Legislative Assembly of Ontario

LIBERAL POSITION ON URANIUM CONTRACTS

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

LIBERAL POSITION ON URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: While the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) was speaking to the throne debate there were some interjections from a member of the Socialist party related to the position of the Liberal Party on the uranium contracts. I would hate to think the years have eroded the member's memory.

The Deputy Speaker: You are testing my patience on your point of privilege.

Mr. Kerrio: On my point of privilege, I would like to read into the record an important paragraph from a report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs relating to that specific matter to which my leader made reference.

The Deputy Speaker: How many sentences long is it?

Mr. Kerrio: I will cut it down to one paragraph that sums it up.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not what I asked, but go ahead.

Mr. Kerrio: "The Liberal members therefore are of the opinion that we cannot endorse the record of maladministration or the uranium supply contracts which have been imposed upon Hydro as a result. To do this would be irresponsible and the abdication of the committee's parliamentary function."

I would also like to quote a comment made by our former leader. On February 28, 1978, Dr. Stuart Smith said: "I am saying to you that this has been a failure on the part of the government to defend the interests of our people. I would say to the government, don't sign."

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the point had to be made.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair has taken your point of privilege. We have given you ample time.

Mr. Riddell: Donald MacDonald was misleading the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Let us not hear such phrases as "misleading the House." It was my understanding that the member for Huron- Middlesex had the floor. Has he finished?

Mr. Riddell: Yes.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, in response to the so-called point of privilege by the member for Niagara Falls --

Mr. Kerrio: It is here in the record. What the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) said is opposite to what the record states. You were wrong. Why don't you just admit it and do your thing?

Mr. Wildman: I am ready to admit it. If I understand his position, what he is saying in "correcting the record" is that the Liberal Party opposed the signing of the uranium contract.

I am very glad he has clarified that point and I am sure my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is also glad he has clarified that point, because in the last provincial election the Liberal candidate for Algoma-Manitoulin, one Ernie Massicotte, went around telling everybody in the riding that the Liberal Party is pro-nuclear, that the Liberal Party is in favour of expansion in Elliot Lake and that the Liberal Party was in favour of the Denison-Rio Algom contract.

I am very happy the member for Niagara Falls has set the record straight, and I am sure my colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin will broadcast the member's comments throughout Elliot Lake so that everyone there will know where the Liberals really stand on nuclear energy.

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: It is always amusing when I hear my friends in the Liberal Party trying to have it both ways on all issues, no matter what the issue.

Mr. Kerrio: One way. The record says it all.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Niagara Falls seems rather excited. I do not quite understand. I am agreeing with him; I am thanking him for correcting the record.

Mr. Riddell: What is your stand on doctors striking?

Mr. Wildman: If they are striking against nuclear power, I am for it.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get involved in this debate, but since the member for Niagara Falls wanted to clarify the record I just wanted to thank him so that we will now be able to set the former Liberal candidate for Algoma-Manitoulin straight as to what the Liberals' position really is on those uranium contracts.

As I begin to speak on this debate I want to add my congratulations to those of other members of the House on your election to your position as Deputy Speaker and also to pass along my congratulations to the Speaker for his elevation to his high office. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will be sure to get the GO train to your riding because I think you serve very well in that capacity and I would hate to see you resign.

I wholeheartedly support the comments made in the amendment to the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and I agree with him that the major issues facing this province today are unemployment and the disastrous effects that the record interest rates we face today are having on the economy in general.

I am disappointed in the throne speech presented by the government and for that reason I support the no-confidence motion proposed by our party. The throne speech indicated to me that the government itself lacks a great deal of confidence. We have record unemployment in this province. When we count those who are no longer listed in Statistics Canada figures we have over half a million people unemployed in this province and yet very little was said in the throne speech address by His Honour which dealt with that.

As a matter of fact, the throne speech mainly was an attempt by this government to shirk its responsibility, to point the finger at the federal government and say that this provincial government cannot do anything, that it is up to the federal government and, unfortunately, since the federal government has not acted we face a terrible economic situation. This indicates to me that the government itself has very little confidence in its ability to deal with our economic problems.

Mr. Boudria: Maybe it will vote no confidence against itself.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, if the members of the party opposite were to be honest with themselves they would, in fact, vote no confidence, because that certainly was demonstrated in the speech from the throne. I expect, however, that the members opposite will go on with their fed-bashing and will not offer anything on their own, and we will see them vote down the amendment and the amendment to the amendment but at the same time not offer anything new to deal with our problems.

I want to say, though, before I deal specifically with some problems in my riding and the economy of this province in general, that there are some things in the throne speech that I welcome. I welcome the comments regarding the Charter of Rights and the new Constitution. I have some problems with them, but I will get to that in a moment. Also I welcome the comments about the expansion of day care, the attempt to meet the needs of the elderly in remote northern communities and the statements regarding the government's commitment to strengthen the equal-pay provisions for women in our economy.

8:10 p.m.

However, looking at those specifics, I must say there are some serious shortcomings in the Charter of Rights. I have made clear in the past my feeling that the statements with regard to aboriginal and treaty Indian rights in the Constitution ring very hollow when one looks at exactly what has been said. A commitment has been made to existing rights, when nobody, the Indian organizations, the provinces or the federal government, knows what that phrase means.

All we have to do is look at this provincial government's record with regard to native hunting and fishing rights to understand the lack of commitment, at least on the part of this government, to those basic rights of our aboriginal people. We have seen a long stalling approach by this government with regard to resolving the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows mediation process. It seems this government has a long record of promises that have been reneged upon, a long period of stalling, of lack of negotiations, so that we have seen a situation --

Mr. Boudria: Procrastination.

Mr. Wildman: The member says procrastination. Frankly, I do not think it was procrastination. I think it was a deliberate attempt to undermine the whole mediation process. Now that the government finally, as of December 1981, has committed itself to resolving the matter, we find that Great Lakes, which previously had used the government's stalling as an excuse, is now looking for other excuses and is saying that the agreement with Reed is not there, and it looks as if we are going to see a long drawn-out process continue before that very serious matter is resolved.

With regard to the question of francophone rights, I have also made clear I feel the Charter of Rights is wanting. I believe the provincial government should have voluntarily accepted section 133 of the BNA Act to apply to this province so that francophones in this province would know their rights are respected and they can expect the expansion of services in their own language to people throughout this province.

With regard to day care, to give an example of the serious need we have in this province, I will use the example of Sault Ste. Marie. As a matter of fact, in that city we require about 1,200 spaces and there are only 350 spaces available. The commitment to the expansion of day care will only be worth while if this government is ready in the budget to provide the resources necessary to create the spaces that are badly needed.

With regard to the needs of the elderly in remote northern communities, I know my colleagues from northern Ontario, especially my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and others have been pushing very hard for this for some time, because we have situations where the elderly are forced to leave their homes and travel many miles in order to get the services they need because of the lack of services in their own communities.

In my own riding, in Wawa, for instance, the seniors must travel at least 140 miles in order to get nursing care if required, and this has meant the splitting up of couples and reluctance by many seniors to travel far away to get the services they need because they would be going to unfamiliar surroundings and leaving their friends and relatives.

In the most northerly community of my riding, Hornepayne, we have had a pilot project to provide these services to the seniors in their own community. It is funded on a joint basis by the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services. Unfortunately, because of the bureaucratic hangups, those two ministries cannot get together to provide the permanent building that is required according to the Algoma District Health Council, so we are faced with continuing accommodation in a prefabricated structure which is inadequate, even though both ministries and all concerned have agreed the concept should be expanded.

I hope that, as part of the commitment in the throne speech, this government will finally provide the funding necessary to provide a permanent structure for those services in Hornepayne. I have written recently to both ministers involved and I have had a response from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It said it is studying it. Frankly, we have had enough studies. Everyone agrees the service is required and that it is a good concept. I hope the government will commit itself to an ongoing program.

I am afraid the equal-pay provisions talked about in the throne speech do not go far enough. After having read some of the statements about affirmative action and so on by the new Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), I honestly do not believe he really understands the concept and what is necessary. I hope I am incorrect and that we are going to see some real action on those matters.

Having dealt with those parts of the throne speech which I think are optimistic and where we have a chance to get someplace, I would like to deal with what I said was the overall disappointment I felt in listening to that speech by His Honour. In the last provincial election campaign, the government used the slogan "Keep the promise." We all heard that "Davis can do it," that he can "keep the promise" and he will "keep the promise."

In listening to the throne speech, it seems to me the only promise this provincial Conservative government has kept is a commitment to bash the feds at every opportunity. I am no great fan of the federal Liberal government --

Mr. Boudria: Why not?

Mr. Wildman: Why not? As the member knows, the federal Liberal government has led us to the brink of economic disaster. We have to endure greater unemployment, higher inflation and record interest rates. That is why I do not support the federal Liberal government. However, I cannot accept the attitude that apparently pervades the Treasury bench opposite --

Mr. Samis: There is not one cabinet minister here, not one.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. There is not one representative of the Treasury bench here.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: You stand corrected.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, there is one, but he is sitting where he really should be sitting. He has a better view from the back row.

I cannot accept the attitude that seems to pervade that bench: "We cannot do anything. We do not have the confidence to do anything. We cannot resolve any of the problems, so let us somehow do everything we can to shift the blame to the federal level."

I do not debate that the federal government is at fault for our serious economic problems, but other provincial governments have taken the approach that since the federal government is unwilling to act, they will act in their stead.

Mr. Elston: Can you guess which ones they might be?

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Frankly, a number of them. I am not being partisan about this. All you have to do is --

Mr. Stokes: Were the federal Liberals in favour of those uranium contracts? Do you think they might have been? Was Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and others in favour?

Mr. Wildman: I think the federal Liberals were in favour, although it is true they did charge the two companies with price fixing.

A number of provincial governments have acted. One can look at the Conservative government of Nova Scotia which has provided subsidies for mortgages, or the Conservative government of Alberta which has provided assistance to those facing economic hardship in our situation. One can also look at the tremendous program proposed by the Socialist government of Saskatchewan in its latest budget to alleviate the serious problems that all of us face.

