Hansard Transcripts 1982-Nov-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker. at last Monday's sitting of the House, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) rose on a point of order relating to oral questions concerning the Essex County Board of Education, the Canadian General Electric plant on Dufferin Street in Toronto, the Dresser Canada plant in Cambridge, the Trailmobile Canada plant in Brantford and the Westinghouse plant in Hamilton.

As honourable members will remember, the question about the Essex County Board of Education concerned the apparent practice of female employees undergoing extensive medical examinations as a condition of employment. Generally speaking, under the Ontario Human Rights Code a medical examination may be conducted for employment purposes if, first, it is related to the requirements of the job and, second, it is an examination to which all employees are subject.

In the case of the Essex County Board of Education, the Ontario Human Rights Commission was made aware of the use of the medical questionnaires in question by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1348. The commission staff, notwithstanding the lack of a formal complaint by the parties involved, undertook to review with the board's personnel staff the questions deemed acceptable and not acceptable within the code.

The commission reports full co-operation from the personnel officer at the board, who has willingly met with commission staff and has initiated meetings with the physician involved. The physician has been asked formally to modify the questionnaire to respect the provisions of the code. The board of education has agreed to eliminate internal examinations and chest measurements and to make its medical examinations, both pre-employment and post-employment, job related. These revisions have been in place since November 1.

I understand the union has raised further concerns with the human rights commission. A meeting between the commission and the union is being scheduled to clarify further any issues that may be outstanding.

So far as the Canadian General Electric plant at 241 Dufferin Street in Toronto is concerned, members will remember that questions have been asked regarding breast and gynaecological cancers among women employees at the plant.

The question of whether there has been an abnormally high incidence of these cancers among women at the plant, and most particularly in its lamp coil-winding area, was first raised in December 1980. The plant physician, Dr. Jack Richman, consulted with my officials at that time, and my officials discussed the various steps that might be taken to determine two things: first, whether there were any substances or processes in the coil-winding area that cause cancer, and second, how many cases of mammary and gynaecological cancers there had been among the women who had worked in the plant during the previous decade.

In December 1980, the precise numbers of cancers were not known, nor was it known whether the incidences were high, low or medium in comparison to those of the general population of women in Ontario. I might add that there were no incidence figures regarding working women. It was also not known whether those cancers might have been caused by factors in the work place, factors at home, hereditary factors or a complex combination of factors. It is against that background that Dr. Richman undertook to investigate the situation.

On February 3, 1981, ministry officials conducted a regular inspection of the plant. At that time, the union indicated satisfaction with the action that had been taken to that date. By November 1981, Dr. Richman had determined that 25 women who had worked in the plant during the previous decade had contracted breast or gynaecological cancers. Eight of the women worked in the coiling area which at any one time employs an average of 49 women. Two of the women worked in the office area which at any one time employs an average of 60 women. The remaining 15 women worked in other production areas of the plant which at any one time employ an average of 220 women.

Dr. Richman concluded that it was necessary to do a study to determine if the incidences of these cancers among the women who had worked in the plant over time, as compared with incidences in the general population, were high, low or within normal ranges. McMaster University was asked to prepare a proposal for such a study.

Up until November 1981, and in the ensuing months, there was every reason to believe that the matter was being pursued actively. The ministry had had no indication to the contrary from either the union or the management at the Dufferin Street plant. The questions of the member for Sudbury East were the first indication that any concerns were persisting.

A ministry inspection team has visited the plant to review the substances and processes that are being used today. The team will attempt to identify and assess to the greatest extent possible which substances have been used in the plant during the past 15 years. Onsite inspections have been completed and the report is being prepared.

The report will provide comprehensive, up-to- the-minute data on whether cancer-causing agents are present in the plant or such substances were present in the past. Any further tests or remedial action that may be necessary will be conducted promptly. In addition to that, CGE employees and management have invited the ministry to review the McMaster study proposal and my officials will do that. I will keep the honourable members informed.

Insofar as the Westinghouse and Trailmobile Canada items are concerned, I must underscore what I said here last Monday. These matters are highly complex. Full reports have just been completed and submitted to me.

Any oral summary here of the contents of the reports would not do justice to the concerns expressed by the member for Sudbury East and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), nor would it do justice to the various important actions that had been taken by the employees, the employers, the joint health and safety committees and the ministry staff involved. Were I to read the reports into the record -- I emphasize that the reports summarize the detailed information in the files -- a very considerable amount of the time of the House would be consumed on matters involving highly complex and technical considerations.

For those reasons I have indicated, I have written to the member for Sudbury East suggesting that the most expeditious way to handle these matters would be to meet so as to permit a full discussion of the reports. This would enable the member for Sudbury East and the member for Hamilton East to study the matters in detail and to question me and my officials about the actions taken in the light of our investigation. That offer stands.

In the meantime, I have sent copies of the Westinghouse and Trailmobile Canada reports to my honourable friends. I have also sent them copies of a report on potential exposures to isocyanates in those companies referred to on November 4 by the member for Hamilton East. I will also send them the report on Dresser Canada when it has been completed in the next few days. I will be most amenable to meeting with them on that subject too. I would have no hesitation in providing these reports to other interested members or in tabling them in this Legislature if it would be helpful to do so.

I believe that what I am proposing is the most effective way of ensuring that all of these matters are explored fully so that everyone can be satisfied that appropriate action is being taken by the ministry to protect the health and safety of the workers involved.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is not often we in the opposition rise on a point of privilege to compliment the government. We usually rise to complain.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), on behalf of the members in this party, on implementing the Liberal education policy this morning at a press conference. The first step was the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, that may be the Liberal policy but it was probably fouled up somehow in the plagiarism.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NONRESIDENT AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. He is no doubt aware that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) said, in referring to the foreign-owned farm land problem in his statement in estimates the other day, "We believe there are some properties which should be registered but are not."

It is obvious the Ministry of Revenue has not received some revenue as a result of the variety of ways people use to get around the act. Could the minister tell me the extent of the circumvention of the Land Transfer Tax Act? How long has he been aware of it? How much revenue has it cost his government? Why has he not moved to change those loopholes in the act?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Leader of the Opposition had carried on quoting some additional parts of the opening estimates statement of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, he would also find --

Mr. Nixon: It was 84 pages. We can't quote the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It was not very long.

Mr. Nixon: It seemed long.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: -- the Leader of the Opposition would find the minister also indicated that I will shortly be introducing amendments to the Land Transfer Tax Act in recognition that there are some loopholes that have been taken advantage of from time to time. We frankly do not think there is an extremely large loophole, but obviously a loophole becomes larger when more and more people become aware of it.

We do not know the actual numbers, but most of what it revolves around relates to organizations from offshore becoming involved in setting up a corporation for a local farming operation and then, in turn, buying shares in that farming corporation. In practical terms, ownership moves offshore but in real terms we have not known about it in the past.

I think that is a completely separate issue from the registration issue to which my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food addressed himself in his opening statement, and to which I am sure he will address himself further on any specific situation.

Mr. Peterson: The minister should not let me put words in his mouth, but he indicates he understands this problem is relatively new or is relatively limited in its application. If that is the case, why did he or his predecessor, or the Treasurer's (Mr. F. S. Miller) predecessor, say the following in the 1974 budget: "Where a nonresident acquires control of a corporation which owns lands in Ontario, this will be deemed to be a transfer of land and the tax will apply"?

In 1974, the government admitted there was a problem and said it was going to do something about it. Why has it not done something about that by now?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As the member knows, 1974 predates both of us in real terms around here.

Mr. Peterson: I was born in 1943. You may have been born in 1976 but I was born a little ahead of you.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am just a youngster at heart too. I am not familiar with the background of the statement in the Treasurer's budget of 1974. All I know is, in current terms, in the past year or so, we have become aware of this loophole that has been used from time to time. In ongoing discussions with the people from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, we propose to close that loophole. If it was indicated in the past that there was a loophole in 1974, I am not aware of it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that part of the problem is the same as that of Cadillac Fairview and the minister cannot determine who the owners of the property are when it is a limited company?

Recognizing that the Liberals and Conservatives voted against the New Democratic Party amendment which would have provided for corporate disclosure so one could tell who actually owned the property, is the minister now prepared to recommend to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), for the sake of his ministry as well as for the Ministry of Revenue, that there be full corporate disclosure of the ownership of all companies?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations fulfils his responsibilities in a very excellent manner. When he deems there is a problem in that regard, I am sure he will address it.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I first raised the matter of foreign ownership with the former Minister of Agriculture and Food in 1978, indicating that foreign buyers were circumventing the Land Transfer Tax Act by forming Ontario corporations, now that the Minister of Revenue has finally recognized this is happening, will he confer with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food to see if we are not ready now for legislation, similar to that which has been introduced by Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which would limit the amount of nonresident ownership of agricultural land in Ontario?

Why does the minister continue to state that this is not a problem if after two years he does not know the extent of foreign purchases? Will he admit that he is merely using foreign purchases as a solution to the problem of increasing farm bankruptcies in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that question, as it was posed, has been put to the proper minister. In so far as the Land Transfer Tax Act is concerned, over which I have some jurisdiction, I would suggest that really is not the problem that was addressed by the honourable member.

I think the extent of the problem to which he alludes is grossly inflated. My colleague indicated in his opening statement the other day that in terms of registration it appeared that about one per cent of farm ownership was in foreign hands. Even if you presume that the loopholes have been used in an equal amount, in other words another 100 per cent, that is two per cent. I am not too sure that one or two per cent is an unmanageable total.

I think in these considerations you always have to weigh the fact that you do not want to give offshore investors a complete turnoff on the general acceptability within this country and this province for reasonable, responsible investments. You do not want to go overboard in one sector and, in so doing, scare away potential investors in many other sectors of our economy.

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I am sure he is aware of the demolition of the West Toronto railway station last week. It underscores the question I want to ask him.

He is aware that under the Ontario Heritage Act a local council can merely delay the demolition of an historic building for some 180 days. Of course, the other option is expropriation, which is costly and which requires a lot of money that is not generally available.

Can the minister tell this House why his government is opposed to enacting legislation which will effectively allow us to protect our landmarks?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, the demolition of that Canadian Pacific station has nothing whatsoever to do with legislation by my ministry. If a company opts to demolish a building in the pre-dawn light, notwithstanding understandings and agreements it has had with the municipal people and with others involved, there is very little one can do about it.

To be specific, our legislation was not involved in this matter one way or another. Had it been, I say again there was nothing we could have done to have prevented it.

Mr. Peterson: I am glad that the minister just figured out my question. That is the whole point of it. His legislation is not involved and should be involved.

He is aware that since 1975 there have 10 or so requests by the Toronto Historical Board, as well as by city council, to have changes in the Ontario Heritage Act. He is aware there is a long list of people who have wanted to put more power in the municipalities' hands to handle precisely these kinds of situations. The minister, his predecessor and/or his government, are not interested in giving them that power.

My question to him is precisely as he figured out in the first instance. He is right that he is not involved; why does he not become involved in these kinds of questions?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: I will try again, but the Leader of the Opposition continues to miss the point. We are talking about two things. There are some legitimate concerns about the strength of our legislation and the way it gives us muscle in dealing with some heritage properties in the province. There are legitimate arguments about that on both sides. With regard to the specific question, that CP station in west Toronto --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: No. they did not put it into context at all, because it is a federal property. It is a property that, notwithstanding the most stringent type of legislation that we might have -- and we are thinking of strengthening ours -- we could not have prevented what happened last week with that CP station.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House as to what kind of changes to our legislation he is looking at to strengthen it? What kind of changes is he going to be proposing?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. In a nutshell, our legislation now puts the onus on the municipalities to make sure that they, through their effort, through volunteer people and the local council, are able to save heritage properties.

The rationale behind this is quite legitimate. If the municipal people involved in a community have the conviction, the strength, the support and the volunteers behind them to mount the kind of effort required with their local council to protect the local building, we support that.

What we are faced with in this series of legitimate questions is whether we at the provincial government should exert more influence from Queen's Park. It is a two-sided question. We are very much looking at strengthening our legislation. If we can, we still want to keep the onus, not in the sense of buck-passing, on the local municipalities to mount the major effort. We help them, not just in a financial way but in terms of making expertise available, of which we have a large amount in the ministry.

There are some legitimate questions about how strong the legislation from Queen's Park should be. We are looking at that.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this private corporate giant has marched across the great province of Ontario -- I know that in my own part of the province, the Canadian Pacific Railway has marched right up the Ottawa Valley, ripping the guts out of the historic centre of many of these communities, in Pembroke and elsewhere -- does the minister, who is responsible for the heritage legislation in this province, not think the time has come for him to pick up the phone and call the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway and indicate on behalf of the people of Ontario that this is conduct he and his government will not tolerate?

Does he not think, as the members for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) have indicated, the time has come for this government to put the kind of teeth in our heritage legislation that will stop the situation whereby we have the national dream becoming a local disgrace?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, the time, indeed, has come for people interested in heritage in the country to finally get the attention of CP. I agree with that. That is being done in a variety of sources and we are a part of that. I might point out that we have had specifics -- we could talk about Arnprior in detail -- where we ourselves have had disappointing experiences with CP. On the other hand, Canadian National has been a great deal more co-operative and there are a number of instances of CN properties having been saved in the province.

At the one and only provincial cultural ministers' conference that I have attended since being minister, this took up a good part of the agenda. People here probably do not need to be reminded, but when one is out in western Canada the importance of railways in the development of the prairie provinces is even more significant than it has been in our province. A large number of people at all three levels of government are concerned about drawing this to the attention of CP, to be specific, in as clear a way as we can, and we are part of that.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister will know that a survey from the industrial sector in terms of prosecutions and orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act shows that there have been 29,386 new orders, 5,248 repeat orders and a total of 36 prosecutions resulting in 28 convictions.

I would like to ask the minister two questions. How can he justify the number of repeat orders being so high -- 15 per cent; much higher even than last year -- and how can he explain why the percentage of prosecutions is so low, still resting at 0.1 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, repeat orders do not necessarily indicate a lack of progress. In fact, in many cases they indicate that when the inspector goes back to investigate the first order, he has found that considerable progress has been made; he therefore issues a repeat order because it has not been completed. But it does not mean the company has failed to do anything about it. In most cases the opposite is true.

As far as prosecutions are concerned, I do not think a survey has been done in this respect, but I would imagine that if it were done, the number of files that have gone to our legal department would probably be found to have increased this year over last year. in fact, I am relatively sure of that statement. It is the opinion of the legal department whether or not they have a case to take before the courts. We have limited resources at our disposal in the legal department, and the courts are jammed enough as it is. As a result there is no sense in taking something in there if we do not have a reasonable chance of getting a conviction.

Mr. Rae: I challenge the minister on the second half of his answer just with respect to the facts of the situation.

