Hansard Transcripts 1982-May-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Early yesterday morning, Constable Rick Hopkins, a 10-year veteran of the Ontario Province Police, Mount Forest detachment, was shot and killed in the line of duty. Today, I would like to express the heartfelt sympathy of this House and the people of our province to Constable Hopkins's wife, Ada, and two young sons, Stephen James and David John.

No group of people serves our province and its citizens with more devotion and dedication than the men and women of the Ontario Provincial Police and no group is more deserving of our wholehearted support and admiration. The tragedy of Constable Hopkins's death brings home to all of us the sacrifice that our Ontario Province Police officers are prepared to make each and every day to keep this province safe for all of us. I think today it is important that we remember that sacrifice with gratitude as we mourn the loss of Constable Hopkins.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my friend in associating our party with the remarks that he made on the death of Officer Hopkins and I would like, on behalf of the members of my party, to express our condolences to his wife and children.

These gentlemen make a valiant effort in the law enforcement area in our province. It is a dangerous job and it brings home to every one of us how they put their lives on the line to maintain peace, order and safety in this province. The family very much deserves our condolences on this very sad occasion.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate our caucus with the comments made by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel about this mindless slaying and to join with him and all members of the House in expressing our condolences to the late officer's widow and to his two sons, Stephen and David.

POSSIBLE BUDGET LEAKS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am sure I will have the full attention of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) because it relates to an article in the Toronto Star today. On the masthead of the Star in big black letters, as I am sure the Treasurer has seen, is the following, "Budget to offer no-interest home loans: Builders."

This article is fairly explicit relating to what matters may or may not be in the budget which will be brought down by the Treasurer on Thursday night. The information provided is quite detailed. It mentions there is going to be a $7,500 interest-free loan to first-time buyers of new homes and it goes on with further details. We on this side are, of course, quite happy to hear that the Treasurer is finally stirring himself to do something, but there is a long tradition in western democracies that budgets are to be kept secret, or certainly the details thereof. This is obviously a serious matter.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Is this matter better brought up in question period?

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order that relates to the very functioning of this assembly and the procedures we have followed over the years.

Last year, the now Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), affectionately known then as Larry the Leak, also indicated to the press certain matters would be in the budget. I think it is incumbent upon the Treasurer to comment, and I would have thought he would have addressed himself to this article in the Star without being prodded by me.

I trust he will rise in his place to tell us how this news was leaked and if it is true or not true. I presume if it is true the Treasurer will do the honourable thing, as some of his predecessors have done, and resign if there has been a budget leak before the budget is brought down Thursday night.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the time before each budget is full of rumour; that is a rumour.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Helped along by your own sweet self.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all. There were many rumours in the weekend press as to what would be in the budget. Until such time as I bring that budget down, the member will not know whether the rumour is founded on fact or not.

I would like to point out one thing. Perhaps unlike the federal government, we talk to a lot of people and ask them for advice in advance of preparing a budget. It is possible some of the people we have asked for advice have assumed that because they gave us advice it was taken in total, as they would like it to be done. I would suggest that the member not jump to conclusions until such time as I unveil that budget.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has not allayed the fears that have arisen in so far as the specifics of the article are concerned. Can the Treasurer categorically deny the content of the story? For example, can he concretely and specifically deny that $75 million to $100 million for the home ownership aid program has been budgeted?

If he cannot, will he take the step of resigning if such a specific piece of information about such a specific budgetary matter has been leaked and has become public knowledge? Surely that is not asking too much, in so far as the Treasurer and the government will not take the opposition members of the Legislature into their confidence before the budget yet this kind of specific information does seem to be getting out.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, the member assumes that every rumour he reads is correct.

Mr. Foulds: Can you categorically deny it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would be foolish to confirm or deny any rumour at any time, because by denying one I cannot then say to the next one, "Well, I cannot deny it," and therefore confirm it. The member is an old school teacher and he knows the rules of the game. He knows the rules of logic, I hope, even though he does not apply them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to members that today the Ministry of Revenue mailed some 543,000 interim Ontario tax grant cheques totalling nearly $147 million to eligible senior citizens throughout the province. These cheques were mailed to all seniors who received a 1981 property tax grant and is equal to half of last year's grant plus a $60 temporary home heating grant. The maximum possible value of each cheque is therefore $310 and the average cheque is approximately $270.

Members will be aware that early last week a comprehensive information kit providing full details about this mail-out was distributed to the Queen's Park offices and constituency offices of all members of the provincial Parliament. This advance distribution of support material is part of a broader initiative to enhance our service to all MPPs through the ongoing provision of up-to-date Ontario tax grant program information and a faster response time for constituency office inquiries received by the ministry.

Such measures as an OTG information bulletin system, the assignment of a specific ministry contact person for each constituency office and an expanded telephone capacity by August of this year should provide material improvement in Revenue's ability to service members and their constituents. I should also add that paid information support in the form of weekly ethnic and daily newspaper advertising, as well as radio advertisements this week, should serve to reduce the number of potential inquiries associated with this morning's mail-out.

My ministry is well aware that many inquiries about the Ontario tax grant program are channelled through constituency offices. As I have remarked in the past, I again offer my personal thanks for the invaluable assistance provided by MPPs and their staffs.

AGREEMENT FOREST PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table a new publication of my ministry entitled Evergreen Challenge -- The Agreement Forest Story. This is the first official document published about the province's agreement forest program, from its inception in 1922 to the present.

A detailed narrative, it covers the founding of the program 60 years ago, its objectives, achievements and mode of operation. The book is intended for distribution to agreement holders, to the general public and also to schools, universities, libraries and to the staff.

If I may, I will briefly explain the purpose of this agreement program. Each agreement is a partnership between my ministry and the land owner. The owner leases the land to the ministry, which in turn manages the land for forestry purposes. This means the production of wood and wood products, the creation of suitable wildlife habitat, protection against flooding and erosion, protection of water supplies and areas for recreation.

The program was the province's answer to the crying need for reforestation in southern Ontario back in the 1920s. Early settlement and timber operations in the 1800s had resulted in the depletion of pine forests and had turned large tracts of land into waste lands.

In 1921, the Reforestation Act was passed, which enabled the Minister of Lands and Forests to enter into agreements for reforesting, developing and managing the depleted lands.

The following year, the first agreement was signed with Simcoe county and now in Simcoe county 281,114 acres are being actively managed. I am proud to say that this is the largest agreement forest in Ontario. Simcoe county has been named the forestry capital of Canada for 1982 by the Canadian Forestry Association. Last Tuesday, a day-long outdoor celebration for the media and the public took place at Hendrie Forest, near Midhurst, to mark that special anniversary.

As the agreement forest program became broader in scope, an increasing number of counties joined the agreement family. Eventually the program grew to include conservation authorities, townships, regional municipalities, the government of Canada and industry. Fifty-eight agreement holders now have about 272,000 acres of land which is being managed for various forestry purposes, as well as forest research studies, outdoor education, tree improvement and youth activities.

I am certain that the members will find this publication a most interesting narrative. I am most pleased to table it for their information this afternoon.

PITCH-IN ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGN

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I wish to remind the members of the major environmental event which is taking place this week from May 10 to May 16. It is the province-wide Pitch-In campaign, a spring cleanup and beautification program which is being staged by the 28,000 members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Pitch-In is supported and endorsed by my ministry and by the Ministry of Education on behalf of the government of Ontario.

The Federation of Anglers and Hunters first introduced Pitch-In as a province-wide environmental cleanup project in 1980. My ministry provided major support in the development of promotional materials, advertising and some financial assistance. The first Pitch-In Day made a significant contribution in enhancing those areas of the province which did not have the benefit of regular cleanup and collection services.

In one area where 13 federation clubs did a superb organizational job, 4,650 people were involved, 19,830 man-hours were devoted, 5,500 garbage bags were used, 950 returnable bottles were taken back and 450 miles of road, stream and lakefront were cleaned as a result of the 1,000 tons of garbage collected. We are pleased to assist again this year in what we expect to be an even more successful program. Environmental projects are being mounted by close to 1,000 individual groups, which include federation clubs, service clubs, schools and church groups.

Friday, May 14, 1982, has been declared Pitch-In Day. Any school wishing to participate in the campaign, either during the week or on Pitch-In Day itself, has been endorsed by the Ministry of Education. The main thrust of the program is that pitching-in need not be expensive or time consuming. All that is required is an awareness of the need to keep our environment healthy and free from debris. Special garbage bags have been supplied to the Federation of Anglers and Hunters by Shell Canada Ltd. Groups which participate will receive certificates in recognition of their involvement.

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to the minister that this was a bill we brought in back in 1979 and we really feel it is doing a worthwhile job on behalf of Ontario. Perhaps it could be extended to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) to broaden the field.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) on the new publication he brought out today. What this government needs is more publications. I am disappointed that the minister's picture is not in it. Has the minister seen the newest one of Industry and Trade -- a nice soft-focus photograph taken by the local Playgirl photographer? That minister is getting ahead of him.

BILD PUBLICATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice with respect to another ministry brochure, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document, which I am sure you are familiar with. It is titled, This is What Was Done in the First Year.

I am sure the provincial secretary is aware of the policy of separating the judicial system from the politics of this province and that he wants to keep politics out of the courtrooms. Is he aware that this document is being distributed through a massive display at both entrances to the courthouse in London, Ontario? Why is he allowing the courthouses to be used to spread this kind of political propaganda?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, this particular area falls under the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). However, I do not think that particular document is political propaganda. It is a document pointing out the accomplishments that the BILD committee of cabinet and this government have achieved in the last year. It is the member's interpretation that this document is political. I guess that points to the fact that we have been very successful with the BILD program in the last year. I think the wider the distribution of that document, the more optimism Ontario will have in the future. In no way, shape or form could it be interpreted in that particular way.

Mr. Peterson: This was the cornerstone of the Conservative Party's election campaign. It is what the party ran on, and it is clearly Tory propaganda. Everyone with knowledge will question the efficacy of the program. The minister is using it to justify his existence and now is using court buildings to distribute the document. Surely, as Provincial Secretary for Justice responsible for the entire policy field, he should have some scruples and should insist on the withdrawal of this from the courthouses of this province.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The committee which I sat on before I was Provincial Secretary for Justice has expended over $675 million in the last year on behalf of this government. If success of a government program is ever indicated by the resources we spend on it, surely the BILD program is one. How can the Leader of the Opposition possibly paint it as just being a political ploy? It is the key to our industrial future. The Urban Transportation Development Corp., transportation, all the things that are included in that particular document are significant achievements for this province and for this government. For the member to indicate this is nothing but a political sham is ridiculous.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, as the minister is so sanguine and so supportive of having the BILD document circulated through the courthouses of this province, will he now go on record as being so supportive and so sanguine as to distribute through the courthouses of this province his freedom of information bill?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, once that document becomes public and the cabinet has dealt with that issue, I certainly will.

Mr. Peterson: The minister knows very well this was a part of the Conservative revitalization assistance plan -- he can use the short form if he prefers -- but was it his intention when he put this into his courthouses to have a little piece of delicious irony in that people could see this on their way to the registrar when they filed their bankruptcy papers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I have no response to that question.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. He has been deeply involved in the whole Spadina question, as I know you are aware, Mr. Speaker. The minister will recall that he said in his letter of March 4, and I quote, "If for any reason this agreement is not executed by May 1, 1982, the minister will immediately initiate expropriation procedures to acquire the Spadina lands." It is now well past that date. Why has he not acted on that? Has he been mugged in the corridors of power by the henchmen of the Premier (Mr. Davis)?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Perhaps he will enlighten us as to what did happen. Why does Paul Godfrey have more influence in these matters with the Premier than the minister has? What is his responsibility? Why cannot we, or the city, take his word at face value, particularly when it is written down in a letter?

Hon. Mr. Snow: My responsibility is to implement the consensus of agreement that was reached, I believe in 1975, on the construction of the Highway 400 extension, now known as Black Creek Drive, and to transfer that new roadway facility to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in exchange for the Spadina lands.

As the member knows, a major portion of the Black Creek Drive construction is now completed. Contracts are awarded for the balance, it is under construction and the first section of the highway down to Eglinton Avenue has been transferred to Metro Toronto. The other section will be transferred when the contracts are completed later this summer. It was my opinion we should now complete the agreement by the transfer of the said lands.

I sent a letter to Mr. Godfrey saying this was what should happen. He pointed out to me, in a letter, that he is quite in agreement with the transfer of the lands but this transfer should not take place until the final roadway is completed and the present uncompleted part is transferred, probably in October or November of this year. He has given me his assurance that the lands would be transferred at that time.

Based on that understanding, I felt, and still feel, it would be inappropriate to start lengthy expropriation proceedings when we have a full understanding and no disagreement on the matter.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, setting aside the fact that suddenly the minister's deputy, and presumably himself, thinks it is a reasonable proposition to extend these negotiations until fall, since the minister and the Premier are irrevocably committed, I trust, that there will be no extension of Spadina southward into the valley, and since Godfrey is committed to such an extension, why cannot he and the Premier allay the growing fears that that might happen and that commitment will be eroded, by writing a letter and assigning a three-foot strip at Eglinton Avenue so that the fears will be groundless from this point forward? Why cannot he do that and resolve these growing fears?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most members would understand I cannot just write a letter and grant a three-foot strip. First, I have to have title to the land in order to carry out that agreement that we will grant three-foot strips of land; one to the borough of York if it requests it -- and I believe it has -- and one to the city of Toronto. I cannot do that until I have title to the land. I will not have title to the land until the Spadina lands are transferred to the ministry on behalf of the province of Ontario.

It is for that reason I would like to get on with the transfer of those lands so the final details of the three-foot strips could be decided upon, the leases registered and the matter completed. That will be done as soon as we receive title to the land.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is very much aware that there are four loopholes in Metro's suggestion: one, that the entire Spadina corridor would be leased to Metro, thereby precluding the province's ability to grant the city a three-foot strip; two, Metro would be able to build roads in the corridor; three, Metro would have control over the city's ravine lands; and four, the corridor would be returned to Metro unconditionally if the Highway 400 extension was not completed by 1983.

The minister is aware, I am sure, that the Metro chairman does not want to grant that three-foot strip. What makes the minister trust him now? What makes him think he can negotiate it now? What makes the minister think the Metro chairman is reasonable now? What makes the minister think he can reach an accommodation now when he postponed it about nine times in the last seven years and he is making no progress whatsoever?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no doubt the Metro Toronto chairman will not be granting that three-foot strip. The province will be leasing that three-foot strip to the city of Toronto and to the borough of York once we receive title to that land. The balance of the lands will be leased to Metropolitan Toronto. In case the member is worrying, the highway will be completed prior to 1983.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IN ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware of the very negative and dramatic effects of foreign control and ownership on the electronics industry in Canada? Specifically, is he aware of the report of Evans Research Corp. on the computer communications industry and the effect of foreign ownership? Is he aware the study shows that in the one industry alone, if Canada got its fair share of investment in jobs, it would mean 21,000 more direct jobs, more than 2,000 of which would be in research and development; and it would mean $724 million would be invested in plant and equipment?

Given that information, how can the minister continue his infatuation with foreign investment in Canada and Ontario?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty at all in commenting on foreign ownership. From a general point of view, we tend to look upon the performance rather than the point of origin or the nationality of the individual firm involved.

We have found that many foreign firms provide us with a great many benefits. The foreign-owned firms tend to bring a lot of access to technology, a great deal of financial resources and capital investment, not to mention the management skills and access to markets. They also create jobs; that is the kind of thing we look at, for instance, the number of jobs that are created.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister willing to consider the same kind of process in terms of performance of job creation in Canada as he arrived at in the Volkswagen deal? If he does not do that kind of thing and insist on Ontario's and Canada's fair share of the jobs created in the markets sold here in Ontario, the 1980 deficit of $2.5 billion will grow to $10 billion by 1986-87. The present trade deficit in microelectronics is now 14 times the size it was just seven years ago. Is not the minister willing to develop a plan for the electronics industry similar to that developed with the Volkswagen arrangement in Barrie?