Mr. Elston: They were facing an election.

Mr. Wildman: It is not just in the face of elections. Certainly, the Saskatchewan government was going into an election, but the Manitoba government just came out of an election. They do not face one for some time yet and they have looked at the serious problems faced by the people of their province and said, "We have to do something." So they took action. They provided funding to assist home owners and farmers facing serious economic hardship as a result of the increased cost of capital.

This is not a partisan issue. Unfortunately, the government of this province has chosen to see it as such, as a chance to attack the federal Liberal government and to avoid taking action to assist the people of our own province.

In my view, the victims of high interest rates and the recession, those who are unemployed in this province, want government action. If they are not part of that cynical group that has now come to think governments cannot do anything, and it does not matter who is in power, they want action. They do not care which government takes action, as long as that action is effective and deals with the problems. I take that same position.

In terms of those people who have become so cynical, in my view, the attitude expressed in the throne speech by this government has contributed a great deal to that cynicism. Basically what the Premier (Mr. Davis) is saying to the people of this province is: "We cannot do anything. It is all up to the federal government." Despite the slogan he used in the last provincial election, "Davis can do it," what he is saying in this speech is, "Davis cannot do it."

Mr. Samis: Davis won't do it.

Mr. Wildman: That is exactly correct.

Mr. Martel: Put in a positive way, "Davis can't do it."

Mr. Wildman: He can do nothing. The Premier can do nothing. In fact, we looked for some kind of hope for those people facing problems of escalating interest rates, but there was no relief in the throne speech. There was not even an attempt to look at a moratorium on foreclosures. There was absolutely nothing in this throne speech for farmers and small business people, the very people this government tries to woo during election campaigns when it tells people it speaks for them; it is in favour of the family farm; it supports small business enterprise because it employs a higher percentage of the people of this province and this country than any other sector of our economy.

Mr. Boudria: Next time, those people will vote Liberal.

Mr. Wildman: Frankly, I am a little concerned that those people are going to come to the conclusion that it does not make any difference, that we are going to have a feeling of cynicism, that politics is just one big game where nobody wins and everybody loses. I think we are failing the people of this province if we allow that feeling to become pervasive.

We in this party have suggested a number of programs that could be used to try to alleviate the problems that have affected the economy of this province as a result of the ill-advised economic policies of the federal government.

We have suggested that the Province of Ontario Savings Office mandate should be expanded so that it could provide low-interest loans to home owners, farmers and small business people that would be able to compete with the banks in co-operation with the credit unions and the co-operative movement.

This is not simply some kind of Socialist fantasy. We all know that the similar organization in the Conservative bastion of Alberta has followed a similar program. That organization in Alberta has a far wider mandate and is a bigger organization proportionately than is the Ontario one. If it can be done in Alberta it can be done here. But this government refuses to act. This government just says: "It is up to Ottawa. We do not have anything to do with it. Go talk to Bouey and MacEachen." I do not have any confidence that Bouey or MacEachen are going to do anything; and if that is the case, we should be doing something.

Because of the failure of this government to respond to the needs of people who need housing in this province we have had a tremendous downturn, not only in the construction industry but also, in my part of the province in the lumber industry. We have over 3,000 people in the woods industry laid off. That is about one third of the work force.

In my riding at White River, Abitibi-Price has closed down its full operation indefinitely, probably for over a year. This is true of many other towns, as my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon mentioned in his speech. What has this government done? In this case they have not just said it is up to the feds, they have taken some action in co-operation with the federal government.

They proposed an accelerated forest improvement program, which I welcome. It is needed. But if members look at that program closely they will understand that although it is a step in the right direction -- it helps to improve the forest resources that we have and provide employment to those people who are laid off -- we know it will not in any way replace the jobs that have been lost as a result of the high interest rate policy that has led to the downturn in the economy.

In terms of White River, Abitibi-Price has proposed a number of projects which, if approved, would mean 53 man-weeks of employment. When one considers that 180 men have been laid off for up to a year, 53 man-weeks, while it will help somewhat, is not going to provide the kind of employment that community needs in order to survive.

Frankly, I am disappointed that this program is dependent on the companies themselves for initiative, because I doubt that these companies are going to take advantage of this program to the extent it would provide the real needs for employment in the small communities in northern Ontario. In the community of White River there are other things this government could be doing on a short-term basis to provide jobs. For example, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been considering a proposed flood control project -- a project that is very topical at this time of year since every spring we face problems of flooding in that community as in others in northern Ontario. We have been looking at this program for some time and the money still is not approved, the funding still is not there that could be providing some short-term employment and would be meeting a real need for the community.

Also, the Ministry of Northern Affairs seems to be holding up in some way the approval of the water and sewer project for that community, which could be used to provide needed services and employment in the community. In that regard the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has scheduled a meeting in White River tomorrow night -- just, coincidentally, when we are supposed to be voting on this motion -- and I have been invited. I am hoping that means there will be an announcement approving the water and sewer project for that community so that at least in that way we will be providing some job creation.

8:30 p.m.

If we look at the throne speech in terms of job creation, however, it is generally, as I said, a great disappointment. All we have is a rehash of the so-called Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, and even that asked for federal participation. The funding that actually has been committed by this provincial government towards BILD projects is very small, compared with the total amounts considered, but the government expresses disappointment again that the federal government has not responded more adequately.

Mr. Boudria: Was the jet part of the BILD program?

Mr. Wildman: To me, the jet is peanuts when one considers the amounts that should be spent in this province on job creation. It is the kind of issue one can get rattled and unhappy about, but even if they were not to spend the millions of dollars committed on a jet and spent them elsewhere, that would not provide very many jobs.

In my riding, the major BILD program announced by the government during the last election campaign -- I realize it was just a coincidence that it was an election campaign; it had nothing to do with that -- was a $19.2-million commitment for infrastructure for the King Mountain project north of Sault Ste. Marie.

There was a big announcement made by the Premier. He called in the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and the local Tory candidate. I was not invited for some reason. He called them all together, with the local chamber of commerce -- actually, he did not consult the local people; he only talked to people in Sault Ste. Marie for some reason. At any rate, he called them all together and announced the government was going to commit immediately $9 million for infrastructure for this development and, over a number of years, a total of $19.2 million.

That project has yet to go ahead. The high interest rates we face right now have meant that capital for private development has become so expensive that the developer has had to go to the federal government and ask for assistance; but he has received no commitment there. Nothing has happened. So what do we have? A promise; a promise that might be kept in the future but a promise that is not producing any jobs.

Interestingly enough, in making that promise the Premier was ignoring the other community in the area, Searchmont, and the serious needs for adequate roads to serve both the Weldwood lumber operation, which is now facing layoffs, and the ski resort there.

It was only after I raised this matter that we had a commitment from the government, which was rather embarrassed about it, to rebuild the road to Searchmont. But now we are told that it will be only a four-year project; it will not come all at once. They are spreading the funding over four years, and we will not have the thing completed until 1984 or 1985.

Sometimes, when I consider the provision of services or job creation in northern Ontario, I wonder whether the Ministry of Northern Affairs is part of the solution or whether it is the problem. We should look at a couple of examples.

For instance, in the community of Hornepayne in my riding, in the last few years the ministry has made a great to-do about the Hallmark town centre project, which it was funding in conjunction with Canadian National.

In 1976, the government estimated the total cost of the provincial contribution at $7 million for the project, which would provide under one roof a number of facilities such as a hotel, apartments, senior citizens apartments, retail stores, a Hudson Bay store, a bank, an Ontario Provincial Police office, a liquor store, a post office, a high school and a recreation facility.

It was touted as something that would provide all of these new facilities to a northern community under one roof at no additional cost to the local taxpayers; the additional assessment from the project would pay for the operation.

Now we find that this showpiece of architectural wonder has experienced jurisdictional and construction problems arising from the lack of planning such that the cost has escalated to $12.7 million from the $7 million originally contemplated.

Although construction was finished and the hotel opened officially in November 1980, most of the facilities are still unoccupied. The municipality has refused to sign the leases, because it has come to the conclusion -- with which the provincial authorities concur -- that to operate it the municipality would be looking at deficits of up to $90,000 a year. In the face of this refusal, the provincial government has had to guarantee that there will be no deficits and has agreed to take over the operation of the facility in the first year.

Interestingly enough, I tabled a number of questions on the Order Paper dealing with this project on March 31. According to the rules of this House, the interim answers should have been tabled on Thursday or Friday of last week, but this has not been done. We have had no response from this government about what is happening there.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs tends to hold up, rather than expedite, funding for local services to communities. We have had the same problem with the request for additional funding by the town of Blind River, which is one of the few communities in the province that is undergoing a tremendous expansion and, as a result, needs to expand its water and sewage facilities.

The mayor of that community met the Minister of Northern Affairs and, finally, the ministry has agreed to study the financial situation of the municipality. I have written to the minister asking for further assistance from the regional priorities budget, and I hope that request will be viewed with approval by the government because of the long delay that has occurred.

The Ministry of the Environment resolved problems in Missanabie by using its alternative systems program, and it could be using this program to provide needed services and employment in many other communities. Echo Bay is one such community with ongoing problems.

As well, the Ministry of Natural Resources could be looking at flood control projects on rivers like the Goulais River, which has been proposed for a flood plain mapping program but has lacked funding.

I have talked about a number of local issues in my riding and the need for economic stimulus. Now I would like to deal for a few minutes with the overall economic performance of this government.

Mr. Martel: What performance?

Mr. Wildman: Exactly.

Far from an active role in dealing with the economic problems of this province, the party opposite, which incidentally has purchased 25 per cent of an oil company, seems to think that it cannot become directly --

Mr. Boudria: I thought the member was in favour of Suncor.

Mr. Wildman: Listen to what I have to say.