But I would like to turn to a very specific example just to challenge him on the first part of his answer with respect to repeat orders: the case of the B. F. Goodrich tire plant in Kitchener. Since November 1978 there have been 107 orders, many of which were repeated several times. Specifically in November 1978, orders were issued to label contents in flow of pipes containing toxic chemicals such as ammonia, formaldehyde, steam and naphtha gas, to be completed within six months. This order was repeated at least five times, most recently in July 1982, and the problem has still not been corrected. Why has there not been a prosecution in this kind of case when the order has been disregarded five times?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not completely aware of the background in that particular case, although I do know that a great deal of work has been done by the occupational health and safety branch in respect of that particular operation. If I answered the honourable member, I would only be speculating, and I do not want to do that.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, does the minister believe that the number of prosecutions -- 36, or 0.1 per cent of the number of new orders -- is adequate for his ministry to have initiated to indicate to companies that it is indeed serious in having these orders complied with? If he does not believe this is an adequate number, what efforts has he made to inform the government and other ministers that the limited resources he complained of, when he answered the first question, are one of the problems in getting the adequate number of prosecutions we need?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we are not unlike any other ministry in this government today: All ministries are faced with limited resources. I can go back to the first step of the inspections, and that is the total inspectorate staff we have. It varies from 272, I believe, to about 290. As far as I am concerned that is a completely inadequate number to do the job. In order to cover something like 168,000 work places and 3.41 million workers under the act I think it is completely inadequate, and we have gone to Management Board.

As far as prosecutions are concerned, we are concerned because when we do get a prosecution, in our opinion the fine that is handed down is, in many cases, inadequate. When a fine is inadequate, it serves to give some employers the idea that it is a licence rather than a deterrent, and in the case of a prosecution we are concerned that a fine should be a deterrent and not just a licence to abuse the act. In that respect, I wrote to my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) some months ago and asked him to look into that matter.

2:30 p.m.

I would also advise that the weekend papers indicated that the Court of Appeal overthrew a decision by a lower court and applied a much higher fine to a particular company. In doing so, they indicated they felt that some of the fines handed down had been too light and were not acting as deterrents, and they wanted to make sure the fines were. I am encouraged by that decision, because I think that will filter down into the lower courts.

Mr. Rae: The minister has admitted that he has neither adequate staff nor the legislation he needs in terms of fines to make sure the law is complied with. That is an extraordinary admission of failure and defeat by the minister for policies for which he and the government are responsible.

I once again ask the minister to explain this series of repeat orders in the B. F. Goodrich plant. A report by the occupational health branch in March 1980 and another in April 1980 note two chemicals, OBTS and Cure-Rite 18, used since 1966, as being either mutagenic and/or probably carcinogenic. In May 1980, orders were issued to ventilate these chemicals used in the precompounding area; in January 1981, there was a repeat order on ventilation; in April 1981, a repeat order on ventilation; in August 1981, a repeat order on ventilation.

How long is it going to take this ministry to act to protect the health and safety of workers in this and other plants around the province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With the greatest of respect, I take maximum umbrage with the comments made by the honourable member. While the numbers may be small as far as our inspectorate is concerned, the quality of the people we have out there and the dedication to their jobs and the hours and effort they put into them are most commendable indeed.

In response to the last statement made by the leader of the New Democratic Party, I feel the Ministry of Labour has continued to move forward in a most progressive and positive way in addressing the safety of the workers in this province, and I will not apologize to him or to anyone else for the calibre of service we provide to those workers.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I was not being critical of any civil servant. I was being critical of the Tory party and the Tory government for their inactivity. Let me make that very clear.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: You're critical of the civil servants all the time.

Mr. Martel: You're darned right. They're doing a lousy job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There seem to be a lot of private conversations being carried on.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I am speaking first.

There are too many private conversations going on. The noise level in the House is too high. I ask the co-operation of all members.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) stated that it was darned right, that they were commenting on civil servants because they do a lousy job. I wonder whether he could either correct that or elaborate on it.

Mr. Speaker: Please. That is not a point of order.

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Attorney General. In the light of the fact that the Attorney General has not appeared before the committee of the Legislature considering Bill 179, is he prepared to table before this House the opinion of the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to the impact of Bill 179 on freedom of association as that term is understood and has been interpreted and as he understands it according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable amount of discussion with the law officers of the crown in relation to matters that might be raised, and I can assure the House that they are of the view that this legislation does not offend the Charter of Rights. I cannot state at this moment that I have seen an opinion reduced to writing on that specific issue, but I know it has been discussed.

Mr. Rae: I take it from the Attorney General's answer that there is no written opinion with respect to the impact of this legislation on freedom of association.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That was not my answer, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: For clarification, I said I had been present when the issue has been discussed. I cannot state to the leader of the New Democratic Party at this time whether an opinion that I have heard verbally has been reduced in writing.

Mr. Rae: I am still not clear as to whether the Attorney General says he is going to table it. I did not gather that from his answer.

I wonder whether the Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the crown, can explain the fact that letters have gone out in at least one ministry denying merit pay to employees who otherwise would have received merit pay in October, the reason being given that such merit pay would put an employee's salary over $35,000 per year and that this would contravene this section of the Inflation Restraint Act.

Can he tell me how it is possible for employees of the government of Ontario to be denied benefits and merit pay which would be justly accorded to them, when this Legislature has passed no such legislation entitled the Inflation Restraint Act and, indeed, when that is still under discussion? How can he explain that these things are being done when the legislation authorizing this kind of cutback has not even been passed by this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The question is obviously not a supplementary question, hut in any event I have not seen the letters. We all know the legislation has not been passed. I do not know what the specific policy of each minister is with relation to this matter, but it would seem to me, without having seen the letters, that the letters would be quite consistent with the overall government policy in this matter.

Mr. Rae: I must say I find both answers of the Attorney General a little bit strange. First of all, he offered an opinion that he did not see it causing any problem in terms of freedom of association but --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Rae: -- said that he had never seen such an opinion, and now he says he does not know whether or not people have been --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Attorney General, as the chief law officer of the crown and as the minister responsible for giving legal opinions with respect to this legislation, why did he fail to appear before the committee where we could have asked specific questions such as this? Will he make a commitment that he will make a major statement to this Legislature in the next few days with respect to the impact of this legislation on freedom of association and on the rule of law in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To my knowledge, it has never been the policy in this Legislature for cabinet ministers not directly responsible for a specific piece of legislation to appear before a committee of this Legislature in respect to that legislation.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Given that approximately $280 million will be spent in this province on job creation projects, and municipalities obviously will be asked to share in those projects, can the minister indicate to this House what proportion of that money will be going to municipalities so they can share in those projects?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I believe that later this week the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) will be enunciating the complete plan and formula relating to the make-work programs both for municipalities and the province.

Mr. Epp: Given that municipalities will be participating and that the minister has indicated the Treasurer is going to announce some program in the foreseeable future, possibly this week, can he indicate why municipalities have not been consulted with respect to what part they are to play in this whole enterprise? The provincial government from time to time complains about the fact that it has not been consulted by Ottawa, yet it in turn does not consult the 838 municipalities in this province and asks them to carry the load for it in various projects.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Treasurer and I will be meeting with the president and directors of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario later on this week, I believe prior to any announcement the Treasurer will make to this House and to this province. We will review the proposed programs of the Treasurer as to what participation, if any, will be expected of the municipalities.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why the Treasurer made a statement outside this Legislature the day he made his announcement, saying he expected a 25 per cent contribution? Can he tell us whether, in fact, the government is expecting a contribution from municipalities and whether that is to be made up of their own money? Are they expected to charge more property taxes to make those contributions?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have already said in this House this afternoon that the Treasurer will be enunciating the entire program after we have had an opportunity of meeting with the president and directors of AMO. The announcement will follow thereafter. As to what participation in what programs and what aspects of the programs we will expect municipalities to contribute to or not contribute to, that will be enunciated at that time.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. and two workers who refused to work with beryllium copper because of the excessive dust level.

Is the minister aware that following the work refusal by the two workers on June 10, investigations were made by the occupational health branch and the work refusals were upheld?

Is he also aware that beryllium, even in low levels, is dangerous, entering the body through inhalation or through skin absorption, and can cause dermatitis, and skin, liver and kidney diseases to a severe and nontreatable condition?

Is he further aware that in a verbal report, Dr. Malik indicated that workers must be protected by respiratory protection, protective clothing and laundering controls, that each worker must be informed and that air sampling should be done?

Finally, is he aware that in a follow-up visit by his ministry on June 22, the company advised the inspectors that the company was subcontracting out the beryllium machining in view of the safety procedures? Can the minister explain why his officials then revoked the order, saying it had been complied with and was being withdrawn?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of all the points the honourable member has raised. If my memory serves me correctly, between the time the first orders were presented and the follow-up, the company was on a layoff or was shut down, or that particular operation was terminated for a period of time.

The member is absolutely correct in that the company has indicated it is going to contract out that work. In each particular case when work is contracted out, my ministry's staff will be following up to make sure the company accepting that work is following all the safety precautions, including respirators and whatever else is required.

I also understand that not all the work would fall into that category. In fact, they send the dies with the work. Only some of the more antiquated dies still have that component in them, but the newer, replacement dies apparently do not; that type of component has been phased out of any subsequent equipment or processes that will be used.

Mr. Martel: I am certainly glad I told Bell Canada I was going to raise this question, because the minister has a response.

Can the minister explain to me whether he has now tracked down where this work is being done; whether, because of the toxicity of the substances used, the workers have been provided with respiratory equipment; whether air sampling has been done; and finally, whether each worker has been advised of the problems of dealing with beryllium?

Finally, when can the 21 workers at Northern Telecom expect the report from the occupational health branch that they requested from Dr. James on June 8, 1982?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect, I do not think the honourable member's statement is quite accurate when he says "where it is being done"; I think the statement should be "where it will be done." It is my understanding that it is not being contracted out at this time. But if and when it is contracted out -- and I believe that "if" should be in there, too -- then the ministry will take all the precautions he has pointed out in his question.

RESTRAINT IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister knows that estimates for his ministry will be starting shortly, and I wonder whether he might comment on what kind of example of restraint he and his office have set not only for the employees of the Ministry of Health but also for people working in the health field across Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you finished with that question?

Ms. Copps: That was the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that the whole thing?

Ms. Copps: Yes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It's a setup, Larry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I did not know that. We have chosen, for example. to market our calendars at a very low price and low cost this year.

An hon. member: Two hundred dollars?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Take $200,000, divide by 100,000 and you find out they are $2 a crack.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe we are exercising a high degree of restraint in this government -- in my ministry and in all ministries. I suppose that in comparison to those with whom the honourable member herself so closely associates up in Ottawa, we are exercising an enormous degree of restraint. However, everything is relative, and I am sure she will dig up an example whereby she will attempt to prove that some of our $6.5 billion is not being spent as carefully as she or her very close friends in Ottawa would have us spend it. I would be delighted to sit down and hear her stunning examples of that.

Ms. Copps: The stunning example comes directly from estimates. How can the minister preach restraint with a straight face when his own office, not including his salary and that of his parliamentary assistant, is forecasting a $1.2-million budget increase this year, up 26.9 per cent from last year's forecast?

How can he tell hospitals across this province to hold the line when staff in his own office have increased 21.9 per cent in the past two years and salaries have increased 46 per cent, and when the first thing he did as minister was to have carpet and drapes installed in his office at a cost of $8,466, even though his predecessor had had new carpets installed in 1980?

How can the minister talk with a straight face to hospitals across Ontario about restraint when the example he has shown in his own office is nothing less than appalling?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot be sure about this, but I would be willing to wager a modest amount of money with the member over the cost of outfitting your leader's new offices when he took office. I do not know whether it would have been $5,000, which I think our answer on the Order Paper indicated the cost was, or $8,000.

Lord knows, Sheila, I could lose this bet; I lost a bet over the weekend on the Argos. But I would say that most people would think that when a minister takes a new office, he might be entitled to change the broadloom and bring drapes that were not in the office.

In case you are terribly concerned about that broadloom, I assure you that we did not give it to Greymac to put into the suites of the apartments they bought. In fact, we found that there was a need for that carpet in other parts of the ministry, and it is currently being used in an office for which the ministry was going to buy some carpeting.

I do not mean to ruin your day, Sheila, but the fact is that before the order for the carpets went in -- and you can check the records and see that they were not ordered the day I arrived -- we saw whether the existing carpets could be used elsewhere in the ministry. When it was determined that this could be done, then the Minister of Health -- would you believe? -- ordered a carpet. By the way, I did not like the orange; I wanted deep blue.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I caution all members and ask for their co-operation in referring to other members by riding and not by name, please.

CLOSURE OF AUDIO LIBRARY

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In January 1982, when the minister's colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) was asked a question regarding the audio library at Trent University, she said it was not a matter of her responsibility. Yet when I asked the provincial secretary a question on that subject on Friday last, she answered as though it were.

Previous questions I have asked the Minister of Colleges and Universities on this subject have been answered as though they were her responsibility. Yet in the recent debate over the estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the minister declared the audio library was not her responsibility and she was not quite sure whose it was, despite the fact the ministry has contributed to it for some years.

Will the minister tell me who does have jurisdiction in this matter and what specifically is being done at this point? Can she tell us, will the library continue or will it not?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with the exact letter of the law, the responsibility for that ancillary service at Trent is the responsibility of Trent University. However, because the service was having some difficulty and because we had received numerous requests from Trent, we have attempted to assist that university to keep it viable while it made arrangements to ensure its ongoing viability.

Ancillary services at any university are solely and totally the responsibility of the university per se. We do recognize that there are services which may go beyond the university or the educational system and therefore we have suggested within the cabinet committee on social development that it would be wise if we were to look at all the services that might fall into that category.

The committee is doing so. The report will be available to the committee shortly, and a determination will be made about the way in which we as a government should respond to this multiplicity of requests.

Mr. Allen: I understand, of course, that this is something of a test case in the whole provision of services for the handicapped at the higher educational level and that it is not necessarily an easy matter to resolve. None the less, has the social development sector of the cabinet, of which the minister is a part, examined the financial consequences of the facility closing?

If even 60 of the students who are provided with those services have to withdraw and find themselves on disability pensions, that is going to cost the government something in the order of $300,000 a year, almost twice the budget of the audio library, not to mention the future pension costs.

Is this not a case of being penny wise and pound foolish? Is it not also a case of playing fast and loose with the morale of the workers at such a facility by leaving the matter still unresolved at this point?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not a test case of any kind. We have undertaken in good conscience the examination of a whole group of services being provided by other agencies, including universities.

I would remind the honourable member that he should know full well that an ancillary service begun by a university is a part of that university's responsibility and not a part of government's responsibility in terms of the return of service. If the university achieves any profit from any such agency, it does not come back to the government; it stays with the institution. If it does not manage to achieve a profit, then it appears the university feels the government should sponsor it.

Beyond that specific service there are others, primarily for the handicapped in a number of areas, which we have been looking at. We have decided it was our responsibility to look at the way in which relationships should or should not be established as far as those services are concerned.

