Journal des débats 1982-mai-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: On Friday last, several members raised what they considered were matters of privilege, and there have been so many of these instances recently that I have agreed to make a statement on what constitutes privilege.

I feel that I should once again direct the attention of the House to the definition of privilege contained in standing order 18(a):

"Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

I also direct the members' attention to the definition of privilege contained on page 67 of the 19th edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, which reads as follows:

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals." The last four words of that are the most important part.

These definitions make it clear that to be a matter of privilege it must pertain to one of those special rights which the ordinary citizen does not enjoy.

I will now refer briefly to some of the specific instances raised.

On April 22, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) referred to a directive which he stated had been circulated by the Ministry of Health to the effect that local or district councils are prohibited from making representations to or speaking with opposition members. I have no way of knowing whether or not the members did have a special privilege to confer with the health councils which other bodies or individuals did not have. If not, complaints should, of course, be directed to the ministry.

On Friday, April 30, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and several others complained about the difficulty of obtaining information from the various ministries. The only standing orders that deal with members' obtaining information from the ministry are those dealing with oral and written questions and notices of motion for returns. I know that members very often telephone directly to a ministry, asking for certain information, but unless it can be established that the members have a special right or privilege to use this procedure which the general public does not have, then it does not concern the House and is not a matter of privilege as above defined. It is rather, as I suggested last Friday, a matter between the member and the ministry.

I must again remind the House that the Speaker's only prerogative with respect to alleged matters of privilege is to determine whether or not a prima facie case of privilege has been made out. The Speaker is not required, nor has he the right, to "look into the situation very deeply and to make a ruling on the rights of members of this Legislature to meet and talk to people who are purportedly members of the public appointed to do a specific job," as the member for Oshawa requested me to do on Thursday, April 22. If a prima facie case of privilege is made out, then, as I have stated many times, it is up to the House to deal with it in the proper manner.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your statement on the matter today. In making that statement you have raised some very legitimate points and heightened my concerns. In portions of your statement you clearly established that the members have, as part of privilege, the right to get certain kinds of information and to do things the public at large cannot do. I am thinking particularly of the traditional right to visit provincially operated institutions and the right to talk to senior civil servants and others employed by the ministry to get information which is part and parcel of the work they do in this Legislature.

I am somewhat concerned if that is to be the end of the process, and I wonder whether you would give some consideration to this matter being forwarded to the standing committee on procedural affairs. To my knowledge, we have only precedent and tradition, and some matters covered under the standing orders and some matters under the Legislative Assembly Act, to rely upon. I wonder whether it would be useful to have this matter clarified by an investigation conducted by the procedural affairs committee.

I am reluctant to try to put before you what you refer to as a prima facie case. It seems to me it would be an extraordinary piece of business for me to name a particular senior civil servant or junior civil servant who refused me information. It is not my intention to persecute one individual in a ministry but rather to provide the members of this Legislative Assembly with what they traditionally have had: the right to ask questions, the right to poke and probe and the right to find out exactly what is going on.

I ask you to give some consideration to forwarding this matter to the standing committee on procedural affairs to put on its agenda so we may have further consideration of it.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I understand the difficult position the Speaker of the assembly is placed in. It is not often I rise in support of a matter of privilege raised by a member of the official opposition to the government but, if I understood you correctly, you said you would have no way of knowing whether the health centres have been under some form of intimidation by a ministry of the government as to whether they could meet with members of the opposition.

I do not want to repeat myself.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Renwick: I know you have a capacity for listening with both ears, Mr. Speaker.

I simply want to refer to the statement you made that you would have no way of knowing whether members of a health unit were prohibited by some directive of the Ministry of Health from talking with members of the opposition about health matters. While it may be that May, in the 19th edition, has indicated matters of privilege are related to privileges we have as members of the assembly in excess of what ordinary members have, I suggest the rules should also be read to mean we have no less than the rights of ordinary citizens to have representations made to us by people without intimidation.

I respectfully request that you support the suggestion made by my friend the member for Oshawa that each and every one of these matters be referred to the committee of the assembly which deals with these matters, because it is no longer adequate that we, as members of the opposition, should find that members of the public serving on boards appointed by the government, or having some connection with the government, should feel under any inhibition about meeting with us on matters of public concern.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when this matter was raised by the member for Oshawa the other day, I spoke on the matter of privilege. At that time, I raised a particular point with respect to some of the answers I had received. You will recall the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) indicated at that time that if we wanted to get full, complete and responsible answers to our questions, we should put questions on the Order Paper, or we could ask questions in the House.

With respect to questions being put on the Order Paper, on April 141 put a question on the Order Paper asking for information about assessment cases in the city of Toronto. An answer came back to me. That answer, as I saw it, was not very complete. Yet last Thursday, when we tried to clarify this matter of getting full answers, the Minister of Revenue indicated all we had to do was put the question on the Order Paper.

If the minister says to this House he is prepared to give full and responsible answers to our questions if we put them on the Order Paper, what are we to do when he does not follow through with that, as evidenced by his answer to me, dated April 14? That is apparently when I got the answer to my original question. We wanted to find out how many assessors were being sent to Toronto and how much it was costing the ministry. He did not give me any of that information. He gave me a bunch of gobbledegook. What are we to do when he does not give us these complete answers? He is inadvertently misleading the House by saying he will give us the answers.

Mr. Speaker: We are talking about two separate and distinct issues. I am not trying to suggest yours is not important but, with all respect, it is not a matter of privilege.

Mr. Epp: It is relevant because it was raised as a --

Mr. Speaker: It is somewhat different. I would like to take this matter under consideration, rather than listening with one ear only and trying to receive advice at the same time. I would like to take perhaps a few days to look it up and give a ruling on it probably early next week, if I may.

Getting back to --

Mr. Nixon: The real world.

Mr. Speaker: The real world, indeed.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislature to join with me in welcoming and recognizing in the Speaker's gallery, Dr. Ritchie Haynes, member and finance critic of the opposition party of Barbados.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GO TRANSIT SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address GO Transit operational plans, current and long-range, including reference to the planned extension of commuter rail service into the Oshawa region.

To begin with, I received a letter from GO Transit chairman Lou Parsons, in which he outlined his views following staff assessment of the CN's GO train service extension study.

In a nutshell, CN has told GO that Ontario will have to pay out almost $40 million for a new rail line -- grading, signal plant, structural modifications and station platforms -- before GO can move trains the 17 kilometres between Pickering and the city of Oshawa. Those costs do not include the dollars required for locomotives, rolling stock, stations or parking lots, which will bring the total to $75 million. Even that amount is not the final figure because, if we add in electrification, we are talking about approximately $114 million.

Mr. Parsons also points out that this vast sum of provincial dollars will allow GO to run only five round-trip trains daily, while CN will continue to own and control their system.

It seems to me, as Mr. Parsons states, the Ontario taxpayers would be buying nothing more than a short-term solution to solve a major problem which will not go away: the ever-increasing demand for commuter rail services. It is a double-barrelled problem because, besides that demand, we are locked into CN, which dictates the level of services because it must control the system.

Allow me to spell out what I mean by increased demand. Ten years ago, some 4,000 people used the eastern run of the Lakeshore line. Today, the count is roughly 15,000. My ministry's planners are convinced that within the foreseeable future, that figure will be closer to 50,000. In GO Transit's first year of operation, we carried some two million passengers. I expect this year we will carry 22 million passengers.

Currently, GO is experiencing capacity problems, particularly during peak periods when some trains are now carrying up to one third more passengers than they have seats. There are, of course, short-term measures currently being taken to alleviate this situation, but they are scarcely more than stopgap solutions which will do no more than temporarily slow up the onset of complete stagnation.

These measures include acquisition of some 71 additional bilevel coaches, allowing rush-hour trains to be expanded to their full potential capacity. This, in turn, will only add to another problem GO is currently facing: overcrowding when the five trains arrive at Union Station from the west Lakeshore route in a one-hour period during the morning rush.

Even if GO is successful and gets permission to run maximum-length trains of bilevels, for example, plus an extra train, we are talking about only another 2,600 seats, which is hardly the number we require to provide for the kind of service commuters are demanding.

Still, we are working with CN, attempting to add additional rush-hour trains and to lengthen them. These are only short-term options. As members can see, they offer no more than temporary relief for the situation we face. In short, they barely address the short-term demand, let alone what may be expected in the medium to long term.

2:20 p.m.

What does that control of the CN system or plant mean to GO and, ultimately, the Ontario government? Even if one ignores the fact that CN determines the ultimate service level, the Ontario government pays the full operational bill and owns nothing.

For example, in the 15 years that GO has been in the business of moving commuters by rail it has paid, in equivalent 1982 dollars, $111.7 million to CN and the Toronto Terminal Railway, plus another $41.1 million to CP, to provide plant improvements to accommodate the service as it stands today. For that money, Ontario owns no part of the right-of-way infrastructure, meaning in the end that we have no guarantee of service increases, for it is the railway which must determine when the trains can be run and how many.

I would like to add that it should be obvious to everyone that we have reached a point in time when we must in all fiscal honesty look at alternatives. If it is going to cost us a minimum of $75 million merely to provide GO commuter rail service between Pickering and Oshawa without trying to determine the cost of longterm or even short-term solutions, then there must be another way to go.

So far, I have addressed only the Oshawa study and those costs involved in any eastward extension. There is also the matter of extension of service to the Burlington and Hamilton area. From the costs developed for the expansion to Oshawa, we can only assume the dollars necessary for GO to expand westerly would be proportionately high.

This government has pulled together a mass of information. We are currently studying total electrification. CN Rail has spelled out the costs of an approach for the Oshawa extension, all of which we are analysing and all of which, in turn, insist we consider long-term solutions, be they some form of higher-capacity transit system, buses, elevated rights of way or whatever.

I realize only too well, as does Mr. Parsons, that the residents of the Oshawa region are anxious to receive positive news that GO service will be extended to their area. With this in mind, I have requested my ministry officials and senior GO management to examine all alternatives, bearing in mind the cost-benefit ratios I have outlined, and report back to me within 90 days, if not sooner, outlining the recommended course of action we should take.

This afternoon I wish to table the Oshawa GO train CN study, as well as copies of Mr. Parson's letter, which I received last week.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, there seems to be a very high level of noise caused by private conversations. It is very difficult to hear what the ministers or anybody else is saying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: That is a prime example. I would ask the co-operation of all members in limiting their private conversations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It was my understanding that this minister was reported in the Oshawa Times as saying he was recommending to the cabinet that the GO train to Oshawa be approved. Did he lie to the Oshawa Times, or is he lying to us?

Mr. Speaker: First, that is completely out of order. It is not a matter of privilege. I am not sure whether that suggestion was proper. Perhaps you would like to withdraw the implication or reword it.

Mr. Breaugh: I simply asked the question. If the words are offensive, I will withdraw them, but the intent will remain the same.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether that changes anything. I am glad to hear that you are withdrawing the words. You may more properly ask the question during the proper time.

The Minister of the Environment.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mr. Kerrio: Clean up your act.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is your act I am going to clean up.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the high level of interest of a number of members of the Legislature in the recent incident in the Junction triangle, I would like at this time to bring to the attention of the House the results of my ministry's investigation into the discharge of chemicals to the city of Toronto sewers in that area.

Mr. Martel: Stop mumbling and speak up.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are having a great deal of difficulty in hearing and understanding what the Minister of the Environment is saying. I once again ask the members to limit their private conversations or to carry them on elsewhere.

Mr. Martel: Tell him to take the marbles out of his mouth.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I shall try to articulate, Mr. Speaker.

My ministry's staff have now completed the investigation and on my instructions have today laid charges against Nacan Products Ltd. of Wallace Avenue.

The company is being charged with four infractions under the Environmental Protection Act and regulations: under the Environmental Protection Act, clause 13(1)(c), namely, discharging a contaminant likely to cause harm or material discomfort to persons; under the Environmental Protection Act, clause 14(1)(c), namely, discharging a contaminant out of the normal course of events that is likely to cause harm or material discomfort to persons without forthwith notifying the ministry; under regulation 308, section 13, namely, handling a substance so that an air contaminant is released; and under regulation 308, section 6(b), causing or permitting the emission of an air contaminant that may cause loss of enjoyment of normal use of property.

I am advised that these charges are returnable in the provincial offences court at old city hail in Toronto, on June 2.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend the Treasurer, the man responsible for the public purse and the gentleman who is threatening to raise taxes next week.

I am sure the Treasurer was very distressed to read in the Globe and Mail this morning about the potential squandering of $300 million or more of the public Treasury on a purchase, the valuation of which they had a different opinion about. He will recall his statement of October 15, 1981: "On the basis of whether the deal was a good purchase, the answer is unquestionably yes. The price paid by the province, the viability of the company, all those things stood rigorous and rigid examination."

In the light of those reports today, what possible justification can the Treasurer have or how can he continue to assert that the price paid underwent rigorous and rigid examination?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am as convinced today as I was on October 15 that the analysis made on behalf of Ontario by very competent people using the criteria of the day was accurate.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer has faith now, even though he did not have it then; so I can understand why his opinion has not changed.

Because of the very serious nature of that charge in the newspaper this morning, and it appears to be independently substantiated, does the Treasurer not feel that he would want to bring those documents forward so there can be a public scrutiny to make sure the taxpayers did get value for that expenditure?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have no idea who the Globe and Mail used for the analysis, I have no idea just how they did it, but I think it is very easy to sit with incomplete information and come up with incomplete answers.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Treasurer's answer, will he not use his obvious authority within cabinet to release to the public the full information the government of Ontario had when it made the purchase? In particular, will he not seek the release of the confidentiality agreement with Sun Oil and release the full contents of the McLeod Young Weir study?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall that the requirement for confidentiality for certain information was that of the vendor. We have requested the right to release that information and it is my information that permission has been denied.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, given that in the past when the Treasurer has had criticism from this side he has called it just political comment, he can hardly accuse the Globe and Mail of being supporters of the Liberal Party. Given the objective assessment --

Interjections

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, are you going to rule these people under control or not?

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

Mr. Roy: Given that the Globe and Mail have at times been supportive of the people on that side of the House, I would like to ask the Treasurer if he does not feel, given his original position on this deal, somewhat vindicated by the assessment of the experts as stated in the Globe and Mail? Given this situation, has he asked for the resignation of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch)? Why does he not tender his own resignation, given that as Treasurer, he has so little weight in cabinet?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, I would suggest that if one referred to people and entities like the Globe and Mail which had at some time supported this party, the member would have to virtually include everybody in Ontario because at one time or another almost everybody has been known to be right on occasion. As to my weight in cabinet, jogging and a diet have kept it down.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will address this question to the Minister of Energy. The Premier stated in the House on December 4, 1981: "I am sure that information, if, in fact, it becomes available, will convince the member to be more enthusiastic than he has been in the past about this acquisition." As the facts unfold and become more readily accessible to those of us who do not have immediate access, we become increasingly unenthusiastic about this terrible mistake the government has made. Why will he not, as the minister responsible, turn that information over to this House so that we can at least scrutinize it, particularly in view of this serious charge that was levelled against his competence today?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should take advantage of this situation to remind the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed all members of the House, what has been tabled already, which is a considerable amount of information. Included in that information there happened to be two letters, copies of which I have here and which, no doubt, the Leader of the Opposition has read carefully over the lunch hour today.

