get Claire Hoy running around saying, “I want to see world prices.” I can tell you that’s nonsense. I can tell you there is the inevitability that I, my colleague and my leader recognize, and we have been pleading since 1976 to do something now.

Don’t get caught in the trap the federal government got caught in when they brought in wage and price controls. Those came in with a lot of public sympathy at the time, and even had public sympathy for the couple of years they were around with the exception of my friends in the labour movement. But, generally speaking, they were well received. People didn’t know what to do. There was a lot of confusion in the economy and people said, “Gee, with this runaway inflation, let’s buy some time.” They bought time and nothing happened. They might just as well not have had it.

We told you you were slow to move on energy pricing and the whole question of how it impacts on the economy and its insulating our consumers and our industries from the effects thereof. We said that then. We’re saying it now. I can tell you this: we’re going to go through the same guff two years from now.

The energy debate we’re having today is critical to the future of our province and our country from several points of view. The formulas hammered out now on the distribution of those revenues will probably apply in the future. And we’re all looking, whether you or I like it or not, in the not-too-distant future at $40 to $60 for oil. Everyone who is looking ahead says that.

You think we’ve got adjustment problems at $13.75 a barrel -- man, it’s nothing like you will have. You can’t imagine what it’s going to be like. It has been your government’s inability or unwillingness to recognize the inevitable; recognizing it takes tough decisions to do something about it. I can tell you you’ve been far too slow. If you think our industry, our transportation sector and all of the infrastructure in this province is vulnerable to energy pricing now, I can tell you, Mr. Treasurer, two years from now it’s going to be far, far worse. That is why you must, in my judgement, do a couple of things.

One, you must argue until you can’t talk any more; until you’ve got a sore throat; until you get laryngitis, which would be refreshing to us on this side of the House. I hope you don’t for the sake of the argument you’re taking to Ottawa. You cannot let one penny of this increase, whatever it is, go to just fuelling government revenues that go into consolidated revenues. It must be all deployed effectively back into the economy for a myriad of reasons.

It must go back into the economy to insulate the low-income people in our society from the effects of these high prices. That is very important, but it is just as important to invest now in the capital technology of renewables and conservation to more insulate us from the shocks of what is going to happen in the next five, six, seven, eight, 10 and 20 years. These are realities. It doesn’t take any brains to figure out where this province is going to be at the end of the century.

You’re losing time. You have been losing time. You have had a lot of goodwill from the people of this province. You’ve been in power a long time. Anything you did that was tough along those lines, I have no idea whether our friends in the NDP would support these areas. I can tell you without equivocation those of us in this party would. We have taken the view we are prepared to make contemporary sacrifices for something that is going to protect us in the future, no hesitation about that. We have not seen any leadership or direction in the area of renewables or conservation from this government and I am very serious about it.

[4:00]

What the minister is going to do is let those prices go up in the things he controls. He is going to overbuild the hydro system and I will argue very much that now is the time for a pause in hydro to get the costs in line, to get conservation under control; then he probably won’t need to expand the system in the next little while. He can get a handle on this from my friend from Halton-Burlington, who can speak far more eloquently and expertly on this particular subject.

Rather than build up a system that isn’t going to be necessary in this next little while, the minister is better off to insulate the consumers from some of those excessive prices in the short run. Secondly, he has to do it with hydro prices. I am appalled at the way Union Gas wants to do it and I am also appalled by the way the Treasurer and the Minister of Energy take that “hands off” approach saying, “Well, it is not my responsibility.” It is their responsibility, and in the same breath, they use up all their energy complaining about something that isn’t their responsibility, where they don’t have power.

I am not saying the minister shouldn’t take his argument to Ottawa, he should. I regret only that it was badly put and he didn’t win. Surely, when he has some power he should use it and should be using it in the area of renewables and conservation.

We have been so specific in our criticism; we have been so constructive; I am tired of being constructive. We have given the minister lists of 25-point programs on conservation, on how to conserve with automobiles, in housing, in insulation, in methanol and in biomass. God knows, we have a lot of good ideas and we shouldn’t lose that advantage but as I say, I don’t see anything happening.

That is why I say to the minister he should insist, with all of the might he can summon up -- all five feet four inches of him -- that Mr. Crosbie does not steal any of that money from the windfall increase in oil prices for consolidated revenue. He should make sure it is used for the benefit of our Canadian people and our children. He should make sure also that the money, apart from protecting people on low income, is going to be invested in capital and in renewables, all those kinds of things to protect us in the future.

That is where the minister’s energies have to be and I am concerned that tomorrow night Crosbie is going to steal that money, because he is obsessed with balancing the budget. I think he should be balancing the budget, but there are many other ways he can do it and there are a lot of expenditures in Ottawa that can be cut.