They seem to think that precludes their becoming directly involved in other sectors of the economy. That government seems to have a blind spot. They seem to be buying the neoconservatism of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker). Although that minister says that in his new role his main purpose is "jobs, jobs, jobs" -- I think that was the term he used -- he seems to see the so-called free market as the main stimulus for those jobs.

Mr. Boudria: Nonintervention.

Mr. Wildman: That is right.

That thinking is true even where government investment has been involved, such as in the loan guarantees for the White Farm Equipment company. We have had, sadly, to watch this government and that minister knuckle under to the squeeze play of an American corporation which said, in effect, "We are going to take over this company and if you do not acquiesce to our takeover" -- all this against the whole philosophy that led to the provision of the funding -- "we are going to close it up and lay off all these people."

We have the sorry sight of this minister saying, in effect, in the House, "We have saved the jobs because we have acquiesced to this power play by an American corporation." If that is to be his approach to economic and investment growth in this province, we are headed for serious trouble.

8:40 p.m.

Even the throne speech was near the minister's attitude towards foreign investment in its call for the streamlining of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The throne speech said that FIRA had to be reassessed "to ensure that beneficial investment is not prohibited from entering the country."

The impression this government is trying to put forward is that FIRA somehow is active in preventing foreign investment in this country. The government seems to have bought the argument of Republican congressmen and senators in the United States that FIRA is somehow prohibiting Americans and American corporations from investing in this country.

In our view, FIRA has not been nearly active enough. More than 90 per cent of the applications to FIRA have been approved. They have not been stopped, despite what the Americans have to say.

Recently my federal leader published an internal report of the federal government on the Foreign Investment Review Agency. In that document, which reviews the literature on FIRA over the past 10 years, there are a number of statistics on the loss of jobs and tax dollars and the barriers to stable economic development which arise out of foreign investment in our economy. I would like to refer to those for a moment.

Basically, this document shows that the provincial Conservative and federal Liberal strategy of attracting more foreign investment to end the cycle of layoffs and unemployment that we are facing now is self-defeating.

For instance, the effect of imports on the components and parts industries in this province, which has resulted in an imbalance of trade over the past few years, is directly related to foreign investment.

In 1978, Statistics Canada showed that foreign-controlled firms were the major conduits into Canada for imported goods. The study concluded that foreign-controlled firms accounted for 72 per cent of all Canadian imports in 1978. The foreign companies' ratio of imports to sales was almost five times that of Canadian industry.

To quote from that study, "No matter how efficient the independent Canadian supplier may be, his price can never compete with the internal costing procedures of multinational enterprises."

We experience serious problems because the multinationals often buy from themselves; they have the branch plant buy from the parent firm. And they overcharge, which adds to the profits of the parent firm in the United States or elsewhere; not only are we losing those profits but also we are losing the taxes on those profits to the foreign countries.

The major problem we face in our lack of research and development is directly related to the foreign ownership in this economy. The study shows that in the United States the expenditures for research and development equalled 1.84 per cent of all sales; in Canada the figure was only 0.78 per cent.

Generally, Canadian-controlled firms spent more money on research and development in the Canadian economy than American firms; in Canadian manufacturing firms, the proportion was 1.3 per cent, while the American counterparts spent only 0.83 per cent. This document estimates that Canadians spent $168 million to pay nonresidents for research and development which our economy and our industry need.

That is the effect of foreign ownership in this province and in this country, and yet we have this government going around saying that what we need is jobs, and that a job is a job and it does not matter whether the company is foreign- owned or Canadian-owned.

In my view, we cannot allow the Milton Friedmans of this cabinet, like the Minister of Industry and Trade, to dominate economic policy in this province. We have already seen what that has meant for White Farm Equipment. We have also seen the minister's attitude during the emergency debate on the auto industry that this party forced.

Even the throne speech recognized that "the greatest single impediment to the revitalization of the economy of this province is the current state of the North American automotive industry." Yet during that debate the Minister of Industry and Trade had the gall to get up in this House and try to tell the House that the situation right now is much better than it was last summer in regard to layoffs.

The minister told the Legislature that there were only 3,300 auto workers on layoff and that the pending layoff of another 1,750 in Oshawa would boost that number to about 5,000, a figure lower than the 11,700 auto layoffs in July 1981. Somehow the minister was trying to imply that the 6,700 workers who were on layoff last year were no longer on layoff, when they are indeed on layoff but have lost their recall rights because they have been off work so long.

The minister also ignored the parts industry, so that he was able to make this kind of ridiculous argument when we are facing approximately 18,000 workers on layoff in the assembly and parts industries in this province.

It says something about the commitment of this government to economic development and to resolving the economic problems we face if we have the minister who is most responsible, besides the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), get up in the House and try to say, "Oh, well, we only have at the most 5,000 laid off," when it is almost four times that number. If he really is trying to play with figures, I wonder what he is going to do to try to turn the economy around.

In the throne speech the only thing this government had to suggest with regard to the auto industry was a kind of public relations program to encourage people to buy Canadian, to buy North American. We have argued in this party that we need a major structural change in the auto industry. However, this government claims that we are facing cyclical problems and that we are better off than we were last year and better off in this country than they are in the United States.

The government's own internal documents indicate that over the next few years we are going to lose one third of the auto work force in this province and that those people are never going to be re-employed in the auto industry. A PR program is not going to turn that around.

Other countries have taken action. For instance, Mexico will have a larger auto parts industry within five years than we have in this country. Between now and 1985 the Mexican auto parts industry will grow from 18 to 22 per cent per year. In this province we are losing ground. We have seen 20 plants shut down permanently and we have seen thousands of workers laid off.

One might ask what is the difference between the Mexican experience or, for that matter, other countries, European and Asian countries, and the experience we have here in this province. The difference is economic planning; the difference is government intervention.

In Mexico, the government sets the rules of the game; it has content requirements. Every company that is going to operate in that country and remain foreign-owned must comply with those rules. They also must table operating plans so the government can approve the investment approaches of each company. We do not have anything like that in this country.

Mr. Stokes: It is not the Suncor type of intervention either.

Mr. Wildman: It is not just a case of buying into a company and not getting control. That country is saying, "If you are going to operate in our country, you are going to have to operate by our rules and employ people from our country."

Ministers of this government go around and make a lot of speeches about the Japanese and the need for Canadian content in the Japanese autos that are sold in this country. I support that. I think the Canadian content should be higher than the 85 per cent that is being called for by the Premier and by this government.

But we all have to recognize that, even if Mr. Lumley were able to persuade the Japanese auto manufacturers to accept content rules, this would not resolve the problems we have in the auto industry. We have such a deficit in our auto parts industry dealings with the United States that we must make some arrangement with the Big Three auto companies in Detroit.

8:50 p.m.

In 1966, Canada provided 75 per cent of the US parts market imports, but since that time we have dropped to 35 per cent. Since 1965, the cumulative parts deficit in Canada with the United States has grown to $35 billion, and yet this government continues to leave it to the private sector.

The private sector has led us to the brink of economic disaster in the auto industry and, unless the government takes action by intervening and providing economic leadership, we are going to continue to face serious problems in the auto industry.

The Minister of Industry and Trade's predecessor, the member for St. Andrew--St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), used to talk about a comprehensive industrial strategy for the auto industry. This government is still talking about a comprehensive industrial strategy.

In our view, an industrial strategy was needed in the auto industry 20 years ago. Now it is imperative. But, instead, we have ad hoc programs from this government, where it has given grants, loans and incentives. It has provided an auto parts centre, and now it is proposing a promotional program to get people to buy Canadian. That is not going to provide the answers.

What we need, I believe sincerely, is government leadership in the auto industry and in the economy in general. We need government investment to promote joint ventures and the research and development we need to turn the economy around.

The people on layoff in Algoma Steel, where workers have been generally insulated from the economic problems we have experienced in the past in this province, are now starting to realize that unless the auto and the appliance manufacturing sectors of our economy in southern Ontario are turned around they are going to face long-term shutdowns and layoffs. We already have up to 1,500 people laid off at Algoma Steel. The market has to be developed.

As long as we have high interest rates at the federal level, we are going to be in trouble if this government refuses to take action. I plead with this government to rethink its position so that when it brings in a budget next month we will see serious action to turn our economy around and to provide jobs, to alleviate the difficulties people are experiencing in home ownership, in purchasing automobiles and appliances, and in operating farms and small businesses, so that we see a real turnaround in our economy and we get things back on the road again.

I hope the Treasury benches will not be deaf to the pleas that have been brought to them in this House throughout this throne debate. I am not optimistic, but I certainly hope we see an end to fed-bashing and real government action to deal with our economic problems.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have several subjects I would like to touch on tonight --

Mr. Laughren: Are you going to talk about keeping the promise?

Mr. Kennedy: That is not one of them.

First, though you have occupied that position for close to a year, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to offer my congratulations to you in ruling this unruly House. I wish you well as you proceed with those significant responsibilities.

The same applies to the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson). I have not had an opportunity in debate to congratulate him on his success in winning the leadership of the Liberal Party, and I wish him well. Of course, it would be somewhat hypocritical if I wished him too well. After all, we are in the field of partisan politics. But I do hope he retains the position he now enjoys for many years.

I think this observation could apply on all sides of the House, and certainly on this side; if one stops and reflects with some seriousness on the value and appreciation for constructive criticism, it really adds a dimension of excitement to the parliamentary process to have a vigorous opposition. I think we should retain a healthy respect for it, because it is fundamental to the betterment of the welfare of the people we represent.

Similarly, I wish the new leader of the New Democratic Party success in his responsibilities and contributions, although I cannot go so far as to wish him a Premiership.

We have been through several decades of debate with respect to the patriation of our constitution. I want to touch briefly on that. It was very interesting to attend on Saturday morning. I was most pleased with the number of citizens who came out and participated in the ceremony we had here at Queen's Park. There were some 4,000 or 5,000 people. The estimates had been considerably below that. It was most encouraging. There were a lot of children, people from many racial backgrounds, and I thought it made up a representation of the mosaic of this province.

