Journal des débats 1982-avril-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Monday last, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), as a result of questions I raised, made a statement. In the statement regarding Rothsay Concentrates Co. Ltd., he said:

"In his remarks the other day the member referred to 72 orders being issued against the company. Last Friday, April 2, the ministry conducted a follow-up inspection, which was actually a second and third follow-up inspection. I understand that all but one order issued January 26, 1982, have been complied with. The one outstanding order will be complied with by April 14."

I have a copy of the inspection report made by the inspector, Mr. Addley, who by the way was the gentleman who refused to go in and do the original inspection. In that report it notes that only 19 out of the 72 items were looked at. When Mr. Wierts of the health and safety committee of the union requested that they look at the other 53 items the union had complained about and the union had written the ministry about, because the company maintained they made those repairs and we question whether they did, the health and safety committee was not allowed to look into the other 53 items but only the 19 which the company said were still outstanding.

The complaints have been written out and were sent to the assistant deputy minister, Dr. Ann Robinson, on March 23, but there still has been no response that the 53 situations have been rectified. We were told yesterday, when the union brought this matter to the health and safety committee, that the company simply told the union to deal directly with the ministry.

We have a statement from the minister which purports to see all these inspections done. We now know that some of the violations, such as those regarding eyewashers, and some of the various complaints with respect to lighting and so on have still not been rectified.

In preparing to take my seat, having made this point, I can tell the minister that yet another violation has occurred and that there has been another accident. Subsection 26(1) of the act states the company must advise his director and the health and safety committee within four days, but 16 days went by and the company did not want to make that report. I think the minister must look into this situation carefully.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, is it permissible for me to ask the honourable member the date of that report?

Mr. Martel: It was signed April 2.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Prior to April 2, I had asked for another follow-up inspection to be reported. I asked for that personally and for the information to be reported to me. At this time I can only say the information given to me indicated that all but one of the orders had been complied with and that the one outstanding order would be complied with by April 14. Obviously, in the light of what the honourable member has brought forward today, I will have to investigate that further and I will do so.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1983, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, April 8, 1982.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, later today I shall be introducing a bill to be called the Education Amendment Act, 1982. This bill is essentially the same as that which was introduced last fall. There are, however, some important additions or changes to the original bill.

One important subject is the matter of trustee remuneration. As a result of a recent study on the role of the trustee, it is proposed that trustee remuneration be determined locally, with the outgoing school board determining the amount of remuneration for members or trustees of the incoming board. This legislation would become effective commencing with the school boards elected in 1982.

An important component of this bill, which was also in the bill introduced in the last session, is the provision respecting visa students. It is proposed that school boards be required to charge gross fees when admitting pupils who are in Canada as visitors or on student visas. These fees would not apply to pupils participating in certain education exchange programs or pupils enrolled prior to July 1, 1982.

Certain amendments are in keeping with policy changes implemented at the federal level in the last few years. At present, school boards are authorized to enter into agreement only with the crown in right of Canada for the education of Indian pupils. Amendments included in this act will permit boards to enter into agreements directly with Indian bands.

In addition, there are proposals of an administrative nature in the Education Amendment Act. Included is a new provision which will enable boards that provide basic literacy and numeracy programs for adults to do so not only by providing such programs directly but also through agreements with colleges of applied arts and technology. In addition, several provisions pertaining to the elected members of language advisory committees are clarified.

There are some changes to the minister's powers to make regulations. Provision is made for the minister to delegate powers and duties.

Finally, the bill contains several amendments to provide for the term of office of school board members and trustees to be for the same period of time as that of municipal councils.

I believe this will be an important bill, and I believe all members of the Legislature should support it.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, who is no doubt aware of the alarming unemployment statistics that came out for March. He is no doubt aware that 25,000 more citizens of Ontario are out of work than there were last month, bringing the total now to 398,000 unemployed in the province, 183,000 of those being young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and the rate now being 17.3 per cent.

When is he going to put a halt to this crisis? When is he going to act?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am concerned about those figures, Mr. Speaker. There are, I am told, 1,000 more employed people in the work force at the end of this month than there were a month ago. It is a very small change, but at least it is positive. I firmly believe that the relatively large job attrition that has occurred over the past four months has bottomed out.

Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have been awaiting clarification of the November budget. I understand my colleague Mr. MacEachen is now in the process of having a series of consultative processes or meetings across Canada. I am told he is about to make changes in that budget. I have been very anxious to find out whether he really is, because I would like to see my budget complementary to his, rather than in isolation.

Mr. Peterson: That is a very feeble response. The reality is that, with seasonal adjustment, there are 8,000 fewer people employed this month, and in actual terms the number of unemployed is up 25,000 this month.

I want to remind the minister of what he said to this House on March 12, 1982. He said, "It is my opinion that we are at the very bottom at the moment and that, from here on, the total growth will be quite commendable across the year."

The Treasurer is losing his credibility. Why does he not do something now at least to try to regain some of the credibility he is losing with irresponsible statements like that and his failure to act?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I just pointed out that since that point there has been a slight increase in the actual number of employed. I hope I was right; I wish I knew I was right.

The fact remains that I am well along in my budget process. I hope to be announcing a date for the budget some time early next week so that the members will know when it will come. Then I will be doing what I can.

But I have to stress again that since so many of the ways and means motions tabled by the federal government -- I think there are 163 of them in total -- are in limbo with all kinds of comments about actions that were in the budget not going forward, it is making it somewhat difficult for me and, I suspect, for other provincial treasurers, like my colleague in Quebec, to know --

Mr. Peterson: A lot of those budgets are in already. Why don't you bring in one? They've all got ideas and programs. Where are yours?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is happily telling us that there are more people employed in Ontario than previously. He should tell that to the people at Great Lakes Paper in Thunder Bay, 1,150 of whom are receiving layoff notices for a three-week period coming up in a few days.

Is the minister not aware that he has the responsibility in this province to take action to create jobs? Why does he not bring in his budget as early as possible? Waiting for the federal government is a forlorn hope. What happened to the statement he made on the very first working day of this session, March 11? He said then, "I will be ready quite quickly with my budget, because most of the work is done." Let us get on with the job. Let us create jobs here in Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that a question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure that was a question, Mr. Speaker. It was a statement from a member who comes back very well tanned from some foreign shores.

Mr. Foulds: At least it wasn't bought with government money or a ministerial trip abroad.

Mr. Speaker: I think he asked whether the minister was aware.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It reminds me, yesterday we were asked to think up mottoes for the member's party.

Mr. Foulds: Just answer the question. Never mind the cheap shots.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You're looking up at the press gallery to see whether they heard your new tone of anger -- something new in your party. For the last month you have been sitting there tranquilly, sunning in Antigua, enjoying yourself, worrying about the unemployed in Canada --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: He is so cute. The Treasurer has failed to mention that at this time there are 68,000 more people unemployed than there were a year ago and some 32,000 fewer jobs than were available a year ago.

A number of other provinces have taken specific action to create jobs. Is the Treasurer's only strategy to blame Mr. MacEachen or the federal government? Why does he not take his leadership from some of the other provinces that are doing things to create jobs and protect people at this time of crisis?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition knows quite well that my budget not only will be a balancing of the books but also will take steps within whatever fiscal room I have this year to help generate jobs.

I am being particularly careful. I am assessing what is perhaps the most difficult budget for me to bring forward, at least in the four I have tried to bring forward. It is not because of political risks, because we are a long way from an election. It is an extremely difficult time to assess what will work in Ontario and not run counter to that which is happening elsewhere. Budgets in Canada, the United States or Ontario work better when thrusts are at least somewhat related.

Mr. Peterson: Let me tell the Treasurer that if he does not have any fiscal room, it is entirely of his own creation because of some of the ridiculous expenditures he makes. That is why he has no fiscal room. He does not spend money in the places it should be spent.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Treasurer about the youth employment program. He is no doubt aware that a couple of weeks ago the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) brought down a program announcing that $23.4 million would be spent on the Ontario youth employment program to create 41,000 summer jobs. What he does not mention is that a year ago the program was at the $30-million level and created 56,000 jobs. Why is the Treasurer cutting $6.6 million and 15,000 jobs from this program when those jobs are so desperately needed today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition touched upon some of the statistics. There is no question that the highest unemployment rate is in the 15-to-24 age range. I believe he read some of the figures into the record today.

It is also interesting to note the time of year when the highest unemployment exists for that category; it exists not in the summertime but in spring, fall and winter. There are changes in the patterns of employment. As the Ontario youth employment program was designed, it really assisted students in the work force.

The great unemployment problem now is the youths who are more or less permanently in the work force. The minister responsible for the youth employment package has been looking at those problems. In the process, the allocation for OYEP was reduced. But OYEP remains much more open-ended than most programs, because we have always accepted a much higher number of job applications than the original budget allocation would provide for, simply because there is a great deal of attrition.

The honourable member might ask the ministers responsible whether they expect the same kind of overrun this year that they had last year.

Mr. Peterson: It is the Treasurer who makes the budgetary allocations; and in addition to those cutbacks of 15,000 jobs or so, he has cut 1,200 jobs out of the Experience '82 program. How can he sit here and try to justify that?

He knows that roughly a million young people, including the students as well as other people in the work force, will be looking for work this summer, and from that allocation he has cut 16,200 jobs. How can he possibly consider this to be a responsible position in these circumstances?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has the responsibility for the envelope as such. The member will find that the overall envelope is greater in total dollars than it was last year, as my recollection goes. What they are trying to do is adjust to the young people in the work force through programs such as the Ontario career action program and others that provide other than summer employment.

The point I was trying to make is that the money put in OYEP as the allocation, unlike many government spending programs, is not necessarily the final amount spent. It depends entirely upon the demand each year for that program. The demand dictates the spending, rather than a predetermined, fixed budgetary amount.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Treasurer is committing the government to a major job creation program that will deal with the changes he identifies in the unemployment problem; that is, in the spring and fall? Is he committing his government to a major effort to provide jobs in those areas, or is he not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member hears any program, I am sure he will say it is not major enough. I am sure he will find that we are attempting to address what are structural changes, or whatever one wishes to call them, in the profiles of unemployed younger people, and we are trying to rectify those problems.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Treasurer is underemployed, if not unemployed, because he has not come up with anything so far. Recently, the Quebec government announced $100 million in job creation incentives. Given their budgetary problems, they see that as their top priority. Where is this government in this ball game? What is it going to do in a concrete way to provide jobs in Ontario, either through the private sector with incentives or within the public sector?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, when we were going through my estimates we talked about the one program the opposition always pooh-poohs, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. There are a lot of questions about the numbers of jobs created. The numbers of jobs created are being quantified more and more as time goes on, and one will find that they are considerable.

Mr. Peterson: What are they?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure you would have to ask.

Mr. Peterson: How do you know what they are?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Because we are able to sit back. My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) recently concluded what I think is a good agreement with the feds. The member talks about fed-bashing all the time. I believe it is much better for the federal government to put up some money from unemployment insurance, and for us to put up some new money and get people back to work who otherwise sit at home and draw perhaps 50, 60 or 70 per cent of the money they earned at work.

I think about $10 million went into forest improvement programs through the minister in the last month. I am told he is negotiating with other federal ministers, trying to improve upon that approach. We are all encouraging our ministries to look for ways of working with the federal government to provide at least short-term jobs at this time of high unemployment.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of his self-congratulatory speech on Saturday on what a wonderful job the government was doing about affirmative action, I wonder whether he was aware of an internal government report prepared by the Civil Service Commission, entitled, Summary of Staff Development in the Ontario Public Service, 1979-80 and 1980-81, which directly contradicts his exaggerated claims. Perhaps that speech stimulated someone to send us that document in a brown paper envelope.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that document.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister inform himself of this document and become aware that the report indicates that the amount spent per person on staff development training in the civil service is almost twice per male what it is for female employees; that males not only are allocated 73 per cent of the total money but also get 68 per cent of the total days off and almost 70 per cent of all managerial, technical, and professional training?

Does the minister not think that is totally inadequate, in terms of what he claims to be a good affirmative action program, when female employees are at least 41 per cent of the civil service?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be delighted to read that report. I assure the honourable member that I will do it immediately and with considerable interest.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is ascertaining the contents of this report, will he also find out whether it was produced as a result of statistics that were illustrated by this party during consideration of his estimates in the last session? He is quite aware that for every dollar spent on training for a woman within the ministry there are two dollars spent for every man.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that too.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this report exists and the facts mentioned by my deputy leader, what are the minister's plans for bringing in effective affirmative action? When is he going to make some changes, and what is he planning to do?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to read that report before I respond.

Mr. Foulds: I ask the minister to have his speech writers made aware of those reports.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Labour, and it has to do with the apparent subversion of the severance pay legislation of the province.

Is the minister aware of the situation at Great Lakes Forgings and GL Processing in Windsor whereby the workers are losing at least $80,000 in vacation pay and at least $100,000 in lost wages?

At a meeting of the union and the company on February 12 a lawyer for the company, a Mr. Jeffrey Slopen, said: "We lock you out because if we laid you off we would have an obligation by law. We don't have any obligation with a lockout."

Has the senior mediator who was present at that meeting, Mr. Romain Verheyen, reported this information to the minister, and what steps will he take to remedy the situation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the circumstances by my staff, and we are investigating the matter further at this time.

Mr. Foulds: How long are this government and this ministry going to allow the loopholes to continue in the severance pay legislation we passed in this House? Through these loopholes, companies like Great Lakes Forgings can subvert the legislation so that fewer than five per cent of the workers who lost their jobs in this province last year received severance pay.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I hope to be able to introduce some measures before this session is over to address some of the concerns the honourable member is raising.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is reviewing the severance pay legislation and finding how few people are eligible to receive severance pay, as the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party points out, will he once again look into the level of employment needed to qualify for severance pay?

Specifically, will he respond to a situation at Crown Electrical Manufacturing Ltd. in Brantford, which will be closing in mid-May, throwing 26 workers on the streets? Two of those workers have more than 40 years of experience but they will not qualify for severance pay because there are not enough workers at the plant.

Will the minister review the minimum number of 50 now needed, and will he bring in amendments to reduce this number so that workers at small plants have the same rights as workers in larger plants when those plants close?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I readily agree that the problem is no less severe for an employee with a company of fewer than 50 employees than it is for an employee with a company of more than 50 employees. It is a very serious, wrenching problem. However, I understand the figure of 50 came out of the report of the plant closures committee and was the figure that was recommended at that time by the committee.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on June 30, 1981, the Ontario Supreme Court rendered a decision that found the Canadian National Railway liable for payment of $633,000 to Great Lakes Forgings. Would the minister investigate whether this money is still available and, if so, see that vacation and severance pay is paid to those workers who would have received it if this company had not attempted to subvert the legislation'?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable request and I will follow it up.

FOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister is aware of the accelerating practice of major chain stores to join forces for the creation of buying groups to extract higher discounts and allowances from food suppliers.

The minister may also be aware that the power of the major chains in this province continues to increase at the expense of independents and that last year their share of grocery sales in Ontario went to 75.1 per cent of the market compared to 71.9 per cent in 1977 and 26 per cent in the United States, a country that still believes in free enterprise and competition, both of which have to go hand in hand.

Is the minister concerned about this rapid concentration of power and the effect it will have on higher food prices and declining competition? Will he introduce, or ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to introduce, an amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Act which will prohibit unfair trade practices in the marketing of farm products in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member knows full well that the issue of mergers of corporations that might create purchasing patterns that would be to the detriment of small retail outlets, processors and producers is something everyone has to be concerned about.

