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

November 26, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L117 - Mon 26 Nov 1979 / Lun 26 nov 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PQ WHITE PAPER

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

SUPERMARKET PRICING AND CHECKOUT SYSTEMS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

PQ WHITE PAPER

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

GROUP HOME FUNDING

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

JUNIOR HOCKEY COMMITMENT

DREE AGREEMENT

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

COPIES OF STATEMENTS

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

DEATH OF HENRY JACKMAN

ANSWERS TO OUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PQ WHITE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it has been about three weeks since the government of Quebec presented its long-awaited white paper on sovereignty-association.

This House will recall the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) has already spoken for this government in expressing our fundamental disagreement with the white paper proposals regarding sovereignty-association. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you were glad, as I was glad, to see the views that were expressed here were endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition in this House (Mr. S. Smith) and by the leader of the third party (Mr. Cassidy).

I hope this statement today, made on behalf of the government, will make clear to members and other Ontarians the specific reasons why sovereignty-association is not in our best interests or in their best interests, and why this government will continue to reject any notion of negotiating such an arrangement with the government of Quebec.

It seems to us that the white paper is based on three fundamental misconceptions.

First, the white paper asserts the only choices facing Quebeckers in terms of their relationship with Canada are either sovereignty-association or the status quo. This, of course, is just not so. Virtually all governments in Canada, provincial and federal, are in a realistic mood to renew federalism and are seriously prepared to accommodate many contemporary interests -- some regional, some economic, some social, some linguistic and cultural.

Second, the white paper says it is directed exclusively to Quebeckers, but it is not merely a blueprint for Quebec. It is a blueprint for Ontario and indeed for the whole of Canada, and it is not an acceptable one. This is our country the white paper is proposing to divide. Moreover, if there are advantages for the people of Quebec in its proposals, and this I would say is indeed a very big “if,” there is unquestionably some very large disadvantage for the people of Ontario and the rest of Canada.

Third, the white paper states sovereignty and association are inseparable. Logically, then, if economic association cannot be achieved, the whole proposition should crumble. However, the paper refuses to come to this conclusion. Therefore, we can only conclude that sovereignty itself, the political independence of Quebec, is the ultimate goal the white paper is pursuing.

In addition to these basic criticisms, we note that the white paper is a smooth piece of political persuasion, written by Quebeckers to appeal to Quebeckers and, of course, pro-Quebec all the way. However, this approach provides a too-simple analysis of a very complex problem.

Possibly the most obvious aspect of the proposal for sovereignty-association, which Ontarians and other Canadians should note, is the implicit assumption in the white paper that Canadians outside Quebec will calmly accept the dismemberment of their country and will then sit down willingly and work out economic arrangements with the very government that caused the rupture in the first place. Ontarians have worked closely with Quebeckers, as have their governments, on many matters of common concern to us, as Canadians, over the years. Even though we would continue to be geographic neighbours, it would be naive to expect the same spirit of co-operation would automatically continue.

We believe we speak for the vast majority of Ontario residents when we say no kind of separation of Quebec from Canada could be amicable. The Parti Quebecois is fooling itself if it believes that life would be “business as usual” after such a drastic event. Ontarians are not unemotional when challenged on matters about which they care deeply, such as their country.

Even if it were possible to overcome these deep emotions, we would have to ask ourselves if sovereignty-association were attractive in terms of the political and economic interests of Ontario. The answer, we say, is a clear no.

There are 10 provincial partners in Confederation, each with varying populations and economic strengths, but 10 partners nonetheless. At the intergovernmental conference table, everybody has an equal voice. The white paper would make representation 50:50 -- 50 per cent Quebec and 50 per cent all the rest of Canada. The attraction of such an arrangement to Quebec is obvious, but there is no attraction to Ontario. Nothing would compel us to accept. Yet that is exactly what the white paper concludes. It does so because it makes, I think, two very debatable assumptions.

First, it assumes that political relationships must be based almost exclusively on linguistic and cultural communities. The proposal for an economic association of two politically independent states then flows from this assumption. The definition of political units and relationships has to take into consideration social and economic interests, as well as those which are linguistic and cultural.

Even if our concerns regarding our interests could be overcome, which they cannot, we would have to ask ourselves whether the particular proposals put forward by the white paper make practical sense. In our view, the answer is, again, no, because the white paper sets out a model of economic association that simply will not work. The proposed new joint institutions, such as the community council and the commission on experts, are a recipe for deadlock, indecision and disastrous delay. Policies could not be determined if the two governments could not agree. There would be stalemate in the absence of any authoritative institution to resolve such policy disputes.

The authors of the white paper try to meet this objection by suggesting that in spite of the political and legal equality of the two governments in the economic association, in practice, one or the other would exercise predominant influence on particular issues. Asbestos is put forward as an example of an issue where the Quebec partner would likely predominate,

whereas an example of a concern where the Canadian partner would lead is wheat.

Yet, elsewhere in the white paper, the wheat and grain policy is cited as an issue where the present federal system has allegedly discriminated against Quebec’s interests. If the white paper’s authors believe their own analysis, we must doubt that the Canadian partner would be permitted to have the major influence over wheat policy.

If the potential for conflict is so apparent in an area where the white paper already concedes predominance to one partner, the difficulties that could arise over truly contentious matters such as tariff policy or transportation priorities are obvious. In each case there would be no mechanism to settle any disagreement or to break any deadlock.

The white paper also tries to anticipate this objection with regard to the joint monetary authority. Each partner is represented on the authority in proportion to the relative size of its economy. This would mean the Canadian partner would have majority representation.

According to the white paper, this would pose no problem because the monetary policy interests of Canada and Quebec would not differ to any significant decree. Yet only a few months ago, in its blueprint for the Quebec economy entitled Batir le Quebec (Challenges for Quebec), the Quebec government was highly critical of current federal monetary policy because of its orientation towards the problems of inflation and the exchange rate. We question how the white paper’s proposed solution would resolve such differences.

If differences in policy exist now, surely we can expect that they will arise in the future. If so, how long will the Quebec partner be willing to play second fiddle on the monetary authority? If it demands equality, how will policy differences between the partners be settled?

The emotional atmosphere surrounding the political rupture of Canada would ensure that no Ontario government would be inclined to negotiate sovereignty-association. In any event, it would not be in our interests to do so, and the proposal, as it has been put forward before us, simply will not work. On this basis of workability alone, we might rest our case.

However, the white paper appeals to Quebeckers to make a critical decision, but in doing so, it does not put all the salient facts before them. It is unclear on far too many issues, it is one-sided on others, and it simply ignores still others.

The white paper claims that federal policy has regularly disregarded Quebec’s interests, citing as an example the auto pact. This claim simply ignores the fact that the auto industry was established in Ontario long before the auto pact. Moreover, its concentration in our province had little to do with government policy, federal or provincial. Rather, its presence here is explained by our geographical proximity to the focus of this industry in the United States. There is nothing about sovereignty-association that would change this reality.

The white paper implies that Quebec alone has been the champion of respect for provincial responsibilities within the federal system. One need only consider Ontario’s leadership with regard to deconditionalizing several of the major shared-cost programs, and with regard to disentangling federal and provincial responsibilities, to determine that Quebec has rarely, if ever, been alone in this regard. Readers would never know from the white paper about the increase in flexibility the provinces have now obtained, for example, as a result of the Established Programs Financing Act which came into effect in 1977

The white paper says nothing about how the fiscal transfers from the federal government to Quebec will be replaced. Transfers for this fiscal year to the Quebec government alone are projected to be $4.9 billion. Add to this the estimated $1.6 billion to be paid to Quebec workers by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the $1.4 billion oil parity payments on behalf of Quebec consumers.

Federal funds for these purposes are obviously raised in Quebec as well as in other provinces but such pavements as a whole amount to a net transfer to Quebec of wealth created elsewhere in Canada. We share willingly now because it is our obligation as fellow citizens. We must ask if this obligation would be consistent with the existence of two politically separate countries.

The white paper contrives to picture federalism as an inflexible, uncompromising system of government. However, the distinct Canada and Quebec pension plans, the different approaches Quebec takes to family allowances, the opting-out provisions of the major shared-cost programs, and the federal-Quebec immigration agreement are all examples of how particular Quebec interests have been accommodated within the federal system.

The white paper proposes in one breath that sovereignty-association include broad mobility of goods, capital, labour and services, and in the next breath it speaks of introducing exemptions in such areas as agriculture, investment and categories of labour. If Quebec is to be allowed such exceptions, it must also expect that the Canadian partner will put forward its list of exceptions. We fear the association would soon be one in name only.

[2:15]

Finally, the white paper is highly selective in its use of statistics. For example, it states that Quebec has 0.9 miles of railways per 1,000 population against Ontario’s 1.2. The implication is that Quebec has somehow been discriminated against. However, it is easy to find statistics that prove exactly the opposite point.

Consider the fact that Quebec has 4.8 railway workers per 1,000 population,

whereas Ontario has only 3.7. Or consider that in Montreal, both major railways maintain commuter services without federal or provincial assistance,

whereas in Toronto, the Ontario government has been obliged to finance its own GO commuter bus and rail service. We do not believe it would be logical to conclude from these examples that Confederation has been a bad deal for Ontario, or for Quebec.

In sum, there is nothing compelling in the white paper itself or in the arguments put forward by its proponents that could lead to the conclusion that Ontario would enter into an economic association with a separate Quebec state. It would amount not to a new deal but a bad deal for all.

This government is convinced we can achieve within federalism new and fair arrangements. This is the only constructive course for Canada. This conviction is not new to the government of Ontario. In November 1977 the Premier spoke to the members of the Task Force on Canadian Unity here in Toronto. He reasserted to them his view that a wide range of constitutional change was necessary, that what the circumstances demanded was, in effect, a new constitution.

During the past few years, the government of Ontario has specifically supported constitutional change on the following matters:

1. Measures to eliminate barriers to the free flow of people, goods and services across the country so as to enhance the economic ties within Confederation;

2. A more precise definition of the essential powers needed by the federal government to run the national economy;

3. A clearer provincial responsibility in social and cultural matters, such as family law and cable communications;

4. The clarification of provincial ownership and legislative powers over natural resources;

5. A clear commitment to the enlargement of regional economic opportunities as a goal of Confederation and as a test of national policies;

6. Provisions that would allow for more flexibility in certain areas of jurisdiction so that some provinces, such as Quebec, could take on more responsibilities than the others if they so desired;

7. A provincial role in determining where the federal spending power could be exercised in areas directly affecting the provinces;

8. The entrenchment of the fundamental and democratic rights of Canadians;

10. The reform of existing national institutions, such as the Senate, to allow for the fuller expression of regional or provincial interests;

11. Provincial participation in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, and

12. Patriation of the constitution and a relatively flexible formula for constitutional amendment.

I think this list clearly illustrates the breadth and scope of our commitment, and indicates without reservation that this province believes Canada’s constituent parts can be strengthened, while the country as a whole can be kept most effective on those matters of concern to us all.

