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

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order involving a matter of importance to the people of Windsor. This week of March 7 to 13 has been proclaimed by Windsor city council as a week of prayer for the needs of the city of Windsor. I ask the members of the Legislature to join me in this prayer of hope that is being offered by the churches and the people of the city of Windsor.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask whether I may have the consent of this House to offer this prayer.

Mr. Speaker: It is up to the members of the House to grant that consent. Do we have that consent?

Agreed.

Mr. Wrye: O Heavenly Father, we earnestly pray for divine guidance to be given to the leaders of the community, the mayor, city council and others; that an increase in righteousness and a decrease in crime and wrongdoing should prevail;

For the safety and the protection of the elderly and infirm and for the police and firefighters who perform difficult duties; for a decrease in death and disability and tragic accidents; for speedy recovery of the economic problems of the city and its people and for continued improvement in its way of life;

For an improvement of the general health and wellbeing of all the people; for success to the work of the medical and nursing profession and of the hospitals and for the repression of the outbreak of disease and conditions hazardous to the health of the people;

For an improved moral tone to the city and an uplift of expectation and faith, which will be beneficial for the hopes and aspirations of all and contribute to a well-ordered way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence.

ELECTRONIC HANSARD

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I notice that last Tuesday for the throne speech someone had authorized the placing of new and different lights in this legislative chamber to facilitate television coverage of the proceedings. This brings me to a point that has been debated in this House and in this committee for quite some time: whether or not we should move to have the proceedings of this House covered by the system known as electronic Hansard, which is already in place in Ottawa and in Quebec. A somewhat similar system is in place in Alberta, but that is handled through the cable companies.

You may be aware, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest to the honourable member that he is not rising on a point of privilege, and I would ask --

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, you have not heard the point I was trying to make. The point is coming, sir, and it will be right on target if you will just give me a moment to address this very serious issue.

Mr. Speaker: Make your point and I will be happy to listen to it.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the point, which concerns you and which concerns the privileges of this whole House.

You may recall the journals of December 4, 1980. I would like to quote Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee, who presented the committee's report and moved its adoption. The committee's report read as follows:

"Your committee has met jointly with the standing committee on members' services to consider the matter of an electronic Hansard and, with the concurrence of the members' services committee, recommends: That the Speaker assume responsibility for the immediate introduction of permanent and continuing television and radio coverage of the Legislature under his authority and control."

That was done on December 4, 1980. As far as I can see, no action whatsoever has been taken on this motion, which was duly passed by two committees of this Legislature. Further, I wish to point out to you that in 1975 the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, the Camp commission, recommended: "That the Ontario Educational Communications Authority be asked to install the actual recording and camera equipment and operate the recording and videotaping equipment under an annual contract with Mr. Speaker."

I want to know why no action has been taken from your office so that television coverage of the proceedings of this Legislature can be broadcast throughout the province so that the work of the members of this House can be seen by the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I will be pleased to look into this matter. I do not have any firsthand knowledge of it at this time.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with routine proceedings, I wish to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the fifth report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses. I might point out for the benefit of all members that copies will be in the members' mail boxes at the post office.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SPECIAL WARRANT

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with House rules, I am tabling one special warrant approved when the Legislature was not in session. Copies have been put in each member's box.

The special warrant is an order under section 4 of the Management Board of Cabinet Act, signed by the Lieutenant Governor, authorizing expenditures of an urgent nature for which no appropriation exists, and it is permissible only when the Legislature is not in session. The special warrant authorizes $5 million for the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. This is the part of the $60-million program which will be claimed and flowed this fiscal year 1981-82.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to -- Interjection.

Mr. Peterson: The flowerpot farmer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is a little bit more original. I hope the critics got copies of the statement. Do you have any objection if I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Nixon: That is a very inauspicious beginning.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is a very auspicious ending coming.

Mr. Speaker: Have copies been distributed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If there are objections, I will be glad to wait until later; if not, I would like permission to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: I think they are being distributed now.

FARM ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some remarks respecting the special warrant for $5 million for the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program which has just been tabled by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague).

This program was announced on December 23, 1981, and became operational on January 4, 1982. Farmers are eligible to apply for assistance under the program until December 31, 1982. Sixty million dollars has been allocated to fund the program. There are three participants in the program: eligible farmers; authorized lenders; and the government of Ontario.

To date, authorized lenders include the six leading chartered banks and one credit union. Several other credit unions, caisses populaires and trust companies have also expressed interest in the program. We expect to receive formal requests from some of them in the near future.

The program provides farm business management counselling and direct financial assistance in the form of bridge financing. It is aimed at farmers who are in need of financial restructuring, reorganizing and consolidation and who can benefit from such assistance to become financially viable. In addition to farm business management counselling, eligible farmers can take advantage of one or more of the three assistance options.

One option involves interest deferral. The lender will defer interest on loans for a period of six months, backed by a provincial guarantee, and during this time the lender will not compound interest.

A second option is an interest reduction grant on floating-rate loans and on short-term, fixed-rate loans for operating purposes only. The maximum grant will be five per cent and will not reduce the interest rate below 12 per cent.

A third option provides for an additional line of credit for operating purposes only, guaranteed by the province of Ontario and provided by the lender at prime rate of interest.

The program has three eligibility criteria under which it has operated since its inception on January 4. The program is working very well, but because there is a serious gap in farm assistance programs, the government of Ontario made a commitment in last Tuesday's speech from the throne to broaden the 1982 Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. To meet that commitment, I am pleased to announce that we have extended the eligibility criteria so that smaller farmers may now qualify. This will be of particular benefit to farmers in northern and eastern Ontario.

The original criteria required a farmer to have a remaining equity in the farm assets of between 10 per cent and 50 per cent. The new requirement raises the equity level to 60 per cent. As before, applicants of exceptional ability will be considered below 10 per cent. Also, the original requirement that the farm must have produced food and tobacco products worth $25,000 in 1981 has been reduced to $12,000. The third requirement is that the farmer's interest and principal payments on outstanding debts for farming purposes must exceed 20 per cent of farm operating costs.

Farmers who were previously excluded from the program should reassess their positions in the light of these new criteria and get in touch with their lenders. In addition, my ministry has begun taking steps to inform farmers of these new provisions. Advertisements will appear in the weekly press; radio announcements are planned; and my ministry's field staff is being notified at this moment.

As mentioned earlier, this program is targeted at farmers in financial difficulty who are most dependent on farming for a living but who, with substantial assistance, could be viable in the long term. This deliberate policy decision was designed to make the most effective use of the funds available.

It also makes the program complementary to the federal small business bond program and the federal Farm Credit Corp. special assistance program by assisting those farmers in financial difficulty, but not yet in the so-called dire straits category served by the federal programs.

The shortfall in federal funding for the Farm Credit Corp. special assistance program has left a serious gap in the availability of assistance for some farmers. I have written the federal Minister of Agriculture requesting the allocation of additional funds to that program and its extension through 1982-83. I am encouraged by recent media reports which would appear to indicate that Mr. Whelan is considering a positive response to this matter.

These changes have been made in response to letters and comments I have received from members of this Legislature, from farm organizations and from individual farmers. This action is both responsive and responsible in view of the current financial problems faced by Ontario farmers, and it clearly indicates the priority which my government places on this key sector of our economy.

CANADIAN PACIFIC TRAIN DERAILMENT

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General.

[Applause]

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I hope I will always receive that enthusiastic recognition as I continue on with my duties in this ministry.

I would like to inform the honourable members of the events which occurred in Medonte township beginning February 28 and ending March 9, and to again express my thanks to the residents of that area and those involved in the containment of the emergency.

Canadian Pacific train 405, bound from Toronto to Edmonton, derailed at 8:45 a.m. in Medonte township near Highway 400 approximately 25 miles north of Barrie. Thirty-five cars were involved in the derailment, a number of them containing combustibles and one filled with hydrofluoric acid, a toxic substance which, if spilled, would have represented a threat to the lives of residents of the area.

The Ontario Provincial Police, who did their usual superb job throughout the crisis, were on the scene almost immediately and began advising nearby residents to leave the area for their own safety. The local township of Medonte volunteer fire department responded at once, co-ordinated by Chief Jack McAllister of Barrie who, as a result of the Mississauga incident and papers developed by the Solicitor General, had developed an emergency response procedure for the county. Emergency response teams from the ministries of the Environment, Health and the Solicitor General were galvanized under Dr. David Korn, the medical officer of health for the county of Simcoe, who was informed and arrived at the scene along with myself.

I would emphasize that during the day, Sunday, at the time of assessing the actual magnitude of the fire and the consequences of the derailment, the evacuation was only advisory. Police say most of the people in the immediate vicinity did vacate after they were warned of the danger. At that time, the hoses being used by the firefighters were frozen and they were unable to pump water. The hydrofluoric car remained unidentified in the jumble of wreckage and the fire, which was out of control, was getting worse.

There have been reports from some CP Rail officials that stated the evacuation was unnecessary and that we overreacted. I want members of this House to know there were four CP Rail representatives at the meeting when the evacuation decision was made. In my presence they were asked more than once by the commissioner of the OPP if they had any objections. None was forthcoming.

I should also like members of this Legislature to know that the derailment was not the first incident involving train 405. Several miles up the track, and previous to the derailment, the train uncoupled because of a knuckle problem and there was some delay at that point. Neither CP Rail nor the Canadian Transport Commission saw fit to apprise us of that fact. I only found out about that earlier instance through the criminal investigation branch of the OPP, which took statements from the crew during the course of its investigation of the derailment. This was some three days after the event.

Although the first incident caused some delay, CP Rail and CTC investigators concur at this time that it did not contribute to the derailment, but that the sole cause of the derailment was a broken wheel.

On Monday, with the toxic car identified and the fire contained, the evacuation zone was reduced to an area of one square mile affecting seven families. Decisions were made at the meetings held on a daily basis at the command post, involving officials from Health, Environment, the CTC, the firefighters, CP Rail and Allied Chemicals, who were the experts on transferring the acid and the producers of this particular carload of hydrofluoric acid.

2:20 p.m.

We were not always in agreement. For instance, Dr. Korn, the Ministry of the Environment people and myself objected when, after the tracks were cleared, CP Rail announced its intention to run trains past the derailment site. The CTC, which you are aware is a federal jurisdiction, supported CP Rail. However, we asked for, and they gave us, assurances that the trains would not proceed over five miles per hour and would do so under supervision.

I would emphasize, however, that the decision-making meetings were mostly harmonious, with a great degree of co-operation from all the parties, considering the many divergent areas of concern. At those meetings we had experts from various areas -- the Ministry of Health, the CTC, CP Rail, the US Bureau of Explosives, Dow Chemical of Canada Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., the Ministry of the Environment, police and chemical engineers -- advising us constantly and updating the situation.

All the information was assessed, but uppermost in the minds of all the parties was that the decisions be made based on the maximum standards of safety we could provide, not only for the citizens of the areas but for those working on the site as well. We would then relay our decisions to the news media which disseminated the information. I would like publicly to commend the media for their co-operation and their assistance, and particularly Corporal Brad Knudds of the Ontario Provincial Police, who is a community relations officer in the Barrie detachment.

We do learn from experience. Indeed, we had experts attending only to assess our emergency response so that they could improve theirs. We plan to assess the Medonte situation with a view to incorporating lessons learned into our emergency planning legislation, to be introduced in this House later in the spring. Further, the federal government must take greater initiatives to ensure the safety of transportation of dangerous commodities.

At this point, I would like to thank the residents of Medonte township and area for their forbearance, courage and co-operation. It is worth noting that during the first evacuation most of the people had left prior to the actual evacuation order. During the first evacuation they were required to vacate a five-square-mile area, which was reduced to a one-square-mile area the morning after the order was given. During the second evacuation, again involving a five-square-mile area, with an additional five-square-mile cautionary area, of more than 1,700 residents who were contacted or advised to leave the area, only eight people refused to go.

The evacuations were carried out at such times when the experts would have completed maximum safety preparations for themselves, after preparing the site for the transfer of the acid. It was also done late in the morning when we had the fewest people in the area to evacuate. Consideration was also given to the rural makeup of the area and farmers were given time to care for their livestock before the evacuation occurred. Also, at each stage of the evacuation, as it was completed, residents could return to their homes except in the minimal area which was at greatest risk.

My primary concern at the site was public safety. When asked by the media, I did not address the issue of compensation. When it was discussed with the Premier (Mr. Davis), he acknowledged there was no way the 3,200 residents of Medonte township could afford through their taxes to mount the massive undertaking needed to contain such an emergency. I have assured the reeve that none of the costs incurred by provincial agencies will be passed on to the township. The province has also said it will assume the firefighting costs incurred.

I would like to urge CP Rail to act as the good corporate citizen they advertise they are and reimburse those evacuees who incurred out-of- pocket expenses, particularly the seven families who were out of their homes for more than a week. It would not cost anything near the amount of money the company paid out in the Mississauga emergency. CP should also consider some form of compensation to the township of Medonte, associated with the costs of fighting such a fire. There are hundreds of Medonte townships along the railway lines in this country and they simply cannot afford the costs incurred by such accidents.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, my heartfelt thanks go out to the ambulance workers, the work crews on the site, the people from Environment and Health who were so invaluable, the Red Cross, individual citizens who provided food and shelter, and other organizations, such as the Ontario Provincial Police, who carried out the evacuation and patrolled the area to prevent vandalism and theft.

I reserve a special thanks to the bravest of the brave, the volunteer firefighters; the families who stood behind them; their employers who acknowledged their firefighting duties; and the other firefighters who battled the emergency through a long week, mostly in freezing weather and with a display of courage, dedication and durability that is quite simply indescribable. It was an effort by a group of Ontario citizens that I, for one, shall never forget.

Mr. Speaker, I would now ask members in this House to acknowledge three visitors to your gallery, whose actions and support during the crisis were an inspiration to all of us: Ingram Amos, reeve of Medonte township; Fire Chief Ken Hamilton, who is a volunteer firefighter; and Dr. David Korn, the county's medical officer of health.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Treasurer. I am sure I speak on behalf of all the members of this House who have been touched by the economic problems suffered by their constituents in the past several months.

As you are aware, sir, in the last three weeks alone about 4,700 layoffs have been announced in this province, including Polysar, 1,600; Algoma Steel, 600; Hussmann Store Equipment, 170; and the list goes on and on. Today 70 Gulf layoffs were confirmed, with 600 more rumoured to be coming. In view of the gravity of this situation, of which I am sure the Treasurer is aware, will he bring in a budget next week, or very soon thereafter, to deal in a significant way with these economic problems?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The rules of the House do not permit me to bring in a budget that quickly.

Mr. Peterson: The rule is eight days --

Mr. Nixon: When are you bringing it in?

Mr. Peterson: When is the Treasurer going to bring it in? Obviously the Treasurer does not think it is very important and that he can weasel out on a procedural technicality. But let me point out he is aware that there are 375,000 unemployed in this province; that 100,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the couple of months; that 68,000 people have left this province in the last two years; and that at present Canada's employment centres list barely more than 13,000 job vacancies.