There was a royal commission on that particular issue and the member knows very well that the commissioner found the discounting practices were indeed producing benefits that were being passed on to consumers. He also knows the commissioner recommended that only very unusual circumstances would justify re-examining the issue at all.

Loblaws and Provigo in Quebec have such a merger in place that presumably improved their market position and without doubt passed on savings to the customer. We cannot help but reflect, as the commissioner did, that there was good evidence the savings were passed on to customers. Nevertheless, I still cannot disagree with the member that one has to have some serious concerns about mergers that may bring long-term problems as opposed to short-term benefits to consumers.

I do not want to pass the buck, but the issue of competition and combines is a federal issue, and in this federal state we live in the division of power has made it so for reasons that were deemed appropriate. I have already written to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa asking him to review these events in the light of that legislation.

The member also made a comparison between market share in the United States and in Canada. We cannot abstract those figures arbitrarily without recognizing that our situation is different from theirs. The geography and population distribution of each country are entirely different and it may well be that logic requires rationalizations within the industry that are different from what may occur in the United States. I think the member has to take that into account.

Mr. Riddell: I am very interested to get the minister's comments on that royal commission report. I attended some of the hearings and it was certainly not driven home to me that the consumers were benefiting from these unfair trading practices on the part of the major chain stores.

It is not good enough to pass the buck to Ottawa, because it was under section 95 of the British North America Act that we were able to establish the Farm Products Marketing Act in this province. We do have jurisdiction over some of these trading practices and we can rectify them through legislation.

Is the minister aware of the list of inquiries that have been established in the past by this government to address the concerns of food suppliers and independent retailers about the unfair trade practices as they occurred and recurred? Is the minister aware that we had an inquiry into matters relating to the sale and distribution of fruits and vegetables in Ontario in 1969, we had the inquiry on wholesale and retail pricing practices for fluid milk in Ontario in 1977, we had the report of the standing committee on resources development to examine discounting practices in 1978, and finally we had the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario in 1980?

How many more inquiries is it going to take to convince the minister and his government that they simply have to act now to prohibit price discrimination in the marketing of food in this province so that we may still have some independent retailers and some independent suppliers when this is all over with?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did not think I indicated any lack of interest in the problem in my answer. I indicated where the jurisdiction lies. The Minister of Agriculture and Food may well want to look at it under the exemption given to marketing boards.

It is interesting that the member should recount the number of inquiries there have been. I would only say to him that is perhaps why Commissioner Leach said: "No more inquiries. We have had enough." I find that in general the discounting practices have not produced anything detrimental to the farmer and to the consumer. In spite of all that -- and let us talk person to person -- I think one still has to have concerns about mergers such as this, which may have long-term detrimental effects on small retail outlets in particular, on the producers and the processors, and, in the long run, on consumers.

I have already met with the Consumers' Association of Canada to get its views. I am meeting with some of the food producers next week or the week after. I have written to the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs outlining my view that he should have this problem reviewed by the combines branch. I would like to reaffirm that it is not a matter of my disinterest in this problem.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the Leach report he is leaning on so heavily this afternoon is perhaps the most discredited document that has been brought to this government in recent years? It was laughed out of the house by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which asked the government not to receive the report at all. Since he is leaning on the Leach report, will the minister table in the House any information he has from the report or elsewhere to indicate that the savings the supermarkets make by exacting these large discounts are passed on to the consumer? Where is that information? Nobody has it. It seems to be only in the minister's mind and in Judge Leach's mind.

May I suggest to the minister, instead of passing the buck to Ottawa on the question of concentration -- admittedly that is a long-term problem and it is Ottawa's -- that he take action now, either along the lines taken in the United States or along the lines suggested by the member for Huron-Middlesex, by some form of unfair business practices legislation that will eliminate this practice here, which makes the big get bigger and victimizes everybody in the process?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to table the commissioner's report for the benefit of the Legislature. Each member will have received a copy of it and they have access to any documentation or evidence that was presented before the commission. Just so the facts are known, I would like to point out that these questions are being asked in a province that probably has the most competitive food prices of any province in Canada, and I suspect the member knows that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am interested that it is the member's opinion that the Leach commission was useless. I think everyone should take note of the member's view, but he should not say it so blandly and grandly as if all the world understands that. That is the member's opinion.

2:40 p.m.

INCO LAYOFFS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

May I make the heroic assumption that the provincial secretary is aware of the announced job reduction of over 850 jobs at Inco Ltd. in Sudbury and that, following that announced layoff or job reduction, meetings were held between the company, the union, the regional municipality, MPs and MPPs from that area?

As a result of those meetings some specific commitments were made by this government to provide funding and to provide 50 jobs in a research project at Creighton mine and 30 jobs in the tailings area. Up to this point no money at all has been forthcoming from this government. Can the provincial secretary tell us why the government has not lived up to its promise to provide that funding?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources is in Washington today. I will be glad to refer that question to him and he can answer it next week.

Mr. Laughren: When he is talking to the minister, would the provincial secretary ask him not only why he has failed to provide funding for jobs that was supposed to be shared jointly with the federal government, but also has failed in some specific obligations he personally undertook; for example, to spend money on the recapping and fencing of abandoned mine sites and also to look after the problem of improved on the job training? The Minister of Natural Resources himself specifically promised.

Does the provincial secretary not understand there are workers in Sudbury who have received their layoff notices who would like to make up their minds on whether they will have future jobs in the Sudbury area or whether they are going to have to leave town and go on unemployment insurance? Does he not understand the urgency of this problem? Would the provincial secretary get on the telephone to the minister so we can have an immediate reply, because he is not living up to a very firm commitment he made?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I can assure the member the Minister of Natural Resources of this province is a man we are all very proud of and if he made a promise he will live up to it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I know it is probably unfair to ask the minister this but I will anyway. A few years ago, one of his predecessors promised us a committee on one-industry towns which was supposed to be chaired by the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). That cabinet committee seems to have dissolved and in place of it supposedly there was a group of civil servants set up to deal with one-industry towns and the problems my friend has alluded to.

Can the minister tell us the present status of that committee? Has he had a report from it and, if so, will he make it available to the House?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, that committee is in place. I have not had a report since I became provincial secretary but I will have the opportunity of speaking to them. I can assure the member that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the provincial secretary who was ahead of me were involved any time there were planned shutdowns in single-industry towns.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is well aware the residents of the Junction triangle area have been complaining for over a decade about pollution problems. In spite of the ministry's assurances that airborne emissions from industries in the area are acceptable, my own survey indicates there are not only complaints of odours from air emissions but also complaints of odours from the sewer system.

Since the minister's officials now believe the incident on Tuesday was caused by the illegal dumping of large quantities of vinyl acetate in the sewer system, would the minister conduct a public inquiry into the environmental practices of all industries in the Junction triangle area?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct some misunderstanding on the part of the honourable member shown in the preamble to his question. He indicated it was his understanding that officials in my ministry had concluded the recent incident was the result of major illegal dumping of vinyl acetate. I do not believe we are yet able to state categorically that is the case.

The investigation is continuing into the possibility of leaks having occurred. Also, the special investigation unit of my ministry has been involved and is now conducting an investigation into other possibilities.

Furthermore, it has not yet been possible to conclusively state that the chemical involved is vinyl acetate, although the member is correct in saying that is what is suspected. It is probably the most likely possibility.

I want to assure the member that I have not foreclosed any possibilities in terms of follow-up on this incident and the other matters to which he has referred, that have from time to time resulted in complaints from residents of that community.

I do think it is too early to determine whether what he has referred to as an inquiry would be the appropriate way in which to proceed. In fact, what is under way right now is a very thorough investigation by not only the inspectors from my ministry but also the special investigation unit. I think I ought not to determine what the most appropriate course of action would be until I have the full results of that investigation.

Mr. Ruprecht: If the minister is not able to determine after two days what this spill is all about, and he tells us that he does not know where it came from, I will take the liberty of saying that would indicate to me at least that his ministry is not capable of analysing that kind of spill.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the supplementary.

Mr. Ruprecht: Let me ask the other question. The minister has probably read my question of Tuesday to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) on the fact --

An hon. member: We cannot hear the member.

Mr. Ruprecht: I know the minister can hear me. He will have to tell his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: We can hear the member quite well.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister has probably read my statement and my questions about the spills bill. It has not yet been proclaimed in spite of the fact that it received third reading 28 months ago. We know that a copy of the draft of regulations to the --

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Ruprecht: -- bill has been in the possession of one of the minister's solicitors since Monday. When will these draft regulations come before the standing committee on resources development for consideration so that in the future companies responsible for illegal chemical spills will be prosecuted and fined heavily, rather than merely being slapped on the wrist? Does the minister not think the time has finally come to act?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I realize the abortive question that did not quite get completed invites at least a brief response.

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The suggestion that because approximately two days have passed since we became aware of the problem to which the member is referring in the Junction triangle area somehow shows a lack of competence and capacity on the part of the staff of my ministry to deal with the situation only reflects the total lack of understanding on the part of the member of the complexity of these kinds of problems in our society.

We have had people on site from the very beginning. It is true one of the things that has made it rather difficult up to now -- and tests are still going on -- to determine for certain whether it was vinyl acetate is because we were first notified by the fire department, and when our staff arrived on the scene shortly thereafter the fire department had already flushed the sewers. As a result, samples were very difficult to come by. That has been a bit of a problem in terms of making a firm identification of the chemical, but it is not because of any lack of competence or response capacity on the part of the ministry.

As I understand, the spills regulations are to be returned to the staff of my ministry today and a meeting between them and the legislative counsel has been arranged. If I am not mistaken, I think the meeting is scheduled for this evening.

2:50 p.m.

In terms of the time that has been required, I think it is important that members also understand that what we are embarking on here is really something which is breaking new ground. What we are doing in our spills regulations will be standing for years to come, I suspect, as a model for other jurisdictions. It is not a matter of simply taking a precedent from other jurisdictions and copying it, because we are breaking new ground. We are setting the precedents. That does take more time than simply plagiarizing.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, we were expecting a statement which the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development suggested the minister would be making on the spill here today. Will the minister assure us we will get a full statement in the House next week on this issue?

Will he assure us that some very important questions that were raised here on Tuesday will be answered, such as how it happened that a combustible chemical got access to the sewer system in the first place? Will he also look into the matter of why it was felt necessary to evacuate the Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant yesterday, but there appeared to be no consideration of an evacuation of the citizens in the area where the spill was first discovered?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was away at a funeral on Tuesday when that question was asked. I had not realized anyone had made a specific commitment for a statement. I certainly have responded to the questions. I shall make a commitment to the members of this House to keep them fully informed, as I have always done and will continue to do.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). It is regarding mental health services for children, specifically in the Windsor area.

Is the minister aware that the waiting lists for care at the regional children's centre in Windsor are as follows: 150 children waiting for care for neuropsychology face an average wait of 12 months; 50 children waiting for psychology assistance and treatment will wait six to seven months; there are several referrals in terms of social work assistance from doctors, and 47 of them will be waiting for four to five months?

Does the minister think that is just? Does she think that is good medical care for children? What is she going to do about it? Specifically, what is she going to do for Jay Ashley, who is a three-year-old child living at 1165 Jefferson in Windsor? He needs speech therapy and is going to have to wait one year for services from that regional centre covered by the Ontario health insurance plan. What kind of medical care is that for children in Windsor?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no, I was not aware of those specific figures the member has indicated are prevalent in Windsor. I do not agree that is good mental health care for children who are in need of specialized care, if it is true.

I will be consulting with the minister responsible, who indicated in this House earlier that the funding for children's mental health centres has been greatly increased. I will be asking him to advise the member on the specifics about the case he has brought to our attention.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, since these waiting lists have been getting longer but have been a problem for a considerable period of time, will the minister also make herself aware of the fact that because this family care so much about their child they have enlisted a private speech therapist at $25 per half hour, and since that is not covered by OHIP it will cost them $1,000 per year while they are waiting for insured services?

Is this what the minister and her government consider equitable treatment and access to our health care system, and is she proud of that system?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, no, I do not believe that should be happening and I will bring it to the attention of the minister.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the provincial secretary also check with the minister why there has been a satellite regional centre approved and on the books in the Leamington area near Windsor for eight and a half years, and why the director of the only community residence equipped to deal with emotionally disturbed female adolescents said yesterday that he turns away 15 to 20 girls a year who are "at risk of imminent danger, suicidal, capable of uncontrollable violence, dangerous to themselves or others"? He also estimated that 20 girls ran away from the same institution last year because they did not have proper supervision. Is this the kind of mental health care this government is providing for our young people?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of mental health care we are providing for the people of this province.

Ms. Copps: It was a quote directly from the director yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As I recall, there have been other quotes from that particular member which have not proved to be factual. I think we will check those facts first.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health how he condones the sale of the Barnwell Nursing Home in Ridgetown, the licence of which is under a cloud? It is commonly known that the beds sell for at least $10,000 each. With simple interest of 18.5 per cent, on an annual cost that adds just a few cents over $5 per day to the carrying costs of a bed. That is about 14 per cent of the total daily fee of $34 per bed.

How can the minister condone a system that rewards operators who fail to upgrade the facilities -- and this happens many times in Ontario -- then put the operating profits in their pockets and sell the licences and the homes at huge capital gains? The minister then punishes the residents of the home, in this case those in the Barnwell home, by forcing them to move 35 kilometres to another centre. How can the minister condone that system?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty with the concept that we are punishing residents of nursing homes where an operator does not meet ministry standards by requiring them to move into a nursing home that does meet proper standards. I would consider it would be punishing them to have a situation where we allowed them to stay in a nursing home where we felt the standards were not good enough.

If we do not take this kind of action there could be tragedy and, in the event there is something less than tragedy, there would at least be circumstances continuing in that nursing home and others we have taken action on which I would find intolerable.

It is understandably less convenient for some people who are visiting the residents of those nursing homes to have to travel the extra 23 kilometres to another nursing home. I understand that, but ultimately I have to weigh that against leaving them in a place we feel is inadequate. I would much rather have them travel the extra 23 kilometres, knowing their relatives are being well looked after, safely looked after and well treated, than have them travel a shorter distance to inadequate facilities. I am comfortable with that situation.

Mr. McGuigan: I would agree with the last part of the minister's answer, that they are better off in a proper facility. Why can he not withdraw that licence because obviously, in his own words, they do not deserve the licence; take it back and let someone else have the opportunity to bid on the licence and put it up in the community so the people could be in their own community and have a good facility at a saving of $5 a day to the government? That cost is being capitalized in the operation of the home that is now being moved to another community.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I know the member is aware, my friend the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) has brought this to my attention and has asked that a group of concerned citizens come in to see me with regard to the very points the member has raised.

There is some validity to that point, as the member for Chatham-Kent has pointed out. Therefore, I have agreed to meet with that group, consider all the ramifications and alternatives of this particular move and have a careful look at the transaction. That will be done when my friend the member for Chatham-Kent brings in his delegation.

3 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, and he is aware that I have communicated with him on this matter, when he is transferring a licence to a new buyer of a nursing home is that not just a natural consequence of a nursing home system that is privately owned and run for profit rather than for care of the elderly? In this particular case, since the building does not meet the nursing home regulation, what he has done effectively is sold the beds to the owner, not the building.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) pointed out, part of this involves a mechanism whereby the nursing homes' capital costs are, in part, looked after by the per diem and, in a longer term, looked after under the terms in which the right to provide services to patients is sold or transferred. Whether that is a satisfactory system or not I must admit to the member for Windsor-Riverside it gives me some trouble. Whether there is a better system, a simpler system, or a more equitable system that has not only a better appearance to it but a better sense of equity to it, I do not know. But it is something which, I admit readily, concerns me.

