MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8:19 p.m.

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could seek a ruling from you before I start. Is it unparliamentary to accuse a minister of the crown of plagiarism?

The Deputy Speaker: Under standing orders, I do not think section 19 or any of those subsections would apply to plagiarism. What did you have in mind?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I just spent the last half hour or so at the annual meeting of the Ontario Mining Association where the new minister -- the minister designate, as it were -- was giving a speech to the association in which he talked about mining machinery.

Every argument we have made on this side for the last 10 years, and probably before that, was played back to us by the minister. It was truly remarkable.

In years gone by when we have talked about the import penetration of mining machinery, the Tories on that side all said: "Oh, well. That is the free market system. We cannot do anything about that." We said to them: "It is not a question of profitability. The market is there." They said: "Do not be silly. If the market was there and it was profitable, the private sector would do it and keep the state out of mining machinery."

What did the minister say tonight? He said: "It is simply a question of capital investment availability. It has nothing to do with profitability because the profits are there." Isn't that remarkable?

Then the minister said, "We are going to establish a resources machinery development centre in Sudbury and there have been some concerns expressed among you." He was speaking to the mining association. I doubt he was really speaking to the mining association, he was speaking to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) who seems to think that despite the enormous import penetration of the market by American mining machinery companies and others, there is not enough room for a complex being built by Inco, Noranda and others, with help from the federal and provincial governments.

That is exactly what the minister was saying --

Hon. Mr. Walker: That is not what I said.

Mr. Laughren: If I am wrong, I hope the minister will correct me. It really is ludicrous for anyone to pretend that there is a danger of any kind of mining machinery operation in Sudbury taking away from the competitiveness of Jarvis Clark Co. Ltd. in North Bay. That really is a silly argument to make. There is more than enough for everybody.

The minister used figures; I wrote them on the back of my card. He said that between 1975 and 1980, import penetration had moved from 69 per cent to 79 per cent. I believe those were the precise figures he used.

When we used those figures a couple of years ago, those people said our figures were wrong. Where did they get their new figures? It would be very interesting to know whether they got their accurate figures from the same place we got our accurate figures, namely Statistics Canada. I suspect that is what they did.

Here is the minister, on the road to Damascus I suppose, telling the Ontario Mining Association that he is all in favour of free enterprise. He wants the government to stand back and let free enterprise do what it does best with one proviso.

I made the mistake at one time of studying economics. One thing I was always told was that the reason profits could be justified in a system was because of the element of risk. What justifies profits is the element of risk. What does the minister say to them tonight? He says, "We believe the government must stand back and let free enterprise do what it does best, but we are going to co-invest and reduce your risk." That is what the minister said.

One minute, out of one side of his mouth, the minister is talking about letting free enterprise flex its muscles and solve the economic problems of our times, while out of the other side of his mouth he is saying, "We are going to co-invest and we are going to help reduce your risk." My goodness, that is truly a remarkable performance on the part of the minister.

Mr. Wildman: Socializing costs.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I suppose one could say it is socializing costs. It is the old story of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor, I suppose. Certainly if one wants to ask the workers who get laid off in the one-industry mining communities, that is what they will tell you.

I am going to talk more about mining machinery in a few moments, but first I want to address myself to the bill and to the amendments put by my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

I thought the remarks of the member for Algoma during his leadoff really said a great deal. I fully expect that within the next 10 years everything the member for Algoma has said will be repeated by the minister-designate for Industry and Trade as he finds out the wisdom that really does lie on this side of the House.

The reasoned amendment put by my colleague addresses the two major problems of industry in Ontario: first, the tremendous amount of foreign ownership of our economy; second, the amount of import penetration in very key sectors. Mining machinery is just one, but that certainly is one of the very key sectors. There is no question whatsoever of the relationship between foreign ownership and the underdevelopment of those key sectors.

It was really enlightening to hear the minister say in his speech this evening that the underdeveloped countries of this world would envy Ontario. Is that not remarkable? I believe his precise words were, "The riches of Ontario would be the envy of the underdeveloped countries of the world."

I think we have sunk to a new low when we say that in Ontario we are better off than the underdeveloped part of the world. That really is a new beginning in Tory economic theory. I suppose if one starts from the bottom, if one uses the Third World as a benchmark, one can make some pretty glowing statements about Ontario. As time goes on, I guess we are going to hear that increasingly from the various ministers on the other side.

Unless what is contained in our reasoned amendment put by my colleague is implemented in the new ministry, then all they are really doing on that side is shuffling bureaucrats. They are not going to do anything to solve the structural problems of industry in Ontario. We on this side are not interested in an act of voyeurism as we watch them shuffle their top bureaucrats. That is a silly exercise which serves no purpose. We are not interested in that. We are not interested in them finding an easy way to shift the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) around. We are not interested in them giving a platform for the new minister and his Reaganomic philosophy. That is not what we on this side are here for.

We really believe that unless these two principles contained in our reasoned amendment are embodied in the new ministry it makes no sense for them to be shuffling the ministries around the way they are doing.

When the minister responds some day I would like him to tell us what the advantages are. What is going to change? Just calling a ministry Industry and Trade is not going to solve the structural problems out there in Ontario. It simply will not happen. Oh, I know they will have some happy bureaucrats who now will get promoted because of a new ministry. What is that going to do for unemployment in Ontario? What is that going to do to replace imports in this province?

The rhetoric in this bill is pretty hollow. Unless we do implement these principles which are in the reasoned amendment, section 3 of the bill really does not address itself to anything except platitudes. That is all they are going to have in that ministry. They will go around making their speeches, but they will not be doing anything serious about solving our economic problems, and the potential is there.

8:30 p.m.

The new minister has established his reputation as the Milton Friedman of the north. If he is going to continue with that -- by the way, how are the videotapes? Are they good?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I'd like to supply them to your caucus.

Mr. Laughren: Wasn't that Milton Friedman and his supply-side economics?

Mr. Cassidy: Did the taxpayers pay for those?

Mr. Laughren: Oh yes, you can be sure the taxpayers paid for those.

I think it is time the people in Ontario ask for whom they toil. For whom do we toil in this province? Is it for the banks? Is it for the multinational enterprises? Who is it for? What can we say to the working people of this province? How can we say to them, "Take pride in what you are building, take pride in what you are doing"? I can think of no way the minister is going to build that into our society unless he is able to say to the people out there, "We are going to take our economy sector by sector and rebuild it so that in the future we are not faced with the kind of despair that is out there now in key sectors." Taking auto parts as an example, we simply have to do more than we have done in the past.

I believe the potential is there for government to turn things around. I do not despair of that. Let me make it perfectly clear that New Democrats believe it will take a healthy private sector to provide the kind of health and social services we feel so strongly about.

Mr. Mancini: That's the first time you have ever said that.

Mr. Laughren: It is certainly not the first time I have said that.

Mr. Mancini: It's the first time you have had your earmuffs off.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps I need to educate the Liberal caucus. What is so difficult for the Liberals to understand is a spokesperson for any political party standing up and saying unequivocally what he or she believes in. The Liberal Party has difficulty understanding that.

When we form the government in this province, we are going to set about in a very serious way rebuilding key sectors of the economy. Let it be perfectly clear that we have always stated, as we state now, that we believe in collective intervention in the Ontario economy to rebuild it and to guarantee employment and a decent standard of living for all Ontario citizens. We do not believe we need to suffer through the high unemployment we are suffering through now. We believe that can be turned around with selective intervention on the part of government.

The Minister of Industry and Trade does not even believe there should be a mixed economy. He says on one hand, "Stand back and let free enterprise do what it wants," and the next minute he is funding $20 million for a resources machinery development centre in Sudbury. Who is talking out of both sides of his mouth? Obviously, the Minister of Industry and Trade.

We would not allow those key high-technology sectors to wind down the way he has allowed them to wind down. All the signs have been there for a number of years now that we were in serious difficulty with our auto parts sector. All the signs were there, all the data were there. He had prodding from this side, and he sat back and let what he regards as the inevitable happen. That is what he did. He had all sorts of warnings, and when he does intervene it is too little and too late.

He cannot direct an economy that way. The day is gone when the Boy Scouts opposite can sit there and think the equity in the marketplace will resolve things in our favour. That is never going to happen, yet they seem to think it is still possible. When I think of us having an auto parts sector in such great difficulty, when I think of us having those enormous deficits in food processing -- we are an agricultural-based economy, yet we have enormous deficits in food processing -- I hope the minister will address himself to those problems when he responds.

We have enormous potential in machinery, but what is the minister doing about it? Zero. When I see what is allowed to happen in those key sectors, I know there is really no commitment. They are shuffling around their top bureaucrats in the hope they will give the impression that something really is happening.

We happen to believe that there are opportunities out there; that in a funny kind of way the various problems we have represent opportunities as well. For example, the very fact that we have the problem of deficits in the auto parts and mining machinery areas means there is enormous opportunity to replace those imports, to create employment in those areas and to create high-technology employment -- employment that will stand us in good stead not just in the short term but in the long term as well.

When we talk about import replacement, that is a trade strategy, a very precise trade strategy, and I hope the minister will take it seriously. The research we had done in 1979 showed that if we could have replaced all those imports -- and nobody is saying all imports can be replaced -- it would have represented about 400,000 jobs; in 1982, it probably would be 500,000 jobs.

Even if only 50 per cent of those imports were replaced, and there are some sectors where we should be able to replace more than 50 per cent, one is talking about 250,000 jobs in direct employment in import replacement alone. If one takes into consideration that the spinoff factor is two for one in manufacturing, then we are talking about three times that -- more than the number of unemployed we have in this province. We are not even beginning to tap the potential for employment in those key sectors.