One of the letters is signed by McLeod Young Weir Ltd. and is dated October 13. The other, of the same date, is signed by Price Waterhouse. I will not take up the time of the question period to read all of the answers there, but both letters were from real, live, breathing, unafraid-to-be-identified financial analysts. They are right here and they are on the record with respect to this matter. We will name some other real, live, breathing, unafraid-to-be-named financial analysts before we are finished this afternoon.

McLeod Young Weir Ltd. tell us in their letter -- there it is on the record for all to read -- with respect to the valuations what their recommendation would be with respect to the range. Price Waterhouse do the same thing. In addition to that, we have all sorts of other analysts who are prepared to be identified with this.

Mr. Roy: All on your payroll probably.

Hon. Mr. Welch: All on our payroll? Then let us listen to who they are: Richard Hallisey, an analyst with First Marathon Securities; John Stevens, an analyst with Brown Baldwin and Nisker Ltd.; Denis Mote, an oil analyst with Bache Halsey Stuart Canada Ltd. Indeed, it was not too long ago that something was drawn to my attention by a very enthusiastic supporter of this transaction.

The article goes on to talk about Ontario --

Mr. Sargent: Who got the payoff?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Someone told me the member was just back from Japan and that he would be in better humour now in view of his visit over there.

Mr. Sargent: What the hell has that got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: About as much as the member's interjections have to do with this particular question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I might just consult my notes so that I do not misquote the individual. A man by the name of Kurt Wuiff, a United States financial analyst with Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Incorporated of New York City, has studied both Suncor and its parent for years. He has followed Suncor's progress and it was he who said, which has been quoted in one of Ontario's great daily newspapers, that the province "paid about 80 per cent of what we and others thought the assets were worth."

We have named a few experts. The Leader of the Opposition perhaps would accept this challenge: Produce the name and address of a real, live, breathing, unafraid financial analyst who will sign some documents, who will take exception to the price. The honourable members opposite are all full of wind. Let us get something on record.

Mr. Ruston: You hypocrite.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all honourable members that the Leader of the Opposition has two mandatory questions, not the opposition party. I recognize the honourable Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it is funny how you chastise the opposition but let the Premier get away with murder.

Mr. Speaker: I am not chastising anybody; I am just pointing out a fact of life.

Mr. Martel: He plays the same old game. You should have been here yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear anybody on this side other than the Minister of Energy trying to make his voice heard.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister reminds me of the Anglican minister who writes beside his text, "Yell like hell, point weak," and that is what happened. I will give the minister a long list of respectable companies that marshal resources wisely that would not touch that company with a 10-foot pole and he knows it. Brascan, Noranda and all of them know how stupid the minister is, but he just will not admit it.

If his opinions are so good, I ask him right now to table them in this House. Bring the opinion of Price Waterhouse and bring the opinion of McLeod Young Weir. McLeod Young Weir are his flunkies, his financial agents. They are all involved in a big pen together, justifying each other's actions. We need independent scrutiny and the minister will not allow it. He is in a squeeze and he is still embarrassed about it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I bet the honourable Leader of the Opposition has not read 25 per cent of the material that was tabled. I have named and actually given him the names of the firms of financial analysts that have commented on this deal and have found it a good purchase. It is all there to read, including the McLeod Young Weir and Price Waterhouse statements. I now challenge him to produce the name of one analyst -- not as many as I have done -- one opinion signed by that analyst that would contradict these opinions. I am waiting for him to respond to this. He is all talk. How about some action now?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister to shed some light instead of some heat on the matter? Could he tell this House what justification he has for witholding from the investors the full information that is contained in the McLeod Young Weir study? Why will he not make that fully available to this House and to the public of Ontario at this time?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the remarkable thing about the party led by the deputy leader, in conjunction with others, is that I do not know what he has against Canadianization of the oil industry of this country. What does he have against it? His is the party whose basic criticism was we had not gone far enough. Now he is standing up here trying to play both sides, which is pretty typical of the way he interprets these issues. What does he have against this process of Canadianization anyway? Why is he standing in his place asking us to violate an agreement? It was absolutely essential and he knows that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The deputy leader of the third party knows very well it is part of established commercial practice that if we wanted to obtain the type of advice we required to satisfy ourselves with respect to the purchase price, our advisers had to have access to a lot of information, a great deal of which was part of the commercial operation. Before our advisers could have access to that information, they were obliged to sign a confidentiality agreement. That has all been told and the agreement has been tabled here at his request for the honourable member to read.

When the deal was closed in December, on my instructions we asked the parent company and Suncor if we could now release that particular information. We have been advised by Sun Oil that it would not waive the terms of the confidentiality agreement. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) shared that information with the member in a supplementary to that question. However, I point out that there is plenty of information on the table. We have responded, as the honourable member knows. The advisers attended his caucus as they did the caucus of the official opposition.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister didn't tell us about the $78 million in dividends. That was deceitful. He misled all of us in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He had an obligation to tell us about the $78 million in dividends.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He knew about the $78 million and he never said a word.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for Rainy River will get an opportunity to ask a question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not soon enough.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy was responding to a question from the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. He was evading the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will get on with a final supplementary from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, most ministers accused of squandering $300 million or more would at least have some response rather than just yelling back with all this foolishness.

It is common knowledge that most people in his party disagree with what he has done, that the Premier, the minister himself and the Treasurer are under assault every single day. His own backbenchers are mad at the stupidity of his decision.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: Why does the minister not try to salvage the tattered remains of his reputation by at least making it public and letting us have a discussion about this issue where it belongs, in this forum of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Welch: All of the information that has been available has not stood in the honourable member's way of jumping to some conclusions about the deal, nor did it seem to interfere with the article to which reference has been made today. They seem to have had plenty of information upon which to build their speculation.

I might point out the only reference I saw of some particular company was a reference to some Richardson report. Indeed, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the cover of that Richardson report which cautioned anyone who was going to use that report because it had to do with the proposed amalgamation of Great Canadian Oil Sands Ltd. and Sun Oil Co. Ltd. It is a report dated 1979.

May I be permitted to remind the members what was said in that report? It said: "The boards of directors of Great Canadian Oil Sands Ltd. and Sun Oil Co. wish to emphasize that the valuation reports and supplements thereto were prepared and utilized for the exclusive purpose of assisting in the determination of the appropriate terms of the amalgamation and may be inappropriate as a basis for estimating the future values or market prices of the amalgamated corporation's shares or for making future investment decisions respecting such shares. That is right on the cover of this so-called report and is very important.

I would also point out to the member that, notwithstanding the volume of the first answer, I did give him the names of at least six reputable individuals and/or firms that gave us pretty good advice with respect to it. I would repeat, let him give me one, just one live, breathing analyst who will fact take exception to the advice that we have.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now the opportunity for the New Democratic Party to ask questions.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point with the Premier. Since there are still many unanswered questions surrounding the government's acquisition of Suncor, and since the decision seems to have been taken by the Premier and the Minister of Energy in isolation, will he now order a full public inquiry or royal commission into the acquisition of Suncor by this government so that the taxpayers of this province can find out whether or not this government has misused and misspent $300 million of their money, as alleged in the press this morning?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I read the story. I am not sure I would describe it as an allegation. I am the last one to appear to explain a journalistic approach, but I would not describe it as an allegation. The member can use that term if he wishes.

Am I prepared to appoint a royal commission? The answer is no.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the long history of things that have gone wrong with Suncor, which have plagued the Premier, his government and this province since it was announced -- specifically that he has no influence over the corporate policy since he has learned that the decisions are still made in the US; that the dividends and the control still flow to the US; that there are health and safety violations; that the parent company gives no indication of co-operating with the government as a minor investor in revealing the full terms of the agreement in the first place -- how can the Premier continue to refuse to the public and the members of this Legislature the full information to which they are entitled? Why will he not open his decision to the public light of a full royal commission and inquiry? What is he afraid of?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have no intention of establishing a royal commission. I have said on other occasions in this House that we are anxious to give as much information as we can according to the agreements that were executed with respect to confidentiality.

It is intriguing that this debate today, or this question period, has been stimulated by a somewhat speculative article written in the Globe and Mail this morning.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just let me finish. I can only say to the member who is interjecting that all of these calls for further disclosure -- and he has had most of the information -- apparently did not inhibit the Globe and Mail from retaining somebody or perhaps having it done internally on the basis of existing information.

I can assure the member that if he has specific questions that are not part of any confidentiality agreement, the Minister of Energy will be only too delighted to share this information with him.

I would say to the acting leader of the New Democratic Party that I find it somewhat inconsistent to find his party philosophically in support of Canadianization of the oil industry -- in fact, they would say nationalization, as distinct from Canadianization -- when it was stated that part of the objective was to achieve the 51 per cent ownership, with the province at 25 per cent and some other source or sources for the other 26 per cent. I would say to the member that we have been participants in this company now for January, February, March, April and a part of May, four months.

2:50 p.m.

There is no question that the company had some difficulty with respect to its main production facility in Alberta. There is no question either that this had an impact upon earnings. If he looks at part of their report, the member will find that with the exception of one -- probably Petro-Canada -- Suncor had an increase in retail sales of some four per cent, which is about seven per cent higher than the industry average. That too has to be put into the mix.

The member should be sharing our delight at the increasing penetration of Suncor into the market. I can assure him that we are anxious to make available anything that we can with respect to the agreement we executed.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, does it not strike the Premier as strange that the chairman of a crown corporation, Mr. Kierans, along with the Premier, set up the deal and that now when the deal is already cooked he becomes the president of McLeod Young Weir? Could the Premier tell where the payoff was because there was a $6 million commission sitting there that was refused. Can he answer that straightforwardly and quit the stickhandling.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario if the member for Grey-Bruce is asking that question on behalf of the Liberal Party and if he is supporting the tenor and the nature of that question?

Mr. Sargent: Why in the hell can he not answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Read the standing orders and you will know.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as it is obvious that the Premier will not offer his own resignation over this mismanagement of public funds nor ask for that of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) or the president of the Ontario Energy Corporation, who was so instrumental in developing the deal and is now keeping it secret, will he at least allow a free vote in the House about a public inquiry into the deal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know just how democratic the member's party is in terms of structure and organization and just how many free votes it has within its caucus to determine whatever decisions it makes. Knowing the history and traditions of his party, I would say that this party is far more democratic than his party will ever be in terms of the connotations made.

I would say to the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, or the leader of the New Democratic Party who is acting, whichever terminology it happens to be on any given day, that I have already answered. There is no need for a royal commission. We are quite prepared to debate the issue in this House, but to suggest the latter, the answer is no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: When you are through with your conversation, I will recognize the honourable member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Premier support the strong position taken by the Minister of Health yesterday with regard to extra billing by the Ontario Medical Association in view of the agreement signed between the government and the OMA in that the OMA schedule and the OMA as a matter of policy still recommends that for operations the doctors in the OMA charge above the OHIP schedule? For example, for a mastectomy they recommend that they charge about $135 more than the present OHIP schedule; for an appendectomy, $68.60 more than the present schedule; for a hiatus hernia, $149.80 more than the present schedule; and for a cataract operation, $124.80 more than the present schedule. Does the Premier consider that acceptable for the patients of Ontario in view of the rich agreement the minister signed with the medical profession?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just heard from a very distinguished neurosurgeon that if the member was seeking a lobotomy within the OHIP fee schedule, he would be prepared to perform it for him. I do not know what that means. I just thought I would pass it on.

To answer the question very simply, the agreement has not been signed. It has not been ratified by the council of the OMA.

Mr. Foulds: I might point out to the Premier that for the majority of the members of cabinet, in terms of that offer by the neurosurgeon, the member for York East (Mr. Elgie), it would not make a speck of difference whether he carried out the operation on them or not.

May I ask the Premier, in view of his answer, whether he expects the OMA to ratify the agreement, and if he does, whether he feels the agreement, which means that in those operations I outlined the OHIP fee would cover less than the fee recommended by the OMA by about one per cent in each case, is acceptable in this day and age to the people of Ontario? Is it acceptable to his government that in the 1982 situation OHIP will only pay 69 per cent, as opposed to 70 per cent, in all cases for those operations I outlined?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in following the logic of the latter part of the honourable member's question. I am not being facetious or critical. I really did have some difficulty.

If he is asking me in the first part of the question if I expect the OMA to sign the agreement, I sincerely hope it does. I would like to think so. I cannot guarantee it, but I think the minister and those who are involved in the executive committee feel it will be ratified. That is the best help I can give.

Mr. Foulds: Will the Premier just give us a simple commitment to end extra billing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the honourable member had that question answered by the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the answer has not changed.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice with respect to freedom of information. Since the Williams commission cost the government $1.7 million and a freedom of information act based on its recommendations is long overdue, does the minister not agree that the arbitrary withholding of the evaluation of the Suncor purchase is exactly the kind of mischief that the report of the Williams commission was determined to end?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under any freedom of information legislation, whether that suggested by the Williams commission or that in place in the United States or in any jurisdiction in the world I am aware of, this information would not be available.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is perhaps aware that today I am introducing a private member's bill on freedom of information and it would be covered in that legislation. Does the minister not agree with the Williams report that there should be disclosure where there is compelling public interest in favour of disclosure which outweighs any risk of commercial advantage to the submitter of the information?

Does he not agree the probable evidence, or at least the comment with respect to a possible waste of some $300 million in taxpayers' funds, constitutes the kind of public interest in these reports that would compel appropriate and proper disclosure?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not think this government would ever introduce a piece of legislation that would require the government to go contrary to an agreement it has made with another party, and it would not be the intention of our government ever to do that.

3 p.m.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware of layoffs announced at General Motors today? Is he aware that 375 jobs in St. Catharines will be going to the United States and the starter motors and generator equipment will now be produced in the United States, and 170 jobs from Oshawa will be going to Mexico?

Is it not about time this government went on record and said that what we want and expect from the Japanese in terms of Canadian content is exactly what we have a right to expect from the Big Three in this country?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the layoffs in Oshawa and the layoffs that will occur in St. Catharines and it is most unfortunate. We are gratified that the rumour from last week has not turned out to be true. It would appear that the St. Catharines Welland Avenue plant will continue in operation. There were rumours at the end of last week that it might go and we are very pleased, indeed, at least that will continue.

