32e législature, 1re session


The House resumed at 8 p.m.


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

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by joining those who have already congratulated the Speaker on taking a chair which, in my opinion, is the most important in the Legislature. It is a difficult task. As I have said to the Speaker, the one thing all sides of the House ask for is his total and complete independence, because without that it is equally bad for all sides of the House.

I say to the Speaker we ask that of him. That is what we got from the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) who, by the way, showed me the geometric definition of a straight line; that is, the shortest distance between two points. On more than one occasion Mr. Speaker showed me it was from my seat here to out there. Despite that --

Mr. Nixon: Very warranted it was too.

Mr. Martel: Well, it might have been warranted, but he showed that he was prepared to do it to his colleagues, and that is what we ask of a Speaker. If that is the case, I am sure Mr. Speaker will enjoy the support of the House.

I remember talking to Mr. Speaker Jerome when he occupied the chair in Ottawa. He indicated to me that the Speaker should bend over on behalf of the opposition, because the government has everything else at its beck and call.

Mr. Nixon: But the opposition party made him a judge.

Mr. Martel: That is right, but the Speaker in Ottawa knew that everything was heavily weighted in favour of the government, and although he riled his colleagues on occasion he bent over to accommodate the opposition.

I want to talk about the election only briefly, because I want to say they took that fellow who occupies chair number eight, the Premier (Mr. Davis), and they packaged him. They sent 20 advance men to make sure everything was right: Bill serving breakfast to the people; Bill, apple pie and mom; Bill draping himself in the flag -- it was all there. That is not the Bill Davis I know, who is like a calculator; he calculates everything in votes.

He came to Sudbury on three occasions. He rode his white charger into Sudbury, and I was not sure when the white charger left whether the droppings had come from the Premier or the white charger, because there was $250,000 here and $100,000 there and $300,000 there and $1 million here in the most perverse spending of money I have ever seen. It was the most perverse way of utilizing public funds in the middle of a campaign that I have seen in my 14 years in this Legislature.

But it even went further than that. Prior to the campaign a questionnaire was sent out of the Premier's office to find out the opinions of the people of Ontario, and during the campaign a phone call was made from Progressive Conservative headquarters to all of those people who received the questionnaire just to find out if they would support the PCs. That was a perverse use of the number one office in this province.

The Premier was in Sudbury while the Canadian Union of Public Employees strike was on. In a heated debate he had with a CUPE worker he denied vehemently that doctors have the right to strike in Ontario. I have never been able to understand why the government is prepared to allow the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to go after CUPE workers when it would not charge the striking interns in the 10 teaching hospitals in November and December. The Attorney General can lay charges against only the most vulnerable people in the health system. The Premier says that doctors do not have the right to strike, but they did strike and no charges were laid. There is something perverse about that. The Premier is found wanting.

Then there was the jingle, "Help keep the promise." He came to Sudbury in 1975 to speak on behalf of the late Joe Fabbro and said, "We are going to have a Workmen's Compensation Board rehabilitation centre in Sudbury." I wonder what happened to that promise. He went to Parry Sound and promised a rail link from Parry Sound to a port on Lake Nipissing. I wonder what happened to that promise.

Then in 1977 he promised two trees for one. We remember that one well. When in the Legislature I moved the amendment about two trees for one for the Premier because his colleagues would not, he said, "Certainly." But a memo was sent from Mr. Obelnycki, the solicitor for the Ministry of Natural Resources, to the then Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) which said, "The amendment proposed by the member for Sudbury East also has implications that are simply absurd." They might be absurd, but it was the Premier in 1977 who promised two trees for one. We are still waiting. If Davis can keep the promise, he should start with some of those promises.

But the thing I found most offensive during the campaign, was his attitude to francophone rights. Section 133 of the British North America Act guarantees what is already in existence in the province, the language rights in the courts and schools. But a poll was taken on January 8 by Goldfarb Consultants, who are very astute in these matters. On the front page of the Toronto Star, the following was reported: "Goldfarb attributes part of Davis' rise in popularity to his opposition to entrenching French language rights in the constitution. Davis clearly understands the mood of the public and this has brought him back."

As a francophone I find that reprehensible. If that was not enough, in the first speech the Premier made in Ottawa after the election was called he reminded Ontario that he would not entrench section 133 of the BNA Act in the constitution at this time. That is reprehensible. The Premier knew exactly the game he was playing. Goldfarb identified the issue that brought the Premier back. The Premier stands condemned, and when historians write of him they will find him wanting. They will not treat him well, I guarantee you.