Every $1 billion worth of imports represents 16,000 jobs. Every $1 billion worth of imports represents $259 million in lost wages, $16 million in federal and provincial corporation taxes and $32 million in provincial and federal income tax. The potential for import replacement does not lie just in the creation of jobs. It involves tremendous amounts of revenue for Ontario and for the federal government as well. That potential for income for government to provide needed services and to create employment is very great.

A month or so ago one of the Conservative members stood up and tried to make a speech about the Canadarm, which is on the space shuttle. I thought it remarkable to want to make a lot of noise about that attachment to an American space shuttle when we are unable to produce auto parts to put together a car in this province. It is a ludicrous situation.

Mr. Stokes: What about Telidon?

Mr. Laughren: Telidon is the same. It is ridiculous, the way we have allowed that whole sector to degenerate. It is ironic that the government will buy itself a jet -- I do not want to get into that; others can do a better job with that than I -- but we cannot buy a Canadian car. We are into high technology with de Havilland, which builds aeroplanes, but we do not build cars.

South Korea builds a car called the Pony. They have targeted the auto industry as a key sector, and last year there were some 120,000 Ponys produced in South Korea. Their target for 1986 is to have one million Ponys produced in South Korea.

8:40 p.m.

Between 1981 and 1986, we expect a decline in the production of automobiles in Canada. But here we have South Korea, which has been in car production for five years, which will outproduce us within five years when we have been in the car business for 60 years. How does that make the minister feel? South Korea in five years will produce more automobiles than we will produce, despite the fact we have been producing automobiles in this province for 60 years.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We'll buy you a ticket to South Korea. When do you want to go?

Mr. Laughren: That is a really class suggestion.

Mr. Stokes: That's a real contribution. We are going to stay and fight. If the minister wants to go, he can go. We are going to stay and put it right.

Mr. Wildman: The minister doesn't seem to care.

Mr. Laughren: I hope the minister designate will tell us how he feels about having a country like South Korea eclipse us. It will have been in business for about five years, we have been in the business of producing automobiles for 60 years, and it is going to surpass us. That is a ludicrous situation.

We have been trying to tell the minister for a long time that we need to rebuild the auto parts sector. We said many years ago that we should be renegotiating the auto pact. This government took no initiative in doing that, absolutely none. We tried to tell the minister and his colleagues that we were not getting our fair share of high-technology jobs. We told them we were not getting our share of research and development or of new capital investment, which means jobs in the future.

This government stood back and did not want to get involved in the auto parts sector. It said, "That is really a federal responsibility." When this government does get involved, it is too little, too late. It throws money at the private sector and it is too late to solve the problem.

We should be targeting auto parts even today. Auto parts should be a targeted sector just the way South Korea said it would target autos as a key sector and make sure it succeeded. We should be doing that. We should have done it before. We should be doing it now, but the government is not doing it in a serious way. We should be able to produce the auto parts we are now importing. It could be the high-tech auto parts; the electronic components, for example. It could be engine production. It will not be given to us if we sit here like Boy Scouts and try to play that kind of civilized game.

The Ontario government's own reports said a long time ago that we were in serious trouble, but the government simply would not act on them. On this side, we are saying it is long overdue, that we should be looking at the auto parts sector in such a way that we make a mix of components that some day will give us the option of building our own Canadian cars.

Nobody is pretending we can go out right now and build a Canadian car -- no one I know of, except perhaps Jim Coutts, the Liberal who wants to win in Spadina. We cannot go out there at this point and build a Canadian car. But if we were to structure our auto parts sector in such a way that we had the option of building our own cars, then at least we would have some leverage in the marketplace. As long as we are not even building the right mix of components to allow us to build a car, we have no leverage with any producer.

I am unhappy with the way the Ontario government is automatically attacking Japanese producers and ignoring the serious problem with American producers, which is really the source of our problem. I understand it is easier to attack the Japanese producers, but that is not where the real problem is.

I know it is somewhat visionary to talk about having a mix of auto parts components that would allow us to build our own cars but, for a change, I see nothing wrong with having a vision that would put us in the forefront of technological development, not just in Canada but around the world. We are obviously going to need content legislation before that ever happens.

We had a trade deficit of $1.9 billion on auto parts last year. That is an enormous potential to turn around. That is one of the sectors. There are other sectors, such as food supplies, which I have mentioned.

When one examines the deficits we face in this province, what one invariably comes across is that if it is low technology and resource-oriented, we have a surplus; if it is high technology and has a high manufacturing component, we have a deficit. There are very few exceptions to that. There are a few exceptions but not very many.

There is an enormous deficit in textiles, for example. Machinery had a $5.6-billion deficit in 1981; that is 92 per cent more than just five years earlier. Equipment and tools had a $7.1-billion deficit in 1981; the deficit increased by 125 per cent from 1976. Those are the kinds of enormous deficits we are facing.

The minister designate said in his speech tonight at the Ontario Mining Association that what concerned him about the mining machinery deficits was that they were increasing. Well, I will be darned. The minister has stumbled upon StatsCan figures we have been ramming down his throat for the past 10 years, and he reveals it as though it is news at the OMA dinner. He has known that for a long time, and he has sat on his hands for a long time. There is enormous opportunity there, and the minister seems to think it just will not work.

I cannot leave the subject of mining machinery without making reference to the member for Nipissing, who stood in his place in this chamber last week and questioned the minister about the wisdom of putting money into a machinery operation in Sudbury while there were layoffs at Jarvis Clark in North Bay. I could not believe what I was hearing.

I picked up a document from 1979, entitled The Mining Association of Canada Study on Canadian Content of Equipment Currently in Use in Mining Operations in Canada, to refresh my memory on what it is we need to build here in this province. The Mining Association of Canada broke down the mining machinery industry into a number of components and said, "These are the deficiencies in domestic capability" -- in other words, what we could be producing here: import replacement.

I wish the member for Nipissing were here to hear some of the opportunities that exist. Let me quote them:

"Open-pit equipment: large rotary drill rigs, large rotary drill bits, large mobile cranes, tracked and rubber-tired dozers, large front-end loaders, large electric and diesel shovels, drag-lines, oversized tires, pumps, rock breakers and crane feeders.

"Underground equipment: long-hole drills, loaders, mucking machines, mine trolleys and locomotives, pumps, rock breakers, diesel generators, lamps and hoists.

"Open-pit and underground mills and concentrator equipment: impactors, gear drives, sieves, classifier screens, disc filters, cyclones, spirals, dryers, control laboratory equipment, instrumentation equipment, weigh balance equipment, pumps, bearings, car dumpers and couplings."

Mr. Piché: Floyd, are you going to be much longer?

Mr. Laughren: I have just begun. "Smelter equipment: converters, electrostatic precipitators, casting machines, fans, scrubbers, instrumentation equipment, drumming equipment and sampling equipment."

Mr. Piché: You might as well read the telephone book.

Mr. Stokes: What's bothering you, Dash? You've heard of Rip? We've got our Dash.

Mr. Piché: Who said that? I want his name in full.

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: I must continue. It is obvious that despite all the available information, the member for Nipissing is still undermining any attempts his own government makes to improve import replacement in Ontario. He still does not understand that, and I am going to do my part to educate him. With refinery equipment, these are some of the opportunities --

Hon. Mr. Walker: You are misreading the whole picture.

Mr. Laughren: No, I am not misreading what he is saying. I heard him very clearly. Perhaps the minister will be able to enlighten us in his remarks.

The point is that for a long time the economy of northern Ontario has been resource-based; it has not been diversified. When, finally, with turtle-like speed we get the government to put something in place in Sudbury related to the mining industry, but which at the same time would diversify it, we get a Conservative backbencher undermining that attempt. We think that is not proper.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That is not the case, and the honourable member knows it.

Mr. Laughren: It certainly is. That is exactly what the member for Nipissing was saying. I heard him very clearly, because I ended up getting in on the same question. He said, "We do not want you to put money into an operation in Sudbury if it is going to cause layoffs in North Bay."

Hon. Mr. Walker: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: The minister has a point of order. What is a point of clarification? I would like to know that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am rising to the defence of the member for Nipissing. Mr. Speaker, you must appreciate that I was the person to whom the question was addressed. I have to say that he was not imputing anything that the member for Nickel Belt has been suggesting. He was merely seeking clarification, which he achieved from me, and the process of the discussion was slightly clouded afterwards by the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Was that a legitimate point of order, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: No, it was not. He was totally out of order.

Mr. Laughren: I will re-emphasize it. What the member for Nipissing was saying was that, despite the fact that layoffs had already occurred at Jarvis Clark in North Bay, he was worried that a future development in Sudbury would have a detrimental effect on employment in North Bay. One really has to have a strange imagination to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Stokes: It is called provincialism.

Mr. Laughren: Provincialism or parochialism.

What he was really trying to do was to say to his constituents in North Bay: "I do not like these layoffs, and I am going to try to do something about them. If we can blame those rascals in Sudbury, we will do it." What a shoddy way of trying to rebuild and diversify the economy of northern Ontario.

Many members from northern Ontario, even some on the government side, have been arguing for a long time that there needs to be more industrial development in the north. For a member like that to come in a year after he gets in here and undermine a project which for the first time shows some potential of developing a mining machinery industry in the north is absolutely ridiculous. I hope the member is able to justify his stand in the months and years to come. He has some answering to do.

When that story came out in Sudbury, people were asking me what kind of game was being played by the Conservatives.

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes. Kill the mining industry in the north.

Mr. Laughren: My friend the member for Sudbury East knows better than to interrupt me, because I know how to deal with these things.

I said to the people of Sudbury that they must understand Conservative philosophy: what it involves is that it does not matter what one attacks in some other part of the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: I want the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) to hear this.

