Hansard Transcripts 1982-May-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Peterson: To the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: The minister will be aware that in the last five years, the manpower of Ontario Hydro bureaucracy has grown some 28 per cent and that its office space requirements have grown some 39 per cent. During that time, demand has grown 4.8 per cent, or a little less than one per cent a year.

Can the minister justify this explosion in Hydro bureaucracy when, in fact, demand is almost flat or, at least, rising proportionately less than the great bureaucracy there to handle it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, this matter was the subject of a fairly large article a week or two ago in one of Canada's newspapers. As one analysed that particular story, and as I sought some advice on that particular matter, I think it is not fair, necessarily, to be relating the size or the growth of staff to the demand.

I am advised that there is emphasis at the moment in the planning with regard to the nuclear option, which is fairly labour intensive. The honourable member would know that is far more labour intensive than some of the other options, and that there is every justification for that particular increase related to the future plans of that great corporation.

Mr. Peterson: The minister will be aware, I am sure, of the Ontario Energy Board's findings last year: "The board is also concerned about the growth in Ontario Hydro's administrative staff, and the absence of appropriate performance measurement as to whether such additional staff is making a net increase or decrease to operation, maintenance and administration costs." The findings went on to say that on the issue of staffing, board counsel noted that Ontario Hydro did not know the number of employees for the corporation in 1982.

In view of the fact that, in 1979, the ministry promised to create a memorandum of understanding with Hydro which would clarify the responsibilities for government policy, are we to interpret that government policy as directed towards Hydro is to inflate the bureaucracy? If that is not government policy, where is that memorandum of understanding that is supposed to lay out those responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As I have listened to the supplementary, there are two questions: The answer to the first is no. The answer to the second is that we are just about completing our negotiations with Hydro with respect to the memorandum. When those are completed it will be filed.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister's first reply to be saying that the amount of planning, design, etc., required for the nuclear options, is excessive in comparison to planning and design for thermal and hydraulic plants and that is the reason for the growth in the bureaucracy at Hydro?

Secondly, may I ask the minister what he and his ministry have done to try to rein in that growth of bureaucracy at Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that. I would not use the word excessive. The point I was trying to make is that it is more labour intensive; that is, the planning and the work --

Mr. Foulds: It costs more.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is less efficient.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute now. When you start getting involved in cost comparison with the nuclear, the nuclear option shows up extremely well. The member would know that.

Mr. Foulds: As long as one takes out the planning part, the cost of the planning.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would not use the word excessive at all. It is explainable by virtue of the labour requirement system.

Mr. Peterson: How can the minister argue that now it requires more planning than it did to create Bruce and Pickering and a variety of other megaprojects in which your government participated, in the face of the incredible waste and errors of judgement that will be costing electricity consumers in this province billions of dollars over the next few years?

I give you some examples: $45 million lost in the Petrosar deal; $500 million will be lost because Hydro did not realize the price of uranium would be going down; $460 million lost in mothballing Wesleyville; another $485 million lost for not going ahead with the Bruce heavy water plant -- billions of dollars of waste.

Is it the minister's response that more planners are needed to make sure that this does not happen again? Does the minister not feel that he has to start exercising control over Hydro, or is he going to be content, like all the previous ministers, to let them control him?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps the most direct response is to share with the Leader of the Opposition, comments which I shared with the author of the article that has become the source of his research for his questions today, and to simply say that hindsight is always 20-20. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition has the benefit of looking back and trying to ascertain the wisdom of decisions on the basis of the current day.

I am prepared to accept the fact that very responsible people, faced with the circumstances of that particular time, made very responsible decisions. The fact that events indeed may have altered over that period, provides the honourable member with the opportunity to raise this type of question. I have confidence that the people of Ontario are in a very fortunate position to be able to rely on the security of supply because of the decisions that have been made from time to time over the years by this corporation.

Mr. Peterson: The minister alone has confidence, let me say.

2:10 p.m.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). The minister is aware that the Premier (Mr. Davis), when speaking in North Bay on March 30, unintentionally misspoke himself when he said:

"Present projections of availability of coal-fired baseload capacity of the US systems to the west of GPU indicate that there may be little or no excess capacity in associated energy from those systems after 1990."

That was the evidence that Ontario Hydro submitted to the National Energy Board, yet the Premier said in North Bay that if General Public Utilities cannot buy electricity from Ontario Hydro they would get it from the dirtier plants in the United States which would increase the acid rain. Is the minister not aware of the Premier's statement on that occasion and that his facts were wrong? Will the minister use this opportunity to clear up the misstatement that was made at that time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure of being in North Bay at the time with the Premier to hear specifically what he said.

Mr. Nixon: Don't you read his speeches?

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, as a matter of fact I do not always have the opportunity to read each and every one of his speeches.

It is my understanding, as a matter of fact, that in that hearing that took place in the United States, when asked what their alternatives were if they did not proceed with the particular contract with Ontario Hydro, GPU did indicate that Ohio would be an alternative. That clearly is not a particularly clean source if they will be using existing plants in Ohio to produce the coal-fired power.

Mr. Peterson: They don't have the capacity. Hydro's submission is that they don't have the capacity.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again, I did not see all of the information that Hydro may have submitted in the hearings before the National Energy Board but I can only repeat what I understand is the case in terms of GPU's testimony and hearings in the United States.

Mr. Peterson: Given the fact that Hydro itself says that there is not the capacity in the Ohio valley to honour that commitment and given the fact that the acid rain will be six times worse in Ontario if that electricity is produced here by coal-fired generating stations than it would be in the Ohio valley, is it not the minister's responsibility as the spokesman for the environment in Ontario to bring these concerns to the attention of the public and to at least make sure that the Premier is not inadvertently misinforming himself as well as the people of this province? Can this not be solved by bringing it to a public hearing so the facts are brought out for everyone in the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if it is worth the effort that we, on this side of the House, put into answering such things as questions on the Order Paper that are placed there by the researchers of the members opposite or whether, once we have gone to all that trouble, they ever bother to read the material. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition knows not of what he speaks. His facts are wrong, he is ill-informed and yet the information exists in the answers that I have already tabled in this House.

Mr. Nixon: You sound like the Minister of Energy on the Suncor question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the minister's response to the Leader of the Opposition's first question about Hydro's presentation to the NEB and the real situation south of the border in terms of capacities and excess capacities and the alternatives in terms of GPU seeking power, clearly indicates that the minister has not made himself fully aware of the kinds of things that are being said publicly on this side of the border. If we are going to get a snow job, we would at least like clean snow --

Mr. Speaker: Now do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Charlton: Does the minister not think it is his responsibility to at least make himself aware, in a situation like this, of all of the facts?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, after the member's reference to "snow job," my colleague to my left said, "Leave me out of this." However, I am well aware of what is being said publicly on this side of the border. In fact, I am also reasonably well informed about what is being said publicly on the other side of the border as well. But I think that much of what is being said on this side of the border is based on unsubstantiated statements and incomplete information on the part of individuals who choose not to use the correct information we are making available.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Like who?

Mr. Peterson: You are referring to the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I am not. What the Premier said, I believe, is correct.

The fact of the matter is that there are many other interest groups and groups of individuals who have specific interests, who are single-issue oriented, who choose to ignore not all of the facts, but those facts that do not support the position they wish to put forward.

I think the member for Hamilton Mountain should look at what I have tabled in this House in answer to Order Paper questions. It is as available to the member as it is to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), and I would highly commend it to him for reading.

Mr. Peterson: The minister's theory now, I gather, is that those people who speak out against GPU from Ontario's point of view are in alliance with or in conspiracy with the coal-burning interests in the United States. That was the minister's last point.

The minister is the one who is suppressing the information; he is the one who is not allowing a public hearing; his Premier is uninformed on the issue; Hydro has a different point of view. Is it not the minister's responsibility to make sure there is a public hearing so these facts can come out, or is he just going to run around like the rest of the cabinet saying that only he knows the truth and not sharing it even with members of his own cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Nothing is being withheld by way of any information that is public. I have tabled much of what the Leader of the Opposition is asking for in the House today. He has already got it; it has been stated publicly by me and others. The fact is that certain individuals are making public statements and issuing press releases purportedly based on certain facts that are completely wrong.

Mr. Peterson: You mean John Fraser.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, not John Fraser. I am speaking of those who talk in terms such as, "If this goes forward, 60 lakes will be lost." That is garbage. Nobody can substantiate that kind of statement. Even the allegations that are being made about increased emissions and so on totally ignore such simple facts and realities as the existing order on Hydro.

That is not to say that there is no concern. I am concerned about the issue and I am concerned about where it is going to lead. My colleagues and I have discussed certain aspects of this at this stage, and they are well aware of the concerns I have. But even though I may have ongoing concerns I am not going to stand back and be silent when people are disseminating false information.

POVERTY LINE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of almost every minister of substance I will put a question to the Deputy Premier.

Is he aware that for about $650 million, which is about the same price the government paid for a quarter of Suncor and about the same price it paid to settle with the medical profession last week, he could raise above the poverty line a half a million people in this province who are presently living below the poverty line? And is his government willing to take steps to do that?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most straightforward answer to this question is to point out that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) of the province will be introducing his budget on Thursday evening next. Indeed, it seems to me, as one who is regularly in his seat in this House, I have heard not only the Treasurer but also the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) respond to similar questions and indicate in a very positive way some of the initiatives this government has been associated with to respond to the situation to which the member makes reference.

As far as further initiatives are concerned and additional directions that may be taken, I think we only have to wait until Thursday evening to have the statement of the Treasurer.

Mr. Foulds: As the government has endorsed the principle of catch-up for the medical profession, which is at the high end of the earnings scale, does his government endorse the principle of catch-up for those living at the lower end of the economic scale?

2:20 p.m.

Does the minister realize that, since his government's so-called restraint program was instituted in 1975, a disabled person in this province has lost 16.2 per cent of his buying power, and a mother on general welfare assistance with one child has lost 23.4 per cent? Is he willing to give this House his assurance those figures will be reversed and the buying power of those people increased so that they can catch up, not only to their previous incomes but to the poverty line?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the record of this party in government in responding to its social responsibilities is quite open for all to read. It has attached a high priority to these social and health needs.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, this government is so concerned that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) himself refuses to endorse a proposal to triple Canada pension plan disability benefits because only 40 per cent of the people on disability benefits are below the poverty line. That is how concerned the government is.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier. His government has been willing to give a billion dollar settlement to the doctors to add to their already affluent position in this society. Why will he not guarantee today that he will make sure people at the lower end of the economic scale are covered in the budget?

Is he not aware that general welfare assistance recipients, such as a mother, father and two children, have lost 23 per cent of their earning capacity since 1975; that a mother with one child has lost 14.8 per cent under the Family Benefits Act and that a guaranteed annual income system for the disabled family with a mother, father and two children has lost 16.2 per cent? Why will he not give them catch-up? The government is willing to be generous with the doctors, but what about the poor in this society who keep getting poorer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is important to have the record clarified as far as the settlement to which the honourable member makes reference is concerned. It is a settlement which is less this year than last and the figures he banters around are perhaps those to be associated with a five-year settlement, so we must keep things in proper perspective.

This government is prepared to be judged on the response it makes to sensitive needs in the social area. One only has to look at the budgets of this province over any period of time to see the high percentage of that budget which goes into the social area to respond to the very needs to which the member makes reference.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), I return to the Deputy Premier.

Can he tell us what steps his government is willing to take to relieve the shortage of affordable housing in Metro Toronto when the average-priced home in Metro Toronto requires an income of $55,467 to purchase, which is 81 per cent above the average Metro income? Even yesterday's leaked program for housing requires an income of $52,000, some 69 per cent above the average family income in Metro.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that over a period of time a number of questions have been directed to my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to policies related to his area of responsibility. I am not able to respond in particular on the area to which the honourable member refers, but I will be glad to draw that to my colleague's attention.

As a result of the exchange in the House yesterday, I thought the Treasurer through his comments handled the latter part of that question. If there are any particular initiatives, they would form part of the general budgetary policy of the province and would be in the budget to be made public when the Treasurer rises in his place on Thursday evening.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is having his little chat with the Treasurer and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing about these matters, will he draw to their attention that the much-vaunted Ontario rental construction loan program has supplied only 1,355 units for Metropolitan Toronto, which has 25 per cent of the housing needs of the province. Of these units, only 337 starts will be allocated to low-income and rent-geared-to-income housing, when there are something like 20,000 to 30,000 people on the waiting lists for those kinds of housing?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to draw the attention of the Treasurer and the minister of housing to the figures quoted by the honourable member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Premier also bring to the attention of the Treasurer that this party is concerned about those people who may lose their houses because of the economic situation and the high interest rates; that we would like to see some program to ensure that those people who already have houses do not lose them?

Second, the minister has been here a long time, longer than most; would he not agree with me that if the leak from the budget we heard about yesterday is reality, and that if those rumours are fairly close to the fact, he, as a man of principle, should feel it incumbent upon himself to resign? I am sure he will give the Treasurer that advice as well.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, that is a two-part question. The first part: I would be happy to include in my conversation with the Treasurer and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the honourable member's comments in connection with mortgage rates.

Second, it is my understanding that the Treasurer responded personally to the matter of any proposed part of his budget, that he handled that very well yesterday in his place when he responded to the questions put by the honourable member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister is getting more like the Premier every day.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I agree.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary I would like to draw to the attention of the Deputy Premier: Do he and his government realize that the problem of housing is not only in Metro Toronto, but across the province? For example, in order to buy the average-priced home in Thunder Bay today, 51 per cent of the average industrial income is required.

What kind of steps is the government taking in terms of bringing down interest rates, and preventing mortgage foreclosures, to allow people with the average industrial income to buy a home in ordinary communities like Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the member knows this line of questioning has been addressed to the Treasurer, to the Premier (Mr. Davis), and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing quite consistently, and we have pointed out from where the leadership must come with respect to interest rates in this particular country. The member knows that.

Second, this government hardly has to be lectured on the fact that when it initiates policy in any area, be it housing or anything else, it is for the entire province, and not just a part of the province.

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Welland-Thorold asked a question of the Minister of Energy related to the possibility of provincial contribution to the proposed federal assistance program for home owners with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I wish to advise him that the provincial government has no intention of participating in the federal government program.

As we have said before on repeated occasions, the UFFI problem is one created by federal initiatives, under the Canadian home insulation program, known as CHIP. They have created the problem and they should solve it. While I applaud the direction in which the federal government is moving, providing for some relief for UFFI home owners, I wish to express my concerns with its proposal.

Their proposed approach provides an untried solution to an uncertain problem. The subsidy provided is not likely to cover the cost, but will encourage contractors to enter this field to carry out work in an area in which they may have no experience. It is a situation in which contractors might easily substantially underestimate or overestimate the cost of removing the UFFI. If they underestimate, there might be financial failures of contractors, which would leave homes partially torn apart in the process of removal.

The federal government must give much more thought to its proposed program, and must provide many more safeguards if it wishes to avoid creating an even greater problem for home owners in attempting to solve the health problem created by the program.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question relative to the minister's statement that the Ontario government is confirming over and over again that it has no responsibility in this. Is the minister unaware that a member of his own party, Conservative Donald Blenkarn, the member of Parliament for Mississauga South, said last Saturday to the assembled group out here that the provincial government should take a share of the financial responsibility for retrofitting the UFFI homes? He also said he would be contacting this government to urge it to do so.

2:30 p.m.

