Journal des débats 1985-déc-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Elston: On October 17, I informed the members of this House about our government's intention to improve health care services to residents of northern Ontario.

On November 25, I told the House that administrative and implementation details for a northern travel grant program and a specialist recruitment program had been completed and approved, the necessary funding had been secured and the programs would be in effect on December 1.

Since I made that announcement, there have been prolonged rejoinders from certain members of the official opposition that these programs had been previously announced by the former government and were ready for implementation when our government took office. Let me clarify the record for the benefit of everyone and, I hope, put this discussion, which has already dragged on far too long, to rest.

As a member of this House during the former government's administration, I remember the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), then Premier of Ontario, announced on April 18 a travel subsidy program for northern Ontario residents. In his statement he said his government would in the next few months begin to cover transportation costs for northerners "to travel to teaching and designated hospitals if the distance is greater than 200 miles." The member for Muskoka estimated the cost of that program to be about $1.5 million a year and said it would be available to all residents living north of the French River.

In the speech from the throne that was read in this House on June 4, there was also a passing reference to the fact that the Miller government planned to proceed with a program to subsidize significant transportation costs for northern residents who required hospital care.

Clearly then the public record does show that the Miller government had mentioned northern travel programs on at least two occasions. When I assumed the Health portfolio on June 26, however, I found no formal mechanisms necessary for administering the programs in place.

The public record also shows that during the past election campaign the previous government made a number of health care promises on behalf of the people of Ontario. I will not dispute that the former government may have been well intentioned about each and every one of these programs, but as in the case of the northern travel grant program, none was operational or ready for implementation when I became minister.

We also know that during the latter days of the previous administration commitments were made on an array of programs and policies. These commitments often had an air of not so quiet desperation. They frequently departed widely from traditional Conservative Party ideology and they appeared to be part of a public relations campaign to woo Ontario voters. Together, all of these commitments were estimated to cost approximately $181 million.

Shortly after our government took office, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced on July 2, 1985, that financial commitments of this magnitude, made during a short period of time -- from the election campaign up to the previous government's departure from office -- had to be the subject of careful examination and review. One of the commitments reviewed was the proposal for northern health travel grants, for which $1.125 million had been allocated to the then Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Our review showed that the Miller proposal was just not good enough. We decided the proposal had to be reworked and the policy redeveloped if health care requirements in the north were to be truly met. We held a series of consultations with northern physicians and hospitals to help determine the type of program that was needed. After the financial implications were accounted for, we were then in a position to move ahead with program implementation.

The travel grant program I announced on November 27 differs significantly from the Miller proposal. Because our program includes referrals for medical specialist services as well as hospital admissions, we estimate that approximately 81,000 grants will be provided each year. The Miller proposal envisaged 4,400. The member for Muskoka estimated that his government's travel grant program would cost about $1.5 million a year. Our program, because it will benefit a far greater number of people, is estimated to cost $13 million annually.

The Miller proposal would have provided travel grants only to northern residents being admitted as inpatients to teaching hospitals in the south. Our program provides that northern residents will be eligible for travel grants when they are referred to specialists as well as to hospitals. Referrals are to be to the nearest appropriate physician or institution -- not in the south, unless necessary -- so that local northern referral patterns may be better developed.

The northern travel grant program now in effect and developed by our government is clearly a more comprehensive program than that envisaged by the previous administration. It reflects the priorities and the commitment to northern health care services that this government holds. I am confident that all members of this House will agree that health care services for the people of northern Ontario are much improved because of it.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like you to consider whether the statement just read is in order in the light of the business of the House, an important emergency debate that is coming up today. What we have here is not a statement on the business of this minister's ministry but an entire statement on partisan, political garbage that is factually in error. Is that the purpose of statements, or is the purpose of statements for the minister to comment on his ministry?

Mr. Speaker: The member raised a point of order. I appreciate that it is in the standing orders that the ministers have the opportunity to rise and to refer to particular matters pertaining to their ministries. Of course, I have to accept that it is. It is up to the minister to present that information.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday of this week, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) asked for certain information. I would like to deposit this with the Legislature. It deals with government of Ontario contacts with de Havilland with respect to purchasers, the Canada Development Investment Corp. and the federal government.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister indicated to the House on Tuesday last that he had had a conversation with the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. de Cotret, on the afternoon of Friday, November 29, which was before the de Havilland agreement was concluded and announced.

Will the minister tell me whether during that conversation, held before the agreement was completed, he asked for job guarantees for Ontario workers, and what the response was?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is my understanding from our discussion with Mr. de Cotret that the agreement had already been finalized.

Mr. Grossman: Is the minister then suggesting that, as a result of his fundamental neglect of this circumstance, the first he found out that an agreement had been entered into last Friday, and that the agreement had no job guarantees for Ontarians or Canadians, was as late as last Friday? Is that the position he is taking with this House?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have reiterated on several occasions, my office and ministry were in touch with the federal government on many occasions and it would not release any of that information. It was released to me only on Friday afternoon.

Mr. Rae: It is unbelievable what these Tories will do, and it is also unbelievable what the Liberals will not do.

I asked the Premier on November 25 about the then widely circulated rumours about the progress of the Boeing deal through the federal cabinet. The Premier said on November 25 that, as far as he was aware, no action had been taken and nothing had been finalized, that he had had a meeting with Mr. Mulroney in the summer and had sought assurances with respect to job guarantees.

With respect to a deal that was in the works for several months -- indeed, years in preparation in terms of announced federal Tory policy -- how is it possible that his government was so poorly prepared and so asleep at the switch when literally thousands of jobs were at stake in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The federal government refused to release any of that information and did not consult with us. In fact, on Friday afternoon when we were at the Premiers' conference, I was the one who asked for the meeting because we had heard rumours this information would be announced on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Grossman: Might I remind the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that he was in this House regularly, that he has regular access to the media and that through all that period of time no one was stopping him from standing up and complaining publicly to the media, to the citizens of this province or to the federal government that he was being kept out and locked out of discussions and had no information.

Why did he not stand up and complain about this before the opposition parties in this House raised it last week? Where was he? Who was stopping him from making those representations?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member opposite is the Leader of the Opposition. Why was he not asking the questions?

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Gordon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. I am sure he is aware of the desperate plight of single women with children in search of affordable housing in Ontario. I would draw to his attention a woman in the gallery here today who has come to us in great need. Cheryl lives with her three children, one a two-month-old baby, in a single room above a bar in downtown Toronto at a rent of $125 a week.

How long must women like Cheryl, the women of this city and this province, suffer such indignity and hardship before the minister acts to provide decent places for them to live and raise their children?

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am surprised the opposition is applauding enthusiastically at a time when we have a case like this. The condition we see was not created today; it was created yesterday. There was neglect in recognizing that single parents need accommodation. We hope the housing policy we will be introducing very shortly, which the honourable member is so anxious about, will accommodate and look at single parents who are in that kind of situation.

Mr. Gordon: The fact that the minister says it is not his fault does not do a hell of a lot to solve Cheryl's problem. He is the Minister of Housing, not the minister of buck-passing.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gordon: It does not wash. How soon can Cheryl and other women like her in this province expect accommodation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not sure whether the honourable member was listening, but our housing policy will be coming forth shortly. Rather than taking 42 years to bring about a comprehensive housing policy, it will come about in five months.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I feel my privileges as the most outraged member of this House have been taken away from me by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), who all of a sudden feels he can be indignant.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you can get them back by asking a supplementary question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister was not here two years ago, so he will not remember that it was that long ago I introduced to the people in this House some 20 mothers and their children who were on waiting lists for housing, and begged of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), that he provide housing for those people. There were 18,000 people on the waiting list.

The minister says his housing policy is coming in. Will he please be precise as to how quickly it will meet the needs of the people on the waiting list? How many people on the waiting list will be affected by that initiative? We know now --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- that there are in excess of 20,000 families on that waiting list.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I know the honourable member is informed about the process of parliamentary procedures and the legislative process. As he knows, we are looking at some of the immediate needs, which will be addressed very shortly. He also knows that the entire, comprehensive housing policy we speak about will take some time. However, we will be addressing the immediate needs very shortly.

Mr. Gordon: The situation is deplorable. Thousands of women such as Cheryl are living in subsistence dwellings and on the streets across this province. When is the minister going to provide accommodation for those women? They are not going to be satisfied with just a statement. When is he going to do something?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member does not have to point out to me the deplorable situation I see out there. I know about it and I am here to do something about it. As he knows, I cannot wave a wand and solve all the problems. I am concerned. I have travelled around Ontario and seen the deplorable situation. I am doing my doggone best to resolve it.

2:20 p.m.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology about the appalling silence throughout the summer and the complete mishandling of the de Havilland sale. Did the government of Ontario ever express a clear preference on the part of the people of this province that de Havilland should, at the very least, remain in Canadian hands? Was that view ever clearly and emphatically expressed to the government of Canada by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes; it was expressed on several occasions. If the leader of the New Democratic Party will review the sequence of events, he will see that once we formed the government we were very active from June 26 to the time the bids were made.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps that is the minister's definition of consultation. He has just been taken to the cleaners by the federal government and he still does not seem to be aware of the fact. That message does not seem to have come home.

The Premier said on November 25: "I understand the following: there was a conversation with Mr. Stevens's office on Friday. We have been assured a deal has not been made and we will be given a chance to look at that before it is consummated, if it is. I understand there were two or three different bids. I am not sure of the details of each."

That was the Premier speaking on November 25, the eve of the deal, saying he was not sure of the details of any of the proposals being made. He said, "I am not sure of the details of each. It is and will be our strong position" --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: How does the minister explain the complete and utter failure of the government of Ontario to make its case known in Ottawa and to make its case have some effect in Ottawa, since this is a travesty of consultation and a travesty in regard to the future of the aerospace industry in this province?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I have to agree with the honourable member that it is a travesty. From the time we came into government we pressed the federal government for answers to these things. Both I and the Premier were assured the contract would not be let or a sale would not be made until we were consulted, We were not consulted. If it had not been for our pressing them on Friday afternoon at the Premiers' conference we likely would not know today.

Mr. Grossman: To quote a refrain we heard during the provincial election campaign, it is quite obvious the Premier of Ontario today counts for nothing in Ottawa when it comes to fighting for Ontario interests.

I have a question for the embarrassed Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As to this list that purports to outline extensive involvement by him in protecting the interests of Ontarians, might I point out that, never mind all the padded information here, there are on the list two occasions when the minister deigned to get involved. By his own evidence, the first was on August 1, when he met with representatives of Rimgate Holdings, and the second was the same day, when he met with Sinclair Stevens.

From this entire list, by his own evidence and by his own admission, the minister himself treated this as so important that he got involved in the de Havilland circumstance on one day since coming to office. Can he explain to us why on only one day he thought de Havilland was important enough to get involved himself ?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If the Leader of the Opposition will check the sequence of events, the ministry is under my direction, and the calls and the meetings were under my direction. Let me state one thing further: The sale of de Havilland was announced approximately one year ago. I would sure like to see the member table what he did, because he hardly did one thing at all.

Mr. Grossman: What did the minister do? One day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary; the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to the minister and I want to ask --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to leave the chamber for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker suspended proceedings at 2:25 p.m.

2:31 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: I hope the pause refreshed the minister a bit so we can have some answers that make a little more sense than the ones he has been giving us.

Can the minister tell us how it is possible that the Premier was able to say to this House on November 25: "I understand there were two or three different bids. I am not sure of the details of each"? On the eve of a deal being consummated and arranged in Ottawa, how is it possible that the person supposed to be carrying the ball for Ontario was not aware of any of the details of any of the bids that were being considered by the federal government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have mentioned before, de Havilland, through the holding company, is owned by the federal government. The federal government was pressed by myself, my ministry staff and the Premier to disclose those details and it did not.

Mr. Rae: With great respect, that was not what the Premier said on November 25. He did not complain that he was not getting the information. If he was not getting the information on November 25, why did he not stand up in this House to make a ministerial statement and say, "I am not satisfied with the information that is being given to Ontario"?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can only say that the Premier, myself and the ministry took the federal government at its word that it would disclose those details to us before it made them public.

Mr. Rae: It is a sad day when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is outsmarted by the federal government in Ottawa; and admits he has been totally outsmarted and outmanoeuvred on a matter that affects the future of the aerospace industry in this province. Does the minister realize that is what he is confessing to today?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I do not believe that is it at all. As I said, we asked many times to have those details disclosed to us. The federal government told us we would be told about it, and we were not.

Mr. Grossman: In the list the minister gave us of contacts he and his staff had, I counted three companies: Dornier, Rimgate Holdings and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm. By his own admission on Tuesday, 135 prospective Canadian purchasers had shown interest in purchasing de Havilland. By his own admission, he and his people contacted three of 135. Can he explain why he did not bother to contact the other 132 and indicate to them his willingness, if any, to provide loan guarantees or grants to assist them in purchasing de Havilland?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: When this government became the government on June 26, I was told -- and it has been confirmed in many places -- that of the 135 there were only three serious bidders. Not one of those bidders is a totally Canadian company. I was also told that in the time since it was announced in September or October of 1984, the honourable member and his government did nothing to contact any of them except Rimgate, which it refused even to help.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The minister is indicating information that is totally and completely misleading. I would like you to call him to order for those statements, because they are inaccurate.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will be pleased to withdraw that, but perhaps the previous government will be prepared to table in this Legislature its actions since the announcement of the sale last year.

Mr. Rae: The minister knows he is not the first Canadian and not the first politician to be taken to the cleaners by Sinclair Stevens. I suspect he will not be the last. He should go down to Bay Street and talk to people about that process.

Does the minister not realize he is admitting that just as the former Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), had no influence over the federal government with respect to the gasoline tax and the deal signed with the big oil companies, his government has had zero impact on the federal government, not with respect to oil pricing or deals in western Canada but with respect to a sellout of the aerospace industry and a threat to thousands of jobs in Ontario? Does the minister not realize that is what has happened?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: When we formed the government on June 26, realizing there could possibly be three serious contenders, with Dornier and Rimgate as two we could possibly help, we did quite a bit. I and my ministry staff worked with the Dornier people to try to put together different companies and concerns. We wanted to put together a Canadian company that could buy that concern.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation with respect to the awarding of the tourism advertising contract.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Wait until members hear this. This is terrific. They will love it.

Given the new policy on the awarding of these contracts, I wonder if the minister might confirm the following series of events: (1) The official call to tender went out; (2) 254 responses were received; (3) the Advertising Review Board narrowed that down to 17 and then to four; (4) Hershell Ezrin, principal secretary to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), instructed the board to add three names to that short list during the last week of October. They included an outfit called Ontour Communications -- members have all heard of it, no doubt -- which may not even exist as a company, but which does have strong ties to the Ontario Liberal Party.

Would the minister be kind enough to confirm that sequence of events for us?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: First of all, under the new arrangement, everyone will have an opportunity to become part of the advertising for Ontario and certainly for the tourism ministry. There is no automatic selection of one's friends. We have a certain number -- I want to assure the member that no final decision has been made. This has been done in an open process with members who have been appointed to that board and also with the public. No final decision has been made as yet.

Mr. Grossman: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I caught a draught from Mr. Ezrin running out of the House quickly.