Hon. Mr. Walker: What we apply in the automobile industry is not to be considered a parallel for any other industry. We certainly have a plan. All one has to do is look at the Ottawa valley and the microelectronics centre that is going in there now to realize the kind of plan we have for and commitment to the electronics industry. That is the kind of thing the member should be looking at. He should be touting that today.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary regarding the minister's answer about performance and the microelectronics centre in the Ottawa valley. Is it not the case that the performance is the reason for this loss of jobs, that foreign-owned firms imported at double the rate of domestic companies and that 75 per cent of our imports to this country are by foreign-owned subsidiaries importing through inter-corporate transactions with the United States? If that is the case, how can the minister continue to have this artificial separation between performance and ownership?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Quite easily, Mr. Speaker.

DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Education, but since she is not here I will put a different question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Is the minister now prepared to admit that his ministry was wrong and will he now terminate the grievance procedures between his ministry and a forester called MacAlpine and reinstate Mr. MacAlpine?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I say to the acting leader of the third party that the issues as they have been stated in the media with respect to the MacAlpine firing are not my understanding of the issues. I look forward to the time when I can debate them in this House, which will be after the grievance procedure is concluded.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister prepared to categorically deny in this House that his ministry asked Mr. MacAlpine to fudge the statistics with regard to wood supply in the Black Bay peninsula?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I will have that debate with the honourable member after the grievance procedures are completed.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that Mr. MacAlpine is now working for the Ministry of Natural Resources in connection with a tree planting contract in the Port Arthur region? I am sure he will confirm that fact. If he does, how can the minister rationalize the fact that Mr. MacAlpine is not fit to be a regular employee of the ministry and yet he lets a tree planting contract to that same individual because he is the most competent person to do it? How does he rationalize those two positions?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the tenders were open to all members of the public who are not employees of the ministry. Mr. MacAlpine, on his own, submitted a tender with respect to a number of contracts and, for at least one of those contracts, was the lowest bidder. Because he was the lowest bidder, he received a contract.

Mr. Stokes: And the most competent.

Hon. Mr. Pope: The lowest bidder.

The Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has the answer to a previously asked question.

INDIAN BANDS COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed), and about a month ago the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), asked questions with respect to the status of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog Indian bands. In response to a question by the member for Halton-Burlington to the Premier (Mr. Davis) regarding the delay in the agreement between the Whitedog band and the government of Ontario, from time to time questions have been raised regarding the purpose of the province's negotiations with the Whitedog and the Grassy Narrows Indian bands, and the status of these negotiations.

First, I would like to remind the honourable members that Ontario entered into the mediation process with the bands as a result of a recommendation of the 1978 report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment which urged the government to give special attention to the social and economic needs of those two Indian communities.

While negotiations have been in abeyance for several months with the Grassy Narrows band, provincial officials have continued negotiations in recent months directly with the Whitedog band. Through these discussions, the province has identified numerous economic and social initiatives which are possible under existing legislative authority and in keeping with the terms of Treaty 3. To address the request outlined by the Whitedog band, these initiatives were outlined in detail to the band late last year and subsequently have been revised to attempt to accommodate recent modifications at the band's request.

I believe the implementation of a provincial offer will significantly increase employment opportunities for band members and will address their major social service concerns. Some of the broad land use considerations identified by the band appear to require more time for both parties to develop and review additional options.

I can assure the honourable members that the provincial government is prepared to implement all aspects of its current offer when the band signifies its readiness to proceed. In regard to those land use matters which require further discussion, it is my expectation that the band and the province will agree shortly on a suitable format for continuing negotiations of these outstanding matters.

ST. CLAIR REGION EXPROPRIATION

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Given that the inquiry officer who reported on the expropriation requested by the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority for the Darcy McKeough dam project has described the activities of the authority as bureaucratic bungling, is the minister prepared to take any action to see that conservation authorities in future plan better for expropriation matters?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to that authority, those expropriation proceedings were taking place at a time when some of our own policies were not as clear as they might have been, for which the ministry has to take responsibility. The report of the hearing officer, who heard a lot of the citizens involved in that committee, came to some correct conclusions in assessment of the situation. Blame should not be totally attached to the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority.

Since the initiation of this project, we have been working to clarify the procedures. One of the areas about which we have been trying to develop a more positive policy is with respect to flood plain easements. The hearing officer's findings have assisted us a great deal.

I think the answer is that we are trying to improve the mechanisms of the ministry and of the various authorities. I hope this kind of situation will not be as difficult for other residents of the province in the future as it has been.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Van Horne: I would like to go back to the minister on this word "policy," because the inquiry officer did make reference to the actual purchasing policy as opposed to the other policies for expropriations, etc. On page 78 of the report he indicates that the so-called provincial policy "clearly cannot be described as policy at all."

Given that the minister has made reference to the policy, can we have any understanding in regard to expediting the situation for those people who are affected at present and who have gone through, in their own words and in the words of the officer who heard the case last December, a living hell for the last few years?

Is there any indication that the minister can see the process being speeded up to accommodate these people? Second, can he give us an indication that policy in regard to purchase will be policy and not bungling?

Hon. Mr. Pope: We have been working very hard on a flood plain policy in the government and in the ministry over the past year. We think we have a policy with some improvements, which we are on the verge of announcing, with respect to the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority and the McKeough project.

The decision, which adopts virtually all the recommendations of the inquiry officer, Mr. Walker, should clear the air for the local residents. They now know the nature and extent of the easement they have to deal with. We think that, plus the commitment of the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority to get the project and the land acquisition finalized, should bring the matter to a head and resolve a lot of the issues that have been outstanding for some period of time. The final decision of the ministry is in line with the wishes of most of the residents in that area, and we are anxious to accommodate them now and get on with the program.

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), I wonder whether the government House leader and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs could come to his seat.

Even as government House leader, I think the minister must be aware of the colossal indifference his government has shown to the plight of the owners of homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. This has been shown by the Premier delaying for months the request for a meeting and in a variety of other ways. For example, no member of the government or even of the government caucus showed up at the rally held here at Queen's Park on Saturday. As a result of that, the home owners' association has asked me to send the Premier this container of urea formaldehyde foam insulation as a symbol of the government's indifference --

The Deputy Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Swart: May I ask specifically whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is aware that the federal government bill to compensate certain UFFI home owners, albeit in a very inadequate way, is scheduled to be debated in the federal House today? Is he aware Mr. Ouellet has stated repeatedly that the bill is inadequate because the provinces, particularly this one, are refusing to accept their share of the responsibility? Will the government immediately notify Mr. Ouellet that it is prepared to reconsider and enter into negotiations for some sharing, even if it is only 25 per cent, of the cost of providing remedial measures and eliminating the serious health and financial problems facing these people?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for drawing this to our attention. But I must say that it did not have to be drawn to our attention, as we are very much aware of it. My colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), who is not here today, will be happy to answer the honourable member's question tomorrow.

Mr. Swart: I should point out that the government has done absolutely nothing to this date to relieve the problem. Now we are in different circumstances. If the assessment relief pattern started by the assessment review court continues -- as it should, because those reductions are deserved -- Ontario municipalities will lose between $5 million and $6 million annually in revenue from taxation. Does the minister not recognize that over a 10-to-15-year period, this would be enough to pay the government's 25 per cent share of removing UFFI from all homes in Ontario?

Is the minister willing to let the municipalities and the UFFI home owners suffer what they are putting up with at present in the loss of revenues, or is he going to take some action?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I indicated, I will be happy to pass this on to my colleague who has been handling this matter. I realize it disturbs my friend when the minister to whom he wants to address the question is not here, but he will realize it is unfair to expect an answer from a minister who is not here and who has been very intimately connected with the details. I am sure the minister can answer his question tomorrow. The member will just have to wait.

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

Mr. Wrye: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you are a little slow on your supplementary.

Mr. Wrye: We haven't even had a supplementary.

The Deputy Speaker: I realize that, but no one was standing up. I think it is only fair if you want to go in an ordinary --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question --

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have a pattern which we follow in this Legislature in which the party that asks the first question gets a supplementary and then the other party gets a supplementary. When my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked a question, I did not rise because I was sure he had a supplementary that he intended to ask. I then rose to my feet to ask a final supplementary on behalf of this party. Apparently you appear to be unwilling to follow the pattern that has been established. Can you tell us what the pattern is?

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the pattern. As Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to follow the exact footsteps of the Speaker. I will not get into a long debate with you in terms of how supplementaries should be followed, but it is my understanding that the second supplementary should go to the other party following the first question. No one stood up, so I followed through with another supplementary.

Ms. Copps: It was their turn.

The Deputy Speaker: All right. First of all, does the member for Renfrew South have a supplementary or a new question?

Mr. Yakabuski: A new question.

The Deputy Speaker: Then in terms of following rotation and not disrupting the Speaker's ruling, I recognize the member from Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Wrye: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surely the government House leader, as a member of cabinet, is aware of and has had discussions within cabinet with his colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) about the precedent that was established in the Algoma region, where the assessment of homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation was reduced by 50 per cent, and the expected cost that there is going to be to the municipalities.

Why is this government not now prepared to move on a province-wide basis to reduce assessments for home owners with urea formaldehyde foam insulation and to compensate those municipalities which stand to lose at least $5 million if the province does not act?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would redirect that part of the question to my colleague the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked several times in the last couple of weeks and the answer is not dissimilar. Contrary to what is indicated opposite -- maybe their research into the issue has not gone far enough -- so far there has been one set of hearings by the assessment review court on the urea formaldehyde foam insulation issue, namely, in Sault Ste. Marie.

It has been made abundantly clear -- I know I made it abundantly clear in answering a similar question some two weeks ago, I think it was -- that this was the first of many such hearings and that in itself it did not necessarily set a pattern for other parts of the province. After other areas have been heard in reasonable enough numbers, there may be some indication of a policy on the part of the review court.

I want to stress the inconsistency of the members opposite in this regard. When we were getting assessment dollars for municipalities through reassessments on additions etc., they were the first ones crying. Now when there is talk about reducing assessments, they are once again crying on behalf of the municipalities, which is completely inconsistent, as always, on the part of both those parties.

The issue is very clear. In terms of municipalities losing assessment, they of course set up funds accordingly, anticipating that they are going to lose some of that if they are aware of it. Most municipalities that are passing resolutions in this regard are suggesting quite rightly where the responsibility lies for any refund of taxes lost, and that is with the federal government of Canada, the colleagues of the members opposite.

2:50 p.m.

INVESTIGATION OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister tell us what action his ministry has taken with regard to the allegedly illegal activities of Broker Investments and Broker Retirement Fund of Pembroke and Renfrew?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member was kind enough to give me notice that he would be asking this today --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just to avoid the members opposite making some silly remarks, because it is a problem that is of concern to the member and to that community, if it is not of concern to the members opposite they should not listen. They can just sit back and yell, the way they are used to doing.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: But if they care about the concerns of people in Renfrew county, they should be quiet.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Ontario Securities Commission became aware of some problems in those two funds in February and froze their assets towards the end of February. They moved in March to have a trustee in bankruptcy appointed, and the appointment was confirmed early in April. The exact amount of the losses that may be involved has not yet been determined. The investigation is continuing, and I will be pleased to keep the member informed of what takes place on a regular basis.

Mr. Yakabuski: Is it true that the aforementioned companies, or whatever we want to call them, were operating illegally?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That I do not know. I will be pleased to find out that information if I can.

PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATION IN OTTAWA

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in regard to Ontario setting up an embassy in Ottawa. How does the minister explain the hiring of Jodi White, formerly with the federal Conservative Party, who now lobbies for the Ontario government in Ottawa? Does he not feel that it is a conflict of interest for her to represent the Ontario government and a corporate client, the Canadian Petroleum Association?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my friend that this government has not hired Jodi White and that we do not have an embassy in Ottawa.

Mr. Ruston: Is the minister saying that the Toronto Star of yesterday is lying about what the government is doing? Can the minister explain how the Ontario government has reached the sorry state where, apart from thousands of public servants and 125 elected provincial members, it must hire a corporate lobby to represent our province? Is that not the fault of his government? The people of Ontario miss John Robarts, because when he went to Ottawa they listened to him.

Hon. Mr. Wells: For the past couple of years there has been a debate within our ministry as to whether somebody should be available in Ottawa more permanently to provide information to us directly. There had been some discussions with Jodi White about the possibility of doing that part-time for the Ontario government. No contracts have been entered into; no one has been hired.

Certainly if this kind of process were engaged in it would not be in the form of an embassy or an office in Ottawa. I think reference was made to its being the same as the Ontario office in Paris, where Adrienne Clarkson is the agent general. Nothing like that is contemplated, and at this time I cannot tell the member whether Jodi White might or might not be the person who would do that job for us if we decided that was what was needed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether this new desire to have more of a national presence by the provincial government has any connection with the intention of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to run federally and whether there is going to be a dual purpose to this office.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there is no need for this government to have a greater national presence or, in fact, any greater links with the federal government. On an intergovernmental, nonpolitical basis, this government has excellent channels of communication with the federal government. There is no problem there.

It is just, as my friend knows, that there are a myriad of things going on in a multitude of departments in Ottawa that mesh with things going on here, where certain staff people can be of assistance in providing information and in keeping the flow flowing back and forth and keeping ministers and deputies aware of exactly what is happening. That, I think, would be to the benefit of all the people.

If anything does occur concerning any changes in our positions in staff in Ottawa, it will be to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

DAY CARE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister prepared to accept responsibility for what may happen to the more than 200,000 preschool children of working mothers in Ontario who are unable to find licensed day care spaces and who are forced to use unsupervised custodial arrangements where health, fire and safety laws for day care centres do not apply and where the future development of the children may be stunted?

When will the minister bring in a timetable for funding the additional subsidized day care spaces needed to ensure that those thousands of Ontario children are not at serious risk?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am never going to bring in the timetable the honourable member wants, because she is committed to universal day care, free of charge, starting at less than one year. If she is not, she can just smile at me and repudiate her friends. The annual bill on that would be $3.5 billion.

Second, in terms of children being at risk, I do not really think that even the member believes what she said.

Ms. Bryden: The minister is producing a red herring by citing the $3.5 billion for free universal day care in one year. That is not part of our policy. We believe it will have to be phased in.

Will the minister not accept the modest proposal of the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care for the provision of 10,000 new day care spaces this year as a start towards the target of universal day care by 1990?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The answer is no. One of the real reasons it is no is that the member's own party has refused to accept it. Mr. Rae is out hustling for 4,000 or something at the moment; even he has caved in on it.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the first part of the minister's reply to the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Is the minister saying he is satisfied with the number of day care spaces we have now? He seemed to be saying in the first part of his answer that the children who are cared for in unsupervised day care right now are not in any way at risk and he seemed therefore to indicate that no change was required. Can he clarify that, please?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member obviously has some difficulty in comprehending me. It is not the first time. I do not really believe that even he believes there are 200,000 children out there at risk.

Mr. Boudria: I did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is what he just asked me in another way.

Mr. Kerrio: You have a communication problem.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I haven't. I do quite well, my friend.

As the minister, I am really never satisfied with the progress of programs. The provision of day care services in this province is the leading program in Canada. Indeed, we are far ahead of the jurisdictions in the United States.

Mr. Di Santo: That's nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Name one that is ahead of us. Name one. My friend the count, you name me one.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He cannot.

Hon. Mr. Walker: He seems to be very silent.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Very silent. Apparently what the honourable member wants -- because the Liberal Party is refusing to endorse the 10,000 day care spaces, etc; even its titular head in Toronto, the mayor, has scaled down to 4,000 -- I guess what he wants me to do is to give him an idea of what we are going to commit for next year. If he sees me just before Christmas I will tell him what we are going to do in 1983.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The record needs to be clarified, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege or whatever you call it. This minister --

The Deputy Speaker: I would appreciate something.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- consistently in the House is distorting figures for his own purposes. My leader, Mr. Rae, has said that we need 4,000 --

Mr. Wrye: Where is he?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty with that point of privilege, or whatever you call it. I am sorry, you are out of order.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister was wrong in his reference to 4,000. He misled the House. The figure that Mr. Rae used, the 4,000, applies to Metro. The party was committed to 10,000 immediate places in the province.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, if the member wants to send his leader out to some of these things to be a big shot and he cuts the program by more than 50 per cent, then the member must sit here and take his lumps.

