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

December 3, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L124 - Mon 3 Dec 1979 / Lun 3 déc 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

ORAL QUESTIONS

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

REED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

AIRCRAFT CONTRACT

OPP SERVICES

HYDRO NUCLEAR PLANT PLANS

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

RENFREW COUNTY TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

PETITION

WASTE SOLVENTS STORAGE

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, in view of the unlawful strike that has now been commenced by employees in correctional and other institutions in this province, I think it important that I review for the members the events that have led to this unlawful action and the efforts the government has made to prevent it.

The members will recall that the question of whether a separate category for salary purposes should be created has been a matter for discussion between the government and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union for some time. Recently the union indicated it would be recommending strike action to its members if government would not accede to the union’s demands. Since about November 10, the union has engaged in a concerted effort to procure a strike of the employees to achieve their objectives.

Notwithstanding the government’s opposition to the union’s proposal, and faced with the obvious concern expressed by the employees with respect to this issue, I offered, on behalf of the government, to submit the matter to final and binding arbitration by an independent third party. I made that commitment on November 28, 1979, in a meeting I had with Mr. Sean O’Flynn and some of his colleagues.

The union took a strike vote among the affected employees on November 29, and the employees voted in favour of a strike.

That same evening, I delivered to Mr. O’Flynn a letter in which I reaffirmed the commitment of the government to resolve the dispute in a peaceful, lawful manner and the commitment of the government to ensure that the law of this province would be obeyed. At the same time, I had delivered to Mr. O’Flynn an agreement, signed by myself on behalf of the government, under which the dispute would be resolved by binding arbitration, and invited the union to sign the agreement or propose modifications to it. I am tabling a copy of the letter to Mr. O’Flynn for the information of the members.

Since my discussion with Mr. O’Flynn on November 28 and his receipt of my letter dated November 29, Mr. O’Flynn has rejected my proposal for resolving the dispute, and he and the union have continued to advocate and counsel unlawful strike action.

In the face of the impending activity on the part of the union, and in view of the obvious public importance of maintaining continuous service in our correctional and other institutions, the government resolved to take every step available by law to prevent the strike, to continue to urge peaceful means of resolving the dispute, and to develop contingency plans to maintain service in the event of unlawful action.

Accordingly, on Friday, November 30, the government made application to the Supreme Court of Ontario for an injunction to restrain the union, its officers and representatives from taking action to bring about a strike, and applied to the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations tribunal for a declaration that the strike would be unlawful and for consent to prosecute the union and its officers.

On November 30, the Supreme Court of Ontario granted a temporary injunction until December 5, enjoining the union and its officers from authorizing and supporting strike action. On that date, a further application will be made to extend the injunction indefinitely.

On Saturday, December 1, the tribunal declared that the union had authorized an unlawful strike. The tribunal has fixed Wednesday, December 12 to hear the application for consent to prosecute. I am tabling for the information of the members copies of the injunction and the tribunal’s declaration.

In the meantime, I instructed my staff to meet with the union, to pursue with the union the question of seeking a peaceful disposition of the matter and of granting unlawful strike activity. My staff met with the union continuously throughout the weekend, both through a mediator appointed by the tribunal and in direct negotiations, and continued to urge them to agree to a legal method of resolving the dispute and to call off the strike. Finally, in the early hours of this morning, the union left the negotiations and the strike was commenced at approximately five o’clock this morning.

I have also instructed my staff to remain available on a 24-hour basis to meet further with the union and urge the resolution of the dispute by legitimate means and to end the strike. My colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be exploring the further legal steps that will be appropriate in order to ensure compliance with the law.

I must stress to the members of this House and to the union the government’s abhorrence at the means chosen by the representatives of the public servants of this province to achieve what they apparently perceive as an important objective. Under our system of law, no responsible organization can choose simply to hold the public up to ransom and flout the law if it suits its purpose. Otherwise, any organization could adopt similar means without fear of any sanction and could follow the system prescribed by law only when it suits its purpose.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 5, senior law officers of the crown will be asking the Supreme Court of Ontario to continue indefinitely the interim injunction granted November 30 and to expand it to cover all employees in the bargaining unit and any other persons having notice of it.

At the same time I will be asking the Supreme Court of Ontario to commit to jail certain individuals named in the interim injunction for contempt of court as a result of what appear to be flagrant breaches of that injunction since its issuance on November 30.

On December 12, the first date made available by the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal, the Civil Service Commission will be seeking the necessary consent of the tribunal to institute proceedings pursuant to

section 42 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act for breaches of sections 25 and 29 of that act by all persons named in the interim injunction and all employees in the bargaining unit in respect of whom there are reasonable and probable grounds to support such a prosecution.

The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act provides fines of up to $500 per day for any individual who contravenes the act and fines of up to $5,000 per day for the union. A strike at any time is prohibited by

section 25 of the act; similarly, counselling, authorizing or supporting a strike is prohibited by

section 29. Also, the Public Service Act provides penalties ranging from suspension without pay to dismissal, depending on the nature of the offence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. It comes from an

article that was in the Toronto Star of Saturday, December 1, 1979. The paragraph in question says, “Meanwhile, Ontario Treasurer Frank Miller says, ‘If Ontario doesn’t like Ottawa’s method of redistributing oil money, the province will declare itself a have-not province and claim $466 million.’”

Since the Treasurer has repeatedly refused our recommendation that he do precisely that, since he and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have both said it would be entirely inappropriate for Ontario to take this equalization money, why has the Treasurer now, just as he did with interest rates, taken one position in the House and another position in front of the press?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I assume the quotation being alluded to, comes from the very lengthy discussion we had Friday morning, during my estimates debates. I have not personally seen the article, but I assume that is the place it came from.

At that time, I was responding to comments from the two critics opposite. I think if one takes a good look at Hansard --

Mrs. Campbell: None on your side.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Well, in fact, on Friday that was about it.

The issue was one of what Ontario would do with oil revenues and equalization payments. I believe it was the Liberal critic who had raised the question in his opening comments in a very sensible way. I explained that the Ontario position -- if I can recall the gist of my remarks -- had consistently been to try to separate the redistribution of oil revenues from the equalization payments formula. There was no question that the price of oil influenced the amount the federal government had to pay through the equalization formula because of its very nature and construction.

However, we pointed out we had asked consistently that be discussed as a separate issue in the interest of the consumers of Canada, not just the Ontario consumers.

I said, looking forward to the future, one would have to start charting courses of action if that success wasn’t achieved. If that were the case, if there were not a redistribution of revenues, it might be necessary to try to make the equalization formula assume a totally different role in the future in Canada. I believe all this will be pretty clearly explained by reading Hansard of Friday morning. I went into it at some length.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the Treasurer clarify for the House whether he will go after the $460-million-odd that we are owed under the present formula, apart from any possible renegotiation of an equalization formula for the future, which renegotiation undoubtedly will be based partly on whether some redistribution of funds occurs? Given the fact it looks as though no massive redistribution of funds is going to occur to Ontario, why doesn’t the minister, at the very least for the first year, take the $460 million we are already owed and use it for low- and middle-income Ontario customers to cushion the blow of the higher oil prices for this coming year? Why doesn’t he do something that simple?

[2:15]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Once upon a time, I used very simple language trying to explain a complex topic -- and it was this one -- to the Leader of the Opposition. I won’t try to do it again. The issue is this: The formula commits the federal government to make payments, but the formula does not provide the federal government with revenue sources to make those payments. Under its traditional and available tax base, 43 per cent of any federal levy comes from Ontario.

We are going to keep fighting for a redistribution of the revenue taken from the consumers of this province to get it back to the consumers of this province, not to the government of this province. It is the consumers who need it. We do not want it extracted 43 per cent out of our consumers’ pockets just to profit the Treasury, much as I would like to balance my budget.

Rather than use it for the Treasury, let’s make very clear that was never the suggestion. I said to use it to cushion the blow to middle-income and lower-income consumers. I made that very plain. If he heard the question -- if he was listening instead of listening to advice from his right over there -- he would know I said he should cushion the blow for these middle-income and low-income Ontarians who would be suffering because of our failure to prevent Joe Clark from raising the price of oil. Take the equalization money. We are entitled to it. Use it to cushion the blow for low-income Ontarians.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In spite of the allusion to the advice from my right, anybody who has had to deal with me in the caucus knows it is very difficult to give me advice from any point right of me.

I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition has understood that the federal government intended to have retroactive legislation. With retroactive legislation still on the cards, there are just no odds in playing games until the decision is taken by Ottawa. Just as with any other retroactive legislation, we can go through all the red tape, all the cost of a bureaucracy, but until that decision is taken as to whether or not they are amending the bill as proposed last fall, it is academic to have this discussion.

REED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Natural Resources: Would the minister like to clarify for the House just what is the status of the memorandum of understanding with Reed Limited, as has been asked by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), by myself and by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid)?

Does the minister agree that, provided an environmental approval is given, Reed Limited and its successor, Great Lakes Forest Products Limited, have been given a licence to cut timber on the 19,000-square-mile area in question, provided, as I have said, environmental approval is given? If he doesn’t agree, would he please clarify for this House what his understanding is as opposed to his staff’s understanding?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted. I was in Thunder Bay last Wednesday and I was interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and others in connection with that memorandum of understanding. I have a copy of it here. I find I was reported there as saying the proposed sale of Reed Paper’s Dryden assets did not include that memorandum of understanding.

I also was quoted as saying, I believe, that I understood the purchaser, Great Lakes Forest Products Limited, was looking into the status of the understanding to see if it was legally part of the sale of the Reed assets to Great Lakes.

To correct that statement, I understand a Great Lakes company official has stated that one of the assets for which Great Lakes is negotiating is that memorandum of understanding.

I want to make it clear that the government has not seen the list of assets for which Great Lakes is negotiating. The subject of negotiations, after all, is a private matter, although anything to do with the memorandum of understanding, if it is acquired by Great Lakes, we will be notified about, because they would want to be sure we felt it might still be valid.

I will be happy to inform this House, when the sale has been completed, if the two parties have agreed that the memorandum be assigned to the assets acquired by Great Lakes. Let me, if I may, because it’s germane, relate to the story I saw on the front page of Saturday’s 50-cent Toronto Star -- I don’t normally get it; I get by with the Brockville Recorder and Times on Saturday at home.

Let me just make as a comment about that story that I had been in conversation with Ross Howard, under whose byline it appeared, after him trying to get me and me trying to get him for about two weeks. I would have to say it was really a story or a masterpiece of misunderstanding. What has been confused is the intent of the memorandum of understanding, which is hardly a secret agreement. It was tabled in this House on October 26, 1976, when the then Minister of Natural Resources made a statement about it.