I have a supplementary question for the minister if he wants to try to answer this one. Would he like to confirm that the tourism advertising contract will be awarded -- are members ready for this? -- to a struggling Canadian advertising firm called Vickers and Benson? Could the minister confirm that V and B, which has a modest involvement with the Ontario Liberal Party, has been fortunate enough to be selected off that list of 254, but that, in fairness, he has decided that Camp Associates Advertising be awarded the French advertising, where no dollars were spent last year?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I have no involvement in the selection of who receives the contracts. Unlike what happened with the previous government, it is not predetermined. This is a new day for tourism in Ontario because, as far as the Leader of the Opposition's commitment to tourism in Ontario was concerned, he was opposed to a separate ministry for tourism in this province and he knows it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It certainly is not a new day for noise level.

Mr. Rae: The minister sounds suspiciously like a piano player in a brothel claiming he has no idea at all about what is going on upstairs. The Tories were upstairs and they know exactly what does go on up there.

So that we as a Legislature may overcome this history with respect to advertising -- it was 42 years of chicanery and now it appears it may be 43 -- does the minister not think this entire matter on the awarding of major contracts of this type should be reviewed, overseen and approved by a parliamentary committee of the whole House? In that manner, the matter could finally be settled in public and not by one of the parties that happens to be in government taking advantage and awarding them to its friends.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: As I have said, there has been no final decision on the selection of who is going to receive that contract. What we are looking for is innovative ideas. It is not simply a case of awarding it to one's friends, as the Tories have done over the years. This is an open process where members of the public are involved in the selection.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and it partially relates back to his statement made on Monday on the insurance issue. The minister may recall that in spite of the fact the insurance companies are arbitrarily refusing coverage through the normal channels or are raising rates for liability coverage by two to 10 times, he made no mention in his statement of any investigation being made to determine whether those refusals and increases in rates are justified.

Will he now tell the House exactly what studies he has done and what investigations he has made to find out whether those rate increases are fully justified or whether they are really a tactic by the insurance companies in the light of the high settlements to protect themselves and vastly improve their net income?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In my statement I did say that we were looking at the whole area of the insurance problem. I should tell the honourable member that we have set up a task force under the superintendent of insurance, which will have representatives, I hope, from all parties and from the industry, to take a look at the affordability question and the availability question.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not know that this problem has been in existence for many months and that it is kind of late now to be dealing with it in that manner?

I would ask him about the case of Bob Dowd of Carleton Bus Lines, who operates almost 100 buses. He was notified on November 13 that Royal Insurance would not renew his fleet insurance, which expired on November 30. He spent 250 hours searching for a replacement. He eventually found a company to provide the insurance. His fleet rate for school buses went up 224 per cent, his rate for highway coaches operating in Canada went up 620 per cent and the rate for buses qualified to travel in the United States went up from $1,800 to $15,000 per bus per year.

Is the minister telling us this kind of horrendous increase can be justified, or is he telling us he does not know? With the current prices, does he not think it is time that insurance companies had to justify --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I sympathize with the member and with the people who are being sadly hurt by these large increases in insurance, but he has to realize this is set in the marketplace and that we are looking at it to see whether we cannot find an alternative.

Mr. Brandt: I am sure the minister knows that some of the actions of his government are aggravating the very problem he is intending to pursue, and I could give him some examples.

Is he aware of the absolutely outrageous increases in insurance, particularly for liability coverage, that are affecting the municipalities of this province, many of whom are going to attempt to self-insure if they cannot get insurance coverage? They are looking at premium increases of 100, 200 or 300 per cent. Will the minister speak to the minister who sits beside him, namely, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître); the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), and others who could bring some influence to bear on this particular problem? It is a growing, serious, critical, chaotic problem in this province, and he has to move right away.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Again, I am aware of the problem, I am sympathetic to the problem and it is a universal problem; it is not peculiar to Ontario. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is looking into self-insurance; the truck industry is looking into self-insurance. We have people with greenhouses who have problems. We have people in the professions who have problems.

This is a problem, as I say, of national scope. We are looking at it in this province, on a federal basis and on an international basis to come to a resolution.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Guindon: J'ai une question pour le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. L'engagement du gouvernement Davis-Miller à l'égard de la prestation des services en français est bien connu et reconnu par tous les membres de l'Assemblée et par la communauté francophone.

Depuis le mois de juillet, le gouvernement libéral a beaucoup fait état de la nécessité d'embaucher et d'augmenter le nombre de fonctionnaires francophones aux ministères de la fonction publique en Ontario. En particulier, le ministre et le député de Prescott-Russell (M. Poirier) ont lancé un appel aux francophones de se présenter pour des postes au gouvernement.

Combien de fonctionnaires francophones ont été embauchés depuis le mois de juin? Est-ce que les francophones, qui ont répondu en grand nombre à l'invitation du ministre, ont eu du succès à se trouver de l'emploi au gouvernement?

2:50 p.m.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je peux rassurer le député de Cornwall que c'est vrai que le gouvernement ontarien a reçu beaucoup d'applications, excepté que, dû au fait qu'il y avait un déménagement de leurs municipalités, soit d'Ottawa ou d'autre part en Ontario, il est très difficile pour ces gens-là de se rélocaliser à Toronto.

Je peux rassurer le député que présentment le gouvernement et aussi l'Office des affaires francophones regardent la possibilité d'attirer ces gens-là, non seulement avec un meilleur salaire mais en leur offrant des cours afin qu'ils nous présentent une meilleure compétence.

M. Guindon: Durant tous ces déménagements, sait-il que les postes de coordonnateur de services en français dans plusieurs ministères, notamment le ministère de la Santé, le ministère des Collèges et Universités, le ministère de la Formation professionnelle, le ministère de l'Industrie, du Commerce et de la Technologie et d'autres, ainsi que le poste de coordonnateur provincial, sont vacants depuis plusieurs mois?

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que le député est en erreur. Lorsqu'on dit "plusieurs mois", c'est absolument faux. Nous sommes en train d'évaluer les compétences de certaines personnes, et très bientôt la personne que le député vient de mentionner sera remplacée par une personne de grande compétence.

Alors, c'est faux d'assumer que présentement il y a des postes bilingues ou des postes francophones parmi la gestion des fonctionnaires qui sont libres. Il n'y en a pas.

M. Pouliot: Depuis trop longtemps, ce qui est arrivé est ceci. C'est pas plus que ça, mais c'est quand même pas moins que ça. Écoutez-moi attentivement: c'est qu'on nous a menti, on nous a déçu.

Maintenant, le député d'Ottawa Est, comme ministre, a la chance, et c'est une chance unique parce qu'un gouvernement minoritaire, ça ne se produit pas tellement souvent, pas tous les jours. Il a la chance de rectifier l'injustice qui s'est produite à cause du manque de francophones qui étaient fonctionnaires dans son gouvernement. Maintenant, en essayant de répondre à la question qui lui a été posée par mon collègue du Parti conservateur, il a omis de nous dire combien, le nombre. Maintenant, va-t-il nous dire ça?

Je crois à sa sincérité. Maintenant, est-ce qu'il peut indiquer à cette Chambre quand et combien de fonctionnaires seront affectés de façon positive?

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je peux dire que dans mon ministère on n'avait jamais entendu parler d'une personne francophone, ou même bilingue. Je peux assurer le député que dans le ministère des Affaires municipales aujourd'hui, six de mes 11 employés immédiats sont français et bilingues. C'est un début.

Maintenant, si on parle de la fonction publique, je ne peux pas donner un chiffre exact, excepté que très bientôt, je présenterai des outils à la Chambre pour former des personnes intéressées à la gestion ontarienne. Je suis sûr que le député va accepter le programme, dû au fait que nous allons présenter un programme pour former ces gens-là et leur donner la chance de compétitionner, comme tout anglophone de la province de l'Ontario.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I appreciate the fact the minister allowed me to join him on his flying tour to look at the areas damaged by the high water, but he has ignored my plea that he provide the proper assistance to the municipalities before this fall.

On July 12 I asked the minister to request assistance from the Department of National Defence. Finally, since there was no response to that, I wrote to the Minister of National Defence. The minister wrote me on October 23 stating that he was informed by Ministry of Natural Resources officials that the water level is receding and the possibility of the flooding threat was resolved. He also said he could take action only at the request of the province.

Will the minister tell me who in the Ministry of Natural Resources informed the Department of National Defence that there would not be a flooding threat this fall, and why?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, we invited the honourable member to go and view the damage that was done along the shoreline, and I am just a little bit surprised he is not fully aware of all the circumstances. Perhaps I should have given him a briefing after the visit, although he had a briefing before and he understood all the ramifications of controlling the high waters on the Great Lakes system. That is not the responsibility of Ontario and my ministry. We will need the participation of the federal government and the government of the United States of America if there is going to be any controlling of that international waterway.

I am very surprised the member is not aware of that. We may have to take some time the next time we fly down together to make the member fully aware of the circumstances and we will invite other members who are interested enough to want to visit to come down with us.

Mr. Brandt: The minister did not invite us this time.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The fact is the member made the request of me. I want the member for Sarnia to do the same to show him that he will be very welcome. He knows he has a problem down there and we are looking after that for him just as we are for the member in the third party.

I would like the member to understand that the problem is way and beyond the ability of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario to participate in any meaningful way.

Mr. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, you would like me to hurry up and get my question in, but I wish the minister would answer the question that I asked him; that is, who and why.

The minister would no doubt agree that had he not ignored my request to contact the Minister of National Defence for assistance, the damage experienced by the residents would have been greatly reduced. Will he now ask the Department of National Defence for its assistance before people experience any more damage?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have been given praise for many things but never for being able to hold back the water. That is a physical impossibility. We have a very distinct responsibility within the confines of my ministry, as do the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We shared all those things with the member and made very specific comments about where we could properly help those people who had suffered from this disaster along the shores of Lake Erie.

We met with all the reeves and mayors and the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, and we pledged to them that when they brought forward the kind of reports that were necessary for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and myself, that we would get them together. This is open government we are talking about, and I invite any members who want to meet with us, to participate to see how we can very properly address ourselves to this very serious question.

Mr. Harris: Can the minister inform us of a couple of things that have happened in his ministry? This is not a new problem. The minister knows the water has been high there for a while. He also knows there were problems in that region this spring and that we announced a $4.5-million program, albeit it was just to get started, albeit it was not going to solve the whole problem; other help was needed.

Can he explain why, when he took over when his government came in, he did not feel it was important enough to maintain that money? The first thing he did was cut $1.5 million out.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I always thought the member was a nice guy and he would not run at me like that. Let me tell the member something about that.

This is a very important point. We have not used the money that is in place. There was no demand. The money is there at the request of the citizens of municipalities and others that need help. We, as a new government, do not go around deciding that we have to advertise to spend money. We are going to be very responsible.

That question the member raised is not valid. There are moneys there that have not been used as yet, and we are very much prepared to help those people who are going to need the help, much more than the former government ever was. It spent more of its money on advertising and not helping the people.

Mr. Pope: What a bunch of rubbish. The minister sat on the money.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

TRIAL DECISION

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Attorney General. It relates to the case of a repeat sex offender, William Jondreau, an acknowledged paedophile, who recently was convicted of brutalizing a seven-year-old girl in a most heinous manner and received a reformatory sentence of two years less a day. I repeat the plea of my leader in a press release today and ask the Attorney General whether he intends to appeal immediately that most inadequate sentence in this case.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question. As he probably knows, we in the ministry make determinations to appeal or not to appeal after we have seen the reasons for judgement of the trial judge and after we have received a report from the crown attorney who prosecuted the case, who in this instance asked for an imprisonment sentence of eight years.

We are awaiting the transcribed reasons for the judgement of Her Ladyship and the report from the crown attorney, which I understand will be in my hands on Monday. Immediately thereafter, we will consider those matters and make a determination that I will be glad to announce to the House.

Mr. O'Connor: Is the Attorney General aware that this man has a lengthy criminal record for similar offences against young children, namely, two boys of 11 and 12 years of age? Is he also aware that the litany of acts perpetrated on this little girl are perhaps the most horrendous I have ever seen in my experience as a practising lawyer? Notwithstanding the report from his officials, will he immediately launch an appeal in this case?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to react on the spur of the moment, which apparently is what my friend wants. The facts reported in the press are obviously shocking and the history of the accused, as reported in the press, is alarming, but I know the member would not want any Attorney General to react entirely on the basis of press reports.

That is not the way I intend to fulfil this office, if I can avoid it. I am going to wait for a report from the crown attorney and I am going to wait until I have done Her Ladyship, who presided at this difficult trial, the courtesy of reading what she has to say about the case and then, as dispassionately as I can, I am going to consider whether an appeal is warranted.

ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. He will know that recently the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has come forward with money for medical transportation for people from the north. He knows his own ministry is responsible under general welfare legislation for providing assistance to welfare recipients, so that under a shared 50-50 cost with the local municipalities, these people are able to come from places where there are no hospitals for hospital care in other centres.

Is the minister aware that some municipalities in this province are not treating this as discretionary money to spend on needy individuals, but are ruling out any possibility of people using those funds at all?

I have a quote from a worker in the Hastings county --

Mr. Speaker: The question has already been asked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is verification that it is not discretionary at all. Payments for transportation have been denied to everyone since 1982.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The relationship of my ministry with the municipalities across the province is such that there are some programs that are mandatory and others that are discretionary, supplementary benefits being another example.

At present, I am not prepared to make it mandatory for the municipalities to participate in these programs. We have clearly indicated that we are prepared to pay our share of the cost and do not expect the municipalities to pay the full cost. I gather that as long as the municipalities are compelled to pay their share, then there has to be some discretion in it. At this point, I am not prepared to go any further with that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was afraid that would be the answer. Essentially, that means that northerners of any income will have their costs picked up, but people from areas such as Haliburton or Hastings who are poor are probably going to be held up and not be able to come.

Is the minister aware of two cases I will raise? One is a woman who had multiple stomach operations, who has been refused categorically any assistance with transportation. Another is a child of four years of age who, because of the intervention of the public health nurses in the Hastings area, finally made it to Toronto after a year and a half of requesting assistance from that county.

Does the minister not think that access to good medical care is the right of all of us in this province, whether we are rich or poor, and that he had better change the rules to make sure those people get access to that medical care?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I share the honourable member's concern about access to needed medical treatment. I will also share with him the fact that earlier this week I had a meeting with the organization representing the municipalities of Ontario. We have agreed we will begin immediately to launch a joint study on the range of funding sharing that currently exists between the municipalities and my ministry.

With respect to the elderly, to children's aid societies, to hostels, to that whole range, at present they are many and varied; but until we come to some resolution and rationalization of the multifaceted program now in place, I am not prepared to change one aspect of it.

I am prepared, however, to reconsider the whole range of social services with respect to our relationships with municipalities because we are concerned about the present discretionary measures. There are services that are simply not available in certain municipalities, and not only health services. Day care services, for example, are not available in 40 per cent of the municipalities in this province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is health care.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I recognize that.

Mr. Cousens: The words sound good, but action is what is needed. I would like to ask one question because it is going to begin to open up in supplementary questions what the minister is going to do. Does he believe in equality of access and the rights of all people in this province to proper care and attention? If he does agree that he believes in equality, is he going to do something about it? "Yes, yes," would be a perfect answer.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes, yes.

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Pierce: I have a question for my friend the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Now that the report of the previous member for Lake Nipigon, Jack Stokes, and his task force on a second Dash-8 aircraft for northwestern Ontario has been made public and people know this report recommends that the aircraft fly from Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Fort Frances, Kenora and Winnipeg, a route that was recommended by the previous Minister of Northern Affairs and agreed to by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, is the minister ready to tell the people of northern Ontario that he is prepared to accept the recommendations of the task force and the ONTC so the people can gear up their operations --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Ma réponse est non.