Mr. Martel: It will do him good.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The members will all have an opportunity to participate in this debate.

Mr. Laughren: We in northern Ontario are getting weary of hearing Conservative members from the north attack other parts of the province as though they were not also governed by a Conservative government, in the hopes that they are going to pacify their own constituents because of bad government policy.

What the member for Nipissing has tried to do is to say, "Despite the fact that the government is not doing anything to solve the problem in North Bay, do not blame the government; blame Sudbury." That is a shabby political technique.

The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Speaking to the bill, well --

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) is more honest. He just does not bring the message back.

Mr. Laughren: That is right. While I am going on mining machinery, this minister's predecessor, now the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), announced $20 million to fund a resources machinery development centre in Sudbury. It was to be a completely public sector initiative. He came to Sudbury with a great deal of fanfare. There was a great deal of handclapping to welcome him. There was also some demonstration opposing him, but nevertheless there was handclapping. There were quite a few Conservatives at the luncheon.

The people in Sudbury had a great deal of hope for the resources machinery development centre, because it was felt that if we could get a proper research and development centre in Sudbury it could be the focus for the building of a really large machinery equipment manufacturing centre in Sudbury some day, not just for the mining industry in Sudbury but for the Canadian mining industry and for the export market as well, the way Jarvis Clark has done it.

Jarvis Clark has really crashed into export markets in a very impressive way; there is no reason why we could not build on that, given the very natural and great laboratory we have, not just in Sudbury but in other parts of Canada as well.

I hope the minister has seen the consultant's report that was forwarded to him, I presume, on this resources machinery development centre. What it calls for is a 10,000-square-foot centre which, in the first place, is a remarkably small centre if it is going to be a development centre for resources machinery, not just for mining but for forestry as well. It calls for a staff that has absolutely no scientists on it. That is the recommendation of the consultants. We do not see how we can have a proper scientific development centre with that kind of operation.

Also, in all probability it is going to be located close to the science centre developed in Sudbury. We are very worried that this centre is going to become more of a marketing operation than a true research development centre. If it is not attached to the university, if it has no scientists in it, if it is next door to a tourist operation, we think it is suspect. It pains me to say that, because we have been a very big supporter of the resources machinery development centre. We have been calling for it for a long time.

When we see plans like that under way we get very nervous, because we believe that resources development centre should be attached, if not physically at least in spirit, to Laurentian University, where we have a growing engineering department and a business department. There is enormous potential for linking that development centre with the university. It would be a very nice link, quite frankly, between the university and the community, a link that has been lacking in years gone by.

We do not like what we see in the consultants' recommendations on the resources machinery development centre. The minister should take a very serious look at what has been recommended by those consultants. We think he could be heading in the wrong direction.

9 p.m.

We do not want some kind of glossy marketing operation. We want a serious effort at building a resources machinery industry in this province -- a really serious one. With 10,000 square feet, the minister cannot possibly have laboratories or testing equipment. He is simply going to have some marketing hotshots. Much of the work they will be doing will already have been done by people like the federal government, by the Mining Association of Canada or by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, but the government will sit there and take credit for having taken an initiative on mining machinery. I suppose it has, but it is not the kind of initiative it should be taking.

Rather than throwing money into these halfhearted enterprises, it would be better to go into an enterprise with a full commitment to doing what is right and what really must be done. I am very nervous that that is not what is going to happen in this case. I would be very happy to be told by the minister designate that I am all wrong and that this is going to be a serious effort in research and development for resources machinery. But from what I have seen in the consultants' report, that is not what is going to happen.

There has been a great deal of goodwill around that centre up to this point and a great deal of goodwill around the initiatives shown by Inco, Noranda and such companies, with the federal and provincial governments, we hope, to develop mining machinery. But the government is going to run out of goodwill if it is playing some kind of pea-under-the-shell game with the resources machinery development centre. It has raised expectations in the Sudbury community about that centre. I believe people will be somewhat intolerant of the government if it is playing some kind of public relations game. We would be the first to bail out of it if that is what it is trying to do.

We on this side believe that the reasoned amendment put by my colleague the member for Algoma would make this a bill worthy of support at this point. The reasoned amendment embodies rebuilding key sectors and reducing reliance on foreign ownership, so that we can start on the path to an economic recovery we can all be proud of because it is using Ontario people and Ontario initiatives to get us to a point where we are not reliant on others for virtually everything of a high-technology nature.

It is no coincidence that last year in this country we had a deficit in manufacturing goods of $21 billion and no coincidence that that happened while Ontario, which is the manufacturing heartland of this country, is going through an economic decline. If Ontario was still at the forefront of manufacturing the way it should be, we would not be faced with that enormous and disgraceful deficit in manufactured goods.

I would encourage the Conservative and Liberal members to look seriously at our reasoned amendment. The word "reasoned" is most appropriate in this case because it gives this minister and his ministry an opportunity to do something meaningful for a change.

The Deputy Speaker: To refresh everyone's memory, we are dealing with Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and the motion of a reasoned amendment put forward by the member for Algoma.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated to you my view that the Ontario cabinet is too large. I simply draw to your attention that the last Liberal ministry had, I believe, 10 cabinet ministers and it ran the province very efficiently and effectively in those days.

Before one talks about growth and that sort of thing, one must remember that the cabinet of the United States in Washington has only 10 or 11 members. The cabinet of the United Kingdom is equally small, although, like the Tories here in Queen's Park, they are getting wreath upon wreath of ancillary lesser ministers so that almost everybody in the huge Tory caucus gets the extra bucks that keep him loyal in times of stress and strain.

I believe this particular ministry could very well be the most important one in these days. I am particularly interested in one section of the bill, if I could be permitted just to refer to subsection 8(1). It says: "The minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may approve any area in Ontario that is considered to require assistance to attract industrial development as an area of equalization of industrial opportunity."

The concept of designation of areas for equalization of industrial opportunity is something we will hear, or certainly should hear, a good deal about in the future. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who was dozing in the back row until a moment ago, and I come from an area which has already been designated by the government of Canada under its industry and labour adjustment program. The minister is aware that, unlike the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and so on, ILAP does not have that catchy connotation of a political sense.

The federal government, eschewing that sort of political approach to these significant national programs, allocates dollars instead of baloney to a program designed to assist those areas of Canada which, through no fault of their own, find themselves with an extraordinarily high unemployment rate or, because of a commitment to a specific industry, find themselves in economic doldrums which are significantly greater than those of the surrounding communities.

A good deal has been said about the Brantford situation. You might be interested to know, Mr. Speaker, although the member for Brantford frequently forgets, that I have the honour to represent a part of that great city myself. When the member for Brantford undertook to delay the announcement of the decision of the appeal beyond the Ontario Municipal Board to the Ontario cabinet, when he undertook to delay that announcement so that he could deliver it personally in the city of Brantford, he did not undertake to convey an invitation to his fellow member from that area.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, as he knows, and who has graced this chamber for very many years with his superior parliamentary knowledge, would certainly know that the reason the decision on the OMB in the case of the cabinet decision on Monday was delayed until Monday was not so that I could make any announcement; it was so that the people primarily interested in that decision could be notified personally by mail of the decision before they read it in the press.

I am sure the honourable member opposite would not want people to be subjected to that type of notification and I am sure he would be very supportive of the fact that the announcement was delayed suitably.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege: I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was in error when he said that the member for Brantford took the unusual step of delaying the announcement. Actually, that was very usual and very Tory, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: The member for Downsview is correct. I thought that the Tories had stopped doing that about the time Howard Ferguson passed on to his reward, but there seems to be a resurgence of that basic approach to politics.

The member for Brantford said it had been delayed so he could make the announcement from the mayor's office in the city hall of Brantford so that those associated with the matter could be informed. As a member for a section of Brantford myself who stood for election and defeated the Tory opponent, one would think that since the people had elected me, I had been designated as the person with some special interest in that, but I was not one of the ones informed.

9:10 p.m.

I do not like to crab about that. I did not complain when the member for Brantford wandered out to the great village of Burford to present some footling prize for health or something on behalf of the Minister of Health. I did not complain too much when my somnambulant friend in the front row, the minister of highways, decided to let contracts for the extension of Highway 403, which is entirely in my constituency, and it was the member for Brantford who made the announcement. What sort of baloney is that? I have a feeling that the member for Brantford, who probably even commands a few Liberal votes in that city --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, boy, he finally woke up.

The Deputy Speaker: We are due for a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- I would bring to the member's attention the fact that I signed letters to both honourable members within two seconds of each other advising them of the award of that contract. I cannot be responsible for who gets his mail first and who makes the announcement.

Mr. Nixon: No, but so the minister of highways is aware of what I speak, when the press release --

Hon. Mr. Snow: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, with all his experience in this House that the member for Brantford spoke about, should know that there has not been a minister of highways in Ontario for 10 years.

Mr. Roy: There should be. That is the problem.

Mr. Nixon: As a matter of fact, there was a time when the Minister of Highways was probably, next to the Premier, the most significant member in the front benches. He probably had the ability in those days to direct the development of the province, more so even than the minister of industry.

Back in the days when Highway 401 and Highway 400, the arteries of trade and development, were first being built the Minister of Highways had some clout. He did not sit at the end of the bench half asleep while his betters made the decisions for the rest of the province. He was in there giving the sorts of directions that gave the province the buoyant economy that really maintained the Tories in power for probably the first 30 of the 40 years of their existence. Now that he has been downgraded by the powers that be, it is an indication that the development of the province has fallen on evil days indeed.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you do not want me to continue on this line, but I felt that I should bring that to your attention and to the attention of the member for Brantford, the sort of ancillary minister who every now and then offers me a ride in a government car when he wants to whip back to Toronto in a hurry, and if not that, in his own car, which I will not describe more fully at this time. He is a grand fellow, but my advice to him -- he is going to tell you what kind of car it is.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a point of trouble here?