What is the Treasurer going to do about this? When is he going to bring in his budget? Does he not feel he has some responsibility?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, let me sincerely congratulate my colleague on making the move from Treasury critic to leader of the party. On that side of the House it may be a common thing to see that happen; on this side of the House it seldom, if ever, happens.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Only the Treasurers who do not do anything.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There must have been a lot. The question of preparing for the budget is one I have been taking very seriously. I have done little else but prepare for a budget since returning from the Christmas break. I have met with about 40 organized groups in my office to date. Those meetings were not simply matters of a few minutes; they lasted for up to two or two and a half hours. During them I have received the benefit of their predictions of economic change and of their interpretations of what their specific industries need.

Had this kind of approach been used by our friends in Ottawa, we would not have had the disastrous results of the November 12 budget. Try as he may, my friend knows he is tarred with the brush of his Ottawa friends -- he is going to say he is not, but he is. They have brought forward one of the most disastrous budgets for the economy of this province.

What am I going to do?

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, I am going to implore the federal Finance minister, as many Canadians from the union movement, from industry and from farms are doing, to realize that the economy of this country has gone downhill since he dreamed up his budget and to change it. Then I am prepared to make my budget --

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member had her chance and she lost.

Ms. Copps: People are not moving out of the country, they are moving out of the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All members will have an equal opportunity to ask questions. Does the Treasurer wish to continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be ready quite quickly with my budget because most of the work is done, but I am sincerely hoping that the federal government will change, and I am prepared to adjust my budget to complement the actions it may take.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: The throne speech on Tuesday stated we now have had more than a decade of slow growth in this province, which happens to be approximately as long as the present Premier (Mr. Davis) has been in that position. Is it not about time the Treasurer looked at the economic sectors where he could get involved and create jobs -- the auto sector and mining machinery for example? Is it not time he got involved in the economy in a positive way instead of political intervention like the BILD document?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I assume I will hear a lot from the honourable member who has just spoken because I understand he is now my official critic. I have been honoured to have had good critics from that party -- and that does not say I did not have good critics from the other party -- who had very thoughtful and penetrating questions.

It intrigues me to hear him talk about us taking action in specific sectors like the automobile sector -- one which he is surely familiar with -- when he knows we have been doing it. He knows he has consistently objected in the House to this government's help to that industry.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer knows that under the rules of this House we have eight days for throne speech debate. That would say to the Treasurer he could bring in the budget the day thereafter or shortly thereafter.

I am sure also he could get universal consent in this House to bring in the budget immediately if he is ready. We feel strongly and I am sure my colleagues do --

An hon. member: Tomorrow morning.

Mr. Peterson: -- and I implore him to move immediately on this question. What relief is he going to provide for those hundreds of thousands who are unemployed in this province right now? We cannot wait.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have been to Ottawa twice in the last week. I attended an interesting meeting on this topic there with colleagues from Windsor -- from the United Auto Workers, Mr. White. It may seem an unholy or unlikely alliance because along with Mr. White were the presidents of most of Canada's major vehicle manufacturing companies and the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association. All of them tried to point out that automobiles really are not a regional industry and are not a dying industry, and they had to take some action to protect jobs here in Canada for Canadian citizens by accepting Ontario's recommendation that there be 85 per cent Canadian content in vehicles sold in this country.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Peterson: Obviously the Treasurer has now picked a new adversary, the automobile consumer of the United States, to blame his problems on. But let me ask him a new question about the small business sector.

More than 7,000 small businesses surveyed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently revealed they could have created 14,000 jobs in 1981 but in fact laid off more than 9,000 people. They are going bankrupt in record numbers, as the Treasurer is aware. I would ask him to bring in an emergency interest-rate relief program for the small business sector, particularly when it has the potential to hire so many people in this province at this time.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was looking at the differing opinions on ways to assist people with interest rates espoused during the recent leadership campaign and I would hope other members of the front bench accept the measures the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward. I will read back into the record some of the comments the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) had on his thoughts on interest-rate policy before too long, but they are just a bit divergent.

What I can say is that all 10 provinces went to the first ministers' meeting in January and pleaded with the federal government to use its powers to bring a Canadian interest-rate policy to Canada. It could do this mainly by doing one thing -- increasing confidence in the government of Canada so that the flight of capital out of this country, which is depressing our dollar and raising our interest rates, would be reversed. Regardless of whether it was a socialist province, a Conservative province, a Socred province -- there are no Liberal provinces -- they came through and said the same thing, in public and in private. We do have to recognize that the authority to do that is vested in the Bank of Canada. I hope the member accepts that.

Mr. Peterson: I will agree with the Treasurer that some of the other provinces, indeed the majority, had the same view he did. But a number of those provinces are undertaking specific programs of their own to help their own people and there are things he can do here in Ontario. That same survey said that by the end of this year some 80,000 small businesses in this province could fold unless there is some immediate short-term relief.

I believe the Treasurer has a responsibility to our people here. While he is waiting for Ottawa, the people in Ontario are waiting for him. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been reviewing the tax changes made by Mr. MacEachen on November 12 as they affect small business in an attempt to see whether anything I did with the fiscal resources at my disposal could undo what he did.

Ontario has a 20 per cent investment tax credit for small businesses in this country to help them avoid corporate tax payable and to help them build up their productive assets. It is only in its second year. It sunsets April 22 of this present year unless we extend it through our budgetary measures. We had a small take-up the first year; we had a large take-up the second year. And what happened? Through a simple change in reducing capital cost allowance by half in Ottawa, Mr. MacEachen hung out to dry just about every small businessman who had made a capital investment. Everything we had done was wiped out. Our money goes and it goes to Ottawa.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the change in the last couple of months. The Conservative government of Ontario now agrees with us that interest rates at the federal level have to be brought down. Does the Treasurer not remember that when he was asked in this House by this party if he would urge the federal Liberals to lower the interest rates, he warned us it would mean an outflow of capital and a lowering of the Canadian dollar and that he would not recommend that? Does he forget already that he made those statements in this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not forget very many of the things I say but I usually remember the context in which I said them. That is something opposition members do not always remember when they rephrase or paraphrase them or shoot them back from the hip. I am hoping to see the member's leader down here some time soon. I see him up top there. It is probably the highest view he will ever have of this House. He may see it quite differently down here. He would rather be in the benches so we thought we would create a new riding for him: Benches-Would-Be. He said he would not parachute into a riding and Benches-Would-Be sounds very much like that, so we thought we would put them together --

Mr. Speaker: Now would the Treasurer answer the question please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, why can I not have some fun too?

Mr. Sweeney: Because it is a serious matter, that's why.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The difference between me and some of the members here is that I do believe it is serious -- very much so. And I am a lot closer to small business than many members of this House; not all, but many. I do recognize the validity of those problems. And yes, the key ingredient in having an interest rate policy that will stem an outflow of capital is to have investors believe their money is safe in this country, that there is a fair chance to earn something. That is what the federal government destroyed and the member should be agreeing with me.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer is blaming the federal government for all these ills when his own federal finance critic, Michael Wilson, agrees with the federal Liberals. He should start explaining that if he is so noble on these issues.

I want to know right now when the Treasurer is going to have a budget and what kind of relief programs he is going to have for people who need help, including small businessmen, home owners and farmers.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have the date chosen I will inform the House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer about interest rates. Can the Treasurer explain why, when the throne speech says high interest rates "cause homes and farms to be lost" and that the human and social costs arising from such a high interest-rate policy are unacceptable, his leader and Premier copped out at the press conference and said the province could not take unilateral action in that area?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of interpreting remarks by the Premier, who is absent today for reasons that I am sure the member is aware of, I cannot. But I will be glad to check with him to make sure we are both on the same wave length. My assumption would be that the unilateral cost and the unilateral effect would be relatively insignificant.

One of the great things about economic policy is that it is far more effective when governments go in tandem than when they go in opposite directions. One of the problems we have found is that our federal government in Ottawa does not go in the same directions as perhaps the major government to the south, for good or bad reasons. The fact is we do not get the same kind of results; we get opposing results.

One of the reasons I have been considering opting out of the personal income tax field on behalf of the province of Ontario is that I find the tax rules, such as those the member is talking about, are getting so far out of whack from what we consider to be acceptable that we wonder if we can continue to use their system in the interests of equitable taxation.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not realize that if his government floated a $150-million housing development bond for a 20-year term at the current rate of interest of 17 per cent and put it into a housing stimulation program in Ontario, he could create approximately 32,000 jobs in this province and gain for his own treasury revenue amounting to about $11 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the throne speech implied that measures would be taken for rental housing and for other housing in general. I hope the member will have the confidence to wait a while to see the effects of it.

I want to point out one simple piece of arithmetic. Those kinds of bonds function on one simple assumption: that the benefit from a tax point of view is taken and given to the borrower rather than to the lender. The lender does not pay tax on most of them. Of 148 points of tax collected in Ontario 100 points go to the federal government and 48 to Ontario. The member can recognize, then, that the cooperation of the federal government in any program is twice as valuable in its impact as Ontario's.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has asked us to be patient, but the 375,000 people who are out of work are running out of patience. In his answers so far today the Treasurer has said the federal government, the Ontario government and others should be following the same kind of economic policy. Then he said that when major governments are not following the same policy there are problems. The federal government has tied its interest rate to that of the United States and in his budget last year the Treasurer agreed that inflation was the biggest problem.

Will the Treasurer tell us now whether he believes that inflation is the biggest problem, or is it unemployment? And when can the disasters to human beings in terms of unemployment be dealt with by the Treasurer doing something in his provincial responsibility rather than flagellating Ottawa, the United States and everybody else? When will he accept his responsibility for those 375,000 people who are out of work?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show this government not only has accepted its responsibility but that the people of Ontario have believed for many years it has accepted its responsibility. They continue to put their confidence in us at a time like this and, quite honestly, they know where the troubles are.

When we went to Ottawa we were not just negative or critical. Ontario put forward -- and I hope the member got a copy of it -- a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the economy. I think there were 43 of them. I will be pleased to send the member a copy in case he did not get one during the Christmas break. It was very well received by representatives of all points of view and is well worth looking at. We have not yet had any indication from the feds that they are going to accept it.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that approximately one third of the lumber workers in northern Ontario are out of work and that the federal-provincial program announced recently for forest improvement is only going to provide a few hundred jobs, at this stage at least, no matter what is being promised in expansion in the throne speech? If that is the case, why is the minister not prepared to commit the funds necessary for the accelerated housing starts that would provide jobs, not only to those lumber workers but to construction workers right across this province, providing the housing the people of this province need so badly?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was very proud of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), when he and the federal minister for unemployment got together at Ontario's suggestion and put into action a principle I hope the member would espouse. That principle was it is better to pay somebody to be out working than sitting at home drawing a benefit.

The member can complain about it not being enough but the fact is that simply by getting co-operation from the federal government, for which I thank them, we got double the benefit we would have had if Ontario had tried to do it alone. Ontario was prepared to, but we got their benefit. I hope that is a model for quite a few more co-operative actions.

SALMONELLA VICTIM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health assure us that every possible step was taken which may have prevented the tragic illness of Stephanie Burrows in the salmonella outbreak in Peterborough Civic Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I say on this very serious matter that the ministry has aided the medical officer of health in that area, in whom we have a great deal of confidence. I know all those practitioners carrying on their practices in that area have a great deal of confidence in the MOH there as well.

We dispatched an epidemiologist from the Ministry of Health to assist the MOH in Peter- borough in investigating those very serious problems. A report is currently being prepared by Dr. Carlson in conjunction with the MOH to present to the MOH in Peterborough.

The short answer to the member's question is that it appears at this time all the appropriate measures have been taken and there is no immediate threat of any further problems there. I will have to wait until I have received the report to comment any further on the question.

Mr. Foulds: I know the difficulty the minister has in not having the complete report at this time, but he obviously has some information. Can he explain why the medical officer of health, upon learning the confirmation of the original salmonella case, did not undertake the responsibility of contacting the parents of other babies who may have been in a situation where they were exposed to the salmonella outbreak?

Why were there seven days of sheer abdication of responsibility, seven days of neglect, between December 29 and January 6, when the Burrows baby had to be brought in to the hospital before anybody knew the outbreak was possible and real?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the member has indicated, a complete analysis of all the events will have to await receipt of a report by me. In essence the report is not to me; it is a report going to the medical officer of health in Peterborough. The practitioners in Peterborough have placed a high degree of confidence in the medical officer of health in that area and the hospital appears to have a great deal of confidence in that medical officer of health. The questions the member asks, in fairness, are the responsibility of and lie within the competence of what is considered to be a very competent medical officer of health for that area.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has indicated so clearly his confidence in the medical officer of health, is he in any way indicating a lack of confidence in either the medical or the administrative staff of the hospital? Is he thinking in any way of using the rather Draconian new powers given by the House, over some protest, to his predecessor to move into a hospital where there is some indication its services are less than up to our standards?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the short and clear answer is no. May I say that --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will allow the acting leader to --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I prefer to wait.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why to this day none of the families who have experienced an exposure to salmonella has been contacted by any of the investigators of the three separate investigations that are going on? Why have the families not been contacted to find out what they know of the situation and how it came to their attention?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the medical officer of health is, as the member knows, responsible for containing the outbreak of any disease such as this. I am informed the MOH has taken all the appropriate steps to trace the history that led up to these incidents and he has also taken appropriate steps to ensure the containment of this incident -- to restrict it to these two or three incidents in the hospital.

This is my understanding, and it is all I can offer at this time, because it is not the direct responsibility of my ministry. It is the responsibility of the MOH, in whom we have confidence --

Mr. Foulds: Kids were being exposed to salmonella because no one took the responsibility. It was a breakdown in communication and responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, the member has made a serious allegation. I would be as concerned as he would be if all of those investigations and questions were not asked. I understand --

Mr. McClellan: Don't you have the report?

Mr. Mackenzie: You have the report now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The members should relax. I do not have the report. It is not ready yet.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those members may accuse me of lying or misleading the House; they are free to do that -- well, they are not free to do that. But I want to say very clearly --

Mr. McClellan: Your officials said you had the report.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important in a serious matter like this that fears not be raised unnecessarily in the mind of the public and conversely that we not mislead the public into thinking the situation safer than it is. That is my concern.

As I address the question, or, more properly, as the medical officer of health addresses the question of the procedures followed both before and after the outbreak, I think it is important that while we check to make sure proper procedures were followed it is also incumbent on all of us to make sure unnecessary fears on the other side are not raised because of any allegations that proper investigations were not carried out.

I can assure the member the questions he has raised will be raised specifically by us with the MOH in Peterborough, and I will see if we can provide that information.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I hope to clarify the record, if not to correct it. Dr. Carlson from the ministry, who conducted the investigation, has advised us the investigation is complete and the report has been given to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Come on, that is just irresponsible. I believe Dr. Carlson has indicated to the member's office that she has finished her work and is in the process of preparing the report.

Mr. McClellan: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe the member asked her whether it had been given to the minister yet and whether he had seen it. She said, "No, it is in the process of being prepared." She has completed her investigations, has worked with the medical officer of health and is preparing that report for delivery to the MOH in Peterborough. With respect, those are the facts.

JOB CREATION

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Treasurer in regard to job creation. The Treasurer in his usual way did not bother to respond as to whether he saw inflation or unemployment as the largest problem in the economic life of Ontario.