Mr. Bernier: I have to say that the response to that question is absolutely disgusting. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) might think of removing that man from his cabinet. The way he speaks of northern Ontario is just awful. As a northerner, I am ashamed of him.

I have a question to the same minister, but I know he will not answer it. Will he lay to rest the present rumours circulating across northern Ontario, and northwestern Ontario particularly, that this second Dash-8 aircraft, which the ONTC accepted last Thursday, will never fly in northwestern Ontario?

Will he also stop any discussion with Lab Air, Nova Air and Atlantic Air, which want to lease that aircraft and fly it in Nova Scotia? Ontario taxpayers' dollars bought that aircraft so it could fly in northern Ontario. He wants to put it in Nova Scotia. Will he stop that?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It is with great pleasure I read last week in the newspaper that my honourable friend said we should have changed the name of the minister instead of changing the name of the ministry. I want to remind him that a change was made a few months ago: He lost his job and I am here.

About the other question the member just asked me, I would remind him to go and see his friend, his past campaign chairman, and ask him the question.

Mr. Pouliot: How refreshing to hear the name of the legend of Jack Stokes, such a man in his riding. I want to congratulate the minister for having had the inspiration to name Jack Stokes to head the commission on the Dash-8. He is such a good man that even the Tories -- and I am getting to my question -- appointed him as Speaker, and he was one of the best Speakers of the House.

I would like an answer from my good friend the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, whose intelligence I value greatly. I do not say that with tongue in cheek; I know the minister has an IQ of 140. Some people say it is 70 in French and 70 in English, but that is not true. Will the minister make the commitment now to implement the Dash-8 proposal of the commission headed by Jack Stokes? Dites-moi ça maintenant.

Mr. Speaker: That is a good question.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: My staff at the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission are currently evaluating options for maintaining and improving air service in northern Ontario. The Stokes report is one of the major inputs, but not the only one. With regard to the second Dash-8 aircraft, it is my understanding norOntair will not have the two aircraft available for regular service until mid-1986 because the first aircraft has to go back to de Havilland for retrofit.

On top of that, once the routing is decided by my staff, licences will have to be obtained from the air transport committee. That will take six to eight months.

GROCERY RETAILING

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about corporate concentration in the retail grocery business in Ontario. The minister must be aware that A and P, which took over a 92-store chain of Dominion Stores earlier this year, has now announced it will be closing another 28 of these stores on top of eight previously announced to be closed.

It is now apparent that A and P does not intend to honour its original commitment to operate Dominion as a separate ongoing concern but instead is out to destroy this chain of stores, break the union with concession demands, eliminate price competition and take away consumers' choices as to where to shop. Will the minister take action to ensure that a combines investigation is initiated to examine the retail grocery business in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the honourable member for his question, but he said the magic words "combines investigation," which happens to be under federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Morin-Strom: This is an issue in this province which this minister should be taking some interest in on behalf of the consumers of this province. It is up to him to take action and initiate this investigation. In Sault Ste. Marie, A and P now controls seven of the 10 major grocery stores. It has announced its intention to shut down two and possibly three of these outlets, severely restricting consumers' options, especially for pensioners and low-income earners living in the downtown area --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Morin-Strom: -- without means of transportation, who are seeing their only available store being shut down. Is the minister satisfied there is fair and adequate competition in the grocery business in Sault Ste. Marie? If not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Whenever the consumer is threatened, I am not satisfied. However, the honourable member should know that certain things fall under my jurisdiction and certain things do not. In this area, I will be happy to convey his concerns to my federal counterpart, who does have jurisdiction.

Mr. Runciman: This is the second time this week that this minister, when asked a question in this House, has shrugged off responsibility by saying it is a federal matter.

This is of interest to consumers in this province, especially in the northern part of this province where there are very few grocery stores. We are concerned about what is happening in this area. Will the minister not indicate an interest in this subject and get involved, even if he has to go to the federal government -- unlike the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) -- and indicate there is a very serious concern in this province about that subject?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This is the second time I have had to shrug off a question because it is the second time I have had a question that has nothing to do with my ministry. If the member of the opposition would find out what this ministry does, I will be happy to answer the question for him. That is how it is done.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Pierce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), I must express my displeasure at the response by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) and ask that appropriate action be taken.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the member will give notice to the table and follow the usual procedure.

[Later]

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Rainy River has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines concerning air transportation in northern Ontario. This matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 28(b), the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) concerning an increase in insurance rates. This matter will also be debated at 10:30 p.m.

PETITION

FLOODING

Mr. Wildman: I am suffering from laryngitis, so if the members could be quiet I will read the petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and, in particular, the Honourable Vincent Kerrio, Minister of Natural Resources, and the Honourable Bernard Grandmaître, Minister of Municipal Affairs:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the residents of Goulais River (an unorganized area), who have been adversely affected by the high water levels of Lake Superior, be eligible for the same technical and financial assistance as the residents of municipalities under the Shoreline Property Assistance Act."

This petition is signed by 29 residents of Goulais River.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on public accounts reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits program, $3,672,100.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sudbury;

Bill Pr39, An Act respecting Peterborough Racing Association Limited.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ramsay from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $12,380,600; agricultural marketing and standards program, $20,319,200; agricultural technology, development and field services program, $93,440,600; financial assistance to agriculture program, $134, 330, 200;

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Agricultural marketing and standards program, $1,400,000; financial assistance to agriculture program, $30,000,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have introduced today amendments to the Provincial Offences Act that are designed to facilitate the implementation of new procedures for the prosecution of parking infractions under municipal bylaws and under provincial legislation.

The new procedures were enacted in 1979 as part II of the Provincial Offences Act, but part II was never proclaimed in force. The legislation has been long awaited by municipalities, and with the amendments I am introducing today, I hope the implementation process can begin.

The procedures are intended to simplify and expedite the prosecution of parking offences by using a system that is similar to one already used for other provincial offences. It is estimated the new system will result in savings to municipalities of more than $10 million annually. For example, the new procedures will reduce the number of trials needed by giving the defendant an opportunity to choose whether to dispute a charge.

In addition, the legislation will strengthen the enforcement mechanisms applicable to parking fines. In particular, renewal of an owner's vehicle permit will be refused if a parking fine remains unpaid after the time for payment, including any extensions of time, has expired.

Officials in the ministry have been consulting extensively with municipalities to ensure an orderly implementation. As a result of these discussions, it has come to our attention that a number of minor changes to the legislation will be necessary. The bill I am introducing today is intended to effect those changes.

Most of the amendments are of a technical nature. However, there is one amendment I would like to comment on specifically.

Under the new procedures, when a police officer or parking control officer places a parking infraction notice on a vehicle, the notice will usually indicate the bylaw that creates the parking infraction. However, in some municipalities there are a large number of parking bylaws, and it will ordinarily not be possible for the officer who writes the ticket to know at the time the number of the applicable bylaw. For example, different bylaws may apply to the same offence, depending on the location of the offence or the time it occurred.

To resolve the difficulty, the bill will permit a parking infraction notice to be completed without identifying the specific bylaw that creates the offence. However, it will still be necessary for the infraction notice to inform the defendant of the location of the offence as well as its nature.

As I have indicated, the main purpose of the bill is to facilitate the implementation of a simpler and more expeditious procedure that will entail these major savings for Ontario municipalities.

NON-SMOKERS' PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Sterling moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, first reading of Bill 71, An Act to protect the Public Health and Comfort and the Environment by prohibiting and controlling Smoking in Public Places.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: The Non-Smokers' Protection Act, as it is known by its short title, prohibits smoking in indoor public places, in public vehicles and in certain areas of health facilities and authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prohibit smoking in the work place.

Provision is made for the designation of smoking areas in public places where to do so will not interfere with nonsmokers. Patients in health facilities are given the right to request a nonsmoking room. Municipalities are also authorized to pass nonsmoking bylaws.

TOWNSHIP OF HORNEPAYNE ACT

Mr. Wildman moved, seconded by Mr. Pouliot, first reading of Bill Pr29, An Act to continue the Corporation of the Township of Wicksteed under the Name of the Corporation of the Township of Hornepayne.

Motion agreed to.

TOWNSHIP OF OSGOODE CARE CENTRE ACT

Mr. Sterling moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting the Township of Osgoode Care Centre.

Motion agreed to.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In 1979, the Legislative Assembly passed a Powers of Attorney Act, which for the first time permitted a person to give a power of attorney which would survive mental incapacity. As a result of that act, there have been some important legal questions raised about the efficacy of the legislation.

The bill is a short one, as honourable members will see, and the purpose of the amendments is to clarify the protection offered by section 3 of the present act and to assure it is available whenever the authority of the power has been terminated, revoked or has become invalid, and the person who has relied upon it has no knowledge of the termination, revocation or invalidity.

3:30 p.m.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business for Thursday, December 5, be set aside in order to debate the giveaway of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. by the federal government to an American multinational, the complete failure of the provincial Liberal government to protect Ontario and Canadian interests, and the resulting threat to the Canadian aerospace industry and Canadian jobs which results from the complete absence of guarantees to jobs and to Canadian research and development.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received in time -- in fact, at 9:20 a.m., December 5 -- and complies with standing order 34. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as well as to representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words with respect to this debate.

As Ontarians, we all recognized when the Mulroney government was elected that it was going to carry out certain commitments that had been made with respect to selling off crown corporations. This is a matter of personal interest to me because I was a member of the federal House in 1979, when the president of the Treasury Board at that time, Sinclair Stevens, announced that it was his policy to put a number of companies on the chopping block, and one of those companies was de Havilland.

I engaged in not simply a long series of correspondence but also a long series of meetings with officials of de Havilland. I think it is fair to say that, together with a number of other people, I had something to do with delaying the actions of the federal government, and indeed, because that government was defeated -- again, an event I had something to do with -- the future of de Havilland was saved and the company was maintained as a Canadian company.

Since 1979-80, the federal government has invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars in that crown corporation to develop the technology for the Dash plane. Most critical observers of the industry feel that having made as much investment as we have made and having gone through the period of the oil shock and the impact that had on the airline industry, with the change in the future of the airline industry and a revival of the prospect of sales for the Dash plane, de Havilland is on the verge of financial success.

Because of their ideological problems and hangups, the feds are determined to carry through with this sale at a fire-sale price to Boeing Co. of the United States. That deal obviously has to do with the federal government's commitment to free trade, with a part-and-parcel Americanization of the Canadian economy and with a determination by the Tory government in Ottawa that its response to events in the world is (a) to sell off crown assets at bargain-basement prices and (b) to do so to an American company to protect the federal government's investment with respect to free trade.

The reason this motion is before us is that we have had the tragedy of not one government asleep at the switch, but two. First we had the Miller government, incapable of action, ideologically committed to the efforts of the Mulroney regime and totally silent on the question of what should happen to de Havilland. Now we have the Peterson government which, sad to say, has taken precisely the same position ideologically and politically.

Ideologically, the government of Ontario has never expressed opposition in any way, shape or form to the fire sale of de Havilland. That is a crying shame, because I think the majority of people in this province believe the government has a role to play in the economy and that simply selling things off at fire-sale prices is not in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

We also have a government which, for reasons I literally cannot understand, has not done the necessary work to protect Ontario's interests. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has said, "It is a federal decision; there is nothing I can do about it." He has said, "I have written to Mr. Mulroney, and I have sat down and met him once." The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) has said, "I have met with Sinclair Stevens once."

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Twice.

Mr. Rae: Sorry; twice -- once before November 29. I say to the minister, as I said in question period, he has been taken to the cleaners by the federal government. The provincial government has been utterly naïve in its approach to the federal government and has failed entirely with respect to protecting Ontario jobs, Ontario interests, Ontario research and development and the future of the aerospace industry.

It is a sad day for Canada when the government in Ottawa announces it is selling off de Havilland to Boeing. We should look at the experience of the aerospace industry and the price we have paid for foreign ownership. First it was the Brits, who did nothing and bailed out; they said goodbye when Canadians, in wartime and peacetime, invested literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in that industry. We have been making planes for a very long time.

The federal government has sold us out, and the provincial government has been asleep at the switch. It is time this matter was debated in the House, because it is an urgent matter and one that must be faced up to today in the Legislature.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise in support of the motion to set aside the ordinary business of this House to discuss a matter that is of grave concern not only to de Havilland workers but also to the people across the province. It is an urgent matter that requires the time of this House for two separate and very distinct reasons.

First and foremost, several thousand Ontario jobs are at stake; Canadian technology is at stake; an entire Canadian industry may be at risk, and a mammoth investment by Canadian taxpayers may be forgotten. Second, while not as important in those human terms, something that is relevant to the members of this House is the matter of the incompetence shown by the Liberal government in the handling of the entire affair.

The Premier used to take great delight in accusing the former Conservative government of being asleep at the switch on a number of occasions. If we were asleep at the switch, which I suggest we were not, then this government is in a coma; even if it were awake, it probably would not know where the switch was. The passive attitude of this Liberal government in standing up for Ontario and for Canadian interests is the most unfortunate part of all.

There is a long list of failures to recite. There is the government's failure to advocate Ontario's case emphatically enough, particularly with respect to the interests of Ontario workers and their need for some form of job guarantees. There is the complete failure on the part of this government to make any offer of assistance to potential Canadian purchasers, thus increasing the odds that this company would remain in Canadian hands. There is the failure to indicate publicly, in general terms, that the government of Ontario would be willing to offer assistance to potential Canadian purchasers and in what specific ways; had it done this, let alone thought about doing this, it is possible other companies might have been interested.

In addition, there is the government's failure to take any action whatsoever since the announcement on Tuesday, with ministers standing here day after day saying they did not know too much about it. We want to know why, after he knew from the federal minister that an announcement was imminent, the minister was not in Ottawa first thing Monday, speaking up for the people of Ontario and seeking the job guarantees and the other answers we want.

For that matter, why was the Premier not on a plane to Ottawa this past Monday morning trying to do everything he could to put a hold on this thing until he had some answers? I remember hearing the Premier say during the last election campaign that within days of becoming Premier, he would be in Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister and to speak for the people of Ontario. That looked good when the campaign was on and when the television cameras were running, but now, like so many other things, it has been forgotten. The Premier simply does not have the same kind of commitment when jobs are at stake instead of votes.

3:40 p.m.

Simply put, the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology were not in Ottawa on Friday or Monday, or at any time before or since, to speak up for the de Havilland workers, for Canadian technology and for the Canadian aerospace industry, because they have decided time after time, in the case of Hyundai, Petro-Canada, AMC and so on, that they simply cannot be bothered speaking up for Ontario jobs and for Ontario workers.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe this is important. It is an urgent matter. We believe it should and must be debated this afternoon. We will look forward to participating in this debate.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, under the rules each party has five minutes to convey to you its views on whether the ordinary business, which is private members' business this afternoon, should be set aside and the debate should go forward. We have no objection to the debate going forward because we believe it is an important matter.

I hope you are not going to be influenced in your judgement by the fact that all the Conservative members, with the exception of four, left the chamber as soon as the matter came to your attention, sir. The member for York West (Mr. Leluk) is busily signing his Christmas cards. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is doing his duty, as he always does, and the House leader, who is paid extra, is here delivering one of his usual good speeches.

The rest of them, who were so concerned about this matter, must be feeling substantial embarrassment, because it is their political party, the Progressive Conservative Party, with a huge majority of 211 seats in the House of Commons, that has indicated that this company, which it wholly owns, should be sold to an American concern for the price of just one of the planes. Oh, oh, here they come. It seems to me it is a matter of importance. If we are going to have such a debate, one would think the opposition would at least be present.