In terms of the current situation, I see no alternative but to let those who have gone in in good faith, operated by and large, without specific reference to any nursing home, a fairly good nursing home, have the right to recover part of their operating costs and equity by virtue of the system that is now in place.

I am quite open to any suggestions or alternatives to the present system which may speak better to the question of the right to treat patients. As to whether we are in something which has an appearance which is unfortunate and uncalled for, as I say I have no magic answer to that; I admit that the system troubles me.

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade who is a signatory to the report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism.

In view of the statement made by his predecessor on March 2, 1981, justifying the provincial government's $2 million loan and $3 million loan guarantee as part of the federal-provincial package of guarantees to White Farm Equipment division, which reads, in part, "this financial assistance will allow the company to come into Canadian hands"; and also in view of the commitment, so called, in the throne speech to the buy back Canadian program, how can the minister justify the stance he is taking with regard to the negotiations on White Farm?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We had two real concerns in respect to the White Farm matter. I wanted to make sure that we had a viable, long-term package that would continue there in terms of an employer in the Brantford area, to make sure that 750 employees returned to work. When the decision is one of whether 750 employees get back to work or stay out on the bricks, it is a very easy decision to make. I think the member would make it the same way.

Mr. Wildman: Instead of taking the position the minister is now taking, why is he not implementing the recommendation of the select committee's report specifically empowering the Ontario Development Corporation to secure acquisitions of foreign enterprises to gain control for Ontario and Canadian owners? Why is he not implementing that? He signed and supported it. When is he going to bring it in?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think it is extremely important that we ensure --

Mr. Martel: Who signed it? Did the minister not sign that?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am not sure if I signed the document.

Mr. Martel: Yes. I looked today. I made sure.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I probably put in a legally continuing dissent. If I did not, I probably should have. Whatever the case, I would say that the Ontario Development Corporation or, for that matter the province, has a sufficient stake at the moment in this particular company with some $2 million in terms of direct grants and $3 million in loans and guarantees of loans and additional guarantees as well.

Given that, and given the federal participation, I think the province and the federal government have a significant level. I do not think what the honourable member is suggesting -- some form of nationalization -- is warranted.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, does it not concern the minister that the American shareholder was the individual who vetoed the offer of a $20 million federal loan that would have tided them over their present difficulties and kept the more than 700 employees working? It is the same individual who, after vetoing the offer of federal assistance, is now making the offer the minister feels he cannot refuse. How can he justify that situation and why should he act unilaterally before his federal colleague rather than in concert with him? That is the way the activity was carried out a year ago when both Massey-Ferguson and White were in such terrible difficulty.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three points to make. We had this discussion the other day and I think the honourable Liberal member is wrong in his assumption that a veto can be made. My information is that a veto could not have been made by the American because he is the minority shareholder of the company, albeit by one share. The company is the one that rejected the loan offer. The company, therefore, must have rejected it on the basis of a vote of the shareholders, and the majority of the shareholders are Canadians -- by one vote. Maybe there should be a little bit more reading done on the honourable member's part. He will find out that, technically, the veto could not have been accomplished.

That being the case, it must have been a rejection by the Canadian shareholder because a Canadian had the majority of the shares. It was the company that communicated the message that the company had rejected the proposal that had been submitted some time ago in terms of a loan. That is the one thing to keep in mind.

Mr. Nixon: But that is not right. You are the minister and you are misinformed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: This is the information I have. Is the member trying to tell me now there is a reversal of the ownership roles? I do not think that is so.

Mr. Nixon: You are the one who had it mixed up. You said it was 50-50.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I did not have it mixed up at all.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is extremely important the minister in charge of this government policy that is going to permit, if he has his way, the sellout of this Canadian interest to an American firm, should surely be careful the information he gives the House is correct. It should not just be his surmise. He indicated to the House before he thought it was a 50-50 ownership --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect that is not a point of order. It is up to the minister to be responsible for whatever he says.

BUDGET

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. As the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is now preparing his budget for the fiscal year 1982-83, is the Premier considering any changes in government policy as it relates to government revenue increases through taxation by regulations rather than by legislative approval?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the import of the question. I am sure the honourable member will be aware when the Treasurer's budget comes in exactly what financial matters will be contemplated. If he waits patiently until then that answer will become obvious.

Mr. Haggerty: I am not surprised by the Premier's answer to my question and I suppose I should have used "order in council." However there are already suggestions that there will be increases in motor vehicle taxes. The precedent was established last year in the Treasurer's budget and in actions by this government in purchasing Suncor. Somebody has to pay for it, and it is done by regulation or order in council. I suggest that when the minister brings the budget forward we do not have a heavy expenditure similar to last year's with the Suncor purchase.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member knows there are some occasions when we adjust park fees and so on by order in council or changing regulations. I do not recall any significant alteration in revenue policy that is not contained in the budget.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding Irwin Toy Ltd. on Hanna Avenue, a favourite company of ours, and the use of methyl ethyl ketone. Is the minister aware the workers now draw daily supplies of this MEK, as it is called, from the company paint room as it is needed for thinning the glues? Is the minister aware that there is no exhaust system around the work tables and that there is no exhaust ventilation system in the plant itself to remove the fumes? Is the minister further aware that no protective clothing and gloves or face masks are provided and consequently the women there are suffering from eye irritation, sore throats, skin burns, dizziness and nausea? Will he send someone in to investigate immediately?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on one occasion I had discussed the problems at Irwin Toy Ltd. with the member's colleague, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). In fact I sent him over a note before question period today to state that I wanted to talk to him at that time about the circumstances at Irwin Toy Ltd.

Mr. Martel: It is a different plant.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I did not realize that. No, I am not aware of the particular circumstances the member is describing.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Riddell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last week I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food a question about the length of time it is taking to process the applications for the farm adjustment assistance program. After the minister gave his answer and it was reported in the news media, I was informed by the bank managers that the minister was terribly misinformed, and that it was taking as much as eight weeks and more to process these applications because they had to go to the regional bank which was --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Riddell: Why isn't it? He misinformed the House. He inadvertently misinformed the House because of the bad information he is getting.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of privilege. The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the honourable member has seen fit for whatever reason to try to impugn my integrity, if he will check the record, I said I had been advised, and I have been advised several times since, that it takes approximately two weeks from the time the application leaves the local case committee to the time a decision is rendered at the head office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Riddell: That is not right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect --

Mr. Riddell: The bank managers tell me that is not right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is developing into a debate. I am sure you have both made your positions clear.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a bill in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following is the title of the act to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 8, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981.

PETITION

GOVERNMENT JET

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people that reads:

"We, the people of Ontario, strongly protest the purchase of a fourth executive aircraft at a price of $10.6 million. We hereby petition the Premier to sell this jet, using the savings for essential social services or day care spaces or to maintain quality health care or to create jobs or for interest relief for mortgages."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman, 1981, being sessional paper 309 tabled December 14, 1981, be revived and placed on the Order Paper for further debate.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Riddell moved, seconded by Mr. McGuigan, first reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit unfair practices in the marketing of farm products in Ontario. These unfair practices include the arrangement of price advantages in the form of rebates, discounts or allowances between some sellers of a farm product and some buyers of the farm product to the exclusion of other buyers and sellers of the same product. The effect of these practices is to create hardship for the buyers and sellers who are excluded from these arrangements and will eventually reduce the level of competition in the market for the farm product.

Provision is made in the bill for orders for compliance, assurances of voluntary compliance and enforcement of orders and insurances.

I would like to say that the reason there is still free enterprise and competition in the food industry in the United States is because the American government saw fit to pass the Robinson-Patman Act which prohibited unfair trading practices. We are trying to do exactly that with this bill.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ruston moved, seconded by Mr. G. I. Miller, first reading of Bill 48, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ruston: The explanatory note for this bill is rather brief, as is the bill.

The bill provides for a deduction of $100 from a member's indemnity for each day of absence from the assembly while it is in session unless the absence is because of illness, pregnancy, childbirth or official business.

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: If you would bring the House to order, Mr. Speaker?

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I was going to suggest the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) please control themselves.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 49, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the scope of section 40(a) of the Employment Standards Act to incorporate all employees with at least one year's seniority whose employment is terminated as a result of the permanent discontinuance or reduction of all or part of the employer's business. As we all know, at present the severance pay kicks in only if 50 or more employees are involved and only after five years' service. Given the comments made earlier today by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), if the Liberals will support us this time maybe we can do something with this particular legislation.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACTS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I will be introducing a package of 10 bills dealing with the Landlord and Tenant Act and rent review. Rather than give an explanation after each bill, I simply indicate to you now that these bills are endorsed by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations and they would go a long way to improving tenants' rights in this province.

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, first reading of Bill 50, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the honourable member would give consideration, provided we can get the unanimous consent of the House, to introducing all his remaining bills at the same time?

Mr. Philip: If that is possible, it will save an awful lot of time.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, first reading of Bills 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, each entitled An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motions agreed to.

Mr. Philip: I think I have given my brief explanation. If anyone wants to know any more about the bills he can read my press release, which is in the gallery.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT JET

Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, resolution 11:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should sell the Canadian Challenger 600 business jet aircraft whose purchase was announced on August 11, 1981, in view of the fact that the Premier and cabinet ministers already have suitable and more economic means of travel, that with a $1.466 billion provincial deficit, funds would have to be borrowed at the rate of at least 15 per cent to cover the cost of the purchase, that the cost of fuel, storage, pilots and maintenance would be far in excess of that for alternative forms of air travel and that this aircraft would be unable to land at many Ontario airports, and in view of the fact that the expenditure of $10.6 million for the purchase and ancillary expenditures resulting would be better used to assist the people of Ontario who are confronted with the burdens of unemployment, inflation and excessive taxation.

Mr. Speaker: Before the honourable member proceeds, I would like to advise him that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of that time for his windup if he so desires.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue in the private members' hour because I feel that at a time when Ontario is faced with great economic difficulties, and when a number of people in my own constituency and other constituencies across this province are suffering considerable hardship, this stands out as an example of extravagance on the part of the government of Ontario.

It does little to help people, such as laid-off auto workers, financially strapped senior citizens, struggling farmers, the desperate single parent or perhaps the forgotten psychiatric patient, in the many municipalities across this province.

It does, however, provide for the Premier, the cabinet ministers and senior government officials what they would consider to be an efficient, comfortable and convenient manner of travelling.

This afternoon, I do not seek to deny cabinet ministers and senior government officials the opportunity to have the use of transportation modes which, in 1982, are accepted as being necessary for their travel. I do not in any way want to restrict the travel of cabinet ministers who at the present time have the use of aircraft available to the government, or who want to use commercial airlines or charter aircraft to go from one area to another. I recognize the importance of time to senior officials and cabinet ministers and, most particularly, to the Premier.

Even though I often kid my friend, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), the chief government whip, about the limousine available for his use, I am not standing in the House this afternoon to condemn the use of those vehicles for cabinet ministers. In fact, they are available for the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party. Again, I recognize that cabinet ministers must work while they are travelling. They must have the lamp and the phone; those are not unnecessary luxuries.

I recognize that ministers have to be in the House for question period, they have to be prepared for question period and for various speaking engagements. I also recognize that sometimes their days are very long and they do not get a chance for much sleep and by having a driver and a car available to them they perhaps have that opportunity to get the rest which is very much needed.

I know also that on occasion some tragedies have occurred because this service has not been available. I think we all recall the case of the former leader of the Social Credit party in Quebec, who died in a car accident in that province. We know of other busy, public people who have had the misfortune to be involved in vehicle accidents because they did not have the use of a government limousine.

As long as the use of these vehicles is appropriate and is not abused, I have no objection to that or to the mode of travel the cabinet ministers have at present. I do, however, object to the purchase of a luxurious, well-appointed executive jet for the comfort and convenience of the Premier, his cabinet and senior officials at the expense of hard-pressed taxpayers in this province.

3:30 p.m.

I object to the misuse of those kinds of funds in any political jurisdiction. I heard on the news, and through coverage of the federal question period, that three federal cabinet ministers had used three separate aircraft to go to Winnipeg, I think it was, on the same day. I do not know the individual circumstances of that, but on the surface that is an abuse of a privilege that is available to cabinet ministers. I condemn that at the federal level if it exists there.

I noticed that in Quebec the Premier had to tame some of his cabinet ministers who had special privileges. Their vehicles had television sets or something of that nature; they were well appointed. Then there were their travel plans and preparations. I condemn that also.

In Ontario, we have a chance to set a good example rather than to follow a bad example. That is what I am calling upon the government of Ontario to do today when I call upon it to sell the newly purchased executive jet.

From the beginning, this has had a rather unfortunate connotation. The announcement of the purchase of the jet was made, I will not say secretly but very quietly. The Premier was at a conference on the west coast -- as far away from Ontario, I suppose, as one could be and still be in Canada -- when this was announced.

The cabinet apparently approved the purchase at its July 22 meeting. The contract was signed some time around August 1 but the announcement was not made until August 11. The $10.6-million price tag was not included in the press release or in the memo given to the person who composed that press release. There was no mention of the completion work to be done in Texas in that release.

This is in contrast to the usual fanfare that surrounds any government announcement, which includes a dinner at the local Tory establishment and the minister coming in and making a big announcement. That was not done in this case. It was instead done very quietly.

Perhaps the memories of unfortunate circumstances in the past with the use of government airplanes by cabinet ministers were in the minds of the government ministers at that time. Perhaps they did not want to be tagged -- unfairly, they would feel -- with this kind of connotation once again.

Interestingly enough, my attempt to get information in November as to the legal status of the government's commitment to purchase was greeted with the suggestion that if a member were interested in this information, he should ask the minister directly since this material was not in the public domain. That was a request for information about whether the government actually was committed legally to make the purchase. It was a request made of an official in the Ministry of Natural Resources. That was the reply I got at that time. I thought it was a little on the secretive side.

Looking at it in terms of cost and interest, the purchase price was $10.6 million, which is a considerable sum for an aircraft even in the year 1982, and I guess the interest that will be paid will be at least 15 per cent in the context of this particular year. I think 15 per cent would probably be a modest estimate.

The yearly cost in interest would be $1.6 million. I remember the former leader of the New Democratic Party was quoted as saying it would be $6,000 a day when he raised it through a question or a supplementary question in the House at that time.

We are talking about a considerable amount of money which, in my view, could be used in a far better way than this is being used at the present time.

We can ask: "What are some of the alternatives? Does the government not have to modernize its fleet?" I will not go into the facts and figures on this, but several people did studies that showed they could take jets day after day by chartering them and still be way ahead of the $10.6 million the government is going to spend. We have to remember that there is the cost of the maintenance, the pilot, the fuel and things of that nature. We have to look at it in that context.

We have commercial airlines. I appreciate that ministers are busy sometimes and do not want to be bugged by the general public when they are trying to do business on planes, but they do have commercial aircraft, and I am sure people can be understanding about that. If there is not a great hurry, commercial aircraft can be used.

Also available to cabinet ministers are the aircraft which are currently owned by the government. These have been adequate for some time in the past and probably have been used to transport members from all parties in this House, and not only those on the government side. They have been quite adequate for that.

What I am pointing out is that I do not think it is really needed. There are alternatives to this executive jet, which is the kind that is available to those who have a great taste for this kind of perk, such as I understand the multinational corporation executives would have.

There are also limitations to it. We have heard the fact, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) likes to make much of this, that it can be used as an air ambulance. When we look at transportation modes in the province, that is an enviable use, but no one is going to fool this House into believing for one moment that there was very much consideration given to using it as an air ambulance. That is simply an excuse to justify its use by the Premier and the cabinet for their convenience, luxury and efficiency.