I think it also needs to be said we are not alone in our commitment to change. Among the constitutional proposals being considered today, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland -- indeed, virtually all of the provinces -- have put forward their ideas for change to reflect more effectively what each regards as Canada’s current needs and interests.

Another significant contribution to the process of constitutional reform has been the report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity. It is inaccurate to state, as does the white paper, that the report has been shelved in the rest of the country. To the contrary, the main tenor of its recommendations is clearly representative of concerns expressed in many parts of Canada and is reflected in the inter- governmental discussions on the constitution.

We recognize fully the task force’s conclusion that any renewed federal arrangements must acknowledge both the regional and dual elements in this country’s makeup, and must ensure that we have a federal government that can speak for Canada on matters of national importance.

Furthermore, Quebec federalists are now in the process of preparing their proposals for constitutional change in Canada. We look forward to these proposals, as I know all members of the House do, as an important contribution to the debate and as a thoughtful basis for serious discussion.

Our real choice as Canadians, as Jean-Luc Pepin and John Robarts so aptly put it, is a future together. It is the choice of continuing to work together to share common future within a renewed Canadian federation.

We will not always agree; we will not always have our particular interests realized; we will not always get our own way. But we will continue to experience success and adversity together, sharing our advantages when we have them and being helped by our co-citizens when we are in need.

The challenge we face is working together within Confederation. This is the common purpose we all should now pursue.

Mr. Breithaupt: Point of order, Mr. Sneaker: with respect to the tabling of a compendium of background information, as rule 26(

c) suggests should occur after the making of a statement, can the minister advise if such a compendium will be tabled? Also, can he say whether or not it will include any results of public opinion polls that have been commissioned with respect to the subject matters referred to in the statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding and belief that the compendium required for this statement was the Quebec white paper. That has been sent to all the members of this House. This statement was prepared without the use of any particular public opinion polls.

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of personal privilege arising from comments made by the Minister of Community and Social Services about my position on the children’s aid society strike in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma. This is a situation that has degenerated to the point where, according to the Sault Ste. Marie Star, the Ontario Humane Society has had to provide food for two neglected children because the CAS could not respond to their needs.

These comments by the minister were quoted in Friday’s edition of the Sault Star. In response to a question of a reporter about the position of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1880, that the minister’s advice to the Algoma CAS board to hire outside social workers constitutes strikebreaking, Mr. Norton stated I had taken the same position in this House. He tried to leave the impression I am opposed to his carrying out his mandate to protect the children at risk.

In fact, I have repeatedly stated in this House and elsewhere that the minister and the CAS were not fulfilling their respective mandates during this dispute, which has been prolonged by the use of outside workers. I’ve stated they should use the funds used for these outside workers to bring about a resolution of the dispute and to get the striking workers back to work, protecting children at risk rather than having their needs met by an agency like the humane society.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I may be incorrect, and if I am, I apologize to the honourable member but my recollection is that the honourable member has, on occasion in this House, made reference to the role of my ministry in providing support assistance to ensure the children’s aid society in Algoma was able to minimize the risk to which children might be exposed during the period of this labour dispute.

My comment to the press was simply that if it was felt our actions were inappropriate, there was an alternative open to the honourable member. That was that he could take action to relieve me of my responsibility under the act by introducing a private member’s bill that would have that effect in terms of amending the legislation. That comment was made in response, as I recall it, to his raising a very serious concern about the role of the ministry in providing some assistance to this children’s aid society so they might meet their obligations.

With respect, specifically, to his reference to the involvement of the humane society, that was a story that was brought to my attention. It seems to me there were some very serious inaccuracies in the specific case to which the newspaper

article referred and the one in which the Canadian Union of Public Employees’ administrator from that area communicated to me on Friday, I believe, by telegram.

It is my information that during the time the report was made to the children’s aid society, on two occasions within one week children’s aid society workers visited those children in that family and on neither occasion did they find the children to be in need, abandoned or without food. I believe it was subsequent to those two visits then that the principal of one of the schools in the area -- I don’t know whether he had feedback indicating those two visits had taken place -- but apparently a call was placed to the humane society asking it to check to see whether the pets were being adequately fed. That then gave rise to the visits from the humane society.

But there was not a lack of response from the children’s aid society. In fact, I am told there were two visits within less than a week following the report.

SUPERMARKET PRICING AND CHECKOUT SYSTEMS

Mr. Swart: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It concerns comments made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations last Friday. I realize he is not in his seat today but I believe it is incumbent upon me to bring it before the House at the first opportunity.

During the question period last Friday, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) said, in referring to Loblaws instituting universal product codes, that if it were not for his sharing his information with this party in the estimates of his ministry we would never have found out about it. Then he quoted me as saying to him in the justice committee, where his estimates were dealt with, and I quote from last Friday’s Instant Hansard: “I thank you very much. I would never have known about it.”

Knowing I did not make such a statement, I have examined the justice committee Hansard for the whole period during his estimates. It contains no such remarks by me whatsoever. In view of this and the many previous misstatements made by this minister, I ask the Speaker to direct the minister to withdraw his statement last Friday falsely attributing those comments to me.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the honourable minister will be made aware of the member’s alleged point of privilege.

An hon. member: Alleged?

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t heard the other side of the story.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members, the presence of two distinguished guests in our gallery. We have the Honourable Howard Pawley, Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba. I don’t know whether they’re talking to one another, but under the Speaker’s gallery is the Very Reverend Donald M. Malinowski who is the member of the Legislative Assembly for Point Douglas in Manitoba.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister has undoubtedly by now reviewed the Ontario Energy Board report on Ontario Hydro’s bulk power rates for 1980. Since the board’s function in these matters is advisory rather than regulatory, can the minister tell us whether he has approved these rate increases, which will amount to some 16.4 per cent on January 1?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, it’s not a question as to whether the Minister of Energy approves. The procedures were followed with respect to this whole operation. Ontario Hydro has proceeded accordingly and has accepted the recommendations and the advice of the Ontario Energy Board with respect to some modifications.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it would appear the minister feels powerless to influence the course of these rates and is quite prepared to accept what the energy board does -- although one of his predecessors, the now president of Union Gas, didn’t take matters quite so lightly in his term -- I would ask specifically whether the minister is prepared to accept the suggestion repeatedly made by the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr.

Sargent) of a life-line concept, whereby the people buying a certain basic, fundamental amount of electrical energy for a residence can receive that at the cheapest rate, rather than the way it is now where the first most-fundamental amount is charged at the most expensive rate and the more you use the less you pay per unit.

Is the minister prepared, at the very least, to do that, so the people who need just the fundamental amount of energy this winter will be able to get the cheaper rate and not have to pay at the most expensive rate?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as I get to the question I was actually asked, I didn’t particularly appreciate the comments that were made prior to putting the supplementary question. It would come as no surprise to the Leader of the Opposition to learn the present minister feels the law is to be followed and the system, which of course was introduced by this government as a very important feature for the determination of rates by Hydro, provides for a full review of those particular rates.

Second, the Leader of the Opposition also knows we are awaiting a very complete study on the whole question of the costing of electricity. Once I, as the minister, have that particular study and the recommendations contained therein, I will perhaps be in a much better position to comment on it, along with the suggestions to which the Leader of the Opposition has made reference.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since part of the report of the Ontario Energy Board is an acceptance of the proposals of Ontario Hydro that henceforth the profits from export sales will not be used to cushion the impact to the consumer, has the government accepted that? Or will the government reconsider it so the Ontario consumers, who have to carry the burden of an excessively large system, will at least have the cushion of the export from that excessive generation capacity?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the government hasn’t accepted that particular recommendation as yet, as the honourable member has indicated.

Certainly the whole question of Hydro rates will be the subject matter of fairly intensive review once we have the reports to which I have made reference, and indeed, we have the benefit of the advice and the recommendations that are contained in the report of the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister recalls, does he not, that the rates were rolled back at the behest of a select committee’s recommendation made to the Minister of Energy, which is the area referred to by my colleague, the leader of the party. Would he not agree this five to six per cent of the increase is as a result of the end of the Anti-Inflation Board mandate, and that since the Anti-Inflation Board directives have returned $250 million in reduced rates to the consumers it would be reasonable and sensible for him as Minister of Energy to approve only an increase equivalent to the cost of living increase during this last year?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows it doesn’t lie with the Minister of Energy to make such a decision. The procedures are quite public; Ontario Hydro presents its case, it makes all the evidence available and it is referred to the Ontario Energy Board. Hearings are held and, indeed, as a result, recommendations are made to which Hydro responds. The honourable member knows it was Hydro that accepted the recommendation of the select committee.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates the government hasn’t come to a conclusion with regard to this aspect of the report on use of the profits for export sale. Will he be making a decision on that within the next few weeks so it can apply for the next calendar year and, it is hoped, cushion the increase to the consumers?

Hon Mr. Welch: I don’t see that as coming as any particular relief as far as the upcoming calendar year is concerned. I indicated to the honourable member that obviously would be taken into account when we review the whole question of the cost of electricity, which, as he knows, is the subject matter of a fairly intensive study.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Given that the government of Ontario feels it can’t do much about the higher oil prices its Tory friends in Ottawa are landing on us; given that it thinks it can’t do anything or doesn’t want to do anything about the higher interest rates we are getting from its friends in Ottawa, and given that this is something that is within provincial jurisdiction, why does the minister once again plead impotence on this matter -- although he does it very convincingly, I may say -- when he knows full well it is within the power of the cabinet in Ontario to make it clear to Ontario Hydro to roll back such an increase if it so desires?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would think the Leader of the Opposition would share in the pride which is ours in this province to have electrical power provided at cost to the consumers of the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Lowest anywhere in North America, with the exception of Quebec.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If after all these reviews we have established the cost of providing that -- and indeed as the leader of this government points out, at the lowest cost of any jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of the province of Quebec -- then surely to goodness if there is to be any change in that policy it has to be paid in some way, and obviously the Leader of the Opposition is advocating that we take money from the consolidated revenue fund to subsidize these rates.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day one is given advice on borrowing oneself into bankruptcy from the world’s expert on that matter.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary? Would the Premier agree?