I like the procedure very much when the House decides there is business more important than that which is regularly scheduled, so that matters of emergency, when they come along, can be debated. That is what the process is for. We have no objection to this at all.

I have a minor objection, I suppose, in that this five minutes, which is supposed to be used to give you advice, Mr. Speaker, on whether the ordinary business should be set aside and whether it is in order so the members can decide, is used usually, and has been used today once again, for the kind of argument that should be part of the debate itself. It is a minor matter, but I am a former schoolteacher and my thought processes are somewhat tunnelized and concretized. I do not apologize for that, but it would be a good thing if, under the rules, we were able simply to give you the advice you seek under the rules.

We feel it is a matter of urgent and public importance. I regret very much indeed that the government of Canada has taken this position. It is traditional for the Conservatives. They did the same thing back in the early days, when I was interested in public affairs, when they decided to cancel the Avro Arrow contract. It is very similar.

The situation in which the opposition parties are trying to lay this matter to rest at the door of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is somewhat unfair. They know that minister is extremely dedicated and capable. He is working very hard indeed to negotiate for the furtherance of industry in this province.

I saw articles in the daily press yesterday and today, which have not been confirmed but which I trust and hope are true, that the Toyota corporation is going to locate a large new plant in this province. If the members think the minister and his staff have not been working hard on that, they are wrong.

After all, the matter that is before us today concerns a company that is owned 100 per cent by the government of Canada. They have taken a decision, without consultation with this province or anybody else, to sell it to an American concern. They indicated they would send us the details, but they never did. I am not sure why we should be responsible for that when the government of Canada must have the responsibility of keeping the provincial government informed.

The minister has indicated what he has done, and I have a good deal of confidence in his efforts in this regard. I want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we welcome the opportunity to discuss the important matter, and we advise you, Mr. Speaker, to find that it is a suitable matter under the rules. For our side, if you do so find, we will not object to the ordinary business being set aside and the debate continuing until six o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the three members who have spoken and it appears there is majority consent for the debate to continue. Therefore, the question to be decided is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is another sad time for our country. The clear message in the de Havilland deal is that Canada is up for sale. I think we should understand that right across this country.

What is happening to de Havilland now with respect to the sale to foreign interests should be tied into the dismantling of our national energy policy. It should be tied into the frantic sale of crown corporations -- people's companies in this country. We should look at the announced cut of $100 million or one half of the $200-million budget of the nuclear research facility at Chalk River. It is very much involved in vital and basic research into such things as waste management, the safety of our nuclear reactors, medical research and pure and applied research.

If we look at all these moves, what we have is a very clear move towards privatization, a very clear signal to companies and the corporate world that Canada and everything in it are for sale. I think that is a tragedy.

There was a piece I dug up today when I was looking back at the Avro Arrow situation. There was a little comment: "Canadian governments have been shockingly capable of destroying enormous Canadian innovations and industries. Witness the destruction of the Avro Arrow plane by the Diefenbaker government and the dispersal of the men who created it to jobs in the United States. Witness the decision of the Trudeau government to buy a satellite off the shelf rather than build a satellite for Canadian needs here and with the expertise that we have in this particular field in Canada."

For the life of me, I cannot understand the blinkers we seem to have on. Unfortunately, all this is tied together very effectively by the move in the country today towards free trade.

I cannot believe it is accurate, but I heard that the Conservative Party here was thinking of moving a no-confidence motion on this matter. I am not sure whether that is just scuttlebutt around this House or whether it is accurate, but I have to tell the House that for the Conservatives to desire to move a no-confidence motion against the provincial government -- and I hold no particular brief for it, for its lack of action to save de Havilland from the actions of the federal government, the Conservatives' own federal kissing cousins -- would be hypocrisy of the top order.

I heard the leadoff speaker for the Conservatives on the question of whether we should have the debate talk about the incompetence of the government. It is hell to have to make a choice between simple incompetence and a deliberate sellout of this country and its resources, its industry and its research and development capacity. That is exactly what is happening.

Forgive me if I wonder about this party that wants to move on this particular issue against the actions of its federal kissing cousins.

Then I look in the paper and find out who the agent is for the federal government with respect to negotiating the sale of this industry of ours, de Havilland, to Boeing. Why, it is none other than Norm Atkins. Was he not the campaign manager of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman)? It seems to me he was. We have to wonder at the absolute hypocrisy in this House.

3:50 p.m.

Forgive me if I point out that this deal has a $155-million purchase price, of which $90 million is cash less $6 million for the completing of the deal. That is C$90 million. For Boeing, in its dollars, it is only $65 million. The $65 million and 15-year notes can be avoided if Boeing directs $325 million of new business into Canada. Right off the bat, it will get $1 million for every $5 million of business, if that happens.

In addition, from the federal government, they have the opportunity to receive $40 million in export financial support; $60 million to $65 million in development support for the Dash-8; $30 million in product liability insurance; $400 million in tax losses carried forward; 50 per cent of future developments costs of de Havilland products, and maybe an additional $110 million in equity injection. De Havilland was to receive $260 million in equity this year; so far it has received only $150 million.

Canadian taxpayers have invested about $800 million in de Havilland. One has to wonder at the fact that they are likely to give as much as another $500 million in various incentives. What do we get for this? We get $90 million in cash and no guarantees. All of the experts tell us that on the order books there is a potential of $1 billion in orders right now.

Where are the guarantees of jobs for Canadian workers? They do not exist. Where are the guarantees to prevent out-sourcing of the work? What guarantee is there that the Dash will stay here and that we will not see it go? We have an order for 12 of the planes next door to the Boeing plant in Washington as it is.

What guarantee do we have that production will stay here and we will not end up with other, auxiliary production in this plant? There is no guarantee that the level of more than 80 per cent Canadian content will continue. Is there any letter to continue this content, to prevent the out-sourcing or to guarantee the jobs for Canadian workers? They are not in the agreement.

We have never made such a lousy deal in the history of this country. It ties together with what is going on. The bottom line of this is the bottom line of the entrance into the whole free trade talks, supported by both of the old parties, unfortunately. It is the kind of dismantling that is going on with the world-class facilities we have at Chalk River.

I read with interest that in the Arrow situation, when we got rid of the company and all the expertise that went with it, we had poured out about $400 million of taxpayers' money. We have doubled the ante now. We will regret even more the sale of this firm to American sources than we did the dismantling of the Arrow operation and the expertise that went with it.

Some of the arguments about privatization do not hold water when one gets into the aircraft industry. How many private companies anywhere in the world are in the purchase of aircraft? There is none. The purchases are by governments around the world. It seems to me that one cannot argue against protecting one's national interest in this industry.

I sometimes get angry in this House and at times I know I can get a little bit shrill, but when are we going to stop giving away our resources, our expertise, our future, as we are doing in this case in particular? When are we going to get some honesty from the other two parties? They are both guilty of the kind of bottom-line privatization we are getting. Even more, when my colleagues next door tell us they are going to move a no-confidence motion on this item, are they moving it against their federal cousins? I sure as blazes have never seen them take a position against moves to deprivatize and get rid of the crown corporation system and setup we have in this country.

It is long past the time that we said to the Canadian people that what we have in this country -- our resources, our industry and our expertise -- is going to be directed to the public good instead of to the corporate good. That is long overdue. If we do not do this, we are not going to have a country left.

I beg of this government to move in and take some action. There have to be more than one or even two, there have to be a dozen private investors who would consider a $65-million price tag in Yankee cash on a firm that not only has the expertise but future potential, with $1 billion of orders on the books. Surely to goodness and mercy, we are not going to give up this asset, which is owned by the Canadian people or at least in which the Canadian people have a very major stake, as far as what we have invested is concerned.

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to join this debate on behalf of my party and to put on the record some of our thoughts about the occurrence with de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., its sale to an American company, the absolute lack of commitment and the absolute inability of the current Ontario government to have any meaningful input into this sale whatsoever or to do anything to protect Ontario jobs.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: How can the member separate that from Mulroney? Mulroney is selling it out.

Mr. Gillies: Perhaps the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) would close his mouth and open his ears for a change.

Mr. Mackenzie: I cannot believe the hypocrisy about protecting jobs.

Mr. Gillies: I hear the member for Hamilton East speak of hypocrisy. I look forward indeed, when my leader moves no confidence in this incompetent government on the issue of de Havilland, to seeing the member for Hamilton East and his colleagues vote for that motion of no confidence; or are they going to vote to prop up their cousins across the way?

The members of the third party are paying dearly now for their posturing in June. I do not think I have ever seen more red faces down the way than I am seeing now. When this House votes on the motion of no confidence that my leader will be moving, there will be a few people eating crow down the road here, and I look forward to it.

This sale shows an absolute inability of the incumbent government to get any sort of handle on industrial issues or job issues in this province. We saw a performance today through 60 minutes of question period of the most embarrassing incompetence we have witnessed in this House for many a month. We saw any number of ministers get up mumbling, showing the incompetent arrogance that is becoming their trademark. But nowhere was that incompetence more evident than in the handling or lack of handling by this government of the de Havilland issue, in the complete inability of this government to get a handle on the industrial sector and the protection of jobs in Ontario.

I would like to know what has happened to the Liberal Party in Ontario since 1982, when no member of this assembly had more to say or expressed more anger about the sale of White Farm Equipment Canada Ltd. in Brantford to an American interest than did the current Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). I would like to quote from something he said in this House in 1982 when, in questioning the then Treasurer of the province, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), about industrial programs and budgetary programs, the current Treasurer said:

"Mr. Speaker, when the Treasurer is considering this array of new programs, will he come up with one that will emphasize not only the Canadian content but also the Canadian ownership of our manufacturing enterprises so that his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade will leave off his consideration to allow the sale of White Farm Equipment in Brantford to American interests? In the long run, that would see the loss of that industry and 1,000 jobs as well as our rights to the manufacture of the axial-flow combine, which was developed by Canadians in Canada."

I would like to know what has happened to the party that is sitting in the government benches now, which felt it was so wrong for a Canadian company and Canadian technology to be sold to the Americans in a company that later was liquidated -- under Canadian ownership, granted, and that is another issue.

What has happened to them since they moved on to the benches of the government? That was so appalling, so negligent and so completely not in the interests of Ontario workers, but suddenly in 1985 what do we see? We have had question after question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) about what input he was able to have, what he was able to do in Ottawa, what offers the Ontario government put on the table.

What were they able to do? They washed their hands of it. The litany of answers has been nothing short of embarrassing: "We do not have the information yet. We are waiting for it to come from Ottawa. We were not really involved in that." "I had one meeting with the other Canadian interests, but my ministry was handling a lot of it," or, "We were working night and day on it."

4 p.m.

At a time when 4,400 Ontario jobs were jeopardized, at a time when a technology and product of which this country and this province can be proud were on the auction block, it is very apparent our green, new Ontario government sat back, absolutely incapable of action or of acting on behalf of the Ontario workers. What a sorry litany. What a sorry day that within so few months of moving on to the government benches, the government is paralysed into inaction on such a fundamental issue.

In recent days, on issues of industry and jobs, we have seen just embarrassment. Government members should be as red as their ties. The other day when we were questioning the commitment of this government to put up loan guarantees, grants or any other mechanism that might have allowed this company to stay in Canadian hands, I heard the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Peterson) say, "We do not want to get into that stuff because commitments made to other industries by the former government, such as Massey-Ferguson, were embarrassing."

I do not mind telling you, Mr. Speaker, they are loving that down in Brantford, that the Premier of this province would say a commitment of loans and guarantees to keep a company at that time employing some 4,000 people in Brant county working, a deal that was successfully put together by the previous federal and provincial governments, and that company continues to operate in my riding --

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is not operating now. It is almost closed down.

Mr. Gillies: The company is still there.

Mr. Harris: Is the minister proud of that?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: No, I am not.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology please stop their interruptions.

Mr. Gillies: They are just loving it in Brantford to hear the Premier of Ontario say a commitment and a deal put together to keep a Canadian company such as Massey-Ferguson operating was embarrassing.

What the heck has happened over there with the government of Ontario? They are just crowing. They are just waiting for the day they can announce Toyota is coming to Ontario. I hope it is. We all hope it is. What the heck is happening over there? What is the mindset that the government would put $30 million up to try to attract 1,800 jobs into Ontario at Toyota? Great, I support it. I am glad it will, but why is there no commitment in this case?

Why would the government not put anything on the table to talk to Rimgate or anybody else to try to protect 4,400 jobs? Why does this government have so little clout and influence in Ottawa that it cannot even get its hands on a copy of the contract to see whether there are going to be job guarantees for these 4,400 people? If there is embarrassment in this House, the members of the governing party should be feeling it. If there is hypocrisy in this House, it is being spouted by the members of the governing party in their complete inability to come to grips with these issues.

In recent weeks, the members of this party and the members of the New Democratic Party have raised the issue of plant closures. We raised the closure of White Farm Equipment. Do the government members remember that one? The Ontario government at that time was not afraid to make a commitment of loans and guarantees to White Farm Equipment. I wonder whether this government would have; I suspect it would not have.

We have heard about layoffs in Chatham at International Harvester, layoffs in my home town of Brantford at Massey-Ferguson, layoffs at Inco, layoffs, layoffs, layoffs, and we have not had one answer or one concrete piece of action from this government to do anything to protect jobs in Ontario. I think it is a pretty sorry spectacle.

There are areas in the government where I will say -- and we are going to be into the Ministry of Labour estimates soon -- there are a few things the government is doing right, and I will give it credit for it. However, in the most fundamental issue to face the nine million people of this province, the question of jobs, security, layoffs and plant closures, there are no answers over there. They do not have a handle on it. De Havilland is the most dramatic example of that, but it is only one example.

The government does not have a handle on it. It does not have an industrial strategy or any of the answers or the kind of guts or commitment it might take to put guarantees on the table, to put grants and loans on the table, to keep Canadian industry Canadian and to attract new industry into our province.

I am not ashamed or embarrassed to be a member of the opposition. Those guys entered into an arrangement in June, and I do not have any problem with that. I will do my job as an opposition member and I will do it with pleasure and pride. However, I have to tell them that if they want to win any respect over here, and if they want to win any respect with the people of Ontario, they have to start doing something about Canadian industry and jobs. They should have started with de Havilland and they were completely incapable of doing the job.

Mr. Cordiano: I rise to speak on this very important issue. It is of fundamental importance to the many people in and around the Metro Toronto region and the surrounding areas who work at de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.

I want to mention something that I think has been misunderstood from the beginning. I do not think this Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is accountable or responsible for the mishandling of the sale of de Havilland by the federal government. There is absolutely no way in which he is responsible for mishandling the sale of that company.

I want to make clear the position of this government and what it has done to ensure the jobs at that company are maintained and to maintain security for those workers over a longer period of time. I want to point out some of the actions we took.

Before I do that, I want to mention what the last government did and the actions it took with regard to de Havilland. Going back to 1981, de Havilland explored the possibility of provincial assistance in the areas of direct financial aid for a number of capital projects such as the five-axis numerically controlled milling machine with associated computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing hardware and software. What did the Conservative government do? Nothing. Again, de Havilland requested direct financial assistance in new aircraft development. What did that government do? Absolutely nothing.

Mr. Davis: The Liberals have done nothing.

Mr. Cordiano: I am just going through it for the record to show what the former government did. I have some more goodies.

The Conservative government was asked to give some concessional financing assistance to aid sales in the domestic market to meet offshore competition from Brazil and other countries. What did that government do? Nothing. That is the record of the former government's performance in its consideration for de Havilland. That is the concern that government had during the last four years before we took office.