Secondly, the original concept of 10,000 was for Metro. He knows it and I know it. Those guys have now bailed out. They are well down below 50 per cent.

RENTAL CONSTRUCTION LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and deals with the Ontario rental construction loans. Is the minister aware that these loans of, I believe, up to $6,000 given to developers, require them to make at least 20 per cent of the units available to the various housing authorities?

Is he also aware that in the Kitchener area, most of these units are not acceptable to the housing authority because the rents are too high, in our community approaching $500 a month? At the same time, we have 248 families on the waiting list for units and thus far only 11 out of 73 could be accepted by the housing authority. Would the minister explain to us what the conditions are? The plan obviously is not working.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously 11 out of 75 is not far off the 20 per cent factor that we are dealing with.

Mr. Sweeney: The 75 are the 20 per cent that have been offered to the housing authority but they have only been able to take 11 of those because of the price.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I concur with the member's remarks that 20 per cent of the units that are built under the Ontario rental construction loan program are to be made available to the local housing authorities, to try to put people on rent supplement programs into those particular units. The rental factor is established by negotiation, by the ministry people -- my people -- with the developer or the contractor in that particular community.

About Kitchener specifically, I would be glad to look at the situation and find out whether we have had a turndown as a result of the rental fee. Let me suggest very strongly that if that is so, I will find out who is establishing the rate we happen to be going in at.

Very honestly, the fact about rents in this province, whether in Kitchener or downtown Toronto, is that I do not expect the individual to rent it to the government, on a rent supplement program which is shared 50-50 by the federal and provincial governments, at a loss back to that developer.

I will look into the specific one mentioned by the member if he will tell me which project he is referring to.

Mr. Sweeney: Just to impress upon the minister the seriousness of it, I wonder if he is aware of the fact that of that waiting list of 248 families, 162 have total family incomes of less than $9,000 annually. Would the minister not agree that if the plan his ministry has in operation has any chance of working, there has to be some agreement between his ministry, the housing authorities and the developers, that those units are going to be offered at a rental -- however one works that out -- that, in fact, the housing authority can afford? Otherwise, the whole program is a sham, and it will never work.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the member is gathering that it will not work because of one particular community. I am not so sure of all the facts and figures at this time.

Let me say that I will look into it further, but I want to remind this House the decision that is ultimately made has to be one between the federal and provincial governments, because when one is a partner paying 50 per cent of the cost factor of running the supplementary housing program, then one has to be consulted. Obviously, not knowing the facts in the Kitchener area, going back to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and our ministry I will be glad to look at it and find out and report to the member.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Education has entered the House I would like to ask a question of her.

The Saturday, May 8, edition of the Toronto Star quotes the minister as saying, about the Toronto Board of Education's heritage languages program, "There is a very great danger of balkanizing the school system on the basis of language."

Given that the heritage languages program has been and is being run today in 63 schools of the Metropolitan Separate School Board without balkanization, without ill-effect, in fact with very positive effect, and given the research conducted by Dr. Cummins of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and by the former Conservative government of Manitoba, to indicate that the program is a beneficial program, why is the minister opposed to allowing the public school system through the Toronto Board of Education to institute the same program as that implemented by the Metropolitan Separate School Board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think the program which is currently run at the separate schools in Metropolitan Toronto addresses, on the whole, about three languages in toto and in most instances one language is provided at one school. It is also separated from an integrated curriculum in a way which would seem to be reasonable in terms of the total education of the children.

What I am suggesting is less than appropriate is the total integration of a heritage languages program into the school curriculum of the children in Toronto boards, particularly in schools where there may be as many as 30 languages spoken by the students in that school. I am concerned that if there were to be integration in order to effect economy and efficiency, the board would require the movement of children from the schools which they ordinarily attend to those schools in which there could be a concentration of one language or another. That is what I was referring to in the use of the term "balkanizing."

Mr. Foulds: In view of the fact that the minister has not yet received or seen the application by the Toronto Board of Education, and in view of the fact that the submission will probably be parallel to the Metropolitan Separate School Board submission, does the minister not think that it was at least premature to raise the red herrings she has raised, to raise the objections she has raised? In view of the fact that the government pays 15 per cent of the total cost of education for the Toronto Board of Education, does she not think that her violent objection and veto amounts to a negation of local autonomy?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. That is a preposterous suggestion.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister have to raise a spectre of balkanization or the possibility even of teaching 30 different languages in a school, which she knows is ridiculous? Why can these not be prioritized on a sensitive, integrated basis of need? Why does the minister have to use the extreme case in order to justify her position and put a lot of irrational fears in a lot of people's minds about the whole spectre of this problem?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have not raised unnecessary fears in the minds of individual parents. Indeed, the responses which I believe were presented to the Toronto board, as a result of the study which they were examining, would lead me to believe that there are a great many parents who did it without any kind of stimulus or concern expressed by anyone except themselves.

3:10 p.m.

It is a fact that in several Toronto schools, as well as some in Peel, North York and Scarborough, the heritage languages group comprises 30 different languages. In some schools it is even more than that. If there is to be any efficiency in the provision of languages programs, the children might have to be sent to other schools.

That is what happens now with heritage languages programs. Many children do leave their own schools to go after school to another school to take advantage of the heritage language program which is offered.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Well.

Mr. Foulds: You allowed one over there, Mr. Speaker. You have to play fair.

The Deputy Speaker: I am having a bad time with supplementaries today, I know. The member for Yorkview.

INMATES' ROOM AND BOARD CHARGES

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. As he is no doubt aware, the practice of this government has been to extract from inmates who are serving intermittent sentences sums of $5 and $10 per day for lodging while serving the intermittent sentences. Some $700,000 had been collected from over 2,000 inmates until the provincial court ruled on February 10 that the practice was illegal.

Is the decision of the provincial court judge now being appealed? Has the practice of charging these amounts been uniformly stopped throughout the province? Does the minister intend, if the Court of Appeal upholds the provincial court judge, to refund these amounts on a pro rata basis to the prisoners who contributed?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, after the finding on these intermittent sentences, the decision was made not to collect further moneys. The matter is under appeal to a higher court. We will have to wait the decision of that court before we decide what to do.

Mr. Spensieri: I would not want the minister to comment on a matter that is sub judice, but would he not concur with our position that the practice of permitting remissions earned by inmates to be lost for non-payment of these levies is an immoral practice and ought to be discontinued, regardless of what happens to the appeal? In other words, does he not concur with us that the practice of permitting inmates to get remissions on the basis of payments, as opposed to their being deserving of such remissions, is in itself an unconscionable practice?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: As the member knows, that decision was made by the courts and not by this ministry. The matter is under appeal and I do not think I would want to comment any further until we have the outcome of the appeal.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, to go back to the Minister of Education regarding the heritage languages program, is she aware that the board of education for the city of Toronto is asking for her permission to extend the school day by half an hour?

If she is aware of that, is she aware that back in 1977, when the heritage languages program began, the memorandum the then assistant deputy minister, Mr. Thomas, wrote to the school board said, "Such classes" -- referring to the heritage language programs -- "may be offered after school, or on non-school days or where numbers justify an extension of the required five-hour school day"?

If this is the case, and if this has been allowed since 1977, why is she now vetoing the heritage languages program with an extension of the school day by the Toronto board?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, two matters are being confused in this discussion at the present time. It is my understanding that the Toronto Board of Education is suggesting it would use the additional half hour which it will be adding to its school day to comply with the Education Act which requires five hours of instruction per day. That instruction is to be the curriculum which is provided for elementary school children, and the heritage languages program can most certainly be added to it at the end of the day, during lunch hour, on Saturday or whenever they want to do it. But it is not an integral part of the curriculum for elementary school children.

Mr. Grande: I do not understand the fear the Minister of Education has about the figures of 30, 40 or 50 languages she is throwing around. Is it not a fact the Toronto Board of Education has suggested where numbers warrant they will introduce a heritage languages program during the school day? Is she not aware of that?

I do not understand how she can make a grand statement that there is very grave danger of balkanizing the school system when all the indications, from Alberta and the Metropolitan Separate School Board system, and any other part of the world that has had this program, show there is not one hint of balkanization of the public school system. Is the minister expressing her own personal biases or is she speaking on behalf of the government of this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member should be aware that in Alberta there are two languages used at the current time in a program that is not similar to our heritage languages program. In Alberta there are not as many different groups benefiting from the heritage languages program as we have in Ontario. As a matter of fact, we are told with some regularity by emissaries from governments in other parts of the world, particularly from Europe, that this is the only jurisdiction that is providing the kind of educational diversity the heritage languages program provides.

I would ask those honourable members if, indeed, they can find any other jurisdiction in which the opportunity is provided for young people on the basis it is in Ontario; that is fully funded by the provincial government as an additional program after school hours, provided to the children within their own school buildings, and encouraging so many different groups to begin to understand the value of their cultural and linguistic heritage. It was developed on that basis within this province. It is a rational and very reasonable basis for the provision of that language and cultural program. I believe it should remain that way.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether this is her final judgement on this very sensitive issue, or will it simply be an interim decision she has made? Will she consequently promise this House she will come up with a final statement on all the pros and cons so that each of us will know precisely why she has made this decision?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that question can be answered at this point. I have been asked for opinions on the concerns that have been raised, and questions about the validity of the argument that has been put forward. I think it is reasonable to respond to such questions. Before there is any final decision, I would have to receive from the Toronto board something I do not have as yet, some resolution recommending the kinds of changes to both policy and legislation I think would be required.

PETITION

DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I wonder how the Minister of Education, who is interrupting my conversation with the minister --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You hadn't started when I was --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stokes: How can the Minister of Education rationalize her intervention with regard to the delivery of educational programming in Metropolitan Toronto when I have asked her to intervene in regard to the closure of the school in Schreiber and she said that was local autonomy. Why does she not give --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on petitions, as the member for Lake Nipigon appreciates.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, now that I have everybody's attention, this is a letter addressed to the Minister of Natural Resources:

"Mr. Pope:

"I applaud and support any effort by the people of our region to protest Don MacAlpine's dismissal from the Nipigon district office.

"The oath of office and secrecy is a heavy hammer to wield and your senior civil servants appear to have used it in a most selective fashion. Mr. MacAlpine did not hand out confidential information; what he did divulge was non-confidential, and he did not 'go public.'

"His cause, yours and ours would be best served by an open and public review of ministry inventories and forest management practices. No cause will be served by firing the messenger who brings the bad news."

They say further: "We are shocked and outraged at the crass miscarriage of justice evidenced by your choosing to dismiss Mr. Don MacAlpine on March 29, 1982, from his position as unit forester with the Ministry of Natural Resources in Nipigon, Ontario.

"Surely Mr. MacAlpine has the right to refuse to sacrifice his ethics as well as his integrity as an informed forester in the performance of his duties as a public servant. Don MacAlpine should be rewarded for his dedication to protecting and preserving our resources.

"Mr. MacAlpine is a responsible family man. He and his wife, Patti, are highly respected members of our community. Don has performed well in his job as attested to by his superior ... who is to be commended for stepping forward in an attempt to clear Mr. MacAlpine's name.

"Clearly, it is the Ministry of Natural Resources that is on trial and not Mr. MacAlpine. We demand that he be reinstated."

This was signed by 1,519 people who live in an area all the way from Schreiber to west of Thunder Bay. I present this for the consideration of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

REPORT

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) requested certain information regarding the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Detroit contract. I assured him I would table these documents today and I am so doing now.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, very briefly on a point of privilege: I was under the impression when the legislation permitting the UTDC to enter into bid bonds was passed by this House, that the minister would routinely table these matters before the Legislature so that we could judge these things for ourselves. It was my understanding that it would not really be a necessity for a member of the Legislature, be it myself or the member for Cornwall, to request them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a little trouble understanding what the honourable member is talking about, as usual. I suppose if he wanted me to bring in a wheelbarrow load of documents every day I could do so.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

PRESCRIBED BURNS SAFETY ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 103, An Act to ensure the Safety of Prescribed Burns in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which is one I introduced a year ago, is to ensure that prescribed burns be conducted in a safe manner. There is not a member of this Legislature, or the preceding Legislature, who does not recall the disaster at Nakina. This bill is an attempt to bring some debate to the floor of this Legislature so we can make sure things like that do not happen again. It involves a safety officer who would be required to examine prescribed burn sites. It would also require that permission be granted before any prescribed burns take place.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, this again introduces a bill I have brought to the House before. The purpose is to provide protection against the sale of stolen property.

Everyone in this Legislature is aware of the tremendous increase in garage sales and flea markets in our province. This bill would require that persons who deal in used goods record the name and address of each person from whom they purchase used goods. A dealer in used goods would be prohibited from reselling the goods for a period of seven days after purchase. In addition to that, where a dealer has reason to believe goods may have been stolen, he is obliged to report this to the police.

HAMILTON WEST BY-ELECTION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to inform the House that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has informed me the Lieutenant Governor has signed the writ declaring June 17 as the date for the by-election in the riding of Hamilton West.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 64 and 98 on the Notice Paper and the interim answer to question 108 [See Hansard for Friday, May 14].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on this amendment and this bill. I happen to represent a constituency that has high unemployment. I hope the minister pays close attention to this because it is a very important problem in our area.

I would like to preface my remarks by illustrating to the House some of the problems we have. I draw to the honourable members' attention an article in one of our local newspapers known as the Vankleek Hill Review. That is one of the important newspapers in my constituency.

The headline says, "Crisis Grows," in great, big, red letters. It talks about the Duplate workers as they leave their plant. That was just before Christmas when there was a temporary layoff of some of the employees.

There is also a lot more unemployment just across the river in Quebec at the Canadian Refractories plant which is located near Grenville, Quebec. Again, the Amoco plant in Hawkesbury has been under quite a bit of difficulty in the last few years. There have been many layoffs in that area and the situation is just not getting better. As a matter of fact, it is getting worse.

3:30 p.m.

We heard only recently that the federal government -- and I know the provincial government occasionally likes to bash the feds a bit -- has decided to offer some economic assistance to the town of Hawkesbury. Mr. Speaker, you will undoubtedly know that Hawkesbury is very far from Queen's Park. Sometimes it seems to be so far away that the town of Hawkesbury and this area just do not get the kind of attention I would like to see given to them.

The Department of Regional Economic Expansion of the federal government has decided to give assistance to the town of Hawkesbury, and the town has also decided to send a letter to the minister. I wonder if the minister has already seen it; it was sent to him last week. For his benefit, in case he has not seen it, or in case it should just be shuffled down the paper pile by people in his office, I will ensure that the minister has firsthand knowledge of it by reading the letter into the record. It is addressed to the Honourable Gordon Walker by the corporation of the town of Hawkesbury. It says:

"Dear Sir:

"As you know, the town of Hawkesbury, along with the municipalities of Vankleek Hill, L'Orignal, Hawkesbury West and Longueuil, were recently designated as a special zone under the Canadian industrial renewal program. The council of the town of Hawkesbury at its regular meeting in April expressed its appreciation to the federal government for responding to our call for assistance.

"During that same meeting council passed a resolution asking if the government of Ontario also intends to respond with assistance in one form or another following our representations to your ministry in recent months. Council is encouraged by the recent designation and is hopeful that through participation of both senior levels of government and its own initiative at the local level we can overcome our present economic difficulties.

"We would therefore appreciate it very much if you would re-examine our request and communicate your intentions to us as soon as possible."

The letter is signed by the mayor, Mr. Laurent Cayen.

I draw this to the minister's attention because it is very important in my riding. The minister may know that unemployment in my constituency, especially in the east end of my riding, probably approaches something in the order of 20 per cent. That is a very difficult situation and I hope the minister will address himself to that.

I wonder if the minister can hear me with all the noise behind me, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will eventually try to calm this Legislature down.

The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the member for Prescott-Russell will the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) be just a little quieter? He is not even listening to me. I am sorry.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad you brought this to the attention of the member for Etobicoke. I had a hard time understanding myself while I was talking.

Mr. Martel: I can understand that.