It defines a great many things; I won’t attempt to read it all, but what I do want to say is that that memorandum of understanding does not sell or lease any tract of crown land to anybody. What it does is set out the conditions that must be met before the company -- at that time, Reed Paper -- would be issued a timber licence by the government on any part of the 19,000-square-mile area which is referred to in here as annex A.

In our opinion, that memorandum of understanding is assignable. It is assignable without the crown’s consent. The acquisition of that memorandum of understanding by Great Lakes Forest Products, if consummated, does not give it the rights to the 19,000-square-mile tract of forest. Any company legally holding that memorandum of understanding would have certain rights and obligations under the agreement. Briefly, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the company is responsible for obtaining proper environmental approval, undertaking feasibility studies and developing forest management plans according to proper and approved procedures.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for providing all the basic information regarding the tract. This includes the forest industry and forest stand operational cruise data -- which, I may say, is complete -- and the water, wildlife, recreational and other resource-based information as well. In addition, the Ministry of Natural Resources must prepare a land-use plan for the area using that information.

This land-use plan will outline the land-use decisions that will determine whether an area is to be used for recreation, for trapping, for timber harvesting or whether it is to be used at all in a resource extraction sense, if it is found to be too sensitive to withstand such an impact.

In brief, the memorandum of understanding commits the government and the company to a series of mutually agreed upon steps, in a public -- and I repeat, public -- planning process that will provide the best economic and social benefits to the area.

Interjections.

Mr. Makarchuk: Having made it crystal clear, you now wish to conclude.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am sorry there are so many honourable members who aren’t interested in this and who obviously haven’t read the memorandum of understanding. I am very surprised at the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk), an ex-newspaperman -- not dumbfounded but surprised.

The licensing of crown timber in the tract is predicated on the company deeming forest operations are feasible, on the one hand, and their following the processes outlined in the agreement.

Finally, we have not been advised by Reed Limited of any wish to terminate the agreement; nor has there been, to date, any cause for the crown to do so.

Mr. S. Smith: I take it, Mr. Speaker, you would like me to ask a brief supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I thought it was a pretty comprehensive answer.

Mr. S. Smith: It was indeed. It may not have been comprehensible but it was comprehensive.

There are two major issues in question: whether that tract of land should be developed at all; and whether it should be developed by building a new pulpwood facility, as Reed was originally thinking of doing, or simply allowing Great Lakes to cut part of that for use in its proposed new mill in Dryden.

Given that it is a possibility they might want to cut some of that forest just to supply the mill in Dryden and not build any new facility, would the minister not agree that the three matters, upon which he says the company’s plans are contingent before it could go ahead, really come down to only one -- that the plans and the feasibility study are something to be done by the company to please itself -- and that the only one the government has any approval power over is the environmental assessment?

Would the minister not agree, therefore, that the only thing standing in the way of Great Lakes being able to cut some of that timber for its Dryden mill is the environmental approval which the government has the final say over? If he does agree, what will he be doing to make sure that approval is not given?

Hon. Mr. Auld: May I read from the memorandum of understanding which perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has not read recently. On page six, clause (

b) reads: “In the event that the company satisfactorily performs all its obligations under paragraph two and four” -- which are back at the beginning, where one might expect them -- “subject to the Crown Timber Act, agrees to grant to the company a licence in respect to the tract having a period of 21 years commencing from the first day of April following the acceptance by the crown of the management and operating plans” -- that includes where the plant goes and all that sort of thing, as I am advised -- “and the feasibility report referred to in paragraph four, that will enable the company to cut a sufficient volume of conifers for processing in the manufactories referred to under paragraph three.”

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished by what the minister has to say. There clearly has been a change in government policy from the discussions this minister had with Great Lakes earlier when they asked for 5,000 square miles of the 19,000-square-mile tract to be committed to the Dryden mill and were turned down by the minister.

Can the minister not explain why it is that, over the course of the early summer, a request from Great Lakes was turned down and the minister was therefore actively negotiating for the future of the 19,000 square miles? It was at a time, on the second round, when there were active and intense negotiations over the limitation of Great Lakes’s liability for mercury pollution and there were apparently no such discussions over whether or not Great Lakes would take control of the 19,000 square miles.

Why was there such deliberate neglect of this major issue, and why has the government apparently turned a blind eye to the future of the largest single unexploited tract of forest in northwestern Ontario?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Let me repeat what I read in the House a few weeks ago, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from my letter of November 5 to the Great Lakes president and chief executive officer, Mr. Charles Carter, who had written me -- and I will read that letter, too, if the member wants -- on November 2, the Friday before, about certain things I refer to here. My letter was on the Monday before the Treasurer’s (Mr. F. S. Miller) statement. That was hand-delivered and stated:

“I have your letter of November 2 regarding your company’s plans and aspirations vis-à-vis Reed Limited. This is indeed an exciting concept which, if carried through, could add substantially to the social and economic improvement of northwestern Ontario.

“As you appreciate from our early discussions, the difference between the projected needs for the facilities mentioned” -- and I might interject here we are now talking about the Reed operations in Dryden, the existing kraft mill and the fine paper mill -- “totalling 720,000 cunits and the fibre available on presently licensed land” -- which may relate perhaps to

part 0f the question the Leader of the Opposition asked a moment ago -- “plus anticipated purchases totalling 575,000 cunits, cannot be provided except from the Reed expansion area.

“Several considerations related to the role and mandate of the Ministry of Natural Resources will have to be weighed. One of these relates to both the rights and obligations vested in the memorandum of understanding existing between Reed Limited and my ministry. Although the forest resources inventory and the operations survey have been completed, the land-use plan for the West Patricia area has not been completed and is not scheduled for completion until April 1981. It is on the basis of this plan that land-use conflicts will have to be resolved.

“Another concern is the mandate vested by cabinet in the Fahlgren commission on development north of 50 degrees north latitude. Finally, and by no means of least importance, we would want to consult with the people of the affected areas, including the native people. The environmental concerns I mention only in passing since these lie primarily within the mandate of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.

“I should be glad to be in touch with you again as soon as we have had an adequate opportunity to examine these various considerations further.”

I think that spells out pretty clearly there have been no commitments made to Great Lakes other than the financial commitments indicated by the Treasurer in his statement of which I have a copy. I will be delighted to read that too.

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to pursue this matter with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I would like to ask him is it then his position now that Great Lakes Paper has first refusal on the 19,000-square-mile West Patricia tract provided it meets the various undertakings and conditions that were contained in that memorandum of understanding or, if not, what is the precise position? Can he give us a brief and succinct answer, rather than leading us all over the map?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I dislike speculating. Almost every time I do, I get myself into difficulties one way or another. Assuming that when Reed completes negotiations with Great Lakes it sells the memorandum of understanding or it is included in the assets, if that memorandum passes into the hands of Great Lakes, then the obligation which Reed had as far as that area is concerned will flow to Great Lakes and Great Lakes will be in exactly the same position as Reed was prior to the sale.

That is not to say that that whole 19,000 square miles -- let me break my rule and let me speculate that half of the 19,000 square miles is found to be suitable for forest production; then certainly an obligation of the government will be to look at the plans that are put forward after the environmental impact study has indicated the kind of processes proposed for use and the location of them.

It seems to me that one of the obligations of the government will be to deal with that first. I would be surprised if there weren’t other woodlands available for others; but again, perhaps there isn’t anything available for anybody.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the enormous public reaction to the government’s secret wheeling and dealing, which led to the initial agreement on the West Patricia district with Reed Paper about four years ago, can the minister explain why the government should repeat the process almost precisely all over again, in wheeling and dealing, or in watching while wheeling and dealing was taking place between Reed and Great Lakes Paper, to the point where he now admits that Great Lakes has taken on the obligations and the rights of that memorandum of understanding?

Why did the government not step in, in dealing with this particular question, and bring it back to the status quo ante, and why the Fahlgren commission was not even informed over whether Reed Paper, Great Lakes Paper or the ministry now has ultimate responsibility for the future disposition of the 19,000 square mile West Patricia tract?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of any great secret wheeling and dealing that’s been going on as far as Reed Paper is concerned for the last couple of years, other than the inquiries which have been received from other people in the business who were interested in acquiring the Reed operation in Dryden.

Certainly there has been no secret that this government was very anxious to see a viable paper industry of one kind or another continue in Dryden. There have been statements made by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) about the necessity, as far as the economy of the northwest is concerned, in seeing that a viable operation be continued in Dryden.

As to the day-to-day inquiries in the business world, I don’t suppose they all call the Financial Post whenever they’re thinking of an acquisition or a sale. But as far as this government is concerned, it has been available for discussions with anybody in the wood industry who has shown concern.

Mr. Speaker: I think that answer is quite adequate.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary: In order to remove the cloud which hangs over the future of the West Patricia tract, will the government exercise its right to terminate the memorandum of understanding after January 1, 1980, and wipe the slate clean, allow the various hearings of the Fahlgren commission and the forest plan due in April 1981 actually to come to pass, and then deal fairly and forthrightly with the decisions about where that timber should go, preferably by ensuring that the timber in the West Patricia is exploited under public ownership to make sure it goes into those areas where it can be most profitably used to create jobs in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought for a minute, Mr. Speaker, I had a half-minute answer. I have here a legal opinion from our solicitor -- excuse me, that isn’t the right one.

Mr. Breithaupt: Do you have another opinion?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not the right opinion but I have the right subject. In essence, I am advised that the memorandum of understanding will not terminate on January 1, 1980, because of a number of steps. Reed made the first step required. Under the old legislation, or lack of it, Reed made an environmental impact study within the 60 days required. That study was not acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment which asked for further information. This has not been forthcoming for some other reasons, and the Ministry of Natural Resources has not carried out the inventory expected.

In other words, I am informed at the moment that there is no legal reason for us to terminate that memorandum of understanding as of January 1.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet, relating to the efforts by the ministry to resolve the current strike of the jail guards across the province, and also related to our hope that the ministry would spend as much effort in trying to avoid or to resolve this strike as are the minister and his colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), spending in trying to stamp down on the workers and on the union leaders involved.