In view of that, the responsibility the government has for the healthy condition of premises, which cannot be denied, and for assessment, and in view of the fact that the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations stated -- it is in the Hansard record -- that the government could have prevented the use of UFFI under the building code, how can the government say it will not take a share of the responsibility for correcting this situation?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I know it has to be that simple for the honourable member to understand it. I understand that, but unfortunately it is one of those complex issues that requires a little more elaboration. I know we will lose the member in the process --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- but I think it is worthwhile explaining it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you answer the question now, please?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to go back to first principles. I know that may be difficult for some. The fact of the matter is that CHIP was a federal program, which this government did not piggyback on. Under the building code the use of UFFI was never approved because there were certain aspects as to its effect --

Mr. Swart: It was never prohibited, which could have been done.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Does the member want an answer or does he want to talk? I understand he likes talking, but he should try listening once in a while.

It was never approved because we were not satisfied as to its effectiveness as an insulation product. There had never been any involvement up to that point. In the absence of any federal interest in the plight of home owners in this province, as the member knows, the then Minister of Health initiated some testing programs at considerable cost to the public of this province, when no one else was prepared to do anything. I have to say the federal government is making it very clear it wants all the credit for every program it is initiating. Let it have it and let it correct this problem.

I do not blame the leader of the official opposition for being concerned about the chain around his neck. It is a difficult one to handle.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, at one time we used to hear from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations how concerned he was about problems. He is now no longer concerned about anything, particularly the home owners with the UFFI problem.

In view of the fact that section 7 of the Public Health Act outlines very clearly that Ontario has jurisdiction and responsibility when premises are injurious to the public health, why does the minister not live up to the obligations under section 7? Will he make money available to assist the UFFI home owners? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are many people who will say that when this minister has had legitimate concerns about a problem he has not put those concerns into action. That is not always popular everywhere, but nevertheless it is a habit I have got into.

I have to say to the member this is a chain around his neck, whether he likes it or not, because of his friends in Ottawa. Get them to accept the responsibility. Listen to the Home Owners with Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation who say, "To talk about provincial responsibility is a red herring." The member should listen to the facts and try to do something about them. They are not listening to common sense up there.

Mr. Wrye: The cabinet ministers opposite could probably have a convention of concern if they wanted. They just do not do anything about the problems.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ADVERTISING

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Health about an ad that appears in today's editions of all three Toronto dailies with the headline, In Toronto We're Helping to Turn Fear into Hope. This ad talks about the new Toronto-Bayview Cancer Clinic which will be providing treatment and research against this terrible disease which kills so many people each year.

Before I get to the question, let me make it clear to the minister that I have no objection to this new centre as such. I think he knows that members from all parties are most sensitive to the role the government can play in this field. My question is: Every time the government does anything to fulfil the very reason for its existence, why does it then have to pat itself on the back? Could the minister tell me how much the production and placing of these three ads cost? Why does he spend money like this when so many other health care matters are being left unattended?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the ministry feels quite sincerely it is important that the public of this province, which pays a great deal of money -- in fact, almost 30 per cent of the provincial budget -- towards health care, understands that services are being put in place to look after their interests.

I understand the politics which require the opposition to have a certain imperative, to travel the province and come back with a report which points out what they believe to be shortcomings in the health care system; that is their job. I respect their right to do that. In fact, I respect their right to relay general impressions they have which may or may not be accurate. I even respect their right to be wrong, which they were on most of the points that their health committee raised.

None the less, the reality is that the people of this province, including those people they visited in many communities and in front of whom they did a great of hand wringing to let them know that in the opposition's opinion the system was underfunded, do have to be assured that there are things happening in various parts of this province which will ensure that if they need those services they are put in place.

The opposition cannot get in a situation where they can expect to go into places like Sudbury, as they did, and raise some concerns -- and I understand their concerns -- about cancer facilities there. My parliamentary assistant (Mr. Gordon) has spoken eloquently to me and the ministry on those issues for a long time before the member even heard about Sudbury, let alone health care issues.

It is very important for the people of Sudbury to know that at a hospital -- i.e., Sunnybrook -- which is specifically designated to treat people coming in from northern parts of this province that cancer clinic is in place, the government and the taxpayers have invested a lot of money in that particular institution and it is available to them to be used as they need it.

I happen to think that is very important. The opposition happens to think it is important for their political purposes to let people believe the system is underfunded and falling apart. In our role as governors and as guardians of the public health, we happen to think the taxpayers should also know their money is being spent in the proper places, where it is being spent and that the services are in place.

I will wait until the member hands that paper to the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) so she will know how to ask the supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Stop abusing question period.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Jim, I have the right to talk here while she reads it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have to give her a chance to read it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are addressing the question of the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In simple terms, it is important for the people to be reassured that we continue to have the finest health care system in the world right here in Ontario.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. From the answer the minister has given, he is telling the House -- and he may clarify it -- that the reason he ran the three ads in the Toronto papers today was because the Liberal Party got some information out to the people across this province and he wanted to balance that information.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Ms. Copps: Is that the reason? If the minister has received a presentation from his parliamentary assistant, I would have to say I believe that the minister -- and he may be able to tell me -- must be missing the point.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: The people of Sudbury are concerned about a full cancer clinic in Sudbury. Why is he talking about continually sending them down to Toronto for cancer treatment when he knows a full treatment facility is needed in Sudbury and some of the money used in these advertisements could have been better put towards that treatment centre?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the member will look at what the ministry has been doing for some time, that is not the first ad we placed. In fact, the ministry has been placing --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) has just confirmed that the ministry was advertising some new facilities it has put in long before the member for Hamilton Centre got her consolation prize of a health care committee to travel the province. Lest she believe that we are running these ads to respond to the concerns she raises, let me tell her that if I were concerned about it, it would be cheaper for me to send a personal letter to each of the 10 people who appeared in Timmins in front of her health care committee, or each of the seven people who appeared in Sudbury.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I think this question originally had something to do with government advertising, and I notice that the new minister is as enthusiastic as his predecessor was in blowing his own horn about Ministry of Health projects.

May I ask the minister, therefore, why his advertising program always ignores the Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance program in this province, on which almost nothing has been spent? I think the government has spent $20,000 on it out of a zillion-dollar budget, and most people in Ontario obviously do not know the details of the premium assistance program. If he is going to advertise, why does he not do a service to the people instead of the kind of self-service that has obviously become traditional over there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think this government has done an excellent job in getting that information out there in every way possible. If the member has any creative ideas on how we can do a better job of getting that information out there -- which would be pressure on him, I know -- then he should feel free to write me. I cannot promise to put his name right under mine in the ads we run, but I know his main interest is in getting the information out there. If he has any ideas I will look forward to receiving them; if he does not, when we get to estimates I am going to remind him he did not have any ideas.

I would not want the second part, or really the only part, of the Liberal Party critic's question to go unanswered, and it was --

Some hon. members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Fine. If you don't want the answer, that's okay.

TAXING OF DAY CARE CENTRES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue concerning his decision last fall to change his assessment policy so that he would start assessing the real property tax value of day care centres in schools.

Is the minister aware that the Toronto Board of Education last night reported that in more than 50 schools which are providing day care services at this point an assessment could cost as much as $156,958 to the board or to the users of the facilities? What advice can the minister give that board? Would he suggest that they raise the mill rate to pay for this? Or does he think they should charge a fee per unit to the users of the facility?

If they did that at Hughes Public School the cost would be about $356 per student that would have to be picked up, at Montrose school it would be $198 per unit and at Rosedale it would be $168 per unit. What is his advice to them? Should they raise the mill rate or just charge the users that much money for every student who goes there?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on other occasions when a similar issue has come up, I think there was no change in the policy in the Ministry of Revenue vis-à-vis assessing this type of facility being used in school properties. I would grant that it has only become a relatively recent phenomenon to use excess space in schools for day care, among other things, albeit that is the most prominent one.

We were not pushing it. The reason we did this is that one of the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto contacted the ministry and said, "Hey you fellows, you should be assessing these day care centres." Accordingly, they sent us a list from North York and told us to get on the job, which is exactly what we did.

I appreciate that since that time the municipality, among others, has kind of had a change in position. We are examining the whole issue of exemptions from taxation, including the use of school properties which in themselves are exempt for normal school purposes, at the request of cabinet. We are examining the whole issue and we will be making a cabinet submission very shortly on the issue, including the disposition of the day care question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am very pleased to hear that the minister is reassessing the position. Perhaps he will now understand it is better not to listen to Mel Lastman, as many of us have thought for some time.

When the minister is making those considerations before cabinet, will he not consider the fact that in the day care centres in more than 50 schools in Toronto, 28 per cent of the spaces are subsidized spaces? When he is talking with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), will he consider that people are being taxed twice for the same kind of facilities and that makes absolutely no sense at all? Would he recommend to cabinet that day care centres within schools should not be taxed at all?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is amazing that the reference is made to the Toronto Board of Education. In my reading of the press recently, it seems to me they are taking many initiatives with no consequence or concern about the cost implication. So why all of a sudden there would be concern on this, I am not sure.

To get back specifically to the whole issue, there is no doubt at all it is an issue that has many facets to it. It is not quite as simplistic as the member would suggest. There is such a thing as a marketplace out there. If he thinks it is proper planning to suggest that somebody, because they have 20 spaces in here, should be tax exempt and in so doing put a private entrepreneur with 20 spaces down the street out of business, I do not. He may, but I do not. There is a little bit more to the issue than his simplistic view of it may perceive.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a public service, day care in a public building, namely a school. I notice on the Order Paper that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) is recommending that a day care centre be set up in this building. If that happens, are they going to be taxed as well?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, the whole policy of exempt businesses, whether it be day care or other things, is being examined regardless of the location. There are others even within other post-secondary school institutions that have had rulings on them in the past in favour of the policy that is within the act. If we are going to change that, a change in the act or other relevant legislation will be appropriate. In due course that will come forth for the information of the members.

SALES TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Deputy Premier in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr F. S. Miller) and with a further suggestion for the Treasurer.

Since Quebec is the only other province in Canada that taxes shoes and then only on sales above $125, and since our provincial sales tax exemption of $30 was set in 1974, will the Deputy Premier encourage the Treasurer to consider at least raising the exemption to $60 in order to improve production and sales of good quality, Ontario-made children's shoes?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to draw the member's observations to the attention of the Treasurer.

Mr. Breithaupt: While the Deputy Premier is doing that, would he ask the Treasurer to consider that any possible loss in provincial sales tax in this area would more than likely be made up by far fewer health dollars being spent on foot care and, therefore, it may be to the advantage of the entire system?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will pass the comments along without any particular expression of opinion on that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, while the Deputy Premier is acting as a conduit of information to various cabinet ministers, will he ascertain what effect such an exemption would have on the currently beleaguered shoe industry in Ontario which has faced massive layoffs in the past year?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to include that.

2:50 p.m.

NURSING APPLICATIONS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

In view of the fact that there are documented critical shortages of nurses in the province, in Metro Toronto and northern Ontario in particular, and in view of the fact that all community colleges have applications that far exceed the number of places available -- one example is Humber College, with 2,000 applications for 130 spots -- what has the minister done or what is she planning to do to ensure that our hospitals and clinics have the nurses needed to look after the health of Ontarians and at the same time stop forcing Toronto Western Hospital, Women's College Hospital, Humber Memorial Hospital and the Hospital for Sick Children to recruit in the United States and England for qualified nurses?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in addition to having what would appear to be a relatively adequate enrolment within the schools of nursing in the province, there are, I believe, 25,000 registered nurses in the province who could be recruited for part-time work in hospitals in almost any area if there were some flexibility on the part of hospitals in terms of the hours of work which the nurses are required to fulfil.

The problem of the valleys and peaks of nurse employment is not limited to Ontario. It is a problem that is shared by almost all jurisdictions in the western world. As long as we continue to provide an adequate number of spaces for nursing, for the graduates to be employed within Ontario, it would seem we are meeting the requirements of the health care system of the province.

Mr. Grande: Was the minister not made aware by Mr. R. W. Struthers, the manager of the college program section in her ministry, of a letter from Doug Light of George Brown College? Let me read the letter in totality so the minister can pick it up when she goes back to her office. It says:

"Re: Freshmen Intake, Diploma Nursing Program, George Brown College.

"George Brown agreed to increase the number of new entrants to our diploma nursing program by 50 students in 1981-82. That would mean an increase of four teachers and seven teachers in 1983 and 1984. My budget forecasts for the next few years suggest that it is not possible to accommodate this increased staffing without serious consequences in other areas of the college. As a result, George Brown will not continue to admit the extra 50 students agreed upon last year, starting September 1, 1982."

Is the minister aware that the reason why 50 new positions for nurses have been cancelled at George Brown is the underfunding of the community college system which she has been doing and continues to do?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not believe the argument presented by the honourable member is entirely valid.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that some hospitals have tried to be flexible. In particular, I point to Riverdale Hospital in Toronto, which not only has tried to allow nurses optimum working conditions but also has had a day care centre there since 1964 to try to attract help. They have bent over backwards in an effort to be flexible, yet they are being forced to recruit in England because they have more than 100 positions vacant that cannot be filled by nurses in Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have 2,000 more practising nurses in this province this year than we had last year. I believe that should accommodate almost all the health care institutions requiring that kind of employee.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOLS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Education if I can get her attention.

The minister will recall that in February of this year she attended a meeting along with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). At that meeting a committee of seven was formed to look at the French-language component of boards of education which had originally been proposed in a green paper.

I am sure the minister will also recall that at that meeting the Premier gave an undertaking that the report would be submitted in early April in the hope that any recommended changes to the law could take place before the municipal and school board elections of November 1982.

Would the minister advise if she is in a position to respond to the report, which I understand was given to the Premier on April 8 of this year, and to confirm the undertaking that steps will be taken to change the legislation to reflect the recommendations contained in the report prior to the elections?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week I received information from the Premier's office that the paper had been received and that it probably should be released for public discussion for a short period. It is my intention to do just that.

Mr. Roy: Will the minister give an undertaking to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and francophones across Ontario, in accordance with the commitment given by the Premier that he wanted to see changes before the next school board elections are held in November 1982, that changes will be brought forward so that these recommendations will be in place in November 1982, so that these people do not have to wait another three years, until the 1985 elections, before we see significant changes in that area?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was present during the whole of that meeting and I do not believe I could verify that the statement quoted or paraphrased by the member was precisely what the Premier said. I would have to check it. I cannot give that commitment at this point because I really do not know, but I shall determine whether that commitment was provided or not.

As a result of the fact that a number of francophone groups felt they were not represented in that small committee, I think it would be necessary that they should have an opportunity to comment upon the recommendations or the deliberations of the committee. It is incumbent upon us to allow that to occur first before any commitment is made.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Education. I would like to go back to the question asked yesterday by the deputy leader of my party.

I want to ask the minister if she realizes that her statement, which was not supported by any evidence but resulted from a position taken following pressure from the most reactionary groups in our society, has created much bad feeling among the ethnic groups in Metropolitan Toronto, and has also created some serious worries in the Metropolitan Separate School Board, where five heritage languages programs -- not two, as the minister said yesterday -- have been integrated?

Is the minister now willing to withdraw her statement and to make a commitment to this assembly that she will come back with a position which is balanced and reasonable and which responds to the needs and aspirations of the ethnic groups in this society?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent program of heritage languages, funded as a continuing education program. It obviously is designed to meet the needs of many groups in our society and has been functioning effectively and very well. This government is firmly committed to the maintenance of that program. No, I will not withdraw anything I have said.

3 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Obviously the minister speaks because of a position she has taken and does not want to change. The report approved by the Board of Education for the City of Toronto is something different from the continuing education she is talking about. We are talking of the rights of the individual students who belong to ethnic groups to be taught their languages as languages of instruction.