Various comments have been made in the media about this. Various studies have been done, for instance, that say the 38,500-pound luxury jet cannot land on a gravel strip and needs a 5,000-foot runway under most conditions, which rules out all but 22 of Ontario's 78 public airports.

I suppose if one dumped fuel or ran on half a load and so on, one might be able to get into a few more of the airports. But surely, for those remote areas which would most require the use of government aircraft, this would not be of use as an air ambulance. To me, that is simply an excuse for making this purchase, although if one had a craft for that reason alone -- not this one, but some craft for that purpose alone -- that would be reasonable.

The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is here and he recognizes that one of the problems of the north is that we require aircraft to get to various centres. My specific objection is to this particular aircraft.

I well recall the former leader of the Liberal Party, even though it was a Friday afternoon and nobody was here, making what I considered a rather devastating speech to this House; it was five or six minutes long. All he did was read a list of all the prosthetic devices that are not covered by the Ontario hospital insurance plan. He listed them in great detail. These were not provided for in expenditures by the government.

Then he listed all the luxuries -- what do we call those things when you get a car?

Mr. Wrye: Options.

Mr. Bradley: He listed all the options and appointments that are available in the jet. He concluded that, to him, this best characterized the priorities of this government. It was pretty devastating stuff. Okay, it was on a Friday afternoon, when most people were not here, but I thought that more than at any time during the Premier's estimates that had a pretty strong impact on those of us who happened to be assembled here on that afternoon. I will not repeat his speech, but I thought it was worthy of consideration at a time when we do require expenditures other than this.

There are other priorities. For instance, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) has been asked about hospitals and the funds for more hospital care. Many communities would like to have computerized axial tomography scanners, machines that are very useful in diagnosis. We have some of them in the province. They are great to have. We have three now in the Metropolitan Toronto area. They have one in Hamilton. We would love to have one in the Niagara Peninsula. I know the doctors in the area would like to have that. That is the kind of thing I would see as a reasonable expenditure.

We have a need for staff within the hospitals. In talking to nurses and other people working in the hospitals, they say they are at their wits' end in attempting to serve the people in their jurisdictions.

3:40 p.m.

On the subject of nursing homes, both the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and I received copies of a letter about the fact that people whose parents just cannot look after themselves any more -- in the context of a society where many women are working and so the younger family has a hard time looking after people -- were unable to get them into nursing homes. In the Niagara Peninsula we simply do not have those spaces available.

I look at the fact that we have an ageing population. I look at the fact that we need a good level of care for these people. Our senior citizens require dignity. This aircraft brings nothing to their dignity.

The health units around the province would like to have funds for preventive care. They would like to get out in the community. They have to look after food, public places, pools and things of that nature. They require funds. We need further research to conquer dread disease. We have taken some steps in that direction. Money could be applied to that.

In education, the provincial share as a percentage is declining in terms of the boards of education and the province providing funds. The minister announced cuts to continuing education earlier this week. Costs are associated with Bill 82, the new bill for those who have been forgotten in this system in the past, who require special education. Colleges and universities in our highly competitive world are crying out for more funds to make them effective.

Municipalities need funds for various services. They feel they are not getting sufficient. The property tax becomes even more important, and the property tax does not take into consideration whether a man or a woman is laid off and what kind of financial state that person finds himself or herself in. The municipalities require assistance.

There are needs for job creation, capital works projects and staff in essential areas such as the Ministry of the Environment, as well as difficulties faced by the automotive industry, which will be addressed later this afternoon. We have inflation confronting us and taxes such as the ad valorem gasoline tax. Provincial income tax has been raised. We could use more exemptions from sales tax. We could confront the problems with the environment.

In terms of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we could have more consumer protection. We could even look at the possibility of coming to some kind of agreement with the Re-Mor/Astra victims in terms of compensation. We have natural resources that are important, and we are crying out for some kind of reforestation program. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) requires more money for courthouses and so on.

The list goes on, and I could go on for some time talking about it. What I am saying is that there are far higher priorities in this province at this time than purchasing a jet for the Premier and the other members of cabinet.

A government that is already running a deficit of almost $1.5 billion during this fiscal year does not need to go further into debt to buy a luxurious executive jet for the comfort and convenience of the Premier and his cabinet ministers and their senior officials.

As I pointed out, even at 15 per cent interest

-- which is low by today's standards -- the cost of borrowing is $1.6 million. When the costs of fuel, storage, pilots and maintenance are added to the capital cost, and the interest is paid on the money borrowed for the purchase, this expenditure can be seen to be most extravagant and unnecessary, particularly in the context of our present depressed economy in Ontario.

The purchase of this aircraft cannot be justified on the basis of the lack of an alternative mode of travel for the Premier and his fellow ministers, since the government already owns a turboprop Beechcraft King Air and a de Havilland Twin Otter. In addition, there are plenty of aircraft available for charter as well as commercial airlines, as I have mentioned.

The argument put forward by the government on many occasions is that of adaptability. That is simply not an argument that can be accepted. The very low-key announcement is an indication that the government was afraid to come clean with the people on this. I suspect, members of the assembly, that if they had to make the decision today to purchase, the Premier and the government would not purchase that craft in April 1982.

At a time when the people of Ontario are faced with the uncertainty of unemployment and the ravages of inflation, it is most inappropriate for the government of this province to embark upon this outrageous expenditure of tax dollars. Such funds could be better spent to create jobs, restore our health care system to its former high standards and assist those who are most badly affected by the downturn in our economy.

This resolution provides the government of Ontario with a golden opportunity not to follow a bad example set by others but to set a good example in public administration and the use of taxpayers' dollars.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a sign of despair on the part of the member for St. Catharines, as the private members' hour has become so irrelevant since March 19, 1981. I suspect he chose it to point out at what level this government is operating since it acquired a majority in the last election. I suspect he wants to show the uselessness of using this time to present a private bill, because the government will not take any account at all of the contributions of the members of the opposition.

The acquisition of this luxury jet is understandable in a way. I think it is a status symbol for the Progressive Conservative government after six years of being in a minority position and therefore having its hands tied. It is a financial status symbol. We were the last province to get one. Even the government of Nova Scotia had acquired a jet. I suspect the members of the cabinet must have devoted some meetings to deciding whether they could rid the government of its inferiority complex over being one of the few governments without a jet; so they bought one, a very luxurious one.

As the then member for Hamilton West mentioned in his speech on December 11, 1981, it is a very luxurious jet. It speaks to the arrogance of this government because, now that it has a majority, we on this side of the House cannot stop the acquisition of the jet.

But the government may also be misjudging the public. It thinks that with a majority it is entitled to do whatever it wants. Perhaps it also is counting on the short memory of the public; perhaps it thinks that four years from now the people of Ontario will have forgotten that this government spent $10.6 million for a jet which, as the member for St. Catharines said, cannot even land at all the airports of Ontario.

While we are discussing this resolution, I wish to point out a further 140 workers are being laid off today by de Havilland in the great riding of Downsview. In the de Havilland plant, 1,280 workers have been laid off indefinitely. There were 450 laid off last November, for a total of 664 in 1981; 475 were laid off on February 20 and 140 today. De Havilland, which is one of the most productive and most competitive Canadian companies, today is working at 80 per cent of its total work force, which at its peak was 5,400 workers.

3:50 p.m.

If the government of Ontario had intended to help de Havilland, which is an Ontario company, it had three choices. De Havilland manufactures three excellent aircraft, all short takeoff and landing aircraft that can land at every airport in the province.

The company manufactures the Dash-7 aircraft, a 50-passenger aircraft, for a cost of $7 million. It also manufactures the Twin Otter, which is a great plane -- more than 800 have been sold -- and costs only $1.5 million, one tenth the cost of the Challenger, the 20-seat plane bought by the government. The Twin Otter is a little bit noisy but extremely efficient. If the government had wanted to help de Havilland, it could have bought the little brother of the Dash-7, the Dash-8, a 36-passenger airliner that costs only $4.5 million.

All of these aircraft are much less expensive than the jet bought by the government, and a purchase of one of them by the government would have helped an Ontario company that is in trouble and has been laying off workers. It is laying off workers again today because of the market situation, because of the interest rates and because of lack of government help.

De Havilland was producing three Dash-7s a month before the last layoff. If this government had bought one plane from de Havilland, it would have contributed to 432,000 man-hours. That would have been a substantial contribution to an Ontario industry. But, above all, it would have meant that this government has confidence in our industry and our workers. It also would have meant that this government has concrete confidence, not only the words offered when the minister stands up on the other side of the House and speaks rhetorically about our skilled manpower, which is among the best in the world. The government has not done that. It has not done that because it wanted a luxury aircraft.

At de Havilland, they do not produce the type of aircraft that is refurbished in Houston. They are efficient aircraft. This government made a mistake when it decided it should become, among the provinces of Canada, the province with the best jet. That is an offence against the people of Ontario who, at this very moment, are going through an economic crisis that is affecting every sector of this province and this nation.

As the previous speaker mentioned, the government of Ontario could have devoted that amount of money to social services or other services that this government is cutting back. More than that, the government would not have offended at a time of crisis the people who are without work, who are living in poverty, by buying a tool that is useless. Quite honestly, we will keep reminding the people of Ontario of the insensitivity of this government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: First, Mr. Speaker, I must say how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate and, of course, to support the government's actions and not to support what I think is a very facetious and silly resolution the honourable member has introduced.

I want to say, as a member of this Legislature for some 16 years and as a member of the Ontario cabinet for some 11 years as well as one who has travelled this province from Windsor to Ottawa to Kenora, that I feel very qualified to speak in support of the government's actions.

Not only do I support the government's actions, but I noticed there were no northern Ontario members speaking in support of the member's resolution. I have to remind the member that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has said quietly on occasion that it is time the government should buy an executive jet aircraft. In fact, it was the former member for Cochrane South who stated publicly in Quebec City that we should have a jet aircraft. Those members are on the record as being in support.

I did a rough calculation of the number of miles that I travel in a year in the course of carrying out my responsibilities throughout this province. It added up to roughly 125,000 miles annually, and of course this takes me to many parts of northern Ontario and southern Ontario.

If I multiply that by 11 years in cabinet, it comes out to 1,375,000 miles. Taking that one step further, that is 55 times around the equator. So I have to say that I am an authority on the use of government aircraft.

I have to admit that not all these flights are made on government aircraft, because I do use commercial aircraft very extensively. The point I want to make is that I have the experience, the knowledge and certainly the background with which to speak with some authority on this matter. Those are my qualifications.

The resolution introduced by my colleague the member for St. Catharines certainly states the Liberal position. There is no question about that. It is fine, as he has said already, for the separatist government of the province of Quebec to have two jet aircraft so that its members can fly around and see how they can destroy this country.

It is fine for the federal Liberal government in Ottawa to have 12 jets -- 10 JetStars and two Challengers -- to move across this country; it is all right for them. It is even fine for the province of British Columbia to have four jets.

But when it comes to Ontario, the banner province of this country, one of the largest provinces in this country, to have a properly equipped transportation system for the executive of this province, then no, they disagree.

I have to tell members, it is political grandstanding; that is all it is.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. The minister has suggested that I said it was fine for all these other political jurisdictions to have these. If he listened to my speech carefully, he would recognize that I condemned all those other jurisdictions and suggested that this government could set a good example instead of following bad examples.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the member comes from the same party as the famous Mitch Hepburn.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Members will recall the infamous Mitch Hepburn. They do not want to remember him. I know they do not want to remember him because he did not have any significance, but he was the Premier of this province from 1934 to 1942. There is nothing to remember Mitch Hepburn for, and I think members will agree with me on that point; there is no question about that.

4 p.m.

But they will recall that back in the 1930s when governments of that day had the use of automobiles, it was a very controversial issue. Any public figure driving a publicly owned vehicle, such as those used by the present Liberal leader and the leader of the third party, did so under close public scrutiny. History books have probably recorded that. Any use that could be misinterpreted as being of a personal or private nature was immediately pounced on, just as the member for St. Catharines is trying to do today.

Like Mitch Hepburn, my friend is trying to suggest there is something wrong with transporting 29 ministers and government staff to all areas of the province as fast and efficiently as possible. His former leader, who is now enjoying the patronage fruits of labour in Ottawa, tried to suggest in this House that 100,000 acres of forest land would not be seeded because the government was buying a jet. That is the kind of silly point Dr. Smith used to make here on a regular basis.

The honourable member would even propose that a de Havilland Twin Otter or even a King Air is all the people of northern Ontario really need and should get. That is the political attitude and philosophy of the Liberal Party of Ontario. They do not care about us in northern Ontario and it is showing up in the polls.

The same thing happened in 1934. Mitch Hepburn ranted and raved in this House about what he would do with those government cars if he ever became Premier. Lo and behold, he did become Premier of Ontario and we all know what happened. He lined up all those big black Cadillacs and Buicks behind this very building and had a public auction sale. The same attitude is being presented to us today. We know what followed. As soon as the press reports died down, Mitch Hepburn was out there buying a whole fleet of new cars that he could use for his own cabinet ministers. Such hypocrisy!

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I must caution the minister, and you as our presiding officer, that the minister should not allow himself to give information to the House which is definitely not factual. If the Premier had a car, that is one thing, but the other members of his cabinet, particularly people in the minister's category, bought and drove their own cars.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is all properly recorded in the history books and the honourable member knows that quite well. It is no use trying to defend Mitch Hepburn 40 years later because it will not work. It will not work on this particular issue either.

I recall vividly that 10 or 12 years ago in northern Ontario there was a definite feeling of isolation and alienation towards Queen's Park and the Ontario government. There was even talk of establishing a northern Ontario political party and of seceding. There was dissatisfaction in northern Ontario, but that is all gone.

Mr. Stokes: He was a disenchanted Tory, by the way.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There was even a young fellow from North Bay called Ed Deibel who was very active in trying to do something specific for northern Ontario.

Why is that all gone? Because the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) became the Premier of this province. He took an active interest in the affairs of northern Ontario. He made it his personal business to visit northern Ontario on a regular basis. He turned the attitudes around, as has his cabinet since that time. I would venture to say not a week goes by when there are not three or four cabinet ministers of this government criss-crossing northern Ontario with their senior staff, listening to the people and delivering Ontario government programs.

Mr. Wrye: And cheques.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And cheques, certainly.

Mr. Wrye: Especially at election time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have a long list of programs and policies that were designed and developed in northern Ontario because ministers of the day could get up there quickly in the case of disasters. Members will recall the disastrous flood at Field, where hundreds of homes were completely wiped out. People were left homeless. Who was the first person there from government?

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was the Premier in an executive aircraft, landing on an airstrip that we could build. I could go on. I have six or eight other points I wanted to make with respect to the support --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- of the government's decision to buy an executive jet. However, time is running out --

The Deputy Speaker: It ran out.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- but I would encourage the members to not support this particular resolution and to put the Liberal Party back where it was some 40 years ago. With this kind of resolution coming from that side of the House, they will be in political limbo for another 40 years.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, let me just serve notice that I admire the respect the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) accords the chair when he has been told repeatedly that his time has expired. It is a very typical example of the response of the executive council to the direction of the chair in this Parliament during this session.

I listened with great interest to the very selective historical bypass of the Minister of Northern Affairs. Like the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) I will not bother the member for Kenora with a recitation of reality in that respect because I am not so sure it would be landing on very firm ground.

I simply want to commend my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) for bringing this timely resolution forward. I certainly support the resolution unequivocally in all its direction. The member for Kenora reminds us of the great good works that various ministers of the crown and their parliamentary assistants undertake. I am not about to stand here and be lectured by the member for Kenora about the good works and the great travel of members of the government and everybody else over there who has some special perk do in the discharge of their normal responsibilities.