That is precisely what we are doing, and the member knows full well that we are not playing fast and loose with anything.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, while she and her colleagues are reviewing this situation, will the minister take into consideration the fact that Bill 82 now places a much greater emphasis on secondary schools providing a level of special education that was not available before and, therefore, many more students with these kinds of learning difficulties are going to be moving into the university?

Will the minister not recognize that services like the Trent audio library, which do serve several universities and not just Trent, are the very kinds of services that these students are going to require? Will she take that fact into consideration when she and her colleagues are making this review?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that matter already has been taken into account and is a part of our consideration.

FARM ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding his announcement to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention about the extension of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program for one year.

The minister is aware, of course, that the $60 million devoted to the program has not been spent. As a matter of fact, $30 million of that $60 million has been spent to assist the farmers, and only 4.9 per cent of the farmers have been helped, which would indicate that there needs to be some drastic changes made to that program. The minister need not shake his head.

Is the minister prepared to allow the interest rebate to be applied to the guaranteed line of credit and the interest deferral portion of the program as well as to that rebate part of the program where the farmers who happen to qualify for that category get a five per cent rebate?

Knowing that the interest rates have come down and being prepared to give an interest rebate only to a level of 12 per cent, which makes farmers wonder whether it will be very helpful, is he prepared to look at lowering the level to 10 per cent or even eight per cent if he is going to give meaningful assistance to these farmers to help them stay in business?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, when the program was introduced it was never claimed that the money for the program would be spent in one fiscal year. In fact, a little bit was spent in the 1981-82 fiscal year and the balance will be spent over 1982-83 and 1983-84, because every case that is granted assistance under the program runs for 12 months after the date of approval. Any cases approved in December 1982 will run to the same date in 1983.

Mr. Riddell: A one-year program.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is right; one year. If I could take the member back a year ago to the task force report, on the basis of which this program was developed, it recommended a one-year program. If memory serves me correctly, it recommended the various options we followed.

Each of the three options -- the interest rate deferral, the interest rate rebate and the guaranteed line of credit -- was designed to deal with specific problems. In some cases people have received approval under two of the options and in other cases under all three options. There are a number who have been approved under two of the three, particularly the interest rate rebate and the guarantee on new lines of credit. It was never contemplated that we would mix the two, and we are not contemplating mixing the two.

On the question of lowering the level at this point, the rates have come down recently. There are varying forecasts of what will happen to the rates over the next few months; so I think it is premature to be talking about reducing it any further. I have to say that 12 per cent is still, in today's money markets, a good rate at which to receive operating credit. The rebates will continue to lower the cost to that. The prime is down around there, but the actual rate of borrowing is much higher than that.

Mr. Riddell: The minister and I know that unless there are some major changes made, this program is not going to save many farmers from going into bankruptcy. By spring we are going to find out how many bankruptcies there are. If the minister's tripartite stabilization program is not approved by the minister in Ottawa, and knowing that this program is not going to save all of the farmers -- it certainly will not save many of the farmers; the minister knows it and I know it -- what is he going to do?

3 p.m.

Why will he not reconsider bringing back the young farmers credit program which was announced in the throne speech and in the budget speech? That was the program that senior civil servants told me they were busy trying to draft when I called them about it. Why has he put that on the back burner? Does he not think this kind of program is needed just as much in this province as it is in practically every other province that has a credit program of some kind for farmers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member has mixed two or three different matters which are not necessarily related. First of all, he knows very well that this has been a successful program. He should sit down, as I have, with any number of farmers, sit down as I did about five weeks ago with members of the executive of the federation of agriculture in my office, who said this has been a successful program. We know this program has saved any number of farmers across the province.

Mr. Riddell: Only 3,000.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What does the member mean, only 3,000? Three thousand is an awful lot of farmers. We have approved interest rate rebates on operating credit in excess of $570 million. That is not an inconsiderable program. The member should quit trying to play games with that.

The member knows as well as I do that the most significant thing we could do for the longer term, instead of ad hoc programs -- and this is an ad hoc program, let us not kid ourselves about it -- would be to get this tripartite stabilization program in place. The most significant thing the member could do to help the farmers of this province would be to use his influence on his colleague in Ottawa to quit stalling and to come to the table with the provinces and the producers.

I told the member before that the proposals we put forth with respect to beginning farmer assistance were shelved, not permanently, but they were shelved at the time we discovered in the early summer that the provincial deficit had gone up by some $340 million due to declines in revenue. That is still a priority. It is something that I intend to push when the time is right.

Any number of farmers -- young, middle-aged and old -- have said to me repeatedly, "Mr. Minister, you can give us our money for zero interest and if we cannot get a proper return for what we produce it will not really help us very much." That is why my first priority right now is, and will continue to be, to get action on a better stabilization program.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must know that the farmers are in a financial crunch at this time as never before. Although he may think 3,000 farmers out of 60,000 is a great number, probably more than that will go out of business this year because of financial reasons.

Because of the crunch at the present time, and recognizing that interest rates are coming down, why would he not for a period of time bridge the gap and subsidize everything over the 10 per cent rather than the 12 per cent interest rate?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is something we are going to watch very carefully. I want to point out to the member that even with respect to the Farm Credit Corp., which is the federal government's vehicle for long-term credit, where we have been urging it to enlarge its pool, even there it adjusts only semi-annually.

We are not going to make a substantial change with only a few weeks' experience with lower rates. If matters persist, we will obviously have to take another look at it. But right now, 12 per cent in today's money market is still a good deal.

FARM TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the same minister on another issue but a related one. I presume the minister will recall that his government promised during the 1980-81 election, as did the Minister of Agriculture and Food since that time, that all property taxes on farm lands and buildings used for farm purposes would be abolished starting in 1982. Why has he now postponed that for two years to 1984?

In particular, why is he cutting back on his farm tax reduction payment so that fewer farmers will receive it this year and next year, by raising the qualifying amount of farm production from $5,000 to $8,000?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the qualifying amount had not been revised for a number of years. Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about gross production values. We are not talking about net income levels. We are talking about the gross production on a given farm going up to $8,000.

I gave some examples in my statement to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and also in my statement on Friday -- if the member would like, I will repeat them -- of the small numbers of milk cattle or sows or acreage in tomatoes; that was one example that comes to mind, of the seven acres of processing tomatoes that would have to be harvested in order to qualify. That is under the new program. I do not think anyone is taking much issue with those. They are reasonable figures.

Mr. Swart: Some will.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know some will. The member would probably like us to have it at zero. That is not reasonable either. Those are reasonable figures.

The member may recall that the program had been shelved back in July. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) felt for several reasons, not the least of them being the financial climate, that the matter should be deferred. The federation wrote to the Treasurer, to myself and to other ministers, asking us to reconsider that and we acceded to the request. I did take it up with my colleagues and they have agreed to allow it to begin in 1984.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that because of falling farm prices this is a crazy year to he bringing in that higher qualifying level, when a farm that produced $5,000 worth of produce last year will perhaps this year realize only $4,000 for the same produce? Does he not realize it is not the time to cut back assistance to the farmers?

Is it not true that he is cutting back now and will implement the additional payment in 1984, first of all, because he is trying to make the Treasurer's budget deficit look better and, second, because the following year will be an election year and that is when the government wants to hand out the goodies?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, let me remind the member of the figures I gave the House on Friday in my opening remarks for estimates. This is using the 1984 production criterion of $12,000 and using 1982 prices. It allows for the fact that by 1984 the returns will in all likelihood be better. But in 1984, to reach the $12,000 production level using 1982 prices, one would have to have six cows producing for the fluid milk market, or sell 12 slaughter cattle, or harvest 46 acres of corn or seven acres of processing tomatoes.

Those are reasonable figures. We anticipate in our budget this year putting out $63 million in rebates. If I remember correctly, the budget last year was below $60 million. We are still going to be putting out more. By 1984, when the new program takes effect, we estimate we will be putting out $85 million. That is more than a one-third increase because of the design of the new program.

I am the first to acknowledge that it may have imperfections. We have time between now and the implementation of the new program to try to iron them out. The thrust is very supportive and it has been very well received by the farm community. Maybe that is what bothers the member so much.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize the limitations are going to impinge mainly on the small acreages? On a small acreage, it is very unlikely that a man could operate a dairy herd of six cows or have seven acres of tomatoes. Under the modern system of production of tomatoes, a great deal of it is done with harvesting machines and the companies insist that there be a reasonably sized acreage because they need special trucks and trailers to deliver the tomatoes.

There are a lot of practical reasons for which his program is going to impinge very severely on those people with small acreages. Perhaps the minister should look at the practicality of those examples he has given.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, short of having an absolute zero production requirement and no eligibility requirements at all, one has to draw the line somewhere. With the greatest of respect, I do not believe that in 1982 an $8,000 gross production level -- again I would remind the member that is not net income but is gross production value -- is unreasonable, nor do I think $12,000 for southern Ontario, under the new program, is unreasonable, given the kinds of figures I have shown members. One has to draw the line somewhere.

I suppose if it was as simple as exactly defining a farm, then the problem would have been solved long ago. As the member knows, it is not that simple. What the member might define as a farm, his colleagues to his left and right would not agree on. So we have tried to draw a reasonable line, which we think we have done. I want to remind the member that in addition to this, under the new program the recipients will still be able to apply for their property tax credits for the taxes they will be paying on their homes in the normal fashion, which is with their income tax returns.

I further want to remind the member that while under the new program their residences will be assessed and taxed in the same way that all other residences are assessed and taxed in that municipality, the land on which their residences sit will be assessed at 50 per cent of local prevailing rates. So they will get a break there as well.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a large number of teachers in the constituency of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk requesting that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province.

Mr. Swart: Do you support it?

Mr. Nixon: I support it.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition from 75 teachers in my riding requesting the same and I will send it to the Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker. I also have a petition with 295 names to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor making the same request.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a large number of teachers residing in the provincial constituency of St. Catharines. it reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

These teachers, although they are in the provincial constituency of St. Catharines, see this as a possibility right across Ontario and want to express their concern and request that Bill 127 be withdrawn. I support that request.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act." It is signed by 162 teachers in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton.

[Later]

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition in regard to the retraction of Bill 127, signed by a number of teachers, not only in my riding of Rainy River but also Thunder Bay. I do not know how they got in there but they are in there as well.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly requesting the withdrawal of Bill 127. It is from teachers in my riding of Kitchener-Wilmot who are concerned that what is done in Metro Toronto will soon be done elsewhere in the province.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton), I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor requesting that this government withdraw Bill 127. It is signed by 206 constituents.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a large number of people in the riding of Parkdale and also from other ridings: High Park-Swansea, Broadview-Greenwood, Don Mills, Scarborough East, Scarborough North, Don Valley, Eglinton, St. George, Etobicoke North, Bellwoods and Dovercourt.

All these petitions read, "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, an Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 124 teachers from my riding and also four from the riding of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). It says, "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario: We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 225 educators in the city of North York, similarly asking for the withdrawal of Bill 127.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition from 141 teachers in London North, London Centre, London South and Middlesex, requesting that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, and I am pleased to say too that I support this petition.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the teachers of Fort William. "We, the undersigned, beg to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request the honourable members to seek withdrawal of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Riddell: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker, and one that is very serious. This is a petition that was signed by 6,246 concerned citizens of Ontario who feel that a grave injustice has been perpetrated by this government on the developmentally handicapped people of Ontario. The petition reads:

"We, as taxpayers and concerned citizens of the counties of Huron, Bruce, Perth and Grey, call upon the government of this province to reconsider their decision to close the Bluewater Centre in Goderich, thereby not only throwing 213 employees out of work but, most importantly, turning their back on the many developmentally handicapped individuals who are dependent upon them for their every need and want. To economize at the direct expense of those who are unable to speak for themselves is cruel and heartless and we call upon Mr. Davis and Mr. Drea to reconsider."

Accompanying this petition, I have 735 handwritten letters marked personal and confidential. I was asked in Goderich on Saturday if I would personally see that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) received these letters, so I am going to send them over to them. The authors of these letters are expecting a response from the minister and the Premier.

I also have letters for the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party. Again, they are expecting a response as to why the government is picking on developmentally handicapped people in order to practice these so-called restraints, and I support them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: We are not restraining; we are spending $10 million more than we are saving. The member should tell the people the truth.

INFLATION RESTRAINT BILL

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed by 17 teachers from St. Anne's School in Windsor. "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 179, An Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province."

I have a third petition, signed by 10 teachers from St. Genevieve School in the Windsor area. "We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 179, an Act respecting the Restraint of Compensation in the Public Sector of Ontario and the Monitoring of Inflationary Conditions in the Economy of the Province."

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Spensieri for Mr. Wrye.

Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that any order for concurrence in supplementary supply be included in the order for concurrence in supply for that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding any previous order the House will meet in the chamber on Wednesday, December 8 at 2 p.m. and on each succeeding Wednesday until further ordered.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF PEMBROKE ACT

Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the Corporation of the City of Pembroke.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 190, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

Motion agreed to.

COUNTY OF HALIBURTON ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 191, An Act to provide for the Constitution of the Provisional County of Haliburton as the County of Haliburton.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. T. P. Reid moved, seconded by Mr. Wrye, motion 45 under standing order 63(a):

That this House condemns the government for: its lack of action in creating and preserving jobs for the citizens of Ontario; failing to recognize the inadequacies of the job creation and economic stimulation measures contained in the budget of May 13, 1982; refusing to cut wasteful expenditures to free needed funds for job creation; the using of moneys saved by restraint to cover up its own fiscal extravagance rather than fulfilling its responsibility to the people; failing to introduce a new budget or mini-budget to deal with the economic crisis it has helped to create; pretending that the programs announced on November 22, 1982, are a sufficient response to this crisis; remaining blind to the need to recognize the structural changes accompanying Ontario's decline and the need for a specific industrial strategy as well as massive retraining programs to ameliorate these changes; ignoring the $1-billion job creation and stimulation programs proposed by the official opposition; and failing to demonstrate the will and imagination to lead the province today; and for all these reasons, this government lacks the confidence of the House.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We couldn't, with unanimous consent, I suppose, carry it, Mr. Speaker.

Since we last dealt with the budget back in May and June of this year, a variety of events has overtaken the province and the people. By midsummer it was apparent that the recessionary trend predicted or acknowledged was far more severe than the government had anticipated. In July, the number of people unemployed, seasonally adjusted, increased by 53,000, and the rate was 1.1 per cent over June figures, the largest single-month change in modern times.

On August 17, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) called on the Ontario government to demonstrate leadership by implementing a public sector wage and price control program proposed at the first ministers' conference as well as a program of across-the-board controls, and by recalling the Legislature to deal with the economic problems of the province.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) did not recall the Legislature for some weeks. during which time an additional 20,000 Ontarians became unemployed. When the House finally sat again on September 21, only the wage and price controls package was introduced, and, of course, it related only to the public sector. "A comprehensive recovery program would be the second step," which was to be announced at a later date.