Why is the minister so opposed to every citizen in this province being treated in the same way? Are they not taxpayers as are the other people who do not belong to ethnic groups? Why is the minister opposed to introducing a program on an experimental and cautious basis in the city of Toronto when we know, and she knows very well, that program has proven successful in Saskatchewan where 1,200 children are taking those courses, in Manitoba where 1,600 children are taking those courses and in the United States?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sure I answered every single aspect of the honourable member's question yesterday. If he were to look at the experience in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, he would discover that the number of languages being taught is extremely small compared to the potential number of languages that could be taught in Ontario.

He will also be aware that every emissary from every national government in those areas from which many of our Canadians have arrived has been extremely supportive of the current status of the heritage languages program as it is offered in Ontario and has congratulated this province for its foresight in encouraging that kind of activity.

I still would ask the member, in which other jurisdiction in the world would he find as vigorous a support of heritage languages for students provided in the most appropriate way through the school system as that which is provided in Ontario? I have to say that the member could answer in only one way and that would be, "No other area and no other jurisdiction."

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether the Toronto board has the right to continue with the present program, since she knows there are three schools, Ogden, Orde Street and Alexander Muir-Gladstone, which at present have an integrated program.

If the minister says and rules "no" to the request by the Board of Education for the City of Toronto, and the Toronto board goes ahead with integrating all other schools in Metro Toronto, what will she do then? According to a memo that came from the Minister of Education's office in 1977, the Toronto board apparently has the right to continue with the programs that are at present integrated in those three schools. Could we have a clarification on this?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that by no description could those programs be called integrated, because they are provided as an addition to the entire school curriculum, which must be provided during five hours of instruction during the day.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Watson, on behalf of Mr. Kerr, from the standing committee on procedural affairs presented the committee's fifth report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved its adoption.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth of a series of reports of the standing committee on procedural affairs on agencies, boards and commissions. The committee met in January to review the operations of the Ontario Board of Censors, the Ontario Police Commission, the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority and the Ontario Energy Board.

The report contains a number of important recommendations with respect to these agencies. The recommendations of the committee represent a consensus of opinion rather than a complete agreement on every issue before it. While not every member may agree with every recommendation, your committee is pleased to present the report that each member can support.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Roy moved, seconded by Mr. Van Horne, first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 103, 107, 115 and 118 and the interim answer to question 95 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, May 14].

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file my dissatisfaction with the answer given to me by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), and I would like to debate it tonight.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the order of business for this afternoon is the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), and it is my understanding that we are to divide the time for debate between now and 5:50 p.m. equally among the three parties. Could I ask the table, sir, to keep track of the time?

3:10 p.m.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, motion 22 under standing order 63(a):

That the government of Ontario, as a result of its irresponsible expenditure of $650 million for the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor, failed to discharge its duty to properly manage public funds and, further, by failing to fully disclose the details of the transaction has shown contempt for the assembly, and therefore does not enjoy the confidence of this House.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am mindful of the time. I can assure you that every one of my colleagues in my caucus would like to speak on this issue because they all feel as vehemently as I do that the House should support our motion. And I suspect that if there were a free vote, the government would fall this afternoon. I feel sorry for those poor souls. I wonder who has been conscripted by the Tories to walk into the lion's den, because this has turned out to be the biggest single embarrassment this government has ever been involved in. I want to allow as much time as I can to my colleagues to express their own points of view on the subject.

I understand that the New Democratic Party will be supporting us. I am delighted to see the change of mind of the NDP on this great issue. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when it first came out the NDP were critical of the government because they thought they should have bought all of it, or at least control. Do you recall that witty speech of the new leader of the NDP when he went to the Empire Club and said to his fellow New Democrats there, "You know, the problem with the Suncor purchase is what happens when you send a Tory to do a Socialist's job"? That was his response to what the government has done. Now I see them quoting our point of view; I see them viewing this as a misallocated sense of priorities in this province, as we do.

I am sure my friend the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory) agrees with every single thing I am saying, just as many back-benchers over there, some of whom have had the courage to come forward and some of whom just mutter in the hallway, are convinced that we were right on this subject and that the government is completely wrong.

I see this as a symbol of the misallocated priorities of this government. I see it as a symbol of how the truth is suppressed, how information is only selectively leaked to a certain few. I see it as a symbol of the tremendous lack of focus in that government. And I know that wherever my cabinet minister friends across the aisle go they are asked about Suncor, and it is becoming a tremendous embarrassment.

I am sure that when the Premier (Mr. Davis) goes home at night and Mrs. Davis says, "Well, dear, did you have a good day?" he says: "Yes, I had a wonderful day, but why did I ever get involved in Suncor? Why am I putting up with that abuse? Why was I so stupid?" I am sure that even my friend the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), who is the new equivalent to Elmer Gantry on this question -- he comes on so pious that you would think he was in the pulpit talking about energy security; and this purchase has nothing to do with energy security -- even his sense of priority on this question is offended. He has done a valiant job of summoning up all the righteous indignation he possibly could to justify this purchase, but he knows deep down in his Tory soul, deep down in his blue underwear, that he was wrong, and he regrets it.

He does a manful job of trying to defend it, but they are getting sick of it. I know there is not a minister, not a back-bencher across the hall who is not just sick to death of the whole Suncor question and who does not wish he could rid himself of this terrible burden, this terrible millstone they have taken around their necks for a variety of reasons. It is also an indication of the tremendous lack of touch of this government with what is really important to people in this province.

There are three reasons why my party and I have decided to move no confidence on this issue, and I want to develop these themes in the brief time that I have.

1. It was a terribly misallocated priority, in view of all the other options for the expenditure of public funds today where they are most desperately needed, to buy 25 per cent of an oil company.

2. This government does not enjoy our confidence because of the suppression of the information and the games they have played. They are not prepared to give this thing a public airing. That alone is enough to throw it out, in my judgement.

3. It is a bad business deal. This combines in one example everything that is bad about that government.

I want to develop those three themes.

An argument was made by my friends opposite at the time of this great purchase. On October 13, the Premier came into this House and read the wonderful announcement. It surprised everybody. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has been so embarrassed he still will not answer questions on the subject. He keeps referring them to the poor dupe, the Minister of Energy, to try to defend this proposition. He is embarrassed about it.

I know that privately a great number of members have cut bait on this subject. I know that everywhere the Premier goes he is asked about it and he is sick about it. His feeble rationalization was threefold. He supports Canadianization of the industry. That is a reasonably noble objective. He wanted a window on the industry. Buying a window! He could have bought the windows, the doors, the whole house for that kind of money. We have a window on the industry and it is called Petro-Canada. If he wants to support the Canadianization program, why is he not a little more vociferous in his support for Petro-Canada? His third rationalization was that it was a good investment. I hope to prove to the House that it was not a good investment.

No one I know honestly understands why the government bought a piece of Suncor. There is a lot of speculation about that. Our best rationalization was, first, that it was the promiscuous use of the joys of a majority, that it could do pretty well what it wanted to. It never would have done it in a minority regime, because it would have been out. It never would have done it if Darcy McKeough had been here or if there was any heavy financial brain in that cabinet, because it was an outrageous purchase. We can only conclude that the Premier wanted a part of the play.

I know the former Minister of Energy is agreeing with me on everything. Look at the smile on his face. If he agrees with me, he should smile. See, he smiles.

I am convinced it was poorly thought out, and we cannot understand why this transpired. My colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), in his great investigation of Tory polling practices, discovered that as part of the omnibus poll there was the question, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, "Do you support provincial ownership of an oil company in the resource sector?" I gather the majority in that poll said "yes," just as it is clear that a majority in this country supports the Canadianization program of the federal government. My guess is that this was misread into believing the public would support provincial involvement in an oil company.

Then we saw a change in those polls, and obviously we had something to do with bringing this matter to public attention. A Decima Research poll leaked to the Toronto Star and published a couple of months ago said, "A majority of people in Ontario do not support that purchase."

The speculation was, and I cannot prove it, that it was the Treasurer in his bid to be the next leader of that party who leaked that to substantiate the position he was fighting for in cabinet when he found out about it. The reality is that hardly anyone knew, including his cabinet colleagues. We do not know to this day who participated in that decision.

Perhaps the Minister of Energy did. We know that Malcolm Rowan had a major influence in it. He is one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats who tend to exercise a great deal of influence over this government. I assume the Premier knew. The Treasurer, if he knew, certainly did not have any influence to stop it, because he has virtually said publicly that he disagrees with the whole position. Everyone else has been terribly embarrassed by it.

I have said it is bad in terms of priority. There is rarely a day in this House when a member does not bring up a legitimate concern. Look at the concerns of the elderly. My friend the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party today brought up a very legitimate concern.

3:20p.m.

Look at the problems of people trying to hang on to their farms. Look at the lack of money for spring seeding. Look at the people losing their businesses. Look at the people losing their homes. The list of productive things we could have done with that $650 million here in Ontario just goes on and on. It is just awful. Pick any one of them. We will give the minister at least 20 better ways to spend the money if he is intent on spending on it.

In our party we have talked at great length about the alternative technologies and one specific program. We have said if that money had been expended on the renewable fuels in the fuel alcohol area, by 1990 we could have generated some 430 million gallons of fuel alcohol, comprising about 15 per cent of our total gasoline needs in Ontario. At the same time, it would have produced about 7,000 direct jobs; I am not talking about the spinoff. I just use that as an example. Look at what it could have done in the peat program. Look at what it would have done here for Ontario. I remind the minister -- it is perhaps trite to say, and perhaps he is getting sick of it -- that this brings not one job or one drop of oil to Ontario.

I get so fed up when my friend Elmer Gantry over there stands up and makes these great speeches about how this is contributing to energy security in Ontario. I say, respectfully, that is complete and utter crap.

Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: Unparliamentary?

Mr. Nixon: Baloney.

Mr. Peterson: It is baloney. Hansard will scratch the first; it is complete baloney. Those installations were all in place. There is nothing new being added. That oil would have been coming here anyway.

If my friend is so intent on concerning himself with the energy security and energy supply for Ontario, why did he not invest that money in exploration? Then it would possibly have contributed something new. The reality is that one of the rationalizations by his own investment counsel was that if Suncor did not find a new bonanza, a new Hibernia, it would probably turn out not to be a very good deal.

In the absence of any studies regarding the prioritization of the spending, we asked at the beginning, "What did you compare it with in terms of spending for Ontario that would return the most net benefit to the people of Ontario?" They said, "We really did not." All of us in this House, including the Tories, have a lot of better ways to spend that money. That is why we say it is a bad priority.

The Treasurer said on December 7, 1981, "There has been no sacrifice of any government program spending deemed necessary by the cabinet of this province because of the Suncor deal." There are so many things that we deem necessary that he does not deem necessary, and that is what separates us dramatically from the government on this issue.

Just think of the relief this could buy in certain cases today. The minister knows from his own constituency the real problems people are having in this province. I know people who are losing their homes because they cannot get the $280 a month for the mortgage payments. I am sure every one of us knows examples like that and of people who cannot find jobs. Every time I go to my constituency office I am sitting with 10 people who are looking for jobs; perhaps they think I have some influence at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The tale of woe right now is endless in this province, and there is so much more that could have been done.

If the government could persuade me that it would return some net benefit, even over a period of time, I might have a different view, but it will not. I will get to that in a moment.

My second point is why we lack confidence in this government. The reason is a lack of information, a lack of disclosure and the way this government has played with the issue. The Premier came in here on October 13, 1981, and announced the great program. He surprised all of his own back-benchers.

We also find that the main study done to support this was through McLeod Young Weir Ltd., whose president happens to be a very close friend of the government, one Tom Kierans, who had resigned just previous to this as a director of the Ontario Energy Corp. The minister will recall that he frequently attends the think-tanks -- if they have such a thing -- of the cabinet to decide what economic policy will be. He will also recall that he is a former chairman of the Ontario Economic Council.

They hired this company, McLeod Young Weir, as well as a substantiating report by Price Waterhouse, for fees in the order of $200,000 to prove why they needed this oil company. We now have this network of analysts who do not particularly want to go public if they disagree because of the influence of this government.

The Globe and Mail has the same problem. I know a lot of people who will and do speak off the record but, because they are afraid of losing the beneficence of that government, they are frightened to speak out in public. It just shows the corruption of the regime that has been around too long and a regime that does not allow free discussion of some of these issues because it is prepared to use its power in a pecuniary way to punish people. That is a reality.

I know -- and I wish I could tell members, and it grieves me that I cannot -- the names of brokers and people in big companies across this province who are just despondent about the government's performance in this issue. All they say is: "It is so stupid. I cannot believe it." I say to them: "Why do you not go public?" They say: "We cannot. We will lose the government's business." I am not prepared to stand here and embarrass them. I really am not, but that is a reality. It is the way members of this club support each other and how they feed off each other.

We have been fighting with every single weapon we have to bring disclosure, to bring this out. The New Democratic Party suggested a royal commission. I think that is a little outrageous. We do not need a royal commission. We just need to know the facts. Show us the Price Waterhouse study and the basis on which the government made its judgement. Show us the Price Waterhouse and McLeod Young Weir studies if, in fact, they exist. How can they spend that amount of money without a public airing and without a vote in this Legislature on that question? It violates the spirit of everything we have talked about.

Some of their members agree with us, and the royal commission on freedom of information agrees with us. How do they expect people to have faith in their government if they undertake these massive expenditure programs, which have no relevance to the individual taxpayers, without at least a public discussion? For that reason alone, I believe it should have been turned down and this government does not deserve our confidence.

The third point I want to make, and I am informed I do not have very much time left, is that it is a bad deal from a business point of view. We have established that the interest bill alone over the next 10 years probably will be on the order of $2 billion. One of the things members have to understand is that in today's world of high interest rates, every time you make an expenditure, it is not just this year's allocation but it is the interest clock ticking against that, compounded over the next few years. One has to be extremely judicious before one gets into working against the interest clock, because it has an insidious effect of tying up all our options in the future. That is what has happened here.

I do not believe, if we factor in the interest, we will ever get a penny's worth of return for this company. Even the government was factoring in a 15 per cent return on a set of premises that have just not proved to be valid less than a year after the purchase was made.

We have all been struggling to analyse this deal with incomplete information. There was a very curious answer from the Treasurer the other day when he was asked about the Globe and Mail study. He said, "The Globe had incomplete information; so you expect incomplete answers." What he is saying is: "You can not have the information to do a complete analysis. Only we know and we are not going to share it with you." The government understands perhaps the absurdity of that position.

The Globe did a considerable amount of work on the question. They came to some conclusions: There was far too high a value on the earnings. They did not discount properly the minority position. They did not factor in the risk on the megaprojects. They did not factor in the effects of the world oil glut that may continue through to the 1990s.

When the analysts or the representatives of the various companies came to our caucus to share with us some little tidbits of information, they did reveal to us that they factored in the values on the base of $110-a-barrel oil by 1990. If that does not come about, then this company will turn out to be a worse investment than originally thought.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You weren't there that day.

Mr. Peterson: I was there. The minister is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Nixon: Again.

Mr. Peterson: Again, he is absolutely wrong. With great respect, my friend is revealing his senility again. He is just wrong. Let me tell members what that reveals.

The government of Ontario -- and do not forget the Premier (Mr. Davis) has been the champion of cheap energy -- has a vested interest in high energy prices. If we do not get the $110 oil minimum, this is going to turn out to be not a very good investment. So the Premier has a great dilemma. During the election campaign he came along and said: "I have been the champion of low energy in Ontario and I am the one who suppressed the price. I have kept it down. Aren't I a wonderful fellow? Why don't you vote for me?" Some people believed that. Now he has a vested interest in higher energy prices in order to justify this mistake he has made.