8:10 p.m.

I recall being in British Columbia with my friend, the House leader for the Liberal Party. You should talk to the parliamentarians from across the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker. It would just blow your mind how they resent Ontario. I had been at a parliamentary conference in 1971, and the next one was in 1980. The resentment of Ontario by the rest of Canada is unimaginable. You cannot believe it until you are there.

And the Premier could have contributed in a statesmanlike way to bringing national unity. He could have made a contribution. The Premier says everyone else should give a little for national unity, but he is not prepared to give a thing. That is the way the rest of Canada looks at it, and he will be remembered for it.

Then there is the new member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). I cannot start without talking about the new member for Sudbury. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) said the other day it was the most honest speech he had heard from a member for Sudbury for a long time. At least Bud Germa told you what he believed.

I suggested to the new member for Sudbury the other day that he might want to second my bill on purchasing Inco. He declined that offer, but let me tell the House what he said in Sudbury on December 10, 1980. He said he agreed with the Ontario public opinion poll showing widespread support for government ownership of the mining industry. We are dealing with diminishing resources. Canadians and Sudburians realize that there has to be more equity, more of a share, that the public through the government has to have some ownership. And when I gave him an opportunity to second a bill, he declined. I want to tell the member that he cannot say it in Sudbury and expect that it is not going to catch up with him.

By the way, I have rented two booths in Sudbury, one at the Canadian Pacific Railway station and one at the Canadian National Railways station -- they say you have to have a government member; Sudbury has an Ontario government member now in the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and a federal government member in Judy Erola, the Minister of State for Mines -- I have rented booths at both stations to watch all the jobs and all the secondary industries that are going to come into Sudbury.

I can hardly wait, and that is why I have rented these two booths: so I will be there to watch them come in. Three years from now with respect to the federal government and four years from now with respect to the provincial government there will not be an extra job. The Duke of Chatham-Kent, Darcy McKeough, said it well just four years ago. He said secondary industry will not come to northern Ontario for at least another 20 years.

An hon. member: Well, we are going to change that.

Mr. Martel: We will see. I can hardly wait. That is why I have rented the booths -- to watch them come in by the trainload.

I want to turn, if I might, to the throne speech and to BILD. The throne speech says, "Our continuing vitality holds no little credit to the foresight and planning of past years, which have provided the firm economic and social foundation of Ontario today." I want to know where the Tories were when Ontario happened to be located geographically in the heartland of the industrial American economy. That is what has given us any success we have had: we happen to be located geographically in the right place, no thanks to what the Tories have done.

To talk about what they have done with our resources almost blows my mind. Let me tell you what has happened to resources, Mr. Speaker. In 1979, on $2.274 billion worth of production in mineral resources, Ontario got $43 million -- a magnificent sum.

Saskatchewan got $187 million returned on $1 billion worth of mineral production without counting oil and gas. That is 18 per cent; Ontario got 1.94 per cent.

Mr. Foulds: We have nickel here.

Mr. Martel: We have nickel and we have blown it.

Look at what Japan has done without a resource. Without one resource Japan is one of the most successful countries in the world economically. Canada and Ontario, the third largest producer of mineral wealth, is having one hell of a time to survive. It tells what Ontario has done with its natural resources. It has frittered them away. It has shipped them out for someone else to utilize. We are in trouble.

It then goes on, "The BILD program, as it is called, is a coherent and prudent plan for Ontario and one which is in accordance with the objectives and scope of the government's ongoing fiscal strategy."

Let me tell the members, if the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program is going to do anything for Ontario I want to know what it is. Last year we had roughly $150 million in a program called the employment development fund. We are going to contribute one per cent of our budget towards creating a sound economy -- one per cent more.

With that one per cent look what we are going to do. We are going to solve the problems of our ailing auto industry; make Ontario a world leader in microelectronics; electrify GO Transit; rebuild our food processing sector; reclaim lost agricultural land; explore and develop new mines and create mineral refining; all with one per cent of the budget or $150 million that was recycled from last year's budget.

It goes on. The list is endless. The question then remains, if it is only one per cent and that is all it is going to take, why did we let it deteriorate in the first place? Why would we let it deteriorate in the first place? If the answer is, "Yes, this program can do it," then the government stands condemned for allowing it to fall.