I want to point out the concerns and the position we took with regard to the de Havilland sale and before it was sold -- the position we forwarded to the federal government.

The federal government has indicated that the decision will maximize jobs and job security for de Havilland employees and will ensure maintenance of the ongoing viability of the firm. I am very disappointed in the sale. I am speaking as an individual member. I do not think it was sold for the value it is worth. As I expressed it earlier, I think the federal government mishandled the entire sale and I am deeply concerned about it.

Let me go into some of the things we expressed as a government and some of the things I was privy to during this whole period of time.

We were concerned about the loss of Canadian ownership. We were concerned about the final selling price. We expressed that concern. The federal government has poured quite a number of tax dollars into the firm, something like $240 million in 1984 alone. I am not convinced this is the best return for the taxpayers' dollars.

4:10 p.m.

On August 16, 1985, the provincial government outlined four major factors that it considered to be of paramount importance with regard to the possible sale of de Havilland. They included the preservation or expansion of employment levels at the Downsview plant; second, the preservation or expansion of the existing engineering, design, and research and development staff and operations, which are essential to the long-term development of the Canadian aerospace industry; third, maintenance of an integrated airframe manufacturing and assembly operation, which provides superior benefits to a parts production facility; and, last, the benefits of retaining a Canadian interest in the company, preferably Canadian control.

In the interim, the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology continued on numerous occasions to present Ontario's concerns to the federal government. These have been outlined by the minister today. The Premier and the minister made personal presentations to the Prime Minister and the federal minister responsible.

When the province became concerned that the Canadian-owned firms were not being given a complete hearing in Ottawa, we lobbied aggressively for their bids to be reviewed fairly. Furthermore, the provincial government requested the opportunity to review the Boeing proposal and to provide comments and recommendations from the provincial perspective.

The federal government has now made its decision, and as I said earlier, we are concerned that no firm job guarantees have been secured. We are also concerned about the apparent lack of a coherent federal high-technology strategy in the key aerospace sector. That is something the federal government does not seem to be concerned about or willing to move on. The sale does not appear to be part of a co-ordinated approach to developing our high-technology industries.

We also are concerned that this important Canadian company was sold at a value that does not fully reflect its importance to our economy. I am not convinced, and I know most of the members on this side of the House are not convinced, that this deal represents the best return for Canadian taxpayers' dollars, and I would repeat that because it very important.

It is very pertinent to the argument to note that the federal government had sole access to the financial and commercial information related to the proposals put forward, because from that came the final decision which rested with the federal government. Frankly, they had 100 per cent ownership in the company and decided to sell it.

The federal government indicated this agreement provided the best opportunity to maximize present and future employment levels at de Havilland, but that remains to be seen. However, the government of Ontario, and I know my colleagues will agree with me on this, will certainly monitor the situation to make sure progress is made and job security is maintained.

It was a bad deal. De Havilland was sold for far less than its true value reflected in the deal. However, I just wanted to express the thought that this minister did not act in an improper manner. He was treated unfairly in this House today because, as he has documented on a number of occasions, we have expressed our deep concern about the sale of de Havilland and we presented our case to the federal government.

That was reiterated time and again. On numerous occasions we met with the individuals who were concerned about the deal and we presented an absolutely valid case to the federal government. We obtained a hearing for some of the other companies interested in the sale and I believe the minister acted in the best interests of this province. Perhaps the federal government had its eye on Boeing from the beginning and was prepared to consider only Boeing -- we did not know about that -- but notwithstanding the fact that Boeing was chosen, those companies were prepared to go ahead and we made sure they were given an opportunity to present their case. Frankly, I would like to say that I think the minister has done a great job, a good effort.

Mr. Philip: As a member of the provincial parliament representing a riding where many of the de Havilland workers live, I am incensed at the obvious sellout of the jobs of the people living in my riding. As a Canadian, I am incensed that the only fully integrated aircraft and aerospace company in Canada is going to be sold to foreign interests at a time when the Canadian aerospace industry is already 50 per cent foreign-owned.

As a taxpayer, I am incensed at the complete and utter giveaway of tax dollars to this foreign-based company: $40 million in export financial support; $60 million to $65 million in development support for the Dash-8; $30 million in product liability insurance; $400 million in tax losses carried forward; 50 per cent future development costs of de Havilland products, and maybe an additional $110 million in equity injection. The taxpayers of Ontario are losing on this deal. What do we get in return for all this money that is being given away? We get $90 million in cash with no guarantees.

The costs to the taxpayers which I just listed, are the tip of the iceberg. The real major costs in the future will be the costs of rebuilding the aerospace industry once it is gone. No aerospace industry exists in any democratic country in the western world without some kind of government assistance. We, as Canadians, are going to be faced with rebuilding that industry as a result of the federal government's actions. We will be rebuilding it at a considerable cost, more than it cost to build in the first place.

Every time the Conservatives get into office federally, they try to cripple the Canadian aerospace industry. In 1979, we saw Sinclair Stevens announce his intention to sell off de Havilland. Fortunately he was not in office long enough to get away with it. Under Diefenbaker, the Tories successfully killed the aerospace industry in this country and we paid to rebuild it. Last fall, when Stevens made his plans public about selling de Havilland, we asked the Tories here in Ontario what they were prepared to do. They said, "Absolutely nothing."

I know, in a very personal way, the ups and downs of the aircraft industry. I know both the financial and the emotional pressures that my father and his co-workers faced some 20 years ago when the Conservatives last destroyed the aerospace industry. I know what it was like around the dinner table as we talked about the fact that maybe we would have to become Americans so my father could carry on his trade.

When I met with the workers from de Havilland, as we demonstrated and talked in front of the Conservative Party headquarters in downtown Toronto, I saw that same concern and those same problems. Those same discussions will be held at the tables of the people who are faced with the same problem in my constituency. I know the anguish that we faced as a family and I saw that same anguish on their faces today.

This deal does nothing for the employees of de Havilland. There are no guarantees pertaining to jobs of Canadian workers, to prevent outsourcing of their work or to continue the 80-plus Canadian content.

When the employees requested a meeting with the president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to discuss the de Havilland sale more than three months ago, no meeting was granted to them. When they requested, by telephone, a meeting with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and when finally Bob White sent him a telegram, they still received no meeting, not even the courtesy of a return call. The arrogance of the federal Tory government knows no limits.

4:20 p.m.

Similarly, the provincial government has failed to show any leadership. Anyone who knows the rigid ideological position of Sinclair Stevens and the Conservative Party could have realized he was not just posturing when he announced he was going to sell off de Havilland. Yet when we asked the Liberals today what they had done in the interval, we found absolutely no sign of any kind of leadership on their part to tell the federal government exactly what they would do or what the provincial Liberal government position would be on that issue. Instead, we have this last-minute pleading of conscience that they want the federal government to do something. Where were they all the time when they knew perfectly well that the federal Conservatives, under Sinclair's leadership, would govern not by common sense or by business sense but by the narrow ideology that is facing us today and that faces the workers at de Havilland?

The company's assurance to honour the collective agreement is simply a reiteration of the Labour Relations Act, at least until June 1987. Can anyone believe that in the interim or on a long-term basis, with Mulroney's commitment to free trade, the 3,400 jobs at de Havilland are somehow secured? If Mulroney wants us into free trade with the United States, what motivation would there be for the leadership of Boeing not to consolidate operations and therefore to maximize its profits?

On November 2, 1984, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, then the Treasurer and now the leader of the provincial Conservative Party, failed miserably when we New Democrats asked him what he would do to save de Havilland. He failed miserably to respond; he had no answers. To find out the position of the Premier at the time, we have only to read the headline, "Miller Backs Fed Bailout." The story under that headline goes on to say how the then Premier clearly backed the Conservative government in Ottawa in its sellout of the jobs and of a major industry in this province.

The Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have allowed themselves to be completely outmanipulated by people whose very actions we could have predicted and even the newspapers were predicting. They sat back and did little or nothing. Motivated by a blind, rigid ideology, as rigid as that of the former Premier, who similarly wanted to do nothing or even wanted to help the federal Conservatives sell it off, the Premier and the Treasurer of the present Liberal government in Ontario were as incapable of moving on pragmatic grounds to save the jobs at de Havilland as the former Premier and Treasurer were incapable of moving for ideological reasons.

We understand a memorandum of understanding has been signed. It is very difficult to find out exactly what has been signed since the Premier cannot seem to get the information out of the federal government. We in the New Democratic Party call on the Premier to show some leadership and to present some concrete proposals and alternatives. We call on him to stand up to the Prime Minister of Canada and say, "The contract has not yet been signed; do not sign it."

I plead with the Conservatives in this House to stop playing politics with the lives of my constituents and of the people in de Havilland and instead to tell their federal leader that he has made a mistake and that, just as he was capable of doing a flip-flop on behalf of the seniors in Canada, he is capable of doing a flip-flop on this issue. He is capable of refusing to sign that contract.

If the members to my right want to do something constructive, they will not play games with silly no-confidence motions on a problem that was created by their federal counterparts. They will go to their Prime Minister and say: "Mulroney, you are wrong on this issue just as you were on the pension issue. Cut it out, stop it, while we still have a chance."

I plead with the Premier to show some leadership. I also plead with the Conservatives in this House to stop posturing and to do something constructive.

Interjection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In this debate the government comes last in the order. It is a reverse rotation.

Mr. Cousens: I was hoping the minister was going to stay for a moment because I wanted to compliment him on being a nice person. I have always considered the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) an honourable gentleman. I am sorry he has caught himself in this very difficult dilemma and is the object of such heavy criticism from the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and the members of the third party, as well as from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and all members of this House who are thinking about what is happening, including the leader of our party.

Mr. Breaugh: The member almost forgot him.

Mr. Cousens: The leader of our party puts everybody else first.

May I come back to the important subject before us? I am very concerned about what has happened. I have always been proud to be a Canadian. I believe we have an environment for business to survive and to thrive in. A very important role of government in that process is to make it happen, to let there be that environment for business to interact correctly with government.

It is a good decision by our federal government to say goodbye to de Havilland, only in the sense that it is allowing that crown corporation to be bought off and to be developed and worked with.

Mr. Mancini: That is not the position of the member's leader.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Essex South should control his lips. He cannot work with his brain, so he works with his lips.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: What a lot of class.

Mr. Cousens: It takes one to bring it out in me.

I believe the government of Canada in its wisdom, and truly it has some wisdom in saying it wants to dispense with a crown corporation, is doing the right thing, but it is not doing the right thing without considering the needs of the people of Ontario.

Ontario has an opportunity here to build further on a Canadian industry, to allow that industry to represent something our whole country can be proud of. Within this area we have the manufacturing sector; within this area we have the people to build and produce products that can serve not only Canada but also the whole world. The de Havilland company with its products, the Dash-7 and now the Dash-8, had the potential of becoming one of those great Canadian corporations.

I do not like to draw out all the parallels that exist with Sweden, but there are some. That country of eight million to 10 million people has been able to produce its own supersonic jets, which is quite an amazing thing. A country that has two thriving automobile manufacturers and its own armament manufacturers --

Mr. Rae: It is amazing what a good Social Democratic government can do.

Mr. Cousens: There is something in it. I would like to bring out the ingredients of that Social Democratic government that pertain to our government and to our jurisdiction, but not all of them.

The Conservatives maintain a social conscience balanced with a conscience to see business thrive and survive. This sellout of de Havilland to Boeing undermines very much of what is a thriving Canadian industry that is about to expand and build even more for the potential of our province.

Some people are looking at only one or two aspects of the issue, which has many more dimensions to it, having to do with the way in which the government has dealt with this. They have not been informed and they have not been working with their federal counterparts.

It came up in the House today that the minister himself has had only two discussions with staff in Ottawa about this matter, and those were back in August. He has not been working in the best interests of this province. Maybe he should take only a day's pay for the length of time he has been holding down that job, because there are an awful lot of other things he could have been doing to stay on top of this.

He could have taken trips to Ottawa. He could have been in touch with Mr. Boggs, the president of de Havilland. He could have been talking to Brian Mulroney. He could have been talking to Sinclair Stevens. He could have had many staff involved in this, working with Canadian counterparts who possibly could take over this corporation.

4:30 p.m.

I am concerned that we are saying goodbye, not only to a corporation that has Canadian roots but also to the jobs of the 6,500 or so people who are employed there and who are part of our Canadian environment. We are saying goodbye to technology that is the very basis of our country's future.

We have intelligence, which we have to apply to our manufacturing sector. In de Havilland, we have an example of how this could be done; but now we are seeing it disappear into the bowels of a large American corporation just when it was ready to expand on its own merit.

Newspapers tell a beautiful story of how de Havilland has been reversing itself; it has been coming along with great sales. Now those sales do not mean a thing. We as Canadians must be concerned; we want to see something happen.

I am concerned that we are saying goodbye to another corporation. Which one will be next? We, as Canadians, have to work together. Our counterparts in Ottawa surely want to do this, but we must do it in a responsible and intelligent way by letting them know the concerns of Ontario and by sitting down to negotiate with them. That kind of dialogue can take place when politics really works, as it did until recently, but obviously this government does not know how to do that.

For once, it would seem that on this side of the House, we and the third party are in agreement on what has happened. The third party might go even further than we do, but we are concerned at the failure of the government to interpret the situation correctly and to respond in a way that would protect the rights and needs of the people of Ontario.

Where do we go from here? Do we sit back and take it quietly? I do not think we can. This could be the tip of an iceberg of further inroads that are going to be made by American companies, which are good corporate citizens and which make a great contribution, but not when we have a thriving Canadian corporation. That is the difference.

I would not want for a moment to be construed as anti-American. When one looks at the corporations in this country that are American-owned, one sees they have Canadians running them and they are doing a worthwhile and beneficial job. They are good corporate citizens. However, what I see here is an industry that could be uniquely Canadian, one that developed an airplane that can take off and land in short distances, which is why the province just bought two more models. Those are the reasons we should keep it here.

There should be guarantees that there is going to be continuing investment in research and development and in giving our own people who graduate from universities of great renown a place to go. Who knows what will happen three, five or eight years from now? I would rather see a continuation of this company with Canadian roots than see it disappear totally, which could happen.

As we stand here today and take part in this very serious debate, I see an injustice being done to the small people of Ontario. I see a failure on the part of our own minister and that of the government of this province in not having been able to respond in an intelligent and meaningful way so that we were able to retain the control and the rights to the technology as well as the people and future of this great company.

I worry greatly about what is going to happen next. Where else will there be failure? To me, what we see today is the beginning of the end. How else will the government contribute to that end? I hope it can be a lesson, but who knows whether we can learn from it; it is such a serious lesson for the province.

There is still time for our minister to become involved. There is still time for the government of Canada to look at this again. Maybe the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in his wisdom could get back to Ottawa to see if there is any way of reversing this process, or of getting guarantees to protect the Canadians who are involved in this industry and all the support companies that are related to de Havilland.

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to participate in this emergency debate. I think it is an excellent opportunity for members from all sides of the House to speak to this very important issue, which involves 4,400 jobs at present and which may involve the future of the industry at de Havilland and at other places, as we now know it, in this great province.

I sat most of the afternoon and listened to the comments made by the Progressive Conservative members of this assembly. After having listened to them for most of the afternoon, I have concluded that they have completely severed their ties with the Progressive Conservative government in Ottawa.