I was somewhat interested to have several who were in attendance speak to me with some misunderstanding, with some confusion and a lack of clarity as to the role of the monarchy now that we have our own constitution. As I explained, the new act really was silent on that, which means the relationship with the monarchy remains as it is. I know it is as I would have it, and I think as this province and this House would have it.

It pointed up that there was some confusion. Perhaps the members in their activities over the years could bring clarity to that and reiterate that what it really means is we now have the constitution here, we can make changes without reference to Westminster, but we certainly have warmth and high regard for the monarchy and for Westminster. We also retain a vigorous membership within the Commonwealth of nations.

With respect to the throne speech, His Honour once again presented a fine document for the assembly to digest and process throughout the remainder of 1982 and perhaps beyond. It was a broad document. I do not see any limitations in it whatever. There is great scope in it.

I wish to speak on several topics. One that has been of great interest to me, and I know to some other members, is the need for high-technology training, for apprenticeship training, for skills training and the drastic need to expand certain of our skills training programs and facilities.

Our country secured its enviable position among the world's industrial nations because of its great wealth of natural resources -- mines, forests and prairies -- plus its inexpensive energy and the skills and industriousness of its people. This enabled Canada to achieve a standard of living perhaps exceeded by only one or two other countries in the whole world.

However, it is apparent we can no longer maintain our competitive position in world trade by virtue of our surplus of resources. In the years ahead, we must rely on the skills and productivity of our work force to retain our position in the industrial society. We must now prepare for the impact of the technological revolution which may rival the industrial revolution in its influence on our way of life. We must place a very high priority on training and retraining skilled people to produce and operate the sophisticated equipment required to satisfy the demands of tomorrow's society if Ontario is to remain the industrial heartland of Canada.

9 p.m.

We have the structure available through our very successful community colleges and, to a degree, through industry to provide the training if we apply ourselves to utilizing this potential. I want to return to that later in more detail.

There has been a lot of rhetoric with respect to this, but the work and research I have done brings forth what to me are some of the facts of the situation as it currently exists. These perhaps will not surprise honourable members, but this is the way it distills out from a myriad of reports, discussions and seminars that have taken place over these years.

One is that there has been a persistent shortage of skilled workers. Two, our apprenticeship and skills training programs have had only limited, so-so success. They are not adequate.

Mr. Nixon: That is the understatement of the year.

Mr. Kennedy: They are not delivering the skilled people we need.

Mr. Nixon: I thought you were assisting the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Mr. Kennedy: The involvement of industry here is nowhere near that of Europe. Our philosophy and our attitudes are different. Our efforts are fragmented. The processes of how one enters and graduates as a skilled journeyman are not clearly understood by the public, and perhaps in industry and trade circles as well.

I feel our unemployment levels would be lower and our production higher had we not had this mismatch between skilled workers and jobs either available or that might have been created had we been able to respond to the market potential that would be out there if we got going and produced.

That is what has come to me as a result of some of the facts of the situation based on this wealth of material that is available to anyone. To go on, the throne speech refers to the subject as follows: "While Ontario's training infrastructure is without parallel in Canada, more can be done to meet changing needs. We reaffirm our commitment to the development of skilled manpower in this province and we will work to ensure that adequate funding and design are committed to occupational training. Particular attention will be paid to the introduction of a wage incentive program for the training of high-level software development specialists."

I am not sure just what "we will work to ensure adequate funding" means. We need funding and we need labour, management and federal co-operation. We need a changed attitude by society towards these skills. We need a very high respect for those who have these skills and those workers rate that respect because they have talent and skills that are very special. We should recognize that.

The throne speech goes on: "Ontario is prepared to work co-operatively with the federal government to improve the manpower training system. However, we are convinced that no significant advance can be achieved without meaningful and substantial input from the parties most directly concerned -- labour and management. Accordingly, Ontario will expand the membership of the Ontario Manpower Commission by the addition of senior representatives from the labour and management communities."

This is good. For years there have been reports of a shortage of skilled tradesmen; it is generally known by anyone who has any interest in the subject at all. In fact, this shortage goes back to the days of the late Premier George Drew who brought in tradesmen after the war to beef up and dramatically expand our skilled work force and hence our industrial manufacturing sector.

There are all kinds of studies, briefs, reports and other evidence, as I have mentioned, on the shortage of these skilled workers. During the past month, to check on this, I checked the help-wanted advertisements for skilled employees in the three Metro newspapers. A 17-day survey in March showed 1,827 separate advertisements for skilled and technical workers. Even so, this figure is understated because many of the ads were pluralized. For example, the ads were not for one welder but for welders, plumbers, mechanics. Actually, we do not know the total number of vacancies, but it is evident there are many. The category containing the largest number of ads, 216, was for mechanics of all types. Clearly these figures support the view that there are jobs out there for qualified people.

Further proof is included in a series of Toronto Star articles by Trish Crawford. One article in particular, dated January 30, 1982, stated that according to the Ontario Manpower Commission a total of 108,000 new highly skilled jobs would be created, but Ontario would produce only about 62,000 workers to fill these. The recent manpower commission report predicts shortages of 38,000 to 48,000 highly skilled workers, and there is reference to this in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development reports. Last month, too, I happened to tune in to a CTV newscast, Hourlong with Tom Clark, and, lo and behold, they were discussing this subject, the shortage of skilled labour.

Mr. Eakins: Did it mention how Ontario Hydro goes to England for skilled labourers?

Mr. Kennedy: I am just going to tell you what was said in it.

I recently attended the first annual Mississauga industrial trade show, a most successful event with a lot of interest, participation and excellent exhibits, which was most encouraging and impressive. In conversation with the exhibitors, the first thing I asked about was their impression of the availability of skilled labour. This was reiterated, particularly in the field of microelectronics. I am told that Northern Telecom has stated that there will be 65,000 jobs for microelectronic technologists during the next five years; so the potential is out there waiting for us.

These are a few examples to show the need is real. There are many more examples. One continually hears of this need. What is to be done? What is being done? I know and we all know there are courses in these skilled and technological areas in our community colleges and in the vocational wings of some of the secondary schools. There are some training centres; there are linkage programs; there are apprenticeship programs with industry. These provide some basic training and make a very good effort to open opportunities for young people who may later go on to employment as technologists of various kinds. These seem to have very limited impact in meeting the need.

9:10 p.m.

In any event, it is not being fulfilled. It should also be remembered that over 90 per cent of the community college graduates find jobs upon graduation. It is something like 94 per cent to 96 per cent and varies a bit according to the course that is taken. Here again, if one is floundering and is not sure what to do, he should go fishing where the fish are. It seems quite apparent this is where opportunity lies.

Many of our highly skilled people are still brought in from other countries. In particular, another Toronto Star article quoted federal Employment and Immigration Minister Lloyd Axworthy as saying 20,000 to 25,000 skilled workers will be imported as the price for not launching training programs of our own in Canada. As my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) was saying to me, after 115 years there should not be that need in those numbers for this buoyant young country.

Mr. Eakins: Tell Ontario Hydro that.

Mr. Ruston: It's your government.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, but we have industry here as well and there is a responsibility there. I will be touching on that also.

Despite our efforts, we are not meeting the demand and we are not matching our needs. The Trish Crawford series also reported that according to Donald Pollock, former chairman of the Ontario Manpower Commission, we need better information about where future opportunities are going to be. Unless we get better manpower planning, we will always have a mismatch.

To me there is no excuse for that whatsoever. That information and analysis should be done. We should be able to forecast and predict within certain limits and come a lot closer to the target than we are doing now. There are many articles, an innumerable number of reports about the problem. I found so much information in reading up on this that it is just about impossible to digest it all.

The general theme is that indisputedly there is a shortage and, sadly, under the present situation it is going to continue for years. We have to turn this around. So far there obviously has not been an effective solution because we still have the numbers. One cannot refute those facts. I think we have attacked it in bits and pieces. We have tried. I do not think industry has exactly been scintillating in the development of skilled workers. It was much easier to bring them in rather than go through the training process they do in European countries.

In other words, industry has taken the line of least resistance, and economically that may make sense. As one does in the private enterprise field, they always seek the most advantageous bottom line, but they have not been adequate in dealing with the total problem. It has been a fragmented approach. The main thrust of the success we have had has been through our community colleges. To some degree, industry, labour and academia, I would suggest, do deserve some tribute and credit.

In fairness, provincial and federal governments have recently addressed this problem and have done it with unaccustomed vigour. It would be great if it carried through and those numbers of mismatch between need and availability and employment opportunities dropped. The Ontario Manpower Commission is holding follow-up discussions with large industries and the feds have announced a national training plan, but I think it is a fair statement, from what I have been told and discovered, that wage incentive plans have not really had a major beneficial impact.

Significant benefits to the marketplace through this route have really not materialized, and I am sceptical that this method will result in any great change, this reapplication of vigour towards it. No doubt it will do some good and any effort in this direction is commendable, but I think we need a revitalized approach to the problem. We do not need any more studies. We do not need any more statistics. There is ample evidence before us. We need the will. We need the courage. We need the sense of urgency, the investment and the enthusiasm to respond. We need the co-operation and support of academic people, community colleges, industry, labour and management and we need leadership in this field.

In my view, leadership is what we need. I think the direction this should take, the source of it, should be provided through the manpower commission as an overall co-ordinating agency, and it should have the necessary clout to put programs in place. I think the vehicle to deliver it should be, as it is to a degree now, our existing educational structure, specifically and basically the community college system. I say this, knowing that industry has a large stake in what we do, but it does not or has not or will not respond. With the need so evident, the availability of manpower so evident, it is time to try a new approach in this country. We need to ensure that industry carries more weight in this direction.

I do not think our philosophy, our new vibrant country with resources and with freewheeling people, and our approach and mentality towards the problem, are comparable to Europe. If we accept that we are different, we might as well face it and get on with achieving through these techniques I have suggested. In other words, the government should lay it on the line with industry, take a larger role, but explain to industry that it must bear part of the cost of doing this because it is, in effect, the beneficiary as we all are.