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the member already knows the kind of car I drive. I have only ever offered him a ride in my car, never in a government car.

After a year here, and having read many learned works, one by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and some by others on the politics of Ontario, I have finally decided for myself on the major difference among the three parties. The members of the New Democratic Party oppose, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party govern, and the members of the Liberal Party want to oppose Monday to Friday and make government announcements on Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. Nixon: If that suits the member, I guess that is all right. There is nothing the matter with that.

Mr. MacDonald: He did not get that out of a learned book, I can assure him.

Mr. Nixon: Nobody read past the preface anyway.

I do want say something about the section of the bill that I read a few moments ago, which allows the minister to designate areas of equalization of industrial opportunity. I do believe that it is essential that an approach such as that envisaged be worked at in close co-operation with the government of Canada and the municipalities concerned. The minister must surely have learned one lesson already in his brief tenure in this portfolio, namely, that is that it is far better to work in close co-operation with his opposite number in the government of Canada than to work against him.

I would think that Mr. Gray, the minister concerned, must believe the same thing. The two ministers who share a responsibility which is so important to us for industrial and economic development must work together so that our resources can work in concert for the benefit of those areas which need the help that is going to be provided from our very scarce tax dollars in this allocation.

So far nothing has been said, except a brief reference in the speech from the throne, about the designation that is permitted if this bill goes into law, as we expect it will. I hope the minister in his remarks will give us some indication of what he intends to do in this connection, because undoubtedly when the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) brings down his budget a week and a half from now, there will be an allocation of some considerable chunk of money designed to improve job opportunities in places such as Brantford.

This is an area we are going to examine very carefully because it is essential. The government of Canada, with moneys provided by the Parliament of Canada, has seen fit to make this designation to assist job opportunities in Brantford and Brant county, and there is no doubt that this should be substantially supported by programs at the provincial level.

I look at the considered amendment and I must say I like parts of it very much indeed. However, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, by putting forward a considered amendment of this type, when the debate finally comes to an end and the question is put, "Shall the bill now be read a second time?" the New Democratic Party will be voting no.

That is the problem with a considered amendment. They have to go around explaining why they vote no, because presumably with the Conservatives supporting their own legislation and with the Liberals -- enthusiastically from my point of view -- in support of a concentration of effort in this connection, the bill will carry and the NDP will be left as usual out in the cold voting against the only provincial program that is designed to improve job opportunities in the province.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.

Mr. Laughren: It is really a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I might even want to correct the record. The reason we are opposed to this bill in its present form is that we have been convinced by the Liberals that there are already too many ministries in the Ontario government.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a funny point of privilege.

Mr. Nixon: I would not worry about his concept, but it worries me very much that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) drags that caucus around by the nose. He must have decided, with the sort of intuitive reasoning only he is capable of, that the best thing to do is to vote against a Ministry of Industry and Trade as envisioned in this bill.

That really is a serious mistake because the first part of the reasoned amendment appeals to me. I really would want to support it if it were put forward as an amendment to the bill when it comes before the House in committee stage because it calls for changes in the bill to increase the degree of Canadian ownership of Ontario industry.

This is the sort of direction the minister really must have because his response to the successful attempt to sell out White Farm Equipment to American interests was pathetic. If there is one thing that will spell the end of a budding -- I hesitate to use the word "promising" -- political career, it may very well be the weak response the minister gave, with advice obviously from the member for Brantford because the minister referred to the honourable member repeatedly when he made these wishy-washy responses, which allowed that company to be removed from Canadian control and put in the hands of an American owner.

I am just going to spend about five minutes on this because this is really the first opportunity I have had to bring to the members' attention what has actually gone on. White Farm Equipment, as a result of a number of mergers and near bankruptcies over a number of years, during which the famous Cockshutt Farm Equipment was subsumed by other companies, itself took in Oliver, a company we do not hear about much any more but which had an excellent reputation for farm equipment. Minneapolis Moline was involved in it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Farquhar Oliver?

Mr. Nixon: That is right, Farquhar Oliver. My God, I wish he were still here. He was a great parliamentarian.

9:20 p.m.

The company under its American leadership fell upon evil days and went into receivership. That was a serious matter indeed because the Canadian arms of that company, one out in British Columbia building White trucks and one in Brantford building White combines, were making money. It was agreed these two should be severed from the American parent which was floating along -- at least half submerged, I suppose -- in receivership. The reorganization of White Farm Equipment was undertaken under Canadian control.

The governments of Ontario and Canada were involved in this quite deeply with financial guarantees and federal grants for development, which saw the invention, if not just the development, of the famous axial-flow combine, which in my view is the best in the world although there are those who say its construction requires some refinement. Certainly the member for Brantford and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have to be a little careful when they decide what combine is the best because the two best are made in Brantford. Only the axial-flow combine comes from White Farm Equipment.

Ever since the rejuvenation of the Canadian firm about a year ago with an American and a Canadian partner, with the Canadian partner in control, I believe the American interests had been harassing the administration and the Canadian ownership in a completely irresponsible and unconscionable way. The American partner was consumed with a desire and a commitment to regain control of the Canadian industry. Just a week or so ago permission was granted by the governments of Ontario and Canada to do so.

I consider it regrettable that has happened. An instance such as this, where the minister is putting before us enabling legislation which sets out the aims of his ministry, is surely a time when I should tell him of my personal disappointment with his lack of leadership in this matter. I believe the bill should have incorporated in it a section which indicates that we in Ontario are supporting not only federal initiatives but other provincial initiatives which tend, in general, wherever possible to Canadianize control of the industries operating in this province and this nation.

My colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) in his speech has indicated that in general terms the aims set out in section 3 of the bill, indicating the responsibilities of the minister, can be read and understood in such a way that this could he a responsibility of the minister. I would be glad if, in his remarks in summary, he is prepared to accept those responsibilities.

I believe a large majority of the people, if not everybody in this province, would like Canadian control if possible. We realize we do not have the resources to buy them out, but whenever there is a proper opportunity to maintain and strengthen Canadian ownership, it should be our prime responsibility to do so and not to sit back and say nothing can be done, particularly when an approach in conjunction with the other level of government has not been undertaken.

Seven weeks ago 925 people were laid off at White Farm Equipment in Brantford. The reasons for this layoff have never been made apparent except for some comments about inadequate third-party financing. I am not a financier myself and I do not believe the minister is either, but both of us have access to advice in this connection and in this instance somebody suggested to me that his principal advice comes from an American who works in his ministry.

I do not know whether that is true, but it has been said to me by people concerned about the decisions taken which affected the people of Brantford that one of his principal advisers is an American and might not have the objective approach to giving advice we would hope for in this particular matter. The minister can correct me on that when the opportunity presents itself.

Third-party financing is the money that permits the farm machinery company in this instance to deliver the combines or whatever the equipment is to the dealer and receive the money even before the machinery is sold to the farmer. In other words, third-party financing enables the manufacturing concern to keep functioning with an adequate cash flow, and it finances the machine at the dealer's until he persuades the farmer to part with his hard-earned cash in order to buy the machine. A shortage of this sort of financing, according to the news releases, led to the layoff of these 1,000 people.

This announcement was made in spite of the fact that the government of Canada, being made aware of the shortage of third-party financing, had clearly offered $20 million extra in credit for this very purpose. The minister is aware that along with that offer of a loan went the requirement that somebody named by the government of Canada would take a place on the board in an administrative position with the company in Brantford. It was fully expected this would happen. As a matter of fact, the man's name was painted on a parking place down at White Farm Equipment. The company figured it was going to get the extra $20 million and in return somebody representing the government would participate in the administration of the company.

At the last minute, and I really mean the last minute, a decision was taken by the company to reject the $20 million. This is where the minister and I had a difference of opinion. He stated in the House that decision was taken by the Canadian partner. I disagreed with him and said the decision was dictated by the American partner for the sole purpose of throwing the company into the kind of chaos that would have to result in its sale.

To verify my position, I have spoken to the former Canadian partner, who is no longer associated with the company. He has verified that the agreement that established the company under these new circumstances a year ago required both partners to agree to a decision of this type and that it was the American partner who would not agree. I want to make it clear.

The government of Canada had offered the company $20 million in additional third-party financing, which was vetoed by the aggressive American partner whose total commitment was to shove the Canadian partner out and assume total control of the company, which he has now been successful in doing. That is the part I find absolutely unconscionable and unacceptable. It has been explained to me that $20 million was not enough to keep the company going for anything more than a short period of time.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That might have had something to do with the problem.

Mr. Nixon: The minister realizes that the federal government was prepared to come in with a commitment even larger, twice as large as it made a year ago. If he, as provincial minister, had indicated his concern even with the piddling little bit of guarantee we were prepared to put forward -- it was enough at the time a year ago -- we might have been able to maintain the company in the same status it had before. The combines were being made, the employees of White had been hired back, the assembly lines were working and the situation was working smoothly except for the interference of the American partner.

As well as putting forward chaotic and dislocating decisions, often arrived at the last minute, at the same time the American partner was offering the Canadian partner $1.5 million clear profit over his investment just a year ago if he would get out of the way and let the American take over. The Canadian partner is a gentleman named Mr. Hazenfratz. I am sure Hansard will look after the spelling of that name without my help; at least I sincerely hope so. He is a very competent man, an immigrant from Europe who came over here and did extremely well in the manufacturing industry in Guelph. Who can blame him for responding to the stick of the harassment of his American partner and the carrot dangling in front of him of $1.5 million clear profit in a year by saying: "Okay, you win. You can have the whole thing. I am going to get out of this and invest my money in something else" -- which is what he did.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That was some carrot.