Between the return of the House and the economic statement by Mr. Lalonde on October 27, the official opposition questioned the government on its lack of a job creation program 21 times. The Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) consistently refused to act until a federal program was announced, despite the statement in the budget that, "Since the federal government has failed to respond with a decisive and comprehensive set of programs, the government of Ontario has decided to implement new job creation initiatives of its own."

During this period Ontario unemployment increased by an additional 30,000 persons. Not until 26 days passed and 24,000 more people became unemployed after Lalonde's statement did the Treasurer finally respond with his own highly inadequate job creation program. During the more than three months between the Liberal call for the return of the Legislature to deal with controls and job creation and the Treasurer's eventual statement of November 22, unemployment in the province increased by over 60,000 people.

At the same time the youth unemployment rate increased from 16.2 per cent to 18.2 per cent. There are now at least 190,000 unemployed young people in Ontario. Moreover, while the unemployment rate for women is lower than that for men, so is the participation rate. As a result of this vast number of people unemployed today, the opportunity for increasing the participation rate for women is being denied.

The budget projections have already proven to be more inaccurate than any in memory. Real growth in gross provincial product was projected at 0.9 per cent for the whole year and plus 4.0 per cent for the second half of the year. The Conference Board of Canada, which the government does not put much faith in because it does not like the board's figures, now anticipates real growth for the year to be minus 4.2 per cent in the second quarter of 1982, so that the GPP fell in current dollar terms for the first time in 22 years.

The unemployment rate was forecast in the budget to average 7.6 per cent for 1982. It is now established that it will be at least two percentage points higher, and projections for 1983, the balance, are even worse. Employment, it was claimed, would reach 125,000 over then-current levels by year-end. Employment in October was 130,000 below those levels, or 255,000 people off target. The total may top 300,000 by year-end.

Housing starts were predicted to reach 50,000 units per year. In October they were running at an annual rate of 28,000 per year. Retail sales were supposed to increase 10.1 per cent over 1981. For January to August, retail sales increased only 4.9 per cent, and the conference board expects they will increase only 5.2 per cent for the entire year.

The Treasurer has admitted in the Legislature that his budget projections were wrong -- how could he not? -- but he has refused to take the logical step and admit that measures based on those projections were also wrong.

A review of the $171-million employment stimulation program included with the November statement shows this program has so far created presumably 33,000 jobs. An analysis of the data reveals these jobs equate to approximately 10,400 person-years of employment. In the period over which this employment was created, May to December, over 200,000 Ontarians will have become unemployed.

I do not want to accuse the Treasurer of misleading people, but he has a way of not being very precise and concise about the terms he uses. In the Treasurer's mind, jobs can be something that exist for anywhere from four weeks on, or even less, while we are talking in terms of 10,000 person-years, or a year a person would be employed, as opposed to a job as defined by the Treasurer. Presumably, for him, that means even a day counts as a job.

Certain provincial programs have yielded jobs of extremely limited duration. Those under the northern employment incentive program have lasted an average of 4.9 weeks, while others under the repair program for colleges, universities and local school buildings have had an average duration of only three weeks.

It is interesting the Treasurer is embarking on a program supposedly in conjunction with the municipalities, which themselves have no money. One of the reasons they have no money is because the Treasurer imposed a seven per cent sales tax on all the goods they needed for construction programs on a normal basis over the year, already putting them behind in their budget projections.

The federal Conservative leader, Mr. Clark, called the federal new employment expansion and development program a fraud because its 60,000 jobs represented only about 25,000 person-years of work. By Mr. Clark's calculations, the Ontario employment stimulation program would seem to be an even less credible effort than NEED, and a component program such as the northern employment incentive program would seem to be a fraud some four times over.

Other budgetary measures have been equally inadequate. The Ontario renter-buy program was heavily undersubscribed. The tax holiday for small businesses is doing little to help those companies in need since two thirds to three quarters of the province's small businesses do not pay corporate income tax.

Bankruptcies, which are up an average 33 per cent over the period of May to October 1981, have the most severe impact on small businesses. The retail sales tax revenue estimate has been revised downward by some $130 million as the government realizes it failed to consider how the tax might dissuade consumer spending.

In an area where the effect of sales tax extension is readily evident, sales of take-out restaurants are down 10.9 per cent for the June to August period, while they were off by only 2.6 per cent prior to the extension. In comparison with the rest of the country, Ontario fared better in take-out sales prior to June and far worse after June. The sales tax extension has led directly to the elimination of hundreds of jobs in the industry. It is incredible to me the Treasurer would not understand the impact of his own tax burden in the May budget.

Today, a number of months afterwards, we have an unemployment situation in Ontario at something like 500,000 to 530,000 people, and it is projected by all, including the Treasurer, to get substantially worse. Yet we really have not had much of a response of any kind from the Treasurer other than the pitiful program he came up with a week ago in this chamber.

My leader has suggested the approximately $840 million that we are presumably going to save under the restraint program for the public sector could have been put in a pool to create jobs in Ontario. We have consistently been after the Treasurer to bring in a mini-budget that would help stimulate investment and employment in Ontario and all we have is the bleatings of the Treasurer that everything is the fault of the federal government.

We are not here only to be negative and to call attention to the obvious. In my budget speech and in the speeches of the leader of the official opposition --

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it is rather appalling that when we are discussing a no-confidence motion on the economy, there is not even a quorum in this House. I would like you to check for a quorum. There is not one cabinet minister.

Clerk of the House: A quorum is present.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think it is indicative of the arrogance of this government that it would not have a number of cabinet ministers sitting on the front benches, in particular those who might have some direct jurisdiction, such as the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), the Treasurer and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). It is beyond belief that the cabinet would treat the Legislature in this way, but all we on this side can do is to point out that arrogance and the lack of political will to do anything. Perhaps they do not want to hear how incompetent they are.

It is interesting to note that in the last part of the no-confidence motion it says, " ... and failing to demonstrate the will and imagination to lead the province today..." It is probably indicative of almost 40 years of Tory rule that they would be so slipshod, so incompetent and so arrogant, and would lack the will to deal with these very severe problems.

What bothers us on this side is not only the short-term response to the problems facing the province, but also the complete and utter lack of any long-term solutions to the structural problems of the economy of Ontario. One only has to read any newspaper or periodical, or listen to television or radio, to find out that the problems we are facing now are not going to go away easily. Even with the small programs, such as they are, announced by the federal and provincial governments last week, we are looking at an 18-month time frame.

Even after that time, we are still facing the fact that probably a minimum of 150,000, perhaps 200,000, permanent jobs have been lost in Ontario. We have heard that 40,000 jobs in the auto industry are lost. We have heard that in manufacturing generally, probably another 100,000 jobs have been lost. The other night, at the mining reception, it was made obvious we have lost more jobs in the mining industry. We know that Inco has laid off 3,000 people in Sudbury on a permanent basis. We know that the copper industry in the province, which accounted for a large part of our exports, is probably never going to come back because of fibre optics and the substitutes people have found for copper.

Yet we have heard nothing from this government about any long-range planning. We can be assured that the only long-term planning that is going on is the advertising program of the government for 1984 or 1985.

One of the better things the former leader of this party did was to come up with an industrial strategy for the province. That has been well documented. I do not intend to repeat all those matters here, but I would like to impress upon members how serious the situation in Ontario is.

We depend heavily on exports. This is a figure that many people do not realize. Per capita we export twice as much as Japan does. Our per capita exports, mostly to the United States, Japan and the European Economic Community, are twice what Japan exports to the world. While people think that Japan exports a great deal, Canada, certainly Ontario as the primary industrial centre, exports even more. What are we doing to make ourselves competitive in the next few years?

During the budget debate, I put forward a suggestion that we set up within the government -- and God knows I really do not want to see all that many more cabinet ministers, but it would be nice if some of them did something -- Bill 166, An Act to establish the Ministry of Science, Technology and Productivity. We could do away with all the secretariats and probably half the cabinet ministers and do something to focus attention and government resources on this.

The only program that we have in Ontario to deal with long-term planning is the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, and every reputable newspaper and periodical has -- I could use a northern term, but I will not -- said less than complimentary things about it. It has been only a large public relations exercise without any teeth in it, and a shifting under the BILD program of a whole bunch of programs that were already under way, with the concomitant extra advertising and promotion that this government loves to do so much.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about productivity. Two weeks ago I asked the Treasurer what he felt we should be doing about productivity, and what his plans were. I was appalled, quite frankly. His response was so narrowly defined that he talked only about investment. Anybody who has any understanding of economics, or the way the economy works, knows that is only one factor in a number relating to productivity.

Last Friday, I asked the Premier what he was going to do about productivity. I gave him a couple of suggestions. His view was a little broader, I must say, than that of the Treasurer, but there was no commitment and, it seemed to me, no realization that this was one of our most serious problems.

Every reputable person who deals with these matters has said that our twin problems are inflation and productivity. Yet, we have heard absolutely nothing from the government opposite about what it intends to do to make our economy more productive.

There has been an interesting series of articles in the Financial Times, commencing last October. They provide what can only be described as a bit of a scary scenario. One can presume they are factual.

The series of articles points out that in the 20 years between 1951 and 1971, productivity in Canada -- they used the simple definition of output per unit -- increased by a respectable 51 per cent. The articles go on to say that in recent years, Canadian productivity has faltered badly to the point where economists and business leaders agree that Canada now faces a productivity crisis.

Between 1971 and 1978 real domestic product per employee increased to $10,268, a negligible gain of 6.4 per cent. However, over the following three years, productivity actually fell back to $10,085 per employee. The decrease means that in 1981 the same idealized, average Canadian employee produced two per cent fewer letters, widgets, or anything else one wants to name, than in 1978.

The figures I gave to the Treasurer showed Canada in 12th place in productivity in relation to other western democracies, including Japan, and yet we have heard nothing from the opposite benches on how to deal with this problem.

There are several things we can do in regard to productivity. A number of them have been mentioned before. For instance, I understand that in 1975 the Premier was on the verge of setting up a productivity council with representatives from business, labour and government. For some reason -- possibly he felt he had been burned because of too much intervention in the economy in the 1975 election -- that idea died. But there has to be such a council or we have to have the motivation to do this.

In these articles in the Financial Times and in other articles, it is interesting to note that no one is blaming the workers as being lazy or inactive or whatever. A lot of the blame is being placed on management for its shortcomings in improving productivity.

3:50 p.m.

Obviously, there is a need for investment in new equipment; a need for new technology; a need for improved apprenticeship programs and skills training. It is a sad time; we have one of the highest-educated and best labour forces in the world, and we are still suffering from the amount of unemployment we have. That unemployment is projected into the future, yet this government is not dealing with those matters to ensure that our greatest natural resource, our people, are well employed.

I have talked about a tripartite council to deal with productivity. We could do something through the tax system to reward and provide incentives for those industries and companies to improve their productivity. We could have some kind of measurement. If we had a tripartite council, the first thing we could have is a definition we could all agree to, as to what productivity is and how to measure it. If we do not deal with this problem, which the government refuses to admit exists, then we are never going to restructure our economy. We are not going to get into the high technology areas we should get into. We are not going to be the kind of productive province we all want to see.

In these articles in the Financial Times and in other articles, Japan is usually referred to as the oriental Mecca, if I can use that phrase, of productivity and restructuring of the economy. Most people who have been there, who have studied that system, indicate that a lot of what is there in Japan cannot be transplanted to the Ontario economy with the same stupendously good results as the Japanese have had. Their productivity increased by 1,300 per cent over a 10-year period.

There are surely things we could do, however. One of the things I would like to see in this country and in this province is a commitment to full employment. Full employment can be defined as having a marginal unemployment rate of three or four per cent. The various Treasurers have changed that definition at will. Something that seems to permeate the Japanese experience is that they are prepared to ensure employment for their people. That has led to the fact that there have not been great fights about automation and high technology such as we have seen in relation to our own companies, industries, and forest and natural resources in Canada.

I could go on at some length about this. I just want to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker -- I trust the other cabinet ministers at their leisure will read some of this -- that I hope finally this government will start to grapple with the real problems that face Ontario, both in the short term and in the long term.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that our party will be supporting this no-confidence motion. I also want to make a couple of comments about the manner in which these motions and these debates are treated by the government. It is absolutely remarkable and a shame that the Minister of Industry and Trade is not present here today, as a minister who has something to do with the economy within the province. The Treasurer is not here.

Mr. Brandt: He will be here shortly.

Mr. Cooke: I do not care whether he will be here shortly. He should be here for the entire debate. He should be participating and he should be listening to the opposition's comments on the state of the economy. The combined opposition represents more than 50 per cent of the people of this province. It is about time that the government of this province stopped treating the opposition in such an arrogant way, because when they do so, they are treating the people of this province in exactly the same manner.

I will make some comments, but it is really difficult to take any matters in this Legislature seriously when the government sticks its nose up in the air at us and ignores the opposition and ignores any of our valid criticisms of this government. There is only one cabinet minister present right now and he happens to be a cabinet minister who has absolutely nothing to do with the economic matters within the province.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Oh, dead wrong, dead wrong. Culture is very big business.

Mr. Cooke: I understand the system and that the parliamentary assistant is here representing the Treasurer and I know how much input the parliamentary assistant has on economic matters within this province. For a good part of this afternoon, we did not even have a quorum to listen to a no-confidence motion. It is a shame and I hope that someone in the government passes along the message that at least this party is very upset with the way the government is treating the opposition. This is just another symptom and another example of their arrogance.

I will make a few comments about this motion and about the government's record on economic matters over the last number of months; for that matter, over the last number of years.

It was only on May 13, just a very few months ago, that this government brought in its budget. The facts and figures for where the economy of Ontario would be going over the next few months, the rest of 1982, were projected at that particular time. I want to quote a few of the Treasurer's comments to the members of the Conservative Party who are here today. On page four of the budget the Treasurer said, and I quote:

"Employment by year-end should reach 125,000 over current levels. Real growth in gross provincial product in the second half of 1982 should be four per cent on an annual basis."

Unemployment now stands at 532,000 people, or 11.7 per cent. in September, the unemployment figure was 504,000. So between September and October, unemployment was up by 28,000 people or 0.6 per cent. One year ago, unemployment in Ontario was at 319,000 people or seven per cent. Therefore, this represents an increase in unemployment over a year of 213,000 people.

Ottawa has an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent. Sudbury has an unemployment rate of at least 28.4 per cent according to Statscan, but probably it is much higher in reality. Oshawa, a city that members know something about, has an unemployment rate of at least 9.7 per cent; Hamilton, at least 14.3 per cent; St. Catharines and the Niagara region 14.8 per cent; and my own home city of Windsor, at least 13.4 per cent.