My question is that both the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker) and the Treasurer have stated that creating jobs is up to the private sector, yet the supply-side economic theory that underlines this faith in the private sector's ability to create jobs is conditional upon reduction of public spending and public borrowing and the release of these dollars for private investment.

Given that fact, the Suncor purchase raised Ontario's debt to at least $1.4 billion, way beyond the $1 billion level the Treasurer once declared in his budget was unacceptable. How does he expect his laissez-faire conservatism to create one job in this province, let alone make a dent in the 375,000 who are currently jobless?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the laissez- faire, lazy, lazy --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does it ring a bell?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It sounds like lazy liberalism. Lazy liberalism is better. To answer the member's question, the one I missed, I am sure the perceived problem that is paramount in the eyes of the public is unemployment. I do not know how one easily divorces the problem of unemployment from the problem of inflation because the problem of inflation causes the high interest rates; the high interest rates cause the lack of demand for major consumer items like houses, cars, appliances and furniture, which in turn puts people out of work.

One cannot be overly simplistic and put a problem in one corner and say it is not related to the others. I have too much respect for my colleague's knowledge, intelligence, wit -- I may regret all this later -- to assume he does not understand all that. The other point my friend glosses over is that his party went around this province telling the world we are 10 out of 10. Yes, we are 10 out of 10 when it comes to spending. We have the lowest spending of any provincial government in Canada as a percentage of our gross provincial product. We are 10 out of 10.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: What a weak sister; you are just impossible.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can finally hear you now your moustache is gone.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Treasurer please proceed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, there is another piece of information that gets buried when we talk about cash requirements. It is not deficit. I am sure the leader of the member's party has talked to me many times about the difference between deficit and cash requirement. Most of the people of this province believe that the Suncor investment was a wise investment on behalf of the people of this province. If the members do not think so --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his answer? A supplementary, the member for Rainy River.

3 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Treasurer is over $2 billion; Industry and, now, Trade Development is $122 million; the "bilge" program was supposed to be $76 million of new money and not all of the old crap he threw in there. All he has been able to tell us today is that he is waiting on Ottawa to do something.

Where are the programs that are going to put the people of Ontario back to work? Can the minister tell me why he has over 900 people in his ministry? His government has been in power for 40 years and yet he cannot come up with one constructive idea to create some jobs in this province. What the hell is he doing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, all those nice things I said five seconds ago have gone out the window on the first question.

We are doing quite a bit. For example, the program the member likes to make fun of already has about $1.1 billion of new commitment of money in it. It was at $868 million before we made a major commitment to forest management agreements recently, which will be coming out as time goes on. We are well past the $750 million that I had allocated out of Ontario's share.

Just this week we were very pleased to see a small but, I think, important step from the federal government in that it is now cost-sharing one small program with us. I hope it is the first of many. I saw Mr. MacEachen before the first ministers' meeting. I saw Mr. Olson. I pointed out that I believed it was still possible within the framework of federal-provincial relations, deteriorated as they have been, to make sure that we did work together and that we, as politicians, had the responsibility to see that it happened. I am going to keep on working until it does.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister says constantly that there is not much he can do. Has he examined the five-point program my party leader has put forward? One of the aspects of it is a $50-million program to small business which would allow a 50 per cent grant-50 per cent loan to some of the small businessmen who are going out of business because of the Liberal high interest rates.

There is something he can do for the small businessman to save jobs and to save small business. Why does he not do it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have the five-point program of the member's leader right here in my hand. It is on yellow paper, which is characteristic.

I am sure as time goes on the member's leader will know what we do in this House, but until then he should probably save some of his comments until he has had a chance to find that we have done a lot of the things he is suggesting.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, last year the Treasurer's budget suggested that the unemployment rate would be 6.6 per cent and it is now 7.6 per cent. Since he hinges most of his economic policy on the "bilge" program, can he tell us in advance of the budget, whenever he gets around to bringing it down, what his projections are for unemployment in Ontario for the next year? Secondly, how many jobs will be created by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program in 1982-83?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can get the figures on the number of jobs. The member will be surprised to find out how many there are. I cannot repeat them off the top of my head, but I have had the estimates of the jobs in the projects created to date. Those are the only ones that count because I am not going to fall into the trap of saying $750 million made X jobs. It is very easy to do; no one could prove I was wrong or right.

The purpose of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, which many of the members seem to have missed, was to put certain infrastructure in place that allowed many of our industries to compete better in technology. This week the last two technology centres were announced. The one down in Chatham will deal with the question of food processing and agricultural equipment. It is welcomed by the people of Chatham and was worked for hard by a member from that area. I want to say that will service the agricultural industry and will be well recognized. The second is in the riding of Brock.

Mr. Kerrio: Niagara region.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Niagara region, but in the riding of Brock, where we have a member who has been known to concern himself about the problems of those ridings in that area. Those ridings have learned to lean on him as the true representative here in Queen's Park for all the people in the St. Catharines region.

Mr. Kerrio: He is pretty lonely down there.

Hon F. S. Miller: I need a favour of the member.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to say that because of all this we now have a member for Lincoln too, and we are going to have more and more members there. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) should worry about it. The member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) may have made it to the front row, but he may not last long.

STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister went to some great pains during a briefing on Tuesday with the press regarding the Stouffville water situation to warn everyone concerned against making loose-lipped allegations against the staff of his ministry.

Why is it that the minister took it upon himself to attack the personal credibility of Mr. Smarda, by making the loose-lipped allegation that the Alberta lab was disclaiming any responsibility for any of the findings of his report, when the Alberta lab is denying that comment and saying that it fully supports the findings of his report?

Why is it that the minister failed to respond fully to the very serious and definitely not loose-lipped allegations made by Dr. Cummins that 16 of the figures attributed to him in the first interim report on the Stouffville mutagenicity study are different from the figures he supplied to the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with both the original question and the supplementary in my response.

First of all, I think it is important that the honourable member, who was not present during the briefing, understand the situation and get his information correct. The remark I made, and which I will reiterate any time the member would like me to, was an honest response to some of the things that were being irresponsibly alleged about staff in my ministry.

I want to assure him it was not directed at any member of the citizens' group. I view the citizens in this situation as the most vulnerable people of all because they are caught in a situation of conflicting information, most of which, on the part of the science that has been presented to them, has not withstood scrutiny and has not stood up under corroborative testing by other laboratories, not only our own.

I will say once again, here in the House, that if individuals are going to besmirch the reputation of professional employees in my ministry, I think it is quite appropriate that they, like any other citizens in our society, have the right to take action either to protect their reputation or to seek a withdrawal of those kinds of allegations. I am not going to back away from that, but I want to assure the member it is not directed towards the citizens. Just because I or employees of my ministry are in public life does not mean that people can act irresponsibly without backing up their statements.

3:10 p.m.

With respect to Mr. Smarda, from what I have read in the press I understand that the laboratory in Alberta since Tuesday apparently has indicated it now stands behind Mr. Smarda's report. I can assure the member my comment was based upon a telephone conversation between a trusted and senior person on my ministry staff with a person purported to be the head of the laboratory in Calgary. As I understand it, the laboratory head was not only disclaiming any responsibility for Mr. Smarda's report, but there were indications he was about to fire Mr. Smarda. He may contradict that now, but I was not fabricating.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I was not fabricating. Mr. Smarda's employer may have changed his position.

With respect to Dr. Cummins' allegation about changes, I would welcome specifics on that. He has corresponded with me, as he indicated a few days ago in the press he intended to. In the letter I have received, he still does not spell out what changes he was referring to.

My staff, along with staff of the other laboratories involved in this -- it is not a research project as Dr. Cummins has described it but rather a testing program -- received from Dr. Cummins, in a meeting at which I understand he was present, his initial data on his tests. Dr. Cummins then chose to withdraw that information because of some concern he had that the data did not make sense and he wanted to redo some of the tests.

Some of his data was called in via telephone. Whether he is suggesting that there were some errors in the transcription I do not know, because he has not spelled out what specifically has concerned him. However, I would impress upon the member the importance of one significant admission on his part. He does say that in so far as he is concerned none of those changes would in any way have changed the conclusions of the report. He is not attacking the conclusions of the report with respect to negative responses to the Ames test. I do not know what the specific detail is, but apparently it is not sufficiently important to change the conclusions.

Mr. Charlton: Perhaps the minister could find it within his integrity to point out to the House that Dr. Cummins is attacking the report because of the way in which it was presented and the time the testing was done. There are very serious questions as to validity.

Can the minister tell us, if he is so concerned about the citizens of Stouffville, why it is the regional staff of his ministry find it necessary to put citizens active in the water question at Stouffville through very lengthy grilling, some of it lasting for several hours? The ministry was trying to get them publicly to denounce the findings of private testing that has been done. Is that how the minister wants to go about re-establishing the credibility of and the trust in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again, I think it is important that one gets one's facts straight. First, with respect to Dr. Cummins' concern about the timing of the test, the fact that the samples were being collected during the winter, his view on that subject is not a generally held scientific view.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He is going to be fired too from what I hear.

Hon. Mr. Norton: What Dr. Cummins is saying is generally accepted with respect to surface waters -- waters in streams and at the surface --

Mr. Charlton: The ministry is supposed to be testing to see if anything leached out of the dump.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- but it is not so with respect to ground water. What we are testing is ground water where there is no significant change in temperature from season to season.

It is also important that Dr. Cummins did not mention until one day this week that in January, I am told, at a meeting of scientists involved in this program, in order to allay his fears they agreed to do nonwinter testing. But we cannot do nonwinter testing during the winter. The citizens had obviously wanted us to proceed without delay and we happened to be living during the winter season. Dr. Cummins until very recently indicated his concern, but he did not indicate that there had already been agreement that there would be nonwinter testing. I am not sure why he overlooked that important fact.

I assume, and can only assume, the alleged grilling relates to the situation that arose after the evident gaps and errors in the series of tests that had been presented to the citizens. It is my understanding that privately they acknowledge there were some problems. I felt it was important that the record be set straight. I had asked our staff, before we go and appear to be attacking their credibility, first of all to give them the opportunity, if they choose, to protect their own credibility with their constituency in that community.

I am not out to shoot down the citizens' group; I recognize their concern. So that was presented to them. A meeting was held. I do not believe there was any grilling. I do believe that the option was presented to them, if they chose to do that, with the knowledge that if they did not, I felt compelled to set the record straight with respect to some of the testing.

Let me just use this as a final example. The laboratory in the United States that did the testing for arsenic, which created a great deal of anxiety in that community and got a great deal of publicity, now admits it erred. They were testing for sodium chloride; they had not made the appropriate adjustments. They have alarmed many people in this province and the record has to be set straight on those sorts of things.

I think the one thing that comes through loud and clear, if you take the time to sit down or have your researchers sit down and look over all the work that has been done, if you look at the facts, is that of all the laboratories that have been involved in this, the one that has been consistently accurate, open with its results and correct in its interpretations, is the ministry's laboratory. We have the finest staff one will find anywhere in North America and the finest laboratory anywhere in North America. As I said the other day, we are not perfect but we sure are damn good.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think we have just seen an abuse of the rules of the House. I suggest that the minister's answer should be taken as a statement and that time be put back into the question period.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I view the questions that were asked by the members across the floor as very important questions. I think it is also important that I be allowed time to answer them appropriately and fully in the interests of making the public aware of the responses as well. I suggest that if the answer had been what they wanted to hear and, in fact, not what they did not want to hear -- In other words, if I answer the questions well, they want me to sit down --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think you have responded in full. It is my opinion that this is a matter of urgent public concern and I think the minister was quite proper in replying to the question in the way he did.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I noted the minister wished to instill in the minds of the public around Stouffville the idea that they should have trust in him and in his ministry, yet he takes the time to allege that perhaps the other two persons who did tests, Dr. Cummins and Mr. Smarda, have probably followed the path of those tests that were done for arsenic.

I think it is incumbent on him to set the record straight in that Dr. Cummins has had very serious difficulties with respect to the way the minister conducted the sampling at those wells. Dr. Cummins' concern also comes from the fact that he is a member of the research staff, but he did not receive until Thursday evening the report which was released to the public by the minister on Friday at noon. Therefore, he did not have time to review and consider it.

3:20 p.m.

If it is the official policy of the Ministry of the Environment to undertake joint studies with various members of the profession, and Dr. Cummins is a respected member of the Canadian scientific community, is it the minister's policy to release a report without the consent, approval and permission of one of those involved in the study?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that was a very long question. It is very important that the honourable member understand that all the laboratories in this testing program were following a protocol which had been agreed to by all of the scientists involved. I was not involved in the agreement, but the scientists from each of the laboratories, including Dr. Cummins, were present at a meeting where they agreed upon the protocol.

The member says he was concerned about the collection of the samples. Let me point out to the member that it is my understanding that a number of Dr. Cummins' specific recommendations were embodied in that protocol which was agreed to, including --

Mr. Elston: Some were in the report; some were not.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member raised the question about how it was collected. One of the things Dr. Cummins requested was that the samples be collected in his vessels, and they were. I do not know what all of his concerns are. I just wish he would be specific and spell them out so that we could address each one individually.

With respect to the copy of the report, Dr. Cummins himself has indicated in some of his interviews with the press that he was away for a period of several days at a conference in the United States. In addition, the problem of meeting the time commitment which had been given to citizens and others arose from the fact that he redid some of his testing and ended up submitting the results by telephone.

Dr. Cummins did have a copy of the report a day in advance and, to the best of my knowledge, made no attempt to communicate to anyone in my ministry that he took exception to any of the contents of that report during that day between Thursday and Friday when he would have had an opportunity to do so.

RACCOON DOG FARM

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. There is an established Finn raccoon dog farm in my area. Both the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters have voiced their disapproval of this operation in that area. Also, the township of Madoc has forwarded to me a resolution asking that both the province and the federal government take steps to buy this operation out. What is the Minister of Agriculture and Food doing about this?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are going to move them to St. Catharines.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food will ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's raising the point because I know he has been on to this problem right from the point that it became a public issue. He came to see me about it a few weeks ago.

I have looked into the matter of these animals, which are apparently a cross between a dog and a raccoon, although closer to a raccoon, and are raised for their fur. I found that even before they were allowed into the country by the federal authorities, my predecessor and staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food made it very clear to the federal government that they should not be allowed into Canada. Just last October the federal authorities finally got around to changing the regulations so that no more can come into Canada.

However, there is this farm near Madoc, which I see is of great interest to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), about which officials of my ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the federal government met with the owners within the last couple of weeks, I think it was. The indications are that the federal people clearly understand it was their responsibility and their decision. They are apparently preparing an offer, or a position that they will offer, to the owners of this fur farm at a subsequent meeting. I will be glad to keep the honourable member and the members of the House informed.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us if a permit to keep those animals was given by the fish and game department of his ministry. Could the minister also tell us whether an arrangement was tentatively arrived at between the federal and provincial governments on the issue of buying out that farm and whether his ministry backed out of it at the last minute, as the reports I have in my office indicate?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, there is no such thing as a fish and game branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister has been well trained.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And that took a whole day.