Mr. Gillies: That was some stick.

Mr. Nixon: No, no. Don't get my allegories mixed up. The carrot is the money and the stick is the American beating his Canadian partner week after week as the approval for the payroll is held up until 10 or 15 minutes before the cheque-writing machine has to go into operation or the company closes down. What kind of way is that to do business? It is really ridiculous.

9:30 p.m.

As soon as the American partner comes to the minister here and says, "I want to buy it out," the minister says, "I guess that is the way to go." He has told us already that when it comes to dividing the turkey he associates himself with the right wing. That is okay. It is the sort of attitude that says: "I do not want to have anything to do with this. If the American has the clout, the money and the power to tear this away from us, then I guess he should do it." He immediately capitulated and said we had to do this.

The stick on the minister was that these 1,000 people had been laid off. The member for Brantford was very properly deeply concerned about that, as was everybody else around there. But there was also an alternative to turning belly up and saying, "Okay, boss, you take the plant and the control."

I do not have a very friendly feeling for the federal people either. It was quite clear that if there had been co-operation between the two ministers, of the province and the federal government, a procedure could well have been worked out to maintain the operation, to put the people back to work and maintain the ownership of this company in Canada.

The people in Ottawa swithered longer than I had hoped because those people were unemployed for a long time. Finally, they worked out an agreement which I did not like very much -- and I still do not like it. They had lots of pieces of paper signed by Mr. Georgoulis, the American partner, or his representatives, who were swearing on a stack of bibles or whatever businessmen swear on -- I suppose a stack of annual reports or something like that -- that they were certainly going to leave everything in Brantford the way it was, maintain 1,200 jobs, allow expansion to happen here and so on.

At least the federal government said, "By the way, we want out of our capital guarantee within two years." The new owners signed that. The federal government has at least pulled itself out from underneath that load of possible debt and payoff in the future. As far as I know, the minister here capitulated without even arranging that sort of guarantee and we are still on the hook for whatever amount it is, $2 million or $6 million; a large amount of money anyway. That is a guarantee that we in this Legislature approved a little over a year ago.

One would have expected that once the man in the United States got his way, full control of this Canadian firm with its patent for the axial-flow combine, we would have seen some action. Well, we did. The next day he fired the president, gave him his walking papers and got him out of there.

He sent a new president from the United States, who happens to be a Canadian, born in the Brantford area, but who has certainly been deeply trained and steeped in the American way of doing corporate and administrative business. He is a very capable and tough-minded man. I have spoken to him about this matter and he has explained his point of view to attempt to make the company work in Canada, to produce good combines, to make a profit and expand the work force. I credit him completely with having proper motives, but his boss is still very much the same corporate finagler -- if we want to call him that, and I do -- who arranged for the sellout of the Canadian interest in the first place.

The next thing that happened was that everybody expected to be hired back. After all, surely the only reason for reinforcing the American ownership was so they would have access to capital, so-called third-party financing, of sufficient amount to allow them to begin operation once again. The interesting thing is that the company that has been providing this third-party financing, Borg-Warner, was the same company that is financing the American partner in the buyout.

It is so complex for a person with my mentality that it is difficult to describe. In other words, it cut off the financing to force the sale and then the same company that cut off the financing provided the extra dollars to the American partner to buy the control.

It is absolutely mind-boggling. That is why I urged the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) to investigate this matter because the layoff, if it is not illegal, is certainly immoral. Those people have been out on the street, some of them, for four or five weeks.

The thing that really worries me is that after giving the Americans everything they wanted, handing it to them on a platter, those people are still not rehired. There are a few each day, a few each week, but they have still been out of work for this long period of time because of the corporate shenanigans that I have described.

It concerns me that the minister has not been in a position to provide the kind of tough leadership that we, as Canadians first and residents of Ontario second, would expect. I would hope that when he gets around to getting some confidence in his ministry he will be able to provide the sort of leadership that is going to emphasize Canadian control where possible and, in this instance, it was clearly possible to have the jobs and maintain Canadian control.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on this bill from two perspectives: one, as a member from eastern Ontario, and two, to express my concerns about the personal philosophy of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker).

I have to confess that dealing with this minister is a bit difficult because he strikes me as a very enigmatic minister. I recall very vividly his proclaiming that he was a great student of Reaganomics, Milton Friedman, etc. Yet I recall very recently this minister was the same one who introduced a trade delegation from the People's Republic of China. On the same night, he walked into a banquet at the Harbour Castle arm in arm, I believe, with the Socialist trade minister from the Republic of France.

I sometimes have a little difficulty following the proclamations of this minister with the performance of this minister. That causes me some concern.

Speaking as a member from eastern Ontario, first of all, I do have some concerns about the Reaganomic-Friedmanesque approach to economic problems in general that this minister has openly proclaimed. It seems to me his Charlie Wilson-Stanley Randall "What's good for business is good for Ontario" mentality, and also proclaiming that he is the friend of business in the cabinet, is something that causes concern across this province.

I suppose it is fair game in straight political terms to say, "I am the friend of business in cabinet." People expect that. That is probably good politics, and I do not begrudge the minister's saying that. But let me say, as a member who comes from a slow-growth economic region of the province which is in direct competition continually with the Golden Horseshoe region, that to let business decide totally what is good for the province and let government take some sort of passive, submissive, compliant role in such a situation is absolutely and totally unacceptable to me and to most of the people living in eastern Ontario.

Without some government role in regional development of our province, regions like eastern and northern Ontario would certainly be depressed regions with declining populations, lost economic and social opportunities, sky-high unemployment and an ever narrowing tax base for our local governments. That is why the minister's own predecessors in the same ministry have established such crown corporations as the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp., and the Ontario Development Corp. to assist in the development of regions such as mine.

They recognize the need for government intervention and the need for government involvement to assist regions, and not to leave the fate of regions like eastern and northern Ontario totally at the mercy of the private sector. They obviously, and I must say wisely, rejected the idea that regional economic development could be entrusted entirely to the private sector.

If I look at my own riding, for example, I would hate to think how our economy, our infrastructure, our industries would be without some involvement from the government, whether it be in the form of EODC loans and guarantees, joint federal-provincial agreements, such as the one signed in 1975 that provided $14 million of funding for a civic complex and industrial park, or the recently signed federal-provincial eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement to aid manufacturing and small business.

We in our area do not regard the government as the enemy or the adversary of the private sector, especially small business. We do not subscribe to the American theory or Adam Smith's philosophy of laissez-faire or government abstinence because we know how damaging, how devastating that can be to a vulnerable, slow-growth, neglected region like eastern Ontario.

9:40 p.m.

We believe in and we need an active, interventionist ministry that will work with the private sector to stimulate and channel growth and investment into slow-growth regions like ours. The people of eastern Ontario are pragmatic in their outlook and I must say they are suspicious of anyone who, in effect, wants to turn the economic clock, in terms of economic thinking or economic policy in this province, back to the era of Herbert Hoover and his cronies on both sides of the border.

Mr. Laughren: Herbert Hoover of the north.

Mr. Samis: Right. Surely Allan Gregg and his boys at Decima Research conveyed that message loud and clear at the Tory conclave in London -- I believe it was last fall -- that the people of Ontario are not interested in or prepared to follow any ideological extreme, whether it be of the right or the left.

That brings me to the question of the basic philosophy of the gentleman occupying this ministry and the extent to which he intends to apply that personal philosophy to the ministry. I know the ministry has changed in context. He has added the dimension of trade and that is of particular interest to my own riding since the federal trade minister comes from the riding. I hope the relationship between the current minister in this province and the federal minister will improve somewhat. They got off to a very rocky start --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Not at all.

Mr. Samis: -- and I hope the tone of the dialogue and correspondence will be more positive and more productive because it certainly got off to a bad start. I do not think the minister in all sincerity would deny that fact.

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, you are wrong.

Mr. Samis: I have always respected the member for London South, especially in his days as a back-bencher. I thought he was a candid, clear, articulate spokesman for the basic, ideological right wing of his party. He used to be able to speak out freely and candidly and one listened to him. One might have disagreed with him 100 per cent, if not 1,000 per cent, but at least one knew where he stood.

I recall vividly that after what he would regard as the unfortunate events of September 10 or September 17, 1975 -- I do not recall the exact date -- the current minister became a little philosophical about the turn of events in the province and decided to sit down and write a letter to his Premier (Mr. Davis) about what he thought should be the direction of the Tory party and the province.

The headline in the Globe and Mail said, "Defeated MPP" -- he remembers those days -- " Urges Davis To Halt Leftward Drift of PCs." That to me was the real Gordon Walker, the man who is facing us today. That was the essence, the soul, of the man. It was a seven-page letter. He really waxed long on that one.

I will just give a few quotes because I think it is important for the people who have to deal with this ministry to know how this minister really feels. He said: "How the voter must be frustrated with our party appearing as Socialist Conservatives and Stephen Lewis masquerading as a Conservative Socialist. Meanwhile, the Liberals are out-Torying us. I ask you, Bill" -- now listen to this -- "in earnest, just what is the identity of our party to be?" He said many people he had spoken to since the election believe there must be "a re-righting of the Conservative Party. Frankly, I have to think there is no time for us more right than the moment to have our party return to its original base."

The article said: "The letter to Mr. Davis identifies various policies that have marked the drift away from conservatism such as land banking and such as rent control, 'a disaster looking for a place to happen.' He also mentioned giving teachers the right to strike as a hot issue back then.