But the answer really is that the government refuses to deal with the real problem confronting Ontario, and that is foreign control. BILD does not even earmark the funds with which to build at least one sector of our economy. It is out to lunch, like the government.

Let me give three examples. In fact, let me go back for a moment. There was an interesting quote by Hugh Winsor during the election. He said if Ontario, with one per cent, is going to do what it is going to do, it will be an act to rival the loaves and fishes miracle at Galilee. That is about what they are trying to get us to believe they are going to do with one per cent of the budget.

Let us look at BILD. I only want to look at three sectors. One can look at them all and they are all lousy. But they are going to "stimulate the necessary capital expansion in products such as canned peaches, tomato paste, specialty meat products" and so on. What they are going to do with that one per cent goes on and on.

Is it not strange that little Bill and his cabinet watched the demise of 500 processing plants and over 600 food processing jobs since 1970? Where were they? At the same time 93,000 acres of agricultural land went out of production. Where were they? Now we are going to rebuild it. Why did they let it disintegrate in the first place?

Look at the next one: "Comprehensive forest management: To achieve this the province will accelerate its program to ensure that all forest management units are harvested and regenerated on a sustained yield basis."

That is interesting. You will recall that in 1977 little Bill ran around the province promising two trees for one. Let me quote from the Minister of Natural Resources in 1980. He said, "Nevertheless, out of 195,000 hectares cut annually, we are as yet only able to treat 80,000 hectares." That is 41 per cent.

8:20 p.m.

Where has the government been? Why did they allow it to disintegrate? Now they have to pump money in again to rebuild it. Why did they allow it to disintegrate? Where was little Bill and his bandwagon?

If we go on a little further with BILD, Bill is going to rebuild our economy. Is that not nice of him? He says, with respect to expanding resource machinery and equipment capacity, "As a result, import penetration for resource machinery has risen to more than 60 per cent of the Canadian market."

The Premier did not put the correct figures in there. Seventy-three per cent of underground equipment is imported. Where is he? He has been Premier since 1971. Why is he now going to rebuild? The question is: Why did he allow that to happen?

There was a report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism in 1973 that said we have to get involved in the production of mining equipment. The Premier is going to do it with one per cent of the budget. The latest convert is Larry the Lip. Just nine months ago, in response to my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), when my colleague was expounding the theory that we had to produce mining equipment, the Minister of Industry and Tourism said, "I do not think the solution to the mining machinery problem is the kind that he has proposed on earlier occasions, that the government go into the industry."

In the BILD program, what does Larry the Lip say? He says, "Direct equity investment in existing machinery companies." It is like a deathbed repentance. We are now going to get involved in it. Nine months ago he said: "To hell with it. You are wrong. We cannot get involved." But for an election he is going to pump some money into it. Is that not magnanimous?

Do the members know what the government is going to do? They are going to create an advisory board in Sudbury to look into it. Oh, I want to tell you, in 1973 we recommended it through a select committee of this Legislature. In 1981, they finally recognize it and they are going to establish an advisory board. Well, boy, are we making progress. We are really moving.

Where were the Premier and the boys when all these things were happening? He was Premier those eight years, I remind the honourable members. Now we are going to spend money to rebuild what he allowed to deteriorate. I could go through the rest because, if one looks at the Brampton charter, there is not one item in the Brampton charter that was achieved totally as he promised it in 1977.

The BILD program reminds me of that jingle of Brylcreem, "A little dab will do you," and that is what we are going to have, a little dab here and a little dab there. When we are finished absolutely nothing will be achieved.

Mr. Piché: Give it a chance first.

Mr. Martel: Chance? If the honourable member thinks a little cosmetics is going to deal with the root problem of Ontario, he is crazy. There was a select committee report in 1974 that said, "Canadian economic policies should promote foreign portfolio investment and discourage foreign direct investment."

Let me tell the members who signed that report. Where is my friend the member for York West (Mr. Leluk)? He signed it. So did the member for London South (Mr. Walker). He is not here. So did Russell Rowe and the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). He is around. They said the root problem is direct foreign investment and the Minister of Industry and Tourism will take any kind of investment. But the select committee that studied it for four years said "No, we have to change the solution and it is more portfolio and less direct."