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). The Premier may be aware that earlier this month the minister was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying that more public dollars will have to he invested in the Urban Transportation Development Corporation’s intermediate capacity system in order to prevent this experiment from becoming something of a white elephant.

I want to ask first of all whether the province intends to invest any more taxpayers’ dollars into the ICTS project in Kingston; and if so, how much does the province intend to so invest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was just checking monthly residential electrical bills. Toronto is the lowest on the list, with the exception of --

Mr. Speaker: That wasn’t the question.

Ms. Gigantes: What about your rural rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will give them to you compared to any rural customers anywhere.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question dealt with transportation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was really trying to get around to the transportation cost of kilowatts in the rural areas, which compares favourably with any other rural jurisdiction. But I won’t do that, Mr. Speaker.

As regards the question on the UTDC, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transportation and Communications was asked this question a few days ago.

Mr. S. Smith: No, he wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, he was asked a question similar to it. He was asked about an

article that appeared in the Toronto Star. I think that is the

article you are referring to.

Mr. S. Smith: That is totally different.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, all right, so it is totally different. I sense a similarity because I was here when the question was asked. If the Leader of the Opposition says it was totally different, I will accept his view that it is totally different. Now I may proceed to answer the question on the assumption that I think there is a great similarity.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications indicated that the UTDC experiment in Kingston had been singularly successful. My recollection is there was an interjection from the member, one behind the Leader of the Opposition, when the Minister of Transportation and Communications reminded him just how effusive he was in his compliments to UTDC when he was visiting Kingston. That is my recollection of the discussion.

It is the expectation that this possible service in Hamilton and/or perhaps in the city of Toronto, would be the kind of experiment that would make it possible for people from other jurisdictions to view this in an operating situation. I would also report to the members of the House, dealing with the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, that the minister raised this with the Japanese officials. They are quite interested and some extensive discussions are going on at this moment between them and UTDC regarding the licensing arrangements in Japan.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I take it then that more provincial dollars will be put into this. I ask the Premier, is he aware of the fact that when the program was announced in April 1975, it was clearly stated that the last two phases, which are the ones he’s talking about now, “are expected to be undertaken by the private sector,” and that’s a quote from the introductory document at the time? Now the Premier says we are dependent upon federal money if this is to carry on.

The federal government was never asked to make any commitment when this was started, when this was undertaken, when $61 million were invested. Why doesn’t the Premier admit right now that he’s looking to be bailed out by the federal government, in this instance, in order to make this $61 million waste of money possibly pay off, and to take it off his hands because it is a notorious failure?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition always likes to look at the negative side of just about everything in life. I don’t expect him to be any different on this particular issue although I find it totally inconsistent with his speeches about research and development, more Canadian participation and all of the rest of it. His point of view on this is just totally contrary to those things he says on other occasions, as is the case on so many issues.

I would make it quite clear that the initial documents indicated the manufacturing part of this facility will be done by the private sector, and this will still be the case if it does proceed. We do not intend to get into the fabrication of vehicles. We do not intend to get into the manufacturing of the command and control systems or the linear induction motors.

The manufacturing will be done by the private sector, but quite obviously, the public sector has to be involved because it is the public sector that will be the purchaser.

Mr. Cunningham: I would like to ask the Premier if he is in a position to report to the House about the prospective customers, say, in North America alone, to which the UTDC might sell their wares. Are we successful at this point in any contracts? What is going on? Is there any status report? Are we selling anything?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate for the Minister of Transportation and Communications to answer that question. I will give my own guess. There have been representatives from a number of communities who have been to the Kingston site, to look at the hardware, to look at how the system functions.

I happen to know there is a great deal of interest, not only in the United States, but elsewhere. My guess is, if there is an interest in Japan it will not be in the export of hardware.

Quite obviously, it would be done by way of a licensing agreement and the fabrication of the vehicles would be done, as is the case in so many other situations, in the jurisdiction where the system is being purchased. But even if it is only the export of the technology or by way of licensing, this, in turn, will repay certain dividends to the people of this province. I would think, as is not now the attitude of the members opposite, they really should be somewhat excited and interested in the potential of this experiment.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Can the Premier tell us who, specifically, in any elected office in Metropolitan Toronto has actually shown an interest in this system? Or is Metropolitan Toronto going to be persuaded, for the interests of the government, to go along with the system or to buy a system in which all elected representatives I have talked to have said they are not interested?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think there has been any formal discussion. There have been informal discussions I know with some members of the TTC. They are aware of it. They know the possible location of this, but we are not moving ahead with it until we get some answer from Ottawa as to whether they will share in this or not. The community that has expressed an interest and a fairly committed interest -- in fact, it has gone a fair piece down the road -- is the city of Hamilton.

PQ WHITE PAPER

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs arising out of his statement today on the question of sovereignty-association. I would welcome the fact that the minister took a rather softer tone than the Premier’s because he is undoubtedly aware of the very negative reaction in Quebec to the original statement three weeks ago.

Could the minister say what new proposals the government intends to make that may be attractive to Quebeckers in the current constitutional debate and thereby aid the chance they will vote for federalism in the referendum when it comes up in the new year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think this statement outlines about 12 of the positions we have taken. Some of them have nearly reached fruition in the continuing committee of ministers; others are still in the discussion stages. The itemizing of them here is meant to show to the people of Quebec we do believe in a renewed federalism and that there are within these 12 items, and certainly others we are willing to look at, the opportunity to renew the constitution.

They are spelled out here. As I say here, the next step is probably to find out what position is put forward by the committee that will be opposing a “yes” vote in the referendum. They will be putting out a statement soon. When we see what they are putting forward, we will then be able to offer some comments on those particular positions and see how they mesh with the particular position we have put here.

I should say there is no inconsistency between my statement and the statement issued by the Premier. I think the Premier in his statement indicated his initial response was to set out very clearly no negotiation of sovereignty-association and some of the dire effects of it. I think it was universally hailed across this province as a strong statement, expressing the wishes of, I would say, about 90 per cent of the people of Ontario including all parties in this House which I heard applaud it very strongly. I think that is a very significant thing.

This statement today is a follow-up in more specific terms of what we really meant. I want to stress to my friend there is no inconsistency between these two statements at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Since members of this party want to make it very clear we don’t believe either that the people of this province would ever agree to sovereignty-association as a new basis for the country, but since we also feel it’s important to talk in a civilized and positive tone with the people of Quebec, could the minister say whether the government intends to make some new proposals with relation to recognizing the linguistic and cultural community in Quebec?

Would he not agree that Ontario should be making positive proposals in that particular direction, rather than simply waiting to react to the statements, first, by the Parti Quebecois and then, subsequently, by the “no” committee in a few weeks’ time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Without getting into a long discussion on all the proposals, let me just give the member one example. We have made positive proposals. Well over a year and a half ago or perhaps even two years ago, the Premier indicated this province was in favour of a constitutional amendment to guarantee minority language rights in education. We have again emphasized that in this paper. We have stressed it at various meetings. To this date, that proposal has been, I think on all occasions, opposed by the present government of Quebec.

It has been opposed, as they opposed entrenchment as proposed by the federal government in Bill C-60, as I recall. As one example, we have very consistently and positively put forward that as something that should be in a new constitution, something which we think would benefit the people of Quebec, Ontario and all of Canada.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Is it any wonder that the province of Quebec reacted the way they did, with respect to the protection of language rights, when they see what you have done in places like Penetang?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That really is a very unfair question because I want to tell the honourable member that the ministers of education -- the council of ministers -- as part of the minority language education debate, were asked to do a survey across Canada of minority language education in all the provinces. That survey was done and presented to all the first ministers.

That report showed that in Ontario practically everyone who declared French as his mother tongue and wanted French-language education, was getting it, so much so that I recall -- and I hope I am not breaking a confidence -- the Premier of Quebec looked at it and said, “I didn’t realize this was happening in Ontario.”

We said, “We told you this, and we have told you this many times, and we have told the people of Quebec.”

“Well,” he said, “we didn’t really believe it.”

The fact is that as far as Penetang and other places are concerned, this province guarantees one’s schooling in French if it is a minority language, is one’s mother tongue, and there are 20 or more pupils in secondary school. The law in this province guarantees one will get that education.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It guarantees one will get that education. I suggest that we all recognize the concern and certainly I recognize very deeply the concern that some have for an individual building. At some times, such as in Essex, there is a need for the building; in others the need is for a viable French-language school entity. That is what the possibilities are.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us what communication, if any, his office has had with the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec in the formulation of his position? Second, can we expect a public statement once that position is announced?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have regular ongoing discussions with staff who are working to develop the positions of the umbrella group, the “vote no” group, in Quebec. As soon as their paper is presented we will be able to assess it, and then we will be able to comment on it.

It is very difficult to comment on something when you don’t know what the details of it will be, but I must say they have shown great interest in both reports of the Ontario advisory committee; they found those reports were very helpful. I think the publication of what comes out of Quebec is going to be very helpful, but we must wait for it and then we will comment on it.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary: Since the government is keeping itself in contact with the work done by the committees on both sides in Quebec, and since some members over here are doing the same thing as well, would the government not now commit itself to agree to the proposals that have come from the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick)? Would the government agree that before Christmas this House will establish a small select committee which will inquire publicly into the questions around the future of the country, and the constitutional proposals now on the table, so that we can bring the public into our confidence in this discussion in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think we debated this during private members’ hour at one point, and I think the pros and cons have been put forward on this. I think we have to have a debate in this House, but it seemed to be the agreement that, because the referendum is now going to be held in June, the time for that debate will probably be early in the new session.

I want to reiterate that the facilities that were available before to all of us are still available. Certainly the staff of my ministry and any of the advisory committee, or anyone else, is available to help any caucus group which wishes to study and have available any of the papers that are available on the constitution, the Quebec white paper, or the referendum. Everything is available, and they will be glad to help the honourable members in carrying out their own studies over the next couple of months.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. In view of the commitment which was reiterated by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) last week that the Niagara Escarpment is a unique area and that we should have no fear, the area will be preserved, can the Premier explain why no money has been spent by the government this year to acquire land in the escarpment area? Could he say how the escarpment commission can continue to refuse development permits if it has no funds to acquire lands which are of high priority?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My memory, once again, is subject to correction, but I think a question similar to that was asked last Thursday or Friday. I think the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development gave -- if not the honourable member, some member of his caucus -- an answer to that particular question. If the member will review Hansard he will find it there.