" 'The key lesson I learned from the last election was that the Liberals appealed to the very voters who ironically were most able to accept the Tory traditions. Many Conservative-oriented people told me they voted Liberal as the only way of expressing their disapproval of socialism, be it the NDP or ours. Many loyal PCs, angered by the party's adoption of Socialist programs, could not bring themselves to vote at all.' "

Further on in this major diatribe of the honourable member, in his critique he said, "Rent control legislation has destroyed entrepreneurial investment in rental accommodation." He predicted only the government would still be building rental housing within a year. How wrong he was on that one.

He went on to say that free enterprise is the only answer to more housing in Ontario. "Unorthodox as it may seem, I suspect that most of the Planning Act ..." and he talked again about rent control and maybe even closing down the Ministry of Housing as possibly the best solution to the housing problem at that particular time.

Mr. Wildman: That was even before Claude was the minister.

Mr. Samis: Right, even before the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) took over -- "at no significant aesthetic loss to the public." He went even further than that. Again quoting from the article, "Mr. Walker criticized recent consumer legislation, escalating welfare in the form of guaranteed annual incomes, free OHIP and drugs, which although he supported at the time he now sees as part of 'the drift to the left.'

"He suggested extensive pruning of government spending through the abolition" -- if the former Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) were only here tonight -- "of entire parts of ministry. 'Agriculture, for example. Abolish it,'" the minister said. And get this: "A gutsy government would endear itself to voters by axing many redundant programs."

In his letter he talks about the glories of workfare, one of his pet ideas in London. He does not talk about it much in here, but back home he loves to talk on that one. Further on in the letter he says, "By adopting the principle of making users pay a greater share of cost, such as by boosting OHIP family premiums 50 per cent, government support costs would be reduced and unnecessary use of health services would be deterred."

In the conclusion of this extraordinary letter, and I am sure he was shocked when the Globe and Mail got hold of it, he gets on his hands and knees and reaffirms his support, fidelity, devotion and ongoing loyalty to the Premier. But he also takes the time to accuse Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau of creating "a new society of Socialist fascism." That took quite a bit of imagination.

This is the minister who has to deal with the federal government accusing the Prime Minister of Canada of creating a society of Socialist fascism. One has to think about that one. Even as one thinks about it one wonders what the hell he is talking about. This is the minister whose ministry we are now discussing, and what he said in that letter, I would argue tonight, is his real philosophy. That must give people some cause for question if not for doubt.

Let us look at this minister's record in the light of what he said. Let us see what he has done since he has joined the cabinet and become a member of a government that has drifted so far to the left.

He likes to proclaim that he is in favour of the Reagan-Stockman-Friedman-Kemp concept of government and economic management. I am not sure that he endorses the whole package, the whole thing about supply-side economics, balanced budgets, deregulation, vastly increased defence spending and taking away milk and food stamp programs for the poor. I am not sure how much of the overall package he endorses, but he does endorse the fundamental philosophical slant of the Reagan regime.

I am not sure if the minister considers himself a student of Stockman, a fan of Friedman, a camp follower of Kemp or just a plain old-fashioned reactionary surrounded by a caucus of red Tories, pink Tories and victory-at-any-price Tories. But I can understand the minister's paranoia, sitting on that side and in that cabinet.

He used to pride himself on such formerly popular American concepts as zero-base budgeting and sunset laws. He remembers that from his good old days; when Jimmy Carter was new and some of these ideas had a certain glamour to them, the minister did find them an attraction. I think he introduced a private member's bill on sunset laws if I am not mistaken. Now that he is in the ministry we do not hear a thing about them because obviously they are taboo in his own ministry; so that has been forgotten.

9:50 p.m.

He says he is a friend of business, and did his best when he was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to reduce the level of consumer protection as much as he could or to get away with as much as he could. He has ranted and raved continually against the operations of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He has consistently opposed any efforts by the federal government to introduce a meaningful and progressive competition bill.

He talks continually about the glories of the marketplace and the need to reduce the role of government in our economy, and about some sort of Reaganomic panacea for our current economic problem. He waxes poetic on foreign investment in a manner that would put Stanley Randall to absolute shame in the 1980s.

Let us look at his record a little more carefully. I recall that this session opened on March 9 with a speech from the throne. The Toronto Star on March 10 had an interesting write-up on it. In fact, the minister's picture even got in next to that of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I have the clipping here, I guess this combination is the Jerry Falwell and Jack Kemp of the Tory cabinet, he and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

The headline was interesting. This is not a quote from an opposition member, "Government all talk but little action on jobs." He loves to talk about jobs when he speaks to various groups around the province and chambers of commerce, but somehow the throne speech did not show much new initiative or new direction.

He talks about reducing the role of government as one of his great philosophical goals of being in politics and in government. This is the same minister who waxed enthusiastic in 1975, in his letter to the Premier and in innumerable speeches, on the role of free enterprise and yet defended rent control in this Legislature last year.

If a fellow is a real, honest-to-goodness, right-wing Conservative, like my friend from Brockville, the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), and gets up not only to smudge it but also to actively defend rent control in this Legislature, what kind of Conservative is he? Does he remember the letter he wrote to the Premier about rent control?

He spoke to the Ontario Mining Association tonight, a fairly brief Floyd Laughrenist speech, and of all things he started talking about co-investments. Whatever happened to free enterprise? They do not even use the word "co-investment" in Manitoba any more.

He got up in the question period today when he was asked by another member of the opposition, "Where do you stand on Suncor?" He is a great free enterpriser and said: "I abide by the cabinet. If the cabinet supports it, I support it."

That is what I like about the good, honest, ideological, down-to-earth, right-wing, freethinking, open-minded back-bencher of 1975: "I support it. The cabinet supports it. I am with them." Oh, how power corrupts. Oh, how the cabinet takes away our initiative, our freedom and our independence. Whom do we trust, the Gordon Walker of 1975 or the Gordon Walker of 1982? What a record.

He talks about the need to reduce the role of government in the economy. The marketplace against free enterprise is the great initiative, the great thrust of our society. Yet he is part of a government that this year will have created a deficit of $1.5 billion and probably next year will increase that to the $2 billion mark. I dare say that since he has been a member of the cabinet it has not produced a single balanced budget, yet he calls himself a philosophical Conservative. The government has not produced a balanced budget or surplus in years; in fact, it makes the former Socialist government of Saskatchewan look Conservative by comparison. Yet he says he is a right-winger. The member for Leeds must be trembling, if the minister is the ideological ally he has in cabinet, as to what is going to happen.

He talks about the goal of creating a better business climate, but somehow he manages to say nothing about the current exorbitant level of interest rates, which constitutes the single greatest threat to the small and medium business sector of this province. John Bulloch had some interesting statistics, I think in November 1981, about the effects of interest rates. One would think that somebody in charge of industry and trade would be worried about their impact on the private sector in Ontario.

We hear statistics such as 56.3 per cent of small businesses have cut back on their expansion plans; 32.4 per cent of them have laid off workers; the curtailment of expansion is three times greater than figures reported in a similar survey last year; 24,261 full-time workers have been laid off within this group, and another 31,899 jobs have not been created owing to expansion postponements; 77.9 per cent of the business firms experienced a reduction in profit as a result of interest rates, while 10.3 per cent fell into the loss column; 29.1 per cent said if high interest rates continued for another year or two they would either close down or sell out completely, be forced into bankruptcy, or sell off part of their operations.

Here is the voice of small business talking about the impact of interest rates on them. Yet we do not hear a peep from the Minister of Industry and Trade, although this affects the entire small and medium business sector.

One wonders why the small-c conservative, a friend of business, does not speak up, when all the business people, whether in small, medium, or large businesses, are continually attacking high interest rates. Does it have anything to do with the figures that came from the top five chartered banks in Canada as to where they put their money at election time and the fact that the Conservative Party across Canada received $731,845 from the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Royal Bank and the Toronto- Dominion Bank? Does that have anything to do with the reluctance of the members on that side to criticize the exorbitant interest rates and the ripoffs by the banks? Sheer coincidence or not, I really wonder.

As a member of cabinet who is there to be the spokesman of business, why we do not hear him attacking the insanity of Gerald Bouey's monetary policy? He knows the social consequences but, more important, he knows the business consequences of tight money and Reaganomics in Canada. Everybody knows: 1.5 million unemployed; record bankruptcies; an all-time low in housing starts; absolute pessimism among the consumers of the province. Yet we do not hear him attacking Gerald Bouey and tight money. Instead, he deals with the other straw men; whether it is government regulations, combines bills or feds, those are the targets. Businessmen are interested in other things, but we do not hear from this minister.

We talk about the whole question of competition legislation. This minister does not even challenge the present inept and ineffectual federal combines legislation, which he knows prevents the growth of small business and Canadian-owned business in Canada. We do not hear him advocating any progressive proposals that would make that legislation have teeth. In fact, he opposes virtually every initiative from the current federal minister.

Even people from the oil industry have said, and I quote Jim Conrad of the Canadian Federation of Independent Petroleum Marketers, "Canada's basic economic problem is abuse of market power by dominant firms in all oligopolistic industrial sectors." He talks about independent retailers having been subject to abuses of power by the oil giants for more than 20 years and says that reform of competition laws is long overdue. I quote again: "The only alternative to strengthening the competition laws in Canada is increasing government regulation. In short, our economic future is either control or competition." But somehow the minister is not interested in this concept of real competition, a real marketplace.

It raises a fundamental question. What do we believe? What should the people of Ontario believe? The minister's professed support of a dogmatic, Reaganistic, laissez-faire capitalism, or his record in the cabinet and on that side of the House? What can we really expect from this minister in this new portfolio? Will the thirst for power outweigh his basic ideological bent and his basic convictions about what kind of society he wants?