Mr. Boudria: I thought I was talking fairly loudly, but perhaps the member for Sudbury East, who was also busy talking to another member, could not understand me either. I can understand that.

Mr. Martel: If you can't understand yourself, how can you expect the rest of us to understand you?

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue briefly making some other remarks to the minister. I draw the minister's attention to an article in the Ottawa Citizen of April 14. The Ottawa Citizen qualifies the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program in the following way: "Well into its second year, Ontario's BILD program still faces an uncertain future." It goes on to describe all the problems there are in BILD, and it describes the many ways in which it is merely a rehash of older programs the government has.

Many of us think the BILD program has not been particularly effective. We believe it is a rehash of some older programs, and it is very difficult to qualify for anything under BILD. I have a case of a meat packing plant in my riding. It is called St. Isidore Meats. They have applied through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food because that is the mechanism by which one applies for a BILD grant that relates to agriculture.

I was initially told by the former Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) that their project, based on the information I gave to him, was exactly the type of program BILD was looking for. That information was also repeated to me by the deputy minister, Mr. Duncan Allan. For the present minister's information, that is in the record under the budgetary estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of last year.

It took six months for officials of the ministry to identify that St. Isidore Meats did not qualify for a BILD grant because it was not a processing plant; it was a slaughtering and packaging plant or something like that. Those technical points are very difficult.

We desperately need that kind of facility in our area. We had interested parties willing to build it. They have a certain amount of capital they are willing to invest. Yet we see that the government assistance we think is there really is not there when they need it. That is very unfortunate. I do hope the minister, in his new ministry, will attempt to make those programs a bit more flexible so more people can apply.

The other day I listened to the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis); I see him in the House at this moment. He had some very interesting things to say on the bill, especially as it pertained to some of the problems we have in eastern Ontario. I share many of the concerns raised by the member.

Mr. Philip: Do you have beer in the ball park in eastern Ontario?

Mr. Boudria: No, we do not have beer in the ball park in eastern Ontario, but that is an interesting point and it does relate in a way to what we are discussing today. Many of our tourist establishments and many of our local places of employment in eastern Ontario are losing a lot of money because of the very strict government policies pertaining to liquor licensing. I know that does not really pertain to this particular ministry, but it does have an effect on business and employment in our area.

One cannot help but feel that because of all our dollars which are exported to Quebec and to New York state on Saturday night and Sunday, somebody has to be losing something in that process. When our bars close at one o'clock and most of our establishments are closed on Sunday, or they are open in a way that makes them almost totally ineffective, all those dollars are going to neighbouring jurisdictions. On Saturday night we can stand at the international bridge crossing from Cornwall to Massena and witness that. One can see it in Hawkesbury going to Grenville or from Ottawa going to Hull.

It is not just a coincidence that all hotels within 10 miles of the Ontario border on the Quebec or New York side are doing great business and ours are folding. That has to be more than coincidence.

The minister in the past has been known to be somewhat non-interventionist and not too prone to change in that regard. At least I have been told the minister is that way. If he is changing or if that is not the case, I hope that through his input with the rest of his cabinet colleagues he can help in a small way to improve the economic situation of our area and many others. I do not think those policies are doing anything for our tourist industry and many related industries such as travel and so forth.

A few minutes ago I was about to describe the contents of the Ontario Business News, May 1982. It has been raised in the House by many members. I am sure the minister has heard remarks on it. He is probably wondering what we are going to say this time about this publication.

It is the quote from the minister that puzzles me somewhat. It says: "For Mr. Walker the replica of the typical street vendor 'says it all about the free enterprise system ... he does his own thing, his entire factory is on his box of wheels and he is not encumbered by rules and regulations.'" We read further, "Mr. Walker does not care so much where his investment comes from -- although he would prefer it were Canadian."

On the first quote, I tend to differ from the minister. I accept that he is a strong proponent of private enterprise and I do not have much problem with that. That is okay.

3:40 p.m.

What disturbs me is the fact I believe a lot of regulations are sometimes required to ensure that small businesses are offered a fair area to compete in the marketplace and that the little guys are not just trampled by the larger ones. That is very important. I am wondering how these remarks could be made in that context and I hope the minister clarifies that.

It is very important to assist and to protect our small and medium-sized businesses from the giant companies. Speaking of those giant companies, I would refer to the second remark, that the minister does not really care where the investment comes from although he would prefer it were Canadian.

Again, that is a very troubling thing for my area. The minister may remember my raising in this House the case of the Amoco plant in Hawkesbury that at one time had some 400 employees. Amoco is a subsidiary of Amoco of the United States, which is a multinational oil company. The plant in my riding, a textile plant, is a subsidiary of Amoco Oil, and all are owned by some company in Pennsylvania.

It is quite evident to everyone in my area that decisions to shut down that plant or to slow it down are never taken with any kind of a local context in mind. They are taken for whatever is best for the head office in the US. This is really puzzling. Amoco was given a grant by the federal government a few years ago to build the plant in Hawkesbury. I believe it was in the late 1960s. Some 10 years later, Amoco was given another grant by the federal government to build a similar plant in Cornwall. Now we see that the plant in Cornwall is not really laying off. As a matter of fact, for a while it was expanding at the same time as the plant in my riding was losing employment.

I really have to question whether Amoco is shutting down one plant to take advantage of a grant offered by the federal government in another place. I believe those kinds of things may be happening in my area and those are the kinds of instances that should demonstrate to us why it is important to have a policy of strong Canadian ownership of our industries.

I accept the fact that the minister says we need foreign investment -- and perhaps that is not exactly what he said in the letter -- but as a matter of policy I would hope he would attempt to get more Canadianization; and in the process I hope we do it in a very good and meaningful way, not the way we have seen the government more recently with the acquisition of Suncor.

Imagine how many jobs could have been saved by investing in industries here in Ontario; how many jobs we could have protected. I have been told there was only one job created by the acquisition of 25 per cent of Suncor and it is rather disturbing to spend $650 million per job.

I understand there is other rationale behind that, to have a window on the oil energy forum and those types of things, but I wonder how we will achieve that with 25 per cent ownership of a company which is not even making money. As a matter of fact, it appears to be losing money.

Our party is very disturbed by the priorities which the government has displayed in the past.

I know the minister is said to be one of the heavyweights in the cabinet and I hope he can reverse some of what I would consider to be irrational decisions taken in the past. With the interest that he has, I hope he will put those kinds of funds, or that $650 million, towards more meaningful things. I trust he will be able to do that.

I also have with me a copy of the Ontario Development Corp. annual report. I placed a question on the Order Paper roughly a month ago asking just how much it cost to produce that document. I received an interim reply a week ago, stating it would take until May 13, I believe it was, before they could determine exactly what this publication cost; which is a bit unfortunate as I would have liked to have been able to include it in my participation in this debate today.

I have examined this document very thoroughly and I really wonder if the kind of money that is spent on these publications is absolutely necessary. I want members to see this other report as well, which is a report from the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It should be noted that it does not have any glossy pages or anyone's picture in it. It is just a black-and-white, very standard type of bound report with a soft cover. It is not what I would call an expensive document.

I was a purchasing agent before I came here and I will refer to some things that involve purchasing a little later on. In my previous incarnation, as my House leader usually refers to it, I purchased documents like this and I know that even though this document is three times the size -- being a federal document it has to be a bigger document -- and although it is very thick and large, it did not cost nearly as much as the one published by the government of Ontario.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you have received one of these documents in your office. The photograph of the minister is excellent, I must admit that. My wife had a look at it and said, "This is an excellent shot of the minister." I thought I would bring that to his attention.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Would you send that over so I can autograph it?

Mr. Boudria: Okay, I will send it over and perhaps the minister can autograph it for my wife. She will be glad to see that.

This document is just page after page of coloured photographs and glossy paper. I fail to see exactly what showing two people sitting down and looking at a piece of paper can do in so far as jobs in Ontario are concerned. I do not understand where the priorities are. I am also looking at the document which has a picture of a welder on it. A welder is very important, but having a picture of one in that book is not going to accomplish much.

I suggest that if this document cost $25,000 to produce and could have been produced on ordinary paper for $10,000, the other $15,000 could have been put out there to create real, meaningful employment instead of what is just a make-work program that advertises coloured pictures of Conservative cabinet ministers. It is not the kind of priority to which I feel this government should be addressing itself.

A moment ago I was talking about purchasing. Members may recall that last Thursday I spoke on a private member's resolution which was brought into this House by the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). I am sure he will recall my participation in the debate.

I have here a copy of an interesting booklet that was distributed, courtesy of the member for Cambridge, which says "Jobs for Cambridge" and "Buy Canadian." Certainly there is nothing wrong with buying Canadian. That is what we should all be doing. I am sure the member for Cambridge shares my view. As a matter of fact, that is why he introduced the resolution.

Maybe what the member did not know is that this government is not setting a very good example as far as buying Canadian is concerned. If one takes a quick tour of our offices or looks at our desks in the Legislature, there is hardly anything that is Canadian. Even the glass I am looking at is a Libbey glass made in the United States.

3:50 p.m.

Those are the kinds of things the government should be addressing if it wants private enterprise to buy Canadian, if it wants citizens to buy Canadian cars and if it wants them to be conscious of that. There should be a strong emphasis on the part of the government to achieve that. It was absolutely ridiculous to bring the kind of resolution the member for Cambridge brought into this House last week at the same time as the government was distributing pens that say on them "Paper Mate. Made in USA," along with the logo of Ontario.

How can anybody take the government seriously in what it says is its buy-Canadian policy? How can the minister stand there and tell people, "Look, folks, buy a Canadian car, buy a Canadian washing machine or a Canadian what-have-you and, by the way, why don't you sign this with my American pen"? How can anybody be credible with that kind of approach? It is not because companies that manufacture office supplies do not exist in this country. They are all over the place and most of them are located in this city. Few of them are in the city of Cambridge.

The example I used of the government of Ontario owning a Toyota lift truck to lift skids in its warehouses in the area east of Bay Street is absolutely incomprehensible. Those things are manufactured right here in this country if the plant has not closed down yet. I understand it was under some duress last year. I believe it was the Allis-Chalmers plant. I do not remember what city it was in but it was in southwestern Ontario, probably in Brantford. I do not know whether it is still operating, but that unit has been there for a couple of years now.

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion we should put a much greater emphasis on this. I know there is something like a 10 per cent premium permitted for buying Canadian right now. Perhaps the minister should look at increasing that proportion upwards from 10 per cent. Ontario surely is a large buyer in this country and 10 per cent does not seem to be much of a premium to buy Canadian over imported goods. I am speaking for myself. I have not caucused this idea with my colleagues. I suggest that 20 per cent would probably be a more realistic figure.

There are studies that determine right now that one is better off to buy Canadian even though one pays something like 76 per cent more. I do not know how accurate those studies are. Probably the national government could afford to pay a higher premium because its interests are for the whole country, whereas in this case the government might not think it is of benefit to buy something which costs 30 per cent more when it comes from another provincial jurisdiction.

I do not know how the government calculates that particular position, but I suggest that 10 per cent does sound like a very low figure. As I said previously, we do buy many things. I was using the example of those bags of wood chips that were used on the front lawn of the Legislature. We had a school bus full of children. They were all here in the galleries a while ago. They walked outside and saw Greensboro, North Carolina, on the bags of wood chips. How can we sit here and show an example to future generations by doing things such as that?

I must tell the minister I was very happy to find that the flag of Ontario in my office is made in Canada. It is really a laudable thing that the flag should be made in this province. Unfortunately, not much else in my office was. I hope in the near future the government addresses itself a little more seriously to those kinds of things.

I would like to talk briefly about our youth in this province. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and I are on a task force at this moment on youth unemployment. Before you bring me to order and ask me what this has to do with this bill, Mr. Speaker, I will be right with you in a moment. The purpose of this task force is to determine who is unemployed and why and, of course, to determine what job creation opportunities there are. In order to do this I believe we have to expand our manufacturing sector, because that is primarily where job opportunities are found in this province. You can see, Mr. Speaker, this ties in very much.

The members for Kitchener-Wilmot, Essex South and I have been travelling this province, and it is almost shocking to see the conditions some of our youth are living in and what they have to look forward to. It is very sad to see that someone who is 19 years old and has been out of school for two or three years has been looking for work almost every single day, has occasionally found short-term employment at McDonald's or something and for the rest of the time has been without any kind of employment. Looking ahead to the future for many of those youths, it just does not look as if they will ever have any kind of meaningful employment.

That is a very saddening thing to see. It is not the kind of opportunity I had when I left school, and it is not the kind of opportunity I want my children and everybody else's children to have when they leave school to enter the job market. I hope they will have some of the opportunities that were given to me -- not that those opportunities were that great, but at least I could go and apply for and find a job within a reasonable period of time after I left school.

As I say, young people right now have no employment and they are competing against older workers. The situation is that if an employer is looking to hire someone and two or three people apply, there may be one person who is 57 years old, one who is 33 and one who is 19. Most employers will take the person who is in his thirties. What happens here is that our youth are not getting any employment, and in many cases our older citizens are now on welfare because they cannot find employment either and they have not yet reached the age at which they can draw old age security. That is very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I have an article here from Le Carillon, a newspaper in Hawkesbury. I will read a few excerpts from it, and you will be very interested in hearing this, I am sure.

"Situation inquiétante à Hawkesbury: Les jeunes désertent, par Céline Jalbert.

"'II vaut mieux s'en aller, il n'y a pas d'emploi ici.'

"C'est la réaction qu'ont plusieurs jeunes de la municipalité au sujet de la situation qu'ils vivent à Hawkesbury.

"Plusieurs d'entre eux ont soutenu que sans relations, il est quasi impossible de se trouver un emploi. 'Si tu n'as pas de grosses relations, tu ne peux entrer nulle part,' de réitérer Yvan Farmer, 21 ans. Un jeune travailleur qui a préféré garder l'anonymat a de plus affirmé qu'il n'y avait pas d'avenir à Hawkesbury. 'Le centre d'Emploi essaie de t'aider mais à chaque fois que j'ai réussi à me dénicher un emploi ce n'est pas par le biais du centre que je l'ai obtenu,' commente-t-il.

"Bien que quelques jeunes se soient dits prêts à se déplacer pour trouver de l'emploi, il semble que cette opinion ne soit pas partagée par la majorité. En effet, le gérant du centre d'Emploi à Hawkesbury, M. Jim Stubbs, a fait savoir que peu de jeunes veulent aller travailler à l'extérieur."

This is very important. Our youth are not really willing to leave their homes and expatriate themselves in order to find employment, but in many cases they have to do so. Our party in the last election was telling the people of Ontario that our youngsters are leaving at something like the rate of one every 17 minutes.

4 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: It is faster now. Wait until the budget.

Mr. Boudria: When the budget comes down, they may leave at an even faster pace, because the opportunities will be even fewer than they are today. That is a really unenviable situation. The task of the minister is also unenviable. He is going to have his work cut out for him. It is not going to be an easy task for him in the next few years to create opportunities for employment, not only for our youth but also for workers of all ages.

Perhaps the reason I stress the youth area is that I have been travelling on the task force lately and some of the things we have seen are really shocking. After a visit to one of the youth employment services, I could hardly sleep that night because of some of the things I saw. I know I come from a different milieu from Toronto -- I come from a rural area, which is very different -- but we met children of 16 and 17 who have not had a home for the past four or five years.

I have never met such people in my life, although I have seen them on television. I found that very disturbing. I said to myself: "What is this province coming to? This used to be the province of opportunity." We even had that on our licence plates until a few years ago when the government decided the opportunities were getting so bleak that the wisest thing to do was to remove it from the licence plates and hope that people would forget it was ever there.

The situation we have now is bad, and the Conference Board of Canada is saying it will probably get a lot worse before it gets better. I am sure the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), who is the acting Speaker, representing a riding here in the local area -- I say local as opposed to a riding not very far away, such as the one I live in; he represents a riding that is closer to this Legislature -- must be having some of the problems my colleagues and I witnessed on this task force in this area. I am sure you, sir, in your non-partisan way, agree with me when I say that opportunities for our youth are very limited.

Nevertheless, I will conclude my remarks and wish the minister every bit of success in his new portfolio. It is a very wide-ranging area the minister has to work with.