3:30 p.m.

Not only that, but I want to make another point. It is an investment in an increasingly meaningless technology. In other words, it will have less and less influence, in my judgement, or should have, over the next few years. What we have to be pushing for as a matter of public policy is renewable fuels, the benign fuels, the clean fuels, the ones that are indigenous here in Ontario, that can fuel our transportation sector, and that we can build on. This is again an example of investing in the past rather than investing in the future. That is another reason we do not like it.

Then I look at it from a straight business point of view. Do members recall the dividend the day before they closed on December 31? This company for the first time in its history took a $78 million dividend, and the Ontario government got nothing. They stripped $78 million of equity out of that company to make it an even less attractive proposition than it originally was.

Let us recall the profit figures. They looked pretty good in 1980. In 1981, for the first quarter, they made $27.7 million. In this year's first quarter, they made $1.1 million and paid two cents a share. So the government had its two cents' worth.

In order to justify the purchase, the company declared another dividend, a 20 cent dividend. So they are drawing out more than the company is making. Members know what happens if they do that in perpetuity. What happens is exactly what happened to Admiral. They are going to have to strip this company, at least that appears to be their policy, in order to justify this purchase and to get some money into the public treasury to pay back the funds, because any time they draw money out, that obviously drives the debt up and the company will make less money.

On a different scale, that is exactly what happened to Admiral. So the government's investment in this company has forced the management to use some irresponsible management practices. As representatives on the board, they now are encouraging Suncor to pay dividends so something flows back.

Not only is that bad, but it affects the price of the Canadian dollar. For the first time now they are declaring a dividend, three quarters of which is flowing back to the United States, and only one quarter here.

Then they go on to say, "Well, we have an option to buy another 26 per cent of this thing." At least, they said that, originally. When the agreement came out, in fact, they did not have that option to buy the additional 26 per cent. At least there is no guarantee that can come along, and my guess is they are going to be stuck with it. Some time in the future they are going to have to make a decision, because nobody in private enterprise would touch it.

I can give members a great long list of people who have refused to buy this because they manage their money on normal commercial principles: Noranda, Brascan, Seagram's -- 15 companies. According to Jack Neafsey, senior vice president of Sun US, 15 companies looked at Suncor; they booted it all around, and the only organization which lacked the financial acumen and bought it was the Ontario government. That is a reality.

I am sorry I am at the end of my time. I would love to continue on this issue.

For those three reasons: because of the lack of disclosure, because it is a terrible priority in this time of economic crisis and decline in Ontario, and because it is a very bad business deal, I suggest that this government does not enjoy the confidence of this House, including its own back-benchers' approval.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker: I ask the indulgence of the House for a moment concerning standing order 28(b).

The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) concerning language rights. This matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT (CONCLUDED)

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, are we calculating time here at the table so that the member is aware of the time he has?

Mr. Riddell: Where is your support there, Jim?

Mr. Foulds: It is coming. The troops will be here. Don't worry, the troops will be here when the vote is counted. I would hope your troops are here too.

It is perhaps appropriate that earlier in the day -- they have left now -- there were students in the gallery from a school in Thunder Bay known as the C. D. Howe Public School. C. D. Howe, as many may recall, was a member for the riding of Port Arthur for many years -- more years than some of his political opponents care to remember -- but lost his seat in 1957 because of his arrogance as a cabinet minister, because of his insensitivity to the public and the public concerns and because of the famous quote that he got tagged with, "What's a million?"

Now we have a government in Ontario that epitomizes all those unfortunate values. It is arrogant and insensitive; it operates in secret and has lost the principle of responsible government, let alone democratic government; and it says publicly to the people of Ontario: "What is $650 million? We do not have to explain why we spent it or how we spent it." So I am rising on behalf of the New Democratic Party to support the motion of no confidence in the government.

I have only one quibble with the rather rambling address made by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely to goodness he cannot call Malcolm Rowan a faceless, nameless bureaucrat. He can call Mr. Rowan many things -- and I have done so in committee hearings of this Legislature -- but nameless and faceless he is not. In fact, he has a much higher profile in the public mind and in the press than he probably cares to have because of decisions like that involving Suncor. And may I just add that Mr. Rowan can also smile, because he is doing so now.

Let me say that a government loses the confidence of the Legislature usually in two ways: first, as a matter of substance, policy and direction; second, as a matter of process. To me it is the matter of process that is paramount in this particular affair. It is the air of secrecy that surrounds the whole deal. That is why we in this party have called for a royal commission or a public inquiry to look into the matter surrounding the acquisition of Suncor.

As we trace the deal, we are told that the Premier abandoned the primary element of government as we know it in this province, the primary principle that has been fought for over many centuries, that of a responsible government. The decision was not taken by the executive council of this province or by the cabinet. The decision was taken by the Premier and, we are told, by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), Mr. Rowan and one or two other functionaries.

That is a complete negation of what democratic responsible government is about. The minister will forgive me if I seem like an old-fashioned, 19th century parliamentarian but I happen to believe very strongly in democratic and responsible government, and my party happens to believe very strongly in responsible and democratic government.

3:40 p.m.

I want to tell the government that when we come to power in this province, when we acquire public ownership in the resource sector, that will be done openly and publicly with full disclosure to the public of Ontario. We will invest in the resource sector in this province, not the resource sector in a foreign jurisdiction.

Number one: Why is it that the government got suckered? There is no question that the government did get suckered. It got suckered in two ways. It got suckered by signing the confidentiality agreement with Suncor. There is no reason in the world why it apparently needed to sign that type of agreement with Suncor. All the cards were in the government's hands. Suncor needed to sell: The Canadianization program, the national energy program of the federal Liberals made it imperative for Suncor to find a Canadian buyer. It was having extreme difficulty finding that buyer. The Ontario government filled the breach. It should have used the power that it had to get a better deal in terms of the confidentiality agreement.

Just as when the government is negotiating with the doctors and offers them $742 million it should get, as part of the agreement, a ban on extra billing, here when it is offering to put up $650 million to buy 25 per cent of a company that needs its intervention, it should have bargained tough and should have signed that confidentiality agreement on its own terms; terms that would have allowed it to reveal the MacLeod Young Weir study and the Price Waterhouse study.

Ironically, there are legislators in other provinces such as Alberta, Mr. Lougheed and his cabinet, who will have access to the information in that study we do not have here in this province. Let me say that I resent a confidentiality agreement that allows legislators in another jurisdiction to have access to information that legislators here do not have. Mr. Lougheed has information that we in this House do not have with regard to that confidential study. It seems shameful to me that should be the case.

Ironically, it is just beyond reason that in this House we spend hours and hours examining the budgets of various government ministries, what we call the estimates debate, as part of the democratic process, but here we have an expenditure of $650 million that we cannot even get a handle on. That is about six times the size of the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, for example. We, as legislators, cannot make a definitive judgement about whether or not the expenditure was a wise one.

The second and most recent question that has come up is: Did the government get suckered on price? From the beginning we in the New Democratic Party have said, "From our figures, with the amount of capital that was spent, we should have been able to acquire at least 38 per cent of the company." If one goes back to the original statement that the leader of this party and I as energy critic made, that was very clearly spelled out. That seems to have been substantiated by the recent study done by the Globe and Mail.

The third part of the puzzle that has still not come to light is: Was this part of a government strategy? Was it part of its industrial strategy? What was it? Was it part of a puzzle and where is the rest of the puzzle? It becomes more and more clear that it was not part of any strategy.

What apparently happened is that the government polls showed that people in Ontario supported ownership in the resource sector. So the government decided to buy into a resource sector outside the province that would not damage any of its corporate friends. It bought where there was a willing seller, someone seeking to get rid of it for the reasons I outlined earlier. But it did not fit in, and to this day the government has not made the purchase of Suncor part of its industrial strategy. The reason for that is very simple: It is not part of any strategy because the government does not have an industrial strategy.

The problem is that this purchase has not resulted in one more job in Ontario. The benefits and dividends of the purchase continue to flow to the American parent company in the United States. If the government has its way and the 26 per cent of the additional shares that need to be Canadianized are dispersed among a number of small Canadian purchasers, then forever the domination and control of that company will be held in the United States, and the jobs for research and development, the benefits that should accrue to this province and the dividends will flow to the United States.

I just want to quote one or two things from the Suncor annual report. What difference does the purchase make, and what impact will this change in ownership have on Suncor? Ross Hennigar, the president, indicates that it will be "business as usual for Suncor." What that means is that the government will not be able to use its ownership portion in Suncor to any material benefit for the people of Ontario.

Second, he says in a question-and-answer section in this annual report: "'To return to Canadianization, given what you know now, what advice would you give to the president of a large company contemplating the idea of having a government shareholder?' 'First, for the sake of all the investors, defend the right of management to manage. Devise a very clear procedure for ensuring this principle. That's one thing we have emphasized in our own case. Secondly, learn from your public sector investors. Involve its directors in the assessment of your responsiveness to public policy, and sensitize your managers to the input government people can provide. Third, continue to act as a private company.'"

Continue to act with all the irresponsibility that the oil companies have acted with over these last many decades. That is what the government purchase of Suncor means to the policy of that company: absolutely nothing for the people of Ontario.

We have in this province perhaps the most serious economic crisis that we have faced since the 1930s. We have high interest rates; we have people losing their homes; we have people losing their farms; we have the highest unemployment we have ever experienced; we have people needing homes and we have a need for a concerted economic strategy on the part of the government. But what do we have? We have a federal Liberal government that stands idly by while people lose their homes, their farms and their jobs, and we have a provincial Conservative government that stands idly by while people lose their homes, their farms and their jobs. What do we have?

The sole economic initiatives taken by this government are to purchase a jet and to purchase 25 per cent of an oil company that gives it no control and no direction.

As I said earlier today, what could we do to really redress the balance of economic injustice in this province?

An hon. member: Vote Liberal.

Mr Foulds: It is very simple. Voting Liberal, my friend, would never do it when you have an arrogant Prime Minister called Pierre Trudeau -- that is your party -- when you have Allan MacEachen, who does nothing for the ordinary workers of this province or this country, who does nothing for the home owners, who does nothing --

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: Vote Liberal.

Mr. Foulds: I would not go around mouthing "vote Liberal," my friend. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) makes the Tories look progressive.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. The member for Port Arthur has the floor, I think.

Mr. Foulds: If I may return for a minute, with $650 million plus the $50 million interest every year, what could we do?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Port Arthur has the floor. I ask the other members of the House to give him the due he deserves.

Mr. Foulds: What we could with that $650 million is raise above the poverty line every single person of the half million people in this province who are presently living below that line, people who are on family benefits, Gains-D and general welfare assistance, and single seniors. We could raise every single one of them above the poverty line with the money spent on Suncor. That is the kind of priority this government should have. That is the kind of priority this party would have.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) agreed to the principle of catch-up for the medical doctors. Who in hell were they catching up to? What does this government do about catch-up for the people on low incomes? The Treasurer has been telling us for the last several months since the Suncor purchase that his wallet is so tight and his budget is so tight he will not be able to bring in programs to redress the social and economic injustices in this province.

There has been no justification for this purchase. There has been secrecy about the purchase. Money may well have been misspent. We need a royal commission to investigate the whole matter surrounding the deal. More than that, we need a new government. For that reason, we will be voting no confidence in this government on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. As we all would agree, at issue is the whole question of confidence and leadership. The people of this province demonstrated their will on this issue at the polls just over a year ago. Leadership is the ability to recognize reality, the ability --

Mr. Mackenzie: It's also honesty with the voters that bothers you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not need any lecture from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on the question of honesty. I suggest the honourable member wears his morality on his shirtcuff. He should keep it to himself. It is private business.

Mr. Mackenzie: That's bothering you a bit isn't it?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have the floor. I ask the honourable members to give respect to each member when he is speaking and not cause these interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Norton: They don't know what that means.

Mr. Breaugh: Well, he is being provocative.

The Acting Speaker: I ask for their sufferance, on the part of all members, for each person when he has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I hope the members can bear with the suffering just a little. It may be that in a democratic system, which I assume the member espouses --

Mr. Mackenzie: As long as you lay it all on the table.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- he might like to hear another point of view and keep to himself any private assessments with respect to how anyone in this House may interpret his moral obligations. That is something I think the member for Hamilton East should understand quite clearly no matter how loudly he might holler.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are not laying it all on the table.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Leadership is the ability to recognize reality, the ability to develop a strategy in tune with that reality and the ability to act on that strategy.

Mr. Peterson: The ability to read polls paid for by other people.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Talking about holes, I think that what we heard from the Leader of the Opposition today was written on cheesecloth for him by his observers because it was so full of holes. I hope he has the opportunity to listen.

Mr. Peterson: Prove it, my friend.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Pull up a chair and listen. May I repeat --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Please stop interrupting the honourable minister when he has the floor. I will try to maintain the same order for other members when they have the floor. Order.

Mr. Peterson: He is so full of wind I just hope he doesn't pass it here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will try to restrain ourselves as best we can.

May I repeat -- just in case the honourable leader, who was detained by his encounter with the media outside, did not hear this -- leadership is the ability to recognize reality, the ability to develop a strategy in tune with that reality and the ability to act on that strategy. That is leadership. That is what this government and its leader have demonstrated time and time again.

Energy, the lifeblood of an industrialized nation, has been and continues to be --

Mr. Peterson: Who is the minister quoting?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister accused me of reading my question yesterday. Is he going to read his whole speech?

The Acting Speaker: I have asked the honourable members several times. I will not accept this continual interruption. I will have to ask the honourable members to be patient and wait until they have an opportunity to have the floor. In the meantime, the Minister of Energy has the floor, and I would ask all honourable members to respect that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Energy, the lifeblood of an industrialized nation, has been, and continues to be, a pretty important focus of success of Ontario Conservative government. And energy leadership has been demonstrated by Conservative governments. That is true whether one thinks in terms of the creation of Ontario Hydro in the early 1900s, of the support we gave to the development of Canada's natural gas and oil industry in the 1950s and 1960s, of our --

Mr. Peterson: And John Crosbie's last budget.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- of our investments in nuclear energy and in Syncrude in the 1970s; or of our commitment in the 1980s towards a stronger and more energy-secure Canada.

Mr. Foulds: He can't even keep a straight face.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It will read well along with the others.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is all that counts, eh?

Mr. Peterson: No one will read it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It will read well because people who have the opportunity to quietly sit down and listen to reason will understand.

Mr. Mackenzie: As long as you lay it all on the table, and you didn't in the last election.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No one can hear as long as their mouth is open as wide as the honourable member's. One cannot hear with their mouth open that wide. Most people listen with their ears. As well, this province has demonstrated its leadership in energy conservation, solar energy, alternative transportation fuels and in its initiatives in crude oil pricing.

It is suggested by the opposition, as one listens to the presentation thus far in this very important debate -- if one listens to the opposition -- that our investment in Suncor is inappropriate, that the government has mismanaged public funds. I point out to them here that this simply continues the misconceptions of the opposition from former debates on this subject and I refer particularly to debates that are recorded for November 3 and 19, 1981.

It is important for those who would want to follow this discussion through the debates of the House, and I would hope the comments I am making today in this debate would be read in conjunction with other contributions, particularly the one on November 3 found in volume 3 of the Legislature of Ontario Debates, 1981, from page 3163 to page 3174, and another contribution by the Ministry of Energy, in the same volume of Legislature of Ontario Debates, 1981, for November 19, 1981, page 3704 to page 3712.

It is going to be fairly interesting reading, particularly with the next consultation with the people. It might be very interesting to put these things in perspective.