In an effort to resolve this dispute and have the jail guards return to their jobs with dignity, would the ministry consider giving a separate vote on ratification of their contract to the jail guards, or would the ministry consider asking Justice Barry Shapiro, the judge who spent a year and a half investigating the Don Jail and who reported last year, to act as an arbitrator to come back within one or two months and report on the specific question as to whether or not there should be a separate category within which the jail guards would bargain?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The matter raised by the honourable member has not been considered. It is one which, having been advanced by the leader of the third party, the people from my ministry and those of union management might want to discuss during their negotiations.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Could the minister then acquaint the Legislature with what steps the government now intends to take to resolve the strike, apart from the efforts it is making to force the guards back to work and to put their leadership in jail, which are bound to have a harmful effect on labour-management relations within the prison service for a very long time to come? What steps is the minister taking in order to try to find a satisfactory resolution, after having been so inflexible over a period of five years that the guards have felt they have no other choice than to take a vote to strike, and then to act illegally and go on strike?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think it is very clear in the statement I made today that there has been a lot of discussion, both through a mediator and through the parties themselves over the weekend, to resolve this matter. As I said, we stand ready at any time to discuss again with union management the impasse we are in at the present time.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: In his discussions during the weekend, did the minister pursue the idea of attempting to get from the union an undertaking they would not seek within the next four or five years a further category for negotiating purposes, and in that way have some sort of trade-off that could avoid the unfortunate situation that exists at the present time? If he has not, would the minister consider that proposal in his newest negotiations with the union, whenever they commence?

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is a matter that was advanced prior to the discussions on the weekend. On the one hand, there seems to be favour for doing that; on the other hand, there is a good deal of reluctance. It is very doubtful union management or government could commit each other to something they would not do over a five-year period.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his statement today urged the union to follow the system prescribed by law with respect to this particular dispute. Could he tell the Legislature just what the system prescribed by law is when it comes to the union’s getting a separate bargaining category for the jail guards, since this is the only issue, and it is a simple issue, which is in dispute?

When the union presented two bargaining teams at the negotiations, they were effectively not recognized. The union doesn’t have the right to have a separate vote for the jail guards, and it does not have the right to take the matter of a separate bargaining category to arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. Given all those facts, will the minister say what is the system prescribed by law for them to raise this matter, since they have been trying to raise it for five years and have been unable to find any means at all of getting meaningful bargaining or any flexibility from this ministry? That’s why we have a strike right now.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand how the leader of the third party can say that. We very clearly offered to take this matter to a third party for arbitration.

Mr. Cassidy: You took five years to get to that point.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think that was very fair. That matter is still on the table.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice. As a result of his meeting last week with representatives of the rape crisis centre, he knows that 12 of the 15 rape crisis centres in the province are in severe danger of closing within the next six months due to a lack of funding. He knows as well that these volunteer centres already receive community funding which just can’t meet program expenses. Can he give the reasons why his government still refuses to grant funding to these rape crisis centres?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, last week I met with individuals representing the coalition of rape crisis centres across Ontario and at that time we discussed the problems involving funding. They made me aware of the crunch they will have in the new year relative to funding. We agreed to render an answer on it in due course.

At that time, it was the first I had been fully apprised of the details of the matter. They appreciated that and they made their presentation. We will be rendering an observation in due course.

I may say that the amount of money requested amounts to fully one third of the budget of the Justice policy secretariat.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can indicate what he means by “due course.” In arriving at his answer, would he also report to this House whether it is still a policy of St. Joseph’s Hospital and the Queensway Hospital in Toronto to refuse medical examinations for rape victims? When checking with his colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), would he ascertain if there are other hospitals in the province which also refuse to perform examinations as a matter of administrative practice?

Hon. Mr. Walker: In respect of the last two questions, I will look into those, as requested, and consult with the appropriate people. With respect to the matter of funding, we’ve indicated that an answer will be rendered in time for the conference of the coalition scheduled for January 18, 1980.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, would the minister now give us at least a simple assurance that this government will continue to fund these centres, to see that they do not go out of operation, whether the money comes from his ministry, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, or wherever?

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, Mr. Speaker. That’s precisely what we’re debating over the next while.

AIRCRAFT CONTRACT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism dealing with the federal fighter airplane contract, in view of his very strange response on Friday in which he seemed to reverse his position about what benefits will flow to Ontario.

Has the minister been in touch with Jacques DesRoches, the president of the Air Industries Association of Canada, to find out what he meant when he told the Globe and Mail on the weekend. “From what we have seen, nothing is firm and much of what we are being offered we would be getting anyway”?

I want to tell the minister that Mr. DesRoches told my leader this morning that he’s still not satisfied that the commitments are firm, and I would like to ask the minister how he feels about that situation now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only report again to the House that the federal government has assured us continually and up to date that when the final decision is made, those kinds of commitments that have been talked about and referred to will be firm commitments, of the scale and magnitude we’ve been discussing.

There really isn’t anything to add to that. I would say to the honourable member that he is perhaps being lured in by the heavy advertising campaign that is being conducted by the two competitors, in an attempt by each of those competitors to prove that the commitments and offset offers by their respective opponents don’t quite measure up to what they were said to be.

I can only repeat that notwithstanding that intense competition through the media for that important project, we have up-to-date firm commitments from the federal government that the commitments talked about, offered and understood by us to be there, will in fact be firm commitments.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if the minister is being sucked in by his federal colleagues.

Could the minister tell us if he got hold of a copy of the confidential document over this past weekend? Does he understand that in that document it’s made quite clear Canada will not gain the capability to do the maintenance on those planes, or to apply the technology to other high technology projects in the future? Is the minister really confident that Ontario industries are going to receive adequate benefits of this new technology when these contracts are finally negotiated?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t think anything will be served by my repeating the commitments we’ve obtained from the federal government. May I say we do not have a copy of the confidential document. We understand it is being held by the federal government in view of the very technical and important nature of some of the defence aspects that are contained in that confidential document.

If the honourable member has a copy of that confidential document he might be kind enough to send it over to me. If he doesn’t have a copy of that confidential document -- and I know he doesn’t -- then I presume it’s the same source of information that provided his leader with the names of the two foreign competitors for the purchase of Eldorado Nuclear. He knew them so well a month ago but still has failed to send them over to me. I guess it is the same “deep throat” that is sending that information to him.

OPP SERVICES

Mr. G. Taylor: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Last Friday there appeared in the local newspaper in Barrie a statement by Superintendent Burkett of the Ontario Provincial Police detachment. In it he stated he was fighting 1980 crime with a detachment equipped for 1972. He added that the personnel there were overworked and tired, and that he was in need of more OPP officers.

Would the Solicitor General be seeking more personnel for this area so the people of the area, and those visiting the area, could be well served by the Ontario Provincial Police rather than putting up with a 1972 staff quotient?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I can’t be specific about the OPP services in that part of the province, but I certainly share the superintendent’s concern generally in relation to the OPP. As a matter of fact, the member was kind enough a moment ago to send me a copy of the clipping, which I passed on to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

HYDRO NUCLEAR PLANT PLANS

Mr. Riddell: The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) was in for a brief moment but in the event he is listening outside I’ll put the question to the Premier knowing that he’s always interested in Ontario Hydro’s plans and progress.

I am referring to a letter written by Landawn Shopping Centres Limited located in Toronto. One paragraph of the letter reads: “I am sure you are aware that the Ontario government will soon be starting construction on the Bayfield nuclear power plant which is located 15 miles from Exeter. The Bruce nuclear plant helped spur housing in both Port Elgin and Kincardine to unbelievable proportions -- to the point that Zehr’s put supermarkets in both Port Elgin and Kincardine. Both stores are doing exceptionally well. The Bruce nuclear plant employs 8,000 people, and the Bayfield plant will have am proximately the same number of people.

“The population of Exeter is approximately 4,000 people with” --

Mr. Speaker: “Is the Premier aware ... ”

Mr. Riddell: I put the question at first. Is the Ontario government, along with Ontario Hydro, planning a project we in this Legislature or the citizens of Huron are not aware of? Is there some plan to establish a nuclear power plant in Bayfield in Huron county?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the major undertaking Hydro has underway is Darlington. Bayfield is a delightful community, and I know the honourable member would like to see some growth take place, but to my knowledge it is not being contemplated. I don’t know who wrote that letter, or to whom they wrote it, but to suggest there will be the same sort of growth pattern in that part of the great county of Huron that took place in other parts on the shores of Lake Huron, I think from my understanding would be totally inaccurate.

If the honourable member wants to convey that to the person who wrote the letter I think he is quite free to do so. If he wants to bring them in, as he did some others from Kincardine, to see the economic growth continue in that part of the province, we would be delighted to see them too.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier in a position to confirm the energy statement made by his new minister on October 1, that the government is not contemplating any new nuclear generating facilities beyond Darlington in the next 15-year period?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I can put the time frame at 15 years, but my recollection is, and the chairman of the select committee is more familiar with the figures than I am, I don’t think they are contemplating another facility beyond Darlington at this moment. In that Darlington is six to seven years away from completion, which brings us up to 1987 or 1990, then we only have a five-year period to bring us up to 15 years; but I am not really prepared to speculate at this moment in time.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Considering the Premier obviously does not really know the plans at this moment, since his answers are quite vague on this question, would the Premier undertake to make a statement to the House regarding the future growth plans of Ontario Hydro in a clear, concise manner, so we know exactly what is being planned?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member for Halton-Burlington that he is on the Hydro select committee, he has been very close to it and he tells his constituents he is the energy expert of Ontario; he probably could make as clear and concise a statement as I could. It wouldn’t be as accurate as any I might make, I doubt how clear it would be, and certainly if it is anything like the rest of the honourable member’s observations it would never be concise. I thought I was very precise in my answer to his colleague from Huron-Middlesex. I don’t know of any planned facility in Bayfield.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. The minister will no doubt be aware that in addition to the 2,000 people already unemployed on indefinite layoffs at Chrysler, there was a further announcement on Friday of an additional 800 to 1,000 employees who will be on indefinite layoff, along with several thousand other people on temporary layoffs. The minister will no doubt be aware that there are already 1,500 people on layoff at Ford Motor Company in Windsor, as well as many thousands from the parts industries in Windsor.

What is the minister now prepared to do for the people of Windsor, who are experiencing an unemployment rate of around 12 per cent for those who are on indefinite layoffs, and if one includes those on temporary we are talking about 17 or 18 per cent unemployment? What is the minister prepared to do, and is he prepared today to come out publicly and put pressure on the federal government to bring in the transitional assistance benefits for which the United Auto Workers have been asking?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The TAB program is one which does lie with the federal government, and ultimately the views of this government with regard to that program would obviously be expressed through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), to whom the member may want to address a question on that count.