The minister should not let Mr. Crosbie take advantage of this windfall. There will be so much confusion when this price goes up. Nobody will know who is going to get that money. It will be reported in the press, but there will be a lot of confusion. Those who want to will blame the oil companies, some will blame Alberta, but don’t let the federal government sneak up the middle and steal the money just to fuel or to cut down its deficits at the expense of Ontario.

If the minister insists on some kind of policy like that, Ontario probably will be the beneficiary of a lot of investment, technology and research and development, so we can go on and build a new capital base here and explore new kinds of industries.

There is one other thing to say. The minister talks about power at cost and the traditional mandate. Power at cost is just a buzz word. Nobody knows what power at cost means. When one looks at the books of Ontario Hydro, when one looks at their depreciation accounts -- they don’t account like a private company -- when one looks at the surplus at the end of the year, the minister can’t tell me it is power at cost because they do run up reserves. It is a judgement call.

I am not saying they should not store up some little surpluses here and there in order to keep their borrowings down, but what I would say is that the mandate of Ontario Hydro should change, not just to respond to the demand as they have done over the past 50 years. They have a major role in influencing demand and apart from running these little advertising campaigns, the most important way we could do it, in my judgement, is with pricing. That is where they have been left sadly far behind the rest of the country.

I just want to ask the minister one question before I move on to something else. Are you or are you not going to take a position on retail hydro pricing, bulk hydro pricing and gas pricing? Does the Treasurer have any information about what it will do to the economy, and what is your position on it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have dealt not with specific rates as Treasurer, but upon the macro-economic effects. I have left rates to my colleague the Minister of Energy to deal with. I am kept informed by him and I listened to some of his discussions this week.

I suspect you will be getting a report from the Ontario Energy Board this week. I will enunciate more clearly. There is a major report I thought was due before too long, giving some advice. However, the energy critic would be able to answer better than I can.

Mr. J. Reed: It has been forthcoming for some time.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I believe there is a due process for it once it comes in and instead of me prejudicing the results I would rather see the process followed.

Mr. J. Reed: I am just saying nicely that it is late.

Mr. Peterson: I am just trying to work this out in terms of time allocation. I gather Friday is our last day, is that right? And whatever time is left, we will just agree that the estimates are finished. I want to let my friend from Nickel Belt perform today so I will save some stuff for Friday.

On this whole equalization question -- we dealt with it in my opening remarks and you responded briefly -- I have a tough time knowing exactly where you are sitting right now. I gather your last comment is, “Well, if we can’t get satisfaction any other way, we may press for our entitlement under equalization.” If I am putting words in your mouth, please correct me. You feel it is a little bit immoral in the sense it is not in the spirit of the Fiscal Arrangements Act and you feel there are better ways to redistribute the windfall oil profits coming to the principal producing provinces.

You feel the resource revenues should essentially be taken out of the current equalization formula. If I am not being fair, I want you to correct me on this.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Everything up to that point has been reasonable. On that last point I don’t recall saying --

Mr. Peterson: I could be misinterpreting. I was under the impression you wanted resource revenues treated separately and redistributed through other mechanisms, not through equalization payments. Is that it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had offered at some length the opinion the formula of the 29 factors currently used in computing the entitlement of a province under the equalization factors was designed at a time when oil revenues were not as imbalanced as they currently are and therefore, since it increased the payment obligations of the federal government but did not increase its revenue sources, I considered it was putting an undue strain on the federal treasury until it had some source of revenue to counterbalance it.

Second, the money flows no longer necessarily reflected the needs of the receiving provinces because of the change in oil revenues out west. Therefore, at the very least, the formula should be restructured without becoming specific. I did point out there are two caps in the system, the 50 per cent of oil revenues and the one third of total payments from the resource base.

Mr. Peterson: On that subject and as you now know -- you didn’t know at the time -- Bill C-26 has not been passed. You have intimated it is going to be introduced and applied retroactively. Who told you that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I understood in Ottawa.

Mr. Peterson: When are you expecting it will be introduced in the federal House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We may learn tomorrow night in the budget.

Mr. Peterson: Are you going to militate against that to protect your own options? You see, I want to know what in hell is your position. What are you going to take --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member will watch his language, please.

Mr. Peterson: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Good Lord, I know you have never heard that before.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, I have never heard it, not in this chair.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to know, what is your position on this redistribution of the oil wealth? How would you restructure? I want to know how you relate that to equalization.