With respect to his former parliamentary assistant the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), the minister is but a piker when it comes to travelling around this province, if one is to read the sessional paper tabled every June.

Mr. Nixon: The member never leaves his car, night or day.

Mr. Conway: I am very impressed by the seriousness with which some honourable members opposite take their travelling responsibilities. In my time here as an opposition critic I have also been impressed to note that I have the responsibility, which is properly mine, to drive to Windsor and to perform the function that a member of a shadow cabinet has to participate in the public debate.

Mr. Nixon: In his own car and driving it himself.

Mr. Conway: Exactly; and I am quite prepared to stand and say that is as it should be. I find it very interesting the number of times that I do that to inquire of the parliamentary assistant who is there with me, "What kind of a drive did you have down here?" I remember on one specific occasion being told, "Oh, the private aircraft that brought me here was very pleasant indeed." I have to ask myself just what that speaks to in terms of government priorities.

Mr. Nixon: Twenty-five minutes in the air.

Mr. Conway: I drive home every Friday afternoon and the number of government vehicles that pass me on Highway 7 -- when I see the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) floating by me with the most luxurious state vehicle that I know of anywhere in the Dominion of Canada, I really think about the priorities of this government.

The member talks about history and he talks about the shame of this government's situation vis-à-vis other provinces. Let me just say that the Premier of that day that he has spoken to so directly also abolished the vice-regal splendour of Chorley Park and 42 years of Tory succession has not seen fit to replace that bit of extravagance. I am wondering if the Minister of Northern Affairs is telling us here today that we are going to have an announcement soon that a Rosedale mansion is going to be procured for the Lieutenant Governor. I know the people of Hudson would be delighted to know that is the response of this government to the troubled economic times in which we now find ourselves.

4:10 p.m.

The member for Kenora stands in this House today and enjoins us to talk about and think about history. It is the historical experience of this government that so appals me with the thought that $10.6 million of public money is being appropriated for the purchase of a new executive jet. It is not the history of the 1930s or the 1940s. It is the history of the cabinet the minister was so happily a part of in 1973 that I so well remember and that I would hold up to the people of this province as the best possible example of why it is he should not be allowed to indulge in this kind of extravagance.

It is the history of this government's example in 1973 when no less a personage than the chief of the government himself admitted in this chamber that, yes, in fact there had perhaps been an abuse of those privileges. How many times were the people of the province treated to examples of that? How many times did we read about the first minister flying off to Stowe, Vermont, and how many times did we read about the Minister of Health then or the Minister of Natural Resources and his deputy minister in Cuba with the use of government aircraft?

The Minister of Northern Affairs might well stand in this House and enjoin members to talk and think about history. I ask him and the people of his constituency to reflect not upon the history of the 1930s and 1940s but about the history of this government as far as its recent past is concerned. Let the people of Hudson make the judgement about the capacity of this government to use properly the aircraft which are there.

I agree with the member for St. Catharines that the executive council should have certain entitlements. They are entitled to certain things. But I just want to say that I am not persuaded, nor am I impressed, with the use of aircraft by this government in the recent past. We do not need to look at Mitch Hepburn if we want to know how this government behaves when it has a fleet of executive aircraft at its disposal.

I want to say something else. Not long ago our caucus discussed the fact that the number of private members -- and that is not something that too many people over there would understand because my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has produced a revised list of just how many private members there are out of the 70 Tories in this place. I think there are about five, most of whom are in the dog house for some reason or another, who could be considered as private members.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) tells me it is seven; seven of 70 who are, strictly speaking, private members. I intend to put a question on the Notice Paper to find out just how many people are in the position of the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), who is doing God knows what to earn his ministerial salary.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: More than you.

Mr. Conway: Well there she is, the dyspeptic daughter of Mars, the fulminating Minister of Education, whose contribution --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Disreputable I am not.

Mr. Conway: I believe I have the floor. I would happily engage the minister in a debate at another time. But despite the fulminations of the Minister of Education, who has never understood what it is to be a private member in this place, I want to say that when I hear and read of things like the London Free Press account of the Minister without Portfolio, who is paid an additional emolument, as I say, for God knows what, because no one, including the Premier, has stood up in this House and told us what in fact he is doing. He may be the minister of nothing. He is so proud to stand there in the London Free Press with the marvellous government limousine that he has at his disposal to run helter-skelter.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Your leader does.

Mr. Conway: Indeed my leader does. I want to know what is so terrible about that. But I say, there is a heck of a lot more wrong with a minister in charge of nothing running around this province at very considerable government expense with a limousine for the discharge of responsibilities that have not yet been made clear.

I hear the chief government whip has been announcing privately in the corridors of this place that there is no way the government caucus is going to see to it that private members will have greater access to travel in the province.

Well he might stand there, the chief government whip with his magnificent, silver-coloured limousine to take him not only back and forth to Mississauga but shuffle him back and forth to the Sutton Place. For him to be running that million-dollar operation he has across the way which, God knows, ought to be investigated by a number of squads I can think of. I must say to the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) that he should stand here and tell us there is no way the opposition members are going to have an opportunity --

Mr. Watson: Tell us what we're missing. I want to know.

Mr. Conway: Well might the member for Chatham-Kent cavil. What would he know, and what would he care, parliamentary secretary to somebody as he no doubt is. This debate and this resolution speak to a continuing abuse of executive privilege by the Tory government. The members opposite ought to be defensive, embarrassed and ashamed, because they are sitting in the comfortable pew of executive privilege. This is a government that is insensitive and uncaring. It could not care less about the troubled economy and lifestyle that many people in Ontario are enjoying as a result of 40 years of Tory indifference and inaction.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for St. Catharines that the purchase of the executive jet is a topic that should be discussed in this House. Of course, any expenditure is subject to scrutiny in the estimates, but an expenditure of this nature is not scrutinized before it is announced, and we are faced with a fait accompli when it comes to the estimates.

I do not believe the government would have made this kind of a purchase under minority government. But now that it has a majority, the government seems to feel it can do as it pleases with the taxpayers' money despite a continuation of huge and growing deficits. The Suncor deal is another example of this wanton waste of public money with very little justification and no opportunity for debate beforehand.

What this purchase symbolizes is that the government is aping big business in the waste of our resources through luxury expenditures for items such as jets. It is very hard to justify such expenditures on a cost-benefit basis. They are mainly a form of conspicuous consumption of the kind that Louis XIV indulged in. Such consumption is a waste of our resources that inevitably gets added to prices when it is made by the private sector, and to taxes when it is made by governments. In this time of budgetary restraint there is absolutely no justification for expenditure on a jet that will seat only 12 people, will require a pilot to be on call 24 hours, and will land on only 27 out of our 137 airports in Ontario.

I am not alone in my objections to this expenditure. I sent out a question with my riding report last month asking my constituents, "Is the government's purchase of a $10.6 million executive jet a wise way to spend the taxpayers' money?" Of the 236 replies received already, 200, or 85 per cent, gave a resounding no to this question. Only 12 said yes, and 24 were undecided. The comments of those replying are very enlightening, and the Premier should hear them. Unfortunately he is not here in the House to hear them, but I intend to read them for those who are listening to this important debate.

Here is a sampling of the replies: "The purchase is idiotic, ludicrous, absurd and asinine." "It must be nice to spend millions while others wonder how to pay the rent." "Some politicians get a high from spending taxpayers' money foolishly." "We need the jet like we need a hole in the head." "Tell Davis to hitchhike if he doesn't want to use regular transportation." "In terms of high unemployment and the even more revolting expenditure on Suncor, this is outrageous."

4:20 p.m.

A suggestion from one constituent is, "Split the money among all of us." Another one says: "Why does the government waste our hard- earned money? Would Davis buy this jet if he was paying for it himself?" Then a comment, "I object very strongly to such a ridiculous purchase, to say nothing of the upkeep." Another one is, "I am outraged by this purchase." Finally: "He must think money is coming out of our ears. We should get rid of the jet and the oil company." A last one made a plea: "Please do something about this flagrant waste of our money. Enough is enough." I think the only thing we can do is throw out the government opposite.

I find it particularly hard to accept this waste when I see the long waiting lists for hospital beds, for nursing home beds and for chronic care beds in this province. I find it hard to accept when I know a great many people who need subsidized day care, because they have to go out to work these days or because they choose to go out to work to exercise their equal rights, are not able to get the day care they need. This $10.6 million would have bought at least 4,000 new subsidized day care spaces which is what is needed in Metropolitan Toronto alone right now.

When social services and services to the elderly are being cut back, when post-secondary education fees are going up, when health care is not covering any new areas, it is time we looked at our expenditures much more carefully. The purchase of luxury jets is something that should be ruled out from the beginning.

I think the comments of my constituents indicate what the public thinks of this purchase and I heartily agree. I am glad we have had an opportunity to debate it, but I have little hope the government will change its ways. We may have to turn them out to get a change in the policies.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. At first glance, the ballot item before us appears to deal with one specific issue, the Canadair Challenger jet. To me, however, there is more at stake here than a simple discussion of transportation equipment. What is really under discussion is the style of government that is being offered in Ontario. By style, I mean the kind of approach that is taken in solving basic problems, the extent of vision apparent in ongoing policies and the priority given to keeping in touch with the people of Ontario.

The member for St. Catharines implies by his motion that it is irresponsible for this government to buy a jet for the use of cabinet officers. I want to take a moment here to say this aircraft is not the Premier's jet, as some of the press has described it. It is the people's jet. It is the jet to be used by members of the government to speed them throughout the province, and indeed the continent, safely and efficiently. The Canadair Challenger can also be converted into an air ambulance, proving this aircraft is not just the Premier's jet.

In his motion, the member for St. Catharines says the $10.6 million set aside for the purchase of the Canadair Challenger could have been better used to help the people of Ontario through the current economic difficulties.

All of us on this side of the House recognize the seriousness of the current economic slowdown, but we also put the current slowdown into perspective and perspective is very important in discussing current economic conditions. It is no use going around crying that the sky is falling in when unemployment rises. What is needed is the proper perspective that will result in action to help the needy, to create permanent private sector jobs and to get our economy and entrepreneurs moving again.

What can be done to get our economy moving again? Two things can be accomplished by the provincial government to ensure the future holds permanent private sector jobs for today's unemployed. The first is to continue to press Ottawa for a coherent industrial strategy. We need protection to rebuild our all-important auto industry. I repeat, we need protection to rebuild our all-important auto industry. We need assurance that enterprise will be respected and that nuisance taxes are done away with. This we are doing.

Second, we must establish a framework of programs and opportunities within Ontario to allow our entrepreneurs to remain competitive. This we are doing within the Board of Industrial Leadership and development. The seven research and development centres announced for our province will go a long way to keeping native industry in step with world trends, encouraging innovation and helping create new jobs and training opportunities.

This we are doing because we know that what Ontario needs now are not Band-Aid solutions or temporary expedience. This is because this province's top business and financial minds tell us we are going to get out of the present downturn.

Let me refer the members to the Globe and Mail's Report on Business of January 25. On page 42 they will find an article looking at Ontario's economic performance, and in it they will find this prediction by Douglas Peters, an economist with the Toronto Dominion Bank.

Mr. Peters says, "We could have a strong growth in the third and fourth quarters. . ." of 1982. He says we could have strong economic growth during the summer and fall. This statement is supported by an economist with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Paul Kovaks, who predicts an improved export picture towards the end of the year. Then there is the comment of William Mackness, an economist with Pitfield Mackay Ross Ltd., who says we have probably seen the peak of our unemployment woes.

These are not the comments of committed partisans; these are the comments of people involved in our economic system, of people whose livelihood depends on their ability to master the intricacies of the market and interpret them for the benefit of their employers.

Their comments mean that during the last half of 1982 we can expect a continuation of the growth experienced during 1981; a growth that in 1981 put Ontario first in real increases in gross provincial product, a growth which resulted in the announcement of 453 new manufacturing projects in this province and a growth which resulted in 114,000 more Ontarians at work.

The member opposite talks about taxes. He calls taxes in Ontario excessive. The word appears in his motion, "assist the people of Ontario who are confronted with the burden. . .of excessive taxation."

Ontario's tax burden reflects favourably with those of other provinces. Taxpayers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec all share the same tax burden as we do here in Ontario. In Prince Edward Island and in Newfoundland the burden is higher. Fundamentally, our tax burden is about average in Canada and roughly reflects the situation in the United States. The figures, therefore, do not show that Ontarians are excessively taxed.

The member for St. Catharines talks about inflation. Let me say that this government's achievement in reducing its costs is a matter of record. We are fighting inflation by keeping government out of the lending market as much as possible. We are fighting inflation by encouraging new production and new enterprise. All this is a matter of record and has been discussed in this Legislature before.

4:30 p.m.

Basically, this motion suggests that the provincial government and the people of Ontario would be far better off if the Treasurer had the $10.6 million in his pocket instead of spending it on buying the Canadair Challenger 600. The motion implies that this $10.6 million, had it been kept instead of spent, could have had a profound impact on services in the province.

Let us see what effect $10.6 million would have in the operation of government. Would it profoundly change our program in health care? The revised estimate for the Ministry of Health is $5.7 billion; $10.6 million represents one fifth of one per cent of that ministry's budget.

Would $10.6 million profoundly change social services? The revised estimate for the Ministry of Community and Social Services is $1.7 billion; the price of the jet equals one half of one per cent of that ministry's budget.

Would it profoundly change education? The revised estimate for that ministry is $3 billion; $10.6 million represents one third of one per cent here.

Looking at the expenses of running this province, looking at our $20-billion budget, there is little of a lasting and permanent nature that $10.6 million can do -- that is, accepting that more money is the solution for our current challenges. In fact, looking at past estimates for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, $10.6 million could not even fund a summer youth employment program.

I believe that $10.6 million of our money is far better spent on the Canadair Challenger 600. This purchase is an investment in Canadian technology that provides the world with a practical example of what the Canadian aerospace industry can accomplish. The aircraft is accessible to every region of Ontario. Because of its speed, it can bring cabinet ministers into direct contact with the people.

The motion talks about suitable and economic means of travel. Has the member ever tried to get an aircraft out of Thunder Bay at 10:30 in the morning to meet an afternoon appointment in Ottawa? This is the schedule a cabinet minister must meet. Only a private jet can keep such a timetable.

Then the motion talks about costs. Let us look at the cost of maintaining an ageing air fleet, using inefficient gas piston engines. Let us look at the cost of buying replacement parts for older aircraft and at the relative cost of fuel for propeller aircraft and the Canadair Challenger.

My time has run out. I am sorry I cannot finish my speech at this time, but possibly I can enter the remainder of it into the record later.

The Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that he will have approximately three minutes. followed by a summation from the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) that when one looks at this government's budget, $10.6 million does not seem significant. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) spends more than that every day her ministry is in operation.

But I am concerned that the government and their spokesmen from the riding of Lakeshore and from the north have simply lost any understanding of the value of $10.6 million. We have never even got close to a balanced budget since the Premier took office; we have not balanced the budget since John Robarts was in power. This is clearly an indication why it is time for a change in the government, since they have forgotten the value of $1, let alone $10.6 million.

I believe further that the Premier and his cabinet would give a good deal, maybe even part of their vaunted majority, if they could reverse the ridiculous decision they made approximately a year ago to buy this monstrosity, this $10.6-million jet plane.

Members will notice that although the order was placed in August and it was indicated the plane would be delivered early in 1982, we still have not seen hide nor hair of it. It was sent to Texas so that its interior could be torn out, the blue plush installed and the gold-plated initials "WGD" embossed in the mirror behind the bar or whatever. But still the plane has not come back, and I believe it will be many days before it finally touches down out there in Malton or on Toronto Island.

