MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those hordes in the gallery and on the benches across the way, we are dealing with second reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry and Trade in Ontario.
I know my friend and colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) would want me to wish the students from his riding well and thank them for taking enough interest in parliamentary democracy in Ontario to come down to see what we do here.
This bill will set up a new ministry which we hope will give a new sense of direction for an industrial strategy and to foster an improvement of trade by the province, not only with other areas of Canada but also with other jurisdictions throughout the world. The gentleman who is taking his seat on the far side will be the minister of that new Ministry of Trade and Industry (Mr. Walker).
Yesterday afternoon, when I was interrupted by the clock, I was talking about the Design for Development for an industrial strategy --
Mr. Nixon: That goes back a long way.
Mr. Stokes: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, a former leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario, reminds me that Design for Development goes back a long way, regrettably with not too much success. When one looks at it, the Designs for Development in northwestern Ontario, northeastern Ontario and the Toronto-centred region had a great deal of hope and promise for tremendous expansion in our industrial sector.
We all know that has not happened. We know all the problems confronting the manufacturing sector, particularly in southern Ontario, and the resource sector in northern Ontario." In fairness, that is not only because of the inaction or the inability of this government to effect an economic strategy for this province; a good deal of it is from forces that prevail outside our borders; that has a profound effect upon our ability to sell what we produce, which is so much in excess of our ability to consume.
It is certainly obvious to us on this side of the House, and I am sure it is obvious to the new minister, that if any benefit is going to accrue to the people of Ontario from the setting up of this new ministry, the new minister and his minions are going to have to formulate new policies and programs that will deal with the realities of the 1980s, not only in the way in which we set up programs to foster economic development but also in terms of our ability to compete with other jurisdictions, particularly those on the Pacific Rim, such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore, and even some of the new jurisdictions in South America.
This government and, to somewhat more important extent, the federal government have taken a sort of laissez-faire attitude towards economic development, without an economic strategy. It is quite obvious to me and, I am sure, to most members of this House that this is no longer an adequate approach to the problems that confront the economies of the western world. When one sees the Statistics Canada figures released last week, which show that we have in excess of 1.2 million people unemployed, it is even more obvious that the approach we have taken up to now is no longer an appropriate approach to get Ontario and Canada moving again.
I want to deal in more specific terms with a design for development and an economic strategy for the area of the province lying north of the French River. We have a good many articulate spokesmen from all parties representing constituencies south of the French River, so I will not dwell upon that aspect of economic development, I will try to confine my remarks to those areas --
Mr. Nixon: Tell us about the articulate spokesmen north of the French River.
Mr. Stokes: I am going to try to be one, at least on this occasion.
Mr. Foulds: The Liberal Party does not have any.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes we do.
Mr. Stokes: If I can get the attention of the minister and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), I want to talk about ways in which we can foster new economic development associated with our primary resource sector in northern Ontario.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: They should not be closing the high schools, that's for sure.
Mr. Stokes: As a matter of fact, I am glad the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk brought that up, because the largest single employer domiciled in a good many of those communities in northern Ontario is the Ministry of Education.
Mr. Nixon: If it's not that, it's Natural Resources or Northern Affairs.
Mr. Stokes: That is right. They are service centres and dormitory communities for resource industries, where the industry is outside the boundaries of a municipality, and those municipalities lack the ability to tax those industries that are outside the boundaries of established municipalities. Those municipalities act as bedroom or dormitory communities for the members of the work force who find employment elsewhere.
I want to speak in terms of what we do with the resource, how we dig it out of the ground, just concentrate it and, as soon as we get it in a small enough package, we ship it elsewhere. Sometimes we ship it to southern Ontario, the United States or an offshore jurisdiction in a form where there is very little value added. It is fashioned into manufactured products and shipped back to us again in a finished form where we pay sometimes 10, 50 or even 100 times its original value.
We have the wit, the wisdom and, I hope, the will to order our affairs in such a way that we can retain the value added in Ontario for the collective benefit of all the citizens in this province who collectively own the resource in the first place.
In terms of the forest industry, a good many of the plants in northern Ontario take trees, reduce them to fibre, ship them to our kraft mills, our sulphide mills, our sulphate mills and make the very crudest of wood pulp and linerboard out of them.
We have done that presumably to satisfy the edicts laid down by the late Colonel George Drew some time back in 1945, when he said, "Thou shalt not export any more wood pulp from Ontario to the United States without doing some form of processing in northern Ontario. As we all know, that has happened. He said that in 1945, almost 37 years ago, and nothing of any substantial benefit to the people in northern Ontario has happened since.
With very few exceptions, we do not make any finished paper. We make a little bit of newsprint, which generally goes to the United States, but in terms of our ability to use the resources that have been given to this province, particularly in the boreal forest north of the French River, we have not been able to order our affairs in such a way that maximum benefit from the orderly exploitation of both our mineral and forestry wealth accrues to the people in Ontario.
We know that we cannot have factories dotting every highway or every railway in northern Ontario. But we do think that those of us who live in northern Ontario, who are responsible for creating a good share of the new wealth of this province and this country as a result of the exploitation of our resources, should benefit so that we will be in a position to have decent- sized communities that can support hospitals and high schools and -- dare I mention it again? -- attract doctors, dentists and other professional people so that we can try to effect the economies of scale that are absolutely essential to forming our communities in the north in order that we can have a decent standard of living and a decent lifestyle for the people who are responsible for creating that new wealth in northern Ontario.
We can do that in a number of ways. Not in a lot of grandiose ways where we talk about megaprojects such as we hear of every day in Ottawa, but by saying to companies such as Great Lakes Paper, Domtar, American Can, Kimberly-Clark and Abitibi-Price that while we as a government in Ontario, as a province, come to the assistance of these companies whenever they are in some difficulty, while we allow them to exploit our resources and extract a certain amount of economic rent from them for the privilege of exploiting those resources, making a profit for their shareholders and providing some employment for the residents of northern Ontario, we do not think it is too much to expect of those companies that they go one step further.
Instead of them extracting the base metals, the iron ore, all the mineral wealth we have in northern Ontario, reducing it to refined ore and then shipping it elsewhere to be fabricated -- as I said earlier, in southern Ontario, the United States and some of the offshore jurisdictions -- we in this province owe it to ourselves to insist that these companies not only reduce to concentrates but also fashion products that provide jobs and a real, viable economic base somewhere near where the resource is extracted.
It is the same with the forest industry. For any members who may not be as familiar as some of us coming from northern Ontario are with the way in which a good many of those major licence holders I spoke of earlier operate, to a large extent the forest industry is looking for a particular species of tree designated for use in a particular end product.
We know that if somebody is in the business of making newsprint, he is looking for a black spruce with a long, tough fibre, because that is the kind of wood fibre that is used in the production of newsprint. If they are looking for sawlog material for the lumber industry, it requires a specific species of tree of a particular dimension that makes it profitable for them to run it through a sawmill to fashion two-by-fours and other dimensional lumber for a variety of uses.
8:20 p.m.
But when we look at a particular operation, we see that, for a variety of reasons, companies tend to ignore those species and tree sizes that are not particularly useful for their operation. They tend to high-grade because they can maximize production and profits by being much more selective in the way they harvest our forests. The end result in many of the operations I have visited on an ongoing basis is that a good deal of the available fibre is left behind because it is not absolutely critical to the company that happens to be exploiting a particular area or a particular forest that is under licence to it.
People from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in concert with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, should be able to sit down with the companies that find it profitable to operate in northern Ontario, to order their affairs and the way they operate so that we could maximize the benefit of the exploitation of those forestry resources, putting to use a good deal more of the fibre that in many instances is allowed to overmature, become decadent, fall down or be left behind in this sometimes high-grade operation, to the detriment of the entire economy of this province.
I want to indicate in a very few specific terms how I think we are missing the boat. It is common knowledge that, if anything is being made out of trees, it ends up in roll form, some form of paper, and cores must be used on the rollers to build the roll upon. They are made out of hardwood. Where do the cores come from? They are not made in northern Ontario. They are not made in Ontario at all. I am advised that the majority of them come from the hardwood forests in the United States.