My responsibilities, of course, are in terms of the long-term stability of the automotive industry in Windsor and the rest of Ontario. I would be quite happy to talk about that here, as I did in estimates by way of pointing out if it wasn’t for some of the efforts of this government in the last couple of years in that municipality we wouldn’t be seeing the addition of 5,200 jobs, at least, coming on stream in the next couple of years because of the Ford plant. Our continuing efforts have also resulted, in part, in the General Motors expansion which is going on in that city.

While we always find it quite easy to talk about the fact we haven’t done as well under the auto pact as we might, the fact is we have two instances of companies, that is GM and Ford, putting great amounts of money into Windsor, which will make sure the short-term difficulties that are currently being experienced in Windsor -- and they are short-term difficulties -- do not become long-term difficulties in that community.

[3:00]

I think we should understand, as I believe the UAW does in Windsor, that the situation we are seeing now is not as severe in terms of percentage layoffs as is being experienced in the United States. That is quite remarkable in view of the fact our Canadian plants generally make larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles than are currently being made in the United States. Notwithstanding that, the layoffs here in percentage terms are not as severe as those being incurred in the United States.

All that having been said, I want to point out to the member that two of the Big Three have recently invested a lot of money in that community. The third is Chrysler, and we have talks going on there now. I have made it quite clear that as far as this government is concerned any assistance given to Chrysler, in any way whatsoever, will have to ensure long-term stability for current jobs and some new jobs in Windsor as well.

All in all, I think we have been spending a good deal of time on the problems in Windsor, in view of North American problems in terms of the sale of automobiles in this period of time.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: The minister talks about the 2,800 jobs at Ford: is he aware that Ford has laid off almost that number of employees at its existing plant and that we are expecting that its engine plant could very well be put out of production because it produces the wrong kinds of parts and the wrong kinds of engines? The government put $28 million into a new plant that will really not create new jobs, it will just save some of the jobs that are disappearing because of the poor planning and the way the auto pact is not working in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Cooke: I have a short supplementary in addition to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do you mean a supplementary to the supplementary?

Mr. Cooke: That’s right. I would just like the minister to indicate today if he is still willing to look at a job-creation program for Windsor, as he said he was in a letter to me recently? Is he also willing to go public with the federal government or his Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) to get the TAB program in place before it is too late?

Mr. Speaker: You asked that in your original question.

Mr. Cooke: People are losing their homes now.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have a short response?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should remind the member we understand the extent of the Ford layoffs. The member should be fair and acknowledge this government cannot control the North American demand for automobiles, no matter where they are made. The fall in the market has been marked and has been constant throughout North America, particularly for vehicles made in this country.

The fact is the market is causing the layoffs, not this government, not the American government and not the unions, none of those. The consumer is shifting his and her buying patterns and buying fewer of those vehicles. That is what is causing the problem in the member’s community. I want to make it clear to him that of course we understand the extent of the Ford layoffs; and no, I will not apologize in any way whatsoever for the fact that Ford is laying off people in response to the market at the same time as we are creating new jobs.

The fact is no matter which way the member wishes to slice it, if it weren’t for this government there wouldn’t be 5,200 new jobs going into Windsor in the next few years. Those jobs would be lost; they would not be replaced. I hope the member will tell the UAW, when he takes a copy of Hansard back to them to show them his alleged concern for their critical problems, that if we had adopted his party’s policy we would see 2,600 net layoffs, but we wouldn’t see 5,200 new jobs going back into that community solely and totally on account of this government.

Mr. Mancini: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Could the minister inform the House if he has had discussions with other industries outside of the automotive industry that may be planning to go to Windsor so that the industrial base of Windsor and Essex county wouldn’t be so heavily dependent on the automotive industry? I give as a possible example the tomato paste industry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Mancini: Is that all the minister is going to say?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Mancini: Why doesn’t the minister inform the House who he has met with and what --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Forgive me for saying yes, but we have done it. I know it’s disappointing.

Mr. Mancini: It’s not disappointing; we’d just like to know who the minister has talked to and what their response has been.

RENFREW COUNTY TASK FORCE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Conway: A new question to the same minister: Having in hand the minister’s long- awaited announcement about the appointment of a new chairman for the Renfrew County Task Force on Economic Development, and recognizing that much time has passed since that particular task force undertook serious and ongoing responsibilities to generate economic activities in my part of eastern Ontario, I am wondering whether or not the minister has called together the new chairman, Mr.

Radford, with other members of that task force to make them aware of his own views and those of his government at present with respect to those immediate and intermediate priorities which he and this government see as viable for that particular task force and its responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will be meeting in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Can the minister, in his supplementary answer, indicate to this House what his views are at this point in time about the kinds of priorities he sees as being the immediate possibility with respect to economic development in that particular county? Can he explain to me and other members of this House, why in his announcements he indicated to the people of Renfrew county that of course their development strategy will take many years to be fully implemented since provincial restraint will not allow for the kind of financial resources we believe necessary to get the job done? Can he give this House and the people of Renfrew county --

Mr. Speaker: The question has really been asked.

Mr. Conway: -- an assurance that we will not suffer unduly by virtue of his restraints?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to the second question is yes, I can give that unequivocal assurance. That is not the tenor, the drift, the tone, insinuation or implication in the press release we issued. To be fair about it, I think the honourable member knows that isn’t the message that was in that press release.

Mr. Radford will be coming in to discuss with us in a general way the kinds of assistance we wish to make available; the extent to which government programs will be tilted in terms of assisting areas such as Renfrew. Indeed, government programs traditionally have been and will continue to be tilted in favour of helping communities such as those in the Ottawa Valley, be they in the tourism sector, that is Timbertown, or in the industrial sector, for example the Westinghouse situation, which I know the honourable member supported even though it was an EDF grant. I know he supported it because it was so important to the Ottawa Valley area.

We will be discussing those kinds of things with Mr. Radford. I want to say that Mr. Radford, as the member knows, has been with the ministry for many years and is well aware of a lot of the programs we have under way and a lot of our strategies.

What I don’t want to do is prejudge the outcome of his work, because our strategy is to get local input to decide which kinds of industries are most appropriate for each and every community, which kind will most easily fit into the social and economic climate of each country, which community and which work force can accept which kind of industry, and then operate from that very sensible and measured base. That is what it is all about I think the member would agree that’s a sensible way to approach it.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DISPUTE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege. On November 29 the Minister of Correctional Services, in response to a question from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), indicated in so far as the question of problem prisoners being released on an open door policy: “That is not the case, that is just not happening. If it is I would ensure it would stop immediately, but I give the member the assurance it is not happening and that it is not the case.”

I have just been informed that a significant number of people were released from the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. I ask, in light of that information being passed on, if in fact our privileges were not abused by the answer given by the minister last Thursday?

Mr. Speaker: The minister is not here.

There is one minute left in question period.

ALGOMA CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that the apparent inability of the Algoma Children’s Aid Society to fulfil its obligations under the Child Welfare Act has prompted the minister to admit publicly that he cannot guarantee that children there are not at risk; and the foster parents association of Ontario to write him stating that case management appears minimal or non-existent, indeed that children in need are being placed in observation and detention homes normally used for cases of child delinquency; is the minister prepared to exercise his power under

section 17 of the act to dissolve the children’s aid society’s board of directors, taking direct control to negotiate a resolution of the current labour dispute?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Dealing with the first part of the

preamble to the question, I believe I recall quite vividly the discussion which might have led to the quote to which the honourable member referred. I did not specifically refer to the situation in Algoma, but I did say to the newspaper reporter from Sault Ste. Marie at that time that at no time could I absolutely guarantee, whether a children’s aid society was fully staffed or suffering from a withdrawal of service as a result of a labour dispute, that no child would be at risk.

I did assure that person, however, that we were doing everything, in co-operation with the society, to try to ensure that the degree of risk to which any child might be subjected would be minimized during this period.

The answer to the second part, the real question -- am I prepared to exercise the authority under the act and dissolve the board and negotiate directly? -- is no.

PETITION

WASTE SOLVENTS STORAGE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, addressed to this assembly and signed by 3,503 citizens of the city of Welland. It reads as follows.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario as follows: We strongly object to permission being given by the Minister of the Environment to use the oil tank located adjacent to the old Welland Canal, south of Lincoln Street in the city of Welland, as a storage and transfer station for waste solvents.”

Although the company has now stated it will not proceed due to public opposition, until the permit is surrendered there is no guarantee that it will not proceed.

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s second report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, if I might say a few words on this report. It is the second report on agencies, boards and commissions, examination of which has been carried on by the committee. It looks at some six specific agencies of the government and deals in general terms with recommendations put forward by the committee in last year’s report. We would hope the House would now entertain some debate on that, on motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

Mr. Rowe moved first reading of Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answer to question 337 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 5090.)

[3:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply:

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I believe, Mr. Treasurer, that when we adjourned the consideration of the estimates, you were on your feet.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was. While I had many more words of wisdom to add to the comments on Friday, I would now like simply to proceed with the first vote and start taking the comments from the opposition, as agreed.

Mr. Peterson: In view of the fact there were no words of wisdom on Friday that I personally recall, or that any others among the great horde of observers who were in this House at the time heard, I would just like to question the Treasurer on that. Further, I also was under the impression the votes would be left to the end, am I not correct?

Hon. F. S. Miller: You are quite correct. I think what the chairman asked the other day is that we consider the first vote and item, that we discuss anything of concern under that vote and item until such time as we must deal with the stacked votes. In other words, for the record, we are on the first vote and item but the discussion, as you agreed, was to be on any part of any vote or item.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That is pretty well what I said, but also I wanted to point out that we do have roles. The Treasurer and the two financial critics on their own are not in a position to change those rules. The rules do call for us to make progress and to allow other people to speak on these votes.

What I did say is that under main office you can pretty well speak on any vote, but if there are any other members wanting to speak I don’t want to limit their right to do so on any matter they wish to raise under main office. As long as that is understood I think we can proceed.

We will deal with vote 901, item 1, which is main office. Anyone having any questions of the Treasurer in regard to the operation of the main office is now free to put those questions.

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

Mr. Peterson: While my friend from Nickel Belt is finding his papers and trying to think of something semi-intelligent to say, let me just ask a couple of questions; again I am taking some latitude here.