I will read clause 3(a) of the bill, which identifies one task of the minister as follows: "stimulate income opportunities through the effective development of industry and trade in goods and services."

That is a very important mandate. I am sure when the minister read this bill himself he could not help but agree that this is probably the most important task he has ever had in his life, especially in view of the economic situation that exists now. It was not so important to create new opportunities a few years ago when practically everyone was employed, but now that the situation is the way it is, the minister's role is not a nice one to have. It becomes very important, and lack of attention in this area could have very disastrous side effects.

The social problems that are developing right now in this province are mind-boggling. Some of the things we see, such as the crime rate increasing, the delinquency and all the other situations we witness, are very alarming. It is through the careful attention we all hope the minister will give to this ministry that employment opportunities will be created. I hope that will create not only an economic change in this province but also, ultimately, a social change. That social change, of course, is even more important, because we can live without many things but we have to live in the good and orderly society we have been brought up in. That is why we would want our children to have those same kinds of situations as well.

The role of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, as I understand it now, will not have anything to do with the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I would like to say that we, as a party, have always favoured the two ministries being separate. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, as I outlined in the beginning, is very important in our area. Having a minister who will be able to concentrate on that area will, I hope, make it much more effective. I hope the minister responsible for tourism will give it strong attention as well.

In his role as Minister of Industry and Trade, I am sure the minister will recognize that we have a very important high-technology industry developing in eastern Ontario. A lot of the markets for that industry are foreign. There is a substantial amount of domestic market as well, but the minister will know that our developing high-technology industry has to take on a far greater international scale.

One particular area of high technology has a problem. I would not say it is in difficulty, because all of them in this area seem to be profiting at this moment, but it is a very particular problem. I refer to the people who are in the business of preparing computer programs. People in the computer hardware business have a product that is easy to see and easy for government officials to identify with and, therefore, they generally tend to succeed much better than the people who are in the business of computer programming.

Computer programming is somewhat like poetry, except it is not written poetry; it seems to be recorded poetry. Therefore, when officials of a company in the business of programming a computer to do a specific function go to the government and say, "We would like assistance to make a new government program," I can appreciate why there is some reluctance on the part of ministries to get involved in that area. It is not something tangible such as computer hardware.

Nevertheless, I do think the ministry should put particular emphasis on the computer programming sector of high technology, because I believe our country and our province have a great deal to add to that area. We are now seeing expansion of Telidon and all kinds of other communications equipment.

We are seeing a very new phenomenon occurring, and that is the need for programming computers in the French language. There are very few countries in the world that can do that. Apparently we have such facilities in this country. We have plenty of available talent in that area. There is apparently a very large export market for that technology. I do hope the government will see fit to acquire a better understanding of that area of computer programming and to give it the kind of attention it has given to computer hardware and to other areas as well.

Having said that, I will conclude my remarks and reiterate that I personally want to wish the minister success in this ministry. It is not going to be an easy one for him; it is a very difficult ministry. These are very difficult economic times and it is going to require a lot of imagination, hard work and dedication on the part of the minister to be able to turn the economic tide we now have in this province and, I hope, to have our industries prosper once again in the way they used to a few years ago.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, one does not know where to begin with this bill. One does not know where to begin after listening, as I have done attentively for the past number of days, with respect to the position taken by my friends to my right. One blames the province for some of the ills, and I concur with that. But I remind members that there is a government in Ottawa which has sold this country out as well. I think they are called Liberals.

If one looks at the course of history since the time of C. D. Howe, What's-A-Million C. D. Howe, it was he who started to sell out this country; and his accomplices were the provincial Tories. A pox on both their houses, because neither of them wants to deal with the problem confronting Canada.

This bill, which I will come back to in a moment, does nothing with respect to the problem. I will make some references to the days when my friend the minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) and I sat on the same select committee on economic and cultural nationalism. I will remind him of some of the things that he signed, without objection, at a time when he had some willingness to see change. That was when he was outspoken; before he got to cabinet and virtually was silenced.

I want to deal with a couple of minor issues before I get to the main text. I remind my friends to my right that there is a great battle going on now, led by none other than the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and Jean-Jacques Blais from North Bay.

I was at a dinner the other evening with the minister, and I listened to him indicate that we have a trade deficit of $167 million in mining equipment in Ontario. I believe that was the figure the minister used. And we have a Canadian-owned company -- I was called out of the House to meet its president a few minutes ago -- that wants to locate in Sudbury and create 225 jobs in the next three years by building mining equipment.

Who is leading the attack against it? Jean-Jacques Blais, a Liberal cabinet minister. He is being assisted by the member for Nipissing and by that Tory, Stan Darling from Parry Sound-Muskoka, federally. Not one of the three of them has bothered to look at the deficit we have in mining equipment. They are against it. They say it is going to hurt Jarvis Clark in North Bay. Interestingly, the new president is a man by the name of Jack Clark, who started Jarvis Clark in North Bay.

I have implored the minister, in correspondence, to go it alone since the federal government, led by that great Canadian nationalist who has been advocating Canadian ownership, has not been prepared to put up the money for the last eight months. What is that fellow's name? He did the Gray report. Remember his offering a report called the Gray report? He is sitting in Ottawa, refusing to give the funds necessary to get company going to produce mining equipment, a company that is backed by Inco and Noranda, who are the other two partners.

I say to my friends to my right, who bemoan the acts of this government, that it is their federal counterparts who are trying to scuttle it, together with this government. One wonders why I come here with such cynicism. One can wag the finger at the provincial Tories, but those bloody Liberals in Ottawa will not do a thing for the Canadian economy either.

Mr. Boudria: You can't wag at me. We are not in power there.

Mr. Martel: Well, kick them in the head in Ottawa then. I say to the minister, under no circumstances should we allow that facility to go down the tube. I just met with the president and a couple of officials from Inco, and they are gung-ho. They are a little concerned, though, about statements by Jean-Jacques Blais. Maybe one of the Liberal members will phone Blais and tell him to shut up or, at least, to find out what the trade deficit is in mining equipment in this province and in this country as a result of 78 per cent of our underground mining equipment being imported.

We have a Canadian company, totally Canadian-owned, that wants to produce underground mining equipment; and we have a couple of federal cabinet ministers scuttling it with the assistance of the member for Nipissing. It blows my mind. We talk about economic planning --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I know the privileges of this House are being abused with respect to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who does not take that position. That should be clarified.

Mr. Martel: If I am wrong, I will apologize to him.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the apology the member has made.

Mr. Martel: If I am wrong. But it is my understanding in the last half hour, as a result of the meeting I had, that I am not wrong. I hope I am wrong because, if we are talking about import replacement and if we are sincere about it, there is enough to reduce that deficit for Ontario and federally by the introduction and commencement of that enterprise in Sudbury. It would create 225 jobs and take up some of the slack in the nickel industry around the world.

I am going to remind my friend the minister that he signed a report in 1974 -- and that is why I know it is in safe hands -- one of whose major recommendations, number 23, was that, "The government should actively encourage the development of Canadian-controlled firms in the mining machinery and equipment industry through the provision of loans and research assistance and through purchasing policy."

That is why I know this company will not go down the tubes even if the feds get out: because my friend the Minister of Industry and Trade signed that report. There is no asterisk beside his name, as there is in a couple of places in the report, to indicate that he objected to that.

In the second report on the Inco layoffs, the minister also supported the expansion of any productive capacity for mining equipment in this country, and I know he will not go back on that report either.

But I say to my Liberal friends they cannot have it both ways. They cannot have the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) get up and berate the provincial government at the same time as we have an opportunity for mining equipment that the federal Liberals are trying to kill. There is something crazy about that. I hope the member for Kitchener-Wilmot will phone Ottawa tonight and tell Herb Gray to put up his $2 million and tell Jean-Jacques Blais to stop his silly little games and find out what the real situation is in terms of the deficit in mining equipment alone in this country. Then maybe they will change their stance.

I could not help but listen the other night as the minister read his statement. He said, "However, I must say that I do not see government's role as one of job creator." That just about sums up the activity of that ministry, and that is what worries me.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Read further.

Mr. Martel: I have read it two or three times. I have more things I am going to pick out of the speech that bother me no end. The minister is going to make the climate right. I have heard all those clichés about making the climate right.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Finish the paragraph.

Mr. Martel: Okay. "That function has been and should continue to be the role of a healthy and confident private sector." If I am going to look at a confident private sector, I look at Massey-Ferguson, at Chrysler, at Ford, at White -- and I am going to come back to White -- and at Westinghouse. The minister says his role is not one of job creator. I suggest, rather strongly, that it is. And it is not just a case of a nice healthy climate; there should be some intervention if needed.

The government threw $110 million into the pulp and paper industry last year when it said it did not even need it. As the president of one company said, "If everybody else is getting it, we want our hands filled too." And it got $8 million when it said it did not need it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That's not what the union said up there.

Mr. Martel: That is what it said to us when we were in northwestern Ontario. I talked to the union at a meeting in Kapuskasing not long ago. That is not what was said to me.

The minister cannot have it both ways. If he is going to try to make an economy healthy, surely he does not give to those who already have, to maintain their health. My understanding of the figures at the time he was giving that largess away was that the industry was in a very healthy state, according to the reports of part of a document I saw from Lakehead University.

As I say, I am only going by what the minister tells me and he says it is not his role to be a job creator. I suggest rather strongly to the minister that it is. He should use all the tools at his disposal to make that a reality.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Are you talking about make-work?

Mr. Martel: No. I do not believe in make-work.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That is what I mean when I say I am not a job creator.

Mr. Martel: If the minister is talking about make-work projects, he and I might agree, but I am saying he has a role in the planning of the economy of this province.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That's the second time you have agreed with me today.

Mr. Martel: I am worried then.

Let me see what else he says. Some of the things he says will lead me right into remarks on the bill. One is: "A great deal can be done to expand the domestic market for goods and services, and we will support this expansion by an intense domestic marketing program."

Back in 1972, the minister and I started together on a committee that lasted fully four years, because what we have in this province is a truncated industry that makes it impossible to be competitive even locally. We found out that, unless we were prepared to move beyond that, we would continue with the type of economy that was taking us down the tube.

If one is going to deal with the whole problem of the economy, whether it be for Ontario or for Canada as a whole, one has to look at our economic dilemma. Our dilemma is that we have a lot of investments in truncated companies. A lot of multinationals came over the border to get away from the tariff; in doing so, they created a severe economic problem for Canada.

In 1971, the Premier established the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism because, going down the road we were going, and we continue to go down that slippery slope, we were merely going to exacerbate the problem that was already there.

My friend will recall that we had just started nicely to get into the discussion on economic nationalism when the Duke of Chatham-Kent had a dinner for us over at the Sutton Place. He suggested we should divert our attention away from economic nationalism and deal merely with cultural nationalism. My friend the minister will recall that evening. To the credit of the Conservative members on that select committee, they said: "No way. We are not going to get sidetracked. We want to look at what the problems are in our economy so we can have a healthier economy."

My friend knows that we as a committee put out some 21 reports; some were by the committee and some were by Kates Peat Marwick, and I think we even commissioned one by a man in Australia, where they were having similar problems. We have not introduced virtually any of those recommendations which were designed to get us out of the problems we were in then. Those problems plague us today.

What are some of the problems? Before I go into them, I want to preface this by saying that in Ontario we are fortunate; we happen to be in the heartland of the United States if one looks at where we are situated physically. Our economic development has not been because of government, but despite government. There has not been any great economic planning by this government; it is because, within 100 miles of our border to the south, there are 100 million Americans. That area saw the earliest economic development in the United States, and we happen to benefit because of our geographical location, not because of government involvement.

In fact, we have let it slide. We let it slide until the Premier introduced a select committee, because he knew there were problems. There were problems in such areas as the American companies that were locating in Canada. We saw it then; we saw it in the last select committee as well. When it is time to close the door, these multinationals that locate in Ontario do not even bother telling the Canadian president; they make a decision, pack up their bongo balls and go home. We saw that last fall in the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment.

Hon. Mr. Walker: They have to give due notice under the law.

Mr. Martel: Pardon? I did not hear the minister's interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Interjections really should not be made in the first place.

Mr. Martel: Essex International, I think, gave the president in Canada two weeks' notice and said, "If you think you can make this operate successfully, we will give you two weeks to prove it." This is a company that had made a profit for 39 out of its 40 years, and within two weeks they had shut the door and gone home. I say to my friend that we saw that in nearly every company we looked at last fall and last spring before the election. It is unfortunate that the Premier would not reinstitute that select committee to make its recommendations, because the problem is going to get worse, as I will document as I go along.

We saw it when we were on the select committee from 1971 to 1975: the doors were closed at the whim of the parent companies. It did not matter whether you made money; a decision that was made in the United States affected us in Ontario. I see nothing in the bill that does a thing to change that, not a thing. That is what worries me about the bill.

We also saw then, as we do now, very little in research and development from the multinationals. There was the odd one, sure; but by and large they invest less money in R and D in Canada today than do the small Canadian firms. So we made recommendations on R and D. We can talk about R and D at Ford and so on. We visited Ford, my friend will recall, and they said they were not prepared to put R and D in Canada; it was all in Dearborn. They brought the whole community of scientists and we heard all the nonsense that went with it. So what have we got? R and D in the major multinationals done primarily in the United States.

What else did we see? We saw expensive production, because none of the companies was here except to satisfy the Canadian market. They were not interested in export. That is why I chuckle at the minister's statement that "a great deal can be done to expand the domestic market for goods and services, and we will support this expansion by an enhanced domestic marketing program." I suggest to the minister that much of this market is already filled.

If we were serious, we might start to look at exporting some of our manufactured goods, because we had a trade deficit on manufactured goods in the neighbourhood of $21 billion last year in this country. Not all of it was in Ontario but, because we happen to be the industrial heartland of manufacturing, we bear the brunt and we continue down the slippery slope.

The markets are there. We know that production is costly because of the type of runs that many of these plants are involved in: short runs, very costly. As we said when we were studying this problem, if we were doing some exporting the runs might be longer, less costly and more beneficial to us.

We have decisions made in the United States, research and development done in the United States, expensive production runs and no exports. When I read the minister's statement and when I read the bill over, as I did several times, I would have felt a lot better if I had found at least a hope somewhere in there that we were going to start to deal with the problem. But I see nothing in this minister's statements, as I saw nothing in his predecessor's statements -- except a little global product mandating, which I will come to in a little while -- that is going to change the infrastructure we have and overcome some of the deficiencies in this province.

As long as we continue down this route -- and I only remind the minister of White Farm Equipment just two weeks ago which I will also come back to -- we will continue down the slope that has put us in the dilemma we are in.

His people go around encouraging more foreign direct investment. That is part of our problem. I am sure he remembers reading Galt, USA.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It is better than no investment at all.

Mr. Martel: I question that. I will come to that too. I remind the minister that he read Galt, USA. I advise my friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) to read it because it is very enlightening. It is about what happens to a community that is almost totally reliant on small multinational firms when they close their doors, willy-nilly. They go away. It does not matter to them because all they have got invested is a box. They put a box up and put a little bit of equipment in it and they even take that back to the United States when they are done.

We saw that in the last select committee. We never did get to report on it, but that is what they did. We are not going to change them. Does the government think by a buy-Canadian policy we are going to alter it? We are going to solve some of our problems when we decide that some of the ownership must be here.

Mr. Barlow: How are we going to get it here? Tell us that.

Mr. Martel: I am coming to that. I am going to quote some of the recommendations that the Minister of Industry and Trade and I made. I just want to haunt the minister a little bit with them.

If he wants to read another interesting book on the mining industry, I suggest he read Kari Levitt's book, Silent Surrender, and find out what is happening in the mining field. I would suggest the members should read the Gray report but now that he is in control in Ottawa and he does not want to see a mining company go to Sudbury, I question his integrity when he talks about Canadianization of our economy. I question it very seriously.

Let me remind the minister that after studying most of what we did and after 21 reports, we came to basically a very simple solution, not in terms of the cost, but simple in terms of what we had to do. We suggested that we had to rely less on resource exploitation and we had to move towards more Canadian direct investment. In the second recommendation we made in the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism dealing with natural resources, foreign ownership and economic development, we said that the policy shift should involve not a discouragement of resource development but an encouragement of manufacturing and processing in Canada. We have not done that in the mining sector.