We have lots of hardwood in Canada. As a matter of fact, the former Minister of Natural Resources and his predecessor, both northerners, whenever we asked them about better utilization of the total resources in northern Ontario, asked, "What are you talking about?" I said: "Birch and poplar. They are both hardwood species. We are using about 15 per cent of the volume in those two species that are available to us if we play our cards right and develop our markets right." They said: "Oh, those are the weed species. You can't make newsprint out of those." Granted, we cannot make newsprint out of them, but it does not mean we do not have the ingenuity at least to make the cores upon which we roll our paper. We import them from the United States. I ask, why?
I want to invite the new Minister of Industry and Trade, when he has an hour to go shopping with his wife on a Friday night or a Saturday, to visit his supermarket, a gift shop, a drugstore or almost any retail outlet in any average-size community in Ontario and take a look at the shelves to see the number of products that are made of wood.
Mr. Nixon: Wood?
Mr. Stokes: Wood; plain, ordinary wood.
Whether they be salad bowls, rolling pins or little corner shelves, literally hundreds of items are made totally out of wood and a bit of glue. I invite the minister to do that to draw his attention to the number of items on the shelves of the majority of retail outlets in Ontario. I further invite him to pick up an item, look at the label on the bottom and see where it comes from.
Where do they come from? We are saying, "We cannot be competitive because there is such a cheap labour force in places like South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and all of those other jurisdictions which find it profitable."
It is not that they grow wood within their own boundaries. Take a look at Japan and see the scarcity of the forest resources in that country, which has a population of 117 million people. They do not grow it in large measure within their own boundaries; they import it from some place else. One of those places is Canada. They ship it all the way across the Pacific, fashion it into something that attracts a buyer, ship it all the way back again halfway across the world and sell it to the likes of the minister and myself in retail outlets all over Ontario and Canada.
Why, I ask him? With the setting up of this new ministry, the minister now has responsibility for the operations of the Ontario Development Corp., the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern Ontario Development Corp. When one reads their brochures, they say: "Come and see us if you have an idea. Come and see us if you can create an enterprise that will create jobs. We will lend you the money at favourable rates of interest to foster economic development."
I want to tell the minister that on a number of occasions I have had small entrepreneurs in my riding come up with ideas, some of which I have mentioned this evening with regard to the maximum utilization of the resources we have in such abundance in this province. For a number of reasons, the whole system falls apart.
I want to invite the minister to read the reports that come out of ODC, EODC and NODC every month. I want him to look at the amount of money made available by those corporations to foster economic development and to assist entrepreneurial knowhow in northern Ontario, based on the resources that we have in such abundance. It does not happen very often.
8:30 p.m.
This minister and his colleagues are forever talking about the favourable economic climate that we have in Ontario. I am the first to admit that is the way it should be. We have a pretty good country, and most of the basic freedoms. There is opportunity for the entrepreneurial skills to get started but, for some reason, it does not happen, it does not get done.
I could think of another reason we should be paying more attention, not to the megaprojects but to all the small business enterprises that could be attracted to northern Ontario by the orderly and maximum utilization of the resources that we have in abundance. Last fall, during the estimates of the former Ministry of Industry and Tourism, I was invited by one of my colleagues to speak about tourism. That is in another emanation I will not dwell on, except to say there are a good many opportunities in the tourist industry in northern Ontario where we could further enhance the job opportunities in tourism, related directly to our fish, game and wildlife resources in Ontario; but it very rarely happens.
There is one other area that I want to talk about. As I was leaving my office to come up here at eight o'clock, I was looking at the showcases in the east end of the building. Being a rock hound I quite often go to take a look at them. Tonight I was interested in looking at the little name tags to see where the rocks came from and whether it was iron ore, base metal or precious metal.
Most of the mines that produced those raw ore samples are long since gone. There are some samples from Marmora, some from Steep Rock and some from the old gold mining camps around Geraldton, where at one time or another there were 14 producing gold mines. So it goes right throughout Ontario.
It was not the minister's fault that the ore body ran out. It was not anybody's fault. The fact remains that for a finite resource such as the minerals we have in this province, we know that every day that mine operates we are closer to the day when we will have to walk away from that resource. It is finite and nonrenewable, as opposed to the resources we have in forestry or agriculture. We have the habit, in the way in which we order things, of saying, in the case of Steep Rock and the Atikokan scene that, when the ore body there ceases to be economical, we will allow the companies to walk away and leave the social and economic problems to the people who choose to stay behind. That does not have to happen, believe me.
Anybody who knows anything about the Steep Rock iron range, knows there is a mine not too many miles from Atikokan where Steep Rock and Caland Ore used to operate. We know there is a mine called Bending Lake that has a commercial ore body. We allow those companies to walk away. One of the companies that used to take the production in pelletized ore from Steep Rock Iron Mines has an interest in Bending Lake. That is Algoma Steel. Where is Algoma Steel getting the ore? Not from Ontario and not from Canada. It is getting it from Tilden Mines in the upper peninsula of Michigan.
My colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie is here and he may take umbrage with what I am saying because it is probably a little cheaper for Algoma Steel to get its iron ore requirements from Michigan rather than to exploit Bending Lake outside of Atikokan, the Little Longlac property on which it has a 90-year option on Geraldton's doorstep, the Can-Fer property north of Nakina on which it has a long-range option and one billion tons of relatively high grade iron ore in the Lake St. Joe area of northern Ontario.
One would wonder why this government, the federal government and anybody who cares a darn about the future of this province and this country could not prevail collectively and individually upon Algoma Steel of Sault Ste. Marie to buy Ontario ore. Is that too much to ask? Sure, we would be accused to being parochial and of being provincial, but surely if we are going to maximize the investment and industrial opportunities for the benefit of people in this province, that is not too much to ask of the second largest steel producer in Canada. That is not socialism. That just makes good, plain, ordinary common sense.
8:40 p.m.
When the minister is winding up at the completion of this debate, I would like him to comment on some of those observations.
I want to spend a few brief moments talking about another resource that we have in abundance in Ontario.
Having attended an international symposium on peat, those resources of which we have such abundance in this province, a number of ministers over there collaborated in taking a preliminary inventory of those resources, and, in terms of British thermal unit values, they are estimated to be the equivalent of 62 billion barrels of oil. That is more oil than there is in the far east; more oil than we will probably ever find in all of Canada. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that Finland, Ireland and, to some extent, Russia have shown they have the ability to exploit that resource in their jurisdictions, we, in this province, do not even have a peat policy.
We have a company right here in Toronto called Peat Resources of Ontario, of which the president, Leon LaPrairie, has been saying to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Energy, and I am sure the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker) will be hearing from him, "Let us know what the government policy is for the development of peat in Ontario so that we can contribute to the energy self-sufficiency of this province and this country." It has not happened.
Those are some of the things that this minister can start bugging his colleagues about on that side of the House, in the way in which I personally have done on this side of the House.
Let me talk about another matter dealing with import replacement. The minister knows the extent to which, because of our geographic location, because of the climatic conditions, we must import a good deal of our fresh produce for the major part of the year when it does not happen to be in season.
If this minister, in concert with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), and any other minister over there, of the 26 or 27, who cares a darn, we could replace, in large measure, our dependency on offshore or out-of- Canada produce like tomatoes, lettuce, all of those things we import for at least eight months of the year because of our inability to grow them locally.
With the new technology, and because of the success of the greenhouse industry, particularly in southern Ontario, and the coming into being of hydroponics, because we have so much biomass waste associated with the exploitation of our timber resources in northern Ontario, and because we have a new-found source of energy in peat, I am thoroughly convinced that the technology is there and the practicability is there for us to have as many greenhouses located in every city, town, village, hamlet and Indian reserve in Ontario as would be required to be self-sufficient in the kind of produce we import at such high prices during the off season.
There is nothing magical about it. I would like to take the minister to my basement where I have two small hydroponic units. They are about that size --
Mr. G. I. Miller: In northern Ontario?