The official opposition by its motion is demonstrating that it does not support the objective to Canadianize Canada's oil and gas industry; that it does not support the goal of oil self-sufficiency for Canada; that it does not believe Ontario should actively encourage the exploration and development of Canada's oil and gas resources; that it does not really care about the security of energy supply for Ontario consumers and Canada's industrial heartland.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I really do not want to accuse the minister of misleading the House with his statement about our party not believing that Ontario should actively encourage exploration, but surely he remembers that a few days after the Suncor announcement an agreement was made regarding exploration with an entirely different company. The statement has no relevance whatsoever to this debate.

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition by its motion is also demonstrating that Ontario should not be an active participant in national energy policy making and in protecting the interests of our people. I suggest to members of the House that by its motion of no confidence this is really what the official opposition is saying.

We all know that the Ontario Liberal Party is the party of negativism. Day after day we get a recorded message of "What are you going to do about it?" It is a party with no appreciation for the reality of the swiftly changing energy environment within which Ontario has to continue to live and prosper. Canada's prospects for crude oil supply security within this decade have been tested dramatically during the past few months. One after another of Canada's megaprojects has been cancelled. First it was Cold Lake; now it is Alsands. Security of oil supply is a challenge for all Canadians that the government and people of Ontario are quite prepared to accept.

A number of megaprojects on this continent have failed to materialize in recent weeks, but Canada's need for energy security remains. The initiatives and investments of Ontario in the energy field are examples of bold leadership and commitment to the goals of energy security and the Canadianization of our hydrocarbon resources. Our actions in this jurisdiction have been responsible and in harmony with the aspirations and expertise of the private sector in a mixed economy.

The people of Ontario have made an investment in one of Canada's largest integrated oil companies, Suncor, the first company, I would remind members of this House, to invest in the oil sands on a commercial scale. Canada's oil sands technology is Suncor technology. Our Suncor purchase has as its objective the facilitation of the Canadianization of that company to encourage private Canadian ownership of Suncor.

Our objective is to enable Suncor to participate in the exploration and development of Canada's oil resources and thereby help achieve the goal of crude oil self-sufficiency. Our objective is then to enable Ontario to be an active participant in national energy policy making and thereby enhance security of oil supply and provide price protection for Ontario consumers. I would suggest to the members these are the objectives that really count.

While others fail to act, Ontario has recognized the need and has taken the initiative. We did this with Syncrude and we have done it again with Suncor. We were criticized in this House for investing in Syncrude, some will remember; we were accused of having been taken to the cleaners. Yet within three years Syncrude was built and Ontario had sold its interest for a clear $35-million profit.

It is alleged in other places that we paid too much for our interest in Suncor. I do not intend to comment on a recent newspaper article to that effect; my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) will describe the shoddy and inaccurate analysis which is the basis of that article. Suffice it to say that the evaluation of Suncor was performed for the Ontario Energy Corp. by McLeod Young Weir Ltd., one of Canada's leading financial houses, and verified by Price Waterhouse Ltd., one of Canada's leading chartered accountants. That evaluation concluded that a 25 per cent block purchase of Suncor shares would be in the range of $550 million to $675 million.

The McLeod Young Weir findings further stated that the collateral agreements reached with Sun Co. Inc. would put the fair value in the upper end of that range. That is all set out in a letter that was tabled in the House, which I am sure the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has read several times.

Our Suncor purchase is a good investment for Ontario and for the taxpayers of Ontario. Suncor has extensive interests in the oil sands, frontier lands, oil and gas production in western Canada, almost 900 retail distribution outlets in Ontario and Quebec, an Ontario-based oil refinery and an Ontario-based petrochemical company.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I draw the Speaker's attention to section 19(d)4 of the rules of debate, where it is suggested it is a variance of the rules to refer at length to debates of the current session or read unnecessarily from verbatim reports of the legislative debates or any other document. I would suggest to you, sir, before we hear about one such analyst, Kurt Wuiff, we are on page 6 of the minister's speech and he is reading verbatim.

The Acting Speaker: I do not accept that point of order inasmuch as the minister is not quoting any more than have other members in this House from various other texts.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Many independent financial analysts have stated that Ontario negotiated a pretty good price. One such analyst, connected with the firm of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Inc. of New York City, a company which has studied both Suncor and its parent company for years, has been quoted as saying, "The province" -- referring to Ontario -- "paid about 80 per cent of what others thought the assets were really worth." That comment is based on an independent, informed judgement.

Notwithstanding the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), even this afternoon, I have yet to be told the name of one financial analyst who does not think the price paid last year by the Ontario Energy Corp. for its 25 per cent share of Suncor was not a fair price. That should be on the record.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How the hell can they when --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, that is the acid test of credibility.

It is misleading in the extreme to point to temporary aberrations on the stock market or to lower world crude oil spot prices and to say the future of Suncor is not bright. Canada must not be fooled by the present temporary world oil supply glut and relatively soft world oil prices. Canada really cannot allow itself to be held hostage to fortune. Canadians must not remain dependent on Middle East producers for their oil supply. To do so would be a very dangerous gamble.

Prudence dictates that oil-consuming nations not place their destiny in the hands of politically unstable oil exporters. Canadian crude oil self- sufficiency is a national priority. All Canadians have a vital stake in its achievement. I suggest that Suncor has a major role to play in achieving oil self-sufficiency in this country. Suncor and energy leadership are synonymous. I have already spoken of its pioneering investment in the oil sands. Indeed, Suncor oil sands technology leads the world. But Suncor is the leader in other areas. Its Fort Kent oil sands project, for example, is being hailed as logical and as a cheaper alternative to such megaprojects as Cold Lake.

Through Suncor's ingenuity all Canadians will benefit. Canadians will have oil because of investments like Suncor's Fort Kent project. Suncor's ability to assess more accurately what is achievable and then make the necessary investments is the essential difference between an oil production project like Fort Kent going ahead or being cancelled like Alsands and Cold Lake.

Ontario benefits from such investments. For every dollar spent by the oil and gas industry, 42 cents is spent in Ontario. There are other examples of Suncor's initiative. Suncor has investments in solar energy, in propane, an alternative transportation fuel, conversion and distribution facilities, in oil and gas drilling in the Arctic islands and oil off Canada's east coast.

4:10 p.m.

Suncor is a participant in the recent Arctic oil and gas finds at Whitefish, Cisco and Skate. It is expected that later this year, as a direct result of the Suncor purchase by the Ontario Energy Corp., a significantly enhanced exploration and development program will get under way on Canada lands. This kind of program would not have been possible without the Ontario Energy Corp. taking the first and most important step towards eventual Canadianization of Suncor.

Suncor has major investments in Ontario, in its refinery and petrochemical plant at Sarnia and in retail gasoline outlets throughout the province. A number of options to upgrade its refinery at Sarnia are being examined. The objective is to transform heavy fuel oil and distillate, for which there is a declining market, into transportation fuels and petrochemical products which Canadians need. This refinery upgrading investment is also a major energy conservation initiative. It will mean that less crude oil -- about 20,000 barrels a day less -- will be required to produce the same volume of usable petroleum products.

I would suggest as well that public support for Suncor is demonstrable. While the oil industry's retail gasoline sales in 1981 are reported to have declined by four per cent, Suncor's retail sales volume grew by three per cent, giving it a growth advantage of seven per cent compared to the industry.

The party that forms the official opposition, the Ontario Liberal Party, alleges that the government's priorities are misguided, that it should ignore energy, that instead the government could have paid the operating costs of the --

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister tell us at what point over the last seven years we have said the government should ignore energy in Ontario? If he cannot, I would suggest he is misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Ontario Liberal Party alleges that the government's priorities are misguided, that it really should ignore energy, that instead the government could have paid the operating costs of the province's universities, it could have invested in hospital beds or housing or to create new jobs rather than to invest in Suncor.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has stated again and indicated both in the text and as he has read it, that the official opposition in Ontario has suggested the government of Ontario should ignore energy. I would challenge the minister to give us one instance over the past seven years that I have been in this Legislature where we have suggested that either by inference or by direct quotation. If he cannot, I would suggest if he does not withdraw that remark he is misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this is the same Liberal Party which on May 3, 1976, had this to say, and I quote: "Our consumers and industries will have no alternative" --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: The minister is responding to your point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No I am not.

Mr. J. A. Reed: He has not responded at all. He has chosen to ignore the point of privilege and he has suggested that the opposition has stated at some point that the government of Ontario should ignore energy. I am challenging the minister to tell us at what point we either inferred or stated directly that the government of Ontario should ignore energy. I was Energy critic for six years and I cannot recall a time when I suggested the government of Ontario should ignore energy, and unless he can tell us then he is misleading this House and the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Energy has the floor and can respond, I am sure, to this point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think in all fairness we have a certain apportionment of time. There are other points of view to be expressed. Rather than taking advantage of my time, they will have a chance to take part in this debate.

I think the context is quite clear. Anyone in his right mind would --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Nobody in his right mind would have bought Suncor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: How else could one understand the Liberal demand to sell off Suncor if it was not to ignore the Canadian energy scene? There will be time for others to get into the debate.

This is the same Liberal Party --

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Just a few moments ago the minister indicated that public support for Suncor is demonstrable. The implication there might be that the public is supportive of that purchase. I would like to know if the polling that he and his party have done can support that. Would he give us numbers? The polling I have done in my riding showed 68 per cent of the people in London North think it is a bad investment.

The Acting Speaker: This is a debate in which each member has the opportunity to make his presentation. I think we have to be very careful not to make allegations. I think we have to have respect for other members and remember this is the House, the assembly of the province of Ontario. The Minister of Energy has the floor and I would ask members to respect the fact that he has the floor and is speaking to this subject.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Surely no one has the right to mislead the House. I have said three times that the statement he has made, in print on page 9 and that he has made aloud here, suggesting that the official opposition suggests that the government of Ontario should ignore energy, is misleading unless he can establish some kind of foundation for making that statement.

I say once more, if he cannot or if he refuses --

The Acting Speaker: The member is to be reminded that he cannot say that. I ask him to withdraw that statement. If he is accusing the minister of misleading the House, then I would ask him to withdraw that. The minister is responding to the question of privilege raised earlier. I would ask the member to withdraw the statement accusing the minister.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Let me state it once again, as I have now on four occasions --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw that statement about misleading the House as unparliamentary language. I would sincerely ask the member to oblige in the spirit in which this House operates.

Mr. J. A. Reed: In the spirit in which this House operates, how can --

The Acting Speaker: Has the member withdrawn that? I am asking the member to withdraw that.

Mr. Cunningham: He cannot withdraw it while you are on your feet.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to caution the House that we are reaching the point where the Speaker is about to make a decision which I do not want to have to make.

Mr. Epp: Use the same rules for the minister.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, the inferences and the statements made by the minister and the unsupported manner in which they are made would appear to be misleading the House.

I say one more time, if the minister cannot show us how he has arrived at those figures, I have no alternative but to say he has misled the House.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw the statement he has made regarding the minister.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Oh, Mr. Speaker, how else should I say that what he is saying is not factual? It is not supportable. It is negative.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member to find another way of removing the statements he is making, to carry on with the speech we are in.

Mr. J. A. Reed: All right, I am prepared to withdraw the word misleading, but I must insist that what he has said is unsupportable and not factual.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this is a representative of the same Liberal Party which on May 3, 1976 --

Mr. Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Since you are the Speaker and control the procedure in this House, I would like to ask for clarification here. Do you have it in your authority to ask the minister to withdraw the misleading statement he made?

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: You are out of order. Please resume your seat. The Minister of Energy has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps I might be able to repeat with some emphasis that this is the same Liberal Party that on May 3, 1976, said, " ... our consumers and our industries will have no alternative but to pay world price for oil." That was Stuart Smith and the present Leader of the Opposition in a news release.

Mr. Peterson: I want you to know we did not suggest you have to pay more than world price. You are getting more than world price for your oil right now. You have drivel in this speech. This is the worst speech I have ever heard. You should fire the staff who wrote it for you.

The Acting Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition take his seat and set the good example he usually sets.

Mr. Foulds: I take objection to that, He never sets a good example.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Port Arthur will continue to set his good example and allow the Minister of Energy to continue his presentation.

Mr. Foulds: That is slanderous. Say it outside and I will sue you.

Mr. Mackenzie: You have to recognize his heart is not in it.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Energy has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is the same Liberal Party that consistently opposed the government's blended pricing policy, a policy that has kept down the price of gasoline and home heating oil to consumers. Each time -- and there were many -- Ontario successfully delayed the price of crude oil going up by $1 a barrel, the consumers of this province saved $300 million a year. That would not have happened, I suggest, if the Liberal energy policies had been in effect in this province.

I happen to feel, and my colleagues join me in pointing it out, that Ontario really cannot afford to ignore energy. We cannot afford to be blind to the reality of the situation of this day. The government is investing large sums in our universities, large sums in our hospitals, large sums in job creation activity. To suggest otherwise is not to share the facts with the people. The business of government involves making judgements about a multitude of competing demands. The public knows that and it happens to understand those realities. Priorities have to be set.

It is not a question, however, of choosing between an investment in Suncor and other desirable objectives. Investments are really being made in all areas -- economic, social, health and education, just to name a few. Indeed, during the past fiscal year, 29 per cent, or $5.5 billion, of the government's budgetary expenditures were allocated to health; over 24 per cent, $4.6 billion, to education, colleges and universities; over 10 per cent, $1.75 billion, to social services; and 14 per cent, $2.4 billion to resources development. These four categories alone accounted for over 78 per cent of all the expenditures of this government. Clearly, to suggest that priorities in this political jurisdiction are misguided is simply to ignore the reality.

I should like now to deal with the second concern raised in this no-confidence motion, namely, that the government has not fully disclosed the details of the transaction. More information, I suggest to the members, has been made public about this transaction than any other similar purchase of which I am aware. The list of reports, background papers, agreements and other information pertaining to Suncor and this transaction is considerable. I doubt if any member of the opposition has read even one tenth of the material that has been made available.

The Ontario Energy Corp. has not released the evaluation reports because it does not have the legal right to do so. At my urging, within days of the completion of the purchase, the Ontario Energy Corp. asked both Sun Co. Inc. and Suncor Inc. to review the McLeod Young Weir and Price Waterhouse reports to see if they could be released in whole or in part.

Specifically, these companies were requested to review the reports, and I quote from the letter, "to see if there are sections, charts, sentences or words, in your opinion, which are confidential but if deleted would enable the rest of the report to be made public." In each case the response was that the reports contained confidential information relating to the business and affairs of Suncor Inc. which, if made public, would prejudice the company's ability to pursue its commercial objectives and have a detrimental effect on its competitive position.

I would draw the attention of the House to that wording as members peruse the Williams report in so far as public information is concerned. As a result, neither company was prepared to waive any of the terms of the confidentiality agreement.

The responsibility for making a judgement of this kind really rests with the party or parties that could be materially affected by the decision. In this case Sun Co. and Suncor are the parties to which reference is made. They have been asked and they have rendered a decision. We may well prefer it to be otherwise, but the fact remains that they believe those reports would be detrimental to their commercial interests.

I would remind members once again that the issue is leadership. The issue is the ability to recognize reality for what it is and act in a comprehensive and coherent way to place this province in the best possible position in a very uncertain world, not only to make decisions for today but to be bold enough to consider the needs of tomorrow as well.

I have had the opportunity this afternoon to speak briefly about reality. The reality is that Ontario is a resource-rich province but is almost totally dependent on other jurisdictions for its fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal. This is the reality that all members, I am sure, would agree we face. It is against this background that we in this province have developed our energy policy. The challenge of the 1970s was to ensure that the needs of Canadians as consumers were protected. Appropriate energy pricing and security policies were pressed vigorously during this period by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and by successive Ministers of Energy. If Canada's goals are to be achieved, Ontario has to do its part.