In that setting, it is my view that as part of this we should have some new facilities to complement the existing ones, both government institutions and the industrial resource base to provide this training. A great example is the need in the field of microelectronics, a field of endeavour that has such a great future it boggles the mind.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) already dealt with that.

Mr. Kennedy: I acknowledge that others have spoken of this. There is nothing new about it, but I am certainly shoring up and making an argument that we address it with vigour and with a solution in sight, and I will tell the member more about it in a minute.

It can be argued that we have the existing physical plants for such training, and indeed I believe we are not too badly off, but my study and research show we need to build a new trades training centre. I suggest that the location for such a facility should be in Mississauga, which is the fastest-growing municipality in Canada. It is located more or less in the geographic centre of the great industrial area, the Golden Horseshoe. It is the centre of population where both the need and the labour pool are located.

9:20 p.m.

It should be noted that there were 10,000 applications for 3,000 places at Sheridan College for the 1981-82 school year and all signs point to this trend continuing in upcoming school years. In addition, there were no less than 900 applications for 100 openings in a two-year technician-level course in microelectronics. Jobs are available for graduates, as I have indicated.

The additional campus I have suggested could help considerably to reduce this pressure of applicants. Mississauga is easily accessible and is strategically located to serve both students and industry with maximum efficiency, economy and convenience. I admit that high unemployment exists in other parts of the province, but I believe that if we can generate the skilled people from this point, the benefits will radiate to those other areas.

Finally, there is a specific site which could be acquired, consisting of 200 acres of land just north of Square One. It is now held by the Peel Board of Education. It is a very interesting plot of land because it is part of the former 200-acre Brittania farm which was deeded by the crown in 1834 for school purposes. It was farmed for many years on a lease basis and is still partly utilized for home gardens by residents. However, it is available and I think it would be an excellent location.

The training centre I have suggested could be an adjunct of or even an additional campus of Sheridan College and our other colleges and of the industry apprenticeship programs such as they are. This centre should be established, in my view, through the existing community college system in conjunction with industry and labour. I think it would be a most appropriate and significant course to follow as part of a program towards reaching the objective of self-sufficiency in filling the need for skilled workers in our factories. From such a facility the industrial community could engage qualified recruits.

I do not see this as just another add-on. I visualize it as a high profile, prestigious institute of technology, one that would be renowned throughout Canada and beyond in education, labour and industrial circles. I think if we could focus on the problem through the establishment of such an institution we would indeed be demonstrating our intense desire to compete in the markets of the world.

To this end, the industrial and high technology community, both labour and management, as the throne speech suggested and as I have said, should be involved. These interest groups should not only have significant input into the establishment of this facility, they should be involved every step of the way. That does not need an amendment to the throne speech. That is in there. It just needs a little embellishment, addressing the underlying principle that is in the throne speech. I am suggesting to the government how they achieve it.

Those bodies should be involved every step of the way so that those interest groups feel a part of it. In the light of the current economic situation, the need for such action as this and such a facility, in my mind takes on added importance to enable Ontario's huge manufacturing and technological sectors to come to grips with the realities of the 1980s and beyond. We simply must become competitive with other countries and not only match but lead in these fields of endeavour. There is absolutely no reason we should not lead. We have the resources, natural and human. There is great potential. The markets are out there if we fight for them. All it needs is to pull this altogether.

The appointment of a new deputy minister in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities with special responsibilities in the field of trades and skills training is a major step and can be part of the overall thrust.

Current discussions between the Ontario Manpower Commission and large industries and the federal government should benefit this as well, as will federal funding; that goes without saying. The spinoffs, as I have mentioned, from a rejuvenated industrial complex will ensure other benefits and other jobs and be a factor in addressing our unemployment situation.

If this facility and this suggested program are put in place, we would then have taken a positive step towards correcting the mismatch between skilled workers and manpower needs.

Mr. Boudria: That is what we have been saying.

Mr. Kennedy: I have not denied that. I am glad the member understands it. His approach might be a little different.

There are a couple of other features of this that should be mentioned in passing. One is to look at the need for research and development in conjunction with the training centre. The object is to develop new technology, new production and perhaps new consumer products to enable such a centre to lead in this fast-changing world. This aspect could very well work in conjunction with the new microelectronics development centre recently announced for Ottawa.

Without a doubt the matter of funding towards the establishment of a new centre will be raised in this time of constraint. That is a legitimate question, but in my view it is an investment that we cannot afford not to make, if I can use a double negative, if we are going to be competitive and grasp the opportunities that are now at hand and will be in the future.

I have mentioned the spinoff benefits. Such an investment is essential as part of our strategy if we are to retain the strong manufacturing base which is vital if Ontario is to retain its place in the sun in this respect.

I want to touch on two or three other topics. One is a matter of great concern to us. It is Great Lakes pollution, specifically the presence of dioxin, Mirex and polychlorinated biphenyls in our Lake Ontario fish. The latest reports show the incidence of these hazardous wastes is increasing. It simply must be remedied. I know all Ontarians and many Americans will support the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Ministry of the Environment towards this objective.

I realize one of the problems apparently causing the delay is that remedial measures are tied up in litigation in the US. We should urge Washington to set these aside, continue with the cleanup and settle those at a later date. I am not at all familiar with American jurisprudence, but I am very familiar with the adverse impact of the pollution on our water quality. Therefore, the overriding issue is to clean it up and deal with these other issues later. It is ludicrous that our water quality should be in jeopardy because of this when we know where it is emanating from and we know it can be corrected. Let us get on with it and do it.

9:30 p.m.

Our concern should be conveyed to New York state and Washington in the strongest possible terms and corrective action instituted. I appreciate that the Premier and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) will be having some negotiations with American authorities over the next two or three months. I wish them well on this. I know they can be assured of the support of this House and the people of Ontario in their mission.

The third subject I want to touch on is the matter of offtrack betting. It has come up from time to time over the years. Just recently, the federal Minister of Agriculture stated that the federal government was going to approve off-track phone betting. I am not sure if this is a substitute for traditional offtrack or intertrack betting. I do not know, but the same announcement said there would be further announcements about it.

Over the past years I recall a former Treasurer, Charles MacNaughton, saying that he drooled at the thought of the revenue which might be derived from offtrack betting if this government were to expand traditional betting.

Mr. Elston: Was he going to balance the budget with that money?

Mr. Kennedy: That may have been part of the answer; that is maybe what he had in mind.

As I understand it, the initiative lies with Ottawa. If the Criminal Code is amended as may be needed, the provinces are free to go or not to go, to analyse the markets and so on.

There are some concerns regarding the impact offtrack betting might have. I am appreciative of the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). He explained that in New York state one of the betting shops is being closed because it is not generating enough revenue, so maybe the bloom is off the rose. That is one of the things that would have to be examined. We also need to protect the smaller tracks and the people in those areas who enjoy attending events in their local communities. They would need to be protected.

With all the other lotteries that have come on, I am not sure if this would have the benefits or the interest it was thought to have at one time. If the federal government does bring forth more amendments and we know where we are at, I think the government should carefully assess just what it all means and whether it would lend itself to introduction in this province and if we want to go in this direction with it.

The other topic I have been very interested in and have addressed is the need for a small business week in Ontario. Members may recall that we debated a resolution I had placed on the Order Paper advocating the establishment of a small business week in Ontario. It has taken on added importance now because of the state of the economy, and I know the resolution at the time received the support of both sides of the House.

I am just going to touch briefly on some of the reasons we should embark on this: to inform the public of the key role of small business in our economy as employer, producer and taxpayer; to promote better understanding of the interdependence of small business, big business, government and the public; to supplement and support the present small business activities that go on throughout the year; to provide a forum to discuss related matters that would assist existing and potential small businesses in management, financing, production and marketing as well as offer assistance towards increasing opportunities for small business; to develop a journal associated with this week that would summarize all the programs and assistance available to small business, one that is easily updated; and, finally, to develop a universally recognized symbol that would aid in co-ordinating the roles of these participants and in disseminating the information among them. Again, I urge the Ministry of Industry and Trade to consider this seriously.

Another subject I wanted to touch on is the need to remove mandatory retirement at age 65. Here again, this has been the subject of two private members' bills and much public discussion. The Ministry of Labour has commissioned a study; I understand that the reporting will be in the summer of 1982, so we will look forward to that. I simply want at this point to reiterate my support for the removal of mandatory retirement and also to make it very clear that I speak of voluntary continuation of employment up to age 70 if this is desired by the employee.

Finally, I have a private bill on the Order Paper to establish an arbour day in Ontario. This would encourage the production and care of trees and things green.

Mr. Wildman: We had an arbour day when I was in school.

Mr. Kennedy: That's right. I would like to see it reactivated. Some of the reasons are to encourage tree planting, preservation and conservation; to encourage appreciation of the beauty and use of trees; to stimulate interest in and knowledge of trees; and to encourage the landscaping and cleaning of industrial plants, public institutions and private homes. Trees and green things are one of our best antipollutants and they provide the oxygen we breathe, so I would like to see the government give serious consideration to the establishment of such a day.

This has been a somewhat wide ranging speech, at some length with respect to skills training and briefly on these other topics of interest. In summary, the recommendations and suggestions I have made are to establish a trades training centre in conjunction with industry, the manpower commission and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities; to continue to address our very serious concerns with respect to pollution with our neighbours to the south and, indeed, those over whom we have control; later, when we see what Ottawa is going to do, to consider the matter of offtrack betting; to establish a small business week; to extend mandatory retirement age; and to proclaim an arbour day in Ontario.

I hope the government will give some attention to these remarks and, indeed, to the remarks of some of our other colleagues and address itself to them, because I know that those who prepare themselves to participate in throne and budget speeches do so because they have a genuine interest in the betterment of the people of Ontario. We all look forward to reading and knowing and learning of the interests, the new ideas and the new suggestions they bring forward on behalf of the people of Ontario.

9:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the member for Mississauga South. To refresh everyone's memory, we are resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Spensieri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that reminder. I am thankful, of course, and honoured by the opportunity to participate in this throne debate, especially in this special sitting, after so many and varied speakers from our party and from across the floor have made their contributions. I would like to single out with some thanks the presence of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) for whose ministry I have been appointed critic. I think it is indicative of his diligence and courteous nature that he is here, and I hope this is the last opportunity I will have to be so generous towards him.

While this is only the second speech I have heard viva voce or in the flesh in this House, I must say it has been one of the feeblest. My colleague the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), perhaps emboldened by his longevity in this House, called it an insult to the people of Ontario. I cannot go that far, but I would say it leaves no rational choice but to support my leader's motion unconditionally and to endorse his indictment of the speech on at least four counts. Members will recall that those four counts were: the failure to ensure job creation; the lack of increase in efforts, indeed the lack of any efforts, to preserve and improve the health, social and education sectors; the absence of any help to small business, home owners and farmers; and the failure to provide training programs.

As honourable members opposite may know, I represent roughly the west half of that great city of North York, the part that Tory politicians are fond of referring to as the working district of North York. I am sad to report it has now ceased to be the working part of that once burgeoning metropolis, the fastest growing city in Canada, and has become the unemployed sector of the city of North York. I submit that this government must take a substantial share, if not all, of the blame for this bad situation.

Let me give but a few examples in my riding. In just the past two months, and within only a one-mile radius of my constituency office, hundreds of jobs have been lost due to plant shutdowns and business failures: Names like Phoenix Paper Products Ltd., which closed its doors forever to 160 workers; Sklar Industries, which significantly reduced its production staff; Chrysler Air Temp, which used to employ 25 production workers in its gas furnace plant; virtually hundreds of small construction and contracting companies employing less than 10 persons each have closed for the winter months never to reopen their doors again. A family business such as D'Amato Construction Equipment, which for 25 years operated in the rental business as a family concern, has now filed bankruptcy. It is being run by receivers at the behest of the lending institutions.

The preamble states, "We in the government of Ontario have always believed that the creation and maintenance of productive employment must be our central concern." Were I to quote these words outside this House to dozens of new Canadians who stream through the constituency office in Yorkview to seek help with unemployment insurance forms and, in many cases, with public assistance applications, they would evoke incredulous and sarcastic laughter.

We on this side of the House can respond in no other way to the cruel joke that is being perpetrated. Just when unemployment is so pervasive, the average Joe has also had to fight off the mortgage interest wolf at the door to his own castle. Entire communities in my riding, such as Gosford Boulevard, a mammoth town house complex, have felt the ravages of foreclosure. People and families who for as many as six or seven years have been making mortgage payments to both the first mortgagee, Guaranty Trust, and to the second mortgagee, the builder, now find themselves as tenants at sufferance in their own homes, a seemingly generous gesture by the lenders who at the first glimpse of the spring price increase will unceremoniously turf them out and sell the properties to the first buyers who cover the outstanding first and second mortgages, wiping out not only equity but dignity and self-esteem.

Every day our constituents walk into our offices with writs of foreclosure, power of sale notices and, the saddest day of all, the sheriff's final notice to evict them. For months, my party and my colleagues have called for provincial initiatives in short-term interest relief for small businesses and home owners. One would have thought the throne speech would have called for such measures but there was only silence and neglect.

I invite government members to tour the Jane and Finch area of my riding, to tour Driftwood Avenue, Shoreham Drive and Stanley Road -- at night, as my colleague suggests -- to see the devastation of their neglect spelled out by the multicoloured "for sale" signs; not of the owners' choosing, I might add.

If they cannot bear a close-up scrutiny of my riding, they can slink along in their limousines on Highway 400 at the permitted speed and they will still be able to see, even from the highway, the signs of misery, the going-out-of-business sales, the bankruptcies, the liquidations and the trustees' final financial clearouts.

The throne speech refers to a wide range of initiatives to increase the stock of rental housing, particularly around Metro. Over 70 per cent of my constituents live in rental accommodation, a good portion of them in the inadequacy and squalor of assisted housing and public housing.

Can this government not understand that Ontarians, and particularly new Canadians, have no desire for more rental housing? Is it not time to consider ways of bringing ownership to the largest possible number of people by housing co-operatives and by ordering municipalities to allow duplexing and multiple dwellings where space and services permit? Is it not time to encourage building societies along the British and Italian patterns where private individuals can place their savings, receive a tax-free return by way of interest and repayment which will be tax exempt and thereby allow vast pools of funds to come onstream for low-cost mortgages? No initiatives are contained in this direction and, for this reason, the speech fails to achieve any kind of credibility.

The reference to job opportunities for school youths has a hollow ring in Yorkview. For years, the leaders of the black community, the leaders of the growing Spanish-Canadian community, and the leaders of the National Congress of Italian Canadians have been calling for special services for youth. Instead, what do we get? We get the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) who "done brung the cheque" to the youth opportunities program and we get a miserly cheque from Wintario to the people who are running the Caribbean outreach program.

The special report on vandalism cites lack of job opportunities as the main factor in the rise in property crimes. Yet, at a time when 47 applicants exist for every available position, the special plight of youth has received no new initiatives or attention from this government. No announcement exists in the speech of massive apprenticeship programs for the construction trades. There is no mention of joint industry and provincial programs to help applicants qualify for the more than 48,000 jobs for highly skilled workers which cannot be filled now. There are no massive retraining programs about which my leader has so eloquently spoken.

The throne speech also speaks of effective law enforcement. Yet citizens in my riding, and the Solicitor General may take note, live in constant fear of the proliferation of handguns and of other illegal firearms. Our harassed 31 Division of the Metropolitan Toronto Police finds itself understaffed in community relations officers who can understand and relate to the now significant East Indian and Pakistani communities, to the Caribbean communities, not to mention being able to converse in even passable Italian, to deal with the elderly and the newly arrived in our residential areas.

9:50 p.m.

Break-ins, thefts, muggings, holdups, beatings, street gang warfare, rough justice by drug dealers -- I ask, is this effective policing? As the critic of the Solicitor General, I hope to address and hammer home some of these points on future dates.

An overworked, poorly staffed and generally demoralized police force sometimes resorts to shortcuts and to questionable conduct. One would have hoped this speech would have contained recommendations for a more critical and effective review of police conduct by civilians, and yet we have no new directions in the area, just a pious letter received a few weeks ago from the office of the public complaints commissioner praying, and I quote, "Please help us make it work." Only a miracle and divine intervention will make it work.

What is even more amazing is that the new Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) has left the glamorous area of police review to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), although the ultimate aim of police review ought to be the more effective punishment and disciplining of officers who transgress the rules of conduct. This is a task which the Solicitor General has not seen fit to take up; but then, as far as I know, the new Solicitor General is not in the leadership race.

One has to have a cruel sense of humour to talk about the significant opportunities for transportation technology export abroad for the Urban Transportation Development Corp. While the speech speaks of empire-building in Europe, Asia and South America, here at home in the northwest corner of Metropolitan Toronto we still live in almost medieval time frames when we speak of urban transit and the time it takes for individuals to reach the city centre.

The province should have taken immediate steps to fund either an east-west subway route along Finch Avenue across the top of Metro or an above-ground rapid transit route along the same street. Transportation of goods and materials ultimately will have to be funnelled through a revived extension of Highway 400, not just to Weston Road, many miles short of the promised St. Clair extension, but eventually to our Gardiner Expressway.

If there is one dominant theme of the speech, it is its failure to address specific Metro problems. Let me highlight just some of these problems.

In the area of property tax reform, there is still no publicly known formula for assessment used by the province. In my own community, in one recently completed subdivision, the Northwood Community Centre, out of 169 new homes constructed, 39 have now been assessed. Even though the homes sold for about $92,000, the average going price for a semi-detached bungalow, some of the assessments on this new subdivision are higher than homes selling in the $300,000 range in parts of the neighbouring borough of York and the Forest Hill area. This catch-as-catch-can approach has demoralized home owners in North York. It has discouraged pride of ownership and will ultimately lead to a Proposition 13 type of backlash.

In the area of day care centres, perhaps the highest proportion of couples where both husband and wife work lives in Yorkview. There are 4,100 children on day care waiting lists. Yet when the city of North York started to use school classrooms for nonprofit day care centres, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) decided to enforce and apply assessment. If this is an indication of where the throne speech wishes to lead us, then we definitely have to support its rejection.

In the area of workmen's compensation, the speech states that the government will adopt the white paper on worker compensation and "will continue to confer with interested parties. i ne essential task of this government should be to commence job retraining programs for those who have been hurt on the job, to provide incentives to employers to rehire those who have been hurt, and to create jobs which the people who were handicapped because of work-related accidents are able to fill.

There was some glimmer of hope in the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. It is stated: "The lead ministry for multiculturalism in my government will be the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture." We shall see whether the government is serious about its new initiatives in this direction.

Now that the final report of the working group on third language instruction has been tabled, it will be interesting to see whether this ministry, along with the Ministry of Education, spearheads the proposed changes to promote heritage language teaching in Metro as part of a day care program using the additional 150 minutes per week required by the ministry and finally integrating third languages into the daily curriculum.

It will be interesting also to see whether this new ministry, along with the Ministry of Education, creates and promotes programs for cross-cultural studies and generates curriculum material that can be taught in the third language where the numbers warrant.

However, there are serious flaws in substance in the speech from the throne. For this reason, I support my leader's amendment and I would urge other members to do so.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in accordance with tradition, I congratulate you on your elevation to the high post you hold in the chamber. The Deputy Speakership is an important position and you provide to the office the stability that is needed. We appreciate that.

I would like to spend a few moments this evening talking about a matter that has become very dear to me since I assumed the responsibility of Natural Resources critic for the New Democratic Party. It is very fortunate that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) is not here tonight, as that means I will be able to finish my speech without being yelled at, intimidated, threatened or having my privileges as a member withdrawn by the minister himself.