We recognize the problems that exist in the industry. We recognize the problems that exist between the countries involved on this. We recognize there has been a general downturn in the car industry and we have to expect that from time to time there are going to be these layoffs. That is unfortunate but that is the nature of the industry.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, nobody but that minister could see a silver lining in what has just happened in St. Catharines when 250 jobs are going to the United States and are not going to return.

Specifically what representation did the minister make or will he make to General Motors to keep those jobs in St. Catharines and in this country, recognizing the serious unemployment situation in the Niagara Peninsula and recognizing our tremendous imbalance in the automotive field?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, at least the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) was in touch with me at the end of last week to advise me of the rumours which were going around. I wish more people had been able to advise me earlier, but anyway we had people on to it as quickly as possible. People were talking to them. Indeed, our people are talking with General Motors today about this very aspect.

They have gleaned from General Motors this particular consideration: that they are now undertaking an economic feasibility study to find out what additional business will be available for those facilities, with the hope that while these are indefinite layoffs, at least at some point some of these people, if not all, will be able to return. We hope that is the case.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in assessing the problem which I and ministry officials brought to the minister's attention late last week, has he been able to determine to any degree at the present time whether General Motors in this specific instance, and certainly in a number of other instances, is living up to the terms of the auto pact?

Second, and related to that, does the minister have a concern that when General Motors keeps sending American-born, American-educated and American-trained presidents to Canada to head the Canadian operation, perhaps these people would not have the same degree of concern for Canadian operations as they would if perhaps they were Canadian-born, Canadian-educated and Canadian-trained individuals?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the last part first, I would have to say that in the past most of the industries that are involved with sending in people from across the border have been good Canadian corporate citizens. With respect to General Motors, I would suspect it has had its share of good corporate citizens.

I do not think the member can castigate any of the United States officials who have come in. Indeed, sometimes they become somewhat more protective once they get into this country, but I am sure it varies from person to person. Generally speaking, we would have to say that to the extent we have foreign nationals who are directly responsible to our automobile industry and some parts of it, by and large they have been very strongly inclined towards a nationalistic fervour in this country even though they come from a different country. Generally speaking they have been exemplary individuals who have been guests of ours in this country and who have worked here.

As to the terms of the auto pact, to a large extent we are satisfied the terms have been lived up to in many respects, but in this particular case we will be investigating this aspect more.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Trade. In a speech the minister gave on March 16 of this year to the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association at the Toronto Club he said:

"When it comes time to carve the turkey, I sit back and watch my cabinet colleagues fight over who gets the left wing. Treasurer Frank Miller and I are more genteel. We take turns sharing the right wing."

Now you know what he thinks of you.

Mr. Nixon: A turkey would have two right wings --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given the clear right-wing philosophy of this minister and the desperate need for additional funding for business in Ontario, how could this minister possibly approve and share in the approval of the Suncor purchase?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this cabinet supports that purchase.

Mr. Sweeney: Given the minister's answer that he supports it solely because of cabinet solidarity, may I ask him what he meant in the May 1982 edition of Ontario Business News? He said, with reference to helping business in Ontario, "That may mean taking on the federal government or other provincial ministries, which may be dicey, but I see my job as the advocate of business."

Why did this minister not strenuously oppose this purchase when he knew that the $650 million -- or perhaps more appropriately the $300 million which we now realize has been wasted, could have been used in this province to assist business, which desperately needs it?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for being the advocate of business.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's attitude as shown in the May edition of Ontario Business News and his defence of his government's buy-back policy, does he not agree that if the present rate of buying back continues it will take Ontario 400 years to buy back the Canadian economy?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is anticipated that all business that may be controlled by foreign nationals will be bought back even under the programs of this province.

OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education and for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When everybody is through with private observations I will listen to the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with regard to the request from the Ottawa Board of Education to alter its voting system for public school trustees from two wards with six trustees apiece to six wards with two trustees apiece.

In view of the fact that the Ottawa Board of Education made that request some six months ago and that it made a similar request as long as two years ago, will the ministers assure the House the necessary legislation will be brought before the House so that it may be passed to enable the Ottawa Board of Education to make the change in the ward system that is requested in time for the November municipal elections?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the question was addressed to two ministers but I will be pleased to respond. It is my understanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has been investigating this matter with some vigour and indeed is pursuing the matter right now.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Education has referred this to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, will that minister assure the House the Ottawa Board of Education will have the necessary legislation in time to have a change in the municipal elections in the fall? Will he also assure the House that since it would take three to four months for the Ontario Municipal Board to even consider a matter like this the OMB will not be used as a delaying tactic to prevent the Ottawa Board of Education from having a justifiable change?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to speak with the member for Ottawa Centre in relation to this question and I indicated clearly that we are in the process of discussion between the Ministry of Education and my own ministry. At this time, we are also in the process of drafting the required amendments to the Ottawa-Carleton regional bill that would accommodate the request of the Ottawa Board of Education.

As to the process, I can only say that when the drafting of the legislation is completed it will be before this House for debate. If it meets with the approval of the House, it will then be enacted and the Ottawa Board of Education will have the right to operate within the amendment to the act.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy with regard to Suncor again. I know you have not forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that the whole point of Suncor is that we should not have bought it in the first place. There was no reason for Ontario to buy it.

The minister knew full well that Suncor had approached up to 15 other buyers, including Noranda Mines and Hiram Walker, prior to knocking on the government's door last fall. Given the impact of a world oil glut, the resulting drop in oil prices, prevailing high interest rates and the federal government's national energy program, can the minister explain to this House why a 15 per cent discount rate was used to calculate the final Suncor share price when a company like Noranda Mines, which was invited to become a partner in the deal, used a 20 per cent discount rate?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the short answer is that we did not use a 15 per cent discount rate. It was around 17.8 per cent.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why did the minister use that rather than the 20 per cent that I understand Hiram Walker and others were using?

When a prudent investor purchases a minority interest in a major company, the price paid per share is normally less than would be paid for a controlling interest. Even the minister would agree with that. In the light of previous statements by the Premier that the Ontario government does not seek control of Suncor, can the minister tell us whether or not minority discounts were considered prior to the purchase of the 25 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Among other matters that were discussed, that was explained quite fully when the advisers to the Ontario Energy Corporation appeared before both opposition party caucuses. I am satisfied that all factors were taken into account by the advisers prior to making their recommendation as to value and we then came up with our decision.

There were some very unfortunate assumptions made in the member's preamble. The investment in this company becomes very relevant today when we think of the long-term energy security of this country. I am absolutely amazed that a person for whom I have a very high regard could actually suggest that because of this temporary strategy on the part of the oil cartel, he would be lulled into thinking it is still not important that this country get on with the job of being self-sufficient in oil. I want him to realize that we are just as committed to that now. That is still relevant, no matter how he waves his arms around.

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, rather than the shouting, I would like to say I was at that meeting in our caucus and I do not think we got all the information. I am sure any other minister who made a $300-million error would have had to resign if there was any integrity in the front bench of his party.

Can we be assured that the person responsible for pushing this through the House or through the government caucus is going to resign over this error in judgement, whether it is the minister or the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the member is the last person in this House who should make any reference to shouting. Perhaps when he has the opportunity, quietly over breakfast, he can read Hansard and realize there was a great deal of substance in the answers I shared with this House this afternoon.

Mr. Mackenzie: Bullroar.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I want to tell the member, bullroar or not -- he may well want to think this over tomorrow -- that there was no $300 error, and I invite him to produce any proof from any responsible person who would suggest that we did not get good value. I issue that challenge to the member as well, regardless.

HUDAC WARRANTIES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is he familiar with an advertising folder turned out by the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada called Understanding Your Warranty, which states --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the member for Rainy River that the member for Etobicoke did not interrupt him.

Mr. Philip: Is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations familiar with that particular flyer on the HUDAC home warranty program? It says in part: "There is only a remote chance of your builder going bankrupt or of a major structural defect developing in your house. But should it happen, you are covered by the warranty program." Is he also familiar with the leaflet entitled, Five-Year Warranty on All New Homes in Ontario? This leaflet states: "The warranty you receive from the warranty program is valuable. If a builder goes bankrupt... you are covered."

In the light of this, what has he to say about the 10 families who bought homes in Vaughan township from the Coventry Group and who have been told by HUDAC that even though their homes have not been completed and there are major problems in those homes they are not covered by the HUDAC home warranty program because the builder has gone bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, one of the important points in the question is bankruptcy. Whether we like it or not -- and none of us likes it -- we do face a bankrupt firm here. But in reading the brochure, Five-Year Warranty on All New Homes in Ontario, I am surprised the member did not also read this particular statement -- and I do not say this to be antagonistic; I just say it so that the record shows everything that is in that form -- Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Well, if it isn't the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). What day is it today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister will please direct his attention to answering the question of the member for Etobicoke.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, can I postpone the answer until Friday? Then I will not be troubled in this way.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Ottawa East please resume his seat and let the minister continue.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, just for the member's information, on page 2 of the brochure it says, "The purchaser is responsible for the contractual arrangements with the builder, and before taking possession should ensure that everything has been completed and is satisfactory and in accordance with the agreement."

It is not that I cannot appreciate the disappointment that some people have, but let us recognize that there are a number of situations in the Coventry bankruptcy and there are a number of people in very unfortunate situations. Had they not had the protection of the warranty program -- which by the way is the only one in Canada -- then things would really be desperate for a great number of people. Let us understand that as well.

What we have now are two groups of people, those who have taken title but have made financial arrangements on their own and unrelated to the lender, who has put the company into bankruptcy, and those people who have taken title where the lender has withheld some money.

In situations where people have made a decision to take full possession of a house that has not been completed, presumably on the basis of legal advice, and have arranged their own financing, one does have to agree that it is a difficult situation. Fortunately, we are not talking about many houses.

We do, however know -- at least, according to the information I have -- that the subdivider, with or without the assistance of the receiver, will be making certain that the cleanup, sodding and things like that, are completed. But the new home warranty program deals with correction of deficiencies and not completion of contracts for which people have paid, have accepted delivery or have accepted title to on the promise of future delivery.

We now have a bankrupt company. I do not like it, the member does not like it, but I think we are at least fortunate to have a program like the new home warranty program which provides a degree of protection no other Canadian outside this province gets.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister saying -- and I think this is what he is saying -- that he agrees with the advice given by William Fatsis, his administrative assistant, that the owners have no recourse but to go to the receiver? How much does he think these home owners are going to receive when liens are already being placed against these homes?

Will the minister not read the leaflets, which are very clear and give a certain impression that they are covered under bankruptcy? Will he order his officials to take appropriate action against the HUDAC home warranty program under sections 2, 6 and 7 of the Business Practices Act which deal with false and misleading representation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I assume the member is saying there is misrepresentation. On the basis of his claim in this Legislature that these documents are misleading, I will certainly ask the business practices division to look at them. If it does not find such misleading evidence, I look forward to an apology from him to those who are involved in this unique program in this country.

I also remind the member that he should read all of that document. I do not say there may or may not be some things that confuse him, but I have to tell him the paragraph I read to him is very clear and concise.

I think what my assistant was saying is that we are in the midst of a bankruptcy and there are problems between owners, lenders and a bankrupt company. The receiver is trying to resolve whatever problems he is able to resolve with respect to liens on properties where title has not passed, and with respect to liens on properties where title has passed. Those are not easy problems and the receiver assures me he is using his best efforts to try to resolve whatever situations he is able to.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is not happy with the present situation that has occurred, as he stated in the first answer to the member for Etobicoke, why does he not consider extending the HUDAC program so that homes which are not completed, homes which would fall under the type of situation which has been described today, would be covered by HUDAC? Why does he not just extend the program so this cannot happen in the future?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should really come to a careful understanding of the home warranty program, of its uniqueness in this country and of what a fortunate province we are to have it in place. The future may mean we are to live in a risk-free society. That may be the policy of his party, that there is to be no risk, no risk takers and no chances ever that if one accepts responsibility for acquiring one's house and title to it someone should step in and say, "It is too bad."

We have introduced a new home warranty program that gives remarkable protection to people in situations like this. The member should be proud of it, not criticizing it.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It seems obvious to everyone but that Tory government over there that it has been caught with its polls down. I have to tell him that is the only reason it purchased Suncor, because the polls showed --

Mr. Speaker: Let us hear the question.

Mr. Kerrio: That leads me to the question because that has not been mentioned here today and that is the real reason the government bought in. Quite apart from the disturbing revelations in today's Globe and Mail concerning the tremendous government miscalculation over the Suncor purchase, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy about the future prospects of Suncor and how these were evaluated.

The minister will be aware that Mr. Ross Hennigar, the president of Suncor, told the Empire Club of Canada two weeks ago that he saw the erosion of world oil prices as probable. Would the minister explain why the experts of McLeod Young Weir did not forecast this softening of world prices at the time of their evaluation, and will he release their report and that of Price Waterhouse so the people of Ontario can view for themselves how this calculation was made?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, my good friend would understand that many of these questions have already been asked in the course of the afternoon. May I point --

An hon. member: They've never been answered.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You were not listening.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not know how the opposition's experts wrote all of these things for those boys to read over there, but on the other hand it seems they must have had two or three people writing the questions at the same time.

All I am pointing out to them is there were very valid reasons given for this very sound, long-term energy investment on behalf of the people of Ontario, consistent with the national energy program with respect to Canadianization. It is a program and a decision which was heralded by the federal minister as far as Ottawa is concerned, and, indeed, the advisers took all these matters into account.

It is a good investment. I repeat what I said several times during the day: it was commented upon by independent people at the time with respect to the soundness of this investment and was consistent with the whole concept of Canadianization.

Mr. Kerrio: I must remind the minister that the Globe and Mail report today --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Kerrio: -- was just reinforcing conclusions that we came to at the meeting he attended. There has been no change over here, not at all. We are trying to get a little bit more information on the minister's speculation with the people of Ontario's tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently.

Mr. Kerrio: Could the minister table the report so we can see whether his experts estimated the expected rate of return based on various projections of the world price of oil? Could the minister state precisely what effect the current lower world oil price and the projected world oil price through the 1980s will have on the projected rate of return that he calculated with regard to the Suncor purchase?

I will tell the minister, the questions are all written down because this is very important and significant and we want to be sure it goes on the record.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are written so you know what you are talking about.

Mr. Kerrio: That's right. We know a great deal more about that. You're caught and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that a question?

An hon. member: No, it is a statement.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy will reply.