In the month preceding the budget of this year, unemployment was at 346,000 people or 7.7 per cent. Therefore, since the budget was brought in, unemployment has increased by 186,000 people to a record level in this province of over 11 per cent. That is more than a 50 per cent increase since the Treasurer brought in the budget. Yet he says in his budget that a recovery will occur in the second half of 1982. Well, it is some recovery when unemployment goes up by 50 per cent.

In 1980, leading up to the 1981 election, this government found that the unemployment rate at that time was high enough that it had to bring in a mini-budget in the fall -- in November, I believe it was -- in order to stimulate the economy. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the only purpose then for the mini-budget was to stimulate support for the Tory party in Ontario, and there was very little concern about the economy. Now, when we need a new budget more than ever, to stimulate the economy, to stimulate consumer confidence and to get people back to work, the government ignores that necessity and brings in a program worth $50 million to create a few jobs over the winter months.

The budget stated the Ontario government strongly believes that policies for job creation must be an urgent priority. That was on May 13, when the unemployment rate was much lower than it is now. Sure, we needed job creation, but now, with the unemployment rate well into the double-digit figures, job creation is needed in this province more than ever. Yet all we get from this government is Bill 179, a program that will lose more jobs to the Ontario economy.

4 p.m.

Again quoting from the budget of May 13, the Treasurer stated: "Although the Ontario economy has been experiencing a cyclical downturn, the prospects over the next 12 months are more promising. Later this year a recovery is expected to begin ... " I still ask the Treasurer: Where is that recovery? Where did he get his projections? What kind of advice was he getting? Was he deliberately misleading the Legislature, or was he simply receiving bad advice from his advisers?

The only action has been the five per cent solution introduced by the government on September 21. This program offers no solution whatsoever. It destroys contracts and eliminates at least 12,000 jobs by eliminating well over $500 million of consumer buying power.

How will removing hundreds of millions of dollars from the economy of Ontario stimulate the auto sector? How will it stimulate the steel industry or the resource sector? The answer is that it will not stimulate them; it will simply result in more jobs lost.

When an interest rate relief program was needed in this province -- and it still is, but it was critical in the spring of this year -- the response of Mr. Miller and Mr. Davis was, "Go to the federal government."

Now that job creation is needed more than ever, again the response we have got from Mr. Miller and Mr. Davis has been: "Go to the feds. There is nothing we can do. We need a national program, and only the federal government can do that."

Mr. Stokes: You mean the Premier and the Treasurer.

Mr. Cooke: The Premier and the Treasurer; Mr. Davis and Mr. Miller -- it does not really matter. They are not here; they are very seldom here.

The Premier's response has been consistent: "It's a worldwide recession, and only actions in the United States and at the national level of our country will solve the problems." The Minister of Industry and Trade goes around this province talking, as he did in Windsor and London, about an export-led recovery.

On the one hand we have the Premier saying the worldwide economy is depressed and this is why we have the problems in Ontario that we have; on the other hand we have the Minister of Industry and Trade going around saying that we can have an export-led recovery. How stupid can one get? Does this government really think the people of this province are so gullible that they are going to believe our economy can be turned around by an export-led recovery?

What we need in this province now more than ever is a program that encompasses job protection and both short-term and long-term job creation. We have put forward in this Legislature, as we did also in the committee on plant shutdowns, our proposals for job protection. They included universal severance pay -- and we still stand by that recommendation -- six months' notice before a plant could be closed down and a program of public justification before any plant could close down in Ontario, justification that includes justifying the closure to the community and to the workers involved. That is a positive program that would result in the saving of jobs in this province.

With respect to short-term job creation, we put forward very positive proposals which included the development of nonprofit and co-op housing in Ontario.

I am really nervous now that the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) has the chair.

Literally thousands of jobs can be created in the housing sector if the government has the will to work with the private sector, the co-operative sector and the nonprofit sector to produce those jobs, to produce the rental units that are needed in Metro Toronto, in the Hamilton area, in the Ottawa area and in other areas where there is a very tight rental market.

In the area of public works, literally thousands of jobs can be created in municipalities, not with the little amounts of money that the provincial government has put into these programs, not with lack of co-operation and lack of consultation with the municipalities, but in a true partnership with communities and municipalities across this province to do the kinds of public works that are needed in Ontario now more than ever.

We have also put forward a proposal for conservation within this province where energy audits would take place, where low-interest loans would be available through Ontario Hydro to get people to save energy and at the same time create jobs.

In the long term, we have to take a look at and take action on the structural problems that exist within our economy in the major sectors, whether they be the automobile, machinery, food processing or the resource sector. All those areas have very deep-seated structural difficulties.

I am most familiar with the auto industry, and I hear the rather negative comments that are made by both the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, that in the auto sector we can never get back the kinds of jobs that existed in 1978 before this recession occurred.

I believe that with a program of content legislation at the federal level and a program of research and development -- not the kind of auto tech centre the provincial government has talked about, but a real program of research and development -- along with our Autocan proposal, we could have as many jobs in the auto sector in Ontario today as we had even in 1978, or more.

The facts speak for themselves when you look at the deficits that exist with our trading partners such as Japan and the United States. Content legislation would produce literally thousands of jobs, and with an Autocan program, where we would invest in the auto parts sector, those jobs could be produced and the quality of the products could be improved so that our exports would increase dramatically.

The same kinds of programs could exist in the machinery sector, where we have literally billions of dollars in deficits because we import more machinery than we export by far. The most glaring example is mining machinery, but there are deficits in every aspect of machinery in Ontario. In food processing we also have a deficit.

In summing up, I want to say that I have come to see what this government is all about. This government has turned in the last six months to being a negative government, a government that spreads doom and gloom all across this province, throwing up its hands and saying: "There's nothing we can do. It's a worldwide recession; it's a national depression. The provincial government can do nothing."

We in this party believe that through positive and constructive intervention on the part of government, jobs can be created and those jobs can turn this economy around, make it grow again and provide the kinds of opportunities for the unemployed that we all want to see. But simply to throw up one's hands and say there is nothing we can do, as the Premier and the Treasurer do, is a negative response, a doomsday response, and the people of this province are beginning to catch on.

We look forward to some positive action on the part of this government. Let us see that positive action. Alternatives have been put forward by our party time and time again. Let us stop throwing up our hands, as the Premier does, and let us have the kind of positive intervention that can create literally hundreds of thousands of jobs for the unemployed in this province.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the mover of the motion and to the speaker for the New Democratic Party, and I find reasons why I think a lot of their remarks are missing what should be a critical part of today's comments and consideration.

I cannot for a moment agree with the last speaker, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), when he says the Premier and the Treasurer are somehow throwing up their hands and not doing anything, and then I hear this kind of kidding about some of the programs, such as our Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and some of the other initiatives of this government.

We all know it is a complex economic structure. Certainly, as the Premier and the Treasurer have admitted, we do have difficulties that need very considerable and unique treatment with the involvement of government. But this does not suggest the kind of involvement that the immediate past speaker had in mind when he suggested intervention. We can just guess what he had in mind.

4:10 p.m.

As the member for Windsor-Riverside spoke, I noted that he could not help himself and drifted back into the debate on Bill 179, claiming it was the only positive program this government had for dealing with the economic problems facing the province. That is absolute balderdash. He knows full well, because he was given the answer in committee, that the restraint program of Bill 179 is just part of the overall picture. This government is going forward in the area of job creation programs which stem from the budget of May 1982.

We tend to hear similar comments from other members, and we see the same thing in the resolution of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). He comments not only about job creation but also about the need to preserve jobs, and that is one of the centrepiece arguments in Bill 179.

If we are to have restraint in government spending, and wages and salaries are a large percentage of any government spending, then we know we have to have constraint and restraint if we are to avoid either a tremendous increase in borrowing or an increase in taxes. The alternative is to cut back services and lay off staff. Members opposite tend to ignore that consideration when they make their arguments against Bill 179 and its short-term pause effect on public sector employment.

While this government has been heard to comment about the 5,000 reduction in employees here, we also know that we have had an increase of some 15,000 in our public service across the province as a whole in the past three years. There is need for constraint and restraint. We have had a growth of 15,000. We addressed some of this in the debate on Bill 179, but we find ourselves drifting back into that debate on this member's resolution.

I remind members that just as the mover of the motion was anxious to refer back to the budget of May 1982, others maintain that the government does not have in place, and going forward, both long-term and short-term programs as well as youth programs.

The leader of the third party put some questions to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development the other day which insinuated that this government was not responding with appropriate youth programs. We have to our credit a dramatic increase in funding over the past three or four years in our youth programs, and they are proven and very important programs. We have seen in recent months a commitment by BILD of an additional $12 million to go into that envelope.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They are all short-term jobs at best.

Mr. Jones: I am talking about proven ones; so the member for Rainy River should not knock them. He knows very well how the Ontario career action program is received by all sectors out there.

The new winter program, for example, and the Ontario youth employment program -- some are seasonal and some are year-round--have had increased funding and amount to more than $90 million, close to $100 million. They are creating between 92,000 and 93,000 jobs, which young people are very grateful to have to gain experience and the opportunity to become part of the work force.

The comments contained a suggestion -- and I know we will hear it again from the Liberal members; I believe the member for Rainy River mentioned it again today -- that this magic figure of some $840 million, which came up in the debate about constraint and restraint, should be put into a pool and used for new programs such as his leader has been recommending.

Everybody over there thinks this government in some way is taking back $840 million. That is like saying if you do not buy that Cadillac or spend $10,000 on that Chev, you will have it in hand; which is naïve, to say the least. I can only say it is money that would not be spent. So. if we were to start planning programs to spend it on, it would not make a lot of economic sense.

Just for a moment I would also like to share with the members, because I think it is important they know, the progress that has been made on some of the programs outlined in the economic package contained in our May budget and now being complemented by new programs brought forward since then by the Treasurer, some of which are a matter of joining with the federal government.

I heard someone use the comment a "pittance" in reference to some of these programs, and the member for Windsor-Riverside referred to $50 million for this small number of jobs. I have to suggest to the member, let us not get caught up in what is $50 million or $100 million, because these are large amounts of money. If the member totes up what this government has had in its ongoing programs and how it has enriched from its budget the various programs it is involved with, well thought out and all working, he will find himself getting into many hundreds of millions of dollars. That is the commitment of this government.

For example, our budget of May 1982 did outline a short-term job creation program, as the member knows from reading page 7 of the budget statement. It dealt with that. We saw programs where $133 million was committed and resulted in some 15,350 short-term jobs. The people who were involved in that are very grateful to have jobs in view of the economic conditions we know we are faced with today.

We saw repair programs for colleges, universities and local school buildings. Someone was knocking the duration of those programs. That is to pretend that these other programs are not going forward. We heard someone make snide remarks about the BILD program. Let us keep in mind that the BILD program is an economic strategy. I know the Liberal member who moved this motion gets up and tells us -- and they tried to do it in the last election -- that we have just reinvented an economic strategy. But this government has a BILD program under way that has been going forward.

In this case, it meant another $5.5 million for universities, $4.5 million for colleges and $5 million for local schools. Some $15 million was part of that as well as accelerated water and sewage treatment programs in the $8-million range. We have seen the Ontario employment incentive program, with 700 municipalities plus 20 conservation authorities participating in those job creation ventures.

People can make light of that, but let us remember they are grateful in the areas of large unemployment where this problem has been concentrated. The $34.5 million that went into that section of this package or envelope has seen large numbers at work now. New jobs are being created under the new $50-million project. The members heard in answer to a question in question period that details will be forthcoming from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Treasurer. Let us not make light of this.

We had $171 million committed in short-term job creation. We saw a youth package that was more than $90 million and up to $100 million. The members heard a commitment of another $100 million of projects going forward, joining with the federal government, as the Treasurer outlined this past week. In the next 18 months, there is another $50 million the Treasurer announced, I believe last week or the week before, and there is another $30 million. In the past few weeks we have heard commitments for a total of $280 million. Let us not sneer at what kind of dollars those are.

We have been urging the federal government to join us in these types of programs. Someone pretended that the Premier was not active on that score. The member knows full well, as he looks back in history to summer and these recent months, that the Premier has been continually urging the federal government on many of these projects. We are starting to see some of them now coming to us in response.

I know the New Democratic Party made fun in the Bill 179 debates about the so-called waste of the $250 million that was committed as a tax holiday to small business. Given that we cannot just think of the public sector but have to be mindful of the private sector and especially our small business sector, because it creates no less than 50 per cent of all the new jobs in this province, we all know, as we saw in the budget, that the Treasurer did affect some 60,000 private sector, small business employers in that $250-million commitment. We have had some people poking fun at that in the recent debate on the economy.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Conway: It is sort of like your provincial highways. No highway is worth having if you can't take it through four elections.

Mr. Jones: Let us not talk about that. As the member should probably know, road projects have already seen $59.5 million in the accelerated program happening under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We have had 125 municipalities get an extra $4 million out of BILD within the past couple of weeks. That has created another 1,300 jobs, just under that portion of BILD's acceleration in its work with MTC.

As I conclude my remarks, I would but say: Whether we look at the farm programs with a recruitment of some $15 million, whether we look at the increase in our youth programs where there are 2,000 additional jobs under our short-term, job co-op program, whether we look at the mining sector where a lot of those new jobs have been created, or whether we look at our forestry industry and some of those co-op programs, we have seen a well-thought-out --

Mr. Foulds: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Jones: I have those statistics right here for the member.

We have a well-thought-out combination of programs, co-ordinated in large measure through BILD across the various ministries, that are responding to the communities with the greatest need in our economy and the sections of our economy where this province can effect an impact.

We have had a comment about the number of hours in our forestry projects. Even back on September 30, when some of the statistics were first becoming available, we saw a commitment of some $10 million with some 3,000 jobs already in place.

I conclude by saying that the various projects now taking place were designed as an economic strategy flowing from this budget. In concert with the overall economic strategy of the government, we are seeing long-term planning. I know the members are kind of appalled as the last speaker wanted to knock the high-tech centre, the auto tech centre, ignoring some of the other high-tech centres, such as robots and all the different things that are taking place in the various parts of the province that are speaking to --

Mr. Cooke: Isn't that the centre that was promised to half of Ontario?

Mr. Jones: Yes, BILD initiated new high-tech industries that are happening in my riding and indeed across the province. A lot of them are due to the encouragement they are receiving through guidance and assistance from this government. One of the tools being used extensively is the BILD program, which accounts for so many aspects of this government's economic planning.

I urge the members to reject the motion of the member for Rainy River as it speaks to needing a specific industrial strategy. I remind the members that we have one.

When we talk about restraint, that is another debate; but it is an important part of being a place people come to invest and build, having confidence in a government that helps to work through the various interfaces with the private sector and the other levels of government it works with. It is doing so with some large and dramatic figures that speak to its commitment to the unemployed.