The people of Ontario want an active, positive, interventionist, pragmatic attitude from this ministry. I can only hope that the minister himself will be able to overcome his personal ideological bias and live up to the expectations of the Ontario public. If anybody needed to convey that message, I am sure Allan Gregg and his friends at Decima Research Ltd. did that in London. I can only hope the message will sink in so the people of Ontario can get the type of government from this ministry that they clearly and obviously want.

10 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say in all honesty that when I returned from the Ontario Mining Association dinner some one and three quarter hours ago I intended to join the debate this evening. But twigged as I have been by my friend and neighbour the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who is now joined by his lovely wife in the gallery, and with the indulgence of the House, I do want to say a few words about the industrial situation in my riding, specifically about White Farm Equipment and about some of the impact I hope this bill will have when it becomes law.

I listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis). In a broadly based and representative party like ours, if I were writing a letter to the Premier (Mr. Davis) tomorrow morning about the state of industry and development in the province, it might have a slightly different bent to it than did the letter from the Minister of Industry and Trade. However, I think that is a very healthy situation. It should not cause alarm opposite, as the member has since implied perhaps, that this is indicative of any incoherence or lack of direction in the policies of this government.

I have heard a few of the members opposite cite Reaganomics in reference to our industrial policy and the history of the industrial policy of this government. I have heard the name of Milton Friedman come up occasionally. Yet I have to tell members in all honesty that when I look at the history of the government's participation in the economy in my constituency, I do not see the evidence of the fine hand of either Milton Friedman or Ronald Reagan, and neither would I want to see it.

When I look at the largest employer in my riding, Massey-Ferguson, which we have already mentioned tonight and which employs more than 4,000 people, not only in my riding but also in my neighbour's riding, I see a commitment by this government of some $75 million in loan guarantees. I do not think Ronald or Milty would have done it.

I also see a provincial commitment to the much-discussed White Farm Equipment -- in fairness, in concert with the federal government. It is a commitment of some $6 million from this government. While there were certainly things in the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk's speech with which I heartily agree, I think he is somewhat off his target.

While we are on the subject of White Farm Equipment specifically, I would be no less critical of that company than has been my friend opposite. However, I do not see the villain in the piece as being either the government of Ontario or the government of Canada. Let us review a few of the facts.

My friend mentioned the squeeze-play tactics of the American partner in his dealings with the minority Canadian partner, and I do not dispute it.

Mr. Nixon: It was not a minority; it was 50.5 per cent.

Mr. Gillies: I understand it was 50.1 per cent to 49.9 per cent, and that is still a minority partner. I do not dispute the tactics with the member. I do not dispute with him the failure of the American partner to embrace the offer of further financial aid from the federal government which, had it been viable, would have been joined in concert with assistance from this province. Certainly, that would have been consistent with the history of this province's dealings with White Farm Equipment. However, it was not to be.

Obviously, as has already been pointed out by my friend opposite, Mr. Georgoulis had his own plans for White Farm Equipment. There was the carrot-and-stick analogy.

Mr. Nixon: He wanted to grab it.

Mr. Gillies: I would have to say that, without particular compulsion, the Canadian partner accepted a $1.5-million profit on a $3-million investment in one year and he left.

Mr. Nixon: Who can blame him?

Mr. Gillies: As my friend opposite says, quite correctly, "Who can blame him?" I would have to say, because I do not know anything different, that it was a legitimate business proposition put by the American partner to the Canadian partner and was accepted in good faith. None the less, it happened.

I would say -- and I have said it before; I am certainly not breaking new ground here -- that I would have preferred a Canadian owner for White Farm Equipment. I said that when the proposition first came forward, and I say it now. But the nagging point, the awful fact of the matter was that no viable Canadian partner came forward.

My friend opposite may not be aware that there was some flurry of tentative interest from a major Canadian corporation. It did not happen, because the policy of that company was not to indulge their whim. I will not name the company -- I think it would be irresponsible of me to name it -- but what we were faced with, when it came it my attention, was a company whose own financial situation was so precarious -- and the terms they put forward to the government of this province for them to show interest in the proposition were nothing more than usury -- that it would not have worked.

Mr. Nixon: Was it Suncor?

Mr. Gillies: It was not Suncor. I was concerned that this proposition would come into fact rather than the proposition that was accepted. Somewhere down the road I think we will see and hear more about the activities of one month and three weeks ago as regards this company than are on the table now, and I think that will prove to be right.

I look again at the situation. There we were, faced with one prospective buyer for the company which, as has been pointed out, had a long history in my constituency. I think it is fair to say that at one point it was the largest employer in Brantford. It is now the second largest employer, with some 750 hourly paid employees and more than 185 salaried employees.

On Friday afternoon we had what we thought was a relatively healthy company in terms of sales and inventory, plagued as they were periodically by the cash flow problem, and employing close to 1,000 people. On Monday morning those nearly 1,000 people were out on the street.

Mr. Nixon: With no good reason.

Mr. Gillies: With no good reason, indeed.

Had there been options, had there been a viable Canadian buyer at that time, I would have been leaning on and pressuring the minister with all my might to see that deal accepted. If any further assistance had been required from this government, I would have been pressuring for it too, because I, for one, am not in the least bit concerned about government assistance to the industrial sector; in fact, I think such assistance should be increased in certain areas.

However, at that time we were faced with a situation where the one and only prospective buyer was an American and the option, as I saw it, was potentially permanent unemployment for the 1,000 people at that company. I stress again, those were the options as they appeared at the time.

We, like the federal government, have money tied up. We have a direct interest as taxpayers in the future health of that company. We have a direct interest as taxpayers in the future health and continuation of Massey-Ferguson.

I have heard some of my friends opposite speak of the lack of commitment and the lack of investment by government in the industrial sector in the province. Quite frankly, when I look at Massey-Ferguson, White and, beyond my constituency, Ford, Chrysler, the mining industry and all of these other things members have spoken about in this debate, I do not see evidence of that ideological bent. I do not see evidence of the lack of the commitment of which we have heard a bit in the past couple of days in this debate.

There are a couple of features in this bill which I look forward to enthusiastically. Again with reference to both Massey-Ferguson and White, I look at clause 3(c) of this bill in which it says that the ministry "shall advance the interests of the private sector of the economy of Ontario by providing appropriate promotions, assistance, counselling and advocacy to aid in the securing of new markets, the introduction of new technologies, the development of new products and adjustments to changing world economic conditions."

I do not see the aims of that clause as inconsistent with the government's commitment to the industrial sector in my experience. I do not see the aims of that clause as inconsistent with the development of the technology centres. I do not see them as inconsistent with the assistance that the Ontario Development Corp. has provided to smaller companies in my constituency, such as Lockwood Manufacturing, Etatech Industries and so on. I see it as consistent with and, I would hope, an enlargement upon that type of commitment.

10:10 p.m.

Obviously all of us look to the budget. Those of us who live in heavily industrialized ridings look to the budget of May 13 to see what the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has in mind for putting a finer point on the kind of assistance and development we require. I look forward to it. My honourable friend opposite knows that if I feel it is inadequate, I will be as critical as any member on the other side. If I feel it misses the mark, I will be as critical as any member opposite because that is the way I represent my constituents.

I look also at section 8 of the bill. My honourable friend has mentioned the industry and labour adjustment program, which I think is an excellent program. The former Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) and I went to Ottawa and met with the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy. We urged him to designate Brantford under ILAP and we have been designated, not just Brantford but the town of Paris also. I look forward to it. Indeed, my friend opposite and the mayor of Brantford were there; the federal member, Mr. Blackburn, was involved. We made a co-operative effort to persuade the federal government that it could undo some of the damage, in one small part of Ontario, that its high interest policy has wreaked.

Although Brantford and the town of Paris were designated, we are still working on Dumfries. They could use it too. The bill, under section 8, proposes: "The minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, may approve any area in Ontario that is considered to require assistance to attract industrial development as an area of equalization of industrial opportunity." I wholeheartedly support that.

I happen to think that the federal program has provided benefits to the city of Windsor. I have been to Windsor and talked to members of the ILAP committee there. I anticipate that it will be of some assistance to my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). I certainly look forward to the assistance it will provide in Brantford, although I might say at this point that ILAP is still upon us. It is there, they are talking to people and they are rumbling around the community. We have one of our must highly thought of and prominent Grits in the city chairing the committee.

An hon. member: Who is that?

Mr. Gillies: I will not put his name on the record. I respect and like the man too much and he does not need to be dragged into this political arena, although he does not mind being --

Mr. Nixon: Jack Brown would be proud to be named in this place.

Mr. Gillies: If the member feels he would, I will name him. Jack Brown is an excellent man and he will be an excellent chairman of the committee. I am sure his connection with the Liberal Party of Canada and the fact that he has dinner with the Prime Minister occasionally at Sussex Drive have nothing to do with his appointment to that committee.

I look at section 8 of the bill and see that we can have a mandate to do the same thing provincially. This minister can look at the communities of the province and decide, because of employment and industrial circumstances, that the city of Brantford, for instance, could benefit from some form of specific designation, that a finer point should be put on provincial aid and that we can work in concert with ILAP. I look forward to it and I am glad the minister is present to hear this.

I would be extremely disappointed if in the first round of approvals under section 8 of that bill the city of Brantford is not there. I think we are in need. We have high unemployment and other problems in the social and educational spheres which make it very difficult for young people in my riding to obtain their first employment and for householders and heads of families to bring up their families in the way they should be able to do in a modern industrial city.

Mr. Bradley: What has this got to do with the Rolling Stones?

Mr. Gillies: I will get to that in a minute.

Mr. Eakins: How many summer jobs does the member have tied up this year?