Hon. Mr. Welch: My good friend from Niagara Falls knows very well that if he had taken some care to read the entire speech to which he made reference, the speech delivered by the president of Suncor before the Empire Club, many of those questions were answered, because in the long term he has every confidence with respect to this company and its earning capacity.

The member also heard the Premier in the House today talk in terms of the remarkable performance of this company in comparison with other companies. The member will also recall, with respect to this company, the problem it had in respect to its synthetic oils in so far as the fire was concerned.

We have every confidence in our advisers. On this side of the House, we have named our advisers. We have their advice on their letterhead. I simply ask the member to now give me his. I issue the challenge. We have made no secret of the source of our advice, who we consulted and the reasons for that decision. Obviously the member has some people who are prepared to be named and who will give us the benefit of their advice.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the continuing unsatisfactory response of the government on this matter, I want to give you notice right now, sir, that I intend to move, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the government of Ontario, as a result of its irresponsible expenditure of $650 million for the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor, failed to discharge its duty to properly manage public funds and, further, by failing to fully disclose the details of the transaction has shown contempt for the assembly and therefore does not enjoy the confidence of this House.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order, with all respect. It obviously did not fall within the purview of oral questions.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. Breithaupt and Mr. Peterson exchange positions and that Mr. Peterson and Mr. T. P. Reid exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. T. P. Reid, first reading of Bill 98, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, further to the comments made during the question period, the introduction of this legislation will give the people of Ontario an opportunity to have legislation that will protect their privacy and allow for public access to information within government.

The problems of Suncor are only an example of the kind of opportunity where information must be made available, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation and its approval by the House so that we in this province can be the leaders with respect to this most important area.

MOTOR VEHICLES LABOUR CONTENT DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Newman moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill 99, An Act to require the Provision of Information respecting the Labour Content of Motor Vehicles.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill would require motor vehicle dealers to provide every customer of a new vehicle with a statement setting out the total number of hours of labour required to produce the vehicle, showing by percentage in what countries those hours of labour were performed. This would provide the purchaser with an opportunity to make a choice.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting Advertising by Governmental Organizations.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to control the type of advertising placed by the government of Ontario in broadcasting and print media. The bill prohibits placement of advertisements by the government of Ontario that have the effect of promoting directly or indirectly the political party to which the members of the executive council belong.

The bill provides that the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses is authorized to receive and inquire into complaints concerning government advertising; that the commission determines whether a government advertisement does directly or indirectly promote a political party to which the members of the executive council belong; and that the government of Ontario must immediately withdraw such advertisement from further use.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: In spite of the title of this bill, Mr. Speaker, its purpose is to prohibit advertising by the government of Ontario during a provincial election campaign. The bill contains exemptions from the general prohibition for advertising related to the administration of the election and advertising required for emergency purposes.

Together, these two bills form a package that would prevent the abuse of government spending in the "Preserve it, conserve it" kinds of ads and the enormous amounts of taxpayers' moneys spent for electoral purposes by the government party.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 53, 56, 88, 89 and 90 and the interim answer to question 98 [see Hansard for Friday, May 7].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, when we finished off yesterday afternoon at approximately six o'clock, I was talking about the problem of unemployment in the province, particularly youth unemployment, and making some references to the findings of a task force of which I am part at present.

The connection I was trying to make was that the unemployment problems in this province, or conversely the employment solutions, depend to a very large extent on the kinds of activities of this ministry and of this government.

We have pretty well identified in Ontario that the industrial base is the one from which most of the jobs are going to come. This does not in any way downplay the importance of many other of the bases of the economic health of Ontario. We know that is where the jobs are going to be created, in the small business area in particular and to some extent in large businesses as well.

3:40 p.m.

To highlight the concern which I began to express last night about the sense of quiet desperation -- I think that is the phrase I used -- I wonder if the minister had an opportunity to see the fairly lengthy article in the Toronto Star of last night, headed "Desperate Jobless Sometimes Threaten to Kill Counsellors." The article reads, in part, "Twenty-five temporary offices have been set up to help students find summer work but laid-off workers are expected to fill some of the summer spots and the number of employers advertising ... is expected to drop."

We have a compounding of the situation. Not only do we have a large number of unemployed youth but also we have a large number of students -- the figure mentioned in the article is "more than 80,000" -- who are now or will be looking for work this summer. We also have the large number of older, more experienced workers who have been laid off and who are competing for the same jobs. It is a desperate situation.

I also refer the minister to a report written by Harriet Wolman. If I am not mistaken, she was the Tory party candidate in Oakwood in the last provincial election. She was a good candidate. It is too bad she did not win. The report, funded by the federal government and sponsored by Metropolitan Toronto with assistance from the Ontario youth secretariat, is a report on youth unemployment. I will make a couple of references to it a little further on.

What I am trying to do is to highlight to the minister the critical need to get industry in Ontario cranked up and moving once again so that we can begin to solve some of these very serious social problems. As the minister is aware from his involvement with other ministries, we cannot put fences around any ministry of government; one impinges upon the other. That many of our young people and many of our older people simply cannot get jobs impinges on the fact that industry is not moving at the rate at which it should be moving and at which I believe it wants to move.

Harriet Wolman, in chapter 2 of her report, makes this observation: "To want to work and to be unable to find it is painful at any age, but youth unemployment has particular effects both on the individual and on society. A lengthy period of frustration and enforced idleness when a person first enters the labour force can disable him or her psychologically and in terms of experience for later employment."

That is really one of the most serious parts of this whole problem: what is happening to young unemployed citizens of Ontario at the very beginning of what should be their productive working lives. They are being hampered, they are being hindered, they are being prevented from doing the kind of work that they want to do.

Yesterday, as I was finishing, I made the observation that many of the young people we have met over the past three to four weeks have said very clearly that they want to work. They do not want to be on unemployment insurance. They do not want to collect welfare. They want to work. They want to have a degree of independence.

Harriet Wolman also refers to the economic riots by unemployed youth which occurred in Britain in July 1981. I have a copy of a picture of the riots that one of my assistants was able to get me. The obvious point is, could it happen here? Am I being unduly alarmist to think it could? I do not think so. I suggest to the minister that a generally peaceful and law-abiding jurisdiction, such as England has always been, certainly did not anticipate that its young people would be rioting in the streets. We do not expect it to happen here either, but the question one has to ask is, how long can it go on?

How long can any group of people in our society, but particularly young people in our society who are just beginning the productive part of their lives as they sense it, continue to have the door slammed in their faces? How long can their self-image, their sense of self-identity, self-worth and self-value take that? May we not some day, in the streets of Toronto, Kitchener, Windsor or wherever, be taking a picture like this of Ontario youth rioting in the streets because the government and the members of this Legislature were not able to provide some of the things they need?

I want to highlight this because I think it tells us clearly that when we talk about establishing a new ministry, when we hear the minister himself saying over and over again that his first priority is creating jobs, what he needs is the will. As I said yesterday to the minister, all the power he needs is in here; he does not need any more. What he needs is the will.

It is rather surprising that about a year ago Tom Kierans, I believe it was, chairman of the Ontario Economic Council, made an observation about the Ontario government with respect to the very issues I am discussing now. He said, "We lack the enthusiasm for change." Of course, we go on to the rest of the things he was saying and the context in which he was saying them. He was making the observation that we seem to lack the will to get in there and fight as hard as we can, to put both feet to the issue and participate strongly. I made reference to that yesterday, but it is something which this minister and this government is going to have to refer to.

The announcement in the last three or four days of the collapse of the Alsands megaproject in western Canada and the probable, although not yet definite, collapse of the Alaska pipeline have generated in Ontario as well as in other parts of Canada a sense of malaise, a sense of real depression, because we recognize they could have created a lot of work in Ontario, got a lot of our industries moving again and got a lot of our people working. The question is, what do we do about it?

There are all kinds of reasons why that happened. We have mentioned before that if the government of Ontario a year ago had put into those projects or into at least one of those projects some of the $650 million it was able to find to put into Suncor, it might have made a difference. Maybe it would; maybe it would not. I have no way of knowing. The point is, what do we do now? Are we going to continue to cry over the fact that they are gone and we have lost all those opportunities, or are we going to start asking ourselves, where do we go from here?

Maybe the initiative, the inventiveness, the creativity and the funding that could have flowed to those projects can flow into industry in Ontario. If we were prepared to participate and to draw from them, maybe we could turn around and say: "Okay, they are gone. What do we do now? How do we tap into all of that lost potential?" I certainly hope this minister and this government will not simply wring their hands or get out the crying towel but will say: "All right. We move on now. We take the other opportunities that are before us."

Maybe we should look at some of the models. We often hear references to the Japanese. Of course, on the negative side the reference is that they have a different history, a different culture and a different family background than we have and that therefore there is no way we can transpose their methods of operation to Ontario.

That is one side of the argument. But I am sure the minister knows there is another side of the argument that says, for example, that many of the management techniques and labour management relationships the Japanese are using right now are not part of their culture, their tradition and their history but rather are newfound skills. I was reading a report just a few days ago in which the Japanese themselves and American and Canadian businessmen who have gone over there to visit them said that --

Mr. Samis: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but, since I believe this is the first legislation for this ministry's new portfolio, can you advise me whether we have a quorum, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): We have a quorum. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot may continue.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I was just referring to the fact that although the Japanese industrialists have a different culture, different history and lifestyle to call upon, there are many things we can learn from them.

The point that was made both by Japanese businessmen and by Canadian and American businessmen who had visited them was that following the Second World War, in which their industry and economy were devastated, they quickly picked up on the management techniques and labour-management relationships in practice in North America at that time. As a matter of fact, Canadian businessmen have told us that there is nothing very remarkable about what the Japanese do; it is just that they do it much better than we do.

We should learn from them. We are setting up a new Ministry of Industry and Trade and if we want to compete on the international trading front, we have to pick up on some of the techniques they use. For example, we know that the Japanese analyse world markets very carefully. In some ways, they know more about our market than we do.

If I can make a very specific point, the minister may be aware of the fact that his colleague in British Columbia, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, Don Phillips, made reference to the Japanese knowledge of his province and its industry with respect to a recent coal agreement and where a port was to go. When the Canadian delegation went to Japan and suggested that there might be an alternative place to put this port, the Japanese brought out their charts, their diagrams and studies, references and records and clearly indicated where the Canadians were wrong and where the Japanese were right.

With respect to that decision, Don Phillips said: "You've got to take the world as it is. As for the Japanese, I know that they know more about British Columbia than we do." That was a pretty startling statement, for the Minister of Industry of British Columbia to admit that the Japanese know more about the Canadian market, particularly about the British Columbia market, than the British Columbians themselves did or than the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in British Columbia did.

I wonder to what extent that is true in Ontario; I do not know. I do not know whether the minister has ever had an opportunity to sit down with his Japanese counterpart to find out just how much the Japanese know about the Ontario market. If he has not done so, I suspect he would be surprised at what they know.

One of the reasons they are so successful is that they do very careful groundwork before they move into any market or produce any products. That is something we will have to realize if we are going to get involved in world trade, as the minister said in his opening statement and as is implied in this legislation. We know that at least 25 per cent of everything manufactured in Ontario goes out to the international market; so we really do not have much choice. If we are going to do those things, let us at least play the game smartly; let us at least get the same competitive edge.

We know we will have to boost new technology. In his statement the minister referred to technological centres that have been set up in Ottawa, Peterborough, Chatham, Cambridge and -- I forget where the other one is. That is a good start. But I come back to a point I made yesterday about the people who are going to run those industries.

What about the training programs? For example, has the minister confirmed with his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), who is responsible for manpower training in this province, that people are getting ready? Perhaps the minister will have to take some initiative himself because the history of that ministry in preparing skilled people in this province is not very good at all. The record clearly shows that.

4 p.m.

Maybe what this minister has to do, if not by himself then at least in co-operation and coordination with his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities, is to set up very specific training centres in conjunction with those technology centres. The obvious place to start, because of the location of a vast array of new businesses in high technology, would be the Ottawa area.

I would suggest strongly to the minister that it would be a very good initiative on his part and on the part of his government to set up a good, innovative, high-technology training centre somewhere in that industrial park near Ottawa. It could be some other place, but Ottawa makes an awful lot of sense. There is a good centre as a beginning; there are a number of industries which, I am sure, would participate. I had the opportunity last Wednesday to visit Systemhouse, Mitel and similar companies. I clearly got the impression that they would be willing to participate. They indicated their need and the quality of their need. There was no doubt in my mind when we talked to the young people in Ottawa and the guidance counsellors from the two school boards in Ottawa that they would certainly be prepared to participate. That is the kind of thing we have to do.

Another thing we can learn from the Japanese is the whole question of quality. If one asks the average person in Ontario why he buys a Japanese car, a Japanese television set or whatever, he will say it is because the quality is high. There is no reason why we cannot do that here. What really gets us down so much is that when we look at what others do we have to look at ourselves and say, "We could do that." There is nothing magical about their procedures, programs or strategies. It is all pretty well straightforward. It is much like what we find in good hockey teams; it is just good basics. That is what we need in Ontario. We need some good basics. We need high quality. We need good planning. We need good labour-management relationships. The potential for all of those is there.

All I can say is that with the founding of the new ministry, with the setting up of the combined Ministry of Industry and Trade, this is as good a time as any to make a start because, if we do not, then three, four or five years down the line this minister and this government are going to have to answer some pretty important questions.

What other needs do we have to have? We have spoken earlier about involving ourselves and helping business with respect to interest rates. I think I touched on the point of a small business development bond along the lines of those offered by the United States and American municipalities. That is something we have to take a look at. We have to get much more involved as a government. I spoke earlier to the minister, a little more personally, about his own political philosophy and, I suggest, his economic philosophy, which might make that difficult. Let us hope there can be some change.

I would like to end up with this point. Now is not the time to be timid. Now is not the time to be intimidated by circumstances. Now is the time to recognize that there is a need. Now is the time to recognize that we have all the resources we require, both physical resources and human resources. Now is the time to recognize that what we need above and beyond is the will. What we do not need is the blandness that the Premier (Mr. Davis) speaks about so often. We do not need that any more. We need courage. We need will. We need creativity. We need initiative. If those things are going to come, then we can put industry in this province back on its feet and we can people in this province back to work. That is what we need.

If the minister is going to involve himself in that, then maybe we are going to be able to speak to Inco, which is laying off people. We are going to be able to speak to Stelco, which is laying off people. We are going to be able to speak to Volker-Craig, which is laying off people. We are going to be able to speak to the automotive industry. My colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) raised a question this afternoon about General Motors laying off people.