Second, to repeat it for the record, the federal officials were told in very clear terms last year by my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson), when he had responsibility for my ministry, that it was not in the public interest, not in the interest of this country, to allow these animals into the country. Notwithstanding that, they went ahead and did it and then they changed the regulations.

Mr. Boudria: Did your government give a permit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My government did not offer to buy them out. That is the responsibility of the federal government.

Ms. Copps: Who gave the permit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are inspecting and licensing under the legislation of our ministry because it is a fur farm. Now that they have been let into the country by the federal authorities, we have no authority whatsoever to stop them from entering the country, let alone the province.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development presented the committee's report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 175, An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Collection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. T. P. Reid from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report as follows and moved its adoption:

In consideration of the decision of the federal government to change the existing established programs financing legislation and the direct effect this will have upon our health, social welfare and post-secondary education programs, your committee recommends:

That the government of Ontario consider proposing as soon as possible the necessary time for a debate in the Legislature to provide opportunity for a full examination by the members of the provincial parliament of the impact of the proposed changes and that the government of Ontario request the government of Canada to rescind its decision to act unilaterally on this fiscal arrangement by reopening its negotiation with the provinces in order to restore a climate of co-operative federalism, ensure maintenance of existing levels of services in health, social welfare and post-secondary education and to avoid undue increases in fiscal and economic disparities.

On motion by Mr. T. P. Reid, the debate was adjourned.

3:30 p.m.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE BILLS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, because of the interruption of the private bill legislation occasioned by the prorogation of the first session of the 32nd Parliament, the following applications for private legislation made during the said first session be considered during the present session without giving further notice of the applications and without lodging further declarations proving publication:

1. The applications for private legislation related to Bills Pr8, Pr12, Pr18, Pr20, Pr22 and Pr28, which received first reading in the said first session;

2. The applications by Frontier College, the city of North York, the city of Barrie and the city of Toronto, related to demolition controls, and the city of Windsor for which the advertising was completed in 1981;

that the application of the city of Mississauga related to development levies made during the said first session be considered during the present session upon giving further notice and upon lodging of a further declaration proving publication;

that the fees paid by the applicants with respect to the said application in 1981 be applicable for the continuation of the applications in the present session.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that tomorrow the House may resolve itself into committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SURROGATE COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move first reading of this bill. It will amend the Surrogate Courts Act to permit probate and other matters in a county in which the office of surrogate court judge is temporarily vacant to be dealt with by a surrogate court judge outside the county, with the approval of the chief judge of the county and district courts. This will save unnecessary expense and delay in surrogate court matters.

CHARITIES ACCOUNTING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Elgie, first reading of Bill 3, An Act to amend the Charities Accounting Act.

Motion agreed to.

MORTMAIN AND CHARITABLE USES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Elgie, first reading of Bill 4, An Act to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce these two bills. They received first reading during the last session but because of time constraints were not proceeded with. The first is a bill to repeal the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act, the second, and a complementary proposal, is a bill to amend the Charities Accounting Act.

The repeal of the mortmain provisions to the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act was recommended by both the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Ontario select committee on company law. The law of mortmain has to do with the ownership of land. Basically it prohibits the holding of land by corporations in perpetuity unless they are authorized to do so by statute or licence or unless they obtain a licence in mortmain under the act.

The laws governing this area are complicated, outdated and no longer necessary. However, at the same time it is necessary to provide some control in land holding by charities to ensure that charities are not used as investment vehicles.

Under the bill to amend the Charities Accounting Act, the public trustee may take action to register notice against the land of a charity where he is of the opinion the land has not been used and occupied for the charitable purpose for three years, is not required for use and occupation for the charitable purpose and will not be required for use and occupation for the charitable purpose in the immediate future. Although the land remains the property of the charity unless the public trustee takes such action, where he does so the land vests in him. The public trustee will then sell the land and apply the proceeds of sale to the charity.

It is further provided that land which has not been sold that has vested in the public trustee under the existing act will be deemed to have remained the property of the charities or their trustees. This validates the title of third parties to land conveyed to them by charities which lack the title to convey it.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, first reading of Bill 5, an Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading today an Act to amend the Corporations Information Act, which is a concurrent amendment to the bill that repeals the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act introduced by my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). The amendment repeals subsection 3(6) of the act so that corporations will no longer be required to file information notices simply because they hold a licence in mortmain.

In addition there are two housekeeping amendments. First, a clarification regarding the use of the words "limited," "incorporated" or "corporation" eliminates any apparent conflict between the Corporations Information Act and the Business Corporations Act. The amendment makes it clear that these words may only be used as part of a proper corporate name.

The second housekeeping measure clarifies the intent of a section of the Corporations Information Act which deals with information notices. It requires that only the latest information notice be retained by a corporation.

TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, first reading of Bill 21, an Act to revise the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Stock Exchange Act is intended to replace an act passed by the Legislature in 1968. Since the original Toronto Stock Exchange Act came into force there have been many developments in corporate and securities legislation that are not reflected in the act. The bill before the House today will help to bring the act in step with the needs and realities of the 1980s.

While the bulk of the present act remains unchanged, the following amendments will serve to bring the act up to date:

First, the board of governors of the Toronto Stock Exchange will be authorized to delegate its investigative and disciplinary functions to one or more committees established by the board and to individual persons.

Second, the board of governors of the Toronto Stock Exchange will be authorized to hold meetings by conference telephone, electronic or other communications facilities.

Third, the powers of the exchange to hold property will be increased to assist the planned relocation of the exchange to new quarters.

Fourth, the object of the exchange, as set out in section 4 of the bill, has been revised to reflect that securities such as options are traded on the exchange in addition to stocks.

Fifth, provisions concerning the election of the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of governors and the appointment of the secretary and the treasurer of the exchange are included in the bill.

Sixth, the exchange will be able to alter the size of the board of governors by bylaw.

Seventh, where in the public interest an order is made restricting or suspending the privileges of a member before a hearing is held, a hearing must be held within 15 days of the making of the order, otherwise the restriction or suspension expires 15 days after the making of the order.

TORONTO FUTURES EXCHANGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McMurtry, first reading of Bill 7, An Act to incorporate the Toronto Futures Exchange.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify this, particularly for your interest, sir, the Toronto Futures Exchange Act will create a commodity futures exchange pursuant to statutory provisions similar to the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.

The board of governors of the Toronto Futures Exchange will consist of 11 members, five of whom will be elected by members of the futures exchange, three will be elected by the Toronto Stock Exchange, two will be public directors and one will be the president.

Under this new act, the board of governors will have the authority to pass bylaws and will have the power to discipline its members or to delegate its disciplinary power to a committee established by the board. The act provides that the futures exchange may hold property without the limitations contained in the Corporations Act and will allow meetings of the board and its committees to be held by conference telephone, electronic or other communications facilities. The act also confirms that the futures exchange will be subject to the control of the Ontario Securities Commission and of the provisions of the Commodity Futures Act, 1978.

I mentioned earlier that the Toronto Stock Exchange Act is being brought up to date to match the realities of the 1980s and that same philosophy is behind the Toronto Futures Exchange Act. The latter will create, for the first time in Ontario, a separate and distinct commodity futures exchange similar to commodity exchanges in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The act will bring commodity dealers who are not members of the Toronto Stock Exchange within the self-regulatory framework of the futures exchange and allow an added measure of customer protection through a contingency fund to be established.

In order for my ministry to get full benefit from the input of all interested parties, both these bills were first tabled in the House by my predecessor and then were widely circulated last summer by the commission. Having taken into consideration the comments coming from the Ontario financial community, I am pleased to introduce both of these bills to the House today and hope my honourable colleagues will consider giving them speedy passage.

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide an effective date of February 1, 1982, for the establishment of the program to allow my ministry to provide assistance to small independent businessmen and farmers' cooperatives during the period of construction of the additional tankage facilities that will be required to implement the coloured fuel program on September 1, 1982. The original bill in effect indicated that we could not pay them until a time beyond the effective date of the bill of September 1, 1982, and we want to go ahead and start paying them as they incur expenses.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, first reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing seven bills this afternoon. They are all reintroductions from the last sitting of the House. I have not included statements because they are basically the same bills we presented at that time.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, first reading of Bill 10, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

LICENSING OF BUSINESSES BY MUNICIPALITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, first reading of Bill 11, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Businesses by Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, first reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 14, An Act to revise the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Ms. Copps, first reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the situation with regard to measles is alarming and of concern to me. I want to try to draw it to the attention of the House and the public by introducing this bill. The incidence of measles is 10 times greater in Canada than it is in the United States. The significant factor, when one examines this, is that immunization for measles is mandatory in the United States but not in Canada and in Ontario.

When one notes that one out of 10,000 children who contact measles dies, that one out of 1,000 who contact measles is left with encephalitis which can kill or cause permanent mental retardation, and that one per cent of children who contact measles requires hospitalization, I think it is time we acted.

This new subsection provides that no child shall be admitted to an elementary school unless a certificate respecting the child's immunization against measles has been produced.

TOWN OF ST. MARYS ACT

Mr. Edighoffer moved, seconded by Mr. J. A. Reed, first reading of Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Town of St. Marys.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden, seconded by Mr. Samis, moved first reading of Bill 17, An Act to require the Use of Child Car Seats or Restraint Systems.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the bill would require that children under the age of five years or weighing less than 20 kilograms be secured in child car seats or restraint systems when travelling as passengers in motor vehicles. This is basically what has been promised in the throne speech, but we will give the government the opportunity to adopt this bill.

It is an essential safety measure to reduce the shocking toll of deaths and injuries to young children travelling in automobiles. The bill is an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. It would go into effect on proclamation after public information and educational programs have been undertaken and sufficient time has been given for manufacturers to gear up for the enlarged market.

VDT OPERATORS' SAFETY ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, moved first reading of Bill 18, An Act for the Protection of Video Display Terminal Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this in the last session and I will let it go at that.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, moved first reading of Bill 19, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill increases from one week to three weeks the time within which a caretaker who occupies premises in connection with his employment is required to vacate those premises when his employment is terminated. The first week of this period is rent-free as in the present act.

4 p.m.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 20, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill clarifies the landlord's obligation to pay interest on a tenant's security deposit annually and the tenant's right to set unpaid interest off against the rent. The maximum penalty for failure to pay this interest is, for the first offence, a fine equal to the interest on the security deposit, calculated at the Canada savings bond rate, and $2,000 for subsequent offences.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, first reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, pursuant to standing order 34, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside so that the House may debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the serious and unprecedented level of unemployment in this province and the lack of government programs to come to grips with this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I want to advise honourable members that this notice of motion has been received in time and complies with standing order 34. I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes while he states his case for setting aside the ordinary business of the House.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, sir, I bring this motion to you under rule 34(c)(1) of the standing orders, which reads, "The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration."

I can think of no case that requires the attention of this House more than the one I have mentioned. We have been away from here for several months. I believe I speak for every member in this House when I say we have been touched daily by the unemployment problems in our constituencies. I am sure the honourable minister agrees with me.

In my own constituency office, six, eight or 10 people come every day asking for a job, and I wish I could help them. I can cite examples of terrible situations. One is a 52-year-old man who was let go by the local community college after having worked there for 10 years. He has two children in school and a mortgage on his house.

One can only imagine what this and similar situations are doing to those people's lives.

The statistics are stark and bare. The number of unemployed, 375,000, is a large number. All of us politicians, particularly those of us who recently had the opportunity to travel widely throughout this province, have met with many of the unemployed, not only in our own constituencies but all across Ontario.

The accumulation of despair, the level of anxiety in this province, to me is very alarming. I say to you, Mr. Speaker -- and my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) put the question to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) -- unemployment has to be the most serious problem in the province today, even though the Treasurer is not prepared to admit that at this time.

We can move here. The government constantly has a threefold policy. One, they blame the federal government; two, they take our scarce, finite, precious resources -- i.e. money -- and spend them on things that will not create jobs here in Ontario; and, three, now they are threatening and setting us up for a new round of tax increases, knowing that we can hardly bear the ones we have at this point. That is almost the extent of the industrial strategy or any plan to create growth and jobs here in Ontario.

It is my view that we could have a serious and meaningful discussion, a contribution of ideas, on how we could create jobs here immediately in Ontario. I am convinced that every member, regardless of party, will have a number of ideas on what can be done now and I think the government should avail itself of those specific ideas here and now so we can get something moving immediately.

I am sick of hearing that we cannot do anything. I am sick of hearing them blame the federal government. I am sick, very frankly, of political responses to what I would call fundamental structural problems in our economy. What we are facing, I suggest, is not new and did not come at us without warning. These things have been coming on for four or five years. We talked about them in the last campaign -- perhaps not very effectively -- but the credibility of that campaign is patently obvious to all people in Ontario today.

I say that with some pride. I admit that we were out-advertised and out-strategized and a variety of other things, but those people are now realizing it, as are the journalists. Look at all the articles today about the decline of Ontario. That is impressing itself on people's consciousness right across this province. It is registered in the fact that 68,000 people have left our province in the last two years.

I say that it needs emergency action now. I know of no subject that falls under the rules better than this one. Let us apply our minds to that question. I am sorry that only two hours remain for this discussion, Mr. Speaker. I implore you to consider it with the same urgency that I consider it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to support the motion. Mind you, I am surprised that the provincial Liberals have the audacity, having come into this chamber on Tuesday like Trudeau clones with their red badges and flowers, to bring in a motion saying that unemployment is the major issue when their kissing cousins in Ottawa are one of the major reasons for it.

However, unlike the Tories across the way, I am not going to engage in fed-bashing simply for the sake of fed-bashing because we and this government in Ontario have an enormous responsibility to live up to and meet the social consequences of the economic decline of this province. This government and that party are failing to meet the responsibility of the social consequences of economic decline in this province. It is an insult, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It looks as if I struck a nerve in the chamber. If there was a natural disaster in this province, if there was a flood or an enormous tie-up of one section of the province because of a snowstorm or a natural tornado that went through an area and devastated that area, we would in this House be dealing with emergency steps and measures to deal with that natural disaster.

4:10 p.m.

What do we have here in Ontario? We have a disaster that is of that scope and seriousness, but it is not an act of God, it is an act of the federal Liberal and the provincial Conservative governments. We have an act of insensitivity on the part of both levels of government that has devastated this province and caused the massive unemployment we see in Ontario.

The figures are well known. We have 375,000 unemployed, 17 per cent higher than in January of last year. If the members want to know what that abstract figure means, if we had a line of individual people stretching from Windsor to Toronto, that is the number of people unemployed in this province today.

Think of the hundreds of thousands of others who are suffering the consequences of that unemployment. Think of their families; think of the people who desperately want work and cannot find it; think of the indignity they feel every day of their lives and then think of the failure of this government to take any action at all or to announce any action at all in the throne speech to remedy that problem. Then members will have the very real reason why we need an emergency debate on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: One minute left.

Mr. Elston: Speed it up.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have lots of material for when we get into the debate itself.