However, I will ask the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) to give the members of the House a bit of an update on the numbers of acres acquired, et cetera. I think it should also be pointed out to the leader of the New Democratic Party that to a certain extent purchases relate to the commission’s final report. That report is now final, except that it is subject to the hearings going on.

I can only repeat what the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development said; we intend to move ahead with certain property acquisitions. I think it is also fair to state that we have various priorities in front of us when we have to find moneys to allocate for the new hospital the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is announcing in Mississauga and the potential of an addition to the Peel Memorial Hospital in Brampton -- all of those other things that the honourable member likes to talk about, depending on just which subject interests him on a particular day.

Our task over here is to sort out the priorities and I think it’s fair to state that we cannot afford to do all of these things at the same time.

I’m delighted to see the leader of the New Democratic Party has broadened his vision, even modestly, from the provision of medical services to the acquisition of land in the escarpment commission area.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Niagara Escarpment Commission states in its plan proposals that action is needed on priority areas in Tobermory by the time that the official plan or review process or the hearings have been completed; and since there’s now an application by Angus Ralph pending before the escarpment commission to start building a marina in the south end of Russel Island near Tobermory -- in the number one priority area for acquisition as laid out by the escarpment commission -- will the Premier undertake that the funds be provided for that acquisition this year rather than putting the commission into a position where it has no choice but to agree to that development?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the commission does have a choice. The leader of the New Democratic Party may not understand that, but the commission does have a choice. I think what the commission is saying is that they feel it is unfair -- and I happen to agree with this -- to say to the owner of a parcel of land that could be used for the public domain that we can’t buy it yet, but we won’t issue a permit. This is where it is always very difficult to reconcile the public interest with the private interest.

I would say, once again, to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we do not have sufficient capital moneys to do all of the things that are essential. I cannot give a commitment there will be moneys for this particular acquisition, except to say, as the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development said to him on either Thursday or Friday in answer to a similar question, “There will be capital funds in 1980-81.” Exactly where they will be spent in the commission area, I can’t tell the honourable member.

I want to reiterate, though, to that very distinguished member, that I’m delighted to hear him talk about land acquisition. We intend to build a few hospitals. When we allocate money for hospitals I don’t want him coming back here saying we should have spent it in the Niagara Escarpment Commission area.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary: Bearing in mind that only $12,000 was spent on land acquisition in the escarpment last year and that not a nickel has been spent this year; and bearing in mind that at that rate it would take about 35,000 years for the commission to acquire the land that has been recommended in this plan; would the Premier not agree that the lack of funds for the commission threatens the escarpment plan, either because priority areas will be lost to development, or because public support of the plan will be irretrievably undermined because of the impact on land owners who can neither develop their land nor sell priority-area land to the commission?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, I am delighted today: the leader of the New Democratic Party actually recognizes there are certain individual rights in land. I find that a refreshing change.

I am informed there is actually in this year’s budget $1 million allocated for purchases within the escarpment area. My guess is some of that will be spent before the end of the fiscal year. I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party we will not be waiting the number of years he suggests. He won’t be around to make that determination and neither shall I.

I would just reiterate, when his party keeps pressing us for the expenditure of public funds for land acquisition in the Niagara Escarpment initiated by this government we will do a fair amount. But we cannot do that and all of the other things those members mention to us seven days a week. I just hope the next time they are talking to a health group they will remind them they have been pressing us to spend money on land in the escarpment area at the same time as they are trying to tell them they are not getting enough for their hospitals.

Mr. Cassidy: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Which one of your privileges is being abrogated?

Mr. Cassidy: My privilege to have correct information from the government, Mr. Speaker. Only $36,000 was allocated for land acquisition in the estimates for the Ministry of Natural Resources this year.

GROUP HOME FUNDING

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services in regard to the Haldimand Association for the Mentally Retarded, which is trying to provide a group home in the town of Dunnville for mentally retarded adults.

In view of the fact the association has a piece of property that is properly zoned and was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in July 1979, and in view of the fact that the ministry indicated funding would be available in 1978, will the minister now give consideration to providing funding to that group home in Haldimand?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it would be more correct to say the society has two properties, both of which are properly zoned, on one of which there is presently a residence which would, I believe, be zoned for occupancy by up to five adults. On the other there is no structure at the present time, but it is zoned such that it could be, if transferred into the association’s ownership, a site for building a group home.

I have indicated to the members of that association and also, I believe, to the municipal representatives with whom I met a couple of weeks ago, together with the honourable member, that I would welcome a proposal from the association for the mentally retarded with respect to the second piece of property. If they wish to make such a proposal, the procedure for doing that involves going to the district working group. I have indicated to them there would not be money in our budget this year, but if they were to proceed immediately through the district working group we would be able to consider their application in establishing the priorities for next year’s expenditures.

In the meantime, I recognize they do have a property which is appropriately zoned now for five adults and there is nothing I could do to change their intention one way or the other with respect to whether they would proceed with that. I understand they have no legal restrictions upon their proceeding with that one immediately.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister is aware that plans are going ahead for the home despite objections from the town of Dunnville and the region? I think the community would work more close together if funding was made available. Does the minister not agree?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet.

In view of the fact that employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services have been requesting a separate bargaining unit category for at least five years, a request backed by Judge Shapiro in the Royal Commission on the Toronto Jail and Custodial Services, can the minister consider a very positive and much appreciated move to improve the labour relations climate by permitting the establishment of a separate bargaining category for these employees?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, we have had representation from the union over the years to have a separate category for correctional officers. This has been resisted. The main reason we have resisted it is that over that period of time we have had other requests to set up categories for what might have been smaller groups. We feel there would be a proliferation of the bargaining system if we set up a group for everyone who asked for it.

Judge Shapiro, in his remarks to the royal commission on the Toronto jail, did mention this subject. He did say in his report they should be granted a separate category, if that’s what is necessary to set up a different pay scale for them. We don’t feel it’s necessary to have a separate group in order to have a separate pay scale. In fact, in some small way we have recognized that in previous settlements.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: given the total agreement with the workers involved, the lack of any real affinity between the hospital workers and the correctional workers in that unit and the fact that a separation does exist in many other jurisdictions, does the minister not understand the depth of feeling of those involved and the merit of the request to defuse a touchy situation? If he does understand that -- and I think the minister may -- is this ministry and this government deliberately inviting a strike by these public service workers?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The honourable member knows full well we’re not inviting any illegal strike whatsoever. I think I’ve given him the reasons. There are many groups within the civil service which could ask for special recognition for a special group. We did agree to eight categories some three years ago. It has worked well.

The main thrust seems to be that there is not parity with either Ontario Provincial Police officers or federal corrections people. We recognize that. We are prepared to consider that in our negotiations this year. We feel the major request for the union can be addressed in the negotiations.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, within the bargaining unit there are some 9,000 individuals and when they go to the bargaining table, or even before they go to the bargaining table, they feel their views are submerged in the total process. Considering the fact this involves about 3,000 people, not 400 or 500, would the minister not consider it would be wise to change the decision of the cabinet? I detected in the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) a little softening of attitude in this regarding an earlier question.

I was wondering whether his counsel would be heeded in this regard and if he would change that circumstance and avoid what is going to be a pretty catastrophic situation in the province if they do decide to go on strike.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member fails to realize there are a lot of other groups with large segments to them. One in particular, for instance, would be the nurses who are in a category of 4,000 and they make up half the category. We have all kinds of those groups within the civil service. We’re trying to stick to the eight categories. That doesn’t stop us from recognizing special interests within that group.

JUNIOR HOCKEY COMMITMENT

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Leader of the Opposition raised questions about Canada’s representation in the forthcoming world junior ice hockey championships in Finland.

The commitment to participate in those championships is made by the national body f r hockey, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. A request for funding was submitted by that organization to the federal government agency responsible for sport -- namely, Sport Canada. Sport Canada declined to provide the funding.

Canada’s representative in the forthcoming junior world championship is the Peterborough Petes Hockey Club. The Petes roster will be supplemented by eight additional players from other Ontario teams. In Finland, however, the Petes will play as a Canadian team, not as an Ontario team nor as a Peterborough team.

Some people, no doubt, will argue that since Loto Canada has been transferred to the provinces Ontario has both the obligation and the dollars to pay for international representation in sport. No such proposals for such a realignment have been made nor, as far as I know, is one being contemplated.

Let me point out, however, that the federal-provincial agreement on Loto Canada calls for the return of $24 million a year to the federal government, half of which I understand, will go to sports.

I’ve been advised the Peterborough hockey organization is highly committed to attending these championships. Therefore, the possibility of Canada being relegated to the second division in international junior hockey for failing to field a team is not present.

Many honourable members will be aware that the matter of whether Hockey Canada or the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association represents Canadian interests in international hockey is not at all clear. The controversy over the funding for these championships is probably more a product of the conflicts and the squabbling among these two organizations and the federal government than it is a matter of the availability of funds.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: In view of the fact the morning news seemed to imply the matter was being settled -- and, perhaps, as we stand here now it has been settled, I don’t know -- could the minister, at the very least, get hold of his federal counterpart and make darned certain that in one way or another that group of Ontario boys gets over to Finland to represent this country and not make Canada the laughing-stock of international hockey dealings? Whoever may be at fault in the matter, let the government offer them money if it has to but in one way or another would the minister please get together with his kissing cousins in Ottawa and make sure we get a team there?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I’d hate to think of Mr. Paproski as a kissing cousin. I would like to assure the Leader of the Opposition however, that I did have a long talk with Mr. Paproski on Saturday. I’ve been in touch with some people in Peterborough and in all likelihood the matter will be resolved and Canada will be represented by the team from Peterborough, augmented by others, and I do hope we’ll win the championship.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Peterborough Petes. I think Ontario should have representation. I’ve been in hockey quite a few years myself.

Mr. Speaker: Would any other member like to give his support?

DREE AGREEMENT

Mr. Eakins: My question is of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. Some weeks ago he mentioned an agreement was imminent within a few days between the federal and provincial governments in regard to DREE funding. Could he bring us up to date as to whether that agreement is near completion? Will he soon have some information for the people in the Muskoka, Victoria-Haliburton and Peterborough areas?