It also speaks to the inventiveness it has brought to the creation of these programs dealing with accelerated co-op work and the other parts of the program that are laid out in the budget and the programs that are flowing from that about which we shall be hearing more details from the Treasurer in the next few days.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, if we had any doubts at all as to the need for a motion of no confidence to be presented in this House, particularly one as all-inclusive as that of my colleague the member for Rainy River, then they would be resolved by what we have just heard from the other side of this House.

That was the most feeble apologist's attempt to justify what this government has done over the past decade that I have heard in a long time. Given that the member who just spoke is the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer and given that the Treasurer could not have done much better -- I doubt that he could even have done as well, quite frankly -- we should not be surprised at those kinds of comments.

I would have to say that the member "doth protest too much." He doth protest the comments made by members on this side, saying we should not say them and then spending half his time to protest them. He doth protest about the wonderful Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program the government is supposed to have put into place to solve all our problems.

Let us make no bones about it. The BILD program is plainly and simply no more than a government shell. Given that the government and its members are the apologists for big business in this province, when they use corporate shells as their model, it is no wonder we should see something very similar.

All one has to do is to look at any of the reports of BILD and one will find that, to know what is going on, one calls the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), the Minister of Industry and Trade, the Minister of Education or the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey). Call anybody, but do not call BILD.

Do not call BILD, because it does not know what the blazes is going on. It is simply a shell. Money comes from one part of government and passes through this useless shell into something else. That is all it does. Even its predecessor, the employment development fund, had a better claim than that. At least it was doing something. But BILD is a sorry spectacle as the economic and industrial plan of the government of Ontario, because it is nothing of the sort.

I am also somewhat appalled, as the previous speakers on this side of the House have pointed out, by the lack of interest in this debate. I point out that this is not the sort of thing the opposition does on a regular basis. I was trying to recall, but it must be at least a year since our party put forward a motion of no confidence, not that there have not been lots of opportunities and reasons for doing so. It is not the sort of thing we do on a whim. We are not playing political games here. We are trying to stress as seriously as we possibly can the problems facing the people of Ontario and the need for the government of the province to begin to resolve some of them.

We are also trying to point out that members of the opposition parties from time to time do have some alternatives and ideas that have some validity and some value. I want to take the opportunity, as my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) did earlier in the day, to compliment the Minister of Education for the secondary education review project report and to point out once again that many of the accepted recommendations in that report were proposed by this party in 1976 and subsequent years. This demonstrates that we have not behaved simply as an obstructionist party. We have on numerous occasions tried to present to the government some positive alternatives, trying to make the system work. We have done that in the past and will continue to do it.

Mr Conway: Do you recall what they said in the 1981 election about grade 13?

Mr. Sweeney: Oh, yes. We will be recalling lots of things, as my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has so aptly pointed out. While we are recalling, let me draw to the attention of the very few members of the government party opposite this little headline which appeared in the Toronto Star on September 14. It says, "Jobless Youth Could Riot, Study Warns." What study is it talking about? It is talking about a secret Ontario cabinet discussion paper prepared by the office of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling).

It says, "Ontario's chronic youth unemployment could lead to street riots similar to those which rocked Great Britain last year." I recall one of the government back-benchers making some observation similar to that as well. It goes on to say, "It does warn that the current high unemployment rate among youth rates immediate attention."

4:30 p.m.

What is the immediate attention we are getting? Let us take a look at it. First of all, there has been an increase of 64 per cent in the last year in youth unemployment in Ontario. Second, youth unemployment covers an age range from 15 or 16 to 24, a nine-year period out of the statistical records of 50 years, because we keep employment records in this province and in this country from roughly age 15 to 65. Those unemployed youths represent 44 per cent of the unemployed people in Ontario. I do not doubt at all that the secret cabinet document warning and advising us of potential problems among the young people of this province would be a serious document. It would be one that we would want to address ourselves to very carefully.

I want to point out again how it is that this government is largely responsible for what is happening in the province right now. It is responsible for many of the things we are seeing, many of the difficulties we are seeing among our young people through the lack of training of those young people, the lack of co-ordination between the needs of the industry and business of this province and what the young people are being trained to do.

When we look as far back as 1963, back as far as 1968, back to 1972 and, yes, back to 1976 and 1978, all of these problems were brought to this government's attention through its own reports, reports that it commissioned but did not follow up on. I would remind the Minister of Education, who is sitting opposite me right now, that in 1978 when she was the Minister of Labour there was a joint conference held at Seneca College.

Mr. Conway: Was it that long ago?

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, it was four years ago in 1978. The Ministry of Industry and Tourism was represented, as were the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour. They were telling us about what they were going to do and the things that needed to be done. One of the most startling reports that came out of that conference was one tabled by the then Treasurer of the province, Darcy McKeough.

Do the members know what Darcy McKeough's report said? It said that two thirds, fully 66 per cent, of the youth unemployment in this province is structural. He was very critical of his colleagues in the Ontario government for allowing that to happen. He warned them that if they did not start taking steps very quickly things were going to deteriorate even more.

Mr. Conway: Who said that?

Mr. Sweeney: Darcy McKeough said it in a report only four years ago. It was a scathing report, and we are still suffering the consequences of that report.

What do we see from this government? We see one after another of these little, temporary, job creation schemes. There are a few jobs here, a few million spent here, a few more jobs here and a few million spent there. Sure, I will agree with the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer that every single person who got one of those jobs was glad to get something. Certainly they were. When one has to put bread on the table, a roof over one's head and clothes on one's back one is glad of something rather than nothing.

But that member knows as well as I do that is not what the people of this province need. They need something permanent; they need something long-lasting. They need an economic recovery program to which we can tie a manpower training program and to which we can tie in an apprenticeship training program, so that we have long-term viable jobs, and so that when the economy of this province begins to turn around we will have young and more mature people who are prepared to take on the jobs that will be needed and we will not face once again in this province, which we have so often done in the past, the need to import skilled labour while our own people stand in unemployment lines, and yes, today even in soup kitchen lines.

The last thing we want is for the Premier to stand up a couple of times a week and, in response to questions from this side of the House, tell us: "Well, that is too bad. Until the economy of the United States recovers, we are not going to be able to sell our cars. If we cannot sell our cars in the United States, then we are not going to recover our economy."

First of all, they spend all of their time telling us the terrible things that the federal government is doing, and now it is what is happening in the United States. It is about time that we developed some expertise right here.

I notice the Minister of Industry and Trade has joined us in the last few minutes. I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that while we were in the process of the minister's estimates debate we had a little booklet drawn to our attention from the trade section of that ministry. I have forgotten the exact title, but it was about selling Ontario's expertise abroad.

I want to suggest to that minister and to all of his colleagues in those benches over there, that before we start selling Ontario's expertise abroad we had better start applying some of it right here in Ontario. It is a blooming scandal and hypocrisy to suggest that we can go outside the jurisdiction of this province and sell out there what we have not successfully sold right here.

When we have as many unemployed young people in this province as we do, there is something seriously wrong. I will conclude my remarks by asking the members on the opposite bench to put themselves in the place of the unemployed people, those people in this province who are feeling a sense of hopelessness and helplessness, who are feeling angry, who are feeling frustrated and who are very close to coming to the point of asking: What difference does it make? What have I got to lose?" Rioting in the streets? We may be facing far more.

That is why this vote of no confidence is put before this House today. That is why I support it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the lack of confidence in the government expressed in the Liberal motion. That is the reason I support it, not because of the motion itself. The total inadequacy of this government in dealing with the needs of the people of Ontario has been laid out for all to see. The budget was a farce. I do not know of anything that was more wrong than the Treasurer's predictions on revenue, on jobs, and on when things are going to start turning around in Ontario. He has been proved wrong on every point.

I noticed with interest a little piece in the Globe and Mail in the last week about the Treasurer meeting with Mr. Axworthy. He was complaining about not getting his fair share of jobs. His complaint was based on the fact that because Ontario had 40 per cent of the population, it should get $200 million. His aides had to inform him that we had only 35 per cent of the population. He was out only 440,000 people in that particular comment, but it is rather indicative of the kind of research we have had from the Treasurer of Ontario.

I am not at all sure that we have ever had a Treasurer. That is as far off the mark as this particular Treasurer has been. Surely, his research has been of the wing and a prayer variety, not based on any hard digging. I guess he has been living with a hope that somehow or other we were going to turn around the economy of Ontario. He was not facing up to the harsh economic realities that I think have been sending out danger signals for at least the last couple of years.

His blind faith in the private sector has set the people up for no jobs, for a very serious welfare problem, for problems with the youth, tremendous unemployment in the youth sector. It has also highlighted the sickness in our society in Ontario as we go through scam after scam. We can go back to the Re-Mor/Astra scam or the more recent Cadillac Fairview scam. It is all symptomatic of this Conservative government.

There is no mistake in my mind. Even the Minister of Education, who likes to interject, seems to have a little trouble with her facts. I would like to hear about her press conference of this morning. I understand that while she was all for the sanctity of contracts in her new moral values, that sanctity did not apply to contracts of public servants such as those under Bill 179. In her reference to the press I think she meant the marriage contract.

4:40 p.m.

Make no mistake about it. This Conservative government of Ontario should and must go if we are going to do anything. Having said that, let me also make it clear that we have some differences with this motion which the Liberals have moved. I am somewhat amazed to see, in reading it, that it could apply every bit as much to the federal Liberal government. It makes me wonder if we were perhaps wrong to say that a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. Maybe this motion, which says a plague on both your Houses, indicates a slight difference between the two Liberal parties. Who knows? But it does make me feel that the motion could just as easily apply to the federal House as to the provincial House.

I also have some reservations about being on side with what appears to me to be an acceptance of the government's restraint program in Bill 179. At least they seem to be arguing that the only thing wrong with the current government's approach -- and its one major attack on the problem seems to be Bill 179 -- is that the wrong use is being made of the money which is being stolen from public sector workers; that it is being used to cover the government's own extravagance.

If, indeed, that section of this particular no-confidence motion indicates a clear acceptance of what this provincial government is doing with Bill 179, then I want to make it clear that, while I would accept almost any motion which says we should get rid of this bloody Tory government, I do not particularly accept that kind of thinking.

I am convinced that this government has lost the will to govern in any progressive, effective and democratic way. It has been reduced to a mishmash of Band-Aid measures, mostly short- term job creation in spite of the best efforts of the parliamentary assistant, with the addition of a liberal dose of bull roar to cover its own inadequacies in some of its advertising programs.

What this government has done would be funny if it were not for the tragedy of Bill 179. It seems to bother the parliamentary assistant when we raise it. I do not know of another measure that is so mean and vindictive as this government bill or that is being used so maliciously against people.

I have yet to hear a defence from anybody on the government side which clearly outlines how chopping the wages and removing the legally negotiated rights of workers, the 15 per cent of our people who are in the public sector, is going to do a job for the economy of Ontario; how removing some $700 million or $800 million in wages is going to help spur the purchasing which is essential in Ontario. I have difficulty understanding how that can be the main approach of this government. It just does not make sense to me.

It seems to me that in picking on the public servants this government looked for a scapegoat because it has no answers to the economic problems in Ontario. It is something like the old Roman circus; they figure if they hit somebody hard enough and meanly enough, all of the debate would be around that group of people and they could get by for another few months without doing anything positive to deal with the problems.

I have not heard anybody dispute the suggestion we have made -- and I think it is a sound suggestion -- that if we need more revenue, we should take a look at a surcharge on higher incomes in Ontario. Two per cent, based on last year's taxes, which may go down very quickly the way the government is running this economy into the ground, amounts to about $290 million. But the wage reduction in the second year of the contract of those hospital workers from 11 to five per cent is the equivalent of about a 33 per cent increase in taxes for that category of employee. How is that helpful or fair?

I would also like to know why we do not consider going into an immediate public housing project of 15,000 or 20,000 units. We would put more people to work with that than with anything the government has done in any of the temporary programs to date.

It also seems the continued cry we get from this government is that somehow or other the only answers are those we get from the Premier, that there is nothing it can do and that it does not want to discourage -- and it says some of our suggestions might do so -- investment and investment capital. I am getting a little tired of that line because it seems to me that one of the problems is the investment capital that has been coming into this province and this country of ours has done nothing but buy control.

We have seen what is happening with our branch plant economy. We have seen what happens when we do not have the decision-making power in this province. We have seen what happens to the jobs. We may bring them in temporarily, quite often only to serve the Canadian market, but we sure as blazes are not getting a chunk in terms of manufactured goods for the export market.

We certainly are not having any say in the permanency of those jobs because we have been seeing jobs going out of existence at a rate of more than 900 per day for some time now in Ontario. I cannot understand why this government does not take a look at some selective self-sufficiency and at some of the things we used to produce well in this province to see that we get back into those lines of endeavour.

I cannot understand why those projects, along with housing and some of the things that have an immediate effect in terms of employment, are not the answers of this government during the hard times we are in. What they are dealing with is better than 600,000 people in Ontario out of work as the official and the hidden unemployed.

I do not know what is happening to the Tory members on the other side of the House but I do know what is happening in my constituency office. The people of Ontario are in real trouble. It is because of the total lack of any real long-term job creation and any real restructuring of our economy which is probably more essential now than ever.

We are living in this province on the export of our raw materials and resources, not on the manufacturing sector which is going downhill, and not in terms of the money coming in from interest or dividends because we also have a fantastic deficit there.

The day we no longer have the raw materials and natural resources that we can just shovel out of this province and this country the way we are doing now is the day we are really in trouble. The signals are all there now. Surely it is time we did a basic restructuring of our economy in Ontario. We just cannot continue with no answers or, as the Premier is telling us, "We can't do anything."

There is no question in my mind or the minds of my colleagues that the one thing which is necessary in Ontario is that we get rid of the Tories. God help us, though, what we do not want as an answer is the same thing, the same kind of policies we are getting from the federal Liberals.

This motion should pass -- it will not, but it should -- in the interest of the wellbeing of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: There he is, David. I told you he would be back.

Mr. Cooke: He comes in for a speech but he does not listen to anyone else.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be some questions raised about my presence in this Legislature during the time this debate has been ensuing. I want to inform the members I was with the committee from Hawkesbury studying a very important issue in that town. It started at three o'clock and we had set the meeting long before this matter had been brought to the fore.

Mr. Cooke: What is the excuse for the rest of the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member should just pipe down for a second. If he keeps his lips tight, that will keep his mouth shut. I just want to suggest that to the member. Mr. Speaker, would you like him or me to speak?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable members will give you the opportunity now.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, that is where the meeting was and I think the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was appreciative of the meeting. We had an opportunity to discuss attempts to find solutions to an important problem that besets that community. Certainly, the union members and other members present at that meeting found it a useful discussion.

I would like to say we recognize there are undoubtedly problems and there is no one in this room who does not have concern. There is no special, select group here that has any more concern than any other group for the problems besetting us. It is perplexing. There are difficult world problems. We recognize many of them are short-term while others are long-term problems. We have to address that aspect of it.

4:50 p.m.