Could you tell me the status of the Ontario Economic Council? I am not sure if the economic council was a creation of the former Treasurer or not. Certainly he had expressed publicly, not only while he was Treasurer but also after the fact, that he had some very serious reservations about the role of the economic council, even though he appointed one of his very close personal advisers to be chairman. I believe Tom Kierans was appointed by the former Treasurer, was he not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Mr. Peterson: Then I stand corrected on that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As I recall, Mr. Reuber was chairman in name when I became Treasurer, but he had given notice that he was going to the Bank of Montreal. I recall one of my first visits was from Mr. Douglas Gibson, a long-standing member of the economic council, who asked me not to leave it in limbo too long. I am guessing, but somewhere around December, maybe even later, of last year, Mr. Kierans was appointed on an acting, part-time basis to be chairman of the council. I am not quite sure of the date, but it followed my appointment as Treasurer, if my recollection is correct, and it was extended later. My deputy confirms that.

Mr. Peterson: I think you are correct and I am incorrect. I apologize on that.

He was appointed acting director. Is he still acting director, or what is his status? What are his obligations and what is he getting paid?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am going by recollection and will have to check, but the first was six months and then I believe he was appointed for a year at the expiration of the first six months. He has been spending as much time as any director has spent, I am told, working hard at the definition of role and the management of the economic council.

May I suggest, since I have shared some of the concerns the previous Treasurer had, that I sincerely would appreciate comments setting out the member’s point of view right now as to his perception of the role of this economic council. The budget for it is in the range of $1 million to $1.1 million a year. It is a fair amount of the discretionary moneys we have available. I would be very curious to know whether the member thinks it’s worth that as it is presently constructed and functioning, or whether it needs redesign or in his opinion needs to be done away with.

Mr. Peterson: There are a few specific questions I’d like to get out of the way before I do that. What are the director’s responsibilities as the minister sees them? What kind of liaison does the minister have with him as the director? How much time does he put into it and what does the government pay him?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I missed the last point?

Mr. Peterson: How much is he paid?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would have to double-check the figure he’s paid. It’s $2,000 a month, I’m told.

Mr. Peterson: How many days a week does he work?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t answer that question. I did see a letter from him proposing a reduction in his salary for this coming fiscal year from $2,000 a month to $1,000.

Mr. Peterson: What have yon done with that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I happen to be reviewing all my personnel spending for next year. Mostly certainly a suggestion like that, let me say, is unique; I haven’t had many people offering to take a cut in salary lately. By the way, his appointment expires on December 19.

I know there are a number of other board members whose terms are up shortly. The most recent correspondence from the chairman outlined the names of those whose terms were up and requested we consider their reappointment and/or replacement, depending upon the person’s own point of view.

The request the chairman made was to reshuffle the $12,000 from his own personal salary to members who would be taking on greater loads within the economic council so that he could more fairly give them duties.

Mr. Peterson: I understand the other members are not paid; only the chairman is paid, plus two or three staff members.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Peterson: By and large that’s a conglomeration, with a couple of notable exceptions, of Tory hacks from across the province.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are a couple of notable exceptions.

Mr. Peterson: Cliff Pilkey.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was going to say Mr. Pilkey at least should be identified for the sake of the record, lest he suddenly have a heart attack.

Mr. Peterson: He knows who is buying lunch too, though. He’s fairly sophisticated that way.

Let me talk a little bit about it. I was aware when Mr. Kierans was appointed -- I happen to know Mr. Kierans and I must say at the outset I have an extremely high regard for the man. He has been one of the major players on Bay Street. He’s worked in two or three brokerage firms, always in key roles. As you know, he has changed brokerage firms this last year and is with McLeod’s in a very important role. I don’t question his competence at all.

I think the minister has a very serious problem on his hands though. I’m almost hesitant to say this because I do have a high regard for the guy, but he was, and it is public knowledge, a very close adviser to the former Treasurer and a very close friend. Unless the minister tells me differently, I am also aware of the fact he has come to a number of Progressive Conservative Party planning seminars; I’m not sure about ministry seminars.

He has hd a major role, I gather from what I read in the press or as I recall at least, in advising on when the minister could balance the budget. There has been a great 1984 versus 1981 controversy. I don’t know what the minister’s relationship with him is, but he has been very close to the party. He’s also extremely close to the federal Tories. He was pointed out in a Weekend magazine

article recently as a major player, a man of influence with the federal Tories.

I think you really want to ask yourself whether this man should be paid $25,000 a year, $2,000 a month. Certainly when it came out in the press when he was originally appointed that he would be getting $25,000, I was curious, and no one to whom we talked would confirm or deny that at the time. I just accepted that at face value and you have virtually confirmed that.

He obviously does a lot of other things. Two thousand dollars a month may not sound like a lot of money for a full-time job for an obviously very competent human being, but when it comes down to one or two days a week that stacks up to be quite a bit of money, particularly in view of the fact he is very close to advising you.

It is something on which I would like to hear your views; whether in fact this is the appropriate way to run a so-called independent economic council. Granted these things have been bastardized at many levels of political functioning over the years. It’s not as if the chairman of the Ontario Economic Council has always been represented as a true independent. I think Grant Reuber, when he was there, gave the appearance at least of being semi-independent. That, of course, was before he went to the Bank of Montreal, and now has become Deputy Minister of Finance.

The fundamental question is how you view their role and what they should be doing. Do you have any input into their research, what they are doing and how they go about it?

I am interested in hearing your view before I start into my own.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In terms of the kind of person you appoint and the remuneration for the job, first let us compare it with other people in the same kind of category. I am told in the first few months of his appointment he virtually worked full time at the position, particularly as he was looking at the projects and reorganizing it in his mind.

I can’t speak with much accuracy about the result of those actions, but if one looks at the rate of pay one pays for people of his calibre, like lawyers who are hired by select committees, lawyers who are hired to look into the police commission’s functions, et cetera, I think you would agree one often sees the fees running between $500 and $1,000 a day.

If, in fact, a lawyer appointed to such a position is worth $750 a day of public money, or even private money because they charge the same regardless of who the client is, I would have to argue we’re talking of a person who brings to the position skills of comparable value.

When one looks at the fact he is from the private sector --

Mr. Peterson: It’s a little different role.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I recognize that.

Mr. Peterson: He is an administrator here. He is not hired for professional expertise here, he is an administrator.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Hopefully, though, he is more than an administrator. He is like a director of research; while he is administrator he often is also the catalyst, the person who looks at the quality of the input of the researchers. A top director of research has to be an administrator, obviously, but also has to be knowledgeable in the skills of the people working under him.

This is where anyone who has ever had anything to do with Mr. Kierans would have to repeat the very words you used, whether one agrees with his philosophy or disagrees with his philosophy you would have to agree he is also a very bright, competent, hardworking, easy-to-understand person when he starts expressing his points of view. Those qualities are hard to come by in any field, and are perhaps more valued because of that. Persons who can clearly say what they think often win the battle simply because their opponents often can’t say so clearly what they think. Therefore I would suggest we’re getting value for the money.

[3:30]

As to the question of what input I have as the Treasurer, I think if one checks the statutes, the chairman is not really an appointment of the Treasurer but of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Outside of my being able to give some advice, unlike some appointments it is not, therefore, exclusively in the domain of the Treasurer.

The autonomy of the council has been almost complete, if not complete. In other words, no one comes to me and says, “We are intending to study such and such and so and so.”

I can assure the member that when I was Minister of Health a report was issued on the health-care system by the Ontario Economic Council, that would be about the summer of 1975, and --

Mr. Laughren: There was another one this year.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, there was. I only point out that those reports are the views of the researchers. As with all researchers, one can argue whether they are right or wrong. If you like it, you think they’re great; if you disagree with them, you think they’re wrong. The fact is the council has that kind of autonomy.

I would suspect the choice of topics has been very much that of the chairman and the committee appointed. Within that appointed committee there is an executive committee of some type. The executive committee probably functions more frequently and looks into more detail at the kinds of research being contracted for. If one looks at the budget, I believe a great chunk of the budget is for research contracted with nonpermanent staff or with members of the research community.

The alternative to turning to the business sector, and the one which I believe was followed in the first appointments to the board, has been to go to the academic side and look for people such as Mr. Reuber, who was at the University of Western Ontario when he was chosen. I sense that people who have been chosen for other jobs have come from that general area. Certainly that was the first area to which one thought we should look when Mr. Reuber left a year ago.

I think every so often it’s a refreshing change to have somebody from the business community in that kind of job. Most often their duties prevent them from taking on these duties. In this case we’ve had great co-operation from Mr. Kierans. He has often, in the last few years, almost prejudiced his private interests to be able to offer advice to governments at both levels, as the member has pointed out.

Mr. Peterson: Do his strong, upfront party affiliations worry you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think I subscribe to the comments made by Bill Simon in his book, A Time for Truth, where he said one of the greatest mistakes governments can make is subsidizing the opponents of government rather than people who often agree with their points of view.

Mr. Peterson: You sound like Roch LaSalle. He’s the new patronage minister for the federal government.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t mean it quite the way you interpret it.

Mr. Peterson: Then reinterpret it for me.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I see the role of a politician in government, apart from some administrative skill -- which is probably not that great on the political side, people like my deputy have the real skills when it comes to administration -- the real duty I have as a minister, whether it be in Health, Natural Resources or in Treasury, I see as being able to differentiate myself from the member for London Centre or the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) in terms of our basic beliefs, our philosophical, political and ideological differences. We’ve gone into this before.

Any time we apologize for our ideological beliefs we’re letting the very system we’re a part of down; therefore I unashamedly stand up and say, as I hope the member does, I’m a capitalist, I believe in the free enterprise system and I’m going to do my darnedest to strengthen it whilst I’m around. It’s been weakened greatly by listening to people from the benches the NDP have occupied over the years, until we have a very hybrid mix going these days; but that’s our fault for being swayed too often by their logic.

I do believe, however, that if it’s my duty to see my kind of philosophy imposed upon a government, then I need advice that to some degree corresponds with my philosophy; therefore I don’t see anything inconsistent in having people who are giving me advice, share some common belief with me, and they are most likely to be found within the party I associate with.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister ask his staff to take out a membership in the Progressive Conservative Party?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Members of my staff are free to do what they want.

Mr. Peterson: Except they won’t last in the job very long if they’re not card carriers, is that what the minister is telling me? All these people are going to feel very insecure. They’re going to start rushing out right now and taking memberships in the Liberal Party.

I won’t enter into a philosophical debate about that at the moment. Let me just go back to Mr. Kierans and say that the Ontario Economic Council is supposed to be in a very special kind of situation. It is unique; it’s not like your deputy or some of these other people who are functioning very close to you on a daily basis. He is supposed to come up with independent criticism, independent research on the state of the provincial economy and how to do various things. You run the risk of having him become an apologist for you if you carry the attitude you have just articulated into that job.

I won’t run along with this any further, but I’m not terribly satisfied with the explanation you have given. Perhaps my friend has something.