Ontario has a comprehensive and coherent energy policy because the government has shown foresight and leadership. If this province does not build and does not grow, if we do not seize opportunities as they come along, then wealth will not be generated in this province for hospitals, schools and social services.

Let us really reflect on this; the people will be asked to. It is really not a question of choosing between an investment in Suncor and other desirable objectives; it is a question of creating opportunities so that today's and tomorrow's generations can have the services that will enhance the quality of their lives. Canada cannot afford to gamble on its energy future, and Ontario has invested wisely in that future. Suncor is a timely, strategic investment for Ontario. The rules of the energy game --

Mr. Grande: You do not believe that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do. You know me well enough to know that I do.

The Acting Speaker: Would members stop interrupting the minister during his presentation?

Mr. Riddell: On Sunday you must have cause to reflect on what you say.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not practise that just on Sunday.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I also do not wear it on my shirtsleeve, and I wish you would --

The Acting Speaker: I ask the honourable members to stop interrupting the minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not comment about yours, you keep quiet about mine. It is my own business what I do on Sunday.

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the minister to resume his seat.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And ridicule is no rebuttal either, big mouth.

Mr. Riddell: You are fluttering around the same as you do on television.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You mind your own business.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sick and tired of him casting stones.

The Acting Speaker: I say to the Minister of Energy, I have the floor. If the minister will please resume his seat for a moment, I will ask other members in this House to have more respect for other members when they are making a presentation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is the last person who should be casting any stones. And I mean it.

Mr. Riddell: So do I. I won't be intimidated by you or anybody else.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I think the minister wants to confess.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don't like the member commenting on things that I consider to be private. I resent that.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask the honour- able members to allow the minister to complete his presentation; then we can look forward to a presentation from this side and the debate can continue with distinction. But please stop interrupting the minister.

Mr. T. P. Reid: This is the most enthusiasm you've shown in the whole debate, Bob.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, the honourable member knows how strongly I feel about it. I would rather talk about issues than about people's private, personal lives.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I wish you felt as strongly about Suncor; it wouldn't have been such a dull contribution.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be wise to remind ourselves that Suncor is a timely, strategic investment for the province. The rules of the energy game have changed substantially in the past few years. Ontario is the major energy consumer in Canada -- let us not lose sight of that -- and as the rules change so must the attitude of the province. We really cannot stand still and expect our energy future to look after itself. I think it would be very foolish if we did. So I accept the challenge and the responsibility, and I urge the House to reconsider the wording of this motion and to defeat the resolution that is before us.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the motion put by my leader for very good and obvious reasons. I must commend the minister on a very noble attempt to defend the indefensible. It was a good try. But nowhere in that presentation did he show any valid reasons why Suncor should have been purchased.

There were those in the federal government who said that governments should stay out of bedrooms of the nation. I always thought it was Tory policy for the government to stay out of the boardrooms of the nation. But it appears nothing is sacred over there when it comes right down to maintaining power.

All of the things that have been said by the minister today in defence of that position have left unsaid that if the devil himself were conducting polls in Ontario, this government would be prepared to do business with him. It appears as though it does that from day to day.

What really prompted the government to buy Suncor was the fact that at one time, for some reason or another, misrepresented or not, some of these pollsters said to the government of Ontario that people out there have a very strong feeling about where we should go and that maybe we should own a piece of an oil company. But I wonder, if the government had put that question to the people during the election, whether they would have accepted its arguments and voted the way they did. I am not quite so sure they would have.

There is something I have to bring to the minister's attention, because he has made the comment on many occasions that we have shown great hindsight and 20-20 vision. Let me remind him that during the campaign our former leader pointed out to the people of Ontario where this government was headed. He said that if the government did not look into alternative forms of energy, if it did not do the kind of research that was needed here in Ontario to look at the renewables and to do the other things, that a very sad state of affairs would develop in the province as it relates to energy.

What did this government do? It tried to dub that man as a negative person. But he pointed out all the things that have happened to us. That was foresight; that was not hindsight. Everything that was said at the time has come to pass. Now we have a government that would dabble and talk about making investments, not for the good of the people of Ontario but because of a reaction to polls and what that might do to keep the government in power. It had little to do with the merits of buying that oil company.

I will tell the House something that could be worse. I would not want to be a shareholder in Suncor if that government owned 51 per cent. I would be very concerned about my investment, and I would try to get out of it as quickly as possible.

The minister issued a challenge. He is a very political person. I like his style, his manner and his stature when it comes to politics. He challenged us to question the experts who talked about the buying of this company.

Now I would like to throw a challenge out to him. Will the minister show us someone in the private sector who has the kind of ability, talent and expertise to look into a situation like this who is willing to join with them in purchasing the balance of those Suncor shares? Let him find me one. I think that challenge is just as valid as the one he put to us.

As energy critic for the party, I believe this 25 per cent of Suncor is a grave misuse of taxpayers' money. Never have so many taxpayers been forced to spend so much to get so little. As time goes on, that statement will become more and more obvious.

I want to address now the three energy-related reasons why Ontario made this ill-advised purchase and then discuss the alternatives that should have been investigated.

In his press conference of October 13, 1981, the Premier gave three energy-related reasons as to why Ontario made the investment in Suncor: to assist the Canadianization of the petroleum industry, to provide for security of supply and to provide a window on the oil industry. I want to touch for a moment on each of those matters.

First, the Premier said he wanted to show he supported the federal government's desire to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. Talk about being hypocritical! That government consistently points its finger at us and talks about our involvement with our federal brethren in Ottawa. That is unbelievable, and I am sure unsupportable by many good Tories across this province, particularly after making the boast that they support their leader in Ottawa. That is the grossest injustice to that man. I guess with this kind of support it is no surprise to see him going downhill again at one hell of a clip.

I made the comment as an interjection, but now I want to put it on the record in the event it was missed. Their man in Ottawa, Joe Clark, would sell their interest so fast that it would make their heads swim. I do not see that they have this great rapport with their federal brethren.

We are talking about more than $650 million and $2 million in interest charges to show support for this federal policy. The Premier could have made a contribution by giving strong vocal support to the federal Canadianization program and the activities of Petro-Canada without making that tremendous investment.

As to the question of security of supply, buying 25 per cent of an oil company does not provide security of supply. Energy security is neither enhanced nor diminished by the purchase of Suncor. Furthermore, not one extra drop of oil will come to Ontario whether or not the citizens of Ontario own the company, because it is the federal government and the federal government alone that controls the distribution and allocation of oil in Canada.

The Premier also stated that he wanted a window on the oil industry. That rationale is sheer nonsense. The federal government already has such a window on the petroleum industry in the form of Petro-Canada, and information on the internal workings of the oil industry is obtainable by means of a simple telephone call to the people in Ottawa.

Wanting a window on the oil industry does not mean one has to spend $650 million plus interest. That is ultra-expensive research when one can get the information for nothing from Petro-Canada. The only real window we have today, as Maclean's magazine has suggested, is the sight of dividends flowing south to the United States.

4:40 p.m.

What are the energy alternatives to a deal that increases the provincial deficit, that does not provide one extra job to Ontarians who are facing high unemployment and that does not provide one extra drop of oil for the province? As David Crane asked in his Toronto Star article of October 28, 1981, if one suddenly found $650 million to spend on ways to help the Ontario economy, would one go out and buy 25 per cent of an oil company? I would suggest one would not.

Since this deal does not enhance Ontario's energy security for the future, we have investigated investment alternatives that would assist in our energy security. Had the $650 million been invested in fuel alcohol plants, six 1,000-metric-ton-per-day plants could have been constructed with the capacity to produce 430 million gallons of fuel alcohol per year. By 1990, these plants could have replaced 15 per cent of Ontario's gasoline requirements. In addition, such a project would have created 7,000 direct and continuous jobs as well as more than 1,000 jobs during the construction of these plants.

Such a venture would have secured these fuel supplies for the province, would have kept the capital in Ontario, would have created badly needed jobs and would have helped to revitalize our provincial economy. Many of these things have been pointed out time after time, in a constructive way, to this government; and unless it listens to some of the very worthwhile projects that we have put forward, it does not augur well for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion that is before this House this afternoon.

The entire exercise has been an interesting one to try to analyse. In the main, it points out very clearly some of the faults of this Legislature. It also reflects, in part, some of the difficulties that a parliamentary system has in dealing with the very complex modern world. When one gets to the bottom of all of the issues and hears what really happened, one finds that one man -- not this Legislature, not even the government over there, but one man -- decided to do something and made it happen; namely, to spend $650 million on an investment.

If one tears apart all the surrounding public relations stuff to justify what happened, one gets to the very weakness that is there. One person, the Premier, on his own, in consultation not with the Legislature but with his own staff, can decide that this kind of public expenditure ought to occur. Then, after he makes that decision, he drags his cabinet into it. Slowly, but surely, he drags the back-benchers who support the government into it, and the rearguard action to try to defend the initial purchase goes on.

It points out very clearly that we do not have what the government purports to have been investigating for some lengthy period of time now, and that is, as legislators, access to the information on which these decisions were made. I want to make the distinction that even when we clearly delineate what we want -- not what the government chooses to give us, but what we, as members of the Legislature, think is necessary to have a reasonable discussion about this -- when we lay that out, the government can still say no.

In this instance the government of Ontario is being told what it can release and what it cannot release by an American company. Is that not a fine fix for a Legislature to be in? It is not that it is unusual, but it does point out a flaw in the system that we use to govern ourselves.

It also points out that in two moves, one made by the Premier on his own and one made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) on his own, virtually any elasticity in the provincial budget for this year is gone. The irony is that we do not even know the full extent of all the ramifications, and we will not until this Thursday evening when, in another quirk of the parliamentary system, the Treasurer will stand up and, on his own, will announce the price the people of Ontario will have to pay for this expenditure; and it will be more than the astronomical sum of $650 million, because that is only one side of the equation. The other side is that it severely limits what this government might do in an economic crisis to relieve the citizens of this province. So there are two sides to this coin.

One might argue, as we have, that if the government had purchased a controlling interest in this or any other oil company, it might well be able to do what the minister said it would do. It might well be able to provide new investments, new jobs and new energy techniques; the government might be able to accomplish that. But the plain fact is it did not get control of the corporation; it was bought clearly as an investment, in the hope of making some money.

That leaves us with the prospect that the government of Ontario is nothing more than an investor in the market. In this government's eyes that may be a good thing to be but, from the opposition side and for most people in this province, that is not why governments are elected. If people want to invest in the free market system in the United States, they go to stockbrokers; they do not go to a ballot box. They make a conscious decision. The sad part of this exercise is that the government of Ontario has made all the taxpayers of Ontario be in it, whether or not they want it, whether or not they want to be investors, whether or not they want to go into a high-risk energy business; it was not their free choice.

The government says, "We had an election a year ago." If the government wanted to make this kind of major investment, I wish it had put that into the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. If the government had been willing to discuss at large with the electorate what it wanted to do and people had said, "Sure, go and spend $650 million on an American oil company," if the people had voted them into office on that basis, I might have disagreed with that, the government would have had a mandate to do it. But I listened fairly carefully to the Conservatives all through the election campaign, and I did not hear them mention once that buying into an American oil company was at the top of their agenda. It seems to me the government has missed the boat there rather badly.

One of the things that is kind of interesting in this House is that last Thursday afternoon in debating private members' public business we had an opportunity to hear from a Conservative back-bencher who has just arrived, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). He brought into the House a resolution urging people to buy Canadian and reflecting the concerns many of us have. They are in this little brochure called Jobs for Cambridge -- Buy Canadian.

He recognized that we are faced with a rather high unemployment rate, that many of our established industries are having difficulty competing and that even our new multinationals are having difficulty competing. He urged members to recognize that it is really important in this economic downturn, for individuals, people in their houses, to think through clearly what they purchase, how they spend their money and how they make their personal investments.

The government of Ontario and the Premier would have been wise if they had listened to the member for Cambridge before they made this investment decision. The Premier would have been very wise had he taken heed of these words; had he read this little brochure and bought Canadian; had he made sure his investment brought to his own province the jobs we need so badly now; had he brought before this Legislature a process that would have allowed the members to put out a strategy, an energy program, an investment program or whatever, for the future of this province, put that through a legislative committee and, at the end of that process, decided that a purchase was necessary. But none of that was done.

It is interesting, too, to look at Conservative members who are not part of the government and to listen to their responses, initially and subsequently, to what the Premier did. I am sure I know what would happen if certain words were taken out of this resolution before the House this afternoon; if we told the whips in here to take a walk for today; if we said, "We are going to have a free vote on whether the purchase of Suncor shares was a sensible, legitimate exercise"; if we set aside our party differences, our political philosophies, and just looked at the hard nuts and bolts of the issue; if we said, "There will be no division in here; we will come in and we will vote on it as a sensible or not sensible proposition"; I know well what would happen if we deleted from this resolution the part that has to do with confidence or no confidence in the government.

As I look around this House right now, if that vote were called at this instant, if it were a free vote, if the members were able to say here what many of them have gone home to say, I think the government would lose. I do not think the government on its own side could win; I do not think it could hold up. I think the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) would have a tough time with his own troops over there, because many of them are enjoying the wonderful privilege that members of the government party have of going home and saying: "I think the Premier overstepped his bounds. He did not ask me about that one, for sure."

4:50 p.m.

I know there is a poll that the people of Ontario paid for, which said it might not be a bad idea for the government of Ontario to make some investment in an oil company; it might do something parallel to what the federal government has done. But I sincerely wonder whether the government with its polling system would dare to go out there now and ask the people about the purchase of Suncor shares.

I wonder whether the government would have the political guts to go to the population now and say: "We just spent $650 million for 25 per cent of an American oil company that operates basically in other parts of this country, that will not give us any more oil and that will not necessarily give us any more jobs. We really will not be able to control what that oil company does; we just bought it as an investment."

I am thinking of people who are not very sure where the mortgage money is going to come from next month. There are 12,000 people unemployed in my constituency alone. What would happen if the government went to those people and said: "Is now the time to make that kind of investment? Is that a good, rational thing to do?" The answer might be yes one could go to them and point to the jobs here in Ontario that will come from this kind of investment; it might be yes if one could say it will produce more oil; it might be yes if one could say it will do the Ontario economy some good. But these are not arguments that even the government makes.

It is an interesting exercise to have a no- confidence motion around one particular issue such as this, because it allows us as members to focus on the process. Its flaws are really showing in this; in the fact that the Premier of Ontario -- it does not matter that he heads the government, he is still one person -- and the staff advising him can make that kind of decision and then tie that can to the tail of all the opposition members and all the government back-bench members. Subsequently there is an attempt to justify the process, but it does not necessarily mean unfolding before a legislative committee, for example, all the information the government has. It is interesting that the government can still hide behind something called the confidentiality agreement. How pertinent is that to the members of this Legislature? Not very, I am afraid.

I listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon and to the government, and I sense that the Deputy Premier in particular is feeling his neck a bit on this one, because he is not a man who is normally given to stridency; he is not a man who normally loses his cool, but he loses it quite regularly on this issue.

I listened with great amusement to the members to my right. I am fascinated with the Liberal Party in Ontario and their relationship to the federal Liberal Party. I do not know whether it is the names that are used, but it strikes me that on the one hand there is a federal Liberal Party which, I would think, because of its announced policies and the national energy program, probably would support this concept. Whether it would support the specifics of this deal is another question, but at least it would support the concept. On the other hand, not only do the members to my right spend a lot of time dealing with the specifics of this purchase but also many of them seem to be to the right of my Tory colleagues opposite.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: I seem to recall that lately I read a report that the provincial Liberal leader thought the Prime Minister of the country was a millstone around his neck. I do wonder whose neck all these other little millstones are strung around. A small measure of consistency would have to emerge to find a common Liberal front on any item, and particularly on this one.