It is unfortunate that the minister responds to criticism in the way he does. He seems to have forgotten that the term "loyal opposition" is a phrase that has a great tradition and that the word "loyal" is in there for a purpose. Apparently he considers that when we criticize him as a minister we are somehow being disloyal to the chamber, if not to the entire democratic process. The minister has an incredibly short fuse when it comes to handling his ministry.

For many years people have been sounding alarm bells about the state of forestry in Ontario. We are constantly being told that cutting practices in the forest are wasteful and that we will run out of trees in the next 10 or 20 years; that the pulp and paper industry is polluting our rivers; that the industry wants all the trees for itself, leaving very little for other users of our forests.

The industry, in return, argues that it is not in trouble; that the public does not understand logging practices; that it is installing pollution control equipment as fast as economically possible; and that indeed it is willing to share our forests with others.

There has been a truly amazing number of reports and studies on forestry in Ontario during the past 30 years. In recent months the federal government has made a report, the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment has sponsored reports and the Ontario government has published reports.

The province admits in general terms that there have been problems but says that the situation is now under control. The industry claims that while it has not always been prudent, a new era has dawned and that the industry, hand in hand with the provincial government, now is going to farm our forests in perpetuity. Independent foresters, either through their association or as academics, disagree with both the government and the industry.

Before sorting out the conflicting views, let us understand why the issue is important and what is at stake for Ontario.

Forest sector employment in Ontario amounts to about 79,000 jobs. Forestry ranks either first or second in all six Ontario economic areas. No other industry comes even close to providing this country with as much surplus in trade. That means foreign exchange and that means the value of the Canadian dollar. Forestry provides Canadians with almost twice as much surplus as do minerals, the number two sector.

Keep in mind as well that the economic benefits of forestry are only a part of the return we get on this incredible resource. Forestry is a very important component in our multibillion-dollar tourist industry. Forests moderate weather, regulate water flows, prevent soil erosion and protect fish and wildlife.

Forestry is a truly remarkable resource. What makes it even more remarkable is the fact that it is all renewable in perpetuity. Employment should always be there, tourism and recreation probably will increase, foreign exchange earnings should increase and the tax revenues should keep pouring in.

10 p.m.

It is perhaps because of this awesome potential that people get excited about forestry. Of course, there can sometimes be a gap between the potential of a resource and what we actually realize from it, and therein lies the problem. If we do not manage our forests well we shall not be serving well either the forests, the industry or the people of Ontario. The stakes are large for all three. A poorly managed forest will not regenerate properly, the long-term interests of the industry will not be served and we the people of Ontario will be the losers.

We are at a period when very critical decisions are to be made. Keep in mind that up to now we have been exploiting virgin forests. These forests had many years to grow, mature and regenerate, giving us nature's mix of particular species of trees and a varied habitat for varied species of wildlife. Now we shall be cutting our second generation of forests and planting a third, and we do not have the luxury of so many years to do it. We must grow that second forest in approximately 100 years or considerably less. If we fail to do the job properly, succeeding generations will claim that we did not understand the difference between a renewable resource and a nonrenewable one. Indeed, we will be accused of turning a renewable resource into a nonrenewable one.

Already there are serious danger signals, even alarm bells. A September 1981 federal government report put it succinctly: "The most important issue facing the forest sector is timber supply. Local shortages of wood at a competitive cost have emerged in every province. In the past it was customary to harvest virgin timber and leave nature to replenish supply. In effect, we mined the virgin forest and gave too little thought to the future crop. Forestry is now in a critical transition stage where mining must give way to systematic forest renewal." That is a good summary of where we have been and where we are now.

How did we get ourselves into this mess? There are readily identifiable culprits: the industry and the Ontario government. They have passed the responsibility for regeneration back and forth between them whenever the state of the forestry sector became a public issue. At this very moment responsibility is being transferred from the province back to the industry, with the province paying for the nursery stock and certain other costs, such as access roads.

The Ontario government had responded to the wood supply crisis by launching a program of agreements between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the pulp and paper companies. These forest management agreements are supposed to formalize the regeneration and forestry responsibilities of both the ministry and the companies. There are, however, some very real problems in the way in which the whole process is being carried out by the ministry.

First, public participation is a sham. No real policy options or alternatives are laid before the public. We are told what has been decided and asked to submit comments or suggestions. There is a paternalistic and condescending approach to the way the ministry is doing it. We should be given options on a number of variables, such as the alternative uses of the forests, the boundaries of the limits assigned to the different companies, the annual allowable cut assigned to the companies, comparison of lumbering revenues with potential tourist revenues and the real economic and biological values of preserving gene pools in certain areas.

There appears to be no guarantee that the cutting practices of the companies will be dramatically changed. The past practices have been deplorable, with an enormous amount of wood left in the forests to rot. Forest management agreements are being signed before the comprehensive strategic land use planning has been completed in northern Ontario.

It is outrageous to sign FMAs before the district land use plans determine the appropriate land use for that area. The minister is saying to the public, if I can paraphrase: "I reserve that huge tract of land for the industry. You other users, you other would-be users, you fight over what is left." That is unfair to the tourist operators, cottagers and wildlife and park enthusiasts.

The FMAs are exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act. This is an affront to all Ontario residents and not just to those in the north.

The forests are more than a source of raw material for newspapers in New York and magazines published primarily to sell advertising space. The minister does not seem to understand that. This government will still not subject the FMAs to the Environmental Assessment Act, and that really is outrageous.

Should we not have an impartial assessment of the long-run impact of the maximum allowable exploitation of this marvellous resource? This may be akin to heresy, but I do not believe the Minister of Natural Resources should have the final say on a resource that belongs to all of us. Pulp and paper is important, yes; but so is tourism, wildlife, hunting and fishing, parks and whitewater canoeing.

The FMAs embody a sound principle. That does not mean there should not be meaningful participation to fine-tune that principle. The stakes are enormous and the FMAs are no guarantee that the errors of the past will be eliminated.

I would be much more reassured if the ministry and the industry would admit that we are facing a supply crisis. They claim there is virtually no evidence yet that supply is the crucial issue in Ontario. I believe there is a crisis in supply, and I will tell the House why.

1. The industry is fighting and lobbying ferociously for every single tree in Ontario. They are fighting against the setting aside of just five per cent of productive forest land for park reserves. If supply is not a problem, why can they not get by with 95 per cent of the forests at their disposal?

2. Impartial experts state categorically that there is a crisis. Here are some examples. The federal report known as the Reed report states, "The softwood species accounts for 94 per cent of the current roundwood harvest and represents the most critical supply problems."

With specific reference to Ontario, that federal report says: "The time has now arrived for setting realistic annual allowable cuts for the next two decades. Shortages will become more widespread in the 1980s unless forest renewal performance improves dramatically."

A cutover area assessment, known as the St. Lawrence Licence Cutover Assessment, written by Edward Clemer and Trevor Atkins, is a devastating indictment of cutting practices and regeneration predictions of government and industry. They conclude in their report:

"The government's reforestation program has not been particularly successful. In fact, the only consistent result of the government's reforestation program has been to accelerate the rate of stand conversion from softwood working groups to mixed wood and hardwood working groups. Silviculture treatment has done little to improve the rate of cutover, success-failure rate and future softwood yields."

This study, which assessed an area already cut over, bodes badly for the yield we may get on other second-generation forests.

A study done recently for the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment by two Lakehead University economists, Anderson and Bonser, also concluded that we are headed for trouble. It should be kept in mind that the authors had no axe to grind in any conclusions they reached.

They warned, "There are several reasons to believe that currently reported annual allowable cuts are more or less inaccurate and seriously overestimate the actual supply of fibre available to the industry on a sustained basis at present levels of logging utilization and softwood-hardwood fibre proportions for pulp and lumber."

More specifically, they state, "Accelerated plus liquidation harvesting means that current annual allowable cuts are not sustainable to the year 2000." Further, "Withdrawals of productive forest from wood production will materially affect fibre supplies." And still further, "Annual allowable cuts would also be adversely affected by any extraordinary fire losses or insect infestations." Then they say, "Forest resources inventory-based estimates of allowable cuts tend to overstate realizable allowable cuts." Those are very damning statements from two independent economists.

In several conversations I have had with professional foresters, it became clear that they regard the forest resource inventories as grossly overestimated. This is a serious matter since the annual allowable cuts are largely based on that same inventory.

10:10 p.m.

Bonser and Anderson also claim, "Management plans are frequently outdated and incomplete, and incomplete management plans, combined with the limitations of the forest resource inventory data, mean that Ontario's annual allowable figures are relatively unreliable and are probably too optimistic." Finally, they say, "Annual allowable cuts will include acreage that has not been adequately regenerated following harvesting." All this leads Bonser and Anderson to conclude bluntly, "Fibre supplies are not only insufficient to support additional manufacturing capacity, they are inadequate to support existing capacity without major improvements in utilization."

What all these quotes mean is that there is a crisis of supply and the forest management agreements will not avert that crisis. The question we should ask is why the industry and the government would proceed to cut too much wood when it is not in our best long-term interest to do so. The answer, I believe, is that we have a classic case of short-term advantages steamrolling over long-term benefits. The industry has a short-term view. Its rate of return on investment tends to be calculated in 20- to 30-year terms. The length of time to grow a tree is anywhere from 60 to 100 years. The industry, I suspect, believes it can cut more than I think it should and that intensified silviculture will look after the future.

The government is concerned about jobs and about the health of the forestry sector. That means reserving jobs now and allowing annual cuts that maintain the maximum number of jobs. Unfortunately, just as in our personal lives, short-run opportunities may not result in long-run stability. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the industry has tended to see itself as the only forest user, although it has tolerated tourists, tourist operators, hunters, fishermen and so on. Nevertheless, it has viewed its needs as paramount and those of others as secondary.

While I understand that self-preservation is a legitimate instinct, I do not believe all other users need be excluded. I really believe we could have the best of several worlds. We can have a sustainable yield from our forests. We can cut, plant, cultivate and cut again while, at the same time, respecting the desires of other legitimate users.