I would say to the Treasurer that in the absence of some firm agreement that I assume has to come up either at a first ministers’ meeting or a meeting of the ministers of finance of this country, that when he puts some new formula to those esteemed gentlemen and tries to sell it to them, he is giving away his trump card if he allows Bill C-26 or its successor to be passed.

It can be stopped by working very hard at making a terrible fuss. If the Treasurer can make a fuss about oil prices, he can sure make a fuss about this one. He gets all those 58 Tories that he and Bill Davis helped elect and he says: “We will not tolerate this. Ontario’s getting it 16 ways, all the way to Sunday.”

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought you were working for them.

Mr. Peterson: Working for whom?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those 58. In fact you were working for a couple who didn’t make it.

Mr. Peterson: If the Treasurer asks me did I shed a lot of tears over it, my response in all honesty would be, no, I did not. I did shed a great number of tears for some of the very esteemed Liberals who went down in the last election.

Mr. Laughren: Name one.

Mr. Peterson: I refer principally to the candidate in Willowdale, one James Peterson, who has brought a great deal of prestige and credibility to the Liberal Party ticket. However, that’s another story.

This is a most serious issue we are addressing now and I gather what has happened is the Treasurer’s education was so inadequate in this area that he has tried to do some catch-up in the last month or so since this issue has been brought out in public.

What is the Treasurer’s position? How does he figure that money should be redistributed? How does he want the Fiscal Arrangements Act redone? How does he want those 29 categories treated? What does he want done with resource revenue? Is he in favour of Bill C-26 or its successor, or is he going to fight it? He should be very specific because I can assure him that my friend from Nickel Belt is a very erudite economist. He and I understand everything he is going to say, so he should not worry about being complex.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought that was unparliamentary language he was using a second ago. I thought it had something to do with the human rights bill.

Let me try to disentangle two things I thought only the honourable member’s leader had tangled. I have listened to him argue that we have tried to confuse equalization payments and the redistribution of oil revenues since the day the paper came out and I keep trying to tell him they are two separate things.

There is no question that the formula as it now stands is influenced by oil pricing. No argument.

We are totally against the continuation of that formula as it is now designed, because --

Mr. Peterson: What are you suggesting in its place?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- it’s not due to be changed, I think, until 1981 or 1982. We have asked for and hoped that discussions will go on towards making it fit its original purpose. That was to provide provinces who have the fiscal inability at the provincial tax level to raise the moneys they need to provide basic services. Ontario is not in that position.

Mr. Peterson: When is this going to be discussed and what is your position?

Hon. F. S. Miller: All right. I have asked that it be discussed at a ministers of finance meeting very specifically. I hope it will be. I have talked already to the federal Minister of Finance about my concern.

Mr. Laughren: It’s 1982, by the way.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought it was 1982. Yes, it’s somewhere down the line before it changes. The fact remains that it may not change quickly enough. It is giving whoever is finance minister real problems in the meantime. It has nothing to do with the money Alberta is getting.

[4:15]

Let me try to see if I could somehow sketch what happens in my mind when the price of oil goes up. It goes up, say, $4 a barrel. A small part of that money, to be determined, I assume, by the Minister of Finance of Ottawa, will go to the producer. Some part of it -- currently 10 per cent -- goes to the federal government. To date 45 per cent on average of revenues have flowed to the producers -- not of profits but of revenues.

Mr. Peterson: Are you leaking the federal budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have no idea what’s in that budget. I could sit here all day and I wouldn’t be able to leak something I know nothing about.

Do you agree with 45-45-10? All right. It varies from company to company and from kind of oil to kind of oil, old wells and new wells, Syncrude to non-Syncrude, and so on. But if I generalize and say 45-45-10, I am not far off. The federal government currently gets 10 cents out of every dollar increase, unless it changes the rules in the budget or some .other way.

That doesn’t give it much money. At the same time, when the price of oil goes up, the formula it now uses requires it to pay out more money. It has no source for that money. It pays it out to the have-not provinces. By definition, we have fallen into that category without being one, because under our entitlement, because of oil revenues, they now owe us about $18 per capita per year. On sum total for the last three years, that comes to about $470 million.

When the federal government raises the price of oil, 45 cents flow to Alberta and go into its treasury and 10 cents flow into the federal treasury. Then Ottawa is committed to a payout under the equalization program. The 10 cents flowing in doesn’t help them a great deal because they already have massive deficits, in the order of 25 per cent of the total budget. Therefore, they are faced with an equalization formula that penalizes their treasury each time they raise the price of oil. Agreed?

When it comes to giving money to Ontario to provide basic government services that poor provinces can’t afford, I hope you would agree the formula isn’t doing what it was designed to do. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Peterson: No. I happen to be a lawyer and you are talking about all the moral implications of this act. Isn’t Rendell Dick a lawyer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I never knew you were a lawyer.