Mr. Stokes: Right in my basement. I can produce tomatoes that are just as good, just as flavourful and as free from blemish as any field tomatoes grown in southern Ontario.
Mr. Kerrio: They do not glow in the dark.
Mr. Stokes: I have light; believe it or not, we actually have power in northern Ontario.
I can plant lettuce tonight, and have done it in my two little hydroponic units, and in three weeks I will be eating lettuce. It is a controlled condition. The technology is there. In a two-week trip I took to Japan last September, I visited one company that showed me 700 greenhouses which are under contract to various farmers who are growing fresh produce.
Why can we not do that here? We have the need. We have the markets. We have the waste energy. We have the technology. All we need is the will and the organization and a catalyst to get the show on the road. The minister could be that catalyst.
I want to make one final comment on the economic development, primarily in northern Ontario, that I have been talking about. The minister will recall that over four years ago we set up an emanation called the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. Headed by Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, it was as a result of a confrontation we were having with Reed Paper at the time about the mercury pollution in the English-Wabigoon River system. It was about an application by that company to exploit the last remaining 19,000 square miles of boreal forest that were not under licence to one of the major companies that operates there.
It was a very sensitive issue for a variety of reasons which I will not bore the House with tonight. As a way of putting it on the backburner and giving people an opportunity to sort of cool off or to sit back and look at the ramifications of licensing that 19,000 square miles, this government in its wisdom set up the commission on the northern environment.
Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt worked on it for more than a year and, for a variety of reasons, he gave up on it. We have a new commissioner now, and have had for the last two and a half to three years. That commission on the northern environment was charged with the responsibility of reporting back to this government, and I hope this Legislature, on the direction economic development should take in northern Ontario to enhance social and economic conditions, having regard to environmental considerations that can play a very important role in the lifestyle of northerners particularly.
We have very fragile ecosystems, and we have native people with their traditional lifestyle. It was that commission's responsibility to report back to this government with a strategy that would allow for economic development, but in a way that would pay maximum attention to social and environmental conditions, particularly as they affect our first citizens living north of the 50th parallel.
8:50 p.m.
I want to report that we have spent about $7 million on that study. The commission has yet to report one single, solitary thing. It has yet to provide any sense of direction in economic development for this government or any ministry of this government. It has become the single most expensive royal commission in the history of this province, and we have not heard a peep from it, not a peep. It talked about a road to Detour Lake one year after this government decided on the direction it was going to go with regard to the building of a transmission line, the building of a highway into that gold ore property. It has become irrelevant.
We are deeply immersed in Design for Development and land use planning in northern Ontario. Where is the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment that was supposed to advise us on the direction we should be going with regard to social and economic development? Not a peep. The commission on the northern environment has demonstrated its inability to come up with an economic strategy. Design for Development said 12 years ago that program was going to enhance job opportunities in the tourist industry, the forest industry, and the mining industry. We have lost jobs in all three.
I wonder if every 10 years or so this government tries to create the illusion it is doing something useful, something meaningful, something productive, something worthwhile, just by changing the administrative structure. I wonder if that is the ploy. If people wanted to be uncharitable they might say that. I am not going to say it, but if we are a little bit jaundiced, a little bit cynical over here, we have cause to be for the reasons I have tried to articulate tonight.
I will be the happiest guy in this Legislature, and the happiest guy in northern Ontario, if this new Minister of Industry and Trade can prove me wrong by taking some of the advice I have tried to give him tonight and proving it is not just some administrative gerrymandering, to create the illusion that by change he is doing something useful and worthwhile.
I think this minister has the knowledge. I do not know whether he will get the kind of support from his government to do the things that must be done, but I hope he will. If he demonstrates to me that is what he is about, he will get my support.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on the establishment of the new Ministry of Industry and Trade through Bill 38. I would like to just follow up on the comments the member for Lake Nipigon has made, indicating that there are a lot of good new ideas.
I would like to point out that as far as northern Ontario is concerned, one of our candidates in the past leadership race, Richard Thomas, has a lot of good ideas and potential to develop the north and protect our ideas and our energy future by developing the peat industry and developing fuel alcohol for automobiles. Again, I think he stood behind us. I would hope the minister might take those ideas into consideration in utilizing and developing the north because we do have a lot of potential there.
As the member for Lake Nipigon indicated, northern Ontario is noted for its wood products and its wood potential. I would like to point out to the minister that southern Ontario also has a great potential in that field. I was pleased to note that the minister was able to come to our riding of Haldimand-Norfolk today. He was received well by the region of Haldimand-Norfolk and had the opportunity of opening a new industrial park at Delhi, along with turning the sod for the new administration building for the region. It was certainly a beautiful day.
The only thing that really concerns me is the fact that I left at 3:45 p.m. this afternoon and I did not make it for the vote, but the minister did. That irks me a little bit. As a matter of fact I was mad as H, because I got trapped at Bronte. I think it was put on by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). They narrowed that down to two lanes and it said, "Four kilometres to the turnoff at Highway 25." I kid the members not, it was 4:45 p.m. and at 5.25 p.m. I still was not at Highway 25. How did the minister get here before 5:45 p.m. when he did not leave until 4:30 p.m.? I want an explanation.
It must have been the fact that he had a helicopter sitting there. When he waved his wings as he went over me sitting on the Queen Elizabeth Way at Bronte, I was as mad as H. I do not know if the members realize what that means or not. I was so mad when I got here; the doors were locked, the vote had been taken, but I was glad to know my whip indicated that 30 members were in the Legislature and they did not really miss me. The member for Renfrew (Mr. Conway) is in China, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) had another engagement and they really did not miss me. But I was mad as H. I was really put out.
Mr. Stokes: Explain.
Hon. Mr. Walker: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member well knows the very last thing I said in my speech was that I would look after his getting back if only he would trust me. I was prepared to see that he got back in appropriate time. He said, "No, I have a car sitting out there."
Mr. G. I. Miller: I am an independent guy. I would rather fight than switch. I know the minister did indicate that. On the other hand, I do have to return to my riding and I needed that car. If I could have been assured that the helicopter was available in the morning or at 10:30 p.m., I would have taken up the offer. Considering the fact that jet is down in Texas --
Hon. Mr. Walker: You needed only to ask me.
9 p.m.
Mr. G. I. Miller: That jet is down in Texas at a cost of what -- $10,000?
An hon. member: A million dollars.
Mr. G. I. Miller: A million? My goodness! And what is the reason it is down in Texas?
Hon. Mr. Walker: I think it is being fitted out for hospital beds.
Mr. G. I. Miller: The bar or the hospital beds?
Anyway, we were pleased to have the new Minister of Industry and Trade come to our riding of Haldimand-Norfolk today. I think he took a tour of the industrial park at Stelco. He also stopped in Simcoe and Delhi, and we were happy to have the minister take a look at what the potential is in that part of Ontario. It is a great area. He really did not see it all.
The amazing thing is that the Minister of Industry and Trade found his wife at Canfield in Haldimand county. I think that is unique, because it is a great area. I know she has given the minister a lot of support and probably will in the future. Her name, as a matter of fact, is Hedley. I always thought those Hedleys were Liberals, but I am not sure. Most of them are. I do not know how they got turned around like that.
But I am getting off the subject just a little bit. Going back to May 1981, when the current Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) was the Minister of Industry and Tourism, the region asked for some financial assistance to develop the industrial park at Delhi but was turned down because it did not meet the criteria. As the minister found out today, 20 per cent of that park is already sold. It has been developed by the township of Delhi on its own without any incentive, and I think we have to be proud of --
Hon. Mr. Walker: I am impressed when I find people doing things without government assistance.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I agree with you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Roy: Then why is the minister supporting a government that is prepared to buy Suncor?
Hon. Mr. Walker: That is not assistance.
Mr. G. I. Miller: It just indicates to me, Mr. Speaker, that after 40 years of one particular government I really think we need some new ideas, a new approach. Rather than give out gifts we should get a return on our investment.