Tourism is very important and tourist operators are absolutely necessary if we are to realize the potential this sector offers us. As society becomes increasingly urbanized, more and more people will want to experience the pleasures of our forests, lakes and rivers. That potential will be realized only if we reserve certain parts of our forest land base for tourism. Logging and white-water canoeing simply do not go well together. We have in this province the kind of land base that allows us to give the forest industry its fair share while, at the same time, giving the tourism sector a reasonable resource with which to work.

I should like to spend a few moments on the topic of parks. When many of us think of parks, we think of the highly utilized provincial parks. An increasing number of people, however, think of wilderness parks. It is perhaps a commentary on our way of life that the further people are removed from the wilderness, the more is their yearning to experience it. One hundred years from now I am certain the present generation will be judged more for the wilderness we preserve than for the cunits we cut.

Our original forests are a unique treasure. We cannot cut them and duplicate them even in 100 or 200 years. The mix of species is as unique as is the wildlife that lives there because of that mix. We can never control nature to the extent that we can demand a precise response to cutting practices that literally obliterate many years of growth, death and regeneration. For this reason it is necessary for us to preserve in perpetuity selected areas of original forests.

The gene pool that exists there is unique and can never be duplicated. It is not a freak of nature that caribou herds frequent the Ogoki-Albany Park reserve. They are there because of the foliage, the rivers, the soil and the particular mix of tree species. I do not believe we can second guess either the caribou or Mother Nature in general. Such areas must be maintained as ecological preserves. I do not care whether we call them gene pools, wilderness parks or ecological preserves. They must be preserved as a meaningful component of a forestry policy.

At the present time park preserves are recognized begrudgingly and are always on the threshold of extinction. They must become untouchable. Parks are not a luxury to be tolerated at the expense of the pulp and paper industry. Parks are a legitimate alternative use of our forests. They are an exciting alternative that has the potential of preserving something very precious. We must not allow our parks to be used as a pawn. They are a valuable and unique resource.

The question we must answer is whether or not we really can have a thriving forestry industry, while at the same time ensuring the rights of other forest users. We can indeed, as long as we make sure that annual allowable cuts are reasonable and that regeneration is pursued with diligence. We have an enormous potential in Ontario now to do what is right for the forests and for future generations. When I think of the present Minister of Natural Resources, I am very worried that he will act without due thought for the future and will act on what is expedient to do now.

There is an example in northwestern Ontario in what is known as the Atikaki area where there is a park reserve. A road is being built there and there is a great deal of controversy in that part of Ontario, near Red Lake in the Kenora area. The Ministry of Natural Resources held an open house on where this road should be built in order to provide access to the forests. The ministry tends to view the alternatives as it sees which ones are legitimate. They determine the legitimate routes, for example, for a road; then they ask for public input and then they decide what they are going to do.

There is growing pressure in the Red Lake area for the ministry to have a more objective view of that road. There have been two suggestions: one, that the Environmental Assessment Act apply to that road; or, two, that the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development be the one that makes the decision after looking at all the options. I find the second one less acceptable than the first, but I have a feeling that the government will not go along with an environmental assessment. If that is completely ruled out, a very nice compromise, which the government should be able to live with, is having the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) do something useful, do a study on this, because it is hard to justify the existence of the provincial secretariats most of the time.

Mr. Nixon: How can the member possibly say that?

Mr. Laughren: It pains me to say it, but nevertheless it is true.

Here is a situation where people feel very uneasy with Natural Resources making all these decisions because Natural Resources has become a ministry that people regard as almost having a life of its own that is unrelated to the needs of the potential users and lobbies in Ontario. They make their own rules and then they demand that other people go along with them, rather than letting the people of Ontario determine the rules with which we will all go along.

There is an optional road in the Atikaki area which, if the road were built, would offer potential for an Ontario Hydro development, which would be more acceptable to an Indian reserve, which would provide more employment and access to that Indian reserve and which would provide better transportation from Red Lake to Kenora. It would be a better boundary for the Atikaki park reserve and it would have the least impact on the tourist operators who have fly-in operations up there. They do not want the wilderness area disturbed any more than is absolutely necessary. There are options which should be looked at more seriously. Quite frankly, Boise Cascade would be no worse off; as a matter of fact, they would have a shorter distance to drive for their wood.

10:20 p.m.

I suggest to the ministry there is an option here, an opportunity for them to say that they in this ministry do not have all the wisdom in the world in these matters. I suspect there are an increasing number of groups in that area that are having second thoughts about the ministry's decision-making process, that feel they should hand the matter over to environmental assessment or to the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development. I would ask that the ministry take another look at that because I think it is being needlessly inflexible on the matter. I address the foregoing to the Minister of Natural Resources who has been listening to this in his office, I am sure. One can always hope.

I should make a few comments about the need for a food terminal in Timmins. The present Minister of Natural Resources, when he was not a minister, promised the people of Timmins that there would be a food terminal. It was a very firm promise. "We are going to have a food terminal in Timmins." It seems that somehow he has forgotten that.

Mr. Wildman: It was a terminal promise.

Mr. Laughren: We may occasionally twit the minister, to use an appropriate word, but it really would make a lot of sense to have a food terminal in Timmins. However, the minister has conveniently forgotten about that. To be fair to him, he does have some very serious problems to which he must address himself. He cannot spend all his time worrying about silviculture and regeneration, the future of the forests and our food terminal in Timmins. He has employees in his ministry who do not agree with his policies and he has to get rid of them. In Ontario it is very time-consuming to fire a civil servant who does not agree with his boss.

What a sad commentary that is to make about a minister. It takes a very insecure minister to feel he can not absorb a forester who speaks out on what he believes to be the correct policy and who finds out, after he had been fired, that the minister not only agrees with him but implements the policy the forester recommended. It is outrageous that the forester should be fired because he dared to express an opinion. He did not reveal a civil service secret or confidential document; all he did was express his views. And for that he is fired.

In Czechoslovakia, for instance, a professional forester who does not practise proper regeneration methods may have criminal charges laid against him. He can be taken to court for not carrying out his professional duties properly; for professional misconduct, in other words. In Ontario when a forester says, "This is the way you should do it," he is rewarded by being fired. I would hope that the professional foresters of Ontario are keeping a close eye on this matter and will come to the defence of the forester.

Mr. Martel: And some lawyers too for civil rights.

Mr. Laughren: Let us not get into the obligations of lawyers in civil liberties. I am old enough to have remembered how the lawyers of this country sat on their hands when the Prime Minister imposed the War Measures Act on the country. In my view that was a watershed of the legal profession in this country. But I will not be sidetracked into talking about that sordid piece of history, imposed on this country by a federal Liberal government and supported by the Tories, federally and provincially.

Mr. Wildman: That's it. That is an apprehended insurrection in his ministry.

Mr. Laughren: The only other thing I would close on is that on the weekend I received some phone calls at my home.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: A couple of those too.

They were telling me they had had a job at the Ministry of Natural Resources last summer and that this summer they were told they would not be getting a job, that the ministry had told them somebody was being referred by head office for that particular job. When I raised that matter last week in the Legislature, the Minister of Natural Resources stated quite proudly that that was true, there were referrals that would go from head office.

What he did not justify was the practice itself. He just stood up and in a bald-faced manner said, "Yes, there are political referrals for jobs in this ministry." He did not deny the figure of 500 and he seemed almost proud of the fact. I guess the Tory back-benchers like to justify their existence by being able to say to their friends, "We can get you a job in the Ministry of Natural Resources someplace in the province."

That is a reprehensible way to run the system; that is not the way to do it. If there are good local people with experience who can do the jobs, they should get first shot at them, not the hacks and flunkies the minister calls his friends. That is not who should get the jobs, but that is who is getting them, up to 500 of them every year, not on the basis of merit --

Mr. McClellan: Five hundred flunkies.

Mr. Laughren: There are 500 flunkies out there who should be unemployed.

Mr. Nixon: What have you got against flunkies?

Mr. Lane: You don't care about workers.

Mr. Laughren: For somebody who never appeared when Elliot Lake miners were dying of lung cancer, who never appeared before the committee to defend them, it takes a lot of nerve to imply that anyone does not care about workers.

Mr. Lane: I did appear before the committee.

Mr. Laughren: I would simply say that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We are now back to the amendment on the amendment.

Mr. Lane: All you have to do is look at the response.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the member should have been here and witnessed that.

Mr. Lane: I was here.

Mr. Laughren: And you did not witness it; you turned a blind eye.

It is a very strange policy when the Minister of Natural Resources can stand up and proudly say he has 500 jobs that are going to go to the friends of his colleagues. When he implied that they were available to members of the opposition too, he was -- how shall I word this delicately? -- not speaking the way he should have been speaking.

Have the members ever seen this government with a program that involved 500 jobs that was not put out in the form of a brochure, where there was not advertising on television and radio and in newspapers? This is a program nobody knows about. I cannot imagine this government having a program that they do not brag about, do not talk about and do not advertise.

This is their own little patronage pool, their own little form of 18th century pork barrelling -- very, very unsophisticated too. The only thing that is different this year is that they were caught sending out a telex. Does the minister really think it is proper to send somebody from Toronto to Hearst, which is virtually shut down, to take a job away from a local person up there or in Espanola or Chapleau? That is not right. That is not the way to run it, and yet the Minister of Natural Resources seems to think that is just fine in Toryland.

Mr. Lane: That is just your interpretation.

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Natural Resources said it himself; he did not deny it a bit. He said: "Yes, that is correct. We have political referrals and they do come from head office." He did not deny they came from recommendations from MPPs; he did not deny it for a moment.

Is the member for Algoma-Manitoulin saying the minister is incorrect? He is not saying he is incorrect?

Mr. Lane: I recommend students from all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the honourable member to note the time please.

Mr. Laughren: Good heavens, time does fly. I have concluded my remarks.

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

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.