It is unfortunate that our Legislature is not structured in such a way that the members to my right and, indeed, the members in support of the government do not have the opportunity to find out what the government really did. It seems to me to be a shame and a blow to the parliamentary system in which we work that even members on the government side of the House cannot have put before a legislative committee all the documents that they want; that they cannot ascertain the basis upon which this purchase was really made; that none of us, including members in the cabinet itself, has a clear idea of what the economic impact of this kind of purchase is on the province.

It seems to me that is crucial to the matter that is before the House this afternoon. Members on all sides have an obligation to speak up this afternoon, because there are members on the government side going back to their home ridings, including the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), saying things that certainly are at odds with what the Premier did in this instance.

In their heart of hearts and in their conscience, I think most of the members of this assembly, on all sides, would agree at least with the principle that is behind this resolution this afternoon.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House today, first of all to welcome on behalf of all members of the Legislature the mayor of Lincoln, who has travelled to this fair city to sit in on the proceedings, and certainly to join my colleague the Minister of Energy in support of this government's investment in Suncor.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, I don't believe that.

Mr. Andrewes: I am going to ignore the member for Niagara Falls for a while.

The Acting Speaker: Well, I am not.

Mr. Andrewes: In so doing, I also stand in support of our commitment to future energy security for this province, because when we get right down to it, that is what this debate is all about: energy security and the price we are willing to pay for it.

Ontario is the major oil-consuming province in Canada, and yet we have virtually no oil of our own. Of course, that did not matter much when our oil supply was steady and secure. But today, in the aftermath of the 1970s oil embargo and with the world situation increasingly unstable, we must be concerned about the future energy supply.

Far from fading away, the energy problem is as threatening as ever. Long-term supplies are limited, and control of most of the world's crude reserves remain concentrated in a few Middle Eastern countries. The damage that oil price increases have done to the world economy is still unrepaired.

I know some would be quick to jump on that remark and point out that right now there is a world oil glut and prices are going down; more reductions may even be on the way. Perhaps we need to be reminded the obvious answer is that this is a temporary condition over which we have no control, just as the oil embargo of the early 1970s was a temporary situation and beyond our control.

Obviously we cannot draw long-term conclusions from short-term happenings. Our one continuing long-term reality is that with half the world's oil production in its control, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will call the tune for many years to come and we cannot depend on today's oil realities being tomorrow's.

The Suncor investment starts the Canadianization process of a company which to this point has been 99.8 per cent owned by the Sun Co. of Radnor, Pennsylvania. Our objective is to encourage private Canadian investment in Suncor by acting as a catalyst in that process.

As well, given the new energy rules, this investment puts Suncor in a better position to play an enhanced role in helping Canada achieve crude oil self-sufficiency.

5 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I don't know whether I can take much more of this.

Mr. Andrewes: You can leave any time.

In addition to these energy imperatives, Suncor is a good financial investment for Ontario and Ontario taxpayers. Suncor employs 4,930 Canadians of which 60 per cent work in eastern Canada. The company owns and operates a 90,000 barrel-a-day capacity refinery in the city of Sarnia. Suncor's oil sands division has Canada's first oil sands plant.

Mr. J. A. Reed: What percentage is it running at today? Sixty per cent.

Mr. Andrewes: Built in the late 1960s and recently expanded at a cost of nearly $600 million, that plant is worth at least $6 billion today. Approximately 58,000 barrels a day of synthetic crude oil is produced by that oil sands plant. There are also 870 Sunoco dealers and service stations throughout Canada, of which 60 per cent are in Ontario.

Along with oil and gas, Suncor holds coal leases for some 6,799 hectares of land with estimated coal resources of 222 million metric tons and has applications for another 11,299 hectares in Alberta.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Tell us about the one-third it has divested since 1976.

Mr. Andrewes: The firm also has extensive interests in uranium. Analysts across our province have praised the Suncor investment as a sound one.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Especially the ones --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please stop the interruptions.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I can't help it.

Mr. Andrewes: Let me quote for members just a sampling of these comments. Richard Hallisey of First Marathon Securities says: "Ontario has struck a good bargain. It would cost about $6 billion to build an identical oil sands plant today."

John Dawe, the business editor of Global Television, reported that: "The federal government could learn a thing or two from the Ontario government when it comes to investments. The purchase of 25 per cent of the Canadian arm of Sun Oil Co. will cost Ontario $650 million. But according to oil experts that's only about one third of the replacement value of the assets that the investment represents."

Let me give one more quote from Ted Shrieker. I am sure the members of the third party will be interested in hearing what Ted Shrieker had to say because Ted Shrieker was a former researcher for the New Democratic Party in Ontario. What did he say? He said: "In the long term, anything that increases the Canadianization of the oil industry is going to have an effect in terms of increasing Canadian control over decisions made within the industry. So, in the long run, it is definitely a good deal for consumers."

All of these opinions add further weight to the analysis originally done by McLeod Young Weir and Price Waterhouse before our government committed itself to this purchase, an analysis, I would remind members opposite, that found the negotiated price paid for our Suncor shares to be fair and reasonable.

The plain facts are --

Mr. Bradley: Phil doesn't believe that.

Mr. Andrewes: Oh, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is here. Welcome St. Catharines. I am glad the member for St. Catharines is here because no doubt he will want to share in the enthusiasm for this purchase.

The plain facts are that Suncor plays an important role in Canada's energy development and that the Ontario government got a good price when it invested in the company's operations.

Of course, our efforts in the energy sector have not been entirely confined to the Suncor acquisition. On the contrary, the government can take great pride in its continuing efforts to reduce our province's dependence on oil and its unwavering dedication to the goal of eventual energy self-sufficiency, a goal that is as vital today as it was in 1980 when it was first pronounced.

We are committed to reducing the annual increase in demand for all energy forms to no more than two per cent a year by 1985. We have set tough conservation and substitution targets for the four major sectors, those being transportation, residential heating, and commercial and industrial.

In 1980, the government announced a 10-point, $165-million program for the development of alternative transportation fuels, solar energy, industrial conservation and substitution, and a range of other major developments.

Consider, if you will, the energy initiatives of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. In the energy area, BILD is investing many millions of public and private dollars to ensure the fullest possible exploitation of Ontario's basic indigenous energy source, electricity, as well as supporting alternative energy programs.

While each of our many alternative energy and conservation programs are helping to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, it would be naive to believe that our alternative energy sources will be able to completely replace our oil and gas consumption in the near future.

Without doubt, oil and gas will remain important elements of the province's energy requirements for years to come, and that reality makes our Suncor purchase very valuable indeed. With this purchase, Ontario's voice in oil pricing and strategy discussions will carry more weight. Equally important, the purchase gives Ontario some measure of control in an industry that worldwide is volatile and unstable. We now have a greater measure of control over our energy future.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could find out for us whether the chief government whip will be permitting the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) to speak on this issue this afternoon.

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

Mr. Bradley: I am sorry. I should have known that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I want to deal essentially with two matters in my remarks, one of which I may not get to in its entirety so I will deal with that at some length in my budget speech.

I want to talk, first, about the process surrounding this matter and, secondly, about the financial and economic effects of it.

First of all, I want to make a prediction. This purchase of Suncor is going to come back and haunt this government and is going to cause it to lose the majority in this province in the next election. It is going to be an albatross around the neck of each government member, something they are not going to be able to defend to the public of Ontario, their own Conservative supporters or the voters in the province.

I will make a second prediction, that when the leadership for the Ontario Conservative Party comes up, and you mark my words Robert, those who are contenders are going to be denying you and the Premier --

The Acting Speaker: Members are not to refer to ministers or other members by their first name.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have known Bobby all my life.

Mr. Speaker, like St. Peter, the Treasurer, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) will all be denying the Premier and the Minister of Energy. In fact, they will say, "We had nothing to do with this decision and we did not believe at the time that we should buy Suncor. We are washing our hands of it." I will make a small wager right now that is exactly what will happen.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Will the cock crow?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The cock will crow because we have already heard the minister speak.

I want to say something else about that because I have sat in this House for nigh unto 15 years. I have seen the Minister of Energy in all his other manifestations and, before Suncor, he was probably one of the best performers in this Legislature; one of the best, maybe one of the top six. There was himself, my former friend the late Mr. Bullbrook, myself and two or three others; but he was one of the best.

5:10 p.m.

When he spoke in those other manifestations of his, he believed in what he was saying, and he believed in a Conservative philosophy, misguided though it might have been. But he believed. He read his speech this afternoon with all the enthusiasm of a little boy on his way to his first dental appointment. His enthusiasm reminded me of that of the disinherited relative at a funeral.

Without a doubt that was the worst performance he has given in this Legislature since I have been here, and it is unfortunate. But it is understandable because he knows in his heart and his conscience that it was a mistake, it is not Tory policy; the economics of the situation have and are going to put us in an economic bind in Ontario and it is going to come back to haunt him personally. Malcolm Rowan will go on to something else but the minister is going to carry the can, politically, for him.

The question arises, why did a so-called Conservative government buy an oil company not situated in this province in the first place? I think it was partly ego on behalf of those who surround the Premier most closely -- one of whom, I get the impression, is no longer the Minister of Energy. So it was a matter of ego. The government did not feel it was in the ball game any more.

Ontario used to be the leading province in Canada but we have seen it slide not only economically but from its pre-eminent political position in the country since the days of John Robarts and the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference. The government felt it was getting squeezed out and was no longer a player; that if it was going to sit around with the big boys like Lougheed and Bennett and Blakeney and a few others, it had to have an oil company to get its chips on the table. It could not ante up unless it had that.

There is another thing, Mr. Speaker -- there is a more knowledgeable Speaker in the chair so I am sure he will agree with me. In Goldfarb's omnibus poll taken in 1980 by the Treasurer, who is very interested in his newspaper, there was a series of questions asked about whether or not we should buy a petroleum industry.

Question 199, in a poll that runs to over 240 pages, asks the people of Ontario, "How would you support the establishment of a provincially owned oil company similar to Petro-Canada?" The results were: strongly support, 31.5 per cent; moderately support, 38.7 per cent; moderately opposed, 13.6 per cent. We all know this government runs by poll; that it is government by Goldfarb.

But there were other questions asked. On occasion the Premier insists that the polls are not political, that they are only for information. But the next question in that same series of questions was, "What do you think of the job Premier Davis is doing in the federal-inter-provincial debate over oil price increases?" And the next question was, "Would you be in favour of or opposed to legislation for the nationalization of major oil companies?" The result in favour was 50.5 per cent.

So the government had the information it thought it needed to go ahead and make this purchase. That is why it was done: not for energy security, which it does not give us; not for any of those reasons for which they are great supporters of the national energy program, because they are not, particularly; but because they thought it was something that had favour with the public and something they needed to be players in the game and to be able to ante up with the big boys.

I want to spend a few minutes, because time is limited, on dealing with the process. The process is this.

The Premier and his close advisers, I presume prodded on by our friend Malcolm Rowan, who wanted something to do -- he did not just want to sit and look out the window of his office at the energy corporation -- decided in October or November 1980, before the provincial election of 1981, to give instructions to start looking for an oil company. They were going to be players in the game. There was not a word mentioned in this Legislature about that search at all, or the fact that this was part of the government's policy.

We went through an election in March 1981. We did not hear one word from either the Premier or the Minister of Energy that they had this in their minds, that they were going to commit $650 million of taxpayers' money, plus interest, which will bring it to well over $2 billion by the time we are finished. There was not one word during that election, not in all of that multitude of ads, not in the little jingles "Preserve it, conserve it" and "Davis can do it." There was not one word that this was going to be probably the most major economic project this government had embarked upon.

What we did hear about was the "bilge" program which, of new money alone, and I am being charitable and liberal, has maybe $75 million that was not brought in from other programs. We heard all about the "bilge" program, but we did not hear one thing in there about this government buying a part, piece or any control in an oil company.

So we went through an election without a word being said. Then, in October 1981, the Premier made an announcement to what can only be described as a shocked Conservative caucus in this Legislature and certainly a shocked opposition.

Mr. MacDonald: And cabinet.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And cabinet. It was the first anybody had heard of it. We were told that only four cabinet ministers were brought into it, that only four knew. Presumably, from what we know, the Treasurer was not among those. If he was told, it was so late that the decisions had been made and all he could do was register his rather weak-kneed, "But that is not Tory philosophy; that is not the way we do it in Muskoka."

Mr. Kerrio: He was in shock.

Mr. T. P. Reid: But I will bet the Treasurer will deny that when he runs for the leadership. He will deny it. He will say, "You remember those press reports, remember when they said the Treasurer was against it? Well, I was." That is what he will say.

I talk about the process, Mr. Speaker. I say to you that it was not the collegial cabinet responsibility we saw. It was not even all members of the cabinet who were involved. It was our friend Mr. Rowan, with his great accountability to this Legislature. There were some of the Premier's close friends and advisers whom I know well, and respect and like, but they were the ones who made the mistake -- that was a Freudian slip; made the decision. It was not the members of the cabinet collectively, and the poor Tory seals on the back benches could not even get their flippers together the day the Premier announced it in the House.

There was no collective accountability by the cabinet, and there was none through the Conservative caucus. There has been none to this Legislature, and none to the people of Ontario.

We have heard a lot of guff from the Minister of Energy about disclosure and giving us all the information. But it is not so. The worst thing that the minister has done is come before our respective caucuses, sit there, let Malcolm Rowan carry the ball and have the people from McLeod Young Weir tell us that he had given us all the information he could. Then we find out on December 23, 1981, just two days before Christmas, that Suncor had given itself a Christmas present of $78 million in dividends that the minister did not tell us about when he was before our caucus, and he did not tell those people. That is an error --

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: You didn't ask.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is a sin of omission. That is the height of arrogance.

Mr. Wrye: That is your attitude too.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am just about finished. I say the minister misled all of us when he did that. He misled all of us. That is the worst thing I have ever seen the minister participate in because he had an obligation to give us that information. Was that confidential? No, it was not.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The democratic process has been abused.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. As much as I respect the member for Rainy River, I do have some trouble with the suggestion of the Minister of Energy misleading the House, misleading us --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, he misled our caucus. It wasn't in the House. You have no jurisdiction over what happens outside the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Now you are playing the other side of the coin. I will remember that. You are in the House now. You have indicated the Minister of Energy misled members who are at present in the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I said that he has committed an error of omission and that he had the responsibility to tell us about those dividends being taken out before the deal was consummated. For that, he has a responsibility towards this House and I think he owes us an apology. He screwed up the economy of the province. He messed up on this deal, and then he deliberately withheld information from us and pretended that he was disclosing everything he could and all that he knew. That verges on the dishonest.

The Deputy Speaker: That second statement replaces the previous statement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They are interchangeable.

Mr. Riddell: The message has got through, I am sure.

The Deputy Speaker: No. With a bit of decorum, I take it your last statement replaces the aspect of the minister misleading members of the assembly.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It would be more precise to say that he verged on the dishonest by not providing the information that he said he was providing.

The Deputy Speaker: We are turning on a fine point here.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion before the Legislature this afternoon and indicate that in my opinion the Suncor purchase by this government was one of the phoniest acts it has committed since I remember reading about the Legislature, albeit not as far back as some members. None the less, the reasons given by this government for the purchase of Suncor, that they are interested in Canadianization and Canadian control, are phoney to say the least.