I think it came up very clearly again today as we looked at the unveiling or the sod-turning ceremony at the new administration building for the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. They are providing 11 per cent interest for that particular development on behalf of the region, which is fine. But as I indicated to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon, if that same 11 per cent were made available to the housing development people in the area I am sure they could move those houses. We do have many lots available. They have the water and sewers there, and we could get them off the ground.
I am straying a little bit from the bill.
Hon. Mr. Walker: But the local member does not like Townsend.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I did not say Townsend was not beneficial, but I am still concerned that we have a subdivision of 50 houses in Jarvis and we have not sold a house in four years.
Hon. Mr. Walker: I was referring to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).
Mr. G. I. Miller: Do not bother my colleague. He was busy today.
Hon. Mr. Walker: He represented the town that we were in at the moment.
Mr. G. I. Miller: We cannot be in two places at once.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister -- and we had the opportunity again this afternoon when he was in the region -- that the town of Dunnville is in dire straits. They have a local 25 per cent unemployment rate.
Hon. Mr. Walker: I met with the mayor.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I agree. I just wanted to bring it to your attention again and get it on the record.
Hon. Mr. Walker: You asked me to. I met with him and he was happy with my observations.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I appreciate that. I just want to get on the record in the Legislature this evening that we do have a problem in Dunnville with unemployment running at 25 per cent. We have a lot of potential in that particular area, and I would hope we can improve on that.
There is a lot of potential in that area. We have an old plant, Essex International, which provided wiring harness for the automobile trade and which closed down two years ago. We discussed it with the former minister and at the federal level and indicated there was a need to use that vacant plant. I hope through this ministry we can utilize that facility to provide the jobs that are so badly needed in that particular area.
Hon. Mr. Walker: I told them if we could help, we would.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Thank you.
I also think we have a lot of potential in Dunnville because of the Grand River, where they are trying to develop port facilities at the Grand River which would be suitable for the seaway system. It is proposed that this be developed by the Misener Management Ltd. and I would hope the minister would see fit to co-operate in that development.
Today the minister visited Stelco, where he had the opportunity to make a tour of that plant, even though it was a brief one. I might add that on February 9, 1982, they completed production of their first million tons of steel, which was cast on continuous slabs. I think he saw that the Lake Erie development of Stelco is a major development for the future of the steel industry in Ontario. It is a most modern plant and will make us very competitive.
They are now producing coke and will reach 522,000 tons per year, based on a 17-hour coking cycle. In addition, progress is being made with the new strip mill and by the second quarter of 1983 they will have it completed and in operation.
In the industrial park at Stelco there are now eight firms operating, so one can see we are developing that part of Ontario as an industrial area. It could very well be the industrial heartland of southern Ontario and of Canada in the next 25 to 50 years. The town of Townsend is going to be a great area and will provide a lot of jobs.
We have had calls in the last few weeks indicating that a lot of offshore help is being hired at that industrial park. I think that is something we should be concerned about at a time when we have so much unemployment in the area. The Minister of Industry and Trade should be concerned about it also. With unemployment running at approximately 10 per cent, we should express our concern, through his ministry, to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, that we make sure our young people have the opportunity for new jobs, rather than bringing people from offshore.
There are a couple of other things I would like to bring to the minister's attention that would provide jobs and work opportunities. Straza Tire has a pile of 10 million tires. We did not have a look at those today. They are not very far from where the minister was, just back of the Townsend town site. They are proposing to recycle these tires to be used in asphalt or in a form of recycling for new rubber.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Kerrio: Is that what they do with old Tories?
Mr. G. I. Miller: After 40 years we should recycle those Conservatives. It has not happened. Can we recycle them after 40 years? That goes back to Mitch Hepburn's day, does it not? Or was that Harry Nixon? I guess Harry Nixon was our last Premier.
Mr. Nixon: Good man.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Good man is right. There is a chip off the old block here who is really carrying on from where he left off.
I think these people have made a proposal to the minister to recycle these tires and they have the facilities to pick up those tires, recycle them and make them into a useful product. I think it is worthy of the support of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. As a matter of fact, we have had communications and I would hope the minister would take that into consideration.
The member for Lake Nipigon indicated he thinks that perhaps northern Ontario controls all the wood products, but I would like to point out to the minister that southern Ontario, particularly Norfolk county, has a lot of potential too.
Mr. Stokes: The climate is better; the soil is better.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Right. As the member for Lake Nipigon has indicated, and he makes a very true statement, we have the heat units, and we have good land. It is class 5 land. It grows things quickly. White pine will regenerate quickly. As a matter of fact, I do not know if I can recall his name or not, it was an old chap who runs a greenhouse in Simcoe who started replanting in the 1930s. They are harvesting a crop of white pine at this present time. One can see them going down the road. They can cut them for hydro poles, full length, full grown trees. He was credited with saving the class 5 land in Norfolk county for what it is today as class 1 tobacco land, class 1 peanut land and class 1 orchards. It is a fantastic area. We can grow anything down there.
I guess what I am really getting around to is the fact that Abbott and Townsend, who operate a sawmill at Langton, have made a pitch to the Minister of Industry and Trade and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) saying they would like to pre-farm our woodlots.
Pre-farming means coming in with a machine and taking out the growths. If there are three growths coming out of one clump they trim off two, leave the good one standing and in 75 or 80 years first-class timber is left. They take those trees and put them through a chipper and they use that chip. They would like to use it for heating greenhouses and in the steel mills. There is a tremendous market for it and in southern Ontario there is a tremendous potential.
I would like to see the minister take this into consideration to encourage and improve our woodlots so that we have first-class timber to saw 75 years from now.
This particular sawmill sawed up to three million feet in 1981. They can chip if they get the markets for it. They have a project planned to supply those chips to a local greenhouse at Courtland so they can heat the greenhouse by using those chips. I think there is a combination here that the minister should and could take into consideration.
A further thing is that the Ministry of Industry and Trade -- and this has not happened in Ontario -- should take the lead in selling farm products. Agriculture, as I pointed out to the minister a couple of times today, is the engine that makes the total economy in Ontario and Canada tick. I will give a couple of examples. We have come from 170 million tons of corn for export in 1980 to 750 million tons in 1981. That is an increase of 300 per cent, and we are marketing it on the world market.
The Minister of Industry and Trade could, when he is going around the world -- they have offices set up in many countries, as he knows better than I -- tie into our program and boost the sale of agricultural products through his ministry. I have felt very strongly about this in the past, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make this presentation to the minister tonight. I think we have a duplication of services. It is his responsibility. They just slough it off as belonging to one ministry --
Mr. Van Horne.: The short end of the stick.
Mr. G. I. Miller: The short end of the stick, but it is the engine that makes our economy go. When agriculture is down, and it has been down for two years now, the whole economy gets into trouble. That is really what is happening at the present time. One cannot eat the steel from the steel mills, one cannot eat the words of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), who is coming in here now. One can only eat the produce from the soil.
As the minister found out today, he was in one of the best sections of Ontario with the most versatility in agriculture. We can produce asparagus, which is just coming out of the ground; we can produce tomatoes, apples, cherries, strawberries --
Mr. Stokes: Tobacco.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I don't know that tobacco is a food.
An hon. member: Peanuts.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Peanuts -- there has to be lots more -- potatoes, lettuce, carrots, beets. Those are all the naturals.
The Deputy Speaker: We are close to the bill, I am sure.
Mr. G. I. Miller: The minister today has seen the Garden of Eden of Canada, of Ontario and of Langton. It is the Garden of Eden of Canada and can grow anything.
The minister was in Delhi, in tobacco country. Twenty-five miles away is Port Rowan, the heartland of tomatoes. The Mennonites have come in there in the last 20 years and developed the tomato cash crop farming, soybeans and corn. It would be a good idea to try to put some processing facilities into Port Rowan, because as well as processing what they grow there they need the job opportunities. It is a depressed area from the point of view of job opportunities, but we have a tremendous number of natural tourist attractions with Long Point and the parks. I think agriculture is the basis --
Mr. Di Santo: The private sector or public sector?
Mr. G. I. Miller: The private sector.