I come back at the last to the first point. Look at that speech from the throne. It complains about the federal Liberals; it mentions the hardships and actually analyses to some degree the extent of the hardships wrought by unemployment; and it concludes in the most mealymouthed way I can imagine that the province may have to develop plans to deal with federal intransigence. That is why we need not only the special emergency debate in this House today, but we need much more from this government. We need the programs to put those jobs in place. During the debate on this motion, my colleagues will be spelling out in detail those programs that the province should undertake.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was going to begin by commending the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) but I see he is not there. Oh, there he is again. I looked up all of a sudden and he was not there, but he has returned.

I wanted to begin by commending him not only on assuming this new job but also on submitting this motion for an emergency debate in plenty of time for all of us to consider it. In fact, it arrived on Tuesday at noon. I make that point very clearly and carefully because Tuesday at noon was before the members of this House, all of us here assembled, had heard His Honour read the speech from the throne.

By four o'clock on Tuesday we had the privilege of having heard a speech that listed a compendium of economic initiatives and programs that are either under way or imminent for one purpose, and that one purpose is to create jobs, to get people working in this province. The point I am making is that a large part of the content of the speech from the throne had to do with economic initiatives to create jobs to battle unemployment in this province.

A motion was moved that the speech be taken under consideration by this House this afternoon. We are now about to embark upon a very important debate on that important subject, a debate called the throne speech debate, in which all members can speak, in which there are no time limits, in which amendments can be moved and in which all members can vote as their consciences dictate at the end of the debate.

On this important matter we need more than just this afternoon. We need at least the eight days provided in this important throne speech debate which we are all about to begin. I suggest to my friends that no one is underrating the importance of this topic. In fact, we underline it as the top priority item of this government. We are prepared to sit here and debate it with them for the next eight days. Therefore, I submit there is no need for a special emergency debate.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) are ready to move and second a motion which will embark us on an important debate on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great interest to the members of the three parties as they put their views forward. I must say I agree it is a matter of prime concern and perhaps I, more than anyone in the House, recognize it as such on a personal as well as on a riding basis.

I find the motion is in order in accordance with the criteria in clause (c). I will put the question to the House and the only question before the House is: Shall the debate proceed?

Those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Before the Leader of the Opposition starts, and not to penalize him in any way, I would like to advise all honourable members they are allowed 10 minutes each.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and commend you on your judgement. I am sensitive to the things the honourable House leader for the government party has mentioned. Indeed, we do have an interim supply debate and we do have a throne speech debate coming along. But you have to recognize as you have, Mr. Speaker, that we in the opposition in a majority parliamentary situation have only a limited number of devices to express our point of view or our strong disapproval of government policy. The emergency debate device, of course, is one I believe focuses attention, even though it does not come to a resolution of it, on what we consider to be the major issues of the day.

I talked earlier to some extent about the human toll our public policies are creating right across this province. Mr. Speaker, if I had taken you to Grey county with me, if you had seen what was happening in the agricultural sector there, if you had actually listened to the young mother who talked to me and whose cheque was not honoured by the local food store because the interest was just compounding itself and there was no income coming into that family, who did not know how she was going to feed her two children the next day, you would respond in the same way I do.

Underneath almost all economic as well as political theory go one's conscience and one's sense of obligation to one's principles. Liberals historically have always been moved by a sense that our responsibility is to respond and help people who need help. I do not know of a situation where that is more important now. It is the most serious crisis I have seen in my six or seven years in the House. From discussions with my colleagues in every riding right across the province, they feel the same way, and I suspect I speak for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, as well as for members across the House.

4:20 p.m.

The response that we do not have enough government money is not good enough. We do have money. I think a lot of government expenditures have been misallocated. We can and should be spending money on job creation now, and that has to go into two particular areas. Number one, we have to contemplate relief on an emergency basis so that we will not further drive people into bankruptcy, into losing their homes or their businesses. I regard that the same way I would regard our obligation if there was disaster, a train derailment, a tornado in Oxford county, a flood in Brantford, or whatever. That is our responsibility, if we take the common notion that there is indeed a disaster situation in Ontario.

We can relate our problems to other provinces. We can say it is all going west. We have talked about the 10th and last situation in terms of growth. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) finds some benefit in being 10th and last in a number of economic industries, but the reality is that Ontario is in very bad shape today. If we look, we can find enemies. We can blame the consumers of autos in the United States, we can blame Ottawa, we can blame President Reagan, we can blame Milton Friedman, von Hayek, Margaret Thatcher or anybody else we want to find.

We have a $20 billion or $21 billion budget here in the province. We are responsible for a number of things that are intimately involved in the wealth-creation process. The most patently naive remark I have ever heard in my life was from the new Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker). I gather he made a speech to some chamber of commerce somewhere -- the only place he would probably ever feel comfortable -- and he said, "I am not an interventionist." That is reminiscent of the last Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) saying "I am not a liar."

Mr. Nixon: Talk about laissez-faire Liberals.

Mr. Peterson: It reminded me of that. We are interventionists and we have always been interventionists. Let us not get hung up on these phoney labels. We are interventionists in this province because we are involved in the educational system. Just because it is not matching the needs of the job market today does not mean we do not have a responsibility to do so.

How can the minister say he is not an interventionist when he is a part of a government that has put major amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, into pulp and paper companies, automotive companies and a variety of others? What does he mean he is not an interventionist? Of course he is. He just intervenes incorrectly, that is his problem. Our job is to intervene in such a way as not to crowd out the private sector. There are lots of ways we can intervene and be helpful today, create jobs and protect people now.

I want to talk for a few minutes about what I think we should be doing, apart from crisis intervention and emergency interest-rate relief programs, which I think have to be targeted and have to be budgeted. We do not have an infinite amount of money to do that, but we can find $100 million to do that, going into certain sectors. It would be based on income, based on need and only in cases of most dire necessity. Let us look at the other side, the job creation side. There is so much we could do in conservation, for example. Look at the tremendous opportunities we are confronted with.

My colleague, who used to be Energy critic and is now Natural Resources critic, has talked extensively about the possibilities of alternative fuel when we are the highest per capita consumers of energy in the entire world, when we are importing 80 per cent of that energy. We have the resources to build towards some energy self-sufficiency here in Ontario, to be world leaders and to end the drain on our finite dollars to other jurisdictions in other countries. There is a tremendous opportunity.

The government just did a big study on peat. First, it denied there was any peat in the province, then it said there was some, but it committed not one dollar to that study. That would create jobs where they are needed. It would replace fuel and keep money here in the province.

There are a number of creative things that can be done. Supposing we went into massive conservation programs in terms of home insulation, as just one example. It is highly decentralized, and caters to small businesses. As I discussed earlier today with the Treasurer, the small business sector is under major threat. According to the federation, something like 80,000 small businesses, one third of the small business community, may close their doors, sell out or shut down by the end of the year. We also know they are the chief engine of free enterprise. Good God, if nothing else Tories ought to believe in small business because that is the closest connection that most people have with building their own stake in society.

Most workers do not care whether the shares of the company they work for, be it Stelco or some other company, are owned by the state or private enterprise. That is because they do not have the connection with building their own stake, but small businessmen do. We can not take away that entrepreneurial spirit, or remove all reward for risk taken.

I recognize that lots of small businessmen are going to go under because they are going to make mistakes. It is a high risk business, but when forces over which they have absolutely no control come along and hit them in the face through absolutely no fault of their own, and government is the only agency that can intervene, then I say it is our responsibility to respond. We can not go on forever saying that we cannot do anything here in the province of Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: Is the member talking about interest rates?

Mr. Peterson: Of course I am and I am talking about immediate interest rate relief programs for this province of Ontario.

But let me talk about the job training area. It is a classic misfit. My colleague the former critic for Education, and now the critic of Industry, has very deep concerns and has spoken widely about the problem of the misallocation of our education dollar in terms of educating people for the demands of the future. I could go on with a long list of numbers about what is going to be required.

We know the jobs that are not going to come back. We know that the automotive industry, for example, even it comes back to full health, will probably employ 20 per cent or 30 per cent fewer people than it did in its health because of the change in the nature of production. Now we can either bemoan that, keep those people on unemployment insurance forever, or we can start using those dollars constructively to train them for the jobs of the future. There are so many other areas, such as renewable fuels, the automotive areas and the electronic area. We could spend money now in the short term in construction with subsidies for lot levies and a variety of other items to get home construction going. I believe we need short-term programs; we need long-term programs; and we need crisis intervention programs in the short term.

I know my colleagues from all parties will have a number of other ideas, and they are probably all reasonably good ideas. It is a question of our having the political will. It is a question of our directing our resources into the most meaningful ways that we can use to help people in this province immediately. As legislators in the province let us not stand up and say, "There is nothing we can do." Because if there is nothing we can do, let us just all resign and go home and stop drawing our wages. There is lots we can do. It is your fault and it is my fault, so let us all get on with it constructively together.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on unemployment. Before I get into some of the remarks that I have prepared and that I wanted to state today, I cannot let the Liberal Party go by with the kinds of comments they have been making today.

In the Windsor area we have four Liberal MPPs. We also happen to have three federal Liberal cabinet ministers. I have not heard the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) or the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) once criticize the federal Liberals on their high interest-rate policy.

The member for Windsor-Sandwich did not hesitate to go hand in hand with Herb Gray door to door in the last provincial election in order to get votes to win that provincial election. He did not hesitate to receive the endorsement of Herb Gray then, but he is certainly not willing at this point, because of his commitment and because provincial Liberals --

Mr. Kerrio: Are you interested in jobs or aren't you?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order, order.

Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is that there just ain't no difference. A provincial Liberal is a Liberal; a federal Liberal is a Liberal; they are both the same and they both believe in high interest rates. If they did not, they would criticize their federal colleagues in the areas where they are vulnerable, and Windsor is one of the areas where they could be vulnerable.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Now show the House that you have graduated from elementary school.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I know the Liberal members do not like to hear the facts, but the fact of the matter is they are as responsible as the Conservative members are.

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: We have set aside the business of the House to talk about a very important matter. Do you not think the members should address themselves to job creation and the importance of this debate?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has the floor.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I think I was talking about job creation. One of the things that has to happen is that the federal Liberals have to change their high interest-rate policy.

Mr. Wildman: Otherwise we are not going to have any jobs.

Mr. Cooke: In the meantime, while we are stuck with MacEachen and Trudeau at the federal level, supported by the provincial Liberals and the provincial Tories last year when they also supported high interest rates, we have to look at what we can do at the provincial level to create jobs.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is speaking to the issue. A motion is on the floor.

Mr. Cooke: One of the statements made in the throne speech Tuesday was: "Ontarians face an array of economic challenges. Unemployment and inflation, slow growth and lower productivity have characterized our national economy for almost a decade."

As I pointed out in question period, the Premier (Mr. Davis) has been in that post for just a little over a decade. The fact of the matter is that in the 11 years during which we have had the present Conservative government there have been no real initiatives on the part of this government to get the economy moving.

There are structural problems in our economy now, whether they be in the automobile industry or in mining machinery, areas dominated by imports and by foreign investment. Yet in the throne speech yesterday this government talked about weakening or, as they put it, "streamlining" the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The fact of the matter is that if we continue to rely on foreign investment and have foreign control of our economy we will not have control of such basic things as our interest rates in this country.

In 1972, 60 per cent of our requirements in machinery and tools were imported; in 1978 that figure had risen to 69 per cent. The fact is that we export our resources, we import finished goods and therefore we export jobs. As I said, one of the major recommendations in the throne speech is to keep that going by weakening FIRA and encouraging more foreign investment and more foreign domination of our economy.

One of the major structural problems in the automobile industry is the ownership of that industry in this province. It is simply not a coincidence that with Chrysler we have only 50 per cent Canadian value added, with Ford Motor Co. we have only 50 per cent Canadian value added and with General Motors about 60 per cent. Yet in the throne speech this government referred to Japanese cars and made no mention of the necessity for at least 85 per cent Canadian value added with the Big Three in the North American automobile industry.

Sourcing decisions by the Big Three over the years have simply been based on the ownership of the companies. The fact is that we have been cost-competitive. In fact, when comparing wages and cost per employee in Canada for automobile workers we have had a cost advantage of between $5 and $6 through the 1970s. So the fact is that it has nothing to do with wages but a heck of a lot to do with ownership as to where the companies are going to source their parts.

This party at our last convention passed an automobile program for Ontario. It is a realistic program. It is a program that, if it were implemented and if there were leadership at the provincial level, would go a long way towards eliminating the $2 billion deficit, which is 25 per cent larger than the $1.5 billion deficit we have with the Japanese. And it could create 20,000 to 30,000 jobs in Ontario.

The only comment about the automobile industry that I have read so far from the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker), who is here today, is that he hopes he will leave a legacy by which he will be called the minister of deregulation. That is his solution. Maybe he had a private meeting with President Ronald Reagan about all the deregulation Mr. Reagan has allowed the auto companies in the United States to go on with. But the fact is that in the United States the automobile industry is in trouble. The recession there is because of their economic problems and the Reaganomics which the Minister of Industry and Trade Development also endorses and wants to impose on the people of Ontario.

Some 20,000 to 30,000 jobs could be created in the automobile industry if we could create a balance. How do we go about doing that? Our automobile program which will, by the way, be debated in this Legislature at length in April, would create an automobile parts crown corporation. As members of the Legislature know, the automobile parts sector is the weakest link in the automobile industry in Ontario. The deficit in auto parts with the United States in 1981 was $4.7 billion, a record deficit.

We would obtain equity in the auto parts companies that wanted to enter into a joint venture with the government to expand to meet the increased demand that will be created by imposing content legislation at the federal level. We would develop a plan of Canadianization of the auto parts sector. We simply cannot allow the foreign multinationals like Bendix, which moved out of this province and now exports its parts into this province from Detroit, to dominate the auto parts sector any longer.

Take a look at Mexico. They have a Mexicanization plan such that within five years after an auto parts company moves into Mexico it has to be more than 50 per cent Mexican owned. Mexico right now happens to be the fastest growing automobile jurisdiction in the world. It is because they have a plan, because they have a strategy. In this province we simply give a grant here and a grant there. We do not have any strategy whatsoever.

We talk about Canadianization, about joint ventures and about the very real need in the automobile cities of this province such as Windsor, Chatham, St. Thomas and Kitchener, all of which have about 40 per cent unemployment in the auto sector, for a plan of community adjustment. Under the plan aid could be given to the communities to cope with unemployment while the adjustment is taking place in the industry and while the automobile plan this province should implement could be put into place.

I look to this government to start showing some leadership in the basic manufacturing industry in this province. We cannot have an industrialized society in Ontario without a strong automobile industry. A grant here and a grant there is not going to rebuild that industry. We need a strategy. I ask the Minister of Industry and Trade Development to put forward that strategy and convince his laissez-faire Treasurer that positive intervention can turn this situation around.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) moved his motion for this debate, he made certain allegations about this government and its lack of concern, specifically the lack of concern of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) for the unemployment statistics of the day in this province. I must take issue with that, as do other members on this side of the House. That was not at all the tone of his comments today in question period, nor the tone of the comments and the commitment of the throne speech, nor the record of this government through the last few years and into 1980 and 1981.

I was disappointed to hear the new Leader of the Opposition, the member for London Centre, start off with a doomsday story that sounded so much like the previous leader of that party. He talked about how we are number 10 and all this doom and gloom. One thing is certain: if we want to talk ourselves into a depression in terms of our small business state of mind, this is indeed the way to do it. The members opposite talk a lot of nonsense about it. They pretend to be friends of small business -- which really does create jobs -- but they say things to scare people away from small business, while pretending to be its friends.