A recent letter from him implied that did not prevent a second or northern agreement including those areas. He simply said the eastern Ontario agreement would not.

[3:15]

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: In view of the fact that agreements have recently been signed with British Columbia and Alberta for $50 million and Manitoba and Quebec why is it so difficult for Ontario to get an agreement with the federal people? Does the minister not have the power and the clout with them that he thought he had?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that progress has been made through the bureaucratic hurdles the present government has inherited from the previous one.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. Samis: Since the Penetang question is no longer merely a regional or provincial question, but a symbolic issue; and since Premier Levesque has used the Penetang situation to attack the Premier’s position in the original white paper, doesn’t the Premier think it would be

an act of goodwill, a demonstration of Ontario’s interest in preserving national unity and a positive contribution to the upcoming referendum if his government were to resolve the matter once and for all by granting the Franco-Ontarians the type of school they are asking for, the type of school they deserve, realizing it is more than a question of just bricks and mortar?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what extent Mr. Levesque has used that particular situation --

Mr. Samis: In the National Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I stayed so the honourable member could ask the question. He very politely sent me a note. I am staying to answer it, so would the honourable member please let me answer without interruption The member put in a fair amount of editorial comment. He didn’t ask a straight question. I think I am permitted to give a little editorial comment in reply. Is that not fair? Just so we play by the same ground rules.

Mr. Speaker: Get back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is fair to state, going back historically, that the position of the government of Quebec has been they really have no concern and they don’t think it is appropriate for them to comment on what policies exist in the field of education outside Quebec. If Mr. Levesque at this moment is trying to exploit the Penetanguishene situation, then it is totally inconsistent with the point of view his government has taken on the question of educational language rights to date in this discussion.

I raised it with him, with respect to the policy in Quebec. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) stated -- and he was quite right and he was not betraying any confidences -- I was at the same meeting where the Premier of Quebec was surprised when he discovered that of the 5.6 per cent of the youngsters in this province who declare French as their mother tongue, 5.4 per cent are getting their education in the French language.

When one looks at Penetang, Mr. Speaker, you have to recognize there is another issue as well; that is the position of the Simcoe county board; the feelings of the people in Penetanguishene. A large number of the francophones in Penetanguishene did not want to have a separate school entity, separate and apart from the existing facility. I think it is important for the Premier of Quebec, if he understands what the debate is about, that he understands we are not debating the provision of French-language education.

We are faced with a situation where we have a relatively new school plant. I was there on one occasion to assist in its opening. We have a declining enrolment. The number of youngsters in Penetanguishene -- a tiny township which happened to funnel their youngsters into the Penetang high school -- is diminishing. We have a situation where within four to five years, if there was a new separate individual school, there would be perhaps a 50 to 60 per cent attendance and there would be citizens in that community saying, “What are you doing with the other 50 per cent of a relatively new high school facility?”

There would be the problem of the combination of courses that are available. The proposal from the ministry is that they can have a principal whose language obviously would be French and a totally French-language program in the same physical plant.

When one gets right down to it, Mr. Speaker -- and this is something perhaps the member for Cornwall doesn’t understand -- one is talking about the ambience, one is talking about the milieu, if that is the terminology, one is also talking in terms of that community of probably a 40- to 50-minute period in the school day, which would be the lunch period when the youngsters wouldn’t be part of that French-language milieu.

I’ve got news for the member. I know that community fairly well. They will go to the same pop stands after school and to the same social areas where young people congregate. There is less than unanimity on the matter. It is quite different from some other communities. A very substantial number of the francophones in Penetanguishene did not see the need for, nor do they support a separate school facility.

The combination makes sense. I think it would be unwise of the Premier of Quebec, to comment without understanding the realities of the situation, without understanding the practical implications and without his acknowledging that our legislation in terms of its impact on francophone youngsters in this province is far more positive than their legislation in Quebec.

We don’t ask anyone in Penetanguishene who wants to take a course in the French language: “Where were you born? What generation are you?” The member won’t find that to be the case under the law in Quebec.

Mr. Samis: Since the so-called solution proposed by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has been rejected by every francophone and French-Canadian group in Canada and since the positive action committee is so upset by the decision that the president, Alex K. Paterson, and Storrs McCaul felt it necessary to issue a public letter to La Presse last Friday asking this government to change its position on Penetanguishene, could I ask the Premier what role he intends to play in the upcoming referendum debate and how he intends to be accepted with credibility by the French-speaking, non-separatist people of Quebec if his government can’t resolve this problem in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it fair to state we will not always be able to solve every problem in this province. If the member for Cornwall is suggesting the point of view as expressed by this --

Mr. Warner: You should be solving problems that the Minister of Education creates.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is a subject the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere does not understand Why doesn’t he let me debate it with his colleagues?

Mr. Warner: I understand it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is wasting time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is fair to state, when it comes to the question of education, this province can take a position relative to the separatist forces in Quebec whereby our legislation will stand the light of day. The member can shake his head as much as he wants. If he compares their legislation to our legislation, he will see what we have accomplished here. I don’t care what somebody has written by way of a letter.

I happen to know the situation in Penetanguishene fairly well. The youngsters came up to my cottage. They drove up in a relatively new Grew boat made in Penetanguishene. They were a great group of young people. Three of the leaders of the group happened to come from other than Penetanguishene. I have to tell the member that part of my responsibility certainly is this province’s general perception in Quebec, but I would say with respect that they understand the actual facts in Penetanguishene when they understand we are committed to the provision of French-language education. We are prepared to entrench it or enshrine it in the constitution, which the Parti Quebecois is not prepared to do.

I just ask the member to make an objective evaluation if he can; sort himself out from his political philosophy which he is attempting to exploit on this particular issue.

COPIES OF STATEMENTS

Mr. McCaffrey: I will be brief about this. Being one who complained about this matter in the past on two occasions, I want to thank publicly the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for having the courtesy to provide all members with a copy of the statement on the PQ white paper.

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would have liked the Minister of the Environment to be here as well because it is a related question.

Is the minister aware of the International Joint Commission Science Advisory Board public seminar held on November 7, 1979, here in Toronto entitled Research in Universities in the United States and Canada Committed to Cleaning up the Great Lakes? Is she aware also that in the United States in the Great Lakes basin some $14 million was given to colleges and universities for this kind of research and that on our side, particularly in Ontario and those colleges close to the Great Lakes basin, the commitment was some $150,000?

The question I would like to raise is, was there anyone from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities at this seminar? Or maybe she could ask the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) if there was any attendance there from his ministry to bring themselves up to date on research in universities as it relates to the cleaning up of the Great Lakes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware such a program was held in Toronto. It was my understanding there were representatives there from the Ministry of the Environment. I understand there were also some staff members of one or two universities in this area who attended that conference. But I would remind the honourable member the funding of universities in Ontario is quite different from the funding of any portion of university activity in the United States. Indeed, instead of $14 million, the universities of this province last year were provided with $789 million by Ontario.

A significant portion of that is to encompass the role of the universities in their research capacity on behalf of the community and the province in which they exist. We do not direct funds specifically to universities within this province except on contractual arrangements with certain ministries. They carry out basic research on the basis of the funding which is provided to them by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: We happen to be situated in that part of the Great Lakes basin where there seems to be a great deal of polluting of the environment -- witness that one can eat the fish that’s caught in Lake Erie, but not the fish that’s caught in Lake Ontario. Something is happening at Niagara. I wonder if there shouldn’t be a commitment in our universities because of this grave problem as it relates to the cleaning up of the Great Lakes? Would it be beyond the minister’s jurisdiction to get them to upgrade their research capability in helping clean up the Great Lakes?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure those researchers in biology -- specifically in the water biology area -- have as grave a concern as the honourable member does in terms of this activity and many of them are carrying out research. That research is supported through the funding provided by this government to the universities in this province.

In addition, I am aware there are contracts which are let by the ministries of Natural Resources and the Environment to specific researchers for specific purposes. I am sure that commitment will be carried out this year because I know the university community is as concerned about the quality of the water on the Great Lakes as is the provincial government.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Attorney General: In view of the major disruptions that resulted from the train accident in Mississauga and the collision involving a tanker truck carrying sulphuric acid near Serpent River over the weekend, and following on the statements made by the minister and his colleagues the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) in this House, can the minister inform us who is the owner or person in control of the radioactive waste sulphuric acid which is being trucked from Eldorado in Port Hope to Rio Algom in Elliot Lake?

Can the minister assure the House that the provincial government and all municipalities between Port Hope and Elliot Lake are notified of the route, amount and nature of cargo, and departure and arrival times of each shipment of this nuclear waste by the firm responsible?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ll certainly be happy to discuss this question with the Minister of the Environment and with the Minister of Transportation and Communications. They have I think the fundamental responsibility regarding the honourable member’s concerns. I will convey his concerns to both of my colleagues in that respect.

Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

DEATH OF HENRY JACKMAN

Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, just before the orders of the day, I wish to pay tribute to a most distinguished Canadian, Henry Rutherford Jackman, QC. Mr. Jackman died last Thursday and was taken to his final resting place from Metropolitan United Church at noon today.

[3:30]

A lifelong citizen of this province, Harry Jackman, as he was known to his friends, gave tirelessly of himself to his church, his community, to the arts and to government. His philanthropies were legion.

One gift which drew wide attention and acclaim was his acquisition in 1969 of an equestrian statue of King Edward VII from the government of India. At considerable personal expense, he arranged to have the five-ton statue transported from India to Toronto, where he presented it to the province of Ontario. It now stands overlooking the north façade of the Parliament Building as an historic reminder that it was Edward VII, as Prince of Wales, who, when in Toronto in 1860, dedicated Queen’s Park to his mother, Queen Victoria.

Mr. Jackman also presented a bronze statue of Winston Churchill to the city of Toronto and this statue can be seen in Nathan Phillips Square.

At the time of his death he was finalizing arrangements to erect a sculptural tribute to the Canadian airmen of both World Wars. This undertaking was inspired by Air Marshal Billy Bishop, Canada’s greatest air ace in the First World War. Mr. Jackman believed in the recognition of heroes as an important example for young Canadians.