Mr. Nixon: Odoardo wants the government to take over the farms.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is not in his chair. Order.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Am I speaking to Odoardo or am I speaking to the Speaker? I am not a Socialist at heart.
Mr. Kerrio: Neither is Odoardo. He can come over here.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. G. I. Miller: He is welcome here any time. We would love it.
There is nothing like the individual getting a little incentive from the government, being given that assistance, because I do not think there are many labourers who would work 24 hours a day -- that is a little extreme, is it not?
Mr. Nixon: Or 25 hours.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Maybe 16 or 18 hours, when it is corn planting time or seeding or harvest time.
Mr. Nixon: Right now I hope Dorothy is out in the field.
Mr. G. I. Miller: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is misleading us a little bit. He is not that tough.
Mr. Philip: She is a lot more outstanding in her field than you are.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I think that is where the member was yesterday, planting his corn.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that why he is so quiet?
Hon. Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --
The Deputy Speaker: A point of order, thank goodness.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we are the enemy over here, not them.
The Deputy Speaker: Now, back to the bill. We are straying a little bit. Let us get the show under way.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Okay. I want to make it clear to the minister that if he really wanted to do the job on behalf of trade he could take on the responsibility of selling farm products in the export market, which is our biggest balance of trade. I think of the sale of wheat to China, one of the biggest sales we have ever made; we have the potential here in Ontario --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not to sell to China.
Mr. G. I. Miller: What is the Minister of Education saying?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not to grow wheat to sell to China.
Mr. Nixon: What have you got against the Chinese? Didn't you eat when you were over there?
Hon. Miss Stephenson: We do not have the potential in Ontario to grow wheat to sell to China.
Mr. G. I. Miller: We certainly do. I would argue with the Minister of Education. What is she talking about? She knows her field when it comes to doctoring, and I am not going to argue with her about education, but as far as growing wheat in Ontario is concerned we have a lot of potential that we have not even scratched yet. If the government would give us the incentive, we would grow it.
This year is a good example. Our production is down 50 per cent. I think that is ridiculous. When a government comes along and buys good farm land like South Cayuga, Pickering, Townsend and Edwardsburgh and takes it out of ownership, I do not know who the Socialists are. I really think they are over on the government side when they start buying 25 per cent of oil companies. And, as the leader of this party has indicated, they do not even do a good job of buying.
Mr. Philip: At least we wouldn't sell it when the price is down, which is what you would like to do.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Who said we would sell it?
Mr. Philip: You did. We are not dumb enough to sell when the market is down. You are the only guys who would play the stock market by buying at $10 and selling at $2.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Does the member for Ottawa East garden? I do.
The Deputy Minister: We have a point of order here.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the lovely speech made by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I think the interjections are interrupting him at a very crucial moment, when he is telling the minister what the new approach should be to southwestern Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: That is a valid point of order.
Mr. G. I. Miller: I do not think that was a very good point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make it clear to the Minister of Education that we can grow more wheat in Ontario than she says we cannot. She can run her ministry, but I tell her we can produce more wheat tomorrow than she can.
Mr. Roy: She says she has a garden, but I don't believe her.
Mr. G. I. Miller: All we have to do is have some goals and the farmers will produce it, but the Ministry of Industry and Trade should be able to give us a little hand to sell it. That is what I am saying. It is the responsibility of that particular ministry to get into that field. If it was a Liberal government sitting over there, I am sure we could do a much better job.
Again, after today I am sure that three years from now, with our leader coming on the way he is -- I listen carefully as I go out into my riding and he has been accepted very well -- I think the Conservative government should be concerned.
I did not notice the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing come in. When did he come in? Has he been here for a while?
I want to thank that minister for coming down to the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk today to turn the sod. He had a nice shiny shovel. I do not know if he is a farmer at heart or not, but I do not like the way he took hold of the handle, however he got the sod turned upside down. We got the project on the way and I think we are going to be proud of it in the years ahead. It is going to be beneficial to the area. I hate to admit that but I really think it is.
I want to make sure the minister is aware that there are a lot of other subdivisions that do have the water, the sewerage and could be utilized but he is not utilizing that. He is giving 11 per cent interest to the region of Haldimand-Norfolk to build an administration building. I think the same percentage should be given to the developers to get those guys off the hook and get those houses on the market so that our young people can have a home of their own and a part of the action.
In summing up, I would like to mention again the three areas that we have to look at. One is our industrial parks around Ontario. An example that the minister saw today is 600 acres in Haldimand county. Instead of looking for new areas we should develop those. We have the town of Townsend which can provide housing. We have subdivisions in Jarvis, Port Dover, Simcoe, Caledonia and Dunnville. I think we have to utilize those before we start looking for new fields.
We have to provide jobs so that the young people can buy those homes. We do have the potential to do that with Stelco and the industrial park and the land there. There are other areas in Ontario -- Parry Sound for instance, which has 900 acres of industrial land. We had the opportunity of looking at that three or four years ago when there were only one or two industries there. It had beautiful service. It had water and sewerage there. I do not know why we do not try to harness that.
It is the responsibility of the minister to make sure that those jobs are created and that land is utilized. I know he is trying but I think we, as the official opposition, are trying to prod him to utilize that resource that we have in Ontario, to utilize the land that we have in Ontario so that we can get a better return on our investment and the people can pay their taxes, which are so badly needed, provide the employment and give our young people a share of the action.
That is really what it is all about so far as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk is concerned, that our young people get a handle on the action so we can resolve a lot of problems. With those comments, I would like to bring those matters to the attention of the minister and, hopefully, he will act on them.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I was most pleased to listen to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. He pointed out to the Minister of Industry and Trade a very serious problem, the problem that we are facing in Ontario in the industrial sector; that is, the total lack of planning on the part of the government.
That is what my friend said to the minister. We have resources and land, but we have no planning at all. I think this is consistent with the philosophy of the minister, who in personal terms is a very pleasant person but politically and economically is probably the most dogmatic person on the other side of the House. Perhaps he is even more dogmatic than the Minister of Education, who is very difficult to beat when it comes to taking extreme positions in an area such as the one today when we were discussing the problem of teaching third languages in the schools.
9:30 p.m.
The minister has been consistent since he was elected to the House. In 1975, when he went down to defeat in London, we were faced with an economic situation very similar to that of today. At that time the minister thought the government had lost because it had moved too far to the left. I suppose the minister did not understand then, as he still does not understand, that the world is changing. The reality is changing. We are no longer in the 18th century, and Adam Smith has long passed away. We are now going towards the year 2000. We are faced with a totally different economic reality around us.
The minister wants to apply to today's situation the same prescriptions that were applied in the last century to the first industrial revolution. He will be disappointed, but what is even more serious and more pathetic is that as a result of the lack of action by this government, the people of Ontario will suffer.
We know today we are faced with a very serious and critical situation. Our economy is going through the worst possible crisis. But it is not a cyclical crisis like those of the past. We have seen many crises in the past decade. We are not in a sluggish situation that most likely will be overcome in the short term, with a new boom emerging again. We are faced with a very serious structural crisis in the industry that is the base of our economic system, namely, the manufacturing sector.
Every analyst agrees that the crisis in the automobile industry in the manufacturing sector today is so serious that it threatens the survival of this country as an industrialized nation. It was already so in 1978 when the Science Council of Canada published a very interesting analysis, The Weakest Link, in which it explained chapter and verse the situation of our economy and our manufacturing sector and the future we were faced with. Despite the analysis, despite the countless reports we have been faced with, this government has never reacted or, rather, it has reacted with ad hoc, patch-up solutions.
Last year, before the elections, everybody was talking about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program: "With the BILD program, we will tackle the problems of our industry. We will create a focus for the industrial development of Ontario." After one year, what are we faced with? Plant shutdowns and layoffs, with more layoffs to come.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections and continue, please.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, if the minister interjects, I would rather understand what he says because, if it is relevant, I would like to reply.
The BILD program was part of an electoral ploy. We understand that. It was part of the triumphant return to power of the Tories. To go from that to talking about creating the basics for restructuring industry in Ontario, there is an immense gulf that not even the rhetoric of the minister can fill.