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I ask your opinion of the function and role of the council and the necessity for it?

Mr. Peterson: Yes. Mr. McKeough made the statement once, I think publicly and if not, privately, that he had never seen anything of very much value out of the Ontario Economic Council. At least, and perhaps I’m misquoting, he asked, “What have they ever suggested that we followed?” I guess he found them a mite fanciful or a mite out in left field or something or other.

I think there is a role for the economic council. I’m not particularly happy with the membership. I don’t want to be specific about it, but it’s a sinecure for some people I happen to know who haven’t demonstrated all that much except that they were card-carriers. We always go with the tokens, the Cliff Pilkeys of this world, and stick them on there so we can say, “Gee, we’re a broadly-based group”; and Cliff happily accepts that kind of thing.

I would say that generally the membership is not representative of the kind of group it should be, in my judgement, for the kind of independent input into the thought-making process.

The question then becomes, “Okay, what is the role after that board has been established; what they should be doing?” I see a more activist role for that board than they have shown. I think they could be of more help, particularly in the committee process here. Let me give you an example.

The economic council should, as part of their contract, make some of their research and researchers available to select committees functioning on certain matters. Let’s take the Hydro matter. They’ve done certain demographic studies that could have been helpful to the select committee investigating Hydro affairs. Obviously when you’re working with demographers, as when working with actuaries or any other forecasters in any other area, there are a great number of subjective judgements being made.

One hopes that the government, or the legislators, will get the benefit of advice from the best, throw it all into the pot and come up with their own conclusions. That is one area where, presumably, if it functions as an independent agency, the council could be of some help in the legislative process. I just pass that on to the minister. He may want to suggest to the council it is an area in which they could be of some use in the legislative process.

I think one of the things that worries me about the economic council is that so much of its effort is just shelved. There is some good research. I looked particularly at some of the research in the pension areas, and I am happy with it. I look at some of the conferences it has run, and I am only sorry they weren’t better attended. The council has held some great regional conferences; and it holds a very interesting conference here once a year which I am I very happy to attend. I learn a lot because world-class minds attend.

Sometimes one wonders what is the purpose of all this, because one has the same people attending all the time, the same interested people. But it is a fairly small group of people and there is the same feeling about the research, that it will go out to the university libraries and it will slip into the shelves there. The few members interested in one part or another will read it but that is it.

There is not the feeling they are elevating the general level of education in the province or contributing in that sense very much to the policy-making process.

I don’t know whether your staff people read those reports, perhaps they do. I have never seen a government response to one of those papers. Perhaps they should be forced to respond. At least we will get the civil service or the decision-makers thinking and give them something to play off against.

I worry that it is just filed, that there isn’t enough done with it and there isn’t very much influence from it. Maybe I am misreading it. If the minister has a different view I would be interested in knowing. I am one who believes that a free society needs independent centres of criticism and research, must constantly be reassessing what it is doing and needs to be constantly pushed and challenged in order to move ahead and make progress.

Referring to the OEC, there are some areas it has chosen for research which I wouldn’t have chosen. On the other hand I think that some of the research it has done is excellent. Those are individual choices, I suppose, and anyone can second-guess some of the topics chosen.

Generally I like it and I think it is worthwhile. Those are a few simple suggestions on how it could make some of its work more relevant and more meaningful, not only to the government but also to the population which supports it and pays its bills.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The reports the honourable member does see are those of hired researchers. They are not necessarily even the views of the council itself, as he knows; such as the one we saw on the question of co-payment or partial payment deterrent fees, if you want to call it that, in the health side.

Do we read them? Of course we do. For example I went through that one quite carefully. I even had a meeting with a member of the council to discuss it --

Mr. Laughren: Who was probably opposed to it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, as a matter of fact he was.

Mr. Laughren: We are reinforcing each other’s views; that’s great.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I didn’t say that I was. At one time, I happened to be one of the greatest believers in deterrent fees. It was only about 1976, late in the year, that I was converted.

The researchers obviously would have been available to assist committees; however, I think it should be pointed out that those researchers, being contract people, traditionally have been paid for the function of producing reports and therefore probably would be charging a committee for their advice.

Mr. Peterson: Tell them that is part of their obligation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Well I don’t think we would get a fellow at the University of Toronto necessarily buying that kind of argument. They are in the business of providing and selling their expertise like anybody else. One of the things I think should be said -- I am sure you didn’t say it was otherwise -- but I think it needs to be said clearly; those people who are appointed to the economic council are not paid. I am sure you know that. It is one of the few groups of this nature I have had any dealings with that is so. They are offering it as a public service. I believe they are allowed out-of-pocket expenses and that is all.

[3:45]

Mr. Peterson: The Liberals work for free sometimes, too, you know.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, and in vain. I would also point out to the honourable member that since the council was created we have seen a proliferation of groups in similar roles. We have also seen the 1977 conference on participation or whatever -- I keep forgetting the proper title -- hive off an advisory committee to the Premier made up of representatives of labour, management and the academics.

We have seen the Premier have a business advisory committee, chosen from a cross-section of Ontario industry, meet with him on a regular basis. We have seen the Economic Council of Canada created. We have the C. D. Howe Institute; we have the Conference Board in Canada; we have groups like the Niagara Institute, which may not duplicate but often comes close. One could go down a list of things of this nature, and I guess at a time when we in this House sit looking at the estimates, as we are doing now, wondering how can government spend less money, one has to pose questions such as you pose: Are we getting value for our money, is it time for us to reappraise that?

I would do that almost any year, because my ministry will be under constraints before the next budget. We will be looking for ways to save money; if in fact we think this council is worth the $1.1 million or whatever the cost will be next year, of course, it will continue; if we think it is wasting money, we would hope you would support us if we decided that money was better used within other government priorities.

Mr. Laughren: Just briefly; our caucus met with the Ontario Economic Council some time ago. We expressed some concerns about the kind of research they were doing and talked to them about what we would like to see them do. They seemed to receive our input in a very positive way, but I haven’t seen anything flowing from it.

Obviously the kinds of things which interest us are the issues we raise here in the House, during estimates debates and the budget debate. I am not very happy with a lot of the research either. I think they are missing the whole crisis of the manufacturing sector in Ontario. There needs to be much more thorough research done on that.

I would like to change the subject for a moment, if I could, to go back to the Treasurer’s response on Friday. I really thought I was making it simple by asking the Treasurer some very specific questions, to which he could provide some specific answers rather than engage in a broad-ranging philosophical debate, to which he could just stand up and say, “You are a socialist and I am a free enterpriser.” I would ask him some specific questions and would hope to get some answers.

The responses partly indicate why we are in trouble. You really don’t have a handle on what is going on out there. I will be specific, I don’t want to generalize. I asked you questions about the redeployment problem as a result of the GATT negotiations. You didn’t say a thing about it, virtually nothing at all.

How do you know what is going to happen to Ontario? What are the successor industries that will replace the ones that are gradually phased out? I am not looking for anything dramatic or anything to happen overnight, just some indication that you know what the possibilities are.

There have been studies done that indicate there are going to be problems. I would like to know what negotiations you have had with the federal government. I would like to know what your plans are to retrain some of the older workers who will have to be redeployed. I would like to know just what your figures are in terms of the number of people who will have to be redeployed. Is it the 250,000 the federal government indicated? Who is going to share in the retraining costs? Those are all very specific questions. Is a formula being worked on to share those costs between the provinces and the federal government? We have no idea. We don’t know what you are doing.

When it came to the whole question of auto parts, we have a massive deficit, over $4 billion this year in auto parts. What about the reduction in tariffs from 15 per cent to 9.2 per cent on some of those things? Does that mean there will be more production in the US or not? What are the minister’s long-range projections on deficits in auto parts and on jobs in the auto parts industry? I am thinking particularly now in relation to trade with the United States, not other countries.

I asked you about machinery. We have almost a $4 billion deficit in machinery. I think that’s very serious; that’s a very key industry in an industrialized economy. I don’t know what the minister thinks about that. Does he plan to do anything about it or is he just going to let it drift? It’s getting worse and he sits back and makes no comment on it whatsoever.

Those are very specific questions I asked.

When it comes to resources, is the minister happy with the kind of revenues we are getting from the resource industries in Ontario? He could be, maybe he is. He was Minister of Natural Resources at one time, he knows how little money we are getting from our resources.

This year, Falconbridge Nickel Mines for its first six months had net earnings of $43,550,000. This company is controlled by Superior Oil, a huge transnational. Is he satisfied they should not have to build a refinery in the Sudbury basin? They have been there more than 45 years. What is he aiming for, 50 years? Why shouldn’t they have to build a refinery there? Why should those jobs go to Norway?

Don’t tell us it’s done in order to stabilize the economy of the Sudbury basin. What a sad joke that is. We have been saying for years that it is outrageous that the dangerous work and the dirty work is done in Sudbury, and the wealth creation, in terms of further processing, is done in Norway. Now that’s wrong, that is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to know what the minister is going to do in terms of revenues for the resource sector, and is he going to continue those processing exemptions under

section 113 of the Mining Act that he has now given for Falconbridge? Would he allow those to stay in place? If he is, that’s outrageous.

Come to Sudbury and tell us all that despite the $100 million net Falconbridge is going to earn this year, some of it is not going to be plugged back into building a new refinery. Come and tell us that in Sudbury and we will give the minister the kind of reception he deserves.

The minister looks and sees what is happening in Atikokan and Capreol, other parts of northern Ontario that have iron ore mines. While we are importing 58 per cent of iron ore, he is allowing our iron ore mines to be shut down by companies resident elsewhere. Those are the kinds of things bothering us and to which we have a right to an answer.

I’d like to know what the Treasurer’s input is on this famous cabinet committee that’s supposed to look into the problems of one-industry towns. That is part of the responsibility of the Treasurer. He sits back and doesn’t even think it is appropriate to respond to the leadoff questions when they are asked.

I guess the Treasurer would prefer we don’t ask specific questions, that we stand up and engage in the silly philosophical debate which has nothing to do with working people, nothing to do with one-industry communities, nothing to do with people employed in industries threatened as a result of the GATT negotiations. Is that what he prefers? If not, why doesn’t he answer the questions? It has been a week since they were asked and we still don’t have any answers. He has the staff, why aren’t they working on those answers? I would sure like to know the answers to them.

I raised the question of the aerospace industry. We are now getting evidence from all sides, all sources, about the potential problems of the new fighter aircraft contract the federal government is attempting to negotiate. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) sure doesn’t know what is going on He hasn’t even read the confidential document. He is taking the word of the federal government despite all sorts of questions raised about it.