The last thing wanted by the Premier and his buddies, who should be sitting in the front row here but who as usual are ignoring private members' hour, is to have the picture of that plane on the front page of the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the Brantford Expositor, the Paris Star and the Ayr News. That is the last thing they want, because the people simply will be disgusted at any government that could take a decision of this type when the pressures for the expenditures of public moneys on proper programs are so great.

Even as a last resort, the $10.6 million could be used to reduce our overwhelming deficit. It takes close to $8 million every day just to pay the interest on that deficit, and it is the kind of attitude expressed by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and supported by the Minister of Education that has got us into the fiscal difficulties we are experiencing in Ontario today.

I strongly support the motion, and I bet every Tory on the front benches and the back benches would like to vote for it if they could stop the delivery of that plane and still not be embarrassed by another reversal of their policies. They should put aside that sensitivity, use their good sense and vote for the resolution, and I urge them so to do.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some interesting comment from members of the Legislature, and we have had one cabinet minister and one member of the government party attempting to defend the indefensible this afternoon.

One has to wonder what the member for Lakeshore would hear from the workers who reside in his riding and work at de Havilland and whether they feel what he has said this afternoon would amount to a sellout of their interests. He would have to consult them.

I point out to members on the government side that if they were to take the dramatic step, in some ways a symbolic step, of announcing that they were prepared to sell this example of government extravagance, this vehicle for the comfort, convenience and luxury of the Premier, his cabinet ministers and senior officials, they would have the almost unanimous support of the people of the province. I can assure them that every member on this side of the House would be prepared to applaud that move and give full credit for taking that kind of step in these difficult economic times.

I implore all members of the Legislature, on an independent basis, to support this common sense resolution.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, resolution 2:

That this House acknowledges the need in Ontario for an auto industry independent of foreign domination and that to achieve this goal, this House directs the government to take the necessary immediate steps to establish an Ontario automobile program that would seek to reduce Canada's import dependency on engines and parts, reduce the high levels of foreign ownership and rebuild the auto industry in Ontario. To that end the government should:

1. Establish an interdepartmental office of automotive policy that would co-ordinate the design and implementation of the Ontario automobile program;

2. Establish a short-term community adjustment fund that would provide assistance to laid-off and terminated workers and would assist currently affected communities to restructure their industrial base.

3. Obtain a significant presence in the auto parts sector through the creation of a reorganization of the auto parts industry in order to overcome the fragmentation of the industry, its technological obsolescence and the critical shortage of investment capital.

The crown corporation should:

1. Obtain, where necessary, equity positions in existing Canadian-owned auto parts companies;

2. Require the Canadianization of those foreign multinationals who now operate in Ontario or who establish plants in the future;

3. Enter into joint venture projects with major automobile companies;

4. Negotiate long-term purchasing agreements for Canadian-made parts with major international automobile companies who sell their products in Ontario;

5. Undertake, directly or indirectly, research and development into product development, process technology and whole vehicle technology;

6. Explore and develop new industrial linkages between the automobile sector and other sectors of the economy.

Further, this House directs the government to request that the government of Canada introduce content legislation that would achieve a goal of 100 per cent Canadian value added.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to be able to debate a resolution of substance in this Legislature, which seldom happens on an afternoon during private members' hour.

Mr. Kerrio: That's being modest, isn't it?

Mr. Cooke: That is being modest, yes. I want to point out, as I am sure all members of the Legislature realize, that the auto industry is the hub of the manufacturing industry within this province. In 1976, 72 per cent of Ontario exports of manufactured goods came from the auto sector. Excluding autos from the proportion of Ontario exports, only 17 per cent of our products would be exported. In other words, the vast majority of our exports are auto-related as well.

4:40 p.m.

One in six Ontarians is employed in auto-related activities. Auto assembly and parts industries account for one ninth of the gross provincial product. Auto assembly and parts account for 12 per cent of wages and salaries in this province. There are more than 4,000 vehicle dealers in Ontario, in cities such as Windsor, Chatham, St. Thomas, London, Oakville, Oshawa and St. Catharines, who are all heavily dependent on the auto industry.

Auto parts comprise the second largest trade deficit item, after machinery, in Canada's overall problem with deficits in manufactured goods. In Ontario, the automobile industry has been in a state of crisis off and on since well before the introduction of the auto pact in 1965. The auto pact, as the members of the Legislature will realize, was supposed to provide a balance with the United States in the North American market.

Until the auto pact was introduced, we were suffering from a significant deficit in auto parts and in the auto industry overall. We are still suffering that deficit and, in fact, it has increased significantly. The characteristics of the auto industry in Canada and specifically in Ontario, since the vast majority of that industry resides in this province, are such that we rely heavily on assembly. We have virtually no research and development. Our emphasis is on unskilled workers, and we have not only an extremely large trade deficit with the Japanese, as seems to be the focus these days, but also an overall trade deficit in the North American market as well.

Canada only got its fair share of investment under the auto pact for a few years after signing the auto pact. The reason was that the federal government had signed letters of understanding with the Big Three auto makers. In the early years after the signing of the auto pact, average investment in Canada was 7.5 per cent of the North American investment. Two or three years after the signing of the auto pact, investment dropped off to five per cent.

From the time the auto pact was signed until, I believe, 1978, all investment made in Canada by the Big Three was covered by the differential in the price they charged for the cars they sold in Canada in comparison with the same cars when sold in the United States.

Our market share of North American sales since 1965 has increased from 6.8 per cent to about 10 per cent. Again, I emphasize that with the exception of two or three years after the signing of the auto pact, our average investment has been around five per cent of all North American investment, or about half of what we should have got had the principles of the auto pact been adhered to.

It is not really surprising that we have not received our fair share when one looks at the problem of ownership of the auto industry in North America and specifically in Canada. I want to refer to the Gray report on the ownership of our economy and some of the points it made in its report about 10 years ago.

1. Canadian branch plants imported one third of their requirements, and the imports tended to come from their home country. That is certainly true of the auto sector.

2. Foreign-controlled companies were more import-oriented than Canadian-controlled companies.

3. Imports were high in those sectors where foreign control was highest.

I think those findings from the Gray report of 10 years ago point clearly and specifically at the problems we have in the automobile sector, which by and large is owned by Americans.

A recently released Statistics Canada report stated the following:

"Based on a study covering 90 per cent of all Canadian imports for 1978, which accounted for $43.7 billion worth of imports into Canada, it showed that foreign-controlled firms accounted for 72 per cent of those imports. The United States controlled firms accounted for 80 per cent of the total foreign-controlled portion of those imports.

What I am pointing to is a basic structural problem that exists in the auto industry which has resulted in large imbalances in the types of workers who work in the auto industry, our reliance on unskilled workers and our extremely high and growing deficit in auto parts.

Even with this overwhelming evidence, the new Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) has indicated that he favours more emphasis on foreign investment and that he favours, as was stated in the throne speech, streamlining of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I will get into more of that later on. I will quote the Minister of Industry and Trade, who states very clearly that he cannot understand why FIRA should have anything at all to do with new foreign investment in this country. He and the Premier (Mr. Davis) demand a weakening, or as they call it a streamlining, of FIRA.

This government's reliance on foreign investment and branch plants deepens the structural problems and will increase and continue to force the growth of auto parts imports and the auto parts deficit. The government's lack of an overall strategy and policy for auto parts is putting us in a position of losing the major manufacturing industry we have in this province. This government cannot claim it is not aware of the problems, because it issued a Treasury study report that very clearly outlined the problems.

I want to quote from parts of that report. On page 59 of the Treasury study report, a chart shows that in 1975 our percentage of US auto parts imports -- for example, in gasoline engines -- was 88.3 per cent; today we are down to 64.9 per cent. In engine parts, we used to fulfil 41.2 per cent of US imports; we are down to 39 per cent. In bodies and chassis, we used to fulfil 51.7 per cent; now we are down to 24.4 per cent.

On page 61 of the report it notes that one of the ironies of the Canadian situation, given the multilateral nature of our side of the auto pact, is that General Motors can bring engines into Canada from Brazil, Ford from Mexico and Chrysler from Japan, without paying duty. Therefore, there is no penalty in the Canadian market for their decision to shift critical engine capacity out of Ontario.

On page 63, the study report states:

"Between 1976 and 1979, Japanese parts exports increased by 102 per cent or at an annual average rate of 23.5 per cent, while over the same period Canadian parts exports increased by only 52 per cent or an average of 13.9 per cent a year.

"Japan is playing an increasingly important role in supplying components to the United States. Between 1976 and 1979, Japanese exports to the US increased by 113 per cent, while Canadian imports rose by 9.2 per cent for the same period. It is becoming increasingly clear the Japanese are displacing Canadian parts producers as leading supplier of major components for automotive production in the United States."

Not only are we losing the auto parts market that exists in Canada and Ontario, but we are losing the American market as well.

On page 65 of this report, it states:

"In recent years, Canada has been capturing a declining share of the US parts market. Between 1970 and 1979, exports of Canadian auto parts into the United States increased by $1.3 billion to $4.3 billion or 226 per cent, while total US imports increased by 427 per cent to $10 billion over the same period.

"In 1970, Canada accounted for 70 per cent of all US imports, West Germany for 8.5 per cent, Japan for 8.5 per cent and other countries for 13 per cent. By 1979, this picture had changed radically, with Canada accounting for only 43 per cent, West Germany for nine per cent, Japan up to 29 per cent and others up to 21 per cent. If recent trends continue, Japan could displace Canada as the single most important supplier of automotive parts to the United States in the very near future."

This document suggested there could be a 30 to 50 per cent reduction in the work force in the automotive sector in Ontario. The Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) response in committee and in the Legislature has been that this was the worst-case scenario, that it was very unlikely this would happen and that the report did not have the provincial government's stamp of approval.

But the reality of the situation is that this is exactly what has happened. The worst-case scenario has happened and we have lost thousands of jobs, contrary to what the Minister of Industry and Trade said last week. The government's response has simply been to give Volkswagen a $10-million grant, to give a few Ontario Development Corp. grants to some of the parts producers, to give Ford $28 million and to give Chrysler $10 million in loan guarantees for a research centre -- and we do not know what is happening to that right now.

4:50 p.m.

There is no overall strategy by this government. The reason this study by Treasury was conducted was to form the basis of a policy for this government on auto, and we still have no substantial response, no overall strategy to get the auto industry back into a position of strength and to get jobs created in this province.

Central to any government policy must be the principle that we cannot allow the large multinational corporations to control the auto industry and make the economic decisions for this province. That has to be a principle this government is willing to adopt.

Government has the right and the obligation to protect the people and their communities, such as Chatham where the unemployment rate is well over 20 per cent and is in a state of crisis. Many people in that small community are losing their homes, and many others are moving out of the community as well. In Kitchener the unemployment rate in the auto industry is 45 per cent. In my own home-town community there is unemployment and depression because of the problems in the auto industry. The government has not responded in any way whatsoever.

Let me point out some of the human and economic costs that have resulted from unemployment in Windsor. Unemployment insurance costs per year are running at nearly $200 million just for Windsor and surrounding communities. Welfare costs are going to be $17 million in the city of Windsor alone, and literally hundreds of people have lost their homes already. The same kinds of statistics can apply to communities like Oshawa, and I am sure my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will be speaking about that later.

There are things this government can and should be doing. The Canadian content question is central to any policy and any kinds of government policies that will turn this industry around. In 1964, Canadian cars had 58 per cent Canadian content. In 1981, it is running at around 50 per cent for Chrysler, 50 per cent for Ford and about 60 per cent for General Motors. Canada's share of North American employment in 1981 was 8.6 per cent, down from 9.3 per cent, and employment dropped by 30.7 per cent to 85,600.

In the United States, employment has declined 20.5 per cent, which is a significant number, but the 30.7 per cent we have lost in jobs in Ontario points to the fact that the former Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the present Minister of Industry and Trade are totally wrong when they say the United States is suffering more than we are in the auto sector. The fact is that we have lost more jobs, and the chances of many of those jobs ever coming back into place are very unlikely.

Communities such as St. Thomas, St. Catharines and the others I have mentioned simply cannot be allowed to suffer any longer. This government has an obligation to act. The resolution I have put before the Legislature for debate calls for a number of initiatives, most of which, with the exception of one item, this government can act upon on its own.

First, we are calling for the establishment of a community adjustment fund of $200 million. This community adjustment fund would give direct payments to individuals who are suffering from long-term unemployment. It would assist the social services that have been overwhelmed with the case loads that have increased because of the very serious human problems that result from high unemployment. The fund would also assist the communities in restructuring their economies, diversifying and creating jobs to avoid the ups and downs that many of the one-industry towns in southern Ontario face.

Long-run government policy must come to grips with the structural problems that exist. We must set up in this province an interdepartmental office of automotive policy. No longer can we have the Treasury carrying out a study that the Ministry of Industry and Trade is not aware of. No longer can we have grants coming from the ODC and grants coming from Treasury with no overall connection and strategy as to what the government really wants to be accomplished. One central department must keep up on the trends and the problems so that the minister and the cabinet are always aware of the real layoff figures.

Let me point to some of the problems. Last week, when we had an emergency debate on the auto industry, the Ministry of Industry and Trade indicated there were 5,000 layoffs. The fact of the matter is that there are closer to 30,000 people on layoff, many of whom have completely gone off the unemployment insurance rolls and many of whom have given up looking for work. None the less, those are jobs lost to this economy and to the communities where they once worked.

We must establish a crown corporation in the auto sector, not just on philosophical grounds but because it makes sense. It makes sense, because Canadian auto parts firms can expand. In numbers there are more Canadian firms than American firms, but in total employment the American multinational firms represent 65 per cent of the jobs. Those Canadian firms can expand, but they need capital to work with and they need the up-to-date technology. If they do not have the capital, they certainly could not borrow on the market today because of the federal policy of high interest rates. None the less, the Canadian firms offer a potential for expansion, a potential to meet the market that would exist if we had content legislation at the federal level.

As a practical first venture, as we in this party have long advocated, this crown corporation could get into diesel engine production at the Chrysler engine plant, which has stood empty for a couple of years. Massey-Ferguson and their subsidiary Perkins have the technology, Chrysler has the empty plant and there is a demand for diesel engines in this province.

Why this is taking such a long time to negotiate, heaven only knows, but it is our very strong belief that to get that plant on stream, there must be direct investment by government and there must be ownership by the government because of the shaky nature of both Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler and because it will take substantial amounts of government investment to get the show on the road.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has two minutes.

Mr. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further, the crown corporation has to get into research and development in a serious way, again to assist the Canadian firms in growth and technology and to meet the competition head on. The capital that would be provided through this fund could also work to the multinationals' benefit, because it could be made available to them but on an equity basis, which would also go some way to meeting the demands and the needs for a Canadianization plan in the auto parts sector.

We are talking about a budget for Autocan of approximately $300 million. That may seem like a lot of money but, to go back to the figures that I talked about earlier, the costs of unemployment in cities such as Windsor, Oshawa and St. Thomas simply must be put into creating jobs instead of keeping people at home when they want to work and want to be productive in our province.

Finally, I do not think that anyone in this Legislature can overemphasize the importance of the auto industry to this province. We simply have to have a provincial government that is willing to act to protect the interests of this province, its economy and its people. We cannot allow our number one, our most important manufacturing industry to disappear, as is happening right now, because of the lack of leadership of this government and because of the lack of leadership at the federal level.

Content legislation is the only aspect of our auto program that is not within the jurisdiction of this province. In conclusion, I simply say that this province has an awful lot it can do to push the federal government to content legislation.