We also suggested that we had to get rid of, or reduce -- "Canadian resources policies, particularly in respect of nonrenewable natural resources, should promote foreign portfolio, rather than direct investment." They make the loans. We do not sell out. Last week we watched White be sold out. It flies in the face of everything the minister signed. We encourage direct foreign investment, by Canadians, and we have said "discourage direct foreign investment but rather encourage only portfolio investment."

Since 1974, when this report came out, I have not heard a minister say that. I have seen junket after junket go around the world to try to encourage more foreign direct investment, which flies in the face of everything we looked at and everything we recommended. My friend the minister signed these documents along with me.

By the way, it was not as though that committee was predominantly loaded with New Democrats. I remind members that seven of those members were Tories. There were two Liberals and two New Democrats. After studying it carefully, we said we had to have less direct foreign investment. We see this minister espousing more direct foreign investment. Every time he does it, it is another nail in our coffin. The minister should know that. He spent almost a full four years on that committee.

That reminds me, one only has to look at White Farm Equipment. I remember when my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) raised the question of White. The minister said, "What do you want us to do, nationalize it?"

I remind the minister that in an interim report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism called Capital Markets, Foreign Ownership and Economic Development, we said that when we got into a dilemma with a Canadian company that has some high technology, "the Ontario Development Corporation should be suitably equipped with the legal and financial capacity to undertake reacquisition of enterprises should that be deemed in the public interest..."

Last week or a couple of weeks ago when we raised it, the minister's off-the-cuff response was, "You want to nationalize it." Not at all. The minister himself signed this, by the way. I had better check. I am sure he did. Let me see, "Gordon Walker, MPP." We could have and should have used that recommendation in the case of White. No one said nationalize.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That's what you are saying.

Mr. Martel: We do not suggest they nationalize it. I will read it again just to refresh the minister's mind. The minister signed the following, "The Ontario Development Corporation should be suitably equipped with the legal and financial capacity to undertake reacquisition of enterprises should that be deemed in the public interest, to acquire enterprises coming up for sale from foreign owners for which no Canadian buyer can be found provided that the acquisition is in the public interest, and to acquire on a temporary basis Canadian corporations which would otherwise fall into foreign-owned hands."

As I stand in my place two years from now, White will shut its doors and it will trundle off to the United States just as so many others have done. When we raised it with him, why did he not use that recommendation? His answer was, "Oh, you Socialists want to nationalize it." We never said nationalize it. We said, "Use a policy that you signed."

Hon. Mr. Walker: Why are you so convinced they are going to leave?

Mr. Martel: Because as the tariffs continue to go down, his own ministry now is looking at 2,000 companies that are going to take their bongo balls and go home.

I suggest there is a company in Peterborough whose life as a manufacturer of any description is living on borrowed time. It is Outboard Marine. It is just a matter of time until Outboard Marine becomes nothing but a warehouse. It will just sell the outboard motors. That is all it will do.

We saw it in Scarborough with SKF which very systematically took back the lines of production which were profitable and deliberately kept lines which were not nearly as productive. Then it can go to the government and say: "Look, you fellows, we want to close our doors and we want to ship in from offshore. We will ship in from Spain or Portugal." I forget which place it was.

They could not do it in Sweden. SKF is a Swedish company. In fact, the workers there were told three months ahead of the workers in Ontario that the Ontario operation was about to shut down. Fourteen months later it is gone. I understand it has built a new building in Scarborough and now it is just selling.

I say to the minister, the pattern is there. He saw it for four full years. The Liberals and the NDP implored the minister to use a policy tool to keep that company in Canadian ownership, and he did not. His off-the-cuff comment was, "What shall I do, nationalize it?" No, we should have bought it. I would have taken a year to look for a buyer, to sell it back to some private entrepreneur. I might do it somewhat differently if I had bought it. I would not nationalize it. I would not let ownership of it go out of Canadian hands under any circumstances. He is caught in this catch-22 position. If he moves in he is always bailing out some bankrupt or nearly bankrupt beggar. He will not put his money on a winner. If we say over here, "Well, take it over," he says that is nationalizing, and he would sooner see it go down the tubes.

Mr. Stokes: He would rather get into a Minaki.

Mr. Martel: Yes. We can buy another Minaki. That was just one of the policy tools I reminded the minister he could have used and did not. It is the type of industry we can ill afford to lose, because the day of research and development has gone and the decisions will be made in the United States when and if to close. We will have no say. We can go cap in hand, we can get down on our knees and crawl and beg them to stay, but in the final analysis they will go home when it is convenient and we will be the losers.

It is a tough decision. Some day the great free enterprisers will come to the realization that they cannot allow that to go on. It is almost a form of blackmail. I understand that was the proposition put to the minister: "If you don't do it, we are going home anyway." I would tell them, as I did Inco when it used to play games in Sudbury, that I would give them $2.95 in bus fare to leave unless they became a lot more responsible. I would not allow us to be blackmailed. What we must have in place is some tools, and I do not see any in that bill.

I hear the minister as he responds when I am talking. He does not have the commitment to maintaining Canadianization of our economy. We will never ever get out of this dilemma until we are prepared to move with some options other than straight nationalization. But he does not want those options. We are not going to get rid of our structural problems until we have some policy options, with a government that has enough intestinal fortitude to say, "No, we understand the minister's dilemma." They said to him, "If we cannot keep it open, that is 750 jobs," and the minister wanted to save 750 jobs even if only for two or three years. That is what he has not put in at the end.

We have seen that over and over again, that threat that if we do not do something about it they will go home. I have come to the conclusion after a lot of years in this place, to hell with them, let some of them go home. We are their best trading partner by far.

I am going to quote some of the stuff out of a confidential document my friend Broadbent got in Ottawa on this particular topic, to show it still happens. As long as they can hold us up to ransom that way, it will continue. I will not say all of them, but a lot of them.

I want to remind the minister of a couple of things he signed in a couple of reports. In the mining one, Canadian economic policy should be reoriented so that greater emphasis be given to the development of the manufacturing sector and the nonrenewable resource sector should be de-emphasized." Well, I read the minister's statement, and now he tells me it is only for part-time work or a make-work project, so I feel a little more assured. That is very clear. It says we have to get rid of that trade deficit and there is only one way we are going to do it, that is, by owning an overwhelming majority of those companies. When I say "we," I do not mean the government. I am talking about Canadians, people in Ontario. We have to start to foster that and we have not. We have not introduced any of it.

I think the only recommendation that was ever taken -- and members will recall we could not get the Tories to go along with it but the Premier introduced it. The members opposite only wanted 20 per cent of the board of directors to be Ontarians or Canadians. There were two of us who said, "No, no, it has to be 50 per cent plus one."

The Premier outdid his radical back-benchers and he brought in 50 per cent. But we could not get those Tory radicals on the committee to say, "Fifty per cent of the board of directors must be Canadian." That is how radical they were in those days. That is what gives me some concern.

We also signed -- should I remind the minister? -- "Canadian policies, particularly in respect of nonrenewable natural resources, should promote foreign portfolio rather than direct investment." And one that all the Tories squirm on: "The government should be empowered to take up to 50 per cent of the equity in new ventures in the nonrenewable natural resources sector." That was signed, by the way, by just about every member of the committee, except the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and the member for London South (Mr. Walker). But the other five members signed it.

When the minister's colleagues saw what was happening in the resource sector, they came to the conclusion that we had to take up to 50 per cent equity in all new mining development. I know that really scares some of the members opposite -- much more so after the purchase of Suncor, when they bought a pig in a poke -- but that had not even occurred. But the minister's colleagues wanted 50 per cent ownership in a resource sector.

When my colleague Ian Deans, the former member for Wentworth, and I said, after we got the 50 per cent, "No, we are not interested in 50 per cent; we want the whole pie," I must say my good friend Dick Smith, the former member for Nipissing, said to us, "I would like to sign that with you because I happen to believe that we need the whole pie in the nonrenewable natural resources sector as well." Coming from the north, as Dick Smith did, he knew the type of exploitation that goes on in a resource sector and came to the conclusion, having lived in the north for a long time, having been raised there, that there was only one solution for us in Ontario, and that was to own the resources. But as I say, at least five Conservatives out of seven said we had to have 50 per cent equity. That is more than will come out of those back benches now, I suspect, particularly after Suncor.

Let me tell the minister about a couple of other recommendations he made in yet another report, since I hear people say, "What would you do?" The heading is "Foreign Portfolio versus Direct Investment." The member for London South has signed that as well. It says: "Canadian economic policies should promote foreign portfolio investment and discourage foreign direct investment."

I wonder if the minister recalls that particular item and signing it, because since this report in 1975, the Tory government has gone in the opposite direction. They have gone wisely on their way, encouraging more and more direct foreign investment while at the same time realizing that is what has created the dilemma for Ontario. That is what has created the structural weaknesses we have in our economy and yet we continue to send trade missions and one minister after the other, and the Premier with them, all over the world to encourage more direct foreign investment.

Those who looked at it carefully over a four-year period said, "No, no, you have to discourage that and encourage more portfolio investment from abroad." We have not done any of that. As I say, my friend the minister has difficulty remembering some of these things.

He also signed, "Greater attention should be given to developing and to drawing on foreign sources of capital other than the United States." Our friend Big Brother in the States has not seen any problem with that.

4:50 p.m.

One could go on, but I simply remind the minister tonight to dig out this report and look at section 19, which would give him the power to prevent the sale of companies like White. In fact, he should screw up his courage and tell these companies that they can go home. In the short run we will buy them or find buyers for them, and we will keep them here. But to date we have not seen any of that.

I have one final quote, and this is good for the minister too. "Ontario's development corporations -- Ontario Development Corp. should conduct their affairs on the basis of securing reasonable returns on all their investments if possible." Reasonable returns. That almost smacks of taking equity, does it not? If you are going to get a reasonable return when you put your money up --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Sounds to me like a mortgage.

Mr. Martel: At the rate of mortgage today you would have a reasonable return.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You signed that one.

Mr. Martel: You signed that one as well. Yes, your name is here. You are the Gordon W. Walker.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Aren't you the Elie Martel referred to on the same signature page?

Mr. Martel: Yes, and I would want some return on my investment. Being the great free enterpriser that I am, if I put some money up I think it is simple mathematics for me to demand a fair return on my money.

Hon. Mr. Walker: But normally you want us to give everything away.

Mr. Martel: No, you have never heard us say that. The minister can make interjections like that, but the government are the people who give away. They gave away $20 million to Minaki. How much has the government given to Ford, Chrysler and the pulp and paper industry? The litany of what the government has given away is endless. And what is the return? What is its return on the $150 million it invested in the pulp and paper industry? Nothing went into the Treasury.

The government can give away the store, and it is doing a good job of it, but the minister signed reports that called for that change. I am hoping that as minister he will start to make some of those fundamental changes and to say, when he has entered into some agreement, that we want either that much equity or this much return in interest on our money plus our money back.

I recall the fight in this House, before the minister came, on those crazy forgiveness loans. The government used to give $500,000 forgiveness loans. Imagine the misnomer, "forgiveness loans." The government just gave them the money and they never paid it back. Well, John White eventually killed that, I think.

Mr. Wildman: That is how they got into Minaki in the first place.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Wildman: On a forgivable loan.

Mr. Martel: So when the members opposite talk about being the world's greatest businessmen, if they were good businessmen they would want a return on their money. The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) would never think of not getting a return on his money.

Mr. Grande: They will bankrupt the province yet.

Mr. Martel: But those guys do not see it in those terms. Well, we see it slightly differently. But the minister signed it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You signed it.

Mr. Martel: You are right. I signed it.

An hon. member: And he is defending it now.

Mr. Martel: And I am defending it. The interesting part of it is that the minister signed it, he is in a position to do something about it and he continues to run around to sell out the Ontario economy to foreign interests. I guess the minister forgot what he signed.

When we looked at what these companies were doing last year, we had some people from his ministry before the select committee and they indicated to us -- if he thinks the problem is not bad now, he should just wait -- that with the reduction of the tariff in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade the government is at present looking at some 2,000 companies that might fold up their tents and go home once the tariff gets down to about nine per cent. I would like to know what the government is doing to head that off.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Buy back.

Mr. Martel: Buy back?

Mr. Wildman: Oh yes. It would take 400 years to buy back control.

Mr. Martel: With what we owe now at the rate the government is going we calculated it would take 400 years to buy it back; and if we are looking at 2,000 more companies, the government is going to break the bank.

We know why most multinationals are here. The report of the Advisory Committee on Global Product Mandating put it pretty well.

Mr. Wildman: That is an industry task force, isn't it?

Mr. Martel: Yes. They said: "For many multinational affiliates in Canada this will mean a continuing shift away from the traditional branch-plant form of operation which evolved primarily in response to high Canadian tariffs. Typically such plants manufactured a wide range of products, solely or primarily for the Canadian domestic market."

Hon. Mr. Walker: Global product mandating, as shown by that committee, is working very well.

Mr. Martel: I am sure it is. I see all the multinationals beating their way to your door to get a particular -- whatever is the term they use for the mandate for one particular product -- they are breaking the minister's door down to get there.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You should see some of the accomplishments. I could give them to you.

Mr. Martel: I have the accomplishments of some of them. I also have their recommendations and they frighten the hell out of me.

It says, "The small size of Canadian markets and high tariffs abroad have generally prevented these organizations from achieving the economies of scale required to compete internationally." That is a lot of bunk. They have no intention of competing internationally.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Read about the accomplishments.

Mr. Martel: All of those companies came here to get over the tariff barrier and to produce for a small Canadian market. They are not here to do us a favour. When the tariff wall comes down and the cost of sourcing it in Ontario is considerably less, they will simply close down the plant in Ontario, go back to the United States, start up another run or another shift and we will see yet another plant close down in Ontario. That is what is going to happen.

"Historically, only high Canadian tariffs and lower wage rates enabled such organizations to remain viable in the Canadian market." That is it in a nutshell -- when the tariffs are down.

I did not print this. It was put out by IBM, Xerox, Black and Decker, Canadian General Electric, Control Data, McDonnell Douglas, Westinghouse and TR and W. I did not write this, they did. They are telling us what the real world is out there -- something the Tories over there do not want to think about -- and why those multinationals are here. And they are going home.

The ministry's own staff, before the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment last year, said that we are already looking at 2,000 which are contemplating the long trek back to the United States. My friend the minister and I saw it in advertising, and we saw it in book production and so on. Shut down the operation here, put another shift on in the United States and continue the game; except that we have lost the jobs.

There is not a thing in this bill that says we are going to get serious about making sure that a major portion of our industry is Canadian owned.

What do our friends in global product mandating also tell us? They give us some warnings. They tell us such things as: "Global product mandating is one such strategy. Where a pure global product mandating strategy is employed, the affiliate is assigned total responsibility for particular products or operations within the multinational." Over 35 years a handful have moved to it, but I do not see them breaking the door down in vast numbers to get here to do it.

They also say, "Within such a strategy the affiliate can specialize in the production of a limited number of products for the international market." Was it not the gun company, Winchester, which had the global product for the world, and did it not go down the tubes, too? They decided they might relocate that somewhere else. We had one line, we were going to be lucky; we were not so lucky.

Those companies also have some interesting comments to make with respect to our economy. They still like to talk about this being the great free-enterprise system.

5 p.m.

Warning: "The most effective way to achieve these objectives is to emphasize performance rather than ownership of the multinational affiliate." What they are saying to the minister is: "Keep your hands off. Do not worry about who owns the company. It does not make any difference."

It makes a hell of a difference, but what they are saying is it is performance, not ownership. Ownership has got us into the problem. What the multinationals that are involved in a little global product mandating did was tell us: "Do not worry about who owns it. Everything will be well. We are all good guys." I have difficulty with that.

They go on to say, "For example, government policies or statements calling for greater Canadian ownership and possible nationalization without regard to performance are understandably a serious deterrent to further investment in Canada." What are they telling us? "You fellows, do not worry about who owns it. Do not get involved, and government should not be involved. We will look after you." In fact, they are saying, "Stay out."