But I want to tell the members the minister will take anything. What it does is perpetuate Ontario's problem of being a branch plant economy with inadequate research and development, with manufacturing primarily for the Canadian market, with no competition to the parent company for export, which creates high costs of production, which can't compete for export markets, and which has service costs in Canada this year -- that's for charges because of that American domination -- of $11.8 billion. This certainly creates part of our problem with high interest rates and leads to the most recent phenomenon, which is plant shutdowns.

I want to tell that the problem with plant shutdowns is not going to go away. There were 68 last year. There are already 33 this year and the problem will continue to escalate, particularly with respect to the fact that the tariff agreement signed by the federal government will make it impossible or not necessary for those companies to operate in Ontario.

Let me just quote from one of the articles that came before the select committee on plant shutdowns. It's by a man by the name of Crookel, director of the Centre for International Business Studies, School of Business Administration: "It will be the first time since tariff protection was introduced that the level of tariffs across a wide spectrum of goods will be less than the difference in the cost of production between Canada and the United States." Do you know what that means for us? There is absolutely no necessity for a multinational to have a branch plant in Canada.

So, when I raised it before the select committee, there was a Mr. Hill from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and I said to him: "What is going to happen now that the tariff agreement is there and in fact there is no necessity to produce here? What do you think might happen?

He said: "In terms of massive numbers, our understanding is perhaps 2,000 branch plants will close." Two thousand out of 13,000. That bodes well for Ontario, doesn't it? And we have some little tinkering in the throne speech with one per cent of the budget, when in fact by the year 1988 we could see 2,000 companies leave Ontario. That bodes well for Ontario; and the little tinkering that our friend the Minister of Industry and Tourism is prepared to do won't change a thing.

What the select committee found out was that these plants shut down for a number of reasons. They can make more money if they go back to the United States and ship into Canada from offshore. They learned that from the Japanese.

We also found out that these companies didn't take into consideration or ask for input from the Canadian directors or management as to what they should do. In fact, in many instances, they didn't even talk to the Canadian managers of the subsidiaries. They just closed the door. They had no concern for the workers or the community and had no concern as to what the social costs were to society.

I will quote what the minister said, in answer to a question from my leader last week. When my leader said: "Given the strong evidence that this shutdown and loss of jobs were unnecessary, what action does the minister intend to take in order to keep those jobs in Ontario?" He was talking about Harlequin Enterprises Limited.

This is what the minister's answer was: "I will be pleased to look into that but, as the member well knows, this government is not in the business of declaring, as he is, that a certain plant closure or a decision by a company to close down operations, is not justified. We are not in that business."

Let us look at what happened in Oshawa as one example. When the nine plants, multinationals, closed in Oshawa, the direct costs around Oshawa were $21 million in income to that municipality. The multiplier effect, according to the mayor of Oshawa, was that it would be double that.

He then went on to indicate that the public utilities loss on Houdaille alone was $900,000, sewer and water services revenue lost would be $250,000, and at Firestone in Whitby the loss of income would be $100,000. The accumulation of tax revenues from those companies closing down was $490,000. Welfare would go up to $3 million. That is just in the municipality of Oshawa when companies are not asked to justify why they are closing down. The Minister of Industry and Tourism says, "We are not in that business."

8:30 p.m.

Then there is the province's share in OHIP costs. All the studies indicate that in a time of layoffs there is an increase in mental breakdowns, more utilization of health services, more necessity to enforce the law, more alcoholism, and so on. There is also the province's share towards not only general welfare, but family benefits as well.

Then there is the loss to workers and their families, the loss of homes, the suffering, the illness, and the list goes on. The federal government pays in UIC benefits, and in relocation costs. The costs are astronomical, but the minister tells us the province is not involved in ascertaining whether the shutdowns were legitimate.

I tell the Premier, that is not acceptable. The costs to society of shutdowns are astronomical. They are astronomical to the province, to the municipalities, to the federal government, to the workers and their families, and that is not good enough.

When the minister goes on to say, as he did in his statement, that in most countries the experience is that they do not get involved in that, he is wrong. He is misleading the House. In fact, outside the United States, whether in Europe, Mexico, or South America, they insist on some justification. There are all kinds of laws that insist the companies come before some sort of body to justify shutdowns. There have to be; the social costs are too great. To simply watch companies walk away is not acceptable, I hope not even to the Premier. That answer from the minister was irresponsible.