Born on November 5, 1900, in a house on Tranby Avenue in Toronto’s old Yorkville area, Mr. Jackman was the only son of Henry B. and Sarah Anne Rutherford Jackman. Such Toronto streets as Jackman Avenue, Bowden and Playter Boulevard are named for members of his family. His early education was received at Huron Street and Rosedale Public Schools and the University of Toronto Schools. At the age of 17 his education was interrupted for a year when he joined the Royal Air Force. He was a pilot in training at the conclusion of the First World War.

Mr. Jackman continued his education at the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School and, later, Harvard Business School. He was called to the bar in 1924. Commencing his business career in Toronto with Dominion Securities he moved to Traders Finance. As his financial interests broadened, he acquired an interest in a number of financial corporations. Because of his wise perception of business and people and his boundless energy, he was invited to sit with numerous boards and advisory bodies during his lifetime.

In addition to being an honorary director of the Bank of Nova Scotia, at the time of his death Mr. Jackman was president of the Dominion and Anglo Investment Corporation Limited; director of the Economic Investment Trust Limited; honorary chairman of the Empire Life Insurance Company; past-chairman of Burns Food Limited; past-president of the Debenture and Securities Corporation of Canada; and honorary director of the Canadian International Investment Trust Limited, E-L Financial Corporation, the Casualty Company of Canada Limited and of the Harvard University Association in Canada. There were a number of other corporations with which he had been associated over the years.

Mr. Jackman believed in public service and gave it. President of the Rosedale Riding Conservative Association from 1936 to 1938, he was elected member of Parliament for Rosedale in 1940, retiring in 1949. He was a founder and life member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and a member of the national executive committee of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. He was an officer of the Order of Canada, an honour bestowed in recognition of his public service. He was a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem.

As well, he was a trustee and past president of the Art Gallery of Ontario, a director of the Mendelssohn Choir and had served as chairman of the national finance committee for the Canadian Red Cross.

Internationally, he was a benefactor to certain organizations in the United States and Great Britain. For instance, he established a chair in church history for St. Andrew’s University in St. Andrew’s, Scotland, and assisted with the restoration of Grey Friars Abbey at Canterbury Cathedral.

Mr. Jackman had a lifelong interest in agriculture and owned a beef farm complex near Nobleton. He was among the first to import Charolais stock from France during the 1960s, expending considerable time and energy on herd improvement.

Within the confines of his own family, Harry Jackman has been heard to remark that many men can make fortunes, but few give them away. Mr. Jackman gave away several fortunes in his lifetime to charities and worthy causes too numerous to count. Latterly, he established the Jackman Foundation as a further means of assisting charitable organizations.

When Metropolitan United Church suffered a disastrous fire in January of 1928, Mr. Jackman gave strong leadership in raising the necessary funding for its restoration and endowment. He continued to work for that church and for the United Church of Canada until his death.

I have given a very brief outline of the life and works of a man who has been an outstanding citizen of Ontario. For all his success, Harry Jackman retained a personal modesty. His good deeds were his personal demonstration of his beliefs.

I believe members of this Legislature will wish to join with me in extending to Mrs. Jackman and members of her family our deepest sympathy at their loss.

ANSWERS TO OUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 277 to 280, 309, 351, 353, and interim answers to questions 350 and 352 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Mr. Chairman: As is the custom, there are usually leadoff statements. Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Conway: Where have you been the last 10 days?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been in hospital.

Mr. Peterson: Do you want to adjourn right now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Why don’t you just avoid my statement by passing my estimates and let me go back?

I would like to open by making a statement, if I may, before we begin the detailed discussion of my estimates. This is the second time I have had the honour to be presenting Treasury’s estimates. I also understand that later we will be considering the supplementary estimates for the Employment Development Fund.

As you know, the activities of this ministry touch upon a great many areas. However. I will confine these introductory remarks to a few highlights of the province’s economic and fiscal policies. In particular, I would like to review the progress we have made in implementing some of the major parts of the 1979 budget and briefly discuss the current economic climate.

The main thrust of the 1979 budget was to create jobs in the private sector. We undertook a number of specific actions designed to accomplish this, including the elimination of succession duties, new and extended sales tax exemptions for the hospitality industry and modification of the mining and capital taxes.

We also undertook two major initiatives. These were the creation of the Employment Development Fund and the small business development corporations legislation. The Employment Development Fund was established to make sure that Ontario received its fair share of the new investment for which other jurisdictions outside Canada are so aggressively competing. The fund has now been in operation for some months and based on our experience to date I am satisfied we are on the right track in creating this new program.

As you know, the fund is administered by the employment development board, which is chaired by myself. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) is the vice-chairman, and the other member of the board is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle). The bulk of the staff work is done within the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, with the exception of applications from the food-processing industry which are handled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food before they are considered by the board.

There are really two parts to the fund. One relates the pulp and paper industry and the other relates primarily to manufacturing. With respect to pulp and paper, we are now heavily immersed in the process of negotiating agreements which will affect virtually all of the mills in Ontario. The agreements will result in major investments in both modernization and pollution control systems. I should emphasize that in all cases the lion’s share of investment will be made by the corporations themselves.

We are also involved in discussions with the federal government, which has agreed in principle to pick up about one third of the government’s share of these investments.

Overall, Mr. Chairman, I expect that our contribution -- which we still estimate to be some $100 million -- will generate investment worth over $1 billion. This will provide lasting employment for thousands of workers and ensure continuing prosperity for many communities.

With respect to the manufacturing side, the board has reviewed a very large number of cases and has approved over 30 proposals. We examine applications from the point of view of a number of criteria, including job creation, potential for export development and import replacement, the creation of new technology and the stimulation of key industries and regions.

We also give preference to Canadian-owned companies. Where they are not 100 per cent Canadian owned, we look for a number of things before accepting an application, including a strong Canadian research and development commitment; an independent purchasing policy and global export mandate; independent Canadian management; and a commitment for reinvestment in Ontario. Naturally these criteria, where relevant, apply to Canadian-owned companies as well.

Another and obviously the most important consideration is whether or not the project would proceed without incentives provided through the Employment Development Fund. I’m confident that we’ve created an effective, hard-nosed operation which is making a genuine contribution to the economic future of our province. As many applicants who have been turned down can testify, this is not an easy giveaway program.

Mr. Chairman, the members may wish to go into further detail on the operation of the EDF and I look forward to receiving their comments and suggestions.

I would like to turn briefly to the small business development or corporations legislation. You are aware that the grants paid under this program will come under the supplementary estimates for the employment development program. I’m sure most of you know the basic provisions of the SBDC legislation but let me refresh your memory as to how it all works.

The act provides for registration with the Ministry of Revenue of small business development corporations. Individual investors in an SBDC receive a grant equal to 30 per cent of the initial investment. Corporate investors receive a credit against their Ontario corporation income tax.

The SBDC, in turn, is empowered to invest in eligible small businesses. These small businesses must be Canadian controlled, with no more than 100 full-time employees and with 75 per cent of the salaries and wages paid in Ontario. They must be primarily involved in manufacturing and processing, tourism or mineral exploration and development. They must also operate at arm’s length from the SBDC.

The response so far to this new SBDC program has been encouraging. To date, 18 SBDCs have been registered with the Ministry of Revenue. Most of them are still in the very early stages of operation and have not issued share capital. Therefore, it’s still too early to assess the results of the program.

When the act was debated in this chamber I indicated that path-breaking legislation such as this requires a degree of flexibility. At the beginning it is impossible to foresee every circumstance or to predict accurately the response of the private sector. I therefore indicated, and would reiterate, that as we gain experience with this program we will consider modifications. I’m sure that the members of this committee will have some constructive suggestions and I look forward to hearing them.

I’ve been talking about some of the specifics of the 1979 budget. I would like to review briefly how the overall budget is progressing as we move well into the second half of the fiscal year.

As the members will know from the last publication of Ontario Finances, we have been experiencing more buoyant revenue than I had originally projected. This has been caused mainly by higher than anticipated retail sales and corporate profits. However, to some degree these revenue collections lag behind current economic performance and I look to the second half of the year with, at best, guarded optimism.

[3:45]

When we examine our spending growth rate this year it is interesting to reflect upon the outstanding success of the government’s restraint program.

In 1974-75, Ontario was coping with the rate of expanding growth of over 24 per cent. We were only one of many jurisdictions faced with this problem. For example, federal government spending at the time was growing at an annual rate of about 28 per cent.

Ontario was unique in one respect. We acted faster and more effectively than other governments to deal with the problem. By 1978-79 our total rate of spending growth had been reduced to 6.4 per cent and that is a very significant accomplishment.

In the current fiscal year we are projecting expenditures to grow by 8.4 per cent. That is up from last year, but it is still well below the projected growth rate in the Ontario economy. The latest forecasts for the economy run in the area of 11 per cent in current dollars.

This year’s spending growth rate reflects the creation of the Employment Development Fund. In addition, we must make provision for a disaster relief for the spring flooding in the north, the Woodstock tornado and the failure of much of the tobacco crop. The Mississauga situation could also have applications for our spending this year, but that remains to be seen.

On the other hand, we are continuing with our policy of imposing in-year spending constraints on ministries and the result of this will balance off some of the spending pressures. The progress in reducing spending growth which we have made over the past four years has allowed us to make a substantial cut in the provincial deficit level without major increases in taxes. I originally projected a deficit level of $1.153 billion for the current fiscal year. By the time the year is over, I hope to have improved upon that.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that our long-term objective must be to continue to reduce net cash requirements. However, this can only be done in a manner that is consistent with broad economic and fiscal policy objectives. It is interesting to reflect upon the substantial reduction that has already taken place. In 1975-76, the deficit represented almost 16 per cent of total spending. This year the equivalent figure will be about seven per cent.

The deficit levels over the past several years have been well within the financing capacity of the province’s non-public borrowing sources. Mr. Chairman, you may be aware the province has not done any long-term borrowing in the public markets on its own account since 1975. In fact, this year we will be eliminating some $389 million of public debt.

I would like to make one final observation on our restraint program. Ontario’s spending now accounts for 15.5 per cent of the gross provincial product, which is a significant reduction from the high of 16.4 per cent four years ago. That translates into about $1 billion in the hands of the private sector this year alone.

I would like to turn now to the economic outlook. When I brought down the budget last spring, I believed that 1979 would be a year of solid performance and events have borne that out. I mentioned earlier that so far our revenues have been buoyant, reflecting a brisk pace of economic activity in the province.