Mr. Gillies: We have a lot of summer jobs, some in the member's riding.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: This kind of designation could be very beneficial indeed. I would say again, lest we lose sight of the point, that for all the help that Ottawa and this province are able to provide, there is a villain in the piece, the ruinous economic and fiscal policies of the government of Canada. Let there be no mistake about it.

Mr. Bradley: I knew they would come into it somewhere.

Mr. Gillies: We hear about fed-bashing, and I know the member for St. Catharines is reacting in his typical fashion. He was just waiting for me to bring up the government of Canada. Surely he did not expect me to look at a constituency with 17 or 18 per cent unemployment, a constituency where people are losing their houses because interest rates have soared to 19 or 20 per cent, a constituency where major pieces of farm equipment ranging in price from $70,000 to $125,000 apiece cannot be sold because farmers cannot afford to pay the usurious interest rates that are required to buy such equipment; surely the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) would not want me to ignore the influence of federal policy in looking at those conditions.

He would not want me to put all that aside and talk about the ups and downs of the industry, the ups and downs of the home owner and the ups and downs of the industrial worker. He would not want me to ignore the architects of this ruin. I do not think the member for St. Catharines would want that at all. The responsibility for this is with the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada. If that is fed-bashing, then bash I will because they are the villains in this piece.

Having said all that, as we return specifically to the situation of White Farm Equipment, as I said a bit earlier, I do not see the villain of the piece in terms of White Farm Equipment as being the government of this province. In specific terms it is really not the government of Canada. In specific terms, it is not really Mr. Georgoulis or Mr. Hazenfratz. The villain of the piece is the interest rates which make things difficult for that company, which is a fine company putting out an extremely fine product. The difficulty lies in the ability of that company to sell its product.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Will the member tie his remarks to Bill 38?

Mr. Gillies: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the effects of Bill 38 could only help ameliorate the ruinous situation brought forward by the federal government.

Mr. Bradley: What does ameliorate mean?

Mr. Gillies: The member can look it up. He has been here a while.

White Farm Equipment is a troubling situation. As I said earlier, I would be very critical of the conduct of that company. I happen to think assurances were put forward by the company prior to the transfer of ownership that are not the assurances we are now being given. I criticize that company for giving inconsistent and insufficient information to the workers. I criticize it for promulgating rumours. I criticize it for taking back, as my friend opposite said, a few workers at a time day by day when its assurances to the governments involved in this transfer of ownership were that the people would be back to work in short order.

I am not getting adequate information from White Farm Equipment. I do not happen to believe the ministry is and the workers certainly are not. If there is a villain in the piece, to me it is the company.

I have been contacted by many workers from that company. They have been told variously: "We do not know when you are coming back. The cash flow problems are not yet resolved. The third-party financier, Borg-Warner, is holding it up." They told somebody else, "A few people will be back for a while, but another layoff is imminent." There is usually a plant shutdown in August of a month or so; it is very common in the farm machinery industry. Some workers have been told that layoff will be longer. We are not getting consistent information from the company. We are not getting enough information from the company.

If it was out there operating by itself perhaps we, as a Legislature, would not have a direct interest in that. We could perhaps debate philosophy as to how much of an interest we would have directly in that. But it is not out there in isolation. It is out there with $10 million of federal money and $6 million of provincial money. It has an obligation to let this Legislature and the Parliament of Canada know just what it is doing with our tax money. That, as far as I am concerned, is the villain of the piece.

I will challenge White Farm Equipment. I will be contacting it again tomorrow to tell us when the workers will be returning to work and for how long it is anticipated they will be returning to work. I will challenge that company to enlarge on its commitments to both the federal and provincial governments to increase its manufacturing potential in this country and to maintain or increase its work force in my constituency. I would not only be disappointed if White Farm Equipment does not have some answers, but I would be very angry.

10:20 p.m.

My friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I both see a problem. We see slightly different causes of the problem, but I do not think either of us, representing a community of industrial workers who have been hammered and hammered again in the last year, will be happy until we have some hard answers.

I do not fault the ministry. I do not fault this minister, who since he took office in the Ministry of Industry and Trade a few short months ago has offered nothing but co-operation and encouragement and tangible help to me and to the people of my riding. I have absolute confidence in the ability of this minister to see my community through some difficult times. I look forward to the opportunities promised in this bill. I look forward to the work and the cooperation with the new Ministry of Industry and Trade this bill will make possible. I look forward to the demise of the federal government which caused the problem in the first place.

Mr. Bradley: I want to take advantage of this opportunity to speak extremely briefly on a matter which arose in the House today with which the minister is very familiar as it relates to his new ministry and how his ministry might be useful in this regard.

The minister has been aware, concerned and working on the problem of plant shutdowns and permanent layoffs at General Motors. Today we had an announcement of 175 layoffs in Oshawa and 375 in St. Catharines. The ministry, strengthened as it will be through this bill, has the opportunity -- or at least the minister can take that opportunity in the future as he has presently attempted to do -- to prevail upon corporations such as General Motors to fulfil what we feel are their obligations in terms of the auto trade pact or any kind of international agreements involved.

This is always hard to pinpoint, but the other great concern in this House, and I know the minister shares this concern, is that the federal government, which is responsible for auto trade and the auto trade pact, ensure that the letter of the auto pact and other associated agreements within the auto pact are being lived up to in terms of preserving jobs in this country. This new ministry is the avenue of action to place that kind of pressure on the federal government.

In all fairness to the minister, I recognize he does not have the power to dictate to General Motors, particularly as a multinational corporation. I would hope his new ministry, concerned as it is about trade as well as industrial development, would prevail upon General Motors to keep as many jobs as possible in this country, particularly at a time when we feel we are getting the wrong end of the deal as it relates to the auto pact.

The layoffs that were announced in St. Catharines today were an example of part of an operation being moved from a Canadian operation, where they sank $13 million into a new plant about a year and a half ago, to the United States, for whatever reason the company would want to advance.

We also recognize, and the minister will be aware of this, that when we have announcements of white collar jobs being lost there is a relationship to the hourly rated employees. Their jobs are being lost at the same time. I would hope that as minister he would, as he has in the past, use all of his powers as minister and the prestige of his ministry to discuss this matter in a forthright manner with both the corporation involved -- in this specific case, General Motors -- and with the federal government through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to see if we can prevail upon them to retain those jobs in Canada.

I expressed as well the fact that the minister, as Minister of Industry and Trade, would be concerned that the budget which his finance minister, in this case the Treasurer, is going to bring down would not include penalties for citizens of this province in terms of tax increases at a time when I know his ministry would recognize we need money in the hands of consumers so they can purchase products, so demand can be created for things such as automobiles which are so essential to providing jobs in this province and in the specific community which I and others represent.

I do not know how long we are going to go on with this bill. If the minister is going to have lengthy remarks I may keep going; otherwise I may sit down and allow him to complete.

Mr. Sweeney: He has lots of time.

Mr. Bradley: Is there lots of time yet? I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you have been considerate of my contribution and its specificity as it relates to a situation that occurred today.

I had another expression of concern. The minister did not entirely agree with me today. I think many people have a concern with many corporations. I realize there are some good examples of people who have come from south of the border to be presidents here. There is a great concern, I think particularly amongst Canadians and I would suppose even at the executive level of these companies, that those who come in from the United States who were born in the United States and who were trained and educated in the United States can be persuaded not to defend the interests of the United States more than Canada's.

In fairness, the minister has cited examples where he thinks that is not the case. He stated this afternoon that by and large he feels it is not the case. Nevertheless, I bring to his attention the concern of many that indeed this is not the case and that his ministry, while it cannot dictate to multinational corporations, in general discussions should bring to their attention his concern that we have as many Canadians as possible advance to those positions so they can present what I feel is a Canadian point of view.

I indicated I would be relatively brief in my contribution, but I know the minister is not going to be able to wrap up in the short period of time we have here tonight. I would also like to indicate to him that, looking at the longer term, and once again being specific to the automotive industry and recognizing once again that much of the answer lies at the federal level, I would be concerned that we continue to push our point of view.

I think he has support on all three sides of the House for the point of view that, at least on a short-term basis, there be restrictions on imports of vehicles until such time as the Canadian industry can adjust to the new markets we have before us and can fight against the advantages enjoyed by offshore firms, particularly by Japan in this case.

Some have suggested 100 per cent Canadian content and others 85 per cent Canadian content for those vehicles which are sold in Canada. I recognize he is not going to do that tomorrow and I recognize we are probably talking more of the federal field than his field, but I would continue to support any efforts he would put forward to ensure we have that kind of Canadian content, keeping in mind that he also has trade in the back of his mind and that there can be repercussions.

Interestingly enough, I was in British Columbia a short time ago and I am sure his corresponding minister there, Don Phillips, would express a different point of view, that those on the west coast would not want those restrictions. We recognize the federal people are faced with those kinds of representations.

I think this minister, having the knowledge of industry he does, is well aware we have to make strong representations, because there are competing forces in this country, pointing out the importance of the automotive industry, not just to my city or to our province but to the entire country, and pointing out the ramifications of a decline in that automotive industry for those in western, eastern and central Canada. I continue to support any efforts he would make in that direction. I know his government has been on record on many occasions, both in terms of the auto pact and in terms of the matters I have discussed.

I hope the new ministry as it is created will be more interventionist in terms of attempting to find new areas for us to export to because I think we recognize that exports are going to be the key to our success.

I welcome his efforts to move into other parts of the world in conjunction with the federal government. We are not competing with the federal government here. As a province, we have been good Canadian citizens first and Ontarians second, recognizing that in most cases those two blend together to be of equal importance to us.

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

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.