I don’t think the Treasurer understands how potentially important that is for jobs in Ontario and for the future of the aerospace industry and for the future of other high-technology industries as spinoff benefits accrue as a result of the work being done in the aerospace industry.

Has the Treasurer made any negotiations with the federal government? Has he been part of it? If so, what are his views about the new fighter aircraft industry?

I asked the Treasurer specifically about the future of de Havilland. I understand why he wouldn’t want to interfere with the privatization plans of the federal government, but at least he could tell us he is sure there will be guarantees given as a result, if and when de Havilland is sold.

An interesting thing happens. The federal government has said there will be no guarantees. The Premier (Mr. Davis) says he’s sure there will be guarantees in the sale of de Havilland. What’s the Treasurer’s views on that? Who is right? The federal government or the Premier? Are there or are there not guarantees in the sale of de Havilland in terms of foreign ownership, in terms of benefits to Ontario?

Has the Treasurer had assurance that any purchaser of de Havilland will be required to proceed with the kind of development work into the new Dash X, as we call it -- it has another number now; I have forgotten what it is; a new 30-seat aircraft. What guarantees is the Treasurer going to insist on that any buyer give us before they are allowed to buy de Havilland? I would like to know the answer to that question.

I asked the Treasurer if he didn’t agree a mining machinery complex in the north would reduce regional disparity. He didn’t even answer that. I asked him if he thought a good mining machinery industry indigenous to Ontario or some place else in Canada would reduce the deficit in a current account. He didn’t answer that question. I asked him if he didn’t think a mining machinery industry here would provide thousands of jobs for Ontario and in some cases in communities where they desperately need them. He didn’t bother answering that question.

I asked him if he didn’t think building a good mining machinery industry would reduce the dependence of some communities on resource extraction and he didn’t bother to answer that question.

Those are some of the questions I asked in a very serious way. If the Treasurer wants his estimates to be regarded in a frivolous way, then let him talk to the Liberal Party about it. We are trying to be serious about these estimates and the Treasurer won’t treat them seriously. The Treasurer goes through his ramble, disjointed though it is, and doesn’t deal with the specifics of the problems which we raise in here year after year. It’s discouraging and it’s irresponsible on the part of the Treasurer not to respond to those specific questions.

What does he want us to do, put the questions on the Order Paper in written form and then wait for six months while his staff works through and answers them? We shouldn’t have to do that. That’s what these debates are for.

I am sorry to preach to the Treasurer in such a way but I am very angry at the kind of response he gave on Friday. He didn’t even bother to do any homework at all on the questions that were asked in a very serious way. He obviously regards the estimates debate as something in which he won’t get into trouble anyway, so he will just get up and he will baloney them, to use the polite word. “I will baloney them for a couple of hours and we will get on to other things.” That’s not what we are here for. If the minister wants to demean the whole process of the estimates debate then I guess we can’t stop him, but I want to tell him that that kind of behaviour doesn’t have our approval.

I will sit down now; there are a couple of other topics I want to get into. I ask the Treasurer if he is prepared to answer these questions in a serious way. Would he prefer to wait until Friday to answer them or come back on Monday to answer them? If he had said when he responded on Friday that the member for Nickel Belt asked some interesting questions and that by the time the estimates are finished he would have the answers for him, I would have accepted that. But he doesn’t even do that; he doesn’t give us the courtesy of that kind of response. He just stands up and baloneys for an hour.

So in all seriousness, I ask the Treasurer if he would make a commitment to answer those questions in the same way in which they were asked. I think that’s why we are here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I started today’s remarks by saying I hadn’t finished my initial comments on Friday by the time one o’clock came and while I should have carried on, I did not. I think the honourable member knew that before the day began and I think the kind of debate we agreed we would have here would let him re-emphasize anything he wished to.

I hope I answered most of the things the Liberal critic covered in his opening comments. Whether I answered them satisfactorily or not, I don’t expect either of you to pat me on the back. The fact is I took quite a bit of time going through, point by point, the matters he brought forward and I was covering a number of yours. I think a check of Hansard will clearly show I mentioned my concern about mining machinery, about the dollar input, the growth of exports relative to imports lately and a few other comments of that nature. I believe Hansard would show that was all said on Friday.

The member says he asks his questions seriously and I, for one, generally try to answer questions that can easily be answered as clearly as possible. The fact remains I found some of his questions a bit difficult to answer -- specifically the question, “Is 250,000 the right number of jobs for re-employment in Ontario?” I don’t know. I don’t know that anybody has done any more than make a rough approximation.

[4:00]

When we look at the potential shifts, we certainly were concerned. As a matter of fact, a year ago last October I took the time to go to Geneva, as part of a trip to Europe, to express my concern to the negotiators for Canada, pointing out there could easily be discerned within Canada a feeling that this was a time to drop tariffs for the benefit of the non-manufacturing provinces at the expense of Ontario. I wanted them to understand this could easily be popular in other parts of Canada but we were concerned that the industrial heart land get the protection it deserved in the discussions that went on.

I don’t know what good option there was to not being a part of the multitrade negotiations. We hadn’t been part of them. I was told the negotiating countries had mechanisms and enforcement procedures that virtually could almost boycott us, which is the word they used overseas.

The fact is we have been suggesting there will have to be skill-training programs through the Employment Development Fund, the Federal Business Development Bank and others. You must admit this year we are embarking upon the analysis and improvement of skill training with a new vigour through the Ministry of Labour, which has accepted the responsibility for that kind of work. There is awareness we have to be changing and improving the skills of Ontario workers so they can adapt to a new world.

We hope Ontario is going to profit to some degree from the new tariffs, once they are pointed out. One point made here is 80 per cent of Canadian exports will enter duty free -- that is to other nations -- and another 15 per cent will be under five per cent. Only 65 per cent of US exports to Canada will enter duty free. In effect, the percentage of Canadian exports going out duty free to other countries is greater than the percentage coming in. We were a very protected area.

You talk about de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited. It is great to ask what I am going to demand. It is one of the techniques often used to heap blame upon a government, whether it be provincial, municipal or federal, for something of which it can’t be the complete master. I am very concerned about keeping Canadian ownership of de Havilland. I am very concerned about keeping de Havilland in Ontario. We all must be very concerned about that. It has been a company that has produced one of our outstanding success stories in the export markets.

I am meeting, just by coincidence and not because of the estimates process, with senior executives of de Havilland tomorrow. I believe they are going to talk to me about the Dash 8 or DHC-8 program and I am sure at that time I may have an opportunity to learn what, if anything, is transpiring.

Mr. Makarchuk: When the federal election is on, what will you do then?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am only pointing out to you what I can do now.

Mr. Laughren: What have you done?

Hon. F. S. Miller: What have I done? I have not been the voice of the government of Ontario in de Havilland. I suspect you will find the Minister of Industry and Tourism and the Premier have been the two who have been talking on that score. I can only tell you we have great pride in that company and because it is so labour intensive, because it is so well specialized in its own field, I would hope there are potential investors within Canada willing to buy it, if it is for sale.

Let’s be honest. You don’t want to see somebody buying it who hasn’t got the foggiest idea of how to run an aircraft company, an aerospace industry. Would you agree with that?

Mr. Laughren: Yes. That is why I wouldn’t sell it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: One would hope potential buyers have both the financial strength and the administrative capabilities to ensure it is a future profitable organization. Let’s be honest. The aerospace industry is a cyclical industry. You have companies like Lockheed getting one of the first, if not the first, major American guarantees to bail it out when the L-1011 program got into trouble. You had the great and almost unassailable Rolls-Royce organization go bankrupt because of its L-1011 engines, did you not?

Mr. Laughren: You missed the point, though.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t think I have missed the point, What I am trying to point out is there have been times when those industries, no matter how welli managed and how well financed, get into trouble. The very reason for Hawker Siddeley, Canada Limited -- who owned de Havilland at one time, did they not? -- getting out of it was that they were at one of the bottom swings and the future didn’t look all that good.

Mr. Laughren: That’s why the government put money in them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: This is one of the times I don’t disagree with you. I happen to think it was a wise move and we did need to maintain within Canada, both at Canadair and at de Havilland a capability in aerospace. It’s one of the reasons I’m in the pulp and paper industry right now, before it goes as far.

When I look across, the member said I didn’t talk much about northern development or the Employment Development Fund. The member implied I should be a bit embarrassed about the Employment Development Fund.

Mr. Laughren: I didn’t say that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Philosophically embarrassed.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member was on the tack that I probably should be a bit embarrassed, and I am. If one goes back into the books he will see I have said that it’s not my favourite kind of thing.

Mr. Laughren: We don’t like seeing you squirm or anything like that

Hon. F. S. Miller: I quite honestly admit when I have problems with a belief, but again I’m a realist, I’m a pragmatist. Eight years in politics, the first of 24, have made me understand -- now that brought him down -- or realize that things aren’t quite as white and black as you and I want them to be. There are times when governments are intervening in the process because of the nature of the marketplace.

Of the $165 million I currently have for the Employment Development Fund this year, the great bulk of it will probably end up going to northern communities and the very kinds of communities the member started talking about, the one-industry communities. That was the very reason that as Minister of Natural Resources, during the time I was looking at the problem of the one-industry community, I wanted to look at not only the ones that were already gone or going, like Atikokan was with its mine and one or two others like Marmora with its mine, but also look a little further down the road.

It’s something the member never gives us credit for doing. We wanted to look across northeastern and northwestern Ontario and find out how many other one-industry towns in the forest products industry were apparently healthy but potentially unhealthy. That was a direct result of the committee the member gives no credit to; I was chairman, as Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What came out of it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for Rainy River -- I won’t ask him to say he would agree -- believes we should help the pulp and paper industry to restore its strength.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I don’t think we should give them money, but you’re doing it on an ad hoc basis.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. I don’t think we are.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What are you doing for Ignace?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Ignace is in the same boat as Atikokan.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member may be excused for interjecting quickly when he has just arrived.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’ve been here for an hour and I’m waiting, just like my colleague from Nickel Belt, for you to say something. I was here last Friday --

Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I recall many a time when there were three of us in here, but perhaps you were within range --

Mr. T. P. Reid: I was one of them. I was astounded, there were only four of us here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Five, because it was one of my colleagues who called for a quorum. The fact is that the Employment Development Fund is heavily going after some of the areas you are talking about.

We are working on the auto parts imbalance. Twenty-nine per cent of grants so far have gone to the auto parts industry. That’s a fairly high chunk of the allocation. By the time we’re all through we’re going to be much higher on the pulp and paper side because we’re going to be approving quite a number in the next while, once we have sorted out some of the final details with our colleagues at the DREE level who are paying part of the costs of that program.