Let me repeat that. "For example, government policies or statements calling for greater Canadian ownership..." Can one imagine? I am going to come to some of the things the Americans are saying in the US in a few moments. When we talk about Japanese cars they are not saying that either.

I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. The Americans, now their ox is being gored in the auto industry, are surely worried about who the owners are. They are surely worried about who is penetrating the market. But they can write this gobbledegook as long as it is not their ox. When they are in Canada doing great things for us we should not worry about it, nor should we worry about trying to establish a Canadian presence in our own economy; they will look after us. I am from Missouri and I have difficulty swallowing this.

"We question the usefulness of government efforts to designate certain sectors for support." Did the minister hear that? I want to repeat that. "We question the usefulness of government efforts to designate certain sectors for support." Then we should not help anyone. We should let it all remain in their grubby little paws. Government should not get involved. They are telling the minister he should not have put $150 million into the pulp and paper industry.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I do not think that is what they said.

Mr. Martel: That is exactly what they said. I will repeat for the minister, in case he did not hear it. I will quote the whole paragraph.

"The committee members are sceptical of government ability to pick winners within the economy. Because so many of the ingredients for successful adjustment to the new competitive challenge are firm-specific rather than sector-specific, we question the usefulness of government efforts to designate certain sectors for support." Would the minister call that the pulp and paper industry? Those are his friends. "Do not do it," they say. They will look after us. Just keep the faith, baby.

Here are some of their recommendations. They have some good ones. "Recent policies and statements by some governments in Canada have left doubt in Canada's commitment to the free enterprise system." Are they that naive? I want to see the free enterpriser today. Maybe someone could point him out to me. Those birds who every time you turn around want a government handout. I wonder where they think that comes from. They want a tax break, they want reduced hydro rates, they want reduced freight rates, and then they say, "We worry about the free enterprise system." What is it free to do, take their cut out of the pie? Is that free enterprise?

As an old free enterpriser myself, I find that foreign. I believe in it from way back. But here are their friends saying: "This is a free enterprise system. Keep your hands out." That is fine, but tell them to keep their fingers out of the Treasury and stop asking for tax breaks, tax concessions and the whole schmeer. They are free enterprisers. Let them go out and raise their money somewhere; don't do it at my expense.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Maybe they would like to make a profit.

Mr. Martel: Let them make a profit, but don't ask the taxpayers to throw it in. What did the minister give to Massey-Ferguson? Are they going to give him a share? "Keep your hands out," they say, but then the minister's friends say, "Give us $78 million in guarantees." I cannot understand it. I have difficulty understanding how they can write such gobbledegook and always be there with their hands out.

Let them be free enterprisers if they want. Nobody even wants to start a corner store today. They come to the minister's office and want a government handout. I don't blame that guy because he sees the big guy is getting it. One company said today, "In this country, you do not get a bankroll unless you do not need it."

What they are talking about are performance incentives. I am quoting directly from the report. It really gets me going. "Performance incentive. Government incentive programs such as investment tax credits and industrial development grants have proven useful."

In the paragraph before, it said: "Keep your hands out. It is a free enterprise system." The very next paragraph says, "Government incentive programs such as investment tax credits and industrial development grants have proven useful in earning and maintaining specialized missions."

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Milton, you can say what you want. It's great out there, ain't it?

On one hand, they say: "Keep your hands out of the free enterprise system and do not get involved in anything. Don't try to build up a sector." In the next paragraph they say, "Give us some more in the form of government incentive programs and give us some more investment tax credits." My, oh my, that is a wonderful system. It is called socialism for the rich.

Look what the minister's friends say about research and development. "While Canadian affiliates have access to enormous pools of technology, research and development incentives, particularly development incentives, can positively influence mission specialization." If one is prepared to give some more money, they will do some research.

I remind the minister that just two paragraphs back they were saying, "Keep your hands out of the free enterprise system." Now they say, "Give us some money so we can do some research for you." The whole thing is crazy. Global product mandating is going to save us, but my friend, until one goes back to the basic documents with respect to economic and cultural nationalism and looks at some of the solutions, we do not have a hope in hell of beating this system.

When one can be blackmailed by White, as the minister was, we cannot beat the system. I understand what he was doing. There were 750 jobs threatened by the closure of the plant with nobody coming back. I understand that, but if he had used the tool we recommended he might have said: "To hell with you, we are going to buy it out and we will keep it in Canada. That diesel work will be done here, as will the research and development and everything else that goes with it." That was not nationalized at all.

There is another interesting report out. I should send the minister a copy because he might not have it. It came to my federal leader in a brown envelope and I asked him for a copy. It is the Performance Requirements and FIRA; Responses to US Criticism. The Americans do not want to have to have any type of performance requirement. They resent it with a passion. We are not very sure about the Foreign Investment Review Agency either, are we, because FIRA could have stopped the sale of White, or the minister could have.

This document is so interesting because it shows in a very up-to-date document what is happening with respect to transfer payments, research and development and procurement. Let me just find a couple of examples, because I have gone on for quite some time now.

5:10 p.m.

"US criticism. Any requirement placed upon a foreign controlled enterprise by a host nation. The requirement may be a condition under which various investment incentives are provided, or may be a condition for foreign investors to attain entry into a country. US condemnation has centred on local content requirement."

They do not want content requirement, except if one is buying Japanese cars and then they do. They do not want their ox to be gored. It is all right if they gore somebody else's ox in another country, in a host country. That is okay, but it is no good for the Americans --

The Deputy Speaker: Can the member refresh my memory and tie it in for me?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about this bill which is not going to do a thing to head off the devastation which is occurring in this province. We are creating a new ministry that is supposedly going to create a climate for productivity here. I am suggesting to the minister it cannot be direct foreign investment, but must be Canadian investment.

Mr. Cassidy: If there is any problem, Mr. Speaker, it is not in the speech.

Mr. Wildman: This is on the reasoned amendment.

Mr. Martel: Let me just quote for the minister some of the things that are occurring here.

"The lack of reciprocation by other countries in maintaining an open investment market disturbs American authorities but has begun to infuriate them, particularly now as they are becoming the host country to increasing amounts of foreign investment. US foreign investment abroad increased by 80 per cent from 1974 to 1980, or $213 billion, but that in the United States by 200 per cent over the same period."

The Americans do not like it. They do not like foreign penetration into the United States, but the document I quoted from was all multinationals telling us why it was good for them to be directly investing in Canada. If it is good for the Americans, it is good. If it is not so hot for the Americans, then it is awful.

I am trying to locate the sections with respect to research because that tells us what some of the basic problems are. "Profits are maximized when fully captured by an integrated decision-making unit which necessitates full corporate control and wholly-owned subsidiaries." We know that, do we not?

"Profitable or economic decision-making requires the geographic allocation of resources and production in a manner that results in the best product at the least cost for the particular market served. While such action may maximize global profit, it may distort the ability of national economies to achieve efficient production."

I started out by saying that, did I not? I started out by saying that the little truncated plant that we have and which covers almost the face of southern Ontario cannot produce profitably. Costs of production are higher because it is truncated. This is a 1982 document. This is 10 years after we looked at the last one. This federal document comes to the same conclusion, that one cannot have the type of profits unless one has total control, one makes all the decisions, including where one will do research and so on. In this province we rush headlong into encouraging more of this type of investment.

Tell me the creation of a new ministry without a different mandate is going to alter the situation one jot. It simply will not.

Let me give another example. "Import practices of Canadian subsidiaries. A Canadian subsidiary may be directed by its parent to purchase components and materials from abroad instead of from a competitive, independent Canadian supplier."

My friend the member for Cambridge has gone. I wanted to quote this section for him. I repeat it for the minister though: "A Canadian subsidiary may be directed by its parent to purchase components and materials from abroad instead of from a competitive, independent Canadian supplier. The sourcing decision is made by the parent in the name of efficiency."

As long as we have that type of economy, even a very successful Canadian operation cannot sell. Many of the multinationals here decide they will purchase from the United States even though competitively it would be cheaper for them to buy from a Canadian source.

These are not my words. I am just quoting a federal document that is floating around right now in Ottawa. We continue to rush for more foreign direct investment. That is another problem confronting us and we do not have the courage to change it. This ministry is not going to do a thing about it.

I am talking about a study: "While the findings of the Gray report may have been based on incomplete data, a recent extensive study by Statscan has upheld the findings of the Gray report and provided conclusive data in this area. The results generally support one of the themes of earlier studies that foreign direct investment involves a relatively high amount of purchase from the home country."

That is good news for Canadian producers, great news for Canadian firms. We will not even be able to get into the market because the multinationals will purchase from the United States,

"The study, which covered 90 per cent of all Canadian imports for 1978, or $43 billion, shows that foreign-controlled firms accounted for 72 per cent. United States-controlled firms accounted for 80 per cent of the total foreign-controlled portion. The dramatic finding in this study is, therefore, that foreign-controlled firms, and particularly US-controlled firms, are the major conduits into Canada for imported goods." So much for Canadian business.

Mr. Wildman: We import goods and we export jobs.

Mr. Martel: Yes. Let me talk about the study further: "The study found that this sharply higher level of imports among foreign-controlled companies is more than a short-run phenomenon. Familiarization with the Canadian economy in growth and size has not led to a lessening by these companies on imports. With Canada's imports highly and stably concentrated among a small number of foreign-controlled companies, there is a substantial volume of non-arm's-length transactions which are unresponsive to traditional market forces that would correct the balance of trade."

We do not have any tools to say, "No, there is something called competition." I hear those free enterprisers; I hear them well when they tell me about competition.

Mr. Cunningham: You said you were one. But that was over 20 minutes ago.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know, but only facetiously.

I hear the free enterprisers saying, "If you have a good product and you get out there and you work hard, by God they will buy from you," except when the decisions are made in the United States that one will buy from a source in the United States. If one is the parent company, that is where one buys. Tell me how our Canadian businessmen get into the market at all; no way.

This report goes on and on, "No matter how efficient the independent Canadian supplier might be, his price can never compete with the internal costing procedures of the multinational enterprise."

One could go on and look at research. To my amazement as I look through it, the same thing is occurring there. We all think the foreign-dominated companies are going to do a lot more research in Canada. We find out it is the small Canadian firms that are doing the majority of the research and development. But what do we encourage? More direct foreign investment; they might do some research. Like hell! They have no intention of doing any research here. They have their research capabilities in the United States.

So despite all these nice announcements about some firm coming to this province, unless it is Canadian owned the government should not beat its chest too long or too hard, because two or three years down the road the company might not be there.

5:20 p.m.

The whole thing is crazy. We are in a bind. This minister has been involved in the studies. He knows what we have to do but he will take the short run, the easy way, because that is Canada's history. Whether at the federal or provincial level, we have always taken the easy route.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You mean you put jobs first.

Mr. Martel: I am putting jobs first. If the minister provokes me I will look that up. In fact he has provoked me and I will look for the section on foreign investment if it takes me half an hour. I have found it and it says:

"A US Senate committee on finance and its subcommittee on international trade calculated that in 1970, some 461,200 jobs were created in the United States as a result of foreign direct investment. One half, or 230,600, can be said to have been gained from Canada. Since 50 per cent of all US foreign direct investment is located here, Canada gained some 110,000 jobs as a result of exports of US subsidiaries, for a net loss of 120,400 jobs. This is by far a conservative estimate since most exports by Canadian subsidiaries are tied, and the Harvard Business School estimates the US gain, and Canadian loss, at 300,000 jobs."

If the minister would give me another cue I can look for another part of this report, because I am worried about jobs. I come from a part of the province which has seen the waste caused by this government allowing companies like Inco and Falconbridge to never have to produce anything in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Walker: If you had your way, all the White people would still be out.

Mr. Martel: If I had my way the government would own the company and find a buyer in Canada. They would guarantee those jobs here.

I can remember the old geography book from when I went to school. It showed that Canada had 95 per cent of the world's nickel. We did not do anything with it except sell it off. We do not produce anything which uses nickel. Down in Huntington, dear old Inco is in tubing and milling. That should have been done here but it is not. The government has made one series of blunders after another. It has given the store away; it has taken the easy way out. I suggest the way is not easy.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It seems to me we discovered it was a Canadian company.

Mr. Martel: It still is not. Fifty-one per cent of the shares are Canadian owned and widely held. The majority of the shares are in blocks.

Isn't that what Sunoco did to the government? They wanted to sell the other 26 per cent, dispersed, so they would have absolute control with 49 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Walker: One wouldn't notice that from what you said today.

Mr. Martel: We wanted to give the government control but they would not take it because they always take the easy road out.

We would have been involved with economic planning with respect to companies like Inco and Falconbridge. We would have been manufacturing something in this country now, and if we had taken some of the recommendations of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism -- and this minister signed them -- we would not have allowed the sale of White Farm Equipment and we would have reinstituted the last select committee to look at what we have to do in order to prevent what is going on. White is just another example of blackmail; and the flippant response from the minister is the 750 jobs.

I worry about the 750 jobs but I am not prepared to be blackmailed. I would have used that section which the minister signed. Does he want me to quote it again? I would just like to remind the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) of what his predecessor, that great free enterpriser, signed:

Hon. Mr. Walker: Should that be "deemed to be in the public interest"?

Mr. Martel: I think it is in the public interest to keep that technology here.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It is in the public interest not to spend as much money as you would like to spend.

Mr. Martel: Let me go on, "to acquire enterprises coming up for sale from foreign owners for which no Canadian buyer can be found, provided that the acquisition is in the public interest." White was in the public interest.

Hon. Mr. Walker: In your mind.

Mr. Martel: The minister is the one who is telling me about protecting the jobs and two years from now when they close the door he is going to go down there --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Listen, it is in the public interest not to have to pay so much interest.

Mr. Martel: By the time the minister is finished, he is not even going to have knees left on his pants, he is going to be scraping and bowing so often to that corporate sector. He will be worse than the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) ever thought of being, or Allan Lawrence as he scraped and grovelled in front of those corporate types. This minister is doing the same.

Certainly it is in the Canadian interest to keep White in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Not to nationalize it the way you are suggesting.

Mr. Martel: I did not suggest that. Let me read this again. My friend is obviously hard of hearing. He should just shut up and listen so he will not say I am nationalizing. I want him to listen for a moment. This is what it says. It does not mention the word "nationalize" any place:

"The Ontario Development Corp. should be suitably equipped with the legal and financial capacity to undertake the acquisition of enterprises should that be deemed in the public interest, to acquire enterprises coming up for sale from foreign owners for which no Canadian buyer can be found, provided that the acquisition is in the public interest, and to acquire on a temporary basis Canadian corporations which would otherwise fall into foreign-owned hands."

No one says anything about nationalizing. We said on a temporary basis the minister should have used that tool. But no way, not old Mr. Giveaway. The minister will give the store away before he is done, after signing all this. I could have brought in six or eight more reports he signed on land ownership. Does he remember those days? My friend the minister should recall signing some of those documents. He has moved a long way from that. He forgets so quickly. All Tories when they are in that seat forget what they talked about, what they signed. They say they are saving jobs. They are all free enterprisers and they continue to finance the free enterprise system and get very little from it.

As I say, in this bill -- which I think I threw away because I found it so painful -- there is nothing that deals with Canadianizing the Canadian economy. That is the dilemma for Ontario. That is the dilemma for Canada. And he can continue to walk away from it for the next 10 years. These reports were done from 1971 to 1975, and we have the same problems in 1982. We will have the same problems in 1992, until we have a government that has a little courage and says: "No more. We are going to start to control our economy for our kids."

If we fail to do that, we will have the same massive unemployment we have today. When the United States coughs, we will catch a cold, and every time they have a little decline in the economy we will almost go bankrupt, because everything we have is so tied in with the American economy and we have never been prepared to break that tie. That does not mean to be anti-American; it means to be pro-Canadian. It is people like the minister and his government who have sold this country out, and none of them is prepared to make the changes necessary to give us a viable economy in Ontario. That is why I am going to vote against this bill.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, having listened to this participation by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I sense now that the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker) is very well qualified to be the minister, not only by virtue of having heard the member for Sudbury East for the last hour and a bit but also having been a signatory to all these marvellous select committee documents and, of course, having the favour of the participation of the member for Sudbury East during those marvellous select committee days before my arrival here.