I agree with the member for Rainy River that this government took a poll and found the Petrocan purchase was a popular one. They found the people of Ontario believed that resources in this country should be owned and controlled by Canadians, but instead of taking action on resources here in Ontario, they decided to take action on the Suncor acquisition.

For the last member of the Conservative Party to talk about 25 per cent investment in Suncor representing control of Suncor, was either a slip of the tongue on his part or he completely misunderstands what 25 per cent really represents. This government is buying 25 per cent. They will allow the other 26 per cent to be bought by individuals or anyone else, which means that 51 per cent will be owned by Canadians eventually, but the 49 per cent block that will be owned by Sun Oil in the United States will still represent control of this company.

We will have nothing to say about sourcing, nothing to say about investment. We will have nothing to say about the health and safety problems in some of their facilities in Alberta, and we will not be guaranteed any of the benefits in Ontario that could have accrued if this government had acted by taking the 51 per cent, or more appropriately, by taking the money and investing it in resources in Ontario.

At the same time this government says it is interested in Canadianization, the present Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) goes around saying that new foreign investments should not be screened by the Foreign Investment Review Agency; that anyone should be able to invest in this country with no performance guarantees; that any foreign investment should be allowed for short-term gain, forgetting the long-term planning. In the throne speech, the Premier indicated the same thing, that FIRA should be weakened.

At a time when this government talks about Canadianization of the oil industry, it did not support this party's resolution that was debated in the Legislature on Canadianization of the auto parts sector, a sector of our economy in this country which is much more relevant and important to the long-term health of this province.

When we had presentations in front of the select committee on plant shutdowns and employment adjustment, one of the representatives from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, as it was at that time, indicated that over the next number of years 2,000 of the 13,000 branch plants that exist in our province will close down because of the ownership problem and the tariffs that are being dropped. Yet the only response on Canadianization in that sector has been the so-called buy-back program by this government.

According to our statistics as to the so-called success of the buy-back program, as pronounced by the Minister of Industry and Trade, the fact is that at the present rate of buy-back it would take 400 years to acquire those companies which are expected to close down over the next five or six years.

By all accounts, this investment by this government was done for political reasons and had no relevance to planning the economy to benefit our eight million people. I might point out to the Minister of Energy that over 500,000 people in the province, who would like to work, are now unemployed.

Why did we not take a look at Canadianization of the auto sector? Why did we not take a look at Canadianization of the food processing sector? The Gray report, done at the federal level 10 years ago, indicated that many of the imports which come into the manufacturing sector of this province are directly related to ownership. By importing finished goods, we are exporting jobs.

In 1978, in a study of nearly $40 billion worth of imports, Statistics Canada confirmed exactly the same thing, that the ownership of the manufacturing sector of this province is primarily responsible for the huge deficits that exist in autos, food and machinery. The potential job creation that exists in those areas could achieve full employment in this province if we had a government that was committed to planning the economy rather than planning its own political success.

Since 1960, over 1,300 of our food processing plants have closed in this province, and that after many of the American multinationals came in, bought them up and then decided to close them down. The result is that in areas such as fresh fruit we have $129 million worth of imports; in processed fruit, $191 million worth of imports; in fresh vegetables, $126 million worth of imports; in processed vegetables, $47 million worth of imports; in vegetable products, $22 million worth of imports.

Just in those five areas, there is $515 million worth of imports in the food sector. If we could simply have import replacement for $200 million worth of those, that would create 9,000 jobs in Ontario. That is something this government could have done with some of that $650 million. It could have invested in Canadian food processing plants. It could have worked towards self-sufficiency, something this province used to experience back in the early 1960s,

Let us take a look at mining machinery. Again, there is a huge trade deficit and it has the potential of many jobs to be created in northern Ontario. Yet instead of a strategy of government investment in that sector, the Minister of Industry and Trade, when we went to a banquet last week that the Ontario Mining Association put on, was practically on his knees begging the mining association to purchase Canadian mining machinery and to co-invest with the government.

Why could we not look at some of this $650 million going into mining machinery to create a sector that could be used, that could create jobs and could replace imports? It would also develop northern Ontario to an extent that northern Ontario has never been developed.

We have talked in this assembly many times about the problems in the auto sector, yet this government decided, by investing in Suncor, that was more important to the future of this province than was a healthy automobile sector -- the sector that, if one takes a look at the reliance of this province on automobiles and on auto parts, is just as important to Ontario as is the energy sector to Alberta.

Yet this government decided it was more important to invest in an American oil company that will create no jobs in Ontario, than it would have been to upgrade our auto parts sector, to create jobs, to replace some of the 30,000 to 40,000 jobs that have now been lost in the auto area. Many of those jobs have been lost in the Minister of Energy's own riding.

5:30 p.m.

We have put forward many other areas where this government could have invested. If one takes a look at energy, this government could have made a much more progressive investment by looking at peat development in northeastern and northwestern Ontario. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has talked many times about the potential for peat development in the province, the potential job creation and the potential to get us off oil and to put us on alternative forms of energy. The fact is there is in peat resources the equivalent of 24 billion barrels of oil. That is the equivalent of 30 years of Canadian oil consumption and obviously represents an incredible potential.

We have talked about residential energy conservation and what the government could have done in that area by investing. We put forward those proposals in the last election and we put them forward again in our recent budget proposal.

In terms of stimulating the economy, we could and should take a look at the need to reform our tax provisions in this province. I am sure the Treasurer is proud of the fact that people in Ontario with $15,000 and $20,000 incomes are taxed at a higher rate than in any other province in this country. We should be looking at those low-and middle-income families and bringing them up, especially the ones at the lowest end of the income scale who are relying on family benefits, general welfare and workmen's compensation.

If those people were brought up to a decent standard of living they would be buying. Their purchasing power would be increased and we would be able to stimulate the economy. Instead, this government decided it was a higher priority to invest in an oil company that will provide no jobs and no degree of control for Canadians or this government in Suncor.

In summing up, I want to point out that as a member of this Legislature who is committed to the democratic process, I am also very disappointed and outraged that this government would spend this kind of money without having to bring in any form of legislation, any resolution or any process that would give members of the Legislature the right to have input and either approve or disapprove of this type of action on the part of the government.

The Conservative government in this province is going more and more in that direction, whether it be Ontario health insurance plan premiums, the ad valorem taxes or the purchase of Suncor. Those elected to represent the people of Ontario in the Legislative Assembly have less and less input and democracy is in a sorry state in Ontario.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail devoted one and a half pages last Tuesday to an analysis of the value of Suncor with the assistance of so-called professional business valuators. I take no issue with the Richardson report or its findings in the context for which it was undertaken. Indeed, the Richardson valuation was known to the government's own advisers, McLeod Young Weir and Price Waterhouse, when the valuation and critique were carried out in the fall of 1981.

What I do take exception to is the misleading interpretation given by the Globe and Mail and its unidentified advisers, the misquoting of the Richardson report, the naive assumptions made and the completely unsupported conclusions reached as to the value of the Suncor common shares in October 1981.

The Globe and Mail article is an example of shoddy journalism.

1. The Globe did not attempt to verify the content of its story with the Ontario Energy Corp.

2. The interest rate on the Sun Co. 10-year note was not 14.7 per cent, but rather 14.357 per cent.

3. The government has not "indicated its use of a 15 per cent discount rate."

4. Noranda was not "invited by Ontario to become a partner in the Suncor deal."

5. References are made to "Suncor" when only the oil sands division is considered in the Richardson report.

6. The statement "awaiting large-scale profits until 1994" was based on a gross misreading of the Richardson report.

7. There is a projected pre-tax profit in 1982 for the oil sands of $447 million. This figure is really the "total expenses" for that year.

8. There are numerous references to "profit" when the correct term should have been "cash flow."

9. Some references to the directors of Sun Oil should actually be references to the directors of Great Canadian Oil Sands.

Clearly, the Globe analysis fails to substantiate its claim that the government paid $300 million too much. It distorts the findings of the 1979 Richardson valuation, it ignores the substantial changes in the oil and gas industry and it incorporates fundamental errors in its use of discounted cash flows. It is typical that the opposition party would accept at face value this poorly researched Globe and Mail report on Suncor.

Contrary to opposition grandstanding, this government relied on the sound, experienced judgement of both McLeod Young Weir and Price Waterhouse using information that was up to date and, of necessity, confidential to arrive at a fair price for Suncor. Suncor's loss in profits in 1981 and the recent drop in shares does not imply that our investment was a poor choice. The main reason for lower earnings in 1981 was directly related to a change in Ottawa's energy policy pushing the price of oil to $21 per barrel from $35 a barrel a year before.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my understanding that by all-party agreement there have been time indications. The member has half a minute, the official opposition two minutes and the third party about 11 minutes. Has the member for Lakeshore concluded?

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, a series of operating problems and a fire which swept the oil sands plant last January also had a detrimental impact on the company's oil sands production.

All companies at some point experience heavy losses in earnings. This does not imply that they will not recover once favourable conditions return. Canadian National, for example, recently announced the worst quarterly loss in its history. The transportation giant lost $67 million, compared with a $69.9 million profit in the same period a year ago.

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I know my time is quite limited, but I do want to congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister of Energy. In the first three months of this year, this boondoggle, this great investment, has earned one dime in our family. My wife, my child and I have each earned 3.2 cents of profit in the first three months of this year. I suppose we should congratulate them while they are still making a profit, because I bet the second three months will not be as good.

An hon. member: You will have to give the dime back.

Mr. Wrye: I think I will keep it.

I know my time is very limited, but I did want to say a word or two about my friends to the left. They have had the greatest conversion since Saul on the road to Damascus. I want to talk about Monday, November 2, 1981, and the speech from the critic for Industry. He said, "So although we do not agree with the direction the Liberals have taken in this House, which appears to be in opposition to the purchase of 25 per cent of an oil company -- or, in fact, in opposition to the purchase of any part of an oil company -- and while we believe we should go for control to get a return for the residents of Ontario" then they said they would support it.

5:40 p.m.

Or let us look at the statement by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) on October 20 in question period: "If the minister is sincere about wanting to maximize the benefits for Ontario in including in that some of the write-offs and so on, does he not think it is incumbent on the province to get the other 26 per cent that is floating out there and have total control?"

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

Mr. Wrye: That is what our friends to the left would do. They would get the other 26 per cent and they probably would have spent $2 billion.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of no confidence in this government because, as I said in the speech from which the member for Windsor-Sandwich quoted so briefly, I believe this government has botched up its whole approach to the investment in Suncor.

What has bothered us from the beginning, right after the Premier made his announcement of the investment in Suncor, is we believe -- and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) also stated so at the time -- that for $650 million this government could have bought more of the action in Suncor. I believe our leader at that time indicated this $650-million purchase, by our calculation, should have entitled us to obtain at least 38 per cent, not 25 per cent of this company.

We questioned at that time the McLeod Young Weir evaluation because we did not have all the information and because it appeared to us to overvalue the cost of the shares in Suncor. We pointed out at the time that Suncor, because of the order from the federal government, had been required to divest itself of some of its shares and had approached at least 15 companies, not one of which expressed serious interest in obtaining a part of the company.

I am very concerned about some of the statements that were read by the Minister of Energy, his parliamentary assistant and the other member of the Conservative caucus who spoke in this debate. They made statements to the effect that somehow the investment by this provincial government in Suncor was going to increase crude oil self-sufficiency in this country. Not one of them was able to substantiate that bald statement. How on earth is an investment of 25 per cent of Suncor going to increase crude oil self-sufficiency in this country?

The argument can be made that Canadianization might be achieved, and those members opposite did make the argument that they were assisting in the federal government's aims for more Canadian ownership in the oil industry. They went on to equate Canadianization with control, which, frankly, was completely fatuous.

Purchasing 25 per cent of a company does not give one control. Not only does it not give this government control, the purchase of 25 per cent by this government and the subsequent purchase of 26 per cent of the company by other Canadian investors does not make Canadian control. For the parliamentary assistant to end his speech by saying that this was increasing Canadian control in the oil industry was completely ridiculous and inaccurate.

We have said, and we believe today, that the aim to increase Canadian control of the oil industry is one that we should be supporting. But the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor for $650 million does not increase Canadian control. We have seen that this company continues to operate as it has done in the past, without any change in its approach, because it is controlled by Sun Oil in the United States.

The president of Suncor made a statement in Calgary not long after the government investment in which he said that what it meant was business as usual. There would be no changes. Public investment in the company did not mean any change in the direction of the company or in the operations of the company. As a matter of fact, the president of that company had the gall to state that this investment meant a new bottom line. It would be easier for energy companies now to risk capital because a lot of that capital would be public capital. In other words, he was talking about making public the risk in the energy field.

This government, as my leader has said, has botched up the whole approach to getting any kind of Canadian control or ownership in the oil industry. For that reason, right from the beginning, we have questioned its approach. We have also questioned all the secrecy that has surrounded this investment. We do not know -- nor do the people of Ontario -- how this decision was made or what the reasons were to invest in Suncor as opposed to some other industry, or what benefits would run for the province as a result of that. Nor do we know at this stage what the true cost of this purchase will be.

It would be interesting if the members opposite in this debate had got up and explained why they believed this investment in the energy field, which they have defended, was in any way better for the taxpayers of this province than the investment they could have made in the uranium industry in this province that was recommended a few years ago by Ontario Hydro.

Why is it more profitable and better for the people of this province to invest in an oil company than to take the advice of that crown corporation? It said, "We want a more secure source of uranium for our energy production and we believe it would be cheaper to purchase Denison Mines and Rio Algom than it would be to purchase that uranium on a long-term contract" Not one member of this government has ever explained that.

Interestingly enough, the Liberal Party, which has made such a big deal of being opposed to investment, despite its federal colleagues' investment in Petrocan, has never been able to explain in this House why it opposed the recommendation of the select committee that there should have been a public investment in the uranium companies in Elliot Lake, so that the people of this province would have had an assured source of uranium and we really would have had some say in the energy direction of this province.

The Liberal Party has made a lot of changes of positions on this side of the House, but it has never been able to admit to itself and to the public of this province that it tried to have it both ways on the uranium contract. It has never been able to explain to anyone what its real position is on uranium in this province.

The questions that have been raised in the last few weeks add to the questions we have had from the beginning of this contract of purchase of Suncor. We believe a full public inquiry is required so that the people of this province and the members of this assembly will know exactly how much they are paying, what the costs really are and what the benefits might be.

The minister has hidden behind his agreement with the company and has not given all the information we believe is necessary. I would like to know what the minister is afraid of. Why will he not give us the information? He has said he would like to give the information, but it is impossible because of the agreement. A public inquiry would let him get around that problem, and we would see what the costs really are and what the benefits might be.

I am not certain exactly where we go from here. The minister refuses an inquiry. We do not have all the information. I do not quite understand whether the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting we should divest ourselves of the investment this government has made in Suncor. If that is what he is saying, he seems to be missing the reality of the situation. With the change in the value we have now in the shares, it would seem to me that what he is suggesting is divesting ourselves of the 25 per cent share at a loss. If that is what he is suggesting, it does not make a lot of sense. First off, if it was dumb to invest, it would be twice as dumb now to be selling at a loss.

5:50 p.m.

It is obvious this government does not know what it is doing, that it never knew what it was doing in the energy field. It has no real reason by which it could defend the investment in Suncor and for that reason we have no confidence in the ability of this government to plan for the energy future of Ontario.

The House divided on Mr. Peterson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne., Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes, 46; nays 66.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that there is a change in the order of business for the sitting tonight. We will be resuming the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Mr. Nixon: Don't you have to have unanimous consent to change the order of business?

Mr. Speaker: No, and I am sure that comes as no surprise.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

May 11, 1982