This government is so inadequate in understanding what is happening to the economy of this province that if we consider for a moment the statement made by the minister when he introduced this bill creating the Ministry of Industry and Trade, which is one of the key ministries in the economic field, it is at least shallow and absolutely irrelevant for the future action of the government vis-à-vis the problems we are faced with.
I wonder whether the minister, having said it is not the government's role to create jobs, can ever explain in simple terms what that really means. He does not understand that to create jobs today does not mean physically to take a person and give him a job to do, but to create what is called the climate for business to prosper. That is the way to create jobs.
Hon. Mr. Walker: You are absolutely right.
Mr. Di Santo: Of course I am correct. I am always correct.
Hon. Mr. Walker: This is the first time you have been supporting the Tory party.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I might question that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Downs- view will continue, please.
Mr. Di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You will certainly notice that the Minister of Education took my statement seriously, because that is the way she speaks. I do not have her absolute certainty; I said I am right, but with a sense of humour.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I said I might question that.
Mr. McClellan: The Minister of Education is infallible.
Mr. Stokes: The member for Downsview was only wrong once, and on that occasion he thought he was wrong and he wasn't.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: He wouldn't know the difference
Mr. Di Santo: The Minister of Industry and Trade says the role of the government is to continue to create a healthy environment for the private sector. I do not think anyone disputes that. That is a gratuitous statement, because when the members speak for the government, they speak to their parochial and closed-minded constituency.
It is very effective to speak to a service club in London about the beauty of the private sector and how the enemies are at the door, and about how the Socialist hordes are threatening the health of the private sector, even though it has been noticed that with his party's cynical and pragmatic approach, the Tories have been able to do what not even the old Socialists would do in the wrong way, such as in the case of Suncor. The minister, of course, has to resort to rhetoric and say that they are for the private sector and will create healthy conditions for the private sector to develop.
9:40 p.m.
What is the program of this ministry? The minister says the role of the ministry is the expansion of trade, encouraging investment opportunities and strengthening the competitiveness of the Ontario industrial base. That is it. We are faced with a major crisis in the automobile industry but the minister wants to do nothing in that area.
We have a $5-billion deficit in the auto parts industry. In his own home town there are people who have been laid off, but the minister does not want to do anything in that area. We have branch plants that have been closed down all over Ontario, but the minister does not intend to do anything there either.
The minister makes only pious assertions that the ministry will encourage investment opportunities. What does that mean? It is almost irresponsible in the present situation, where we have 575,000 unemployed, to come in with a new ministry, supposedly aimed at strengthening the industrial sector of the province, with no new ideas at all.
There are the usual statements about the development of technology and small business, such as that small business creates 40 per cent of the jobs in the province; everybody knows that --
Mr. Kerrio: It is more than 40 per cent.
Mr. Di Santo: I thank the member for Niagara Falls, but I am quoting the statement made by the Minister of Industry and Trade. He said it was 40 per cent.
We know that small business creates 40 per cent of the jobs. What the minister does not say is that bankruptcies among small business went up by 37 per cent last year thanks to the policies of this government, high interest rates and this government's lack of fiscal support for so many years.
It is easy to go around the province talking to groups of small businessmen, who are for the most part uninformed, to tell them that if things are tough, it is because of the people sitting here who are fighting against free enterprise. But when we come to where the real responsibility lies, all of us know that Tories have been the government for 40 years. If we do not have healthy policies for small business in Ontario, it is the responsibility of the government.
Mr. Speaker, you come from Peterborough, a city which in the past few years has witnessed a serious decline in the manufacturing sector. How many of your constituents came to you asking if you could help them to get a grant or a loan from the Ontario Development Corp.? From my limited experience, I know that those who go to ODC do not find a friendly ear or someone there to help them. They are subjected to third-degree questioning. If they go once, they will not return.
We know that the Ontario Development Corp. is not even a corporation to help small businesses but is a bank of last resort. This government, unlike governments all over the world, even in South Korea and Taiwan, does not have a policy of seriously and in concrete terms encouraging people who want to set up a small business; or if they have a small business and want to develop it, they do not have a real policy of incentives. They have this bank of last resort, which is, as I said, out of bounds especially to those who are not recommended by their protectors in the Conservative Party. If that is convenient in the short run for political or electoral reasons, it is certainly detrimental to the economy of this province.
For many years, we in the New Democratic Party have been concerned with small business because we believe that in the economy of a modern industrialized nation, small business plays a very important role. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small businesses in Canada have created 86 per cent of all the jobs. Even in the United States, in a study done by Senator Kennedy and a Senate committee, it came out very clearly that large corporations created an incredibly smaller number of jobs than small businesses.
We believe that small business is crucial in the life and the economy of a modern nation, and we think it should be encouraged. But this government is not doing anything about interest rates. Every day we see this government passing the buck to the federal government because they always think in parochial, concrete and electoral terms. They want to protect themselves and insulate themselves from the rage of the voters. That is why it is very expedient for them to attack the federal government and accuse them of not doing anything. But we know very well that if the provincial government intended to help small business with interest rates, they could set policies that are aimed at doing so.
The objection the government would raise, and it was raised by some people in the media the other day when the leader of my party presented our prebudget position, would be that if we gave money to small businesses, if we invested in the automobile industry and in the food industry, then the deficit of the province would double.
That is pure nonsense. We know very well -- and the people on the government benches, the ministers, probably do not know, but the boys in the back room certainly know -- that there is a basic difference between nonproductive spending and productive investment. They probably made a colossal mistake when they bought Suncor. I do not know whether they were ill-advised or whether they made a mistaken value judgement, but they certainly know that when they bought Suncor and spent $650 million they had to borrow the money, and, of course, in the books this shows as a deficit. But that is an investment decision; it is not the pure cost, and for them to hide themselves behind the excuse of the doubling of the deficit is pure nonsense.
If we look at the statistics, and even if we look at the present deficits in Ontario and in Canada, we will see that Canada has one of the lowest deficits in the world. In fact, from the latest statistics of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, it becomes very clear that while Canada has 0.2 per cent deficit of the gross national product, the United States have 0.17 per cent deficit of the gross national product.
9:50 p.m.
If we were to increase our deficit in unproductive spending, then I could concur with the government, but we know very well if we are talking of a policy in support of small business, we are talking in terms of investment, of infusing money in a sector that will produce revenue in return -- revenues not only for the government but in incomes and wealth that will become part of the gross provincial product. We do not make any apology for having made that decision because we do think that is the only way.
The Minister of Industry and Trade is a latecomer to Reaganomics, but he should understand that south of the border Reagan and his advisers are much smarter than this government. In fact, they are revising their supply-side policy, because in the last year and five months it has failed so blatantly that now they are turning by 180 degrees.
Mr. Philip: That is because they will be turfed out in the fall whereas these guys have another three years to wait.
Mr. Di Santo: My friend the member for Etobicoke says they have three more years to wait and that is true.
It is also true that the problems we are facing in Ontario are not cyclical problems but structural problems. It is the structure of our industries which has been eroded to the point that if we do not take immediate measures, we will not be in a position to reverse the situation and it would be very unfortunate if we ended up, as the Science Council of Canada said, as an underdeveloped country.
This is not a totally unreal projection of a future that we cannot foresee, because there are countries that went through exactly the same pattern as we are going through.
If we look at Argentina, which is not one of the most popular countries at this time, in the first 30 years of this century it was certainly one of the most advanced countries in the world. What happened in Argentina and in other countries in South America was that they chose the same pattern: exploitation of the natural resources, export of the natural resources and imported manufactured goods.
Where are they now? They are among the most underdeveloped, the poorest countries in the world. Certainly we do not want that to happen to Ontario and I am sure the government does not want it to happen to Ontario. The fact is, though, the government does not understand the plight in which we find ourselves and keeps insisting on various policies that are bringing more and more problems to the people of Ontario.
Last year in Canada we lost 235,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector during the few months from August to December. I wonder how many of those jobs were lost here in Ontario. Many of those were lost here in Ontario because Ontario is the hub of the manufacturing sector in Canada. One would have expected that a government faced with this situation would try to implement some policies to reverse the situation. There is nothing at all.