The rate of job creation in Ontario has been particularly strong. There are 170,000 more people working in Ontario today than there were a year ago. While all of this is very encouraging, Mr. Chairman, nevertheless the current high levels of domestic interest rates and the economic outlook for the United States concern me, because of the implication for Canadian exporters, particularly the auto industry. An American recession is anticipated next year as a result of world oil prices and high interest rates in the US. More OPEC price increases and further instability in world oil markets could deepen and prolong that recession.

As the members know, this is one of the main reasons why Ontario is deeply concerned about the possibility of price increases of oil and gas in Canada. We feel that price increases beyond the previously agreed levels will be difficult for our economy to sustain without suffering a severe setback.

We’ve also pointed out that if the federal government does not heed our advice and does opt for the significantly higher prices, which are really tax increases under another name, the bulk of the funds should, in the short term, be recycled back to the economy in order to cushion the impact.

On this subject, I hope I’m preaching to the converted so I need not go on. I said at the beginning of my remarks I would not try to cover all aspects of my ministry, since that would take too much of the committee’s time. At this point, I shall conclude.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the minister’s leadership in restraint I won’t be too long today either, because I’m not very happy with the whole estimates procedure, let alone the opening statements, the great diatribes that nobody really cares about; I’m more interested in having a chance to converse with the minister.

I must say at the outset I’m a mite disappointed we’re back in the House this year. I was under the impression there was generally going to be a shift from the House to committees outside the House. Frankly, I find that a far more fruitful kind of forum for discussion with the Treasurer or whatever minister is involved, particularly when one has an opportunity to chat with the senior civil servants.

I’m not sure why we ended up here this year. I asked my own House leader. He said the NDP, for some reason, wanted it back here. I’m not sure of the veracity of that, but I hope very much that next year we will end up back in committee, although I highly suspect there will be a very different set of players at that time. I assure the Treasurer that at that time I will forthrightly answer any questions he may have as the opposition critic.

I’m sad to hear the Treasurer has been in the hospital. I hope he’s feeling better. If this is too much of a trial for him, I for one would happily adjourn until he is feeling first class. Frankly, I wasn’t even aware he was away, and I don’t think anybody else was aware he was away. Maybe that is one of the problems he has as Treasurer of this province, creating a profile. It’s fun to have him here, in any event, to chat briefly about some of our concerns.

In a sense, as he rightly points out, this is his first year. He came in last year under a wee bit of a cloud. There were a lot of promises made for which this Treasurer didn’t feel totally, personally responsible; justifiably so, to some extent. That’s an old and respected tradition of his government; if in doubt or in trouble switch ministers, because it’s really pretty tough to hang the new minister with the old minister’s policies.

It will be interesting to see if he is here next year. I suspect he won’t be, at least not in the same position. The Treasurer came in last year and created his own first budget, something he feels personally committed to.

There are some good things about it; I want to tell him that at the outset. At budget time the Treasurer presented us with one of the more responsible sets of numbers I have seen in my brief tenure in this House. He was close to his targets. He didn’t have the predilection that some other Treasurers and some other ministers had to overstate figures. Certainly his second quarter review came in better than budget, and in most cases I compliment him for that.

It is most important that Treasurers in particular have the capacity not only to tell people but their own colleagues the grim realities. Maybe I shouldn’t even say this, but I for one am somewhat attracted, certainly not in all respects but somewhat attracted to at least some of the postures of the new Minister of Finance in Ottawa.

I’ve never met the man, but it seems to me -- and I hope he can sustain it, I hope he has the political clout to do it -- he is appearing to tell people the grim reality of the kinds of problems we’re facing, he’s not offering any simple panaceas. I wish he had had the political clout to get out of that silly mortgage interest deductibility program they have, even though it’s a watered-down version.

I think we are collectively coming, and I hope it’s transmitting through to the populace, to the point that we in government and I don’t have to take responsibility because I’ve always been in opposition, have been foisting a lot of irresponsible things on people and burying some of the long-term problems. I can tell you this, a price will be paid; that price is going to be paid, to a large measure, by our children, and it will be far more substantial than the price we’re paying now. That concerns me.

I’ll talk briefly about that in a moment when I talk about pensions, about some of the borrowing practices. Those are areas where your government has been particularly vulnerable to the charge of mortgaging our future, stealing from our future to maintain the pretense of at least some kind of fiscal integrity at the current time.

One of the things I don’t like about your statement, and I just saw it, is that all of your comparisons are against the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. You weren’t the Treasurer then, yet you say to yourself, “What a wonderful fellow I am because my performance is so much better than it was in 1975-76 when the figures were so much worse.”

That was an election year, and this government had one of the most cheap, bogus, irresponsible set of election promises I’ve ever seen in my life. Let’s not forget that a lot of your treasury officials were here in the same positions then as they are now, so what you’ve got is yourself running against yourself, or you running against your own government.

Mr. McKeough got blessings for all his noise about restraint. He was the businessman’s politician, and history will tell you that he was the biggest-spending Treasurer in the history of this province. If you want to run against Darcy McKeough you can run against Darcy McKeough, but don’t try to run against us or the NDP, who as irresponsible as they are probably wouldn’t have approved of some of those giant giveaways in the 1975-76 campaign.

I remember it well; I remember it because that was my first election, Mr. Chairman. We had the $100 million worth of first-time home owners’ grants in retrospect terribly administered and poorly conceived program. There were the sales tax cuts on automobiles, a high percentage of which were imported from abroad; and the across-the-board cut in sales taxes. Most people have learned, after the fact, that our system was not all that responsive to sales tax cuts because such a high percentage of our consumer goods are imported from abroad.

It was a neat election ploy. The government used it then, and now you’re trying to prove what a decent fellow you are by not doing it again and by telling us how much better your figures are. I want you to know I don’t buy that; I’m not very impressed with those kind of arguments.

I’ll say this to you. If the logic that was used at that time to stimulate the economy was correct, I can tell you there’s a lot more argument, and there has been subsequent to the 1975-76 fiscal year, for stimulation now. I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman: things are going to be very much worse in the next year than they were in 1975-76. Who knows, there may even be an election, so you may want to review your policies.

I can tell you that anyone who pretends there’s been a consistent, coherent, economic philosophy running through this government, encompassing the tenure of the Treasurer here, is sadly mistaken. This government’s economic philosophy has been to go with the present breezes, to bend with whatever seems to be the mood of the day.

The assessment of the government is that restraint is the mood of the day. Frankly, you know my position well. It’s no secret I happen to share that point of view, in general terms anyway, so I’m not squawking about that in general, although I reserve the right to squawk about it in specifics at a later time.

This is our annual review of the Treasurer. I compliment him on the relative veracity of his numbers. I think the Treasurer probably doesn’t have the problem of waking up in the middle of the night saying, “My God, I lied to the people;” because he hasn’t. He’s been fairly consistent, with a few exceptions where programs were a little ill-conceived or poorly thought out. We told him when we were debating them in the House, and I’ll tell him again today, where we thought they went wrong, but at least his numbers aren’t too far off

[4:00]

However, the Treasurer has, most conscientious I gather, almost buried himself. I don’t pretend to understand him, decent man that he is, Mr. Chairman. Certainly the Treasurer hasn’t had the profile, in the last year, of the previous Treasurer. Apart from the few numbers he produces, we have had some difficulty determining what he actually stands for in various areas. We have not had to have him deal with some of the fundamental problems that are sitting there, like property tax reform and things like that. He has hived those off and isn’t getting involved with them.

We certainly used to know from the previous Treasurer, from the three or four speeches a week that he made, all in printed form; at least there was a constant flow of junk that one could peruse if one had trouble sleeping at night, at least we knew his position on various issues. But we have trouble with this Treasurer, knowing exactly what he thinks about anything; except of course what colour a chap’s socks should be or what colour jacket to wear in public.

Mr. Laughren: That is very true, and he needs new advice in that area, too.

Mr. Peterson: I agree with you, he probably could use some advice in that area.

The question of interest rates is an interesting one. We went through an exercise in the House; various people had various and different points of view on the interest rate questions. Certainly some of my colleagues -- my colleague to my left from Huron-Middlesex, for example, who thinks very deeply what this is doing, what it has done and what it is going to do to the sector that he represents, which is the agricultural community; he has suggestions of the kind of relief that should be tendered in that particular area.

This Treasurer, Mr. Chairman, has the classic lawyer’s two-handed approach to these problems. While on this hand he listens to this bit of advice, on the other hand he listens to an equivalent number of internal economists with a different point of view, and he ends up basically down the middle doing nothing. I really have no idea what this Treasurer thinks about that question; or whether he has the clout in Ottawa or the influence or the personal friendships or whatever, to go to the Minister of Finance and say, “Look, this is what it is doing to Ontario,” and that he is either for it or against it.

My guess is Darcy McKeough would have stood up in this House and said, “Look, that is a reality, I am for it. If you don’t like it, that is your problem.”

I still have no idea what the Treasurer thinks about this. He is trying to appeal to all constituencies in this particular area. It wouldn’t hurt the Treasurer, and I pass on this advice as generously as I can, to take a stand on some of these issues and be prepared to fight it out. You can pretty well predict what the NDP is going to say. You never know exactly for sure about us, but take your chances on that one. We may have a fight with you, but as long as you are right we will support you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am always right.

Mr. Peterson: Therein lie all of the problems.

I want to mention a few things that I think the Treasurer should be doing, and these are in a general sense. I told you earlier I am not very happy about the estimates procedure. I don’t think it provides a very meaningful forum for the kind of debate that one should have.

I supported a bill by my colleague from London North about two weeks ago -- you weren’t in the House, as I recall -- suggesting that we should have a five-year fiscal plan filed in this House, very much along the lines set out by the Lambert commission from Ottawa.

I will grant you that Ottawa probably was in a worse situation than Ontario. It probably didn’t recognize some of the operating necessities that have been recognized here longer. I think it would be a worthwhile thing, a discipline, to establish a set of standards against which governments could be measured. Let us not forget that one of the most difficult things in bringing relevance to the parliamentary procedure is a set of standards against which the government performance can be judged.

The best set of standards perhaps, is the set of standards the government sets for itself, At least we can tell by looking at the deviations from its projections to see if there is reasonable explanation. The government can do that, in a sense, on its budgeting procedure once a year. It measures up at the end of the year to see what it has done. I think it would be a good thing for you, for your staff and for this province, if you were forced to file a five-year plan, which you referred outside of the House to a government committee on expenditure, where we could have a full debate about the fiscal performance of your government and the projections thereof.