4:40 p.m.

Let us, for a sober moment, reflect on the job creation record in this province, which has been impressive. There was a net gain of 120,000 new jobs in 1981, which is 43 per cent of the total of 278,000 jobs created in all of Canada in that year. While 31,000 new manufacturing jobs were created here in Ontario some 16,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the rest of Canada.

As we look at the background of the current employment situation we must be honest with ourselves. We had a healthy, steady improvement from June to November. Admittedly we had a sharp decline as we came into the tail end of 1981, which has continued into 1982 according to our latest statistics. The pattern across the country has been similar, with other regions having, perhaps, been hit harder than Ontario by that economic downturn.

We feel the employment decline is attributable, in no small measure, to the continuing high interest rates and this has sparked some controversy about the responsibility of the federal government versus that of the provincial government for the employment situation. The throne speech has been characterized as "fed bashing." However, it is a fact that in December the Treasurer of this province attended the finance ministers' conference and made the point very clearly there, and later in Halifax. He has been consistent and he said so again today.

He has asked the federal government to moderate its interest rate policy. In particular he has requested the narrowing of the interest rate differentials between Canada and the US. That is a matter of record and needed to be said in this debate because we have seen some evidence that these comments have struck a spot in Ottawa and are having some effect. In question period today our Treasurer referred to his ongoing discussions with his colleague the Finance minister in Ottawa and his discussions at that level continue to be one of his pressing concerns.

We have watched other federal actions as well -- they have been commented on today in the debate and in question period and some have said, "That is fed bashing again." But the reality is that the last federal budget -- and I have heard Liberals in this province admit it -- discourages saving and investing. Members of Parliament from across this land, including government members, have made that comment to the Finance minister.

This province had hoped that some of the promised energy agreements would provide impetus for the startup of the megaprojects, of which Ontario is a chief beneficiary, but that has not yet occurred. Our steel industry has had a lot of layoffs; it is hurting because some of those programs have not gone forward. It is only fair that we remind our federal colleagues they are supposed go forward with the commitments they made. We did not go to the recent first ministers' conference to be negative, to knock or bash --

Mr. Bradley: Is the member saying he is in favour of higher oil prices so that the megaprojects can go on? He cannot have it both ways. The Premier says one cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Jones: I tell the member for St. Catharines that we went there with a specific outline of certain things that we called upon the federal government to do to stimulate the economy and to help ease the unemployment statistics and how to create jobs. Suncor is not the only issue. It is a great red herring to draw across the landscape.

Members should just listen for one moment to what our Treasurer and our Premier (Mr. Davis) said to the opposition's federal Liberal colleagues. They called for an immediate short-term stimulus to the economy. They called for a change in Canada's high interest-rate policy and a new youth employment program and for increased Canadian content in vehicles imported from offshore. We heard those suggestions from the New Democratic Party speaker a moment ago. We know full well they called for that 85 per cent Canadian component. It can be done so easily with the tariff approach to it. There is the example of the Volkswagen situation with which this government was involved. It can be achieved and that is something this government has already initiated with the federal government.

We also said in specific terms to the Minister of Finance, "Restore that all-important climate of confidence that makes jobs and causes the private sector, small business and large business -- business as a whole, to create jobs." That budget did strike a body blow to it, so let us not kid about it. It struck a body blow and they know it across the land.

We also urged the federal government to increase investment, to enhance trade and to do certain things in human resources. As was referred to earlier in the debate, it was outlined for all of us in the Blueprint for Economic Recovery, which the Premier of Ontario presented at the conference of the first ministers on February 2 and 3 of 1982. It is very specific in all its comments.

There were comments earlier today about the throne speech, and there were some negative comments about the so-called "bilge" program, as they refer to the BILD program. They were utter nonsense. The Treasurer reminded us again today of things that can be done under a BILD program, where we called upon the federal government to join us in, for example, the forest improvement program. That is doing something positive, something effective.

For example, the Unemployment Insurance Commission funds go to people who are cooped up at home, as is done now. Minister Axworthy got together with Minister Pope and they made a commitment that sees people back working in a vital industry of this province -- maintaining jobs, creating new jobs, skilled jobs, providing for training. It is the type of positive thing we have been calling on the federal government to do. So it is not bashing. They have been positive proposals of specific things that can be done for this economy as we come through this time.

The proposals in the throne speech -- members can kid if they will -- are there for them to read. We proposed increased funding for youth employment. This government has a superb record of that. The socialist government of Saskatchewan has funding of something like $3 million in total for its youth program. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was speaking a moment ago -- I think Alberta has $6 million. We had $77 million in our envelope last year, 80,000 young people, and members heard --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has exhausted his allotted time. We thank the honourable member. He has used his time.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak as critic for the Ministry of Industry and Trade Development. I would like to begin -- I think appropriately so -- by quoting a statement from the newly-appointed Minister for Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker). On February 18 the minister, speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, referred to his philosophy in revitalizing Ontario's economy and said the first thing is to create jobs. This is the most important task of all -- jobs, jobs and more jobs.

Let me start off as critic of the minister by saying that is the one area in which I totally agree with him. I am not sure how much longer I am going to be able to agree with him to the same extent. Perhaps I will come back from time to time to other comments he made in his speech, but on that one he is most certainly right. I do not think there is a great deal of discrepancy between the intent of either the government or the official opposition with respect to that point. There may be, however, some discrepancy with respect to the way in which we will arrive at that point.

4:50 p.m.

I could not help noticing the previous speaker's reference to the participation of the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) in the recent economic conference in Ottawa. I would draw to his attention, however, as quite a number of commentators have done, that it was more obvious there than it has ever been before that Ontario has lost its clout. It was fairly obvious that the proposals made by the Premier of Ontario, which at one time would have been listened to very carefully and would have been followed to the extent that they made sense, were not even listened to in Ottawa.

It became very obvious that Ontario is no longer the voice in Canada that is perceived to have the answer to Canada's economic problems. The reason is that Ontario has demonstrated clearly and forcefully that it does not even have the economic answers to its own problems, and that is the point we have to recognize. That is the scandal and that is the shame, because Ontario has all the necessary ingredients to solve many if not all of its own economic problems, particularly the creation of new jobs and the maintenance of existing jobs. That is what this issue is all about.

I am sick and tired of having the Premier and members of the government benches point out over and over again so piously and sanctimoniously the negative comments of other members of this Legislature. There has not been a document read in this Legislature as long as I have been here that was more negative in content and in tone than the one we heard on Tuesday afternoon. At least 50 per cent of that throne speech on Tuesday afternoon was negative, negative, negative over and over again. We heard bashing of the federal government over and over again; we heard blaming of the other jurisdiction for everything that is wrong in Ontario.

Are we to believe that a provincial jurisdiction in this country which has the majority of the population, which has the majority of the resources both physical and financial is so dependent on another government jurisdiction that it cannot even make a beginning in solving its own problems? Are we to believe it can simply sit over there and whimper about what somebody else is not doing, whimper about what somebody else should be doing?

We have in this province a new Ministry of Industry and Trade Development, we have a Treasurer, we have a Ministry of Education and a Ministry of Colleges and Universities and we have a Ministry of Labour. All of them have jurisdictions, all of them have powers, all of them have resources to begin to solve some of these problems.

I do not for one minute deny the fact they would be solved better, they would be solved more judiciously if the two levels of government worked more closely together. I do not deny that for one moment, and that is certainly a goal to which we all should work. I can pledge to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my own party, that we are quite willing to work towards that goal, to work with this government and to work with the federal government. But in the interval the job must be done here in Ontario, and we have to discover for ourselves what we can do to maintain existing jobs and to create new jobs.

During the last five months I have had the opportunity to travel across this province a number of times, to criss-cross it from east to west and from north to south, to speak to a number of small and medium-sized businessmen in Ontario and to ask them what the government can do. And the answers come back consistently time and time again: There are things the government of Ontario can do; there are things the government of Ontario can do but to this point have not done very well.

We know our long-term future lies in some of the new high technology, for example; some of the new industries that exist in the Ottawa Valley area. Yet we also know those kinds of industries, whether in the Ottawa Valley area or any other place in this province, are starving for skilled help. We know it is the responsibility and the ability of Ontario, through its various ministries, to provide that skilled help, yet it is not being done.

We continue to have the mismatch in those very industries in which for a long period of time we knew there would be a need. It does none of us any good to have the wonderful 20-20 hindsight to say, "If only we had known five, 10 or 15 years ago what our need would have been, then we could have met it today." That does not do us any good at all. There were a number of places where we did know and where little or nothing was done. The finger for that responsibility can only be pointed in one direction and that is across the floor of this Legislature.

We have a situation in this province right now where we need those kinds of skilled people to enable the high-technology industries of this province to grow, and grow they must. We also know they need investment incentives. They need millions and billions of dollars of Canadian capital which is now leaving this province and this country and going to other jurisdictions. What incentive is this government providing within this jurisdiction to keep that money here? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Sure the feds can do something to assist, but this government also can do something.

We also know those new industries are going to need the research capability in order to grow, to expand and to become truly world competitive, and to do the kind of research here using our people and our facilities to meet our needs so that we will produce products the world wants and needs.

There is clearly no sense in adding to the former Ministry of Industry and Tourism a department of trade development if we are not making the products the world wants or needs. That should be self-evident. Yet how much of our own research are we doing here? To what extent are we harnessing, channelling and focusing the research facilities of our universities, for example, where we have the facilities, the people, the ingenuity and the creativity? To what extent are we marrying those resources with those of business and those of government, to produce the kind of research our business needs?

Finally, we do need marketing assistance. That was one of the reasons I was so pleased when the new ministry did include that department of trade, because one of the things our smaller and medium-sized Canadian businesses need is assistance in the markets of the world. First of all we need assistance to analyse what it is the world wants and needs, what it is that we can sell to them, and then to come back and help us to produce those and go out and sell them.

Those are the kinds of things our own Canadian small- and medium-sized businesses need, and those are the kinds of things this jurisdiction, this province, this government can help them to provide.

We have to recognize that for far too long this government has relied and depended upon a multitude of branch plants. At the present time 60 per cent of our industry is in the form of branch plants. We can no longer continue in that direction. We have to support our own --

The Acting Speaker: The member has exhausted his time.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate because I do not view it as a chance for us to exercise more and more political rhetoric, to try to take shots at one another or at the federal government, but because we face, as the government itself admitted in the throne speech, one of the most serious periods of severe economic difficulty this province has ever faced.

When I heard that first comment in the throne speech, I hoped it was going to be the beginning of a blueprint, as the government member who spoke referred to it, a blueprint for development, a blueprint for the provision of jobs in this province.

5 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Almost like a design; that's what we called it 10 years ago.

Mr. Wildman: I hoped that was what it was going to be. Instead we got a long, turgid lament for our economic difficulties and for the fact that other levels of government were not taking action; but there were no specific programs to deal with the economic problems we face in this province.

It was very disappointing. The government was willing to recognize we face serious economic problems but the only thing they could suggest was to pass the buck, saying it was up to someone else to do something about it and, if someone did something, they would co-operate.

Mr. Stokes: Not the buck, the blame.

Mr. Wildman: That's right. They were very short on bucks. There was no suggestion of anything they were going to do.

Today, I want to talk especially about an area that is close to me and is of major concern in the economic situation we face. That is the serious problems we are now seeing in the lumber industry in northern Ontario.

The government itself admitted this January that approximately one third of the province's woodworkers had been laid off on permanent and temporary layoffs due to the recession. Those words were used by the government minister responsible, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). He pointed out there was a serious downturn in the markets for lumber, veneer, plywood and particle board and no sign of recovery was expected until mid-year.

He said until mid-year. What he was hoping when he made that statement was we would see an upturn this summer, that we would see a lowering of the interest rates which are the main cause of the unemployment in that industry, that we would see those high interest rates come down. As we have seen in the last few weeks since those statements were made in January, it appears they were overly optimistic.

It appears we are going to see a long period of serious unemployment as a result of high interest rates in this province. In January, there were approximately 6,600 forest industry employees laid off, a significantly and alarmingly high percentage of the total employment in northern Ontario. As we all know, in the area where I come from we have many single industry towns. When one gets the kinds of layoffs we have experienced, one is not just talking about the economic hardship faced by individual workers and their families, one is talking about the complete shutdown of whole communities.

We are not talking about unskilled workers or seasonal employees. We are talking about highly skilled workers who are the backbone of communities throughout northern Ontario, workers faced with a situation where they have to leave the community to find work and who find, if they go out west to British Columbia, there is no work there in the lumber industry either.

We are facing a serious recession and there has not been much of a response from either level of government. It is fine for politicians to stand here and knock each other for not doing anything, but that does not help those laid-off workers at all.

Let us look at what it means for some of these communities. We have looked at a number of them. Take Alban for instance. In that small community there has been a complete shutdown of Rogerson Lumber with a total of 345 employees. It shut down in December. There is indefinite layoff because of a downturn in the economy and in the lumber market. There is Domtar in Atikokan at the other end of northern Ontario. There were 98 employees laid off indefinitely. Look at Hearst, which is dependent on the lumber industry, as are many companies there. The whole community survives because of the lumber industry.

Look at Gosselin Lumber Co. Ltd. Out of a total number of 100 employees, 47 are laid off. The company said, "We may get back to work by May or June, if the economy turns around, if the market turns around." Lecours Lumber Co. Ltd. in Hearst has laid off 65 out of a total number of 120. Newaygo Timber Co. Ltd. has a total of 30 out of 136 on indefinite layoff and a further possible layoff of 40 on March 26. The reason again is high inventory, interest rates.

Look at Hudson, a small community we have heard the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) talk about from time to time. McKenzie Forest Products Inc. had 35 employees out of 110 laid off in December. I could go on. In Kenora, at Boise Cascade, 775 employees out of 850 are laid off. It is true right across northern Ontario. Look at Sturgeon Falls, or Thunder Bay at Great Lakes Forest Products, with 100 employees laid off in the waferboard operation; a temporary shutdown of the woodlands operation with 1,000 layoffs for one month starting April 9; again, high inventory, slow market.

In my riding, a very small community of approximately 1,000 people is completely dependent on the Abitibi-Price sawmill operation. It is interesting to analyse the attitude of that company towards its employees. A gentleman from the Abitibi-Price head office visited the community for a Christmas dinner for the employees just before Christmas. He told them: "No problem. Things are going ahead. There will be a two-week layoff over Christmas but things look good." One week after they got back to work after Christmas that same manager returned to the community and told them there was going to be a full shutdown of the woods operation indefinitely, perhaps for up to a year if not longer. That means 160 out of 160 employees laid off in a community of fewer than 1,000 people.

People who have come to that community, mainly from Quebec and New Brunswick, have purchased homes in the town. Who can they sell these homes to? They cannot leave. They are stuck. What has this government come up with? It has proposed an accelerated forest improvement program, which determines if the companies want to get involved they can bring proposals and they can get part of $10 million allocated by the federal and provincial governments to provide some employment.