But we also face important opportunities during this time to implement industrial and trade thrusts, and members of the resources development committee will appreciate the matters to which I am referring. We have had some discussions on our potential for industrial thrust, our potential for trade thrust and on the fact that policies are being developed.

A trade strategy is about to be unveiled that will give us the directions we intend to proceed in during the next decade. This trade strategy, which will probably be available within a matter of weeks, will allow members to appreciate that there can be an export-led recovery. Contrary to what one of the members seemed to raise -- that there could not be an export-led recovery -- we think this is the right direction to go. We think the industrial strategy and the industrial policies we will be developing in the next while, which will probably unfold very early in the new year, will likewise give us the kind of directions and targets we very much need to have.

In all of this process we cannot lose sight of the many things we have going for us. While all of us bemoan the fact of unemployment, which is a real scourge to us and really causes immense concern to all of us, the fact is that a lot of people are working here. Over four million people are working in the province. We have a gross provincial product that exceeded $125,000 million last year.

We have tremendous productivity in this province. With 35 per cent of the population, as the honourable member noted, we nevertheless produced 38 per cent of the total national output, so our productivity is well developed, as is our industrial base. We have 14,500 industrial activities in the province, and those 14,500 are basically staying intact during this very difficult period of assault that they are undergoing.

We have a strong farming sector and a solid resource base. We have Canada's financial and commercial centre. We are a technological giant as a province. We are a very strong trading province. Something like 38 per cent of our gross provincial product is trade oriented. If that were compared to the United States or Japan, it would be in the nine per cent or 10 per cent range, so we are a very strong trading nation, which proves that we are able to compete on the international stage.

In the last 12 months alone there have been 123 industrial activities -- plants -- that have either expanded or opened in the province, representing $700 million worth of new capital investment.

During my own estimates, which are going on in the House and will continue tomorrow night, we have had an opportunity to share the directions in which our ministry is going in its attempt to see us through these very difficult times. We have outlined our current and future activities. We have talked about the attempts to increase investment, and particularly the fact that there are pools of investment abroad that can be generated here to create new jobs in the province, and we have set about a very determined policy to see that achieved. That kind of thing may not sit well with some of the members, but we intend it to be a process of reinvigoration of our economy, generating additional jobs, something on which we have been embarked for some time.

With respect to improving our industrial competitiveness, our international competitiveness, I have mentioned to members in the committee that it is our intention to be there first, to be there best and to be there with the cheapest product. In that respect it is important that we meet the needs of our technological society, that we have the best possible high tech available, and to that end we have provided six technology centres. Some members will have had invitations to attend the opening of two of them in the next two or three weeks. One was opened back in October and the other three will be opened in January or in the first week of February.

Those six technology centres will allow firms in Ontario -- and 90 per cent of the industry of Ontario is touched by at least one of these centres -- to make use of these facilities as their own research and development facilities, to provide them with a way of getting on that cutting edge of technological innovation that I think is so important to our firms if they are to continue to be the world leaders they have been in the past.

So with that kind of thing; with the overall IDEA Corp., which will offer a future in research and will allow for pure research and applied research to be developed; with the Ontario Research Foundation continuing the phenomenal achievements it has had over the years -- and if you had been in the committee in the last week, Mr. Speaker, you would have appreciated that members of all parties were able to sing the praises of the Ontario Research Foundation and what it had achieved on the international stage and what it had achieved for Ontario industry. It is a wonderful research facility for the kinds of small industry that we are known for in Ontario, small industries that do not have their own capacities.

Such is the approach we are taking to improving our international competitiveness with the technology centres in microelectronics, CAD/CAM, robotics, auto parts, machinery, farm machinery, food processing, wood products and mining. We will allow that cutting edge to be achieved with the six centres we are establishing.

We intend to expand our markets for Ontario products. In that respect we are improving our Canadian sourcing by governments and by multinationals with some real success. In terms of our own government alone, we are making sure that our government and other governments are sourcing here in Canada. We are establishing a shop Canadian program, which some of the members will be seeing unfolded in the not too distant weeks.

In addition to that, we have just completed a series of export seminars. I mentioned in the House three weeks ago that we were beginning the export seminars. Never have we met with the kind of success we have had in these export seminars. I think all members would agree that what has been achieved in these five export seminars held throughout the province is amazing.

It is amazing. We have been able to touch on probably 1,000 potential new exporters. There are only 3,000 exporters in the province now. In these five seminars, which I was fortunate enough to be a part of and for which we called in all of our officers from abroad to meet one on one with potential exporters, we feel we have identified upwards of 1,000 new people. That may mean 500 to 600 brand new people who have never exported in the past. We think we are now launched on a process that will see the export-led recovery become a possibility.

There is no question it is in exports that we have our greatest potential. We have established the target of $60 billion worth of exports from Ontario in five years. We are currently over the $30-billion mark and intend to double that to $60 billion in five years. That is a noble goal, one we think we can achieve. We feel if we set anything less than that we would not be allowing our province to achieve the kind of potential it can.

We think we can hit the $60 billion. When we hit the $60 billion for export in this province, that will translate into the jobs that we so much want to have. That in itself will make the difference in many respects in terms of jobs. I would say that will put us purely on the right track.

We are on the right track. We do know where we are going. We are satisfied we have the right direction. We want members to express their confidence. We will be guided by the opinion of the House as it relates to the confidence members have in our ability to achieve our goals and objectives. We thank members for the kind of confidence they express in us.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? I thought there might be someone from this party on my immediate left, from the opposition.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Unfortunately, there has been no agreement about timing or rotation for the speeches.

The Acting Speaker: I am open to your guidance.

Mr. Foulds: I think there are a couple of members who wish to speak. We ourselves have a difficulty about accommodating everyone in terms of time. I do not have any motion or agreement at this point.

The Acting Speaker: If there is an informal arrangement, I would be pleased to help. Meanwhile, I was looking to see if someone from the Leader of the Opposition's party wanted to speak, rather than let them miss that opportunity; we can come back to it.

Mr. Stokes: All one has to do is catch the Speaker's eye and I think I have your eye, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak to this motion because I, like all other members who care about things that go on in their constituency, am concerned about the state of the economy in Ontario, and indeed throughout all of Canada, to say nothing of the world economic recession.

I find it very humorous when ministers of the crown are asked what they are going to do in their fields of competence and expertise. They always try to transfer some of the responsibility that is theirs, to others, and in the process transfer the blame.

5 p.m.

We have heard from the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), extolling the virtues of many of the programs that have been introduced in a piecemeal and Band-Aid approach to what is obviously a very serious economic problem, a problem that has dire social consequences for a good many people in the province. The member who sponsored this resolution, the member for Rainy River, my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, and most others have been very general in their comments concerning the sins of commission and omission that have given rise to this motion of no confidence.

I want to be very specific in my criticism of the government's approach to what is obviously a very serious economic and social malaise that has befallen literally everybody in the province to some extent, but, more particularly, those people numbering in excess of 500,000 who have no prospects of employment and who are looking to a very bleak winter and for whom the prospects of employment over the next year or two are very dismal indeed.

Those members who have spoken from the government benches have indicated they have very specific strategies in their attempts to get the economy rolling again. We are in the midst of the estimates for the Ministry of Industry and Trade, and the minister just spoke of some of the things his ministry is attempting to do to get the economy going again and to address the problem of import replacement with his battery of high-tech centres that will try to tell the corporate or manufacturing sector how we can maximize our efforts to become self-sufficient in a good many areas.

Members have heard my colleagues from Sudbury talk about the problem there and the fact that we have a very great need for a mining equipment industry, because in excess of 70 per cent of all our mining machinery is manufactured elsewhere. That is a pretty sad commentary for a province and, indeed, a country. We are about number three in terms of world exports and yet we are way down the list in terms of our ability to satisfy our domestic needs in regard to mining machinery.

Let me be more specific than that. The member for Mississauga North, in his present incarnation, is supposed to be here in the stead of the provincial Treasurer. Not too many months ago, as we all know, he was responsible for the Ontario youth secretariat under the aegis of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch). One can hardly pick up a set of estimates today without seeing a small, relatively insignificant item called Experience '82. Because I represent an area of the province where we do not have too many options left open to us if we cannot increase our activity in the primary resource sector, like forestry or mining or tourism on a seasonal basis, we have to take advantage of whatever opportunities are open to us.

Needless to say, I made my constituents, who were hurting, aware of the fact that there was such an entity as Experience '82. One would have thought that, among the priorities in implementing the Experience '82 program, the government would try to maximize the benefits accruing to those in need under the auspices of that program, and would look very kindly on those areas where it could be best justified. I want to refer to two instances just to indicate what I am talking about.

I had a request from a small community called Allan Water Bridge, on the north line of the Canadian National Railway, that has the misfortune of being completely isolated for purposes of ground transportation. The people used to have the Supercontinental going by their doors once a day each way. What happened? Via Rail. They now get a little jitney running by their doors three times a week. For everyone requiring essential services, three times a week, even in Dogpatch days, is not a very reliable service. So we made a very modest request, under the Experience '82 program, for between $6,000 and $8,000 to upgrade a winter snowmobile trail generally paralleling the CNR main line from Allan Water Bridge over to Savant Lake.

We got a response from the Provincial Secretary for Social Development saying, "This comes under the purview of the Minister of Natural Resources and I am sure he will respond." We got another response from the parliamentary assistant, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), saying, "I am sure the appropriate minister will respond." The appropriate minister did respond and said the program was oversubscribed in the allocation of funds dedicated to the Sioux Lookout district office and that it would be unlikely we would be able to qualify.

5:10 p.m.

I have since written to the Minister of Northern Affairs, whose ministry is the catch-all for anything. If you fall between any one of a half a dozen stools, the last resort is --

Mr. Conway: Governor Bernier.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I do not know what his response will be. My purpose in relating this story is that, looking at the criteria for trails under the Experience '82 program, the purpose is to help snowmobilers who want some fun out in the cold and frozen winter. A snowmobile club in Muskoka or wherever else they operate snowmobiles in the province, can qualify. There are a lot of people who like that kind of winter outing. They need only apply to get assistance under Experience '82; but not if they need a road for very basic survival.

I am not talking about a road in the traditional sense. I am talking about a snowmobile trail so people can bring in gasoline, fuel oil, groceries and all of the things people require for sustenance. Can these people come up with the money? All they asked for was $6,000 to $8,000, but they were told the thing was oversubscribed.

Let me cite another instance of the overall economic strategy those people over there are always bragging about. Another request came in, from the most northerly community in the province, Fort Severn on the shores of Hudson Bay, where they have to travel several miles just to collect wood for fuel to keep themselves warm. It costs $6.15 a gallon for gasoline to propel their snowmobiles.

The Minister of Industry and Trade nods his head in assent, because he was there within the last year and he knows whereof I speak.

We now have a task force looking into the high cost of transportation in the remote north, the high cost of literally everything which has to do with economic survival in the far north. They, too, asked for a little assistance under Experience '82. They said they could have used 25 jobs for whatever period Experience '82 covered. But they thought they would be modest and they asked for seven for very legitimate tasks that had to be performed in the most barren and northerly community in the province. The ministry responsible, in its usual magnanimous fashion, said: "Your needs may be 25; your request was seven. We will give you two."

What kind of response is that from a government in the most prosperous province in the most affluent country on the face of the earth to a very modest request for seasonal employment in a community where the unemployment rate runs between 85 and 90 per cent? The government cannot come up with sufficient resources to provide seven winter jobs for a period of 14 to 16 weeks. What kind of a commitment is that to an economic strategy? It is not even a temporary, Band-Aid response to what is a very serious, legitimate and honest request for funds.

The member for Mississauga North told us about what they were doing to provide temporary jobs in the resource sector. Well, I am not a very cynical person and I am not a sceptical person, but I see the needs in the forestry resource sector alone, where we are going to have major saw mills closing down in the next five years. And maybe in 15 to 20 years we will be losing some of the major mills because of our inability to husband and manage a resource that is so important to everybody in this province. It is, indeed, important to everybody in this great country of ours, but in particular in the area of the province where I come from, northwestern Ontario, where 75 per cent of all the economic activity is directly or indirectly related to the forest industry.

I see the puny and piddling little approach this government has brought to forest management at a time when there is a total commitment to forest management agreements in order to right all of the wrongs of the next 40 or 50 years because of our sins of omission, commission and the mismanagement of our forestry resources.

One of the most dedicated foresters in the employ of the Ministry of Natural Resources was just vindicated for taking the same approach to forest management as I am trying to get this government to take. He was just reinstated. Members have heard of Mr. MacAlpine. The Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board brought down its decision last Friday afternoon. Their recommendation is that he be reinstated forthwith so that he and all dedicated foresters in Ontario can get on with the job of forest management.

Where is the commitment? I see no real commitment as a result of the Armson report, brought down in 1976, which more or less regurgitated what the Ontario Economic Council had reported in 1970; what the Hedlin-Menzies report had reported a year earlier; what the Brodie report had said in 1968; and what the Kennedy report had said in 1948.

Here is an ideal opportunity, and it is really the last opportunity that is available to this province and this government after 40 years in office. This is really the last hope of us ever recovering what we have lost because of the incompetence, the mismanagement and the indifference that have prevailed in the forest industry over the last 40 to 50 years. They have an opportunity to do that. But anything they have done with regard to the implementation of forest management agreements, their patchwork and Band-Aid approach under these so-called short-term employment schemes, is just a very brief, a very halting and a very inadequate step towards coming to grips with the major problem of husbanding and managing our resources.

I have been handed a note by one of my colleagues saying that I am not to speak for too long. There are many other things I could say, but I thought I should just highlight the reasons that in my considered opinion this no-confidence motion deserves my support, and it will get it.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate, not because I agree with the direction of the no-confidence motion, but because I believe there is another dimension to the issue of the Ontario economy that has to be discussed in this Legislature and put forth in response to some of the comments made by the members opposite.

I do not believe there is anyone in this House who particularly disagrees with the seriousness of the present economy, the problems of unemployment and the difficulties that we are all facing in our province today. I join with the members opposite in my concern for that very real issue, because there is nothing more devastating or more debilitating in one's life than the problem of not having the opportunity to work in a meaningful way or to have a job or position to go to in order to raise one's family and to pay for one's daily requirements.

However, when comments are made in this House, they should be taken into consideration against the more global view and larger backdrop of some of the problems that face not only our national economy but the world economy as well. It is not by way of excuse that I say this, but by way of explanation. Ontario is a trading province and, probably more than any other jurisdiction in the world, is dependent upon trade with our international partners for its economic success. We are dependent upon a viable and buoyant economy in other jurisdictions to keep up our levels of employment and our levels of economic activity.

While all these very negative remarks have been made from some of those who are supporting the no-confidence motion, it is interesting to look at some of the comparative statistics with other jurisdictions. It is interesting to look at what is happening elsewhere. As an example, those members who have ridings in Windsor should take a look right across the river at the unemployment rate in Detroit. In my own jurisdiction, I look across the river at the unemployment rate of Port Huron, or to other neighbouring states in the United States, or to the east of us, in Quebec.