They have stated over and over again today that what the government of Canada and their national leader have done is wrong. They have stated over and over again today that what the government of Canada and their national leader have done is nothing short of giving away a huge portion of the aerospace industry for peanuts, $155 million, the cost of one jumbo jet without spare parts. Their national leader has done this.

We have tried to work with their national leader. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has tried to work with Sinclair Stevens. His deputy minister and senior officials have tried to work with the officials in Ottawa.

The Premier sent a very lengthy letter to the Prime Minister of Canada some time ago. He stated in the letter four prerequisites for the sale of de Havilland. He preferred that the sale take place to a company that was wholly, or at least partially, Canadian-owned. He preferred that the sale guarantee the jobs of the people at de Havilland. He preferred that the research and development that has taken place at de Havilland continue, and he preferred that the technology we have put in place here in Canada not be shipped south of the border.

The Premier has stated very clearly what he wanted done with de Havilland. It is unfortunate that the government of Canada chose not to listen. It is unfortunate that the minister in Ottawa, Sinclair Stevens, chose not to listen to our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

I want to refer back to some of the promises made by Mr. Mulroney. Over and over again, he talked about co-operation, consultation, making sure that when major decisions were made, the people affected would be consulted --

Mr. Ferraro: A sacred trust.

Mr. Mancini: A sacred trust. Those were the words that he used. We asked personally, we asked over the phone and we asked by mail that we be consulted and asked our opinion and that we be part of the process on the matter of de Havilland. We got the back of the hand from Brian Mulroney. He did not necessarily give the Liberals the back of his hand; he gave all of us the back of his hand. He gave nine million people in this province the back of his hand -- arrogance beyond belief.

We have said, over and over again, that we wish to co-operate with the government. The minister mentioned his involvement with the firm Rimgate. I read an article in today's paper quoting a senior official from Rimgate. He stated -- I will try to paraphrase what he said -- that initially the people in Ottawa treated them with some tolerance; later on down the line they treated them as if they were an irritant.

4:40 p.m.

That is how they treated the major firm that was in place trying to put together a team to take over de Havilland, and that team was probably going to be majority Canadian-owned. The government of Canada treated them as an irritant. Those are the facts.

We cannot run the national government of Canada for the Progressive Conservative government in place now. We cannot extract from them information which they choose not to share with the people of this province. We have no other means --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Please address the chair.

Mr. Mancini: But, Mr. Speaker, those people are so much better-looking than you are.

I want to tell the members of the House that we have tried to persuade the government of Canada to work with us, and that in fact it was in the interests of the people of this province that they share the information with us and work with us. I am told there are approximately 70 Conservative federal MPs representing Ontario in Ottawa, and I have come to the conclusion the only way to get Mr. Mulroney's attention is to defeat Conservative MPs.

I have been told today there has been a motion of no confidence placed by the Conservative Party, the official opposition, hoping of course that an election would be called immediately; hoping for its own devastation, I guess; hoping that we could immediately go out on the hustings to debate this issue. Do those people want to have an election on what the government of Canada is doing? Do they now want to have a referendum on how popular Mr. Mulroney is?

I would love to join them. I would love to go to the hustings tomorrow and explain to the people in my constituency and have my colleagues do the same in their constituencies as to the co-operation we receive from the government of Canada. A Tory is a Tory is a Tory.

Interjection.

Mr. Mancini: The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) said something about Avro. We could win 125 seats just by walking around and saying, "Avro."

Mr. Ashe: You are hearing things.

Mr. Mancini: Every time those people have had a chance to imprint national policy on this nation, they have tried to sell our major industries. I want to tell members the kind of experience I had with the former government. When I had problems in my constituency over firms closing, over assistance needed, I got the same back of the hand we are now getting from the government of Canada.

I personally went out and sought investors for a firm, a very important firm that was in bankruptcy in my constituency. Could I get any help from them, after sending a letter to the former Minister of Industry and Trade saying, "Help me out. I am going out on my own but I need your help"? Nothing; not a whisper.

Did we have any assistance from these people? The hypocrisy we have seen today --

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if the member would make it clear which ministry he is talking about, since I was the former Minister of Industry and Trade and I never received a letter from this member with respect to any assistance he may have required. If it is another minister, then I cannot speak for him. I wish he would be a little more specific. He is drowning us in generalities. Let him speak specifically to the bill, and let me know if I was the minister.

Mr. Mancini: First, we are not debating a bill. Second --

Mr. Brandt: I know what we are debating.

Mr. Mancini: That is very important in the Legislature. One should know whether one is debating a bill or not. Second, no, he was not the minister. Certainly, he is off the hook on this one, but his role in the Environment ministry puts him on the hook for other things.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Mancini: Since I was interrupted as I was finishing, I want to say in conclusion that we tried to co-operate with the government of Canada. It refused to co-operate with us and the people will judge for themselves.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Your time is up.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to speak in this important emergency debate. An important issue faces the province of Ontario and the government of Canada, and it is this: Who is to represent the workers of this province? By selling de Havilland to the Boeing Co. Inc., the federal government has again shown its abandonment of the concerns of Canadian workers.

Generally, this reflects an attitude of subservience by the federal government to American interests. It is reflected in its attitude to the free trade debate, in its economic policy and in its lack of any ideas about what Canada can do to have an industrial strategy and to do something about the economy of this province. We have a government run by a Prime Minister whose experience is as president of a subsidiary of an American corporation. I think that branch-plant mentality is reflected in the action that has been taken on this issue and in the action that apparently is in process on the issue of free trade and Canada's economic future.

In this sale, we see some 4,400 jobs in Ontario put at risk through arbitrary decisions by corporate ownership in the United States. We are giving up control of this operation, not only in the sense of its being under the control of the public through our government, but more important, through giving up control by letting this interest go into foreign hands. There should at least have been guarantees that in the sale of public corporations they would remain Canadian-owned. I would hope that any government in this country would make it a high priority to ensure that it did not divest itself of any operating concern in favour of ownership outside this country.

I hope the Liberals will take action on the similar issues they are facing that they have already indicated they are looking at, such as the selling of Suncor and the Can-Car operation. Those operations, which are fully the responsibility of the provincial government, apparently are on the block. I find it the height of hypocrisy for them to express concern about the de Havilland situation when they are contemplating selling off operations, particularly if it turns out that those operations are to be sold to American interests. I encourage them to insist that those operations remain in Canadian hands and that otherwise no sale of those operations will go forward.

As well, I find a sense of hypocrisy when my colleagues to the right in the provincial Conservative Party argue from a point of view that is diametrically opposite to the actions of their federal counterparts on this important Canadian issue. I do not see how they can possibly claim to represent the interests of Ontario when one sees the federal government selling out not only the interests of Ontario but also the interests of the whole country.

4:50 p.m.

Where are the job guarantees in this arrangement? I would have thought our provincial government would have been more involved in the negotiations and certainly insisted that it be able to act in conjunction with Canadian interests in developing a proposal that would reflect Canadian ownership of this operation in the future. I think the provincial government had a role to play in which it has been negligent and that it could have participated more actively.

I would also like to express concern about where both this provincial government and the federal government are going in the free trade debate. There are workers in this province whose jobs are at risk because of the potential that many operations will be sold from Canadian interests to American interests. We have a serious risk here of a branch-plant economy, and this risk is being compounded in the aerospace industry with another industry moving towards becoming an element of this branch-plant economy. That whole element of our economy is severely at risk under the proposed free trade negotiations.

A recent study done by a professor from the Illinois Institute of Technology and just recently released by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology indicates quite clearly that one of the most severe risks that Canada faces is a loss of those branch plants. Those branch plants are dependent on control and on decisions being made in the United States. Those plants generally are smaller than their American counterparts; they are not as efficient.

In the case of a downturn, the Americans are going to be much more inclined to shut down the Canadian branch plants and consolidate all their operations in the American plants. In fact, in many of the major industries that are dominated by branch plants in Canada there is sufficient excess capacity right now that they could take the complete operation into their excess capacity in the United States and shut down the Canadian branch plants immediately.

I would certainly be concerned that this is precisely what could happen with Boeing. Boeing has an American operation that dwarfs the de Havilland operation in Canada, and over a period of time, Boeing would certainly have the opportunity to divert that production back to the United States and phase out the Canadian plants, which now at least are controlled by Canadian interests.

I would also be concerned about the wealth of talent in an operation like de Havilland in its engineering, research and design staff, who are the ones who really generate the value of that corporation in the unique aircraft, the Dash-8 particularly, that de Havilland has developed. It makes sense for Boeing to look at that expertise and to want to consolidate it with its current expertise in the United States. Again, we could see a situation in which our most talented people would be taken away from Canada and Canada moves closer and closer to the long-stated conundrum facing us, that we are to be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the American industrial empire.

I am concerned about the federal government's action on the de Havilland situation. Ontario should have done something to counter that, to support a Canadian-backed proposal to ensure that de Havilland remained a Canadian interest.

Mr. Ashe: It is a privilege to speak on this very important topic this afternoon. I am sure the minister has heard it before, through you, Mr. Speaker, but it is relevant to put it on the record again, maybe even in a different perspective, looking at the background of this issue.

We always look at today, because today is very current and yesterday seems some time ago. When we look at the relatively recent history of the de Havilland operation in Downsview, however, and look back a number of years to when the company was just about ready to go out of business, the governments of the day, particularly the federal Liberal government of the day -- and I give it credit for that -- looked at the total situation in the context of Canadian technology, looked at the total issue --

Mr. Haggerty: Look back to when Diefenbaker went in and slaughtered the aerospace program in Canada, when 13,500 men lost their jobs. The government is going to do the same thing here.

Mr. Ashe: What is the member yacking about down there to himself? He must feel funny talking to himself. Why does he not look in the mirror? It is more appropriate.

The governments looked at the issue with respect to Canadian technology. They looked at the issue of Canadian jobs -- in our case, Ontario jobs -- and said: "This is a company worth saving. This is a company in which all Canadian taxpayers should participate in its future." We all know the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to keep de Havilland in Downsview operating through the down years, through the lean years, through the years when the comeback started. That is very important to the principle of what is there.

There is no doubt that the company could have closed down. There is probably not even any great disagreement, regardless of what quarters one talks to, that it was a commodity that was not even saleable. Although many of us like to see things privatized -- that is my own view and I am sure this goes for the other side of the House as well with respect to philosophical thinking -- there are times when a product is not marketable. In other words, one cannot even give it away.

Nobody wants to buy it. People say, "Hey, do you think we are crazy, that we are willing to pick up a dog's breakfast that we will have to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into?" That could not have happened a number of years ago, regardless of the philosophical situation of the time and the government of the day -- whether it was the provincial government or, more important, the federal government which, during that period, as I mentioned before, was predominantly a federal Liberal administration.

What started to turn things around? Obviously, all the money kept it going, because if one does not keep it going it is academic what one does for the future, but there was also the technology which was coming off the drawing boards, particularly while the Dash-8 was being developed, for something that was going to fly in the air. The saleability of it was being proven and the jobs were there to put it on the ground.

Who made the commitment when they practically could not give a plane away at any reasonable cost anywhere in the world because of the downturn in the economy? Commuter airlines were mothballing aircraft or keeping old vintage aircraft in place. They were not buying so de Havilland was not able to market any Dash-8s. Who stepped to the forefront?

The previous provincial Tory administration made a commitment at the time that was crucial in the history of that corporation by saying: "Hey, we will buy the first two. We need them in northern Ontario. It looks like the kind of aircraft and the kind of technology that would stand us in good stead and you need the business right now, so we will go ahead and make the commitment."

It was not the present government, but the previous government which did that. To this day, many of the senior people within de Havilland acknowledge how important that was to the future of the Dash-8 program and to their continuing survival. One can keep making something, but if one cannot sell it, it is not worth much.

5 p.m.

We know now with the investment that was made of federal taxpayers' dollars and this government's commitment to take early delivery of aircraft, that has caught on. It carried them through the downturn in the world economy. Now the Dash-8 is recognized for what it is: first-class Canadian technology for the short takeoff and landing of commuter-type aircraft throughout the world. Sales are abundant, but the dollars of the taxpayers of Canada and the commitment made by this government were the two factors that made it happen. In effect, we had a chance to make it happen.

There was also a time, and I think everybody would agree it was put very clearly on the record by the current administration in Ottawa, when it was going to look at all the crown agencies and corporations Canadian taxpayers had acquired over the years through the policies of others. It was time to think about privatizing some of them.

As I mentioned before, it could not have been sold a number of years ago. I do not care which party formed the administration, so I am not throwing anything back on the federal Liberal administration. But now was the time. The product had been built up and the moneys still indicated it was going to gobble up more taxpayers' dollars over the next couple of years. It was projected that another $200 million would be needed in the coming year alone. They said, "Now is the time to turn it over to the private sector."

I think that was a good decision. I know not everybody agrees. I presume not even all my colleagues agree. But weighing all the facts, this was the time and privatization was the right route. Having said that, what has happened with the administration opposite in the last number of months, and particularly with the minister who -- I concur with the accolades given before -- is one of the nicest gentlemen in this House, is that, unfortunately, neither he nor the Premier has a grasp of the economic situation of this province. They do not know what it is like.

They talk about flexing their muscles, but they do not know how to flex their muscles. They showed it very clearly and definitively on the issue of de Havilland. If they had had any input, if they had had any strength at the table, on the telephone, by letter or in person, there is no doubt the Premier and the minister would have had regular dialogue, correspondence and face-to-face meetings with their counterparts in Ottawa, to make sure that any sale -- I am even presuming they might support the sale, although they may not like where it has gone.

It is debatable whether there were any viable options available. We had indications there were hundreds of companies interested, but whether they were hundreds of viable companies or only three, as the minister stated earlier today, I do not know. It was very important that the government of Ontario, particularly through the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, made sure there were job guarantees included in any sale, regardless of to where, to what firm and of what origin, especially when it is a large, world-recognized firm domiciled offshore.

As I understand it, there are none. Some patent rights are protected. Some royalty rights will possibly give ongoing revenue to Canadian taxpayers. That is great, but what is it going to guarantee in Ontario? Are there guarantees of research and development carrying on at Downsview? Are there job guarantees? Are there sourcing guarantees? Is there a guarantee that Canadian technology will remain fully Canadian and will reap the benefits? I am afraid the current sale does not include all those.

I abhor the lack of input, the lack of tenacity and the lack of diligence of the Premier and the current minister in making sure that something so important to Ontarians and to labour and the jobs in Ontario was protected. In other words, they may have been there when the door was open, but they stood back until the door was closed.

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure to rise and speak with respect to this very important issue. It is an important debate. I must say the comments I have heard today from members of the opposition are somewhat appalling.

I was brought up near de Havilland and lived there for 10 or 12 years. I know what that firm meant to the people in that area. I know it ought not to be lost. What we are talking about today is people. We are not talking about politics. Let us talk about what de Havilland is. Let us talk about what a great company it could be.

Since the Second World War, de Havilland has designed, built and delivered more than 4,000 aircraft worldwide. From 1945 to the late 1960s, de Havilland specialized in military and bush aircraft -- single-engine Chipmunk, Beaver and Otter aircraft, and twin-engine Caribou and Buffalo aircraft.

Let us not forget that since 1968, the company has shifted to small commercial and commuter airline needs, producing 19-passenger Twin-Otter, 36-passenger Dash-8 and 50-passenger Dash-7 aircraft. Let us also not forget that de Havilland currently produces the Buffalo, a transport cargo airplane; the Twin-Otter; the Dash-7, and the Dash-8.