We do not debate that there is certainly a need for forest improvement in northern Ontario. We all know the serious problems we are going to face in terms of lumber supply unless concerted action is taken. But it is not adequate; it is not going to provide the kinds of jobs we need. We are told the number of proposals now would provide perhaps 400 jobs. In January they were talking about 6,600 people out of work in the lumber industry across northern Ontario. In the woods operations alone there are over 3,000 out of work. They are talking about expanding it. I hope they expand it but it is not enough. For us to sit here and fight about who is responsible is not adequate.

The Acting Speaker: We thank the honour- able member. His time allotment has been completed.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the two most recent speakers, each of whom has become critic for his own party. I congratulate them on the jobs they have taken on and trust we will do battle as the days unfold in the next while. We have three new people in the job and it should be very interesting to see what happens.

5:10 p.m.

There is no question that the matter of this emergency debate will really be carried on for many days in the debate on the speech from the throne, because it is truly one of great importance. I do not think any of us will take any pride whatsoever in the height the unemployment figures have reached in this province and, indeed, in this country. No one could take any pleasure whatsoever in these figures and it is seriously a matter of grave concern. I hope that in the dialogue which unfolds in the next few days many, many ideas will come forward.

We do not suggest that we have the answers to all the questions; if we did I think we would probably be demonstrating to every other jurisdiction in this world just how to do things to avoid unemployment and to create employment. We have ideas that we certainly want to try. We have a budget that is going to come up in about a month from now, I suspect. It generally comes forward during the first two weeks in April; that has been the case historically. That will be the place where we will respond with the job-creation initiatives we will take.

I hope the members of this House will see fit to ensure that we have many of their ideas. I have listened here today for good, solid and substantial ideas. I think some very serious ideas have been put forward and generally speaking I think there have been ideas that bear a lot of our investigation and a lot of our determination. Indeed, there may be some that we would very strongly support. But let me say that in this process the whole question of unemployment on the one hand and employment on the other hand is not something that warrants any kind of partisan attack. I know that all of us will participate in the debate in a very serious manner, and I am sure members will take that approach in the next few days and present their ideas.

There is no question, as I say, that our unemployment situation is in somewhat dire straits. On the other hand, we have to keep in mind that we do have a national situation; we have, indeed, an international situation when it comes to unemployment. We certainly have not captured the sole unemployment in the entire country. We happen to be one province among many; we happen to be one province among many jurisdictions and when you look around at various jurisdictions here you have to compare Ontario with perhaps other jurisdictions like those surrounding the Great lakes and those in other parts of Canada.

Certainly we have borne the brunt of a US slowdown and no doubt when there is some degree of turnaround -- and we are expecting that later this year -- there will be some improvement in the situation. I would like to think that at that time we will probably take credit for the creation of the jobs.

The fact of the matter is that there is a certain cyclical aspect to all this which all of us are certainly aware of. But our recent indications are that there is a certain bottoming out of the recession as it has affected the United States, and I think that when the United States --

Mr. Nixon: That is what Herbert Hoover said in 1932.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, I suppose he did. I do not know what year it was, but --

Mr. Nixon: "Prosperity is right around the corner."

Hon. Mr. Walker: Well, he might even have come to that conclusion.

But we hope there is, in fact, a bottoming out and if there is it is going to have some effect on Ontario. There is no doubt that the high interest rate we have today is a very material factor in the plight of our unemployed. There is no doubt that people will not be buying cars because of the cost of cars and to a large extent because of the competition. There is no doubt that the fact that people are not buying other consumer items and do not have money of their own is creating a fair amount of unemployment in the process.

But our rates do compare reasonably favourably with those around the country. The 1982 January unemployment rate in Ontario was 7.4 per cent. Of course, that is unacceptably high and I think all of us in this room today feel discomforted by the fact that any person who wants a job is out of a job; it is a very discomforting fact. But in our province we are somewhat more favourably adjusted than other states.

Among the provinces of Canada, British Columbia has an unemployment rate in excess of eight per cent; Quebec in excess of 11 per cent, and it is 8.3 per cent in all of Canada.

The unemployment rate in the industrialized states that surround Ontario to the south and west is as follows: Michigan is just under 15 per cent; Ohio is over 10 per cent, nearly 11 per cent; and Pennsylvania is over 11 per cent. The United States generally is in excess of our rates. By comparison, we certainly are not quite as badly off as some of the other states. Regrettably, we have an unacceptable level of unemployment in this province.

The Acting Speaker: The minister has one minute.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, a whole host of recommendations was put forward in the speech from the throne in terms of a very general approach. Obviously, the speech from the throne does not spell out, and in the past never has spelled out, any details.

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, the minister has five minutes. I took a nod as being one minute.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne did indicate it was the government's intention to have a job-creation program as much as we can. In the speech from the throne there was an urging that the federal government join with us in a program of economic recovery designed to stimulate noninflationary growth, and that is very important, and at the same time to create jobs for Ontarians.

A number of the programs were set out in rather general detail. Those will ultimately be set out in more detail as the budget comes down. The budget provides for job-creating measures; global funding for youth employment and a capital works program supported by the government will be accelerated. A wide range of initiatives will be taken to increase the stock of rental housing. I draw some particular note to that aspect.

The recently announced forest improvement project is to be expanded and special employment initiatives will be adopted by the Ministry of Natural Resources to upgrade and accelerate the construction of resource access roads, creating hundreds of new jobs in our opinion.

Federal authorities will be encouraged to consider new programs by which funds normally paid as unemployment insurance can be directed as a supplement to provide employment in other areas of worthwhile endeavours. The government intends to determine which companies in the buy-back program which might otherwise have basically closed down might be brought within that program.

There will be a number of initiatives taken, certainly in agriculture where a number of initiatives have already been announced and are fairly well spelled out. Some major help for the beef producers has been reflected in the past year. Other measures coming forward will be the farm adjustment assistance program which is to be broadened. There was some indication of that a short while ago.

In addition, a new measure will be brought in to encourage young farmers to get involved with a farm and start-up capital assistance will be provided for them. There will also be measures to ensure that producers are paid in the event of financial default by buyers.

It is our intention to expand the Foodland Ontario program and, as well, to ensure there is not as much dependence on imports. As the members well know, in this province we have something like $2.3 billion worth of food imported on an annual basis. We have targeted some 40 per cent of that which could be subject to import substitution.

The Acting Speaker: The minister has one minute.

Mr. Riddell: If the Ontario government had an agriculture policy we would not be in the problem we are in today in agriculture. It is the government's lack of initiative that has put us in the present position.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That would be a great help. Perhaps we can find ourselves in a position where we can adjust that figure to a much more reasonable and acceptable figure. I know the member for Huron-Middlesex would join me in support of that because, obviously, if the farmers as an industry are better off, then we as a province are far better off. Anything we can do in our ministry to dedicate ourselves in that direction will be done.

The new ministry has been created in terms of splitting off Tourism to another aspect, to another ministry and adding to it the trade responsibilities in an enhanced way and it is our intention --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister has utilized his time.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: I am rising to join this debate today with a sense of mixed emotions. There is a temptation, which I may allow myself to slip into from time to time, to engage in excessively partisan rhetoric. Yet, I come back to this place after some three months in my community, somewhat shaken, as many of us are, by the depths to which this recession has reduced so many of our communities and neighbourhoods.

It is fair to say, for all of us in Windsor of all political parties, it has been a very difficult winter, spent seeing coinstituents who are really left with nowhere to turn. What has made it even more difficult is to come back and go through a document such as this, and then to listen to the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker) attempt to explain it away by suggesting that, well, we are not as badly off as some of the United States or some of the other provinces; as if that makes it acceptable.

At one point the minister was speaking of the state of Michigan which, he said, has an unemployment rate of 14.5 per cent. I might tell the honourable minister, if he could ever find his way down to Windsor, he would find a city with an unemployment rate of around 17 per cent. Down in Windsor we are way ahead of Michigan, of Pennsylvania and of just about all of the industrialized states of the American northeast, in the rate of unemployment.

It is a problem the government has thus far failed to address, and it is a problem which I suspect is not addressed in this throne speech. For a glorious moment I thought this government had finally decided to get down to the business of job creation in this province.

To refresh the memories of members, the speech began, "While it is clear that the legislators of Ontario cannot be expected, by themselves, to reverse these difficult circumstances" -- and I certainly agree, we cannot do it all by ourselves -- "we must nevertheless devote our abilities and our energies to putting Ontario on a more positive economic track." I thought that was a fine sentence. It is too bad that the next eight or 10 pages went on to bash Ottawa and to suggest that all of the problems could be solved by Ottawa; that none of the responsibility was Ontario's. As my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), and my leader have suggested, if we have no responsibility then maybe we could save the people of Ontario a few dollars just by voting ourselves out of a job and going home, and leaving it to Ottawa to solve all of our problems.

I do not think that is what the people of Ontario want us to do. I think they reject the notion that Ontario is, somehow, a helpless giant. I think they realize that it is not so much a helpless giant, as that it has a government that has run out of ideas and initiatives. It is amazing that a jurisdiction with a budget which this year will probably pass $20 billion cannot find -- as I read this speech, and as I followed the last session -- one major job-creating initiative.

The initiatives that were contained in this speech from the throne all said one thing, "You will get Ontario's co-operation if we get Ottawa's money." As much as I might like some changes by Ottawa and as much as I might agree that some changes could be made with respect to the automotive industry, for example, there are certainly initiatives that Ontario could take.

I was struck by something very early on. There was a promise that, in the budget, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) would announce some increased global funding for youth employment. I found that exceedingly interesting and more so after I read an article which had appeared in the Toronto Star just the previous day. The article said the provincial government intends to spend $12 million this year to create 8,800 jobs for young people. That, I suppose you could suggest, is commendable, except for the fact that last year this government, which is so concerned with creating jobs, created, under the same program, 1,200 more jobs and spent some $13.5 million. This is the government's serious approach to the creation of jobs.

This year it is going to cut back on money and it is going to cut back on job creation. What is the reason? I see my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is shaking his head. I am just reading the comments of the co-ordinator of the Ontario Youth Secretariat summer employment program. He said, "An increase in the minimum wage accounts for the decrease in jobs." Perhaps it is the government's intention to decrease the minimum wage to a dollar so we could create more jobs. Of course no one would earn enough to live on and no student would earn enough to go back to school, but we could create a few more jobs.

What would create a few more jobs would be a sense of responsibility on the part of this government for the unemployed youth of this province. Unemployment among young people is a crisis which is growing daily, not only among the youth who are in the work force full time, but those who are trying to join the work force in the summer so they can return to universities in the fall. They know they need to earn money in the summer because they know just how chintzy and cheap this government is in terms of its student assistance.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the initiatives that the government did not offer in the area of labour. When it got to labour initiatives my ears perked up and I waited to hear something significant, because one of the problems that so many of our workers face is that in these difficult economic times the net, as it were, that the former Minister of Labour talked so proudly about really just is not there. I listened with great interest awaiting great government initiatives. I was awaiting an understanding on the part of this government in terms of severance pay that five years was far too long, by about four years, for an employee to begin to qualify for a little more of a net, not much more; and yet I did not hear that.

I did not hear any indication of that for employees who have been around more than 26 years and who are probably nearing the end of their wage-earning life, nearing retirement, and who perhaps, if they had been there 30 years, might be able to take advantage of another few weeks' pay.

I waited to hear that the government is finally determined to do something about layoffs, not only when they occur but before they occur. There was nothing there except a minimal promise to extend the counselling and training of workers affected by plant closures. It is about time, because what the government has had in the past has been next to nothing. It will not have to work very hard to extend what has been in place before.

I remember on the last day's sitting of the House just before Christmas, I left the House and called my office and I was asked to call Windsor immediately. I found out that the Ford Motor Co. had announced it was shutting down one of its engine plants in Windsor in April of this year. That announcement had just been made. I came back into the House and I asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) whether he had been informed of this, what he thought of it and what negotiations and discussions there had been.

The Premier leaned over and asked the then Minister of Industry and Tourism who said he had been informed at 10 o'clock that morning.

That is what we are talking about and that was not in this speech from the throne. We must put mechanisms in place which can lead to an avoidance of shutdowns and where management, labour, the community and the government can sit down, discuss these matters, talk these matters out and perhaps find a way to avoid these shutdowns and these layoffs which are so crippling to workers.

It is not a matter in this day and age, with 375,000 Ontario employees out of work and that number growing, that a man or a woman who is thrown out of work can simply go to the Canada Manpower office and find a job tomorrow. That does not happen any more. It will not happen tomorrow, next week or even after that.

So I might say I was very disappointed in the speech from the throne. I was very disappointed that this government has done nothing to aid job creation in this province.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression the longer I am around this House that the Ontario Conservatives and the loss of jobs go hand in hand. What we have is not a disaster waiting to happen. We have a disaster already happening in Ontario in terms of jobs, and we are seeing unfortunately a bit of deindustrialization of our province. I have listened to some of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program rhetoric we get from the Tories and I am reminded very much of printing and dishing out Canadian Tire money and sending the people to Dominion Stores with it. It is that kind of an answer.

The federal Liberals may not be much better in providing jobs in this country, but there is no excuse for the kind of fed bashing that seems to be the only defence the Tory government has in Ontario right now in trying to place all the blame on the feds. What we are really witnessing when we see that kind of an attack and that kind of a position in the speech we just heard, the throne speech, is a further measure of this government's cop-out when it comes to dealing with and taking any responsibility for jobs for people. In the last year, the government's sleight-of-hand con game, called BILD, saw unemployment in Ontario go from 321,000 -- I am talking in real terms now -- to 375,000. In one year we had this great BILD in Ontario and what has it got us? It sure as hell got us an awful lot more people out of work.

I sometimes wonder if it ever crosses a Tory's mind that the 375,000 unemployed people we are talking about are genuine and important and individual and that they are hurting out there. These people fear for themselves and their families. I just wonder when the Conservatives are going to understand what is real and important to people out there, what they need and want, and not rely on old-fashioned methods, old ideas and really a tradition almost of some kind of divine right to govern without doing anything about the key problems that hit us.

I really wonder also if we should not be a little more honest with people about what is really happening in Ontario. It is not a question of 375,000 jobs that many of us have quoted here today. That is the figure that shows. If we get into the real figure and the hidden unemployed -- and I am talking about those unfortunates who have run out of benefits, who have given up looking for work, and I can give you a few examples -- the best figure in Ontario tells us 547,000, or 11.9 per cent of the work force in this province, and to me that is a disaster we have arrived at in Ontario.

We are having people come to us. One young chap was here with reasonable marks in schools and half a dozen good recommendations, but the recommendations are all at service stations or car wash outfits where he has been able to get some temporary jobs. He came in to me and said: "Look, I have an additional bit of a handicap. I happen to have a bit of a disc problem. I am only 23 years old with an additional health problem, so every time I do get an application, and I have a difficult time even getting an application, for a firm that might pay a decent wage, I am okay until I take the medical, and that's the end of it right there." Where does he go?

I liked some of the comments on the front page of my own local paper, the Spectator, in last night's issue, talking about looking for a job as a hopeless task. I think all of us should read it and the comments from some of the young people being interviewed. The common theme is: "It isn't any use. We go everywhere. Even if we are down at Manpower every day and make all the calls, we do not find employment." Some of them have pretty well given up.