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

Mr. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me conclude by saying the Premier has been very quiet on the problem and the proposal of content legislation, and it is essential that he speak for the interests of this province and speak loudly and clearly.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to respond to the honourable member's resolution. There is no doubt about the significance of the auto industry to our economic prosperity. To paraphrase a quote that many of us have heard in one form or another, "What is good for North American cars is good for North America."

5 p.m.

This statement signifies two things. First of all, it is the significance of the automotive industry to the whole North American economy and, second, it is the North American nature, the continental nature of the cars that are produced in North America.

I want to say at the outset that our government is greatly concerned about the wellbeing of this important sector of our economy. I do not believe, however, in the recommendation made by the member opposite that the solution for the Canadian auto industry is necessarily Canadianization. There is no substantiation that foreign-owned firms have been, in general, poor corporate citizens. Similarly, there is no guarantee that Canadianization could change the fundamental market condition or improve productivity.

Mr. Laughren: Of course there is. He is out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt will please remain quiet. We listened to you, so give the member for Durham-York a chance.

Mr. Stevenson: The philosophy of this government remains that private ownership represents the best long-term mechanism to secure investment and employment. There is no evidence that a crown corporation could be any more effective than the private sector during this period of depressed sales.

The damage to US-Canada relations from pursuing a policy of Canadianization of the auto sector would be disastrous. Considering that approximately 80 per cent of our output is sold in the United States, it would be suicidal to damage relations deliberately. In fact, Canada should be co-operating more with the United States to strengthen the entire North American industry to our joint advantage.

Our policy regarding the auto industry has been stated over and over again, and has been stated quite clearly, I believe, by the Premier (Mr. Davis) on many occasions. We have called for an increase in Canadian value added in world production to a level equal to 85 per cent of Canadian sales. This same plea has been echoed by the United Auto Workers, the auto parts manufacturers and the automotive manufacturers. We are also asking for a balanced corporate trade on a five-year average basis for the North American auto makers, the establishment of a Canadian purchasing function by the vehicle manufacturers, as well as a significant increase in research and development activity within Canada.

Our government is pursuing these goals actively but there is only so much we can do. The Ontario government does not design, build or sell automobiles. We cannot negotiate trade agreements. We cannot write industrial contract settlements.

We are living in difficult times. The US, our largest market, is in the midst of a major recession. We cannot pull the US out of its recession. I am convinced, however, that the Canadian auto industry will recover but it will depend largely on the speed of economic recovery in the United States.

Before we tackle the immediate problems facing our auto sector, all parties concerned -- and this includes government, industry and labour -- must be prepared to take action and when necessary make concessions.

Mr. MacEachen's pursuit of American interest rates has undermined the recovery of our auto sector. The time has come for Ottawa to demonstrate leadership. April 1 was the expiry date of the restraint arrangement on automobiles with Japan. The federal government must take action to ensure that the Japanese industry is prepared to accept Canadian content requirements on a par with all other vehicle manufacturers selling in the Canadian market.

As of today, Japanese cars have captured almost 30 per cent of the Canadian market, with vehicles containing less than one half of one per cent Canadian content. By comparison, the US and Japan have announced an agreement that will keep the Japanese share of the US market between 17 and 18 per cent in 1982 and beyond. Certainly there are other agreements, which possibly my colleague will discuss later, relating to France, Italy, Australia and so on, and there are certainly moves that can be made.

With unemployment in the auto industry at 38 per cent, the federal government must not be reluctant to take drastic action. Under article 19 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, there is provision for the Canadian government to take emergency steps to control the domestic market.

The problem in the auto industry is low productivity. In 1981, vehicle production was 807,000 units, the lowest since 1967. This reduced production level is directly responsible for major layoffs. Our government recognizes these large-scale layoffs mean severe social and economic hardship, not only for those directly involved but also for many others in communities and regions affected. Plainly and simply, our auto industry is unable to compete internationally. The financial strength of the industry is being weakened by poor sales, along with the need to make massive investments in new products and production processes.

The North American vehicle production system has priced and paid itself out of the marketplace. Wages and benefits for executives and workers in the industry are substantially more in North America than they are for our competitors in Europe and Japan. But it is not just the wage differential that significantly helps the Japanese. Their production system is also leaner. The Japanese now require only 80 hours to design, assemble and market a car, while North Americans require 144 hours to do the same job. We cannot ignore the fact that the cost of a comparable Japanese car is $1,200 to $1,600 less than a North American model.

The measures advocated by our government in the throne speech are necessary as a first step in aiding the auto industry. Volkswagen-type agreements must be pursued. Future negotiations with foreign manufacturers must guarantee 85 per cent Canadian content. For the North American auto industry to become competitive, both production and production processes must become innovative.

The Canadian auto industry has been much slower in incorporating new technologies such as microelectronics and robotics into its production lines. The Japanese, on the other hand, recognized the significance of these developments years ago and have used them in the development of their automobile industry. As a result, they have one of the most highly automated systems in the world. It has certainly made a significant contribution to their ability to capture their share of the world market.

The greatest obstacle to the adoption of new technologies is the fear of massive unemployment. However, the reality of the situation is that the consequences will be greater if we do not become more competitive. Far from destroying jobs, rapid technological advance has generally been accompanied by high rates of job creation. Despite Japan's extensive use of automation, its unemployment level in 1980 was only 2.1 per cent.

There is no doubt the auto sector needs a comprehensive strategy to pull itself out of its present slump. Leadership at the federal level is needed quickly to meet the needs of the ailing auto sector. First, Ottawa can begin by lowering its interest rates; second, Ottawa must negotiate a favourable import agreement with Japan, and third, Ottawa must work closely with the United States to create a strong North American policy to increase the North American share in the international market.

At last February's economic conference, our Premier (Mr. Davis) advocated a bold program for the auto sector. He asked for co-operation in the implementation of a national automotive parts program which would allow this critical industry to restructure to meet its competition. We are pushing the federal government to take action.

At the provincial level, we are prepared to assist the auto industry in taking advantage of the opportunities opening up in the 1980s. The $25 million auto parts technology centre is an example of this.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I join the debate on this very important matter on a date that is rather ironic, because it also is the day the March unemployment figures came out for the country and for each city in Ontario. Unlike last month, in which Statistics Canada dreamed up an unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent for the city of Windsor, this month we got back to some reality with an unemployment rate of 14.6 per cent -- the largest for any community in Ontario. I hope the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will note this. That is still below the real unemployment rate. The Canada employment centre there reports that is 17 per cent, representing some 21,000 people.

To find the number two city for unemployment I believe one would only have to go as far as St. Catharines. That city had an unemployment rate for March of 11.7 per cent. It goes to show just how important the auto industry is to those two communities and how important the downturn in the industry has become in terms of unemployment.

I want, at the outset, to congratulate the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke). I do not agree with him on a lot of things but I do want to congratulate him for coming here with a resolution that is of substance and that, most important, talks about what this province can do.

The member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) is on his way out the door and I am sure the next speaker for the government will also want to address some of these matters. But I want to say just how concerned I am that this government does not yet realize it too has a role to play in the development of the automotive industry -- and particularly the auto parts industry -- in the 1980s.

I am so sick and tired of hearing how it is all Ottawa's fault and it is all Ottawa's doing and Ottawa has the only responsibility. This government has the primary responsibility in developing the automotive industry in this decade

As the member for Windsor-Riverside pointed out, only one aspect of the resolution -- the last two and a half lines of the resolution, which must run some 15 to 20 lines -- is in the purview of the federal government. Yet we heard the member for Durham-York reiterating that it is all Ottawa's fault.

If the Premier is so concerned about getting a significant increase in research and development, why does he not call in the presidents of the three Canadian companies -- the three Canadian presidents of the multinationals -- and tell them so in no uncertain terms? Why does he not try a little jawboning for a change? Is he so certain of his own impotence in discussing these matters that he is afraid to call in the Canadian presidents and talk tough to them? He is always talking tough in Ottawa. He could talk tough once in a while here in Queen's Park as well.

I think, however, the member for Durham- York -- and perhaps this government as a whole -- missed the point. I never had a sense of the importance of Canadianizing the industry in his whole speech. I suppose that is not surprising, given what has been happening recently in terms of White Industries. I do not think this government yet realizes the development of an independent Canadian-owned auto parts industry is the best way we can ensure the long-term job prospects in this province.

I support the general thrust of this resolution, and if the members opposite will allow it to come to a vote I will vote for it. The general thrust is contained right at the outset where it says there is a need for an auto industry in this province that is independent of foreign domination and specifically proposes programs to change the foreign domination of the parts industry. There is no doubt about it. The imbalance in the industry on the parts side must end.

There are many other specifics in this resolution I can support. I want to mention just one, because it is a very expensive part of the resolution in terms of funding, and that is the establishment of community adjustment funds both for workers and for the communities in which they live. I hope the member for Windsor-Riverside realizes that the establishment of such funds may have to be not just for the automotive industry, but also for the development of new industries, in those areas where the automotive industry simply cannot provide jobs any longer.

I want him to understand, and I think every member in this House must understand, that, especially in terms of assembly, the automotive industry is to a great extent a sunset industry. The automation of the industry is already well under way in Japan, and it will have to begin here sooner rather than later for us to be cost competitive. With respect to my friend the member for Durham-York, he did talk about the need for automation within the industry.

That makes the development and the revitalization of the parts industry that much more important, because, I want to make it very plain, I do not believe we are going to have the jobs on the assembly side in 1990 that we have today -- it just cannot happen -- or we are going to be totally noncompetitive in terms of the world market.

When I look at a city like my own, when I look at a community like Windsor, with a Chrysler truck plant, Chrysler automotive assembly plant, perhaps even with a diesel engine plant and the assembly line production involved in engine plants, we are simply going to be losing jobs. I think of what happened in the city of Oshawa some 10 days ago, where the second shift of the General Motors plant was laid off. I point it out because of the number of jobs involved in that shift, some 1,300, and that is the second shift alone.

Automotive assembly has been very labour intensive through the 1960s and 1970s and to the extent that it has provided raw jobs it has served us well. But that era is ending, and I think we must be preparing immediately for our leap into the 1990s and into the year 2000.

I do have some concerns about the resolution. All of a sudden it makes a quantum leap from the need to Canadianize the industry to the need for a crown corporation. It is a leap, unfortunately, that my friends on the left make very often; in fact, with amazing regularity. I find it interesting that they are latter-day opponents of Suncor.

One of these days I am going to get some comment from my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who spoke only in terms of believing in 51 per cent ownership of Suncor when it was first announced and never worried about whether the first 25 per cent was a good business deal. Only after it became obvious through our own questioning that it was a bad business deal, quite regularly --

Mr. McClellan: Do you remember talking to your friend Gray?

Mr. Wrye: That is correct. I want to suggest that the whole matter of a crown corporation suggests --

Mr. Martel: What about Petrocan? Forced into it as usual.

Mr. Wrye: I am quite well aware of Petrocan, but in this area I am not sure it suggests a need that we need to meet. I would suggest to my friend from Sudbury East and my friends to the left, I am not sure tins one area of the resolution is exactly necessary.

I do want to suggest, because I have only a few seconds left, that the problem we face today is a problem of a government that has written a speech offering not one job and not one program for the development of the parts industry. It talks about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, that is, a plant it is going to make eventually. What about the modernizing of the plants that are there already? There is nothing for that in this program.

5:20 p.m.

There is no understanding that we need to be ready and need to be ready quickly for a shift into parts production, the very shift the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself suggested in the throne speech and in his resolutions to Ottawa. I suggest if we get 85 per cent Canadian content tomorrow, the parts industry in this province will not be in fit shape to meet those content regulations. It is up to this government to show us the way.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the resolution before the House this afternoon. It is important that this Legislature has a concept in mind when it talks about revitalizing, rebuilding and regaining our share of the automotive sector around the world.

Two or three things need to be said before we get into this. One is that so far, as other members have indicated, the automotive business in Canada has been exclusively private. In part, that is one of the problems we ran into. Governments such as the government of Ontario which are heavily dependent on the auto industry for economic growth and development played no role at all for a long period of time. Only when things went bad did they even begin to investigate what parts of the automotive industry were in trouble. Why were we in trouble? What should the federal government do?

It is only in recent times we have even seen ministers of the crown talking about the difficulties that are there. What about content? What about quota legislation? What about the parts sector and the problems that are there?

For some period of time we have left it alone in the faint hope that the private sector would somehow bring it back and that the problems would be overcome. In some measure there are real limits on what the private sector can do. Much of the auto industry is about mythology. The myth that Canadians cannot build a decent car is out there. It now has to be fought.

I find it interesting that the car I have driven for three years came off the same assembly line in exactly the same plant, made by the same workers, as the ones that people in Iraq thought did not work well. I have had my vehicle for three years and so far I have replaced one tail-light bulb. It seems to me that is not bad quality.

There is a problem in pricing in the private sector where the Big Three auto makers maintain they want the liberty to overprice their units and they are getting hammered in the showrooms from one end of the country to the other by offshore imports that go directly at their weakest point, the pricing of their vehicles.

I remember when I bought my first car that $10,000 would have got the best Cadillac going, with a live-in maid. These days $10,000 will buy a mid-size Chevrolet. That is the problem --

Mr. Martel: Without the maid.

Mr. Breaugh: Without the maid.

Mr. Andrewes: How could a Socialist buy a car like that?

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: That is the problem in the private sector. Let me move on before we get too much barracking on this.

Let me move to the resolution itself, because it talks about what every other jurisdiction in the world has come to realize: that government must play a role in something as important to our economy as the auto industry.

I find it strange there is a little barracking on the other side about government intervention and all that. I find it perverse, frankly, that the only nationalized car industry in this country is in Brampton and the nation which is involved in that project is the Socialist government of France.

Mr. Kolyn: It was done by De Gaulle.

Mr. Breaugh: Somehow the honourable member is proud that De Gaulle did that. I would be much happier if the nationalized involvement in the auto industry were done by the government of Canada, or at least the government of Ontario.

This resolution speaks to what this government could do and what it must do. There is no question in the parts sector that they have come to a realization that small Canadian parts companies have great difficulty competing with worldwide operations.

In my town we build a nice little truck. It has a four-cylinder motor that is made in Japan. Why can that four-cylinder motor not be made here in Ontario? Why can the government of Ontario not do the co-ordination, assist with research and development and put together the kind of policy, program and effective intervention that is proposed in this resolution?

The secrets have been investigated for a lengthy period of time and the problems have been unfolding for a lengthy period of time. We have come to some hard realizations: we do not have a Canadian car industry; there is no such thing as a Canadian automotive assembly plant; we have branches of American corporations. In my town, in Oakville and in Windsor, even simple maintenance items around the plant are approved elsewhere, so there is no Canadian car. There are branches of multinational corporations functioning here.

Make no mistake about it. When they establish their priorities about which plants will take layoffs, which plants will shut down, it is the Canadian sector of that -- and in the automotive world when you talk about the Canadian sector you are really talking about Ontario -- that takes the hits first and takes the hits hardest.

When we look at the auto parts plants, and there are many of them in my area that just a few years ago were very active, thriving companies, we see what happens when they don't retool. We see what happens when they don't do redevelopment of their product lines and when they don't get the technology in place. They die.

Unfortunately, in my area we now have many empty buildings that were once very active parts producers for the auto industry. There is a need for that co-ordination of government policy, for research and development, for technology in the field and for marketing. What I find particularly strange is that in every other jurisdiction the first order of business is the intervention by the government to see that there is a sensible and rational development of that segment of the industry.