We are going to be able to speak to the people in my city of Kitchener who have had to have the federal government come in and institute the industry and labour adjustment program because not only are things bad there now, but also, as they look ahead one, two or three years, they see no hope for change. Of course, the minister will be well aware of the fact that is one of the criteria for introducing ILAP into a community, not that there is a problem there right now, but when they look down the road it does not appear as though the problem is going to get any better, and now is the time to grab hold.

The problem is grave; the times are grave. We call for courage; we call for initiative. This is a good place to make a start. I am not sure whether he can do it. I am not sure whether he has the will to do it. I am not sure whether he has the philosophy or the ideology to do it, but the mechanism is there. If he does, we will support him, but if he does not we are going to fight him every step of the way over the next three to four years and we will fight him on the doorsteps of this province some time in 1984 or 1985. He has the opportunity. Let us see what he can do with It.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Wildman moves, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that Bill 38, an Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade, be not now read a second time but be referred back to the minister with instructions to amend the bill to incorporate the following changes in its objectives, namely --

Hon. Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This seems like a very unorthodox approach to second reading debate.

Mr. Wildman: I am moving a reasoned amendment which I understand is quite in order on second reading.

The Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding under standing orders that a reasoned amendment is in order during second reading debate.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Not until afterwards.

The Deputy Speaker: Not until after what?

Mr. Wildman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this was filed with the table and it is quite in order to move at any time during second reading, as I understand it.

The Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding that a reasoned amendment is in order at any time during second reading.

Mr. Wildman moves, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that Bill 38, an Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade be not now read a second time but be referred back to the minister with instructions to amend the bill to incorporate the following changes in its objectives, namely: (1) to increase the degree of Canadian ownership of Ontario industry; and (2) to provide for the use of crown corporations in joint ventures and to develop key sectors of the Ontario economy where imports dominate.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I have moved this amendment because, unlike the Liberal critic, we do not think that Bill 38 incorporates all that is necessary to deal with the economic problems this province faces.

The minister, in his remarks both at the introduction of this bill and outside of the House, has stated that the main objective of this new ministry is the encouragement of investment opportunities, but at no time does he or the Conservative government differentiate between Canadian and foreign investment.

More often he just refers to the term "investment." As we saw in his statement at the outset of this debate, the minister made it quite clear that in talking about encouragement of investment what he was referring to was not only Canadian investment but, indeed, investment from all countries of the world.

On page 6 of his statement the minister said that the government wants to "show that we also welcome investment from outside Canada." He went on to say: "If foreign companies can prove responsibility in performance, if they can provide us with significant benefits in such things as new jobs, research and development, technical processes and demonstrate their willingness and commitment to contract with local suppliers, then we feel that Ontarians should have the chance to share in the experience, knowledge and rewards that such companies can and do bring."

4:10 p.m.

He says that his ministry will "identify key investment markets around the world and convince them of the benefits of investment in Ontario."

The contradiction between the minister's aims and his objectives is contained within those statements. In my view, the significant word is "if." He says, "if foreign companies can prove responsibility in performance, if they can provide benefits in terms of jobs, research and development, technical processes," etc. I hope to show in my remarks why we believe that is contradictory in the extreme.

We have talked many times in this House and elsewhere about the problem of foreign investment in this province. My colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) mentioned in his remarks yesterday the problems of foreign investment in Ontario and the effects it has had in terms of job opportunities. However, the member said he believed everything that was required was contained in this bill if the government had the political will. We certainly agree that the government needs political will to create the job opportunities and the development we believe is necessary. But in our view, the statements made by the minister himself in introducing this bill indicate this government does not possess the political will to deal with the structural problems we experience in this province because of foreign investment.

In fact, it is quite the opposite in terms of this minister. The minister himself basically has made quite clear that he is not concerned so much with ownership as with performance. It is precisely because of the performance of foreign-owned firms in this country and in this province that we think it is entirely necessary for this bill and for this ministry to state quite clearly that one of its main objectives is to increase Canadian ownership in the Ontario industry and to provide the ministry with the tools we believe will be necessary in order to achieve that objective, that is, the power to use public investment where necessary to deal with the serious problems created by the foreign domination of our industry, specifically the problems of imports and the domination of our economy by foreign imports. Of course, we all know that means the export of jobs.

We are in this country in the unenviable position of spending an incredible $18 billion more for imported manufactured products than for Canadian-produced ones. According to the president of the National Research Council of Canada, Dr. Kerwin, Canadian industry is "in danger of being buried." Yet this minister says he believes foreign investment can do the job as long as it can perform. As long as it can perform is the whole point. We do not think it has in the past nor will it in the future.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: That is exactly correct. In his statements since he was appointed minister, he has said he sees his main objective as the protection and creation of jobs in Ontario. Yet he seems to be unaware of the fact that one of the main reasons for the increasing layoffs and record unemployment in this province is the very branch-plant nature of our economy. It has been shown and demonstrated time and again that in times of economic downturn more and more multinationals close their Ontario branch plants and withdraw their operations to their parent firms in other countries. Yet this minister wants to increase the branch-plant nature of our economy. That is self-defeating.

We have seen over the last few weeks a clear demonstration of this minister's commitment to Canadian ownership when we look at the White Farm Equipment deal in Brantford. In that situation we have seen this minister's role mainly as one of pressuring the federal government to agree as quickly as possible to the TIC Investment Corp. takeover where there were threats to put people out of work at a Canadian company even though that company had received loan guarantees from the federal and provincial governments on the basis of maintaining Canadian ownership over the long term.

In that deal we got no guarantees at all of future stability of jobs in Brantford. Yet this minister had the gall to get up in this House and say he had saved jobs in Brantford. In the short term he may well have done that, but in the long term what does this mean for the future of that community and for the jobs at that plant?

This minister has made a number of statements with regard to the Foreign Investment Review Agency of the federal government. He is trying to give the impression that agency is somehow scaring off investment in this country. In our view, that agency has done the complete opposite. It has not really lived up to its responsibilities. We all know that 90 per cent of the applications made to that agency are approved. How in heaven's name a 90 per cent approval rate can be seen by this minister as somehow scaring off investment is beyond me.

In the Ontario Business News recently the minister had an interview which was quite interesting in terms of his political views and philosophy. He reiterated that his major problem for the future is job creation. He stated quite clearly that he is convinced the way to create permanent, stable jobs is by supporting business. I suppose that is what he did with White Farm Equipment in Brantford. He certainly supported the American company's interests.

This minister has stated clearly he believes the job of government is to create a positive climate for investment for business. He stated, "When you have investment, you have jobs and when business can function without government in its hair, business performs at its best."

He reiterated in this interview that he does not care so much where the investment comes from, although he would prefer that it be Canadian, but he does care how it performs in Ontario. Then he goes on to say, "This may put me in a position of sometimes challenging Ottawa's Foreign Investment Review Agency which often gets itself in the way of business."

How on earth can he say it gets itself in the way of business investment when, as I said, 90 per cent of the applications are approved?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Ten per cent are not.

Mr. Wildman: The minister says 10 per cent are not. In other words, he is trying to tell us that 100 per cent of the applications by foreign firms to invest in this province should be approved and should be accepted. That seems to indicate to me that what he is saying is we should get rid of FIRA completely. That is going a step further than I have ever heard him state before. I was under the impression he simply wanted to make FIRA --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if the member would be good enough to indicate clearly where I have said that I propose the abolition of FIRA.

The Deputy Speaker: It is not quite a point of order.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the minister wanted to get that clarified. When I said I wondered how he could say that the Foreign Investment Review Agency had got in the way of investment when 90 per cent of the applications are approved, he said in response to that, "10 per cent are not." That indicated to me he did not believe that 10 per cent should not be. In that case, 100 per cent would be approved and FIRA would make no sense at all. Why have an agency if everything is going to be approved? Why review anything?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I wanted to make sure that the honourable member would quote me properly.

Mr. Wildman: Let the record show, as I said, that the minister said 10 per cent of the applications are not approved. He was referring to my question of how FIRA got in the way of business.

At any rate, that is immaterial. The point is that the minister is demonstrating again today as he has on many occasions his feeling that ownership is not really important, that we should show the world that investment capital is welcome in Ontario. He has indicated in the past, and this is another quote, "The federal government is obsessed with ownership aspects of foreign investment. Ontario takes a different view. We are less concerned with ownership and more concerned with performance of foreign companies."

From those positions, it is obvious that this minister does not understand the truncated, branch-plant aspects of our economy and how that is basically responsible for the very problems he says he wants to deal with through his new ministry: the creation of jobs, the expansion of technology, import replacement, all of these things which he himself has said are very important. The Liberal critic also said these were very important and we accept they are important. We must deal with these if we are going to provide jobs and development in Ontario.

The minister just does not understand that what he is saying is that he is going to exacerbate the problems rather than resolve them. By referring the bill back to him for reconsideration, we are giving him a chance to shift from that self-defeating philosophy he has to one which is far more active and positive, to one which can deal with the serious structural problems we have in this economy and which will set out clearly before the public and before his own government what it is intended his ministry will do.

We heard in the minister's comments, and also for that matter in question period today, of the desire of this government and other ministers, to be sure, to Canadianize the resource industry. We are saying that is a laudable goal and this ministry should have that aim as one of its main goals.

In our view, foreign ownership is a major impediment to ending our trade deficit. This minister has said he wants to deal with the important problem of import replacement. We believe that is necessary. We believe that one of the main problems with the Ontario economy is our number of imports because that means fewer jobs for Ontarians. We believe this ministry should be identifying the sectors of the Ontario economy which are dominated by imports and should be dealing with that matter by encouraging import replacement.

In our view, however, if we depend on multinationals to deal with that problem we will not be successful. We know multinational parent firms maintain centralized control over the operation of their subsidiaries around the world, not just in Canada. Because of that fact, the branch plants that operate here do not make the full range of components and materials required for their manufacturing processes. In most cases they import components and materials from the parent firms.

Recently my federal leader released a study which was commissioned by the federal government. It was an internal document in the federal government which was looking at the performance of FIRA. I am sure this minister has seen that document and has found it interesting. I will not get into the comments made specifically about FIRA in that report, but I would like to refer to what that report had to say about foreign ownership and its effect on the Canadian economy. This deals with the economy of the whole country, but it has obvious relevance to Ontario since this province has been until the recent past the main manufacturing centre, the heartland, as this government has called it, of the manufacturing economy of Canada.

In terms of imports this study states that foreign-controlled firms are the major conduits into Canada of imports. Seventy-two per cent of all Canadian imports, in terms of components and materials for manufacturing, come through importation by branch plants from parent firms in multinational operations. Foreign companies import at a ratio to sales of five times greater than Canadian industries. If this minister really believes that one of his jobs is to deal with import replacement, how he can state, in another breath that he is going to increase foreign investment in this province is beyond me.

The study of the federal government stated: "No matter how efficient the independent Canadian supplier may be, his price can never compete with the internal costing procedures of multinational enterprises." We have a situation where, if a small independent Canadian manufacturer of parts or components is cost competitive, that is, if his price is lower than the price that is charged by the parent firm of a multinational to its subsidiary, it is still not going to be able to compete, according to this study.

There is nothing that indicates more clearly than this that the strategy outlined by this ministry in this bill is not going to work. The minister himself has stated that his approach will be that he wants "to have Canadian enterprises replace many imports and expand the domestic economy by buying Canadian. This means encouraging large Canadian firms to make a special effort to buy supplies from smaller businesses here so that they can grow, specialize their operations and create new jobs. This gives you some feeling for the philosophical approach that my ministry will be taking."

I would like to know how this minister believes his appointment to the ministry and the setting up of this new ministry is going to change the long accepted operations of multinationals? How is he going to be able to persuade Canadian subsidiaries here to purchase Canadian-manufactured components when they are directed from elsewhere to purchase imported components even if they cost more.

The fact is that by importing components from elsewhere those subsidiaries tend to improve the profitability of the parent company. Profitability is viewed in a global sense, so we are not talking just simply of the profitability of a Canadian subsidiary. In that context, it still pays the multinational to purchase in the accepted manner.

The study showed that Canadian-owned industries purchase far more of their components here. It seems to us that if one is going to deal with import replacement, one must also deal with the ownership of the company. One cannot just talk about performance because performance has been shown over the years to be lacking in terms of the purchase of Canadian parts and components. One cannot separate the two. Ownership and performance go together. If the minister believes he can somehow separate the two, in our view he is dreaming.

4:30 p.m.

The result of foreign ownership in terms of imports has been horrendous for the Canadian and Ontario economies. We have a trade deficit of $16.8 billion in imports of machinery and tools. In 1980, imports of general purpose and special industry machinery were $6.7 billion, imports of agricultural machinery and tractors were over $2 billion, and of other equipment and tools over $8 billion, for a total deficit overall, when one works out the exports and imports, of $11.8 billion.

If this minister is hoping to turn that around by a public relations effort of persuading or encouraging multinationals to change their purchasing practices, we are in for a long period of continuing deficits.

Canada is the only industrialized nation that imports more than 50 per cent of its industrial machinery and tools. That is hardly a record of which we can be proud. It is not just a question, as I said, of imports and a question of balance of payments and the difficulties those propose for our economy, but it is obvious that, when we import these components, parts and machines, we are exporting jobs.

In this party, we have talked for many years about the serious problems we have had in specific sectors. We have talked about the mining machinery industry where, while we are the third largest mineral producer in the world, we are the largest importer of mining equipment and we have a deficit of $360 million in terms of imports. We have seen that 90 per cent of our mining machinery is imported. This is not isolated to mining machinery. We have the same problem, perhaps not at the same level, but close to it, in other areas. We import 70 per cent of our forestry machinery.

As I have said, American manufacturers find it more profitable to buy the parts in the US and to assemble here, even those companies that have assembly operations here. We have seen in the auto industry the serious problems we have. By the end of 1980, we had a deficit in auto parts that surpassed $3 billion. It has been shown that the underdevelopment of the parts sector in Ontario has meant a loss of about 19,000 jobs.

It is time this government recognized that when dealing with the Big Three in auto, our trade deficit with those three companies is equal to the trade deficit we have with the Japanese. The Premier of this province and other members of the cabinet go to the United States, they go to Ottawa, and they make speeches about the need to deal with the import problems of the Japanese, and we agree with that. We need content legislation. We need content rules. But we cannot ignore that we have a similar problem in the North American market. We have a deficit that means a serious loss of jobs.

It is not just in those areas. We have also pointed out in the sector of food processing that the branch plants -- the nature of that economy has had a serious effect in that the integration of continental food markets has made us increasingly dependent on imports. We had 37 processing plants in 1955 with Canadian Canners and by 1978, after 20 years of Del Monte control, 30 of those plants had shut down.