One has to go into that with a certain set of assumptions. One would assume the tax system will remain basically as is. Of course it does change, certainly those numbers can be changed on an annual basis; but it would force two things, in my judgement. It would force a discipline on your government to think ahead for five years and to reflect on some of the serious questions you are going to have to face and which you have never faced up to.

You have oozed concern about such things as financing of deficits and repayment of the Canada Pension Plan and the teachers’ superannuation fund, but you have never faced up to some of those long-term program problems that are very important to the financing of this province. It would force you to think ahead about those things. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that you have thought ahead about those problems, let alone that you understand them.

The other thing it would do is generally upgrade the quality of the input from the back-benchers and the opposition members. Let’s have some full discussion, questions and answers, about some of those kinds of questions. I am talking in a sense about relating revenues and expenditures.

Frequently it is just a question of reviewing estimates. Most members come here with a particular constituency beef and say, “I wish you were spending more in this area or this other area.” We have all got more ideas on how you can spend money. That is a natural outgrowth of the kind of procedure we have in this House.

We never, except for an odd debate, sit down and seriously reflect on where the revenue is going to come from. We do not suggest how to tax more or tax more equitably. We do not have an opportunity to cross-examine the civil servants and have suggestions for them. Granted that comes up sometimes in question period. The NDP has its ideas, we have some of our ideas; but it doesn’t come up in terms of a meaningful kind of discussion.

I think if this committee functioned properly we should have an opportunity to have the Treasurer before it, to have the deputy minister, to have some of the senior economists; perhaps even have the governor of the Bank of Canada come in and give us his points of view. I think those things would be worthwhile for a province of this size, one that has grown from a budget of $3 billion or $4 billion at the beginning of the decade to $15 billion today. It is a giant organization you are running here.

The more you can discipline yourself and get your parliamentary colleagues involved, the more we will have better, more responsible, more responsive government making fewer mistakes. Also it will have more effective stewardship of the taxpayers’ dollars.

A piece of legislation I would like to see introduced, and I have introduced private legislation along this line, is a tax expenditures law. Every time you give away money by way of a tax cut, tax credit, tax deferment or whatever, you should have to file a set of objectives, showing why that is being done, what you expect back.

When Darcy McKeough was Treasurer he brought in a bill to accelerate the capital cost allowance in this province. That is federal legislation. The Liberal Party brought in an amendment forcing him to come back within a year to review that. In a sense that was a kind of tax expenditure program. We could look at what he was doing, compare it with his objectives and see whether that was a worthwhile expenditure of those funds, because a tax cut is an expenditure any way you cut it.

If you are going to cut yourself out of $100 million worth of revenue, then we should say was that worthwhile or should that money have been collected and spent in some other area; that is another area in which I would like to see the minister get himself involved.

There are a myriad other things we have suggested. For example, economic impact studies on all legislation. I still think that is worthwhile. It has the problem of binding up a government, but it forces it to think through some of these questions and to make them public. Then if it is wrong in its guesstimates that becomes public knowledge.

I assume a lot of these things are done privately now, through the staff or in cabinet; but at the same time when we see a minister bring a piece of legislation into this House saying, “I have no idea how it is going to work or whether it is a very good idea at all,” it doesn’t give us all that much faith. I am referring to the small business development corporations legislation you brought in this year. We will look at that in a moment to see whether it was worthwhile or not, I think we will have more conversation on that later.

I want to mention a few other points that I think are relevant at this time. We talked about one of these over here. It is one of which the Treasurer is probably aware. He instituted a poll at a cost of $60,000 to figure out the public’s view of his restraint programs and his government’s spending programs. It is our view the results of that should be rightfully in the public domain. He makes himself a victim of a very serious accusation that those are being used for partisan political purposes, which I have no doubt they are.

In order to go at least as far as he can to dispel that, he has an obligation as a minister who prides himself on integrity to make that kind of thing public. We are going to use every resource we can to extract that out of his hide. We think that rightfully should be in the realm of public knowledge. He is deceitful not to make it such.

I was interested in reading the Treasurer’s September 30 Ontario Finances. I take him back to the budget two years ago, and budget paper C, as I recall, on page four. The long-term projections were that if he could keep the differential between revenues and expenditures to about 2.5 per cent he would balance the budget in the fiscal year of 1983-84. He came up with that 1984 figure in response to a considerable amount of pressure when he became Treasurer.

Let’s not forget the previous Treasurer had promised to balance the budget in 1981 as part of the great Brampton charter, as part of the great campaign before the last election in 1977. He knew, and I feel very confident he knew deep down, that was totally unrealistic. Even he couldn’t have achieved that, but it seemed like a catchy kind of figure. That’s all the press cottoned on to, balance the budget in 1981.

Then, of course, the present Treasurer came in and he took a little different view of the situation. He said 1984 to everyone looking for that magic year when he was going to balance it. But in his September 30 figures there is only a differential of about 1.5 per cent. That means, if we extrapolate those out, his own figure for balancing the budget is going to turn out to be quite unrealistic and probably we are closer on current trends, to 1987, 1988 or 1989.

I would be interested when the Treasurer responds to me and if he doesn’t, I’ll ask him questions about it later, what his current view of balancing the budget is, in spite of the apparently better performance for the first six months of this year.

I think that better performance, particularly his understated revenue projection, is going to come true by the end of the year, that is the way it appears to most economists today. The only optimistic economist I know today, and he is not really an economist, is Tommy Kierans who happens to work for the Treasurer -- at least he is a principal contributor to the Tory economic policy conventions and also chairman of the Ontario Economic Council. I understand he is a man very much on the inside, or at least he used to be. He is the only optimist I know.

All it means to me is that you guys sit around and smoke the same stuff because most of the people outside -- the Conference Board in Canada, various banks, Wood Gundy or whoever we want to talk about -- are fairly pessimistic about the prospects in the short term. If I was doing the budgeting I would be doing it on that basis, very clearly. Even though I congratulate the Treasurer for the first six months, I wouldn’t suggest that’s going to carry on for the next year or so.

I probably will save my remarks on the SBDCs for later down in the estimates. From the latest figures I have, which I’m not suggesting are correct and the Treasurer may be able to bring me up to date, 14 have been registered, I believe, representing some $432,000 worth of investments.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Eighteen.

Mr. Peterson: Eighteen; he may also have the numbers for how much has been invested by the SBDCs and so-called eligible corporations, and how much has been given out by way of tax rebates.

[4:15]

I am a little concerned about that; I’ll maybe mention it now. When that was established, the Treasurer will recall, there was a great fanfare shortly after it was announced that Wayne Beach of Aurelian had established the first one.

I have no idea how many investments he has made, but I would like to know. If the minister doesn’t have it, I would ask his staff to provide for me, if they possibly could, a list of the eligible investments, who has invested in what. I assume that’s public knowledge because they are, to a large measure, public funds. I would like to examine that in the course of these estimates.

It’s interesting that when we had that major debate we were all talking about directing money into risk capital kinds of projects: new kinds of projects with high technology, creating a “nursery for entrepreneurs, a nursery for capitalists,” in this country and in this province. But then came Wayne Beach, the president of Aurelian, and he is quoted as saying that his company has been deluged with requests from people wanting us to invest in their pet projects. “We are not interested in inventions or startups.”

To a large measure, that defeats, to some extent, the stated purpose; particularly when the minister made the statement at the time of the introduction of the SBDCs that “I believe it is vitally important to make sure there’s a stream of equity capital available to new enterprise.” The minister will recall that at the time one of our fears -- and we had many fears, some less well founded than others -- was that this system would become only an alternative source of conventional capital and would not be creating new capital to go into new kinds of high risk propositions.

One would only come to a SBDC as an alternative to going to the bank, because one could get it at a lower rate even though he or the company was bankable at the bank.

I may be wrong. I have to look at the specifics before I know that. I would be grateful if the minister would look at that and assist me in getting rid of that view of the situation, because it may well be an incorrect one.

I will leave the talk of unemployment to my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). Needless to say it had a dramatic jump in the last month, something the Treasurer must be concerned about. I think it bodes poorly for the future, in spite of the fact the minister says he has created another 177,000 jobs this year. Our unemployment rate is up, particularly in the 15 to 24 year old group, to 10.5 per cent, well ahead of a year ago. I see this as a portent of things to come; I would hope the Treasurer would have something to say about that.

It looks like his so-called “leaving it to the marketplace” programs aren’t necessarily going to mop up the extra unemployment being created by a number of circumstances, albeit a lot of them external to ourselves.

There are three or four other things. It wasn’t my intention to go on for too long, but I want to talk about a couple of other things, particularly this matter of equalization, Mr. Chairman.

We have had a number of discussions in this House about the whole equalization. I think we caught the Treasurer off guard at the beginning when we suggested that the province of Ontario had an entitlement to equalization under the current formula. He ran out of the House and said, “That isn’t right. It has been removed by Bill C-26 by the federal government.” Then I guess one of his staff got to him and said, “That isn’t the case, because Bill C-26 was never passed by the federal government.”

I am not sure how much we are entitled to. It varies -- depending on whom you talk to and the current formula, and that’s oil leases included in the classical way as opposed to the new way that Bill C-26 wanted to treat them -- somewhere between $400 million and $500 million over the past three years in equalization. The question, of course, to the Treasurer or to the Premier, is why don’t you collect this?

Then they start into a moral argument: “Well, you know, the purpose of equalization is not to subsidize or to assist provinces with higher than average per capital income.” Mr. Chairman, I tell you that has nothing to do with the purpose of equalization. It is to equalize per capita provincial revenues, not per capita income. There is a profound difference; if the Treasurer doesn’t believe me, read the act. That being said, we have a positive entitlement; finally, after questioning in the House, he admitted that and said, “Gee, I think you are right.”

The next obvious question is why not collect it? His response was: “It is, sort of, not morally correct. That is not the intention of the act. We are really a kind of ‘have’ province and we are really not a ‘have not’. Gee, we don’t think we should. In any event, if we collect it, you know that 40 per cent of that -- or whatever, 40, 45, or 35, depending on how you view it -- will come out of the Ontario taxpayers’ pockets anyway, because equalization, as we all know, comes out of the federal coffers.

It is not contributed to by the provinces except indirectly through their income tax and various other forms of taxation; but it is not a transfer between provinces per se, it is a transfer by the federal government to provinces.”

So,