I also found it interesting that one of the young chaps talked about going into one of the big steel mills, saying he was told, "Don't call us, we'll call you." He was also told with a laugh by the personnel manager of that particular plant, "I will put your application on file with the other 10,000 we have here."

I wonder what we will do if we can't put it in real terms. When I get a letter, and I am sure every member in this House must have had them, that is written to me -- I will give members the key parts of one here. It is addressed to "Dear Bob" -- I don't know if I know the lady that well, but this is the letter:

"I am writing to you regarding my son Robert who is having a desperate time finding a job, as are so many others. He has no means of support. I am keeping him. He has been refused welfare and he is out every day looking hard for work. He is also at Manpower every day too. I know that for a fact to be so, as I have been home myself off work because of illness with back problems. We cannot go on much longer like this, Bob. I am getting so deep in despair and having an awful time keeping my head above water financially. I cannot even pay my taxes on my house.

"As of now, it takes all of my paycheque to pay my bills and groceries to keep us and, as you know, Bob, I work at St. Joe's and the wages are not that high. I am not asking for charity, Bob, but if Robert could get a job, and if not, maybe you could help him with welfare."

She goes on to say that she is pleased she is going to be able to go back to work next week. She is going back to work "because I have to, because I cannot keep the bills paid otherwise."

That is an appeal from a woman on behalf of her son, but what she is doing is talking about what is happening to the ordinary people who are faced with this problem of unemployment. I am talking about over half a million people in the province. We also do not have to go far. I was talking today to the social welfare people in Hamilton -- and what did I find out? The applications for assistance for welfare in the month of January were up 65 per cent in my city.

That is part of the spinoff effect of what is happening because we have not provided jobs for people in Ontario. I, for one, am getting damned sick and tired of a government that brings in fancy BILD programs that do absolutely nothing, that last year saw us go down in employment by another 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 jobs in this province. There is something wrong with this government and its lack of a response in any real and meaningful way.

I think that we have to do a number of things. My colleagues have laid out some. We hope to do a fair job of dealing with them at more length. We have talked about putting some of the money into grants to some of the winners in Ontario and developing them, some of the industries we could work with, rather than the losers we are always called upon to bail out. We might take a serious look at what we have done in any number of areas.

For years my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has been talking about the fact that there is a market for a mining machinery industry. The job figure at the low point is 10,000 and at high point is better than 20,000. Those are the numbers in terms of actual jobs if we were building our own mining machinery, which we should be doing in this country.

What has happened? I can bring it down to the other end of the ladder -- peaches and tomatoes. I was really surprised a couple of years ago to find out that about 30 years ago we produced and canned about 70 per cent of all the peaches and tomatoes that we ate in Ontario. I understand that figure is down to or below 30 per cent today.

Now what the heck has gone wrong that we have allowed the big companies to come in, buy out and shut down the small factories so now we cannot even feed ourselves in these two crops? Both the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture tell us we have the canning capacity to supply 100 per cent of our needs in this province. What has happened? How have we missed something as obvious as that?

Why have we not got the content legislation in terms of the auto pact? For years now we have been screaming about this. One of the recent United Auto Workers briefs pointed out that our overall deficit was $4.3 billion. Our deficit in auto parts alone was over $2 billion in the first several months and that automobile parts deficit amounted to better than 30,000 jobs. It is not the assembly of the cars themselves, but just the automobile parts. In this country we have not required the kind of content legislation or, before that, the kind of enforcement of the auto pact that is required to deal with this problem in our province.

Very recently we went to Peterborough. We went through the Outboard Marine plant. That is the classic story of what's been happening in the branch plant economy and the deindustrialization of Ontario. I know I do not have time to go into it, but only six or seven short years ago there were 1,900 industrial employees in that plant and 230 in the office. We are down to 500 and 125 today. We are down from over 40 per cent of the parts being manufactured there to two small parts, a baffle and a can. The rest is assembly in that plant. The workers have the word that some of the production from that plant is going to Mexico and some of it is going out to another American plant within the next year.

We also had the expertise in that plant to do research and development. We did it, like the modifications to the marine motors, and as soon as we had accomplished that, the product was shipped out to the United States to be produced down there. That was part of the job loss in that plant.

When is this government going to wake up and quit kidding people with a dumb, stupid BILD approach that does not provide jobs and get on with the job of providing work for people who need it in this province? It is long past time, and all of us should be disgusted with the performance of the Tory government.

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am confused as to just who is the Minister of Labour. Is there a new Minister of Labour?

The Acting Speaker: The chair had recognized on its first glance the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), but it was indicated to me that he had given his time to the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). The chair recognizes the member for Brantford.

Mr. Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is certainly no confusion in my mind. I am quite willing to toss a coin for the time if the minister would care to.

I would be less than honest if I said I was pleased to join this debate because, like most other members of this assembly, I wish this debate had not been necessary. However, perhaps as much as if not more than most members of the assembly I have lived in my own constituency through the winter months with a very difficult employment situation which continues, although there are certainly signs that it is abating.

I want to talk about that briefly, but I would also like to address a few of the comments my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) made about youth employment. I really wish the honourable member had checked with me before he made his speech because I could have given him some of the facts of the matter he addressed. As it happens, he was relying on a press report that was not totally accurate. The throne speech reference to youth employment and the emphasis the government will continue to place on it and, indeed, the increased funding are quite true. I am sure the member looks forward to the budget, as I do, for the evidence of that.

The honourable member is quite accurate in noting that one of our programs, the summer Experience program, has been trimmed from $13.5 million to $12 million. If the member had checked with me, he would have found that the thrust of the youth secretariat in the last year has been to address the increasing unemployment problem among young people in the nonsummer months. The peak unemployment months for young people are no longer in the summer, they are in the winter. We have a problem with people who have left the school system and are not returning, so we are not talking about student jobs, and we realized we had to create new programs and take new initiatives to address this.

Although that particular program will not receive increased funding, there will be a new program coming in which I expect we will announce in the budget. There will be increased funding for the Ontario career action program which runs year-round under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and which is very successful in addressing the problems of first employment for young people who are trying to crack the job market. All of these things will come into play. The honourable member will see that the unemployment problem among young people is going to be addressed in the upcoming budget and that global funding for youth employment programs is going to rise quite significantly.

Mr. Wrye: We will go from almost nothing to slightly more.

Mr. Gillies: If the member thinks $58 million is nothing, then he has a different state of mind to me. I think we are putting a very serious emphasis on the program and it will continue to be increased. However, I did want to speak more specifically about the situation I found in my riding.

Mr. Wrye: When does the jet get delivered?

Mr. Gillies: The member for Windsor-Sandwich really woke up in the last couple of minutes. I might say we listened very intently to his remarks.

The Acting Speaker: I think the honourable member has made a good point. We have all listened intently to other members. I think the member for Brantford should have the opportunity to have his say.

Mr. Gillies: Thank you. That is exactly what I want to talk about, and not in a particularly partisan vein. In Brantford during the winter months we have taken a very co-operative approach. I might say that one of the more positive things which has happened in my community, where we were wrestling with an unemployment rate approaching 20 per cent, is that we co-operated. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon); our federal member, who represents the third party, the mayor and I made a concerted effort to involve Brantford in one of the federal programs, the industry and labour adjustment program, for which, I might add, I give full credit to the federal government.

Mr. Bradley: Did you say false credit to the Liberal government?

Mr. Gillies: No, I said full credit. The member may at times want to offer false credit with the situation he has in St. Catharines, but that is another speech.

I might suggest that some of the members have spoken in a nonpartisan vein, suggesting there are programs available, that there are ways to co-operate both interparty and between the levels of government to get positive results. Brantford is evidence of that.

I have heard various members suggest, and I would point to the last speaker, that the government has done nothing to alleviate employment problems and that it has done nothing to enhance or attempt to enhance industrial possibilities in the province. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I look at my own riding and I see a commitment from the federal government of $125 million and from this government of $75 million to ensure the continuation of the Massey-Ferguson company.

I am not going to stand in this chamber and tell any member of any political stripe that those governments have not tried to do something to help my community, because they have. We voted on it in this House and that party supported it and that party did not, but again that is another speech.

I look at some of the smaller companies functioning in Brantford. I look at companies like Lockwood Manufacturing and Etatech Industries. These were branch plants of American companies that, through the co-operation of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Ontario Development Corp., were brought back into Canadian ownership and where the workers continued to have employment.

By my count, I think the ODC has cooperated with companies in my riding to provide about 1,200 jobs. That is not insignificant. Many of them are in that all-important small business sector that other members have referred to. That is evidence to my mind that it is unfair to suggest the government has done nothing in this area. In fact, many of our ongoing programs have had very positive results indeed.

I look at the training situation. I would certainly agree with the one member who spoke who said, and I could not agree more, that one of the greatest tragedies in this country is that in a time of high unemployment in certain fields we have to continue to import skilled labour. There is no more ridiculous indictment of our country, perhaps of our educational system, than that, and I am in full agreement.

There are encouraging signs. I had an opportunity some months back to speak at the first graduation of a new program operating in Brantford called the Brantford Industrial Training Advisory Council. The private sector, business people and industrialists, working in cooperation with our community college, have started classes for apprentices.

I spoke at the first graduation. There were 22 young people graduating that night. All 22 of them had jobs. They were already working in the fields in which they were trained. There is another graduation coming up in a month or so. I look forward to visiting that one. There are certain programs --

Mr. Cunningham: Hundreds of people are waiting to get into that program. It is a disgrace.

Mr. Gillies: That is the member's problem on the Fennell campus. That is not my problem. That is a good example of how the private sector and government can co-operate in providing employment.

Interjection.

Mr. Gillies: I am using the time that was allocated to me, I would suggest to the member. The equipment in that community college on which these people were trained was provided by BILD funding. BILD funding put new equipment into Mohawk college. The people are training on it and they are coming out and getting jobs.

I am incredulous. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) tells me the program is not doing anything and I see a very clear example of how it is doing something.

Mr. Cunningham: They laid 35 people off in Mohawk because of your cuts.

Mr. Gillies: There are a number of problems in any community and we wrestle with a number in Brantford, transportation links being one of them. I am pushing and we are all pushing for the Highway 403 completion, for which the BILD program is adding funding to accelerate the furthering of that highway.

Mr. Cunningham: Six years you have been waiting for it.

Mr. Gillies: We were waiting for years. I took my seat in the House last year and now the next 12-kilometre section is being initiated in the month of May, so I look forward to that too.

I would say in summation that one of the biggest problems my community has faced in this past number of months is one of distortion on the part of the media, particularly the Toronto media, of the situation in my riding. There have been press reports that have been inaccurate and unfair in the picture they have painted of my community. As a community we have all pulled together to try to correct that situation.

As the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and a number of others have said, we are not here to talk about what the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party can or cannot do about the employment situation. We are here to talk about interest rates, jobs and the issues that affect the people in our constituencies, and they frankly do not give a damn what party label we attach to ourselves. I suggest that as this debate continues every member who has an idea to contribute, or a thought to share, does so without undue consideration for the political marks to be gained.

Mr. Breaugh: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is customary in these emergency debates that the minister responsible will either lead off or wind up. I would like to see unanimous consent from the House that we now hear from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) who is responsible for employment in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: It may be customary but I do not believe it is in the standing orders -- well, unless you have unanimous consent. The House can do anything.

Mr. Breaugh: Would you put that question to the House?

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), in whose riding there are a great deal of unemployment and very serious problems.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because the city of Windsor has probably been hit harder than any other city in Canada. When one considers the number of people who have left the community, of those who have walked away from their homes and the number of people who are looking for any type of job opportunity, one really gets scared. It is reminiscent of the Depression days of 1929 up to approximately 1935 or 1936.

I recall speaking to this House back in 1960 and bringing to the attention of the government the plight of the city of Windsor. Looking through the newspapers in my community, I read that on November 16, 1981, 15,000 people moved from the city of Windsor because of lack of job opportunities. That is a frightening number and it has been increasing over the past three or four months. This is solely because the opportunities are not there, so that they have no recourse but to move to other parts of Canada, in the hope that their fortunes will improve.

The mass exodus has been generally of those who have the marketable skills, who could make a contribution to our economy. The Tory government has to take its share of the blame for it because they have been over there for 39 years. You would think that in that 39-year period they would have learned a way to overcome mass unemployment in a given area and that they would have tried to overcome it by either an influx of moneys or by implementing new work programs devised by some of their experts.

As a result of the mass exodus, fewer people are buying goods in Windsor's stores or attending Windsor's theatres. More classrooms are empty, more apartments are left vacant, more development projects are on hold simply as a result of mass unemployment. All this places an ever-heavier burden on the municipal property tax.

In October unemployment in the city was 16,793, for an estimated 13.5 per cent. The latest statistics to come along give the unemployment figure as 20,791 as of February; 16.8 per cent of the work force in the community cannot find a job. It is a real disgrace and a condemnation of this government for not applying itself and finding some types of projects it could have put into the local community. When it comes to providing certain skilled training centres and so forth, they have gone to other parts of the province, whereas the automotive capital of Canada, Windsor, was neglected by this government.

The welfare rolls in the city of Windsor have always been over 5,200. In fact, they have gone up to as high as almost 7,000 people seeking welfare. When one considers it is about four point something number of people that each individual on welfare represents, one can see the number of people who are adversely affected as a result of mass unemployment.

Real estate sales have really plummeted in the community. In fact, sales in the community for the month of October are down from 317 sales in the previous year, which was also a bit of a tough year, to 134. Because of the mass unemployment, we find more and more people are losing their homes. The statistics from the Essex County Real Estate Board indicate that 425 properties were offered under power of sale in mid-January compared with only 250 in September. So one can see the effects of this mass unemployment.

The mortgage manager of Pedlar Real Estate says: "I have been in business 20 years and I have never seen a situation like this. You have to go back to the 1930s to see this number of homes repossessed." Even bank and trust companies holding mortgages now hesitate even to apply for a writ of possession because they cannot do anything with the home even when they do repossess it. Mr. Gil Comartin, the chairman of the mayor's committee on the unemployed, said, "A number of people have walked into the bank or trust company, dropped the keys on the table and simply walked out." They walked away from their most cherished possession, the home.

The Windsor branch of the unemployment centre says, "The number of people looking for work in February is 20,793." I could keep on mentioning the numbers of unemployed and the hardship created. The number of people losing homes in the last month jumped 70 per cent. There are answers to this. There happens to be a company in Windsor known as AFS, which is breaking new ground but it is barely holding its head above water simply because it cannot get assistance from this provincial government. The company is Alternate Fuel Systems, which produces dual-fuel carburetors for automobiles.

Part of the problem is as a result of the content used in the manufacture of vehicles. I can recall back in the mid-1960s speaking at a meeting at Cleary Auditorium in which I said that our balance of payments should not be in dollars but in hours of work actually created by the job. If we import materials containing one million hours of work from the States, then we should export from Canada one million hours of labour content. If we use the labour content concept, plus possibly the value of the article, then we might have part of an answer to the problems of the automotive industry.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

March 11, 1982