Investment and development decisions are made elsewhere and they are not made in the interests of this province or its workers. As I said, when we run into the serious economic problems we have experienced in the last couple of years throughout the North American industry, and for that matter the western economy, then we see that branch plants are the first to close and multinationals return their production to their parent firms. Yet this minister says he is not concerned with ownership, he is only concerned with performance. The record shows what performance means when we are dependent on foreign ownership.

One of the major problems we face because of the foreign domination of our economy is the lack of research and development in this country and in this province. In his leadoff, the minister referred to this problem. If I can locate it, I would like to refer to his comments. He talked about investment opportunities in terms of technological innovation.

He stated that the way this province and the ministry was going to deal with it was through the establishment of technology centres, and he referred to biotechnology, microelectronics, robotics, computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing, food processing, auto parts and resource machinery development centres. He also looked at the new Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. as if it was somehow going to be a panacea for the serious problems we face in the lack of research and development.

Earlier, on April Fool's Day, the minister made a statement in which he also looked at that problem. In talking about multinationals, he said: "If they can provide us with measurable benefits, new jobs, research and development, technological processes, contracting local suppliers and so forth, they are welcome in Ontario. I intend to bring investors to Ontario so that they can see firsthand what we have to offer."

We also know that if we compare expenditures on R and D just between Canada and the US and not refer to the other manufacturing countries -- we are somewhere on the same level as Iceland and Ireland in terms of our commitment to research and development in our industry -- the United States spends 1.84 per cent of all sales on research and development and Canada spends only 0.078 per cent of all sales.

As the study I referred to earlier stated: "Generally, Canadian-controlled firms spend more on research and development in Canada than do American firms. In manufacturing firms in Canada, Canadian firms spend 1.3 per cent of their sales whereas American-owned firms or American-controlled firms spend only 0.83 per cent of their sales on research and development."

Canadian firms that are owned or controlled by foreign companies are not encouraged by their parent firms to carry out the research and development that is going to keep us in line with the development of technological innovation over the next decade. The branch plants are encouraged to purchase their new technology and their research from the parent organization. That is why we have such a dismal record in comparison with the US.

Multinational firms do not want to duplicate their efforts in research and development. If they have research going on in the parent firm, they carry it out. When it reaches fruition, they then export it at a charge to their branch plants. Not only does that increase the balance of payments deficit we have as a result of foreign ownership and our import problem, but it means that Canadians are not given the opportunity to take on the research and development that would provide new investment opportunities in this country, and the performance of that is related directly to ownership.

4:40 p.m.

Canadian firms spent $168 million in 1980 to import research and development from foreign firms. Very little research and development in the North American auto industry is done in Canada. In 1977, only 0.2 per cent of all expenditure on R and D by the Big Three took place in this country. In that year, Canada paid $300 million to import technology and research, at least some of which we could have been doing directly in this country. In our view we have become overdependent on the new American technology that we import. The approach by this minister and by this government means we will continue to do that and to face the serious problems we have faced in the past.

Many people in this country have pointed to Mitel Corp. and the microchip technology in the Silicon Valley of the Ottawa area and have said, "Look, this is an example of Rand D taking place, of new technology developing in this country that should be emulated by other Canadian firms because it will lead us into the forefront of technology and industry in the future."

The president of the National Research Council, to whom I referred earlier, has said those firms, acknowledged leaders though they are, are a very small minority of Canadian industry; and that if we want to hang our hats on those few firms for future creation of new technology, new industries and new jobs in Ontario we are doomed. There are people in Ottawa who are starting to do studies of Canada as an underdeveloped country; not as one of the industrial countries but as a country that has been left behind by Japan, the United States and western Europe.

Increasing foreign ownership is not going to turn that around. We submit that the technology centres to which the minister referred in his leadoff speech will not turn it around, either. It may be helpful in increasing R and D and in getting firms involved in research and development in this province, but if the major firms in this country and this province are foreign owned we will continue to face the serious problems we have faced in the past. It will be more profitable for branch plants of foreign firms simply to adopt research and development that has taken place elsewhere.

In his leadoff speech the minister also talked about the need for the expansion of trade and the trade component of his ministry. He talked about the expansion of an enhanced domestic marketing program and stated that he wants to identify major sectors for high import replacement opportunities. Some might suggest that because of the statement of the minister and the commitment he has made, the last part of our reasoned amendment is redundant and unnecessary. The minister has already stated he wants to become involved in import replacement.

If one looks carefully at what the minister is really talking about in terms of import replacement, it seems to us he is really talking about a public relations effort, an effort to persuade Canadian firms to purchase Canadian, to identify Canadian manufacturers, which would be useful, and then to try and persuade Canadian firms to purchase parts here rather than abroad. Again, we run into the problem of foreign ownership and the purchasing methods used by multinationals.

In his April Fool's Day speech the minister said: "We are keen to have Canadian enterprises replace many imports and expand the domestic economy by buying Canadian. This means encouraging large Canadian firms to make a special effort to buy supplies from smaller businesses here so that they can grow, specialize their operations and create new jobs."

I wonder why the minister believes his persuasive powers are somehow going to encourage firms which have had the opportunity to buy Canadian for years, but have chosen not to do so, suddenly to change their approach. The federal study certainly indicates this is not a likely result since the development done by foreign firms is basically part and parcel of foreign ownership. As long as we are dominated that way, I cannot see this minister changing it or turning it around.

I do not want to give the impression this is somehow gloom and doom and that we do not believe anything can be done. That is why we have taken the positive approach of giving the minister some ideas of what we think he should include in this bill, the aims he should have for his ministry and the methods his ministry could use in terms of public investment to turn the situation around.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that the New Democratic Party does not believe we can turn the situation around. We do believe, though, that as long as we follow the philosophy of this minister in terms of creating investment and encouraging foreign investment, we will not change the situation in Ontario or in Canada.

We believe there is a tremendous opportunity for research and development, for the development of Canadian investment and for a positive and active role by the government. We believe that is a major role for this new ministry.

I realize that in suggesting a positive and active role of government intervention to this minister we are perhaps not going to get very far. This minister keeps a replica of a typical street vendor in his office and says: "It is all about the free enterprise system. The vendor does his own thing, his entire factory is on a box with wheels and he is not encumbered by rules and regulations."

Hon. Mr. Walker: What do you have against street vendors?

Mr. Wildman: Nothing at all, but if the minister really believes we are going to turn this economy around and --

Mr. Samis: The minister would probably license them off the streets in London if he had his way.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Some of the finest street walkers are in the NDP.

Mr. Wildman: By the way, does the minister believe a street vendor should have a licence?

Mr. Samis: He probably does.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Some of the finest street walkers are in the NDP.

Mr. Samis: Do you remember what John Diefenbaker said about Flora?

Mr. Wildman: The minister is letting us know his real feeling about the free enterprise system when he points out that street walkers are a good example of free enterprise at work.

Mr. Samis: He was in charge of booze, sex, sin and gambling in his former ministry.

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I said a good example of the NDP.

Mr. Wildman: He is the one who raised the question of street walkers. Is that street walker or Gord Walker?

In this Ontario Business News interview, the minister "confessed to a sincere and deeply felt belief in the positive value of the free enterprise system and viewed his role as the boss of one of the Ontario government's key economic ministries in relation to his view that the best way to have development is to not have government intervention." I think the minister would not disagree that this was the purport of what he was saying.

Despite that, I sincerely believe that the minister should rethink his position and take a good look at our reasoned amendment. In our view, if we leave it to the private sector to provide the investment and the jobs that we require in this jurisdiction, then we are going to have a repeat and an ongoing example of what we have talked about in terms of branch plants in this province. It seems to me that what the minister is really talking about is branch plant Ontario.

We believe there is a tremendous opportunity for this government to take an initiative in the economy and for this minister to lead the way in that exercise. That is why we believe it should be spelled out in the bill that the ministry has the right to set up crown corporations and to enter joint ventures with the private sector where necessary, especially in terms of a systematic approach to import replacement.

I understand, though, that in order for the government to do this it would have to have a coherent industrial strategy and I doubt that this minister really believes in that when one looks at his comments about the free enterprise system. I am afraid what this minister wants is a continuation of the ad hoc approach that this government has had towards the economy for years.

I suppose in terms of any kind of government intervention, this minister simply means a grant here, a grant there, a loan guarantee here, a loan guarantee there. He might in his heart of hearts say he does not like that, he is opposed to even giving grants and loan guarantees, that he would rather see the market operate unencumbered by government intervention and government involvement. I suppose that is what he meant by his comment about himself and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) being the members of the cabinet who choose the right wing at the turkey dinner.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The turkey we are talking about is over there.

Mr. Wildman: I remember a good friend of mine who used to refer often in this House to the turkey with the two right wings, and it appears that with this minister we have the turkey trying to fly again. We all know what would happen to a bird with two right wings if it tried to fly. It is headed for collapse. If that is how this minister is going to approach his responsibilities to this new ministry, we are not very optimistic about the future of job creation in this province.

If he looks briefly at a couple of areas I have referred to for import replacement, we have calculated that if we were to reduce imports by 50 per cent in those areas we would save Canada $5 billion in terms of its balance of payments deficit and we could create 100,000 jobs.

We are not talking about some kind of airy-fairy thing where we say we are not going to have any imports, we are going to be completely self-sufficient, we are not going to have anything to do with other manufacturing sectors in the world. We are talking about an effort to replace 50 per cent of our imports of machinery and tools and the jobs that action would produce.

This government has gone so far as to look at investment in the mining machinery industry. We have heard of the centre that has been proposed for Sudbury. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is not very enthusiastic about that centre but I think the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) probably is very enthusiastic about it. I know the government has proposed that centre not because of anything the member for Sudbury has done over the few months since he was elected but because of the efforts of the members for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) to bring before this House --

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It was alleged that the member for Nipissing did not support the setting up of the -- what was it he called it?

Mr. Wildman: The mining machinery centre.

Mr. Harris: Yes, the mining machinery resource centre in Sudbury. The member's information is incorrect. He can check the record. I said I went to Sudbury and was there when the announcement was made; I gave wholehearted support to that and supported the minister who made that announcement. It is all on the record.

I have supported it publicly and have said publicly in the North Bay media and the Sudbury paper that I thought it was a good thing, a good move by the government, good for northern Ontario, good for Ontario and good for North Bay. I do not know where the member gets his information.

The Deputy Speaker: The record is corrected.

Mr. Wildman: I do not think it was a point of order but I am glad the member took the opportunity to correct the record. I probably misinterpreted the question he raised in the House as to Jarvis Clark Co. Ltd. in North Bay. It was a misinterpretation on my part.

Since the member has stated that the movement in this direction is good for Ontario and for northern Ontario and that it produces jobs in northern Ontario, I hope he will encourage this new minister to move much further and to produce more resource machinery jobs in northern Ontario. For example, why is this government not taking the opportunity to create a crown corporation to produce forestry machinery in this province?

I hope we will now have the wholehearted support of the member for Nipissing and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) in the production of a forest machinery industry in northern Ontario. We could produce a large number of jobs for northern Ontario and for this province if we were to move towards crown corporations which could get involved in joint ventures to replace a large portion of the imports we now bring in for our forestry and mining industries.

We also believe the ministry could become directly involved in assistance to co-operatives through crown corporations and joint ventures to deal with the problems we have in the food processing industry. I need only refer to the comments made by the new Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food in the estimates last December when he said we need a big guy, no little guy is going to be able to become involved in the food processing industry and be able to compete; that it could be a co-op, but we are going to have to get somebody large enough to compete in that industry.

We believe this is a great opportunity to produce jobs in the Niagara Peninsula in southwestern Ontario. At one time there was a demand for a food terminal in Timmins, but I understand that was a terminal promise.

Mr. Samis: It certainly was; like two for one.

Mr. Wildman: It went about as far as two for one. The same minister is responsible. I have never heard him speak about two for one.

5 p.m.

There obviously is a need for a positive government intervention role in the industry of this province. If we look at the auto industry, we can look at the experience of other countries and what government intervention has meant for them in terms of strengthening their parts sector.

We in this country are in danger of losing more and more production to places like Mexico, Argentina and other countries.

Mr. Breaugh: We did it this morning.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. We did. There is no secret as to why Mexico is the fastest- growing auto jurisdiction in the world. It is because that country has a strategy for investment in the auto industry.

Mr. Haggerty: And cheap labour.

Mr. Wildman: Certainly they have cheap labour. Labour is cheaper; there is no question about that. But even with cheap labour, they would simply have an assembly operation if they did not have a government regulation requiring the content in their country. The fact is that parts production in Mexico will grow by 18 to 22 per cent per year between now and 1985, at the same time as we are closing plants and facing more and more unemployment.

In Mexico they have not only content regulation but also ownership regulation. In my view, the example of Mexico shows that government intervention can work, that we are not dependent on the old laissez-faire approach of this minister and that the tired Adam Smith approach to the economy is just something that died in the 19th century and is somehow trying to be revived by the neo-Conservatives such as this minister, who somehow thinks there is some magic in the market system and that if it were left to operate on its own, we would resolve all of our problems through supply and demand.

In our view, the Ontario auto tech centre is not nearly enough. One has only to ask the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) about St. Catharines and the experience they have gone through; one has only to ask him whether he believes the auto tech centre is going to produce the economic strategy we need to turn the economy around in that part of Ontario.

Mr. Swart: We'll lose 350 jobs today and get 50 jobs five years from now in the auto tech centre.

Mr. Wildman: That is quite an exchange: 350 for 50 five years from now.

In our view, the approach in the development of the auto tech centre is not so much an economic strategy by this government or this ministry as a political ploy that was used at the time of the election to try to convince people that they were responding to the problems of the economy but without really doing anything in terms of actually producing jobs.

We remember this minister said at the time of his appointment that his responsibility was jobs, jobs, jobs. For St. Catharines, he is producing 50 jobs in exchange for a loss of 350. Mexico, because of its regulation and because of its positive government intervention, is getting more jobs while we continue to lose. Multinationals will shift their operations around the world as profit requires and as government regulation requires them to do.

We have a minister here who is unwilling to become involved in direct ownership in crown corporations and in direct intervention in that way. At the same time he does not seem willing to stand up and say, in terms of the North American auto industry, that we need content regulation. He talks about it in terms of Japan, but we have yet to hear from him in terms of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford.

Instead, we see the rather pathetic example of this minister getting up in this House and defending the takeover of White Farm Equipment in Brantford. If that is an attempt to Canadianize industry --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Would you have left them out on the street? What was the alternative?

Mr. Wildman: The minister says: "Would you have left them out on the street? What was the alternative?" In fact, that is what this minister is saying. This minister, who should be an active, positive force in the economy, is saying that we cannot do anything, that we have to be dependent on foreign ownership to do everything, that we have to sit back and agree with whatever they want because we cannot do anything. He is saying that we are helpless and that nothing can be done in Ontario except through foreign ownership and control. That minister does not have any ideas about what can be done.