I was reading, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you regularly do -- it would likely be on your coffee table at home -- the May 1982 edition of Ontario Business News, which is fresh off the press. Like his predecessor, the current minister is inclined to communicate largely through the publication of his picture, which somehow has graced the pages three times. I should digress and say that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) was inclined to put his picture in four or five times. He was a little better looking than the new minister but maybe not as bright.

As he is viewed here examining a stack of zinc ingots, the headline says, "Business has a friend in me: Walker." There are some interesting comments in here: "For Mr. Walker the replica of the typical street vendor 'says it all about the free enterprise system ... he does his own thing, his entire factory is on his box of wheels and he's not encumbered by rules and regulations.'" Given the decline in our economy, they may be the last vestige of free enterprise in this province.

"Walker's sincere and deeply felt belief in the positive value of the free enterprise system is reflected very much in the way he views his role as boss of one of Ontario's key economic ministries.

"'I want it to be known that business continues to have a friend in this portfolio ... I intend to take up the cause of business and argue it strongly wherever possible. That may mean taking on the federal government or other provincial ministries'" -- I cannot wait to see the great squabbling that is going to take place; no more solidarity in cabinet -- "'which may be dicey, but I see my job as the advocate of business.'"

I will not bore the members with all the rest, but it also reports that "he is convinced the way to create permanent, stable jobs is by supporting business. 'Government doesn't create jobs,' he says, 'but it can create the climate in which jobs are created. It is important that we create a positive climate in which business can operate and which encourages investment.'"

I would not be at variance with the view advanced by the Minister of Industry and Trade. Simply put, he has my sympathy in this current cabinet, because he and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who, like this brochure, is somewhat black and blue after the Suncor matter, may be the only ones in that cabinet who share the sentiment and the view expressed by him on the free enterprise system.

I think many of us, including the member for Sudbury East, who mentioned today that he was an advocate of free enterprise -- at least he was 40 minutes ago -- have great support for that system. The party opposite is inclined to have two positions on free enterprise. There is the one they express before they even sing the national anthem at the Rotary Club, and then there is the practice that seems to exist in this province.

I want to refer specifically to one of my pet peeves, the Urban Transportation Development Corp. It was before my time that this corporation, which was originally incorporated as the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., was created to serve as a catalyst with -- if you are ready for this, Mr. Speaker -- the private sector, to work with the private sector, to bring the private sector together and to help and assist it with financing so that we could participate in what they referred to as the lucrative international transit market.

I may deal with that in a moment. That was their mandate. The mandate has never changed. The only thing that has changed is the title of the corporation, which now is the Urban Transportation Development Corp. It was changed in the fall of 1974 to accommodate the participation of the Alberta government.

I can recall the announcement appearing on the front page of the Toronto Star and back with the truss ads in the Globe and Mail, where it belonged: "Ontario and Alberta join in transit bid." Nothing happened with that and nothing happened thereafter with a myriad of other proposals, not the least of which was another front-page story three days later about a joint venture proposition announced by the Premier with McDonnell Douglas of California. There was not a nickel from McDonnell Douglas. There was not a nickel from Peter Lougheed -- and we know Mr. Lougheed certainly has the facility to throw nickels around, if not a lot more.

I am not going to speak in opposition of this ministry. I happen to think it is vital and fundamental to the development of our economy. I think it can be properly used and maybe even served by this minister. It might even demonstrate that the Ontario government can do something, can play a role in this declining economy of ours and help us out of the economic morass we are in.

I believe this minister, with the co-operation of his colleagues in the government, if they were able to lessen the red tape which seems to be their trademark these days, just might see us on the road to some economic recovery in this province rather than consistently blaming the federal government for the economic difficulties we face today.

I am sorry I was not in my place when my good friend the Premier announced that we were going to have this deal in Detroit. I was able to read in the Globe and Mail some weeks before a comment by the number two man at the Southeastern Michigan Transit Authority; he was commenting on the technology and expressing his concerns about its uncertainty. I think he was referring to the linear induction technology by this company that is owned by the Ontario government. The individual indicated, "Oh well, it is downtown and if the thing breaks down it is not too far from where anybody would want to walk anyway." The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relation shakes his head. I can hear him shaking it. That is, in fact, what the gentleman said.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What a salesman you are for this province. Terrific stuff.

Mr. Cunningham: I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, before the minister continues too much further, that we might just contemplate what this intervention by the Ontario government has done to the free enterprise transit development system in Canada and in Ontario. The member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who unfortunately is not in his seat right now, has 1,000 people out of work in his community at Hawker-Siddeley, a company that has developed a pretty fair expertise in the development of conventional and light rail transit equipment.

We also have, in Boucherville, Quebec, another Canadian company -- it may be in Quebec, but the last time I checked Quebec was still in Canada -- MLW Bombardier, a company that is on the verge of signing, if it already has not signed, a $1-billion contract to help expand the subway system in New York City. That contract will provide hundreds of jobs in my own community through subcontracts with Westinghouse, which I am sure members would endorse, without any scintilla of government assistance.

I want to say to the minister that this intervention, this folly on wheels, this elevated train system is, frankly, one of the silliest things I have encountered. And if the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) wants an objective opinion, she need not listen to what I say but to what the international experts across North America say on this. That is one example of what unfettered government involvement in our economy can do.

Frankly, I have a great deal of confidence in the new Minister of Industry and Trade, notwithstanding some disappointments I had about Astra Trust and Re-Mor; and if he were to be frank and candid, he would admit not only that Ontario's involvement in that proposition is at variance with the mandate given by this Legislature but also that it is not in any way sensible in terms of deployment of Ontario taxpayers' dollars.

If this contract in Detroit or Vancouver were to go down, we would be on the liability side of $1 billion in bid bonds. I do not need to elaborate on what difficulty we would have in putting our hot little hands on $1 billion. We should be mindful of that as we approach Thursday's budget.

This is slightly off the topic -- and I am going to conclude on this; you have been very tolerant, Mr. Speaker -- but the international transit market is not all that sweet. The President of the United States is really not an aficionado of rapid transit; his idea of mass transit is five or six guys in a Lincoln Continental. The Canadian market is itself very depressed. Vancouver may well be the last Canadian market for that system. That is what this government and the minister's free enterprise friends in cabinet and in the Urban Transportation Development Corp. are doing with millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars.

I would like to respectfully suggest what I think might be a more effective deployment of that financial resource. I speak now of financial loans and assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. With respect, I think this probably is the most efficient and effective way to get a big bang for our buck in interest and assistance, in jobs and in taxes paid.

5:40 p.m.

I looked on the back of this very fine publication. I saw the minister having what I suspect to be a glass of Marechal Foch with my friend Don Ziraldo. It was not that long ago that Mr. Ziraldo and his friends in the Niagara Peninsula were asking for a little bit of assistance in the financing and development of the hybrid French viniferas, which are so vital and fundamental to the development of our own domestic wineries.

While I do not profess any great expertise in wine-making or grape-growing, it is my understanding that those grapes probably take a period of five, six or seven years and some fortunate climate before one is able to use them to the extent that Mr. Ziraldo does. That is a long time but, once you have put that money down, and if you can tolerate that length of time, you are going to get the payback that Mr. Ziraldo and some of his associates on the peninsula are going to get. And, frankly, I am impressed with it.

But there was not a great deal of government assistance for these people by way of loans, even -- to be critical and objective -- from the federal government. That, in my view, was short-sighted. I know that my friend the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, professes that these are some of his favourite wines, if not his favourite wines; they like to get them on Air Canada. But the harsh facts of reality are that when some of these grape growers were requesting assistance from both the Ontario government and the Farm Credit Corp., they came back empty-handed.

I would like to suggest to the minister that he take up the fight, as he suggested he might have to do, with other provincial ministers. I sent a note across today to his associate the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) on the subject of a constituency concern of mine.

I have a gentleman in my riding who raises on his own trout farm -- again without any government assistance -- rainbow trout, speckled trout and lake trout. I have sampled them all, and they are all just fine. He has permits to breed them, of course, because in this province we require that, and I am not concerned about the permit feature. But he is not able to sell the lake trout as he is the rainbow and the speckled. They are fine-tasting fish. What we could be doing in this province is setting up these kinds of trout farms and encouraging private individuals, small businessmen and small businesswomen, to set up these kinds of things all over Ontario.

The minister should go to a grocery store and look at the amount of frozen fish we import from Norway, Denmark and Japan. I do not know whether the minister is a connoisseur of fish; again, I do not profess to be. But I know this: My friend who has the fish farm in Freelton produces a lot better-tasting fish than you can get flash frozen from Japan and elsewhere. This could be done here, and these are things that could reduce our balance of payments deficit. In fact, we should be exporting it, but for some silly reason that I do not understand, this man is not able to sell his lake trout. That is an area in the ministry I think we could be going after.

Before I conclude, I want to speak briefly about an area that I think is going to be very lucrative for us. It is something the Ontario government could do, which the federal government maybe has been a little reticent about doing sometimes. I refer to the aftermarket in the automobile industry.

In my own constituency, in the township of Flamborough, there is a gentleman who is making rocker arms under reasonably decent contracts with Ford and General Motors. He is a hard-working individual. If the member for Sudbury East had this case example, he certainly would have preferred to have used it here in the House. This man had to sell half his business when he could not get the financial assistance from this government and from the federal government to continue to allow him to expand. So he had to sell half of it. It was either accept that or be run out of business as the large American conglomerates were expanding. Fortunately, he finally got some federal business development assistance, and not only is he surviving but I think he is on the verge of prospering.

That is a microcosm of what can be done in the development of our domestic auto parts industry. Certainly we have been suffering, but I would think that even this government is going to have the ministry fleet run a little longer than it used to. In our own buying habits, as individual car drivers in this province, we are probably going to drive our cars another year or so longer. Hence, that aftermarket is going to be a very lucrative thing for a long time or as long as we have high prices for automobiles and high interest rates to finance them.

I do not have a lot of sympathy for the people who put us in the economic mess in this province today, but I have sympathy for the current minister who, I think, is going to have a difficult job extracting the finances necessary to provide the financial assistance, through loans, to small and medium-sized businesses. If members sense that I have a bias in that regard, I do. I think it would be far more sensible to spend the $88 million we put into the Urban Transportation Development Corp. into a pot to assist with small and medium-sized business loans.

I would direct the same amount of money we are putting into Suncor in a similar direction. It might not even be unfair to suggest that the $10 million or $12 million associated with the purchase of the Premier's jet could go in the same direction.

I believe other jurisdictions have done this and have done it successfully. I do not mean to undermine what has been done in the past in this province but, frankly, with almost 400,000 people out of work and the worst economic situation we have seen in the province for a long time -- a sad reality -- we have to start taking some bold new initiatives. I do not intend to be gratuitous but, of that entire cabinet, the minister may well be the only one -- at least by virtue of what he says in print here -- who has sufficient commitment to free enterprise and initiative to make that a reality.

As I conclude, I say to the minister that I am going to support his bill. I have no reticence about supporting it. It is vital to our survival in this province and to a healthy economic climate. I hope the minister will do two things. I hope he will actively do everything he can to remove the red tape and barriers I referred to very briefly through several examples. If he likes, privately I will favour him with more. I also hope he will aggressively seek out the financial assistance to provide the money for these loans to help and stimulate the small businesses.

As the minister said in this brochure, every big business had a small beginning. I think we have all sorts of entrepreneurs and risk takers in this province who are still prepared, even with taxation situations that some of us may not be too happy about, to commit themselves, their families, their initiative and maybe their personal property to put up as risk or collateral, to pursue something they believe in. That is really what made us great, not the Ontario government's palavering about the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and certainly not the 1,000 people who, unfortunately, are out of work in Fort William.

I wish the minister well; he is going to need it.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious I had not intended to speak at this time on this bill but, because of the unavoidable absence of one of my colleagues, it is necessary for me to intervene at this time.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to the new Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) on a number of topics that have concerned me since I entered this House in 1967.

Before I get to that, I want to echo some of the sentiments expressed by the former speaker, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham). He spoke about the grape and wine industry. I am certainly one of the least knowledgeable members of this House with regard to the industry that is of such importance to people in the Niagara Peninsula. Having visited Essex and Kent counties, not this past weekend but the weekend before, and having visited with the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), I was made aware on visiting the Charal Winery in Blenheim just how important that is and can be to the economy of that area. I had the opportunity to sample some of that product, and it is as good as any I have tasted, and that includes a good many foreign wines.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It's an excellent wine.

Mr. Stokes: It is. I got my daughter to take a case back north when she was moving upon graduation from the University of Western Ontario. I can attest to the fact that those people have something going for them in that area. If this ministry, along with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, can assist them in any way, they should, because I think we have a winner there.

I was interested in hearing the member for Wentworth North talk about fish farming. I have raised this on a number of occasions in the past when I had my former responsibilities as critic of the Ministry of Natural Resources. At one time when I was the critic of Stanley Randall, when he had responsibilities similar to those of the present minister, I raised those issues with him. Having had an opportunity to see what they do in Japan with regard to fish farming, I can attest to the fact that it works for them and I have no reason to believe it would not work for us.

I was going over a speech the Minister of Natural Resources made this past Saturday in the Ear Falls-Red Lake area about various programs for which he is responsible. He was speaking to the tourist industry and mentioned fish and wildlife management along with strategic land use planning and the multiple use concept with regard to land use and land use planning in northern Ontario.

I can recall he said they were thinking more in terms of natural replacement of our fishery resources rather than on a put-and-take basis. I can attest to the fact that it is working very well in Japan. In Japan, one can see Pacific salmon coming up the rivers to spawn and one can see the tremendous success they are having with that program. Either the next time this minister is in that part of the world or the next time he sends anybody there, somebody should take a good look at it.

That is not really what I want to talk about now in connection with the establishment of this ministry and Bill 38. I want to remind the minister, if some of his staff have not already done so, that when the Treasurer had responsibility for regional economic development in this province -- I recall Charles MacNaughton when he was the Treasurer having the responsibility for regional economic development -- we had 10 regional economic development councils throughout the province.

I cannot attest to how well those regional councils worked in other areas of the province, but I can tell members that the one we had in northwestern Ontario worked better than any other in the province. It worked well because there was local involvement. I do not mean just local involvement by chambers of commerce and others with a vested interest. They had interministerial people from Treasury, from Municipal Affairs, from Northern Affairs, and at that time from the Ministry of Mines and from Tourism and Information. All those ministries that had in any way some responsibility for economic development in the province used to meet within the interministerial committee, with the business community and with the municipal representatives who were charged with the responsibility of coming up with programs for regional economic development.

The secretary-manager, whose name was Alexander Philips, was perhaps Mr. Northwestern Ontario. He was a person with a very keen knowledge and awareness of the potential in northwestern Ontario. He had an excellent rapport with anybody who was in any way interested and concerned about regional economic development, and I can attest to the fact that it worked extremely well. This government, in its wisdom, decided there was a better approach, a better way to go. It decided that regional economic development councils were no longer the vehicles for the sponsoring of economic development. It did away with them, much to the consternation, surprise and dismay of all those people in the private sector and the public sector who had a responsibility for making that initiative work.

What did we get in their place? We got something that was referred to as Design for Development. We had such a plan in northwestern Ontario; there was also a plan in northeastern Ontario. There was even such a plan, under the auspices of that program, for the Toronto-centred region.

I can remember reading some of the recommendations for economic development in the Toronto-centred region. One of the things it said, and it caused a great deal of concern in northern Ontario, was that, given the strategic location within the Canada-US megalopolis of Metropolitan Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, that area had an opportunity to look forward to great economic activity, development and expansion by processing the resources that would be brought down from northern Ontario in ever-increasing amounts to satisfy the needs of the industrial and commercial complex in the Toronto-centred region.

Just by way of a little bit of historical background, I want to remind the minister, because he has not had an opportunity to do all the background reading that went on with regard to this government's responsibility for industrial expansion and the creation of jobs and --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member may find this a suitable moment to adjourn the debate, as it is close to 6 o'clock.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

May 10, 1982