We in the New Democratic Party have been speaking about this problem year after year. It is not a position we take as a party. It is not a partisan position even though the Tories like to go to their audiences and blame us for all that is wrong in the world. I suppose the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) tells his constituents it is because of the New Democratic Party that Massey-Ferguson and White are in trouble.
Just last week, the Conference Board of Canada made probably the 100th analysis of Canada's economic situation and made projections for next year. It said that for the third year, Ontario will be the last province in industrial growth in Canada. It is the third year this province is growing more slowly in the manufacturing sector than any other province. Next year the growth will actually be negative, which means our industrial potential will produce less than in 1981.
The minister is giving us the old prediction, "Let us leave it with the price tag, and everything will be okay." Mr. Speaker, you know better than I that we are going through a very deep and serious recession, probably the most serious since you were first elected, but probably even more serious than --
Mr. Samis: There have been some big layoffs; Outboard Marine.
Mr. Di Santo: My colleague the member for Cornwall reminds me that, when you were elected in 1971, your own riding was a flourishing one; Outboard Marine --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to ask you not to direct your remarks to my riding or to me personally.
Mr. Di Santo: Thank you for calling that to my attention, Mr. Speaker. I did not mean to refer to your riding. I said that like the riding of Peterborough, many other ridings were really flourishing.
Mr. Speaker: They still are, I can assure you.
Mr. Di Santo: The economy of Ontario was really flourishing because there was a boom in the province. Now we are faced with a very deep and serious recession.
Which nations in the world are overcoming the recession? Apart from Japan, which is probably the most vital economy in the western world, the only other nation which is overcoming the recession is France, where there is a Socialist government which is an alternative to the Tories. It is the only nation where the recession is being overcome.
10 p.m.
Mr. Kerrio: Is that a Socialist government in Japan?
Mr. Di Santo: In a minute I will come to the member for Niagara Falls because I want to explain to him that one of the provisions of Bill 38 is that we relax the Foreign Investment Review Agency regulations. I want to tell the honourable member who interjected -- I will not name him -- that Japan has one the best performance records in exports, and not only in the export of cars.
The predecessor of the present Minister of Industry and Trade, the then Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), went to Japan. He must have noticed -- and perhaps the minister can ask him -- that although it is not a Socialist government, it has a public presence in the economy to the point that a great deal of export is done through export corporations which are publicly supported.
It is something the minister should perhaps consider, because I do not know what role the government will have in the expansion of trade. If he looks at Japan, apart from the productivity and efficiency of the industry, one of the factors that makes that economy so vital and vibrant -- not the vibrant centre that the leader of the Liberal Party was talking about, but the vibrant economy -- is the very strong public support for exports.
I came to talk about the role of the government because, as I said, in his statement the minister made the ritual reference to the small business and the virtues of the small business, a factor that this government has neglected for so many years. One may ask why it is that so many small businessmen do not see that they do not have a friendly government. If they have flourished it has been because of the general conditions of the economy, not because they have had a responsible government that was providing them with policies adequate for them to develop and flourish. I find that hard to understand myself.
If I were a small businessman and I were treated the way this government treats the small businessman fiscally, vis-à-vis incentives or vis-à-vis legislation to help him sell his products on the domestic market or outside Canada, I would be very resentful of this government. But that does not prevent the minister from saying in the publications of the small businessmen, "Business has a friend in me."
This is one of the scandals of our time, but it is probably acceptable in Ontario in 1982. I do not know if it will be acceptable in 1985. Certainly today it is accepted without criticism.
Mr. Speaker, let me move now to what I think is the most serious problem in the economy of this province and why this government is proving once again that it is inadequate to handle the very serious problems we should deal with.
The amendment that my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) introduced provides the following: to increase the degree of Canadian ownership of Ontario industry and to provide for the use of crown corporations and joint ventures and to develop key sectors of the Ontario economy where imports dominate.
My colleagues certainly remember that there was a very fierce attack on the Foreign Investment Review Agency in the throne speech. That is the devil of the year 1982 for the Tories in Ontario. When the Premier was down in the United States speaking to the Boston Chamber of Commerce, he found an enemy -- FIRA. If it was not for FIRA, one could come up to Canada, invest, become wealthy and maximize profits in the private sector.
Mr. McClellan: You mean they want to emasculate FIRA.
Hon. Mr. Walker: No, streamline.
Mr. Di Santo: The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) does not believe in the public sector interfering with private enterprise but then he is convinced that Suncor is --
Mr. Kerrio: He voted for Suncor today. What a contribution.
Mr. Di Santo: Exactly, thank you. Then he votes for Suncor.
The Minister of Industry and Trade says, and I quote from a speech, "I must say I do not see the government role as job creator." Then what is Suncor doing? It is destroying jobs. Why did the minister vote for Suncor? I think he should give some explanation.
This government is convinced that if we relax or if we streamline the FIRA regulations then everything will be okay. Let me tell the minister, if he really thinks that FIRA is the reason for our problems, then probably many people who are not Socialists, with a real concern for the Canadian economy, did not understand anything or were acting in bad faith.
We know there is a definite pattern in the Conservative Party, both federal and provincial. It does not matter which; they have the same philosophy. They want to streamline FIRA; they want to emasculate the public sector. They want to give the wealth of this nation to their friends, to private capital.
In 1978 Mel Hurtig, who is a respected publisher, published a book in which he explained that between 1950 and 1970, if there had not been any foreign investments in Canada, we would have been only six months behind. Today, I think there is consensus among the economists of the nation that many of our problems are the result of the foreign ownership of our economy. I know the minister does not agree, but if he does not agree he should explain to this assembly and the people of Ontario how it is that plant after plant is shut down in Ontario and the decisions are never made in Canada.
10:10 p.m.
We all remember what happened to Bendix, a plant in Windsor. For many years it operated in that community. There was only one year it did not show a profit, but then the recession came and an order came from the parent company to shut the plant down in two weeks. The plant was shut down and the workers were sent home. That was the end of it.
If the minister does not agree, perhaps he should explain what happened at the SKF plant in Scarborough, which had been operating at a profit for many years. At some point, because the parent company had decided to rationalize -- that is the buzzword, "rationalize" -- on a world scale, what happened? It decided to shut down the plant in Canada. It could not shut down the plants in Europe or in other countries. Why? Because Canada is a country where it is easy to shut down a plant. There is no legislation to protect the Canadian workers.
Mr. Philip: SKF did not shut down its Swedish plant.
Mr. Brandt: They do not shut them down in Europe?
Mr. Philip: Not the way they shut them down here.
Mr. Di Santo: I am glad the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) woke up all at once and interjected because, of course, they shut them down all over the world. We are talking of something different. We had a select committee to study plant shutdowns and layoffs. The honourable member would be well advised to read the report of the select committee because he would realize that --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview has the floor.
Mr. Kerrio: He has had it for too long. When is he going to give up the floor?
Mr. Di Santo: If the member would listen carefully, I would advise him to go back to his office and read the report on plant shutdowns and layoffs. Then he would realize that plants are shut down all over the world when economic conditions are difficult, when there is technological change that does not allow production to be kept going under certain circumstances. That is part of economic life. Of course, we agree with that. But perhaps he would learn that in each nation there are laws in place that protect certain types of production, that protect certain jobs for national and security interests, that protect the industrial sectors that are important to a nation.
Interjection.
Mr. Di Santo: The member does not want to listen, Mr. Speaker.
For instance, we know right now that the textile industry, or the shoe industry, is in jeopardy in Canada, because we are faced with very tough competition from other countries where costs are lower and productivity is higher. We cannot compete on the world market. But we protect our textile industry, even if it is what the economists call a mature industry. We protect that industry.
There are countries which have stiff legislation on plant shutdowns. When foreign investment takes place, there are tough guidelines explaining what type of content the production should have, what the sourcing should be and what type of relationship should exist between the parent and the branch company. In case of a shutdown, they have to justify the economic condition and the productivity of the company. If the conditions, both economic and social, are justifiable, the shutdown is authorized.