Hon. Mr. Walker: What purchaser did you find?

Mr. Samis: That's your job. That's what you are paid for.

Mr. Wildman: Does the minister believe this government's loan guarantee meant anything when it came in?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister will have his opportunity to respond.

Mr. Samis: Who has the floor?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Walker: No interest in 1,000 people.

Mr. Wildman: The minister acquiesces even though it is opposed to the philosophy which he has recounted and which we have referred to in this debate. He acquiesces in the purchase of 25 per cent of an oil company. He states in this House that he supports it because of cabinet solidarity. But when he is faced with the layoff of people in Brantford, he is unable to say that the government may become involved if there is no other buyer; he is unable to say that perhaps Ontario has the guts and the ability to become actively involved in the economy. But no, it is up to TIC Investment Corp. to come in and take over.

This minister has nothing to offer except more and more foreign ownership and control of this economy. If he follows that approach, he is going to lead us all to disaster instead of to new development and jobs in Ontario. Why can this government not become directly --

Hon. Mr. Walker: You would nationalize your mother.

Mr. Swart: There is $650 million for Alberta and unemployment for Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.

Mr. Wildman: Why does the minister believe that the government can become involved in the oil industry but cannot become involved in the farm equipment industry or directly in the auto industry? Why is that? What is the reason? What kind of blinders does he have on when he says, "It is all right to invest in the oil industry, but we cannot become involved in manufacturing which produces jobs in Ontario"?

The minister would rather have a loan guarantee that was supposed to be related to Canadian ownership and then forget about the Canadian ownership component when he runs into problems, instead of saying, "If we are going to have money involved there, we should become directly involved in the operation."

When there was an emergency debate on the auto industry, this minister got up in this House and tried to persuade us that there were not as many people unemployed now as there were last year. Then he talked about us wanting 900 people out on the street. The minister was willing to ignore a large number of auto workers who are out of work and to say things were not as bad as was said.

Why can the ministry not become directly involved in manufacturing in terms of auto parts? Why can the ministry not have a positive investment role? Why can the minister not take the opportunity our reasoned amendment provides to provide for direct investment and joint ventures in the manufacturing sector in Ontario so we will have jobs in this province in the future?

I think we have a great opportunity to promote research and development and to improve the competitiveness of Ontario industry. We have the opportunity if we want to grasp it. We can stand on our own two feet if we have confidence in ourselves and in the industry and initiative of Ontario.

We can be independent if we wish to be, or we can continue to be dependent on the investment and innovation of foreigners. We can continue, as the minister seems willing to do, saying: "We can't do it. The Premier can't do it. Ontario can't do it. Maybe the Americans, the Japanese or the multinationals can do it for Ontario."

Mr. Stokes: What about the promise?

Mr. Wildman: Frankly, that does not leave much promise for Ontario. This government is promising us more of the same, more of the truncated, dependent, branch-plant economy that has led us to the economic precipice we are at now. If this minister is determined to increase foreign investment rather than take the initiative and opportunity to improve the Canadian ownership component of our economy in our manufacturing sector, then he will be shoving us over that precipice.

5:10 p.m.

We believe it is long past time for Ontario to take control of its economic decision making. It is long past the time when we should be depending on New York, Dallas and Atlanta to make the decisions that affect Canadian workers and Ontario workers. We have the opportunity to take control and to do something positive. We believe this minister has an important role to play in that.

We are optimistic about the future of this province. We believe that the government should become directly involved in the economy and that the government should become directly involved in dealing with the very structural problems that this minister, for some reason, refuses to recognize. Why can the minister not acknowledge that one of the reasons for the branch plant closures and the layoffs we experience in this economy is the foreign ownership that he wants to expand.

I have given up on the federal Liberal government doing something about foreign ownership in this country. We have seen, from C. D. Howe and the Second World War until the present, the continual sellout of our economy. The federal government has finally moved to actually do something positive in the resource sector, in terms of getting involved in the oil industry, but the Canadianization that the Minister of Energy referred to today means more and more tax incentives and tax write-offs to American corporations who can somehow make themselves appear to be Canadian. It does not mean control of our economy. It does not mean decision-making here. It just means more and more payouts, more and more incentives to the industry to do what they probably were going to do anyway. Frankly, it has not worked.

If we look at the rest of our economy, we see the percentage of control that is in foreign hands. Despite the fact that the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) said he saw that as a major problem, his confrères in Ottawa have been unwilling or unable to deal with it. The Foreign Investment Review Agency has been ineffective; it has not dealt with the problem.

Mr. Boudria: Not according to Bill Davis. He thinks it is too effective.

Mr. Wildman: That is true; that is what is ironic about this whole thing. We continue to sell out the economy. We continue to be unwilling or unable to stand on our own two feet and to compete in a competitive world. We continue to be dependent on the United States. While we continue to accept applications and to approve 90 per cent of the FIRA applications, we have the ironic situation of this minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis) getting up and saying: "FIRA is a problem. We have to fight FIRA. We have to streamline FIRA. We have to review FIRA."

I see the minister's lackey underneath the balcony shaking his head in approval. I suppose if that is the kind of advice the minister is getting, we have no chance of the minister accepting this very reasonable reasoned amendment.

I just hope the Liberal party will consider the amendment carefully and will support it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Your party hasn't done anything reasonable in this House since you were elected.

Mr. Wildman: I beg your pardon?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Your party hasn't done anything reasonable in this House ever since you were elected.

Mr. Breaugh: Drink a little of that Niagara River water. That'll shut you up.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has the floor. These interruptions are not required.

Mr. Wildman: One thing I have not referred to, but which the minister has given a great deal of praise to, is the buy-back program and the fact that this minister and this ministry are going to deal with foreign ownership through the buy-back program, which will increase Canadian ownership of our economy. Let us take a look at that program.

The minister has referred to that as a highly successful program. When we look at the first two years of operation of that program, nine companies were bought at a total financial commitment of $1.7 million, or an average loan of $250,000 per acquisition. The minister has said that program has saved 560 jobs in Ontario. The throne speech said that program would be expanded. And in a recent speech, the minister said: "The Ontario budget will provide several job-creating measures. One will be a further refinement of our highly successful foreign subsidiary buy-back program."

When we look at the Ministry of Labour data on layoffs during 1980 and 1981, we see that 51 foreign subsidiaries closed down, resulting in a layoff of 5,801 workers. Frankly, those figures are on the conservative side -- small "c" or large "C," whichever you may like -- of the calculation, because we do not have reliable reporting practices in terms of determining foreign ownership as it relates to these layoff figures. But when we look at the highly successful program the minister was talking about, it means in essence that through his buy-back program he saved fewer than 10 per cent of the jobs for workers who were being abandoned by their foreign owners over the past two years.

When the select committee on layoffs was meeting and talked to officials of the former Ministry of Industry and Tourism, they said that over the next five to six years more than 2,000 branch plants in Ontario would be considered at risk. They said we could face that many closures. As I said during question period today, at the present rate of the buy-back program it would take more than 400 years to reacquire those companies that are expected to close down over the next five to six years -- not the total number of companies that are foreign- owned, as the minister tried to imply in his response to my question during question period, but just those companies that risk closure over the next five to six years. At the present rate, it would take us more than 400 years to deal with that problem, and the minister calls it a highly successful program.

In fact, there is a very low commitment, a lack of commitment, to buy back. If the minister is talking about expanding the program significantly, he is going to have to provide much more in resources to deal with this serious foreign ownership problem through his buy-back program.

It will require an investment of $500 million over the next five to six years through the buy-back program, or about $100 million a year, if we are to deal with the problems created by foreign ownership for workers who face layoffs over those years. I doubt that this ministry or this government will make that kind of commitment in the budget to buy back. That leaves us with the only other option that has been provided by this minister, and that is his dependence on the private sector.

If we look at the Ontario Business News, at the infamous interview where the minister talked about his soft spot for small business, there is no question that small entrepreneurs in this province do need support and assistance, especially in relation to the interest rate policy of the federal government which is killing them in terms of carrying inventory and overhead, operating capital and so on, quite besides expansion.

But if we look at that interview, I wonder what the minister is really proposing in terms of support for the economy, for business in this province. Is he simply dependent on the initiative of the private sector? If he is, we are not going to resolve the problems. Leaving it to the private sector and the multinationals has led us to these problems. To emphasize dependence on the very sectors that have led us to these problems is hardly a solution.

5:20 p.m.

In our view, if creation of employment opportunities is one of the major aims of this new ministry, then it must promote the development of Canadian-owned industry and become actively involved in the development of import replacement. For that reason, we have proposed the reasoned amendment. We must increase the degree of Canadian ownership. We believe the way to do that is through positive investment initiatives by the government. The government should use crown corporations; it should involve itself in joint ventures in those sectors of the economy that it is determined are dominated by imports. We believe we have a great opportunity to do that.

For that reason, I urge the minister and all members of the House to support the amendment. I urge the minister to use his ministry in a direct way to try to start the turnaround of the problems we have experienced in the economy of Ontario. We have the opportunity to do it. Let us get on with the job.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, on looking through this bill, one sees that it gives the minister a mandate that perhaps no other ministry in the government has. It gives him rather broad powers. He is almost the creator of the industrial strategy that has been lacking for the past 40 years in this government. I suggest to him that he could be God if he wanted to implement everything that is in here to support the growth of productivity employment by expanding domestic and international trade, encouraging investment opportunities, strengthening the competitiveness of the industrial base of Ontario, assisting small business development, promoting investment and trade opportunities offered by Ontario and encouraging the introduction of new technologies, products and processes to improve productivity and competitiveness.

I suppose the government members have been listening to the Liberal Party. My colleague, our former Energy critic, was telling the government it must move in a new area of technology and research and development in this area of new energy resources. I do not think this government has moved in that area at all. We could become self-sufficient in this area of energy if the government would encourage more research and development. I think it has failed the people of Ontario in this area.

We have not seen an industrial strategy program come forward from the Conservative government. If there had been, we would not have the unemployment there is now in Ontario, which is at an all-time high. If I can predict the future of Ontario, unless something drastic is done to create new jobs, we are going to be looking at maybe 400,000 people out of work by the end of this year. All the indications in the United States are that the recession is going to continue over there, and it is going to be much more severe here in Ontario.

This government has failed to move to create or even to maintain the present jobs in Ontario. My colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) talked about the loss of jobs in the automobile industry in the St. Catharines area, which relates to the branch plant economy in the province. There is no direction from this government, or perhaps even from the federal government, in the area of trying to tell these people that they have an obligation in Ontario to secure that.

I was interested in reading a Japan-Canada Trade Council report dated March 1982 about a conference held in Brantford. I will quote Sam Oshi, vice-president of NTN Bearing Manufacturing Canada Ltd. We should listen to this, because the government has failed to look at what has happened in Japan over the years and why it has captured much of the trade in the world. He said:

"The real problem with Canadian industry is the lack of productivity growth. In Japan, productivity in the manufacturing sector increased by more than 300 per cent between 1960 and 1978. That growth compared to only 80 per cent in the United States during the same period. Some of the benefits derived from this productivity are wage gains, price stability, controlled inflation and an increased standard of living.

"Japan's success is based mainly upon the simple application of appropriate, modern management disciplines and skills which were largely imported from the United States after the Second World War. Japan started out attempting to catch up to western technology and now has advanced to the point at which it is a net exporter of technology.

"Management efficiency is important to the wellbeing of Japanese companies and, because of the lifetime employment system, management cannot use layoff as a tool. It is viewed in Japan that layoff is the last resort, and management is considered to be a failure and incompetent if it resorts to it. Japan's companies also differ from their North American counterparts in the areas of labour-management relationships. Bosses and their employees share the same goals, feeling that they are in the same boat and that together they can succeed and survive."

If we look at the record, the industrial sector in Ontario led in the number of walkouts and strikes in the past 15 or 20 years. That record is not something to be proud of. Among government, management and labour, we seem to put forward an adversary system instead of looking at the end product that will be a benefit to all of us, to labour, management and government.

Looking at the high unemployment in Ontario, I can just imagine the loss of tax revenue this government will be facing. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will be introducing his budget on May 13, and perhaps he will be looking at other areas to regain that lost revenue. The minister of pollution points to elbow lifting. I hope not, as that is high enough as it is. The area we usually hit is tobacco and liquor, and that is one of the cheap ways to go about it.

I am suggesting that there have been good messages sent from Japan over the years. I quoted some of their comments here a few years ago when I was the Labour critic.

Mr. Kerr: Cars.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes. Cars are an important item. I talked about the layoffs in St. Catharines. Talking about the input of Canadian parts in that car, if you buy a General Motors car today, they do not tell you when we lift the hood that the motor is built in Japan. The other day a friend of mine was looking at a small half-ton truck put out by General Motors. The minute he lifted up the hood, I said, "That engine is made in Japan." They do not tell us that.

Mr. Kerr: Are you happy?

Mr. Haggerty: No, I am not happy. The point I am trying to make is that the automobile industry is slipping in many of the heavy labour parts of an automobile, such as the engine, which are manufactured in Japan, Mexico and places like that. I do not think that should be. We should be looking at the same type of agreement that the federal government and the province managed to obtain from Volkswagen; Canadian content will comprise 85 per cent of that car, and that is a good goal we should be looking at. The same thing can apply to General Motors and Ford.

This government has secured backup loans for the automobile industry in Ontario. They have put a substantial amount of money into it, but that will not encourage the sale of new cars. If one talks to the dealers, the Ford and General Motors dealers, the problem is interest rates. I have not talked to a Chrysler dealer, but I suppose the problem is the same.

5:30 p.m.

We have talked about the Canada-US auto trade pact. When the Premier (Mr. Davis) was speaking in the northeastern part of the United States not too long ago, he suggested that we should have freer trade with the United States. The US is our biggest trading partner and we should have better ties and a better understanding so that we could share in the labour pool as they do in the European Economic Community. I suggest that is what we should be looking at, but it has to be a fair deal.

If one buys a General Motors car in the United States, it is financed at 12.8 per cent. If one buys that same car in Ontario, it costs about 21 per cent to finance. All one has to do is talk to the dealers. They say they could sell all their cars here, but the consumer is not buying because of the high interest rate. That really strikes home. If we are to have a trade pact with our counterpart in the United States, we must have some equality in the financing arrangements. I suggest that we should be looking for fair competition.

One of the suggestions made at the meeting of the first ministers in February of this year, particularly by the government of the day in its blueprint for economic recovery, was that there should be fair competition. That is an area that this government and the federal government both should be looking at. Under the auto pact we should be treated the same as our American counterparts in relation to automobile financing. Our buyers should enjoy the same interest rate of 12.8 per cent, not 21 per cent as at present. It seems that we on this side are being used by our American counterparts on the basis of whatever the traffic will bear. That is what has happened in the past. They take advantage of us and say, "We will let our Canadian counterparts pay a higher price for a car."