It is true, and it ought not to be forgotten, that de Havilland is recovering from a disastrous three-year period in 1982 to 1984, but the company's total sales in 1985 are on the upswing. Let us not forget that the problems de Havilland suffered in the early 1980s are a lot of the same problems that many businesses throughout this country suffered. Today, because of that, de Havilland has been sold.

This is a tragedy on two counts. It is a tragedy first of all because of the arrogance of the federal Tory party in not informing this province, which is most affected, and in continuing to refuse to inform this province.

This matter certainly does transcend politics, because people are involved in this issue. I was raised in the area around de Havilland. I went to school with children whose parents worked at de Havilland and whose parents are worried about what the future has in store for them.

The federal Tory party has ignored not only the people who are directly involved in de Havilland but also the people of this province and this country. What is next? What is on their minds in Ottawa now? Which other company is on the block to be sold out? Is this the Mulroney Merry Christmas for those people who are now at de Havilland?

5:10 p.m.

It is also a tragedy because this arrogance is characteristic of the Tory family. Where is the responsibility of the Conservative members in opposition here? Where is their responsibility to the people of this province? Why must they continue to be political on a matter where people are involved? Why can they not be straight with the people of this province? Why can they not say that this is indeed a federal matter?

Why can they not say that there are indeed divisions within this great country of ours, as enunciated in the British North America Act, divisions that must be respected? These divisions allow for the proper growth of this country. They are divisions in which we understand and respect that there are federal matters, provincial matters and municipal matters.

Provincially the only disservice that has been rendered is that by the opposition Tory members, because they have refused to tell it truly as it is. They have refused to be straight with the people of this province. They have not stated that the actions of the federal government have damaged this country.

This sellout, this arrogance may have made this country a little less than it was, as has the action of the Conservatives in opposition in this Legislature in not having the political courage, the political wherewithal to say to their cousins in Ottawa, "You are wrong."

I have heard today the platitudes stated by those Tory members on how important this matter is, how important this issue is. Yet hardly any are left in this Legislature at this time. They have spoken for their 10 minutes and they have left. They have done the politically proper thing, but they have not heard what other members have had to say. Politically they have done the astute thing, but they have ignored the people of this province. They have not learned a lesson.

The people of this province understand. They are not concerned with political partisanship. It is not what they want; it is not what they need. What the people need is political honesty. The people of this province from the east, the west, the north and the south understand that the political and the critical triple-A rating that has been brought forward is the triple-A rating of this government's ability, accessibility and legislation for all the people. The members over there lost that triple-A rating many years ago.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The previous speaker, the member for Mississauga North, commented in a very derogatory way on the number of members in the Legislature who are interested in hearing his comments.

It should be on the record that there are far more members of the opposition in this Legislature listening to his remarks than there are of the government. I count nine out of 48 members who bothered even to listen to their own member for Mississauga North. That is how many are interested in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for your point of view.

Mr. Ramsay: I, too, take exception to some of the words the member for Mississauga North spoke. Judging by his prepared text, he probably was not really listening to some of what we have been hearing from the opposition parties. There seems to be a bit of repentance on the other side and I am pleased to hear it.

The member for York Centre, who spoke previously, had some sort of conversion on the road to Göteborg, Sweden. He brought up Sweden as a prime example of a country that has developed its own technology. There are closet social democrats over here, which is a great surprise to me. I marvel at it; I think it is wonderful.

What I think we are seeing now is that this was a very clever trick by our party to smoke these people out. We see there are sympathizers on all sides of this House.

Mr. Ferraro: Ghostbusters.

Mr. Ramsay: That is what it is. That is right.

We think what is happening here is a travesty. Part of the reason is what the member for York Centre alluded to when he used the country of Sweden as an example of a country that has a technology base and an industrial base. Why is that? Because they have had economic planning. They have fabricated and formulated an industrial strategy, something that this country and province have never done. It is the reason we are in the mess we are in today. We have to start looking at that.

I am very pleased to see some of the members of the opposition taking Sweden as an example of what one can do in this day and age of high technology. A small country can compete with some of the bigger powers and have its own industrial base, its own R and D. That is an example we should be looking at, and I commend the member for York Centre for talking about this and using it as an example.

I say to my honourable friend the member for Mississauga North across the way that we are seeing a bit of repentance here. Some of them have seen the error of their ways and maybe we can get them to come along on this. We are seeing history repeat itself here, possibly with the Avro Arrow, and we are seeing the continuation of the destruction of the aerospace industry in this country.

I would like to talk about something a little more on the emotional side of this issue, which I have not heard discussed in this House. Being a northerner, the words "de Havilland" evoke many images of this country. Names such as the Twin-Otter plane and the Beaver plane that de Havilland built over the years have built this country and opened up the north. Not only that, but these planes are sold around the world and "de Havilland" means Canada to many countries. I have always been proud as a northerner and as a Canadian of what this company means.

The travesty of what is going on here is that this company is no longer going to be Canadian. That really bothers me and I think we have to do something to try to stop that. Part of our heritage is going away here, and that is wrong. We are seeing it even in the modern planes now, with the Dash-7 and Dash-8 commuter aircraft being sold to American shuttle companies. At O'Hare Airport, some of the smaller commuter lines use the Dash-7, as we do here in Ontario.

It seems we are being counterproductive. We chose to enhance the short takeoff and landing technology that Canada developed. We said we would establish a STOLport on the Island Airport as a showcase for this technology at which Canada was number one and was innovative. Now what are we doing? We are giving it all away. We are selling out the store. That is wrong. We have got to be more cognizant of the things we do well in this country and support them, and not only support things we do not do well.

We have to plan that way. We have to give our support to the industries where we do well and promote them in the world market. That could be the base of our industrial strategy and it would keep the R and D here. We are good at some of the modern industries. We do not have to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water all the time. We are at the forefront of many of the modern industries of today, whether it be aerospace or telecommunications. These are the things we should be cherishing and developing, because they are the industries of the future.

We have the brains in this country to do it. We have shown we are the world leaders. Yet when we start to have something and we think it is a little costly, we do not have the guts to stand beside it, to back it up and say: "This is the future. We are going to work with it and we are going to be world leaders." Instead, because we have no strategy and we have no plan, we get chicken and we sell it off.

What are we left with? It is back to the bush and back to the mines again for us as Canadians. That is why I am down here trying to stop this. We have to get our country developed into industrial jobs that are important to the world. That means high-level jobs that are going to be important to our workers and families, so we can build an economy. We are not going to build by always being a colonial state to other countries.

5:20 p.m.

If Japan had decided in the mid-1950s it would always produce trinkets, where would it be today? The Japanese decided that was not the way it was going to be. They decided they had an industrial strategy and they would work on it. Look where they are today. They established that determination, which we have not done as Canadians. We do not know where we are going in this country, and that is a travesty we are going to have to start to address.

I wonder if what we are seeing here is a precondition to free trade. Is this what my colleagues, who are experts on this, mean when they talk about a level playing field? Does this mean we have to start now, before we get into negotiations, and maybe sell everything off? It is a level runway, not only a level playing field. Maybe that is what they are getting at here, and it scares me. Is this just the first step? Not only is it a first step, but we are taking one of the better industries we have.

I am a little worried about the way this federal government is going, and I applaud some of the members of the official opposition who are questioning their federal colleagues in Ottawa. They should be questioning them, because this is hurting us as a country and as a province. We have to be very careful not to allow this thing to happen.

I hope we have the power and that we can get the unanimous consent of this Legislature to back up the Premier to stop this travesty, which is going to hurt us as a country and as a province. I want to conclude by saying I support the motion before the House and hope it receives the support of all the members.

Mr. Bernier: It is with a great deal of sadness and perhaps a little emotion and sensitivity that I join in this debate. I can say with some pride that possibly I have a little more involvement in this situation than other members of the chamber when I refer to the sadness of my feelings.

I look back on the years I have had the opportunity to be associated with de Havilland, first as a bush pilot in northern Ontario. On many occasions I have had an opportunity to fly aircraft manufactured right here in Toronto at the de Havilland plant. I have flown the Gypsy Moth, which goes back a few years. I have flown the Fox Moth, the Beaver and the Otter; so Canadian pride and sensitivity came right through to me today when I read of the sale of de Havilland. The lack of interest by this government in that sale saddened me further.

Following my years as a bush pilot and having moved into the political arena, I had the honour and privilege of being in the great Ministry of Natural Resources -- first Lands and Forests and then Natural Resources -- a ministry of the former government that was dedicated to the preservation of the de Havilland plant for more than 50 years. In 1924, the then Department of Land and Forests made its first purchase of a Gypsy Moth aircraft, and the government has been buying that company's aircraft ever since.

The latest purchase by the former government was the two Dash-8 aircraft of which we heard something in question period today. I was directly involved as were my colleagues, the then Minister of Transportation and Communications and the then Minister of Industry and Trade, in engineering the purchase of the first two Dash-8 aircraft to come off the production line.

We bought those aircraft when they were still on the drawing board, because we felt they were the type of aircraft we could use in northern Ontario. They were Canadian-built and, first and foremost, they involved Canadian technology. I was pleased to accept delivery of the first Dash-8 about a year and a half ago. It is operating in northern Ontario, from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury and up to Timmins and doing exceptionally well.

Just last Thursday, as I pointed out to the House this afternoon, the second Dash-8 aircraft was accepted by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. Certainly, we hope that second aircraft will find its way to operating in northwestern Ontario as was originally planned; and as was hoped by a former Speaker of this House, in his efforts to review with the people of northwestern Ontario the possible route it should fly. His report now has been made public, not by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) but by myself and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce). However, that is another issue.

I want to make it abundantly clear that the taxpayers of this province made the purchase of those two aircraft for specific use in northern Ontario. If they do not fly in northern Ontario, there is going to be hell raised on this side of the House and right across northern Ontario. I serve notice to the government that is what is going to happen. I am glad the Minister of Natural Resources is here. We intend to carry that fight further.

Getting back to the sale of de Havilland, which we are here to debate, I condemn the government and the minister for their lack of involvement. It was absolutely shocking to hear in question period this afternoon that the minister involved himself in one or two meetings -- a one-day effort -- on a matter where 4,400 employees are involved. We also learned the Premier knew on November 26 that something positive was happening with respect to the sale of de Havilland to a foreign company. They tell us they requested information. They called Ottawa, but I guess nobody answered the phone. Anyway, there was no response.

The point that bothers me is that when the present government knew it was not going to be involved in or part of the discussion or sale, at least it could have made the public of Ontario aware of that. It was incumbent upon them to let the people know that this government was being shunted out and pushed aside by the federal government, which was going at it alone. They should have told us that. Possibly we on this side of the House could have helped them. I say that sincerely because we did, and we always do, want some job guarantees.

We have talked in this House many times about creating new jobs and protecting industry. I do not think a day goes by when there is not a question on Orders and Notices, or when somebody is standing up on either side of the House questioning the government about the protection of jobs. Here we have a sale on our hands, a fait accompli, and there is no guarantee for the 4,400 jobs now at de Havilland.

We should look at de Havilland's record with regard to employment. Back in 1928, de Havilland started with a staff of three, and it grew very quickly to 30. In 1943, they had about 7,000 employees; in 1963, more than 3,000; and in 1964, 7,800. In 1973, the number of employees went down to 2,800; in 1980, it rose up to 5,200; in 1982, it went back up to 4,100 employees; and today, in 1985, there are 4,400 employees. It is a very steady employer, members will have to admit. Yet here we are, on the eve of this sale, with no sign of any guarantee that those jobs will be in place for the future.

I say with a great deal of sadness that the present government has let us down. There is no question that de Havilland has brought a significant amount of research and development into the aerospace industry. In 1982, $63 million was spent on research and development; in 1982, $53 million; and in 1983, $87 million. That is something we, as a government and as a people, should be protecting and preserving for our future. De Havilland alone represents about 25 per cent of the aerospace industry in this country.

5:30 p.m.

I want to go back to my sensitivity and concern about the company itself. It is truly a Canadian company. When one speaks about northern Ontario and about air transportation over the past 50 years, one automatically refers to an aircraft that was manufactured at de Havilland, such as the Gypsy Moth, the Fox Moth, the Beaver, the Otter, the Turbo Beaver, the Twin Otter and now the Dash-8, all Canadian airplanes manufactured by Canadians with Canadian technology. When one thinks of 300 Dash-8 aircraft being built, as I am confident they will be, one realizes that alone will represent about 40,000 person-years of employment in Canada. We are again on the eve of this sale, still with no guarantees.

The minister had a golden opportunity to show leadership, concern and sensitivity, to get involved, to express the concerns of 4,400 employees and nine million Ontarians, and to get the best deal possible, with some guarantees for our future and that of those workers and all Canadians who wish to protect 25 per cent of Canada's aerospace industry. He failed on all counts and he stands condemned.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to thank the members of my own party for their very kind words and support in this matter. There were even a few kind words from some of the members of the opposition on a personal basis, if not on a basis of support for the actions this government has taken.

I would like to inform the House of the actions and initiatives undertaken by my government regarding the sale of de Havilland by the federal government. I would also like to mention at this point that after calling Ottawa for some time, we have heard from them and they have told us they are prepared to give us a private briefing on the details of the contracts.

I am going to ask the two opposition leaders whether they would like to sit in on those briefings, and I will ask the federal government whether it will allow them to sit in on those briefings when they are set up. I hope that will clear up some of the questions that have been expressed by ourselves and by the members of the opposition.

When this government came to power in June, the de Havilland sale had already been in the works for eight months. We had only a brief period in which to develop and assess the alternatives. Despite the fact that the federal government appeared to view Boeing as the only serious bidder, we undertook to hold a number of meetings with other potential purchasers. For a majority of the time that the company was for sale, the previous government had the maximum opportunity to affect the terms and conditions of the sale. It should have been exercised at the crucial early stages.

As I mentioned yesterday and as has been mentioned by some of our members, de Havilland went to the then Conservative Ontario government and asked for quite a bit of help and that company was turned down. I will be touching a little more on some of those letters and requests when we have the no-confidence motion. Some of them will be very interesting.

When we came into office, the potential sale of de Havilland was brought to my attention. After being briefed on it, I feel I acted aggressively to keep all options open. It has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and by some members that we were not active. Although it appeared that I took action only a couple of times, the staff and I were in consultation all the time to see how things were coming and to do the best we could.

Because of this situation, ministry staff and I discussed with another contender, Rimgate-Fokker, the difficulties it was having in obtaining access to appropriate federal government officials and the necessary information on the de Havilland sale. In response to this situation, we initiated a meeting with the federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Sinclair Stevens, to express our concern and to emphasize that he should meet with Fokker. In addition, my ministry was in contact with the Dornier group concerning its proposal. We did what we could to ensure that it also had a fair chance.

Staff of the ministry met with all three companies on several occasions and under my direction was extremely active in this process. It might also be of interest to this House to know that the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister, asking him to ensure the Dornier proposal received full and fair federal consideration and to make certain some timing and other impediments were removed. These efforts alone exceeded all the documented correspondence by the previous government.

Notwithstanding the situation we faced, my ministry contacted Canadian companies that might have formed a joint venture, a Canadian equity partnership, with the Dornier group. However, we did not get full and detailed information because the federal government was conducting negotiations according to its own objectives and schedule. It was obvious the sale of de Havilland was to be totally a federal initiative.

With regard to the deal itself, we are concerned about the potential corporate behaviour of Boeing, especially since there are no guarantees that research and development or production will be fully protected by the sale. The minister told me last Friday afternoon that the research and development would be expanded, that the engineering would be expanded, that there would be a world products mandate that would be kept at the plant here in this province, but that they would not guarantee jobs. I know that is the express concern, especially of the members of the New Democratic Party, and I have to agree totally with that concern. I also agree totally with the fear of the loss of some of the technology we have in the aerospace industry.