Mr. Peterson: Yes, not a very good one.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have got a lot of company, in that case.

Mr. Peterson: In fairness, I am about as good a lawyer as you are an engineer, so we are not talking with a high degree of expertise.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I won’t even ask you what makes you a poor lawyer.

Mr. Peterson: I admitted that at the beginning.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Go one step further and say you are as good or bad a lawyer as he is a Treasurer.

Mr. Peterson: Let me say you are bringing this new moral judgement to this act.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is not a moral judgement.

Mr. Peterson: Sure it is, because you have a legal entitlement. That’s my whole point. If you didn’t have a legal entitlement, Bill C-26 would not be necessary. It’s to clean up the loophole, for want of a better word.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All right.

Mr. Peterson: I am saying you have a legal entitlement and I am saying there is a good chance the resource revenues you want retransferred, albeit under another mechanism, which I agree with you is more fair, will not be. Therefore, I am saying to you the only weapon you have today legally, let alone morally, is a positive entitlement under equalization. You are going to get up and say, “It is just going to make the federal deficit bigger, and 45 per cent of all that comes out of our taxes.” You are still a net winner of 55 or 60 or 65 per cent.

Secondly, I say very frankly when did it ever become your responsibility to balance the federal budget? I admit they have problems. Is it because your friends were just elected you feel you have to balance their budget? I know you don’t share all this doom and gloom stuff about the province of Ontario being booted into the ground, but surely there are enough indices around to say that we are, relatively speaking, in a downward slide and it needs some corrective action.

I’m saying there is a million bucks -- half a billion, $470 million -- that could be used to our purposes. I am not saying you should use it just to get rid of our deficit. I am saying there are a lot of other constructive capital investment things that could be done. I am taking this ahead a little more than I wanted to.

You were saying: “Really, morally, we are not entitled to this because our average per capita income is above the national average. So we are really not entitled to it.” That really was not the intention of the bill, according to a lot of economists I read. The intention of that bill was to equalize provincial revenues. You have taken a different attack on the bill.

I still do not understand. Is it just because you sit there in your cabinet meetings and you feel badly? You really feel, “Gee, that wasn’t the intention of the bill so therefore we had better not collect it”? You know that legally you are entitled to it.

You made me angry in the middle of it. You don’t often do that but you made me angry because you are so wrong. Therefore, I had to stand up and correct you. You carry on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: “Wrong” is a subjective opinion. We believe that the federal government -- what, a year and a half ago -- gave notice that it agreed the formula was not reflecting the intent of the legislation any more. It stated it was going to make certain changes in the bill. You can quickly point out that one day I was thinking, in error, that the bill had passed, non-lawyer that I am.

Mr. Laughren: That is the only good thing about you, Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You touched the Chairman’s heart when you came up with that one.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You woke me up.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We were told the legislation on entitlement to which we legally had the right to ask would be changed retroactively. On that much I agree with you; legally we have the right to call upon it.

I say it is foolish to demand something that is going to be taken away from you in the next breath. It is something like sending an old age pension cheque out to somebody, letting them spend it and then coming back with -- you have seen this happen in your riding -- “in error sent,” or “calculations based upon last year’s income.”

Mr. Peterson: That couldn’t be a more irrelevant analogy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, because you end up having to pay it back later at a time which may be totally --

Mr. Peterson: That’s not true.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The feds make these saw-offs. A note that I was just given by staff says the federal government is already paying on the basis of Bill C-26, by the way.

Mr. Peterson: The new crown leases bill?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. The crown leases are out, Ontario is excluded and there’s a three-year averaging provision for Saskatchewan.

The other half of this argument is: okay, we have agreed that equalization formula was designed for a certain purpose. You can have the minor difference in opinion that you and I had about whether it was to average provincial incomes or whether it was to help provinces with less-than-normal incomes.

Mr. Peterson: Provincial revenues.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Provincial revenues. The fact is it came to a government at the expense of the people of Ontario. I would be grateful to get that money because it would appear to come from another governmental level, without me raising it. It is like increasing municipal grants. We still take them out of the people of Ontario one way or another.

The real argument was the one you touched upon earlier: the 45 cents out of each dollar that currently go in as royalty, or whatever else it may be, to the province of Alberta. In my opinion the money should be used not just for the benefit of the people of Alberta but for the benefit of all Canadians. Either the federal government has to increase its 10 per cent share, or some recycling mechanism such as we proposed in our paper needs to be adopted. The recycling mechanisms we have proposed in our paper were, of course, to protect the consumer first and then