Before Christmas American television carried ads for cars with rebates of $500 and $700. Then they tried it over here about three or four months later. I understand the offer of rebate has been removed today, but the interest rate remains at 21 per cent. I suggest to the minister responsible for this piece of legislation that he should be telling the automobile sector that we will not tolerate this situation and that we must be treated on an equal basis with our American counterparts, particularly as to interest rates on automobile financing. I am sure that people would then be out there buying cars.

This government has forgotten about the consumer. Ontario consumers today have lost confidence in the market. They are still making a dollar but they are saving it. The government has to get them to turn that money around. Until it does that, I do not think it is going to fulfil the purpose of this bill, which is to move ahead and create jobs.

The government has suggested there should be investment by labour, if I am not mistaken in my reading of the report, and that labour should be investing in companies and industry. It is all very well to say that, but there must be some protection for the working man who puts his hard-earned dollars back into the company. Nevertheless, I think the government has an obligation to try that when I look at the economy in Ontario.

Total personal savings of Canadians in chartered banks, trust companies, credit unions and so on amount to about $181 billion. Total savings in the personal sector for the whole of Canada amount to about $475 billion. That is quite a nest egg. I look at that and say to myself that if the government really wants to do something it should tap that source.

My colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) mentioned municipal bonds that could be purchased to help invest in industries and in communities and perhaps encourage development locally. There is no reason that money source should not be tapped to encourage people to invest in government bonds to be used for whatever purpose they may be required for industrial strategy programs in Ontario.

I have mentioned using the Province of Ontario Savings Office for that area. Perhaps one area that we should be looking at is that through tax incentives we could encourage people to buy government bonds. By tax incentives I would suggest that one way to control the interest rates would be to encourage persons to share in the development of this province and Canada and to say to them, "We will give you reasonable, affordable interest rates for your money, but there will be no taxes paid on it," in order to encourage persons who are saving to invest in this.

If one looks at the track record of Ontario Hydro over the past 10 years, they have gone offshore to borrow money. Today their debt runs to about 10 times what it was back in 1971. It was about $1.9 billion, while today it runs to close to $12 billion. Much of that money has been financed through borrowing on the American market. I do not have to tell members what that has cost Canadians, particularly people in this province, with the exchange on the Canadian dollar at almost 20 per cent and the interest there at 18 and 20 per cent. By the time it is paid off, it is costing us almost 40 per cent to borrow on that American market.

I know some of the bond issues have been sold there at 15 or 16 per cent, but I suggest the exchange on that American dollar is killing the productivity of this country, particularly of Ontario. It seems to me that perhaps we are using it as blackmail.

I can go back to the Carter report on taxation and recall some of the comments made then relating to the auto trade pact, saying that if we went to the auto trade pact and went for wage parity the Canadian dollar would have to be reduced in value. We have certainly gone that way; it has been reduced 18 to 20 per cent. It was said then that if the Canadian dollar went down, the interest rates would remain at a stable level. It has not worked that way. I think the forecasting has been away off. The Canadian dollar is down by about 18 to 20 cents and also we have a high interest rate of about 18 to 20 per cent. I think that sometimes we can depend upon the forecasters, but many times they are wrong.

I was interested in the debate the other night relating to the procedural affairs committee. One of the comments made to that committee, of which I was a member, by one of the senators who appeared before the committee was, "Moses died leaning on his staff." Sometimes we can put too much on our staff and depend on it too much. The minister could be in the driver's seat and leading instead of being pushed by some civil servant. I thought it was a good comment, "Moses died leaning on his staff." This province is dying because we have been misled so many times.

I think of my experience on the Ontario Hydro affairs committee and the wealth of knowledge there that this minister should be looking at. We talk about improvement in the area of skilled trades. This document says they are putting too much onus on the federal government in saying it should be funding more in the area of skilled trades to encourage more people to get into technology and create the jobs that are necessary. For years Ontario Hydro has followed the practice of going offshore to bring in employees in skilled trades to fill the positions in our nuclear and hydro generating plants here in Ontario.

I must tell the minister, because I think it is fair warning to him and perhaps to all of us in the Legislature, that we can no longer look offshore for the skilled trades because they are not over there any more. The demand and the change in the age pattern in Ontario are the same as in Europe. More ageing people will be required to stay in the employment sector, particularly in the skilled trades, because we do not have enough young people being trained in technology in the skilled trades. The experts who appeared before the committee gave a good warning that we no longer can go that route.

5:40 p.m.

This is a worry I talked about in one of my first speeches in the House in 1967 when I spoke about the lack of a good industrial program in the province. There have been a number of people in the Niagara Peninsula who have spent good sums of money to train tool and die makers, machinists and others in the skilled trades, later to be raided by the large automobile industries that take these workers into their plants with large increases in wages.

Many of the small industries, particularly in the Niagara Peninsula, no longer are interested in training people because to train a tool and die maker would cost them about $22,000. For small businesses, particularly in these trade areas, that is quite a loss to those industries.

The government must have programs such as the co-op program at Waterloo University. The same thing could be done in our colleges and improved on. In some cases they do have such programs that can work with industry, but industry cannot pick up the whole tab for educating these youngsters. There are many youngsters, handy with their hands, looking for job opportunities without having to have the academics to get them into full employment.

I suggest that is the area we should be looking at with some provincial or federal assistance. I know the federal government has provided funds through the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Colleges and Universities for a massive training program to get these youngsters in. I do not suggest, as in the minister's document, it should be on a seasonal basis. There will have to be a program that is meaningful and worth while so that we will have a continuous flow of skilled trades to fill industry requirements in the area of new technology.

Just a few weeks ago I walked into one of the shops I worked for and I was amazed at the machinery that has been bought by these companies. I guess they are called numerical machines -- computer lathes, milling machines and boring machines. The price of them is fantastic. It ranges from $500,000 to perhaps $700,000 for one of these machines. They require a skilled programmer plus a person to operate the machine. It is a whole new ball game that has come to machinists in the province of Ontario.

I suppose if I had to go back into that trade, I would have to go back to college to pick up the new skills required. The amount of work and production that comes out of these machines is fantastic. Talk about robots. They are there right now. Where it may take an ordinary machinist three days to turn out a special piece of metal for a certain job, the new machines can turn out 30 pieces in one day. It is too bad some of these machines are not built in Ontario or in Canada.

That is where research and development has been lacking in Canada and particularly in Ontario, the province that led this country to its wealth. People have looked at Ontario as a place of security where they would not be concerned about their job.

I just got word the other day that John Deere Ltd. in Welland cut back on employment. Page-Hersey Works has large layoffs coming up and also the automobile industry. The Niagara Peninsula is hard hit by layoffs. It will be more severe by this summer. It is going to be tough on those persons who thought this could never happen to them in Ontario. They thought they had security here, but it is not there. People are losing their homes because of the loss of jobs.

I look to the minister for leadership in this area because it has been lacking. I know his predecessor was moving in this direction. I think he had some of the right ideas to create and encourage the development of new jobs and new opportunities in Ontario relating to the small business sector.

Again, the minister is going to have to come up with a program of financing them. Some of the red tape involved in getting a loan from the Ontario Development Corp. is questionable. I have had people in my area who wanted to expand their industry. For example, one of my constituents ran a machine shop. It was a good machine shop and ODC gave him his first loan. He was a proven person and there was no risk involved, but he could not get a loan from ODC. I had a little note from the minister's predecessor which said there would be no problem, he would get the loan, but he never did get it. He went to Ottawa and got the loan through the Small Business Development Corp. at a lower interest rate than he would have received from the bank. That industry now employs 20 to 30 new employees.

I went to one of the minister's chief aides in the peninsula and said to him, "If this is the policy of your ministry, then your job is redundant." There is no need for him to be down in the peninsula if the minister is going to take the attitude that some of them have of saying it is not that depressed. We cannot be that choosy today. Regardless of where the opportunity is, if there is somebody who wants to invest in this province, wants to create some jobs and do something useful, we cannot single him out and say, "Unemployment is not that bad in that area. We will go someplace else and give it there. You do not need help." That is not the way it should operate. We cannot discourage somebody who wants to expand in that particular plant or expand his operations. The minister is going to have to change the whole approach he has taken there and his approach on interest too.

Many people come to me and ask, "Why is it this one can get interest-free loans and I cannot? I have to pay 12.25 per cent and somebody else may pay six per cent." I cannot give them an answer to that, but the government can. I suggest to the minister that is an area he should be looking to for more uniformity in loaning out money. After all, it is taxpayers' money.

I have to question whether he should be giving someone interest-free loans. That is pretty hard to take when other people have to pay 22 per cent to survive under the current economic conditions in Ontario. He should take a good look at that and come up with affordable interest loans for everybody who applies for them. Make it uniform. Make it easier for everybody to get it, not just one or two individuals. Come up with affordable interest rates that everybody in industry can accept.

It is rather difficult under the present circumstances of high interest rates when people are out trying to borrow money. I am sure the minister could improve that area. My colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) suggested ideas on how one can go out and raise funds for investment purposes to give to the person who wants to invest. As a Canadian, I feel have an obligation to invest back into this country. I have done well and I am sure there are many other persons who feel this way as well.

In the banks, yesterday and today, people are walking in with their little gold books, looking at their returns and their interest money. There is a wealth of capital there if this government wants to get into it and use it right, without going to general revenue and raising taxes across the province so that even the poor have to pay to finance some industries in Ontario through these ODC loans. I think the government is going to have to take a different look. They are not living in the real world today as it relates to the people on the streets who have lost their jobs and are looking for employment.

I know the member for Kitchener-Wilmot will be down in the Niagara Peninsula tomorrow to talk to the many youths who are looking for job opportunities. It is going to be tough in that area. Since I am close to the American border, I know the problem on the other side where industries have gone into receivership, bankruptcy and so on. The same thing is following through here. We are in a tough economic climate. The government has to take some initiative.

5:50 p.m.

Through this bill I hope they are going to come up with some good programs to assist people who want to expand small industries and to get out of the branch plant economy. There is a buy-back program in the throne speech. If one reads the early history of Canada, we complained when the British were here. We wanted to kick the British out. In 1903 we came up with the "buy Canadian" slogan, which is still with us today. Now we want to kick out their American counterparts and say, "We don't need your help here."

If the government wants to take that approach, then it is going to have to ask, "Where are we going to get the capital to buy back these industries?" The answer is it has to come up with a program. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has suggested, and I have suggested, with the wealth of Canadian dollars there are -- $475 billion -- we should not have to go offshore to borrow money. There would be no need for it if we had good government management.

I have often said I am liberal with my views but conservative with my money. If I had my way I would not let Ontario Hydro build a plant every time it wanted to, and the same thing applies to its export of energy to the United States. I question that move. It is going to create jobs, but the Ministry of Energy has never said how many new jobs there will be. They are going to be temporary jobs. Probably the cable is not even going to be bought in Canada. I hope I am wrong in that comment.

Hon. Mr. Walker: There is no labour in cable.

Mr. Haggerty: No cable. Where is the minister's research and development? With all the cable Hydro has strung across this province, is the minister telling me that Hydro has not got research workers down there who could develop this? The same thing relates to the scrubbers that should be put into Nanticoke. We do not have the technology here, yet we have had --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Very little manpower is involved.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister has a lot to learn about the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). He is all for it. He is spending --

Hon. Mr. Walker: That came about entirely --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Haggerty: There is no leadership on the government side at all in this area of research and development. As I said, with all the cable that Hydro has strung across this province there is no reason why it could not have it manufactured in Ontario to its specifications.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It's all machine-done.

Mr. Haggerty: That's right.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Erie has the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: There is no guarantee there will be new jobs. What the minister is actually doing is buying the coal from the United States at its price with the exchange on the Canadian dollar, then turning around and exporting clean energy to the US, and dumping all the pollution on the Niagara Peninsula. All the acid rain is going to come into that area. All the minister has to do is look at the mortality rate in the Niagara Peninsula as it relates to air and water pollution. Much of it can be related to previous industries in that area. Now he wants to compound the problem.

There is no guarantee there will be new jobs for Canadians, and I do not think there will be. The life span of that plant is another 20 years and the question is how long the export will be to the United States. The Tennessee Valley Authority has cut back on the new generating plants it was going to build. There is a surplus of power there. I can just see the right-wing American President saying, "Uh, uh, we are not buying from Ontario because we have a surplus here." They can throw it back. There are connecting links either way for this. There is no security that there are going to be long-term jobs. They could cut it off at any time.

I suggest to the minister he should be taking a second look at that and finding out if this is what is going to happen, that we are going to be exporting cheap energy over there and putting people out of work in the industry in the long run over here. The branch-plant industries are going back to the States because they say they can produce cheaper back there. If he is going to send cheap power over there, he will defeat his purpose here. He should take a look at it and find out the end result. I do not think the government or the Ministry of Energy has looked at that particular agreement. I suggest the minister takes a good hard look at it.

I have touched on a few items that were of concern to me. I hope the minister will take a good, hard look at some of the suggestions from the Liberal Party. We have had some good policies on employment strategy and industrial strategy for Ontario. There has been excellent material. It has all been tabled here in the House previously if the minister will move in that direction.

I can tell him he is not living in the real world today as it relates to people out there on the streets without jobs and losing their homes. It is only going to take some individual out there to really stir up the pot. That is what is going to happen if this government and the federal government do not do something to bring in affordable interest rates so we can get into building houses and high-rise buildings to create jobs. It is not going to take much for somebody out there to do something. They are about ready to pull the trigger right now.

I suggest the minister get out there, talk to these people and find out what is taking place in industry. When they start losing jobs in which they thought they had security, they are looking back at the 1930s. I do not want to see that time again. I thought we would never get into that situation again.

We have a wealth of resources here. There needs to be proper planning by all levels of government. There needs to be a tripartite arrangement among government, management and labour. That is the key to the new bill and should be in it. Consult with labour because it is going to have to be taken into consideration by the government as to the directions in which we should be heading in the decade of the 1980s.

Japan has done it and its arrangements created an enormous industrial society the workers seem to be content with, but there are problems here in Ontario. We are going to have to move in that direction. It is to be hoped this bill will do it. We support it.

Mr. Wildman: Are you in support of the amendment?

Mr. Haggerty: When I look at the amendment, as I interpret it, the member wants to hoist the motion. The member has no consideration for the unemployed people out there. I want to give this government the opportunity to come through with this bill, get on with its good intentions and let us get the jobs created. I support the minister on that.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

4 mai 1982