In Mexico, where General Motors has now gone to build new harness plants for its vehicles, the government intervenes right away and says:

"That's fine. We like to have your development here but this is what we want. This is the kind of content legislation we want. This is the kind of work program we want." In other jurisdictions, governments intervene at the beginning of the process to co-ordinate, to develop and to market.

That is the reality of the world. It is all very well to go around and hand out money to Volkswagen or to Chrysler or to Ford at the end of a process when the corporation is in trouble and when we are unsure of the results. That is all well and good, but we will never get anywhere unless the government gets its act together as the Japanese have and as the European manufacturers have.

The government must intervene and have an orderly and rational supply system. They must regularly bring in innovative processes and manufactured products that have a market and then go to work at making that market happen. That is the role of the government in all of this and that is precisely what is proposed in this resolution.

The resolution is unique in many aspects and one of the reasons I am so fond of it is that it deals with things which the government of Ontario could do, not things which are the responsibility of somebody else in some other jurisdiction. It deals with actions that those people who are sitting on the front benches over there -- those few who are there -- and their cabinet could take.

We are talking about a major part of Ontario's economy and it is, frankly, useless to harangue the federal Liberals for what they have not done. We all know that, but the fact remains that they cannot afford to let that be their sole offensive any more. They now have to participate in the process and if they do not, they are just as guilty by their inactivity as are the federal Liberals.

Another aspect of it I like is that to put a price tag on a program like this is sometimes a little difficult but to put a price tag on what is proposed in this resolution comes in at just under half of what they spent, as a government, to buy 25 per cent of an American oil company. If they can do that, whatever defence they might have for that purchase of Suncor shares, however rational that might have been, doesn't the Canadian automotive industry, doesn't the Ontario automotive industry deserve at least half of what they did for them? It seems to me that is not a radical proposal. It seems to me that is a logical proposal.

This resolution talks about co-ordinating the activities of a government. It talks about seeing that the economy does not go down the drain. It talks about monitoring it carefully and putting the parts together which make for a successful Canadian parts industry, and which maybe one of these days will make for a successful Canadian vehicle.

As we look at the worldwide experience of governments intervening -- and governments all over the world are having problems with this -- there is that great tendency just to patch it up. I think what this resolution calls for is necessary now. I don't care whether you call yourself a Socialist or a free enterpriser, in hard-nosed business terms this government will now have to move to intervene in the automotive section of our economy for their own survival. Sooner or later, they will. It is simply a question of how many workers will pay the price for their foot dragging in this whole exercise.

One of these days they will be trotting out this resolution in their own form and purporting to do something for the automotive sector and the workers. We are asking the government to look at this resolution now and take some action before further disaster hits the most important segment of our economy.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable members opposite have given us an opportunity to speak again on a subject we all have a great deal of concern about. Like those members, we on this side are genuinely concerned about the needs of the automotive market.

We know that one in four workers is employed within the automotive sector. We know the importance of having a Canadian market and the importance of the Ontario government taking an active part in resolving some of the problems that exist in that market today. We also know that the federal government has a responsibility.

I compliment the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) for at least taking time to put this down on the Order Paper as his subject of interest. It is truly unfortunate that he does not have someone in the federal House to do some speaking where it would count on a matter that is a federal responsibility, at least in part. If only the Leader of the Opposition had stayed in his seat, the member could give him his motion and perhaps something could be done in Ottawa.

The members should understand that Ontario is part of a federation of provinces in a country known as Canada. The federal government has a certain responsibility for negotiating agreements with other countries. In negotiating those agreements, it has made one key agreement with the United States. This happens to be known as the Canada-United States automobile products agreement, commonly known as the auto pact.

Ontario did not negotiate that pact; it was negotiated through Ottawa. The kind of suggestions inherent to the proposal being presented to the House today are that this House --

Mr. Bradley: "Don't blame me; blame the feds."

Mr. Cousens: No, no. It comes down to whose responsibility it is to do what. In this matter, there is a definite federal responsibility. Ontario does not negotiate with the United States. So what we are talking about here is simply a matter of whose responsibility it is. I for one do not want to see Ontario step into a federal prerogative.

The member for Windsor-Riverside has proposed that a short-term community fund be established to provide assistance to laid-off and terminated workers to help the affected communities restructure their industrial base.

Who does not care about that? Last week, it was April 1 when we spoke about the unemployed, laid-off auto workers, and there was not a fool in this House because every one of us was concerned about that very issue. Concern about laid-off employees is not something that is exclusive to the third party or the second party.

May I suggest that there would be some value if members understood what the federal government has started to do already. I am most surprised that the member for Windsor-Sandwich did not give some recognition to what the federal government has been doing through its industry and labour adjustment program. I am really surprised because it is an instance where the federal government is making an investment within the province and across the country.

This is part of what is happening. The media and other people pick up partial information, not the whole story, and they end up going away without understanding that governments are participating and trying to find a resolution.

In fact, through ILAP, certain communities in Ontario, such as Windsor and its neighbouring communities -- and the mover of this motion and the speaker from the second party should know about it -- Brantford, Brantford township and Chatham have been designated as labour adjustment areas where people who are laid off are going to be given special assistance because of depressed industries.

Because of the automobile slump, they are receiving significant assistance from the federal government; significant to the extent that the federal government has made a move. In Mr. Gray's recent announcement on January 31, he said he is increasing the industry and labour adjustment program to $25 million in interest-free loans available to the auto parts industry over the next two years.

We see there are programs in place. People who are affected in a deleterious way by the automotive cutbacks and by the problems we have are at least being given some consideration by the federal government through wage subsidies, mobility grants, enhanced training programs, job creation programs, early retirement benefits, community based industrial adjustment programs.

There are times when we say to the federal government, "Do more." There is something the federal government could do and that has to do with the arrangements that are made between our country and another country. It has to do with the auto pact and there is little that a provincial jurisdiction can do in the negotiation of such a pact.

I wish the members would put the responsibility where it really lies. That is not in Toronto, it is in Ottawa. Ontario comes in for a lot of criticism. Here again the member for Windsor-Riverside only gives part of the story. He talks about $10 million being nothing or $5 million just being a few crumbs or peanuts. He says there is no overall strategy by this government. What he is doing when he makes statements like that is hurting the credibility of his party.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, my, they would not want to know that. There is no use dealing with the facts. The claims that the former Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the present Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) are totally wrong really lead me to believe that someone else is far more wrong not to have taken the time to consider what these ministers have been saying and trying to do. It is wrong to say there are no initiatives coming from this government, to stress the need to reorganize the automotive parts industry and, in doing so, indicate Ontario can do something. We know Ontario can do something.

I wish the honourable members would realize that through BILD there have already been initiatives.

Mr. Martel: Through what?

Mr. Cousens: Through BILD, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. The member for Sudbury East must realize by now that this program is working. If the problems that existed in the economy today were exclusive to Ontario, I venture to say we would be seeing significant results by now. The fact is the problems are of a world order; they are of the whole country and of the whole continent of North America.

On March 4, 1982, the Minister of Industry and Trade announced the establishment of the auto parts technology centre in the Niagara region by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development; $25 million. An important objective of this centre is to enhance the industry's long-term development. Maybe what we should do is put it in Sudbury and then we would have a few more smiles from the third party or some other place. The fact is, it is close to the market which needs it. The government is responding. For members to say that nothing is happening is to hurt their own credibility.

At the same time, Ontario is holding discussions with the federal government. We are doing everything we can, not only with the government but with labour and industry as well, to negotiate among other things arrangements with the foreign automobile companies in Canada to increase the Canadian content in their products to a level of not less than 85 per cent.

I noticed that all members were here for the speech from the throne. At that time, on March 9, it was said that our government has a plan and it has a policy. We cannot do it alone but we are proceeding to implement that through negotiations, through discussion with our federal counterparts. The world is not run by just one or two people. It is a matter of working together in this matrix.

On March 1, the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) wrote to the Honourable Herb Gray. At that time he was trying to emphasize the need for a concerted effort by government, industry and labour to work together to aid in the recovery of the Canadian automotive industry.

5:40 p.m.

The motion before this House today would assume that only Ontario can resolve this by certain things we are going to do, by setting up a crown corporation and doing a few new tricks out of the same old bag. As we see it now, the Ontario government is doing a great deal to encourage and support the automotive industry. It is something we will continue to do, members can be sure.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as an individual who represents a riding that is very much dependent on the automotive industry, I find a lot of merit in many of the things contained within this resolution. It does not mean I agree with it 100 per cent but I think the thrust the honourable member has made shows his concern for his particular community and the province.

As representatives, we received a telegram from Local 199 of the United Auto Workers addressing itself to this particular problem. I would like to read this into the record for members of the Legislature:

"The members of the GM unit of Local 199 UAW had a well-attended meeting April 1, and voted unanimously to urge your government to cease the erosion of jobs in the Canadian industry by enforcing strict content laws.

"We further protest the import of V-6 engines from Mexico when we in St. Catharines have people laid off at a plant which makes that identical engine. If we are to preserve the auto industry in Canada, the manufacturers of automobiles and automobile parts must be forced to manufacture their parts in Canada, if they wish to be able to sell their products here in Canada.

"Your government's immediate attention to this matter is mandatory if we are to prevent the automobile industry from suffering the same fate as the electronics and textile industries."

It is signed by Mike Cook, John Clout and Gerry Michaud of the GM unit of Local 199.

Not only does the member point out in his resolution that we must urge and give full support to any federal initiatives in this direction, requiring content of at least 85 per cent -- the member suggests 100 per cent -- and restricting on a short term basis the number of vehicles that come in from Japan, but he also contemplates and includes in his resolution a couple of items that are within provincial jurisdiction and that deserve support. He talks about establishing a short-term community adjustment fund that would provide assistance to laid-off and terminated workers and would assist currently affected communities to restructure their industrial base.

There is no question that communities where there are large automotive manufacturing concerns are suffering in terms of the taxes that can be paid and the growth in assessment. I am talking, of course, about the fact that many who are confronted with these layoffs, some on a short term basis, some on a longer term basis, have difficulty meeting their commitments in terms of property taxation. Therefore, the community has a diminished tax base from which to work, at the same time as it is probably being called upon to render more assistance at the social level, particularly to the welfare agencies and other help agencies around the area.

Certainly this is the case in the Niagara Peninsula where those who no longer have supplementary benefits available to them and whose unemployment insurance has run out are forced to go to the region to receive welfare benefits, part of that coming from the provincial government and a portion from the region. The demands that are placed on the local communities adversely affected by massive layoffs in the automotive industry call out for provincial government assistance and the kind of short-term community adjustment fund that is contemplated by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke).

An extension of research and development would certainly be of benefit to us. As has been noted, we in the Niagara Peninsula have the automotive parts technology centre located very close to General Motors. I think that on a long-term basis it will be of some assistance. It certainly does not provide jobs in the short term: six to eight jobs at the beginning, perhaps 50 jobs at full tilt. But I think the importance of this kind of step, and I encourage more steps in that direction, is that it will help us to be competitive in the auto parts manufacturing area through research and development and educational services that would be available there.

So we look for more of that from the provincial government. This is a field, contrary to what many people would say, that is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. We hope we can expect more initiatives in that regard.

Entering into joint ventures with automotive manufacturing concerns does leave some questions. When the government becomes involved in assisting industry, we would want to see a stipulation that there would be job guarantees. There are many who are concerned that when government does provide assistance to industry, those job guarantees are not ironclad and that sometimes we are merely moving jobs around as opposed to creating new jobs.

There is a good deal of concern among the members from Windsor that the assistance provided did not create enough jobs. I believe $40 million was supplied by the federal government and $28 million by the provincial government to Ford. This created some jobs, yes, but there were other jobs that were perhaps lost as a result of this. We believe there should be some kind of guarantee that there would be new jobs that would not displace other jobs before we would encourage the government to embark on expenditures of that kind.

Members of the government party have spoken about the need for some kind of unanimity in the opposition about urging our federal government to become involved in the more restrictive measures on a short-term basis. This is a valid concern, particularly when we recognize that the federal government is balancing the demands of us in Ontario against those in British Columbia, perhaps, or another province. These provinces might see some detriment in pursuing a policy that might be restrictive in nature and certainly would talk about something other than free trade.

It takes a united voice from those of us who sit in this Legislature and allies we can find in other provinces to ensure the federal government has that support from a sufficient segment of the population. It also needs support from a sufficient number of members of all parties represented in the federal Parliament so they can take the necessary steps to assist our automotive industry.

At the same time, we must recognize there is always the chance that people in other parts of this country may be somewhat adversely affected if those nations, against whom we would take these kinds of penalties into consideration, retaliated in specific areas. As the former Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) walks in, I recall that on some occasions, at least in the past, he has been quick to remind the honourable members of that possibility when we talk about some restrictions.

I think those of us who represent automotive centres are prepared to take that risk at present. Therefore, I will be supporting this resolution. I think there are sufficient items in it worthy of the kind of support we in this Legislature can bring to it.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the members to withhold their private conversations please so we may hear the debate. The member for Nickel Belt has two minutes.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps they can withhold their applause until I am finished, too, Mr. Speaker.

During this debate this afternoon a couple of things struck me. One was the lack of members of the government party who were in attendance to hear the debate and take part in it. Another was the fact that the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) did not take part in the debate. I find that passing strange.

5:50 p.m.

When I hear members of the government party extolling the virtues of both the free enterprise system and foreign ownership of the Ontario economy, I think they should be told about a decision that was made this afternoon in Windsor -- it was made in Detroit, I am sure -- that the purchasing department of Chrysler Canada is being moved to Detroit.

That is exactly the kind of thing we have been trying to say to this government for many years now. They should not be surprised that when an economic crunch hit North America, the auto industry would repatriate its parts plants. We need only look at Bendix and at Houdaille to see examples of that policy.

The United Auto Workers was telling the industry for years it was bull-headed in its insistence in producing the big cars. In this chamber the government has been told many times about the silliness of the policy that the industry is pursuing. We have asked this government many times to pressure the federal government to do something about that auto pact because we were not getting our fair share under the auto pact.

5:56 p.m.

GOVERNMENT JET

The House divided on Mr. Bradley's motion of resolution 11, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Eakins, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Hennessy, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Nixon, Philip, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruston, Van Horne., Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kolyn.

Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Hennessy did not vote.

Mr. Speaker: Apparently the member for Thunder Bay did not vote, and there is no such thing as an abstention.

Ms. Copps: Fort William.

Mr. Speaker: Fort William. I am sorry. I will rephrase that; the member for Fort William --

An hon. member: He voted.

An hon. member: He voted "aye."

Mr. Speaker: Did he?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Did you vote?

Mr. Hennessy: I did not vote on the government side; I voted against the government.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I congratulate the member for Fort William, but I think he is technically incorrect. There is no government side in private members' business. It is a free vote.

Mr. Speaker: I think we all got the idea.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ayes 33; nays 56.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

The House divided on Mr. Cooke's motion of resolution 2, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Cureatz, Eakins, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Hennessy, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. I., Nixon, Philip, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruston, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Ayes 34; nays 55.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House the business for next week.

On Tuesday, April 13, we will reconvene and continue debate on the throne speech motion in the afternoon and the evening.

On Wednesday, April 14, as is customary, the usual three committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, April 15, we will debate private members' ballot items standing in the names of Mr. Gillies and Mr. Sweeney. On Thursday evening, we will continue the debate on the throne speech motion.

On Friday, April 16, we will also continue the throne speech motion debate.

May I also indicate, to assist members of the House, that we expect to be concluding the throne debate and voting on the main motion and amendments on Tuesday afternoon, April 20.

The House adjourned at 6.08 p.m.

8 avril 1982