One of the things that one finds is that the level of unemployment, although prohibitively high in this province, is even more devastating in many of the other jurisdictions that are based on an economy and an industrial infrastructure that is very comparable to our own.

That would suggest one thing to me. Although one need not be satisfied with extremely high levels of unemployment, when one compares what we are doing here in this province with what is going on elsewhere, one has to come to the conclusion that Ontario is doing something right. We are doing such a great deal better than so many other places.

The opposition suggests that government has all of the answers. I guess that is perhaps why the members on this side of the House keep getting re-elected and there are fewer members on the other side of the House. That is because we do not set up the government as having the answers to all of the world's problems. I look to the federal jurisdiction as an example. When the suggestion is made that all we need to cure all the problems of unemployment and the economic downturn that has occurred in Ontario is a new budget, then I would ask them to recall what has been happening at the Ottawa jurisdiction.

In that particular case, they have brought in three budgets in nine months. What they have done --

Mr. Martel: The same as Ontario: they have done nothing.

Mr. Brandt: What they have done is nothing. My friend is right. I thank him very much for that assistance. But I will tell him what else they have done. They have created an atmosphere of distrust in the business community. They have created a lack of confidence in the business community. There is absolutely no sense of long-term planning at that level of government, as a direct result of the constant changes, the alterations and the modifications they have been making time and time again, and as a direct result of not knowing where they are going. Quite frankly, I believe it is a sign of weakness and perhaps a sign of uncertainty on the part of a government when it is forced to bring in so many budgets over so short a period of time.

Real, meaningful, long-term jobs are going to be created, not in the public sector but in the private sector. Quite obviously, a limited number of jobs can be created by government. The members of the third party would suggest it could be done through some massive infusion of government funding; that is exactly what the members have been talking about.

Mr. Martel: You are being silly.

Mr. Brandt: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) interjects at this point to suggest that is not what they have been proposing to the government. They have been proposing, on the one hand, massive infusions of government money, with no increase in taxes, of course, other than to the very rich -- and I would like them to identify where those people are today -- and, on the other hand, a huge increase in the deficit. That is what the member has been talking about. He has no other solution to the problem but that.

Let me suggest to the member that an increase in the deficit has been tried by another level of government. I do not have to tell him; I will leave to his own imagination what level of government that might happen to be. But another level of government did attempt --

Mr. Bradley: Who bought Suncor?

Mr. J. A. Reed: You spent your way into prosperity.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Another level of government has attempted to spend itself out of the economic problems it has and, with a deficit now reaching some $23 billion or $24 billion, all it has done is create more problems for the Canadian economy.

Mr. Bradley: I cannot believe it. The member is actually blaming the feds when something goes wrong.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I am only saying that the answer to the economic problems in any jurisdiction, whether it be provincial or federal, is not simply, in some inexcusable way, to increase the deficit, which the member well knows has happened at the federal level.

Ontario has done a great deal to develop as many jobs as is reasonable and possible in the economic climate of the day. Government cannot do everything; I want to make it very clear I support that philosophy in terms of a government approach to our present economy. But Ontario has created a substantial number of short-term and long-term jobs, which the Minister of Industry and Trade spoke of earlier in his remarks, and I will not repeat them.

I also heard some of the concerns expressed by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) earlier during question period and by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) with respect to the involvement of municipalities in this whole question of job creation.

I want to say to all members that there are three levels of government, and they all have an obligation to do, within the limitations of their resources, what they are able to do in the economic climate we have today. To suggest there is something inappropriate about raising property taxes and there is something quite appropriate about raising other taxes or raising deficits, I really believe is hypocrisy of the first order.

If that is what the leader of the third party was suggesting in his remarks, I can tell him that all levels of government are going to have to share in the problems we are facing at this time, whether they be at the municipal, provincial or federal level.

My riding in Sarnia, right at the moment, is undergoing an industrial expansion of some $1 billion. I want to tell members -- and I say this with some real concern -- that $1 billion, not more than a few months ago, was something in excess of $2 billion. About $1 billion worth of projects have been cancelled as a direct result of a decision that was made in Ottawa under the national energy program.

5:30 p.m.

If members talk to any of the leading industrialists or any of the major industries in my jurisdiction, they will tell them that the national energy program, more than any other single move that has been made in this entire country, has removed from my jurisdiction $1 billion worth of additional expansion, which obviously would impact very substantially on the whole province.

Mr. Conway: So you bought Suncor to piggyback on it.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The figure for Suncor is not even included in the $1 billion I just talked about. I knew the member would be pleased to hear that.

Mr. Conway: The stated aim of the Suncor purchase was to take advantage of the national energy program.

Mr. Brandt: We had some modest agreement earlier with respect to time. I am quite prepared to adhere to that agreement so the leaders will have an opportunity to make their remarks, but I would just like to say that some of the most negative problems Ontario has to deal with are problems that have been precipitated by the member's colleagues at the federal level in Ottawa.

Mr. Bradley: Blame the feds.

Mr. Brandt: That is absolutely true.

I am glad the member for Waterloo North is here, because I mentioned his name earlier. I want to tell the member one more time --

Mr. Conway: Who stopped Joe Clark? Who eviscerated Joe Clark?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Bob Rae.

Mr. Conway: William Davis.

Mr. Brandt: Are you saying Joe Clark is responsible for the national energy program? Lord help us, it was that chap Lalonde, who has now come along on that white horse of his.

Mr. Bradley: You supported Lalonde.

Mr. Brandt: He has now come along to save us economically by being given the very sensitive portfolio of the Minister of Finance. Can one imagine someone who has greater training? He has totally fractured the petrochemical industry in this country of ours. Now they have given him the economy of the entire country to put together in some miraculous fashion.

I rest my case at this point other than to say that, out of conviction and a recognition of the realities of the economy of the province at the present time, I am going to vote against the motion of no confidence.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of this motion, I simply want to indicate that the inactivity and the sustained inertia on the part of the provincial government is as responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves, as a province and as a people, as is the inactivity, incompetence and mismanagement by the Liberal government in Ottawa.

It is clear to all of us that the provincial government, through its spokesmen, the Treasurer and the Premier, has taken the view that the only thing Ontario can do, faced with the number of unemployed here at the present time, is to respond with a series of extremely half-hearted, minimal measures which will have the impact of providing jobs for a minuscule proportion of the people who are currently unemployed.

It is clear to all of us that it simply will not do for the Premier or the Treasurer to get up in this House, as they have done on many occasions, and say, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) repeated again today, that the real problem we are facing in Ontario is a collapse in markets.

It is not true to say that the recession we are experiencing today in Ontario comes simply as a result of changes and difficulties in world conditions. Let me give an account of the closure of two plants in my own riding. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) spoke effectively of problems he faces in his constituency; I want to describe briefly problems faced in two plants in my own riding, those of CCM and Camco.

CCM has been making bicycles in this province and country for decades and has been providing employment in the township of Weston, and now in the borough of York, for many years. It has been producing a product which, given the expansion of the domestic market and the impact of higher gas prices and the increasing emphasis on recreational activities, should have been competitive and which should have been able to rely, not on some abstract market overseas but very much on a market right here in Ontario and Canada. But because of mismanagement, a series of investment decisions and a lack of co-ordination and leadership, that company is now facing receivership and bankruptcy.

The second industry I mentioned, Camco, the old Moffat firm, which has been producing appliances and ranges in Ontario for literally decades, since well before the Second World War, now finds itself facing a very serious downturn in employment with a permanent loss of jobs, permanent layoffs in Toronto and the shifting of many workers to Hamilton. The so-called rationalization of this industry has produced a dramatic loss of jobs.

Again this has nothing to do with the collapse of markets in the United States or in South America, or with changing world conditions in Europe. This has nothing to do with any of those things. This has to do with the fact that the Conservative government of Ontario has failed to provide leadership; the fact that foreign ownership in the appliance field has created structural problems in these industries which have tended to leave them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage; that there has not been the kind of investment and marketing in Canada and Ontario that would provide jobs for these people; that these industries have been allowed to suffer and degenerate in a structural sense because of high import penetration in the entire manufacturing sector. It is because this government has sat back and said, "We are going to let the free market operate."

The Minister of Industry and Trade thinks foreign investment is such a good thing that when somebody on this side of the House suggested $500 million for some 11,000 units might raise some questions in the mind of a reasonable person with respect to foreign investment, he berated us. He said, "No, no: all foreign investment is a good thing." He went up to the point of saying the $500-million purchase was a good deal when, just two weeks prior to that time, his colleague who sits just one chair away from him said he thought that $270 million was a good price.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The member should not be so critical of people who are making investments.

Mr. Rae: The minister is saying it again. He is still defending the $500-million purchase. I say to the minister, who is speaking from his seat and is making as much sense as he does when he is standing, his own credibility as an apologist and spokesman for foreign investment in this province is thrown into question.

If he thinks $500 million is a good deal when it does not create a new employment opportunity for even one worker in Ontario, when its only impact will be to increase rents and to decrease the security of tenure for tenants in 11,000 units, then I must say to the minister, whenever he speaks about the benefits of foreign investment as being the basic position of his party and the basic thrust of government policy, we on this side of the House, when faced with that kind of abuse, are entitled to question the common sense of the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close, because I had an agreement with the Leader of the Opposition to allow him to wind up debate on the motion, which was moved by a member of his party. I want to indicate that we do not have confidence in this government. I do not think the people of Ontario have confidence in this government. I do not think the business sector, the labour sector or the people of Ontario have any confidence in this government. I think it is up to us. We have an obligation to demonstrate that lack of confidence by supporting this motion this evening.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have only a limited amount of time, which I regret in many ways, because there were a number of specific points made by various members which I would like to discuss. However, given the limited time, I want as best I can in the next few minutes to impress upon the government both our frustration and our seriousness.

5:40 p.m.

Our frustration is born out of living in a House for years and years now, some of us for much longer than others, dominated by people on the other side for some 40 years, with a very limited number of weapons available to us. There are very few things we can do. Our principal armour is rhetoric and of course a few procedural devices we can employ in opposition from time to time.

Probably the most serious device, if one understands the history of the British Parliament, is the use of the no-confidence motion. That says we do not have confidence in the way this government is operating. Of course, in the halcyon days of British parliamentary democracy there even used to be occasions when the odd free thinking progressive member of the government would actually be persuaded by the logic of the case and come and vote with the opposition.

We know the inevitability of the result tonight. We know what will happen. But I hope we were able today, by this motion, to impress upon the government the seriousness of our feelings about this situation.

I said earlier that these people have been in power for 38 or 39 years. Many of the problems we have today are directly their fault. There is no way they can escape the fact that they have been the principal administration, in spite of the operative philosophy of this Premier, this Treasurer and this government, which is to practice what has been called by others the politics of anaesthesia, the politics of blaming someone else for our responsibilities, trying to persuade the average voter in Ontario that Ontario politics is so insignificant, so trivial, that it does not deserve their time. Then they go along and have complete freedom to blame someone else for their problems.

That is the way they like it and I hope over the next couple of years we can persuade people that we do have some influence over our own destiny here in Ontario. Good God, we have a budget -- the gross national product, as the Minister of Industry and Trade said in a speech today, is $125 billion in this province -- we have a budget of $23 billion or $24 billion. That has nothing to do with revenues; they don't match the expenditures. Nevertheless, we have a province that is bigger and richer and more well endowed than most countries in the world.

Yet we are happy, as a matter of government policy, to say there is nothing we can do. I do not accept it and I think my friends in the New Democratic Party do not accept it either. That is why we have to express our frustration in the strongest and most forceful way we can in the circumstances.

I just want to add one note about the debate, but I regret that I saw this retreat into the old rhetoric by my friends across the way who said: "Just leave it to the free market. They could do it and we are going to create strong, secure jobs in the marketplace." My friends to the left do the same thing. Even though they agree with the intent of this motion, it grates the philosophical socks of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to support this, because he would rather discuss the philosophy of 50 or 100 years ago.

I would say to a progressive mind, to a thinking mind today, our problems have to be addressed on a nonideological basis. I suggest that the retreats into the past, dredging up what one of their forebears said 20 or 30 years ago and just opposing on philosophical grounds, very frankly is not the solution to the very serious problems we have today.

It is going to require pragmatism, it is going to require progressive thinking and it is going to require a very basic and real understanding of the problems we face. I have yet to see what I would call an adequate dealing with those kinds of problems.

The debate is not going to be whether the government owns it, or whether the government does not own it. That is the level of debate sometimes in these kinds of discussions. The discussion is not going to be whether there are rules or no rules; the discussion has to be about the right rule, the right role for government.

My friends across the House are profoundly embarrassed, because they know the government is involved in a number of things it should not be involved in, i.e. the famous Suncor purchase. But one of the reasons they hear about that from us is that we think it is such a total misallocation of government funds and government energy when there are so many more important and human needs that have to be served, when I see statistics of 532,000 unemployed and when I know of 192,000 young people unemployed.

But to speak in even more personal terms, I am sure I share with every member of this House the experience day after day in my constituency office of seeing people come to me for help, people formerly filled with prospects, people who formerly would never have thought they would have to go to their member of Parliament for a job reference, for a job in a liquor store or a job in some provincial agency.

Unemployment has cut through to the bone now. The chronically unemployed: we are away past that. We are eating away at the productive sector of our economy, and not only are we depriving them of the capacity to earn an independent living but we are robbing them of their human dignity at the same time.

So we have not only a massive economic problem but also a massive social problem in this province. And our response is not good enough; it is not adequate. I would like to have the time to go into detail, but if it had not been for the restraint program, the Treasurer would have been profoundly more embarrassed than he is already. His budgetary deficit would have been very much larger. He is using the restraint program only to get himself out of the disastrous predictions he made last May when he brought in his budget. That is a reality, and without it he would have even more problems as he goes to worship at the altar of Standard and Poor or Moody's in New York.

Oh, he has given back a couple hundred million here and there, but the reality is that this money which he is taking from the contracts of the public servants is going towards balancing his budget. If we look at his budget in any aspect whatsoever, it was the worst budget in the history of this province. It could not have been more inaccurate. I look at it daily and see the mistakes that were made. Of course, in his humility he stands up and says: "No one is perfect. I made a few mistakes." But it is so bad that it needs fundamental reconstruction. It needs to be looked at in all its details in order to address in a significant way the problems we have.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you in closing that this is the only weapon we have to show our displeasure. I hope we have persuaded you at least that the problems are serious and severe. As my friend the member for Rainy River said, this matter has been brought up 22 or 23 times in the House and we will continue to bring it up even if it is boring, even if it is not well put, even if some people are not interested in it. But this is the issue in this province and we will continue to fight for jobs and economic activity here in our province.

5:54 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. T. P. Reid's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Chariton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella;

Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J.A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 50; nays 67.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

November 29, 1982