That’s an interesting thing. Ontario brought the program forward without consultation with the federal government. We didn’t really ask for help but they very quickly jumped in, I think within two days. Obviously they had been working on it -- they knew we were -- and had a program for Ontario where they gave one dollar for every two Ontario gave. This is specifically for the pulp and paper part.

They expanded it to Quebec, where they gave 60 cents for every 40 cents Quebec gave or $1.50 for every dollar Quebec gave. I wasn’t surprised but I was somewhat disappointed that the ratios were so different in the two provinces. I think our pulp and paper industry is just as deserving of federal dollars as is that of Quebec. I hope you would agree with me. A pulp and paper company functions there with almost exactly the same basic problems it functions with in Ontario, except perhaps they have not pursued the pollution and environmental aspects with the same kind of will we have.

Mr. Samis: That’s not saying much.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hope to be in your community very shortly and I hope to have you with me while we give away a little money in the next few weeks. The gentleman behind you who suddenly woke up and came alive, in his community we’re giving money away so steadily it’s a wonder we’re not filled with Conservative members from Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I think the Treasurer is taunting me. I will indeed put the questions on the Order Paper and try to get some answers that way.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That doesn’t work either, I’ve tried it.

Mr. Langhren: At least it puts somebody to work.

I would like to talk to the Treasurer about one of my favourite topics, one about which I have a passion, if not a fetish. That is the whole mining machinery industry to which I have referred a couple of times.

It really is outrageous that this country is the third largest in the production of minerals, the second largest consumer of mining machinery and number one in importing mining machinery. That’s in the developed world.

The jobs that are lost in the mining machinery industry we estimate to be roughly 18,000. To lose 18,000 jobs in an industry which should be ours is simply not acceptable.

I know what the Treasurer has said -- that the Minister of Industry and Tourism had a trade show, which we thought was a good idea, and the Minister of Industry and Tourism has indicated he is going to follow it up. But the Treasurer knows, as we know, that the private sector has had decades to put in place in this province a healthy mining machinery industry and they haven’t done so. There is Jarvis Clark in North Bay, a producer of mining machinery, but they have their problems too. They go to DREE for a grant to expand and they’re turned down because they’re too successful. Now, a fellow named Jarvis and a fellow named Clark own Jarvis Clark -- at least that’s my understanding.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They’re both federal members for our party.

Mr. Laughren: Not the same, no. I don’t think that’s true; I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Peterson: Pretty sure about that; right, Frank? I think they sold out to a US company. They’re now working for the States.

Mr. Laughren: No, I believe the member is wrong because not a month ago they came before the Sudbury 2001 committee, of which I’m an executive member, and made a presentation.

[4:15]

The figure that always fascinates me is the proportion of domestic demand that is met by imports. That’s a very critical figure to look at in any key industrial sector -- the percentage of the domestic demand that is met by imports.

I was checking on mining machinery statistics. These are from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, using the Statistics Canada figures. In 1964, as a percentage of the Canadian market, imports were 57 per cent. That kept creeping up. We have a more up-to-date figure on its way to us; the latest figure we have is that it’s up over 90 per cent. I understand there are some corrections being made on that figure by StatsCan or Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa, but those are the figures we got from them. They’re not our figures.

Thinking of mining machinery imports meeting 90 per cent of the domestic market should cause a chill to run up the Treasurer’s spine. That’s something we have to turn around.

I would like to know if the Treasurer is prepared to move in an aggressive way to ensure that happens. It’s not good enough to stand back with either a wishing wand or a Band-Aid and think the problem is going to be solved. It simply won’t happen that way.

As a matter of fact, James Clark made the point that there should be something called an Ontario mining group in Ontario. He felt the Ontario mining group should consist of manufacturers, government, mining companies, contractors and consultants. The Ontario mining group would take a look at this problem. The government has to take some initiative here. If the Minister of Industry and Tourism won’t take it, the Treasurer should.

I want to tell you something. If I were sitting in the Treasurer’s seat -- we all fantasize, I know -- and I saw those kinds of deficits and import figures, I would say to the Minister of Industry and Tourism: “This has to end. Get together an Ontario mining group; turn this thing around. Don’t do it with a mining trade show that has 10 per cent of the potential market on display. Do a proper one, so we can get this thing under way.”

The Treasurer doesn’t see that as his role. Part of the problem is that he sees himself simply as someone who tries to balance the books. Well, he’s not going to balance the books with that kind of attitude. There’s enough evidence that that won’t solve the problem.

We’ve tried to be very specific on this side in terms of what we would do to try to turn it around. Rather than just criticize what the Treasurer is not doing, we’ve tried to say what we would do. That allows the Treasurer to have a go at us too; we think that’s fair.

We have suggested a number of things. I’ll enumerate them for the Treasurer:

First, we suggest the establishment of an independent nickel institute in the Sudbury basin. We’ve got a university there; that would be an ideal place for it. As a matter of fact, the mineral nickel consultant for the province of Ontario has been urging that this happen for some time now.

Second, we suggest the expansion of Laurentian University and Lakehead University to provide major studies in resource development, as well as extensive mining research facilities. Some of these tie in with the whole question of linkages between the resource industry and the machinery industry. That’s what’s missing at the present time.

Third, there should be government support of mergers and joint ventures that will strengthen domestic machinery production. A good example is the Jarvis Clark operation attempting to expand but needing capital input.

Fourth, we suggest the establishment of a government agency or a government industry agency which would foster communication links between manufacturers, resource companies and parts manufacturers so that domestic companies secure maximum contracts from resource industries. Such an agency would also foster our domestic and international marketing network. The province of Saskatchewan has recently announced such a program.

Fifth, we would put pressure on national distributors to market Canadian-made items.

Sixth, we would require foreign-owned corporations to spend more on research and development in Canada. That’s a major problem.

Seventh, we suggest the introduction of a machinery purchase tax credit program based solely on the buy-Canadian policy.

We have examples over there of the policy which now gives a tax credit for the purchase of machinery no matter where the machinery is purchased. It’s coming back to me now -- the ministry itself had a study out a year or two ago which showed that program was costing Ontario jobs in the short term. In the long term there would be the job creation aspect of it, but in the short term it was costing us jobs. I would even question that. When you encourage the purchase of foreign-owned machinery rather than rebuilding the Canadian machinery you’re not making sense at all.

Eighth, we suggest a manpower training program based on an apprenticeship fund from which corporations could draw after demonstrating an effective program. The fund would be developed on the corporation grant levy system.

Ninth, there should be a strictly enforced buy-Canadian program for government agencies and crown corporations, taking into consideration issues beyond prices. This type of nontariff barrier would respond to those used in all other countries.

I want to talk at some length on that, by the way. I doubt if we will get to it today, but I want to talk about the whole government procurement program of this government. The Treasurer should be taking an active role in that because it has something to do with rebuilding the Ontario economy as well, not just the Ontario economy, but other parts of Canada.

Mr. Peterson: You’ve been reading our stuff, Floyd.

Mr. Laughren: No, this is something we’ve been working at for a long time.

Tenth, we suggest much better data collection on this industry by all levels of government. By that I mean the mining machine industry.

Mr. Chairman, those are some of the things we’d like to see happen in the field of mining machinery. The Treasurer can say they’ve started. Well, they’ve started after years of increasing deficits in the mining machinery industry. As a matter of fact, the figures I was quoting before showed that back in 1964, which is 15 years ago, the trend was already evident. For 15 years the government sat over there and watched the market deteriorate in terms of meeting the domestic demand from Canadian suppliers.

After 15 years the Treasurer can say his government is doing something now, but that is not a good enough excuse for not doing anything for 15 years. We’re talking about a $400 million market. It really is a substantial market.

That’s all I have to say about mining machinery. I wanted to talk about one other sector before I sat down, but if the Treasurer wants to respond to mining machinery I’ll stop for a moment and then go on to the other sector.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was trying to check to see whether the figure you used, that 90 per cent of mining machinery was imported, was accurate. I think when sweeping statements like that are made we need some documentation.

Mr. Laughren: They’re not my figures.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m not challenging you and saying it’s wrong. I want to make sure you’re right before I simply take it, as we all too often do, to be gospel. I think I have enough data here.

On a Canadian basis, putting all machinery together -- I leave you to exclude mining machinery -- exports in 1978 were $2.6 billion and export-imports in 1978 were $6.9 billion. So the exports would have been a little more than one third of the imports; about 40 per cent of the imports, roughly.

Mr. Laughren: Then there’s something wrong with your figures.

Hon. F. S. Miller: These are federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce figures for machinery in Canada. I can even be more specific in Ontario. These figures didn’t tell you what the domestic demand was. They only showed total exports and total imports. They didn’t say what the Canadian market was and that’s the

part I’ve been looking for in my data. So, if you’re right, if we’ve imported $6.9 billion, we’ve offset it with $2.6 billion. The interesting thing there is that the rate of growth of exports is going up faster than the rate of growth of imports. That at least is in the right direction. What would the honourable member have us do? If that isn’t happening, we even have a worse problem.

This is one of those areas where I share again the objectives of the honourable member. I sincerely do share the goal of seeing us improve our Canadian manufacturing of machinery. I am quite willing to consider seriously the suggestions he is making. I am not going to say which ones I will accept or reject today. It happens that when I listened to his first presentation a week ago today I jotted down a number of questions to myself about this issue and I am in the process of asking that we start looking seriously within Treasury at the feasibility of some of them.

That doesn’t mean they are going to be feasible or not feasible. I quite agree it is a major problem and it may be very difficult to solve. Some of the solutions the honourable member has offered may look good, but I will give you one example: the selective sales tax route is, in my opinion, a nontariff barrier. Under the rules of GATT we would be hampered.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Frank, you were complaining that the United States was the worst offender.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think Japan was the worst offender.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The United States was close.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are all kinds of nontariff barriers functioning right now; you and I both know it. I have one that is complained about quite often -- the price of wine in Ontario. That is strictly to protect a Canadian industry.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Come on now, 123 per cent? He is raising revenue and you know it.

Mr. Laughren: I will have to get Morty Shulman back here to talk to you about that.

I will leave the mining machinery sector for the moment. The Treasurer said exports were increasing at a faster rate than imports. When one is starting with this incredibly small base, the total deficit is increasing by leaps and bounds, even though exports are growing at a faster rate. That argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again the insinuation that our base is terrible is not totally correct. Our exports were 38 per ce