In West Germany, for instance, before shutting down a plant they have to go to the government of the land concerned. A "land" is the equivalent of a province. If they do not have the approval of the government, they will not shut down; but not in Canada, not in Ontario.
Last year, we had innumerable plants shut down. In Rexdale, in the riding represented by my friend the member for Etobicoke, Aylmer shut down without giving notice. Hundreds of workers have been laid off indefinitely. According to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, 21,565 workers in the province were affected by permanent or indefinite layoffs last year. An indefinite layoff is a loss of employment for 13 weeks or more.
Of those 21,565 jobs, 47 per cent were laid off by US branch plants. That is an incredibly high number of people laid off by branch plants. Why? It is because in Canada there is no protection whatsoever. An employer can give notice on a Friday and the next Monday all the workers affected stay at home.
I want to give an example to prove that if there is political determination and the right policies are in place some consequences and some hardship can be avoided for the most vulnerable workers, especially in the fringe industries but also in those industries which are going through a structural crisis such as the automobile industry.
Last year in Canada, we witnessed thousands of people laid off. Even recently in Oshawa, 1,700 people were laid off all at once without a long notice. The automobile industry is in a crisis, not only in North America but in every other country except Japan. Even giants like Volkswagen have had to rationalize their production because competition is becoming tough and the price of gasoline is taking such a high toll that people tend to use the automobile less. In North America there was a substantial reduction last year. In Europe, and all over the world, sales went down. In North America we witnessed mass layoffs, both in the United States and Canada, without any prior discussion with the workers. It was a decision made in Detroit that affected thousands of our workers.
10:20 p.m.
However, in Europe they took a different approach. They did not use anything like the work sharing they are using in Canada, which is a Band-Aid, short-term proposal that will not solve any problem. They sat down with representatives of the workers and worked out an agreement to place workers with greatest seniority on early retirement and accommodate younger workers on a shorter work week. There were actually European companies that did not have layoffs at all.
That was not the case in Canada. In Canada, we witnessed decisions which created massive layoffs. Our study referred to the automobile industry but the results also apply to Bendix, SKF and thousands of other industries. Because there is no legislation in Canada, it is easier here than in any other place in the world to shut down a plant without the employer suffering any consequences.
We have also seen examples where there is such confusion between the federal and provincial governments that industries are moving from one part of the country to another and actually receiving grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or from the provincial government. They create innumerable problems in the local communities, which in many cases invested valuable capital in order to create what the minister calls the "climate" for the industry to locate in a community. There were dislocations. We know how many communities have been very hard hit by a plant shutting down and moving elsewhere.
The main reason we are faced with this situation is the development of a branch plant economy in our province, which has been encouraged by the government. Faithful to their pragmatic and electoral-oriented approach, the government has always encouraged small branch plants coming into Ontario because they created jobs for a few years and helped the government to get re-elected. But in the long run they do not benefit the economy of Ontario.
Even the minister, who is dogmatic but is certainly a bright person, will agree it has been amply demonstrated that the only reason for multinational and American companies to locate in Ontario and in Canada is to maximize profits. If the minister --
Mr. Philip: How many jobs were created by Aylmer Foods and other plants when they pulled out?
Hon Mr. Walker: How many jobs are created when industries come in here?
Mr. Philip: You guys are traitors. In another century you would have been shot.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview has the floor.
Mr. Di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very kind of you.
I think the minister has a very developed sense of humour. I am sure he does not really think multinational corporations come to Canada to create jobs but, if he does, either he is dreaming --
Hon. Mr. Walker: When they come, they do create jobs.
Mr. Di Santo: When they come; if he thinks they come to create jobs, either the minister dreams or he does not understand the situation. Since the minister is intelligent, I think he is being jocular, because we all know what happened last year when the federal government introduced the national energy program. All the big multinationals just left Canada.
They did not say, "We want to stay in Canada to create jobs for Canada." They said, "We want to move our rigs down to Texas because the conditions are more profitable there." That is understandable and part of business. They are in the business of making money. They are not in the business of creating jobs.
If the minister really thinks, because he actually said it, that it is the role of the multinational corporations to create jobs but not the role of the government, then he is totally mistaken. I have respect for the minister and I know he does not believe that.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Tell me which company doesn't try to maximize profits.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ignore the interjections and carry on.
Mr. Di Santo: I am a little bit tired, Mr. Speaker. I think we all agree that every company tries to maximize profits.
Hon. Mr. Walker: That's the nature of business. That's what it is all about. Where have you been?
Mr. Di Santo: That is just why they are in business: they want to maximize profits. We understand that. For the same reason, if I can make a very simple, elementary deduction, if all companies are in business because they want to maximize profits, the multinational companies are in the business of maximizing profits and that is the reason they come to Canada. It is as simple as that. We all agree --
Mr. Chariton: That's also the reason they leave.
Mr. Di Santo: Exactly. My friend the member for Hamilton Mountain said, "That's also the reason they leave." That is where this government is delinquent; it does not do anything to protect the jobs of Canadian workers who are threatened by the decisions made by multinational corporations which are in their own interest and not in the interests of the workers of Ontario.
If the minister agrees with this elementary deduction, then I think we are on the right track. If he agrees with this simple proposition, I am absolutely positive he will vote for the reasoned amendment introduced by my friend the member for Algoma. If that happens, the minister will prove that he is on the road to Damascus and finally he has seen the light.
I hope he replies because, as I said, it is very elementary, simple and logical. If he agrees with this, I think we can start discussing how to rebuild the industry of this province. Otherwise, we keep fighting against a wall and against a government that does not want to understand this important reality.
On motion by Mr. Di Santo, the debate was adjourned.
10:30 p.m.
HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM
Mr. Speaker: It being 10:30 of the clock, and pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Downsview has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) concerning language rights. I point out to the member that he has up to five minutes.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, while we were discussing the bill to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade, I said the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) is dogmatic, but he is certainly not as dogmatic as the Minister of Education, who is not here.
I asked the Minister of Education why it is that today and yesterday she took a predetermined position against the decision made by the Toronto Board of Education, which accepted a report that will do two things: (1) integrate the teaching of third languages into the curriculum of the elementary schools, and (2) provide that third languages can be used, where numbers warrant, as languages of instruction.
The Minister of Education, in an interview in which she made an unprecedented and very grave statement, said the decision by the board of education would balkanize the school system in the province. I was offended by the minister's statement, because we know that in past years when we asked the minister to apply pressure to the boards of education to accept the stated policy of the government to introduce heritage language classes the minister always said, "I cannot intervene, because that is interference with the autonomy of the local board."
When she does not like the decision made by the Toronto Board of Education, without having seen the report, she says: "I am against it. I will not authorize the courses. I will not change the Education Act. I will not introduce amendments." This is very serious, because it is a very grave interference in the autonomy of the local boards. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Board of Education made this decision last week after a very exhaustive discussion involving the intervention of hundreds of people from the community, people who spoke in favour of or against the proposal.
I believe this proposal will not balkanize the school system in Ontario; on the contrary, it will have one positive result: it will give those children who belong to ethnic groups the dignity they deserve as members of and equal partners in this society. We know the same programs are used in the Metropolitan Separate School Board of Toronto; thousands of children take classes in five languages, and there is no problem there.
I believe, and I am sure you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that learning a new language is not a negative factor, because the more we increase our knowledge the better we are and the more we contribute to the welfare of our society.
The same programs have been introduced in Alberta, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba by the former Conservative government. In Alberta there is a Ukrainian school from grades 1 to 13. There are no problems there. There is no balkanization. The children of Ukrainian or other ethnic backgrounds feel proud of themselves, and they are certainly better Canadians.
One of the excuses used is that there are already so many problems for the children, for the students who go to university, but that is an excuse, and I think history will make nonsense of it.
Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure we could have general consent from the members who are present in the House to give the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) the opportunity, as the only Tory in the House, to respond to my friend the member for Downsview.
Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Boudria: It's a good point.
Mr. Speaker: It is a point of interest perhaps.
The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.