The federal government says there will be substantial employment created, but we can make no analysis because we did not receive the proper information when we asked for it. I might add we are pleased with the global products mandate aspect of this deal, which appears to guarantee that this type of aircraft will continue to be manufactured in Ontario.

The federal government must assume full responsibility for the sale. I feel we have done all we can.

I might point out that even though the deal seemed a fait accompli when this government came to power, we did not accept that. I met with other business groups and tried to find viable Canadian alternatives. As I pointed out earlier, we had limited options and severe time constraints, but despite that we acted more positively and aggressively than the previous government did in 12 months.

Regarding some of the comments that have been made by the other members, maybe I did trust the federal government. The Premier wrote to Ottawa some time ago and had discussions with the Prime Minister. He asked for guarantees that certain things be covered and that certain things be done. He asked that there be Canadian ownership. He asked about the research and development. He asked about job guarantees. He asked about the world products mandate. These things were asked for, along with others.

We were assured, we thought, by the Prime Minister and by Sinclair Stevens, that we would be consulted on all the deals they were looking at, that all those deals would be shared with us and that we would have proper input before any decision was made.

Last Friday afternoon, when we were at the Premiers' conference, we heard the rumour that there was going to be a decision made the first of the week. We immediately got hold of Mr. de Cotret and asked that we have a meeting as soon as we could. He did grant that meeting within half an hour, but I must say even though he did that the federal government did not keep its promise, either to the Premier or to myself, that it would talk to us before any decisions were made so we would have input to try to retain that company in Canadian hands.

I feel I would be remiss also if I did not touch upon some of the previous government's actions on this. I will be touching on that quite a bit more in the no-confidence motion. If one were to review the past government's record from when the announcement was made on the sale of de Havilland, the help that was asked for and was not granted, the funding that was asked for and not granted, the way some of these companies were put off, one would be a bit surprised at the past record.

I hate to see the federal government taking the decision it has. We have had quite a few comments from the Conservative side of the House today in question period that we should have been asking some questions. We were asking the questions. We were trying to keep in touch and to have the federal government keep in touch with us. Perhaps the Conservatives should be exerting a little more pressure right now. Perhaps their upcoming no-confidence motion should be made in Ottawa rather than in Toronto.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I have listened to this debate with a considerable sense of irony. It is not a bad trait with which to observe much of political life.

First, I want to say there is an underlying consensus between Liberals and Tories that has, I believe, led to the problem we now face; and that consensus, developed both federally and provincially, is that somehow public enterprise in and of itself is a bad thing. The minister is shaking his head, but in my experience since coming here, the comments made about public enterprise in this House by the Premier when he was leader of the Liberal Party in opposition and leader of the Liberal Party in government have been consistently the same. He has denigrated time and again every single public investment ever made, saying it cannot be made to work, it is not the role of government, government has to get out.

I see some of my friends in the Tory party nodding their heads. I remind them it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), when he was the Treasurer, who said there was going to be a major review of all public investment in the public sector, that certain things were going to be done and certain investments were going to be sold off. We know the pervasive atmosphere in the business community today with respect to public enterprise. What we have today in Canada and in Ontario is two parties, and we really cannot tell the players without a program. We have Tories here and Liberals there, and in Ottawa it is the other way around; yet the same tunes are simply being played, one in government and one in opposition.

There is an underlying consensus, a fuddy-duddy orthodoxy that is around and has captured the minds -- to put it in its broadest and most charitable sense -- of the Liberal and Tory parties that somehow public enterprise has to go. I listened to the former Minister of Northern Affairs, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), describe the history of de Havilland and the work that was done in de Havilland. That former minister knows and I know that were it not for the position the federal government took -- and I do not care whether it was a Liberal government or a Tory government -- when the Brits moved out on de Havilland, we would not have a de Havilland here today if the public sector had not had the courage to get involved and to build that industry. He knows that, I know it and everybody in this House knows it.

Yet what has been allowed to happen is that every time the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition gets up it is to denigrate public enterprise. That is why we are here today and it is why I honestly say to both the Liberals and the Tories that I really do not believe a word they are saying.

The game was given away the day the Premier got up and said, "Public enterprise just is not going to work," because the fact is that in this negotiation, everybody knew who the sacred cow was and who the precious partner was who was negotiating for de Havilland. It was Boeing; it had been Boeing from day one. As soon as Sinclair Stevens said, "We are going to put those companies on the auction block," everybody knew that Boeing had the inside track. As I said earlier in my remarks, the reason for that is quite simple: The Boeing deal is part of the free trade strategy, and we all know that. The same Prime Minister who started in his youth singing a song for Colonel McCormick is singing a song for Boeing today. Nothing has changed.

These are things that must be said, because it is no accident that de Havilland has been sold out. It was sold out from under the noses of the Tories and the Liberals, and it has been sold out because of this consensus between the two old-line parties. Let us be under no illusions about it.

I know the games that are going to be played today. The Leader of the Opposition moves no confidence and says: "Look, I can go one further than you. I can cause an election." That is not the approach we are taking to this minority government, and I make no apology for that whatsoever. I do not think the people of the province are interested in playing Russian roulette on this issue. I do not think they are interested in having people come out on their white chargers and say, "I can cause an election."

I have caused the defeat of two governments and the loss of the jobs of two leaders of the Tory party. I do not think I have to apologize to anybody in this House for having done that; I know what it is all about. But I also know there is a time to try to make the minority situation work, to try to provide for some stability and to indicate at the same time as we are doing so that, frankly, this is the biggest goof, the biggest error we have seen on the part of the Liberal government since it was formed.

When the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer, he was asked questions by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) back on November 2, 1984. He did not indicate any strong objections to what the federal government was doing. He is on the record as saying that whether it was public or private, if it was going that way, that was okay. He had no problem at that time.

He did not dig in his heels and say, "We are going to fight to the death to protect Ontario jobs." He did not say that. He did not pick up the phone to call Mr. Mulroney and say, "You cannot give it away to Boeing and you cannot give it away to anybody else." He did not say that. He did not call up Sinclair Stevens and say, "I am the Treasurer of this province and you are going to sell out this crown asset over my dead body." He did not say that.

There is an element -- it is a word I am not allowed to use in parliamentary terms which begins with an "h" -- of a double standard being applied by the members of the Tory party when they get up here today and say: "Oh, how awful. What a terrible thing that has happened to de Havilland." It happened under their noses and it happened because their federal friends were doing it and they campaigned day in and day out to see that Brian Mulroney was elected. He is up there in Ottawa because the Ontario Tories campaigned for him. They are living with the results and that is their problem. If they want to move no confidence, let them go to Ottawa and move no confidence in the people who brought about this change.

The Liberal Party -- the minister can stop applauding now because I have a word to say about him.

Mr. Stevenson: Talk about who is uncomfortable.

Mr. Rae: Wait a minute now. I can tell the member that I have been in this position for seven years. I would dearly love to be in another position in this House, but the voters made their choices and their decisions. I have no difficulty in criticizing both the Liberals and Tories because it is fair to say there has been this consensus developed.

I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that I am sorry the Premier is not here to listen to this. He is having dinner with Mr. Bourassa and I wish him well; I hope he has a good meal, but I want to convey very directly to him that the kind of cheap and cheesy attacks on public enterprise which the Liberal Party has engaged in over the years in this Legislature are not the answer to Ontario's industrial problems.

When the government sells off crown assets, it deprives the public of important industrial investment and it deprives the Canadian public of an important asset at its peril. The Liberal Party itself, not only through its neglect in its handling of this with pathetic phone calls, sent one letter off in the middle of August to cover its members' collective behinds. A letter. Come on, we all know how these processes work. Give me a break. A letter? Do the Liberals say that is some sort of answer? They do not use a letter or a dinner meeting. They should be up there every day of the week saying, "If this happens, you know the consequences for Ontario."

There have been times when Ontario has had to do that. This was such a time when Ontario should have done it and did not do it. It did not do it for a number of reasons, for the very specific reason that it has accepted the consensus, foisted on the public over the last few years by big business interests, that somehow public enterprise is a bad thing. I say to the minister that our party believes in a mixed economy. We strongly believe that markets have to be made to work, but we also believe in Canadian ownership. If the only way we can make Canadian ownership work in certain sectors is to have public ownership in those sectors, then so be it. Let us make public enterprise the kind of exciting, effective and efficient enterprise it can be.

Mr. Ferraro: Does the honourable member think Suncor is exciting?

Mr. Rae: The member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) is engaging in exactly the same kind of rhetoric. The Suncor investment was $800 million down the tubes. For a 10th of that price, we could have had de Havilland ourselves, for Ontario, but the government was not prepared to look at the world in those sorts of terms. As soon as it gave away that argument, it gave away a very important card in the negotiations with Ottawa.

It is a sad day because de Havilland has been sold out. It has been sold out by the Tories in Ottawa because they think that is the way to go. They think it is okay to give it all to Boeing, an American company. I believe that the more our economy is taken over by the Americans, the more difficult it is going to be for us to provide for the future, for jobs for our kids and for the kind of exciting work we want our scientists and our technical people to be able to do.

5:50 p.m.

I say to the minister that I deplore the failure of this government to act as the protector of Ontario in a matter that is vital to the industrial future of this province.

Mr. Brandt: I am somewhat distressed to have to speak on this particular item because, obviously, it is a very major, important and critical item for Ontario. I want to speak to the previous government's role in this issue, and it would be appropriate if I were to respond to some of the comments made by the member for York South with respect to the philosophical approach of our government and perhaps that of the Liberal Party as they relate to de Havilland.

We are distressed about having to call for a no-confidence motion on this issue, primarily because there are jobs at risk, as the minister well knows. There are some 4,400 jobs at risk, but I think all members of the House would share a comment that I would make relative to the 4,400 jobs. They are very special jobs. They are high-technology jobs. They are jobs that are extremely difficult to replace in our economy and jobs that should be protected at all costs.

I have heard all too frequently from across the floor the fact that the role of the previous government was not perhaps as intense, ambitious or direct as it should have been. I would only remind the minister, the Premier and the government, that the sale of de Havilland was not nearly as intense as it has been within the last couple of months or the last six months relative to the fait accompli that has become very well known to us now as a result of the decision of the federal government.

That fait accompli is something the present minister, and not the former minister, is dealing with. I speak not only for myself when I filled that particular role, but also the minister in that portfolio before me, the former Premier of this province, the member for Muskoka. The reality was that at that particular time there were discussions with respect to the possible sale of de Havilland, but it was not nearly as critical as it has been within the last few months.

Mr. McClellan: Why not?

Mr. Brandt: It was not, because frankly there was no firm decision made by the federal government. They have made it within the last few days.

I listened very carefully to the remarks of the member for York South as he discussed the philosophical aspects of this whole deal. He talked about the fact there is a sort of entrenched position on the part of both the Liberals and Conservatives, and that is an unholy alliance if I can ever think of one, relative to the whole question of public companies. This party is not inflexible, nor does this party lack pragmatism when it relates to public corporations.

We have engaged in the ownership of public corporations many times, with a great deal of criticism coming across the floor from people who perhaps do not believe that is the way to go. But we have no objection, no discomfort and we do not feel ill at ease at the ownership of de Havilland being in government hands.

The fact of the matter is that in connection with the whole de Havilland affair, the present minister -- and I listened carefully to what the minister had to say -- time and again talked about the involvement of his particular ministry. I have to say I was very impressed by the number of contacts made by his ministry, but I was singularly unimpressed with the number of contacts he made personally. He showed a singular disinterest in the critical importance of this particular matter by not becoming more personally involved and discussing further with the Rimgate Holdings Ltd. group or others who may have been potential purchasers of this particular enterprise, as I think he should have.

I say to the members of the third party, what have we done to support de Havilland over the years? There is no single entity, either the federal government or provincial government, that gave more assistance to de Havilland than this party did when we were the government.

An example is that, as an indication of faith in the technology that was being produced by de Havilland and as an indication of the faith we felt behind the management of that particular firm, back in the days when de Havilland was first forming, this government purchased the Gypsy Moth airplane, the Fox Moth, the Beaver, the Otter, the Twin Otter, the Dash-7 and the Dash-8. We were the first ones to make those particular purchases, with the specific intent of helping the Treasury of this province. We did that as a direct indication of our confidence in the type of product being produced by that company.

I want to suggest there are ways to help a company. One of the ways we chose to exercise was to become directly involved in the purchase of products that were being produced by that company. My colleague, the member for Kenora, pointed out to me when we were discussing this issue earlier the very real fact that two purchases of the Dash-7 triggered something like 100 sales. Is that not correct?

Mr. Bernier: Right.

Mr. Brandt: There were 100 sales triggered as a result of the action of this government. I want to tell the member for York South again that when he stands up and waxes self-righteous about private and public ownership, when the economy of this province can operate more efficiently and effectively with public ownership, we will continue to be involved in public ownership. We do not have any problem with that at all. He should not tell me we are philosophically entrenched in some position.

Mr. Rae: Why didn't you do something about it when you had the chance?

Mr. Brandt: We have, with a number of companies, in a number of different ways.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: What we have problems with, Mr. Speaker, and I will address my remarks to you because I can see that I am causing some problems at the far end, is the amount of public ownership that some parties in this House may look upon in a favourable way. We want to limit it to areas where it is necessary for the public and/or the government to get involved in direct investment.

So I have to say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that if a minister from the former government were in his position, he would have worked directly with either the Rimgate group or others, in an attempt to bring about Canadian ownership, because we feel strongly about keeping that technology in Canada.

The government that is currently representing this province, with all the programs it has brought forth, has made it singularly obvious it does not understand market conditions, what it is to market, sell and promote a product, or what it is to create new revenues, wealth and expansion in the province. Its very budget calls for a reduction in jobs because frankly it does not know what it is doing. It knows how to spend money but it does not know how to create money. It does not know how to create wealth, or the fundamental necessities to make this a better province.

I have to say that the de Havilland issue --

An hon. member: Deerhurst and Suncor are the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: -- really points that out in a direct way. It points out that this government has fumbled the ball, and it has caused a situation where I hope we do not lose even more important high-tech jobs in this province because they are so vital and so critical to the future welfare of the people we represent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next.

Tonight, we have second reading of Bill 54, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, and Bill 55, the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act.

On Friday, December 6, we will have the second and third readings of Bills Pr15, Pr19, Pr22, Pr24, Pr25, Pr27, Pr30 and Pr39, and estimates of Management Board of Cabinet.

On Monday, December 9, in the afternoon we will have the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet. In the evening, if time permits, we will have second reading of Bill 51, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, with committee of the whole House on Bills 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51. We will have second reading of Bills 44, 43, 22, 11, 13, 34 and 3.

There are a lot of optimists in this House.

On Tuesday, December 10, in the afternoon and evening we will have Bill 17, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act, which, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), will be presented to the House by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), because it contains the section of interest to all members of the House and citizens of the province having to do with licence suspension on conviction of impaired driving. Then we will go on to Bill 24, the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Amendment Act, followed by legislation not completed on Monday, if any.

On Wednesday, December 11, the usual three committees may sit.

On Thursday, December 12, in the afternoon we will have private members' business standing in the name of Mr. McClellan and Mr. Ward. In the evening we will have the debate on the interim report of the select committee on economic affairs.

On Friday, December 13, we will have the completion of our continuing discussion on redistribution, if possible.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

5 décembre 1985