Let me just go on to say there is something that bothers me, that the province is hanging its hat on global product mandating. If we are going to get involved in import replacement, as we talk about doing, that means more manufacturing in Ontario of those goods we are presently importing. There is going to be government involvement, unless companies are prepared to do it. There is no other way.

But we are not prepared to do that. The minister responsible for industry dismisses all this. He is not prepared to deal with the structural weaknesses. My God, there have been studies. The Premier himself instituted a select committee on economic and cultural nationalism. Twenty-one reports and none of them have been acted on, except one little brave bit when I think we said 50 per cent of the directors had to be Canadian. That was really meaningless. The other recommendations were much more meaningful.

Import replacement means manufacturing. If industry has not been prepared to locate in Ontario up to the present, to manufacture in Ontario, why is it now going to do so with the latest GATT agreement? If we use the minister's own book -- remember that egg-crated book he sent out? -- it gives corporate income tax as a percentage of book profits from manufacturing companies for 1978 in Ontario as 31.9, in Texas as 37.6, in Ohio as 41.3, and in New York as 43.1. With those figures, why did they not come here in mass numbers?

If we look at wages on a US dollar basis, Ontario unit labour costs fell by 4.3 in 1978, but they climbed by seven per cent in the United States. We were not able to induce them to come to those types of conditions. Yet, we now expect with the latest General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to be able to induce them. What is it that is going to make GATT and global product mandating so attractive today, when in fact they can produce cheaper now with the GATT agreement coming into effect? Well, it is not cheaper, but at least in a sense it is cheaper with the tariff wall removed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: GATT isn't cheaper; GATT has nothing to do with production costs.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes it is. I am glad the Premier said that because I want to go back for the Premier and indicate what Harold Crookel, director of the Centre for International Business Studies says. "It will be the first time since tariff protection was introduced that the level of tariffs across a wide spectrum of goods will be less than the difference in the cost of production between Canada and the United States."

Now that barrier is gone, the exodus of companies is going to escalate. In fact, the minister's own staff say there is a possibility of 2,000 companies going back. What is going to induce those companies to stay here, or come here? I don't know, I really don't. Unless they want to -- as I said earlier in a speech some time ago -- when we finally run out of resources, give away money. We force it into their pocket and say, "Here, take it anyway," even though the industry says, "We don't need it."

I want to tell members that I carefully read the report of the advisory committee on global product mandating. I read it very carefully.

In this report they give the reasons why multinationals come to Canada. "For many multinational affiliates in Canada this will mean a continuing shift away from the traditional branch plant form of operation which evolved primarily in response to high tariffs. Typically such plants manufactured a wide range of products solely or primarily for Canadian domestic market. The small size of the Canadian market and the high tariffs abroad have generally prevented these organizations from achieving economies of scale."

I guess this is so, because these companies decided that the branch plant in Canada would only produce for Canada and they wouldn't get into the export market. What is going to change that? Nothing. This whole report and what the government is basing its hopes on is that global product mandating will fill a void. With 2,000 companies that could leave in the next eight years, I don't know how that could be. I am telling them the super salesman who used to be here, Stanley Randall, couldn't super sale his way through this one. For the Minister of Industry and Tourism to try it is just irresponsible.

Let me tell members what else bothers me about this report that is supposed to justify global product mandating. "They have access to and ability to transfer technology." He is talking about the multinationals. They have always had that. They have deemed it in their best interests to continue to do research in the United States. When we do in fact get something here, they charge us very dearly, as I have shown. The service charges this year to Canada will be over $11 billion.

They then go on to say, "They have access to or potential access to international markets." They have always had that. In fact what the multinationals in Canada have done, with the branch plant economy, is simply produce for the Canadian market. They don't want competition from a company in Ontario. So what is going to change it?

Then they say finally, "They have the potential for rationalization or manufacturing specialization." Well, they rationalized. We saw in the select committee that they rationalized to death. In fact, they rationalized to such an extent that they decided it was time to go back to the United States, they could make more money there.

They also rationalized that since the Japanese knew it was better to ship into a foreign country from their shores to create jobs for their people, it was better if they produced in Japan. The Americans now have eight or nine million people unemployed. The new fellow down there, President Reagan, isn't going to change anything because the Americans have been the greatest protectionists since the turn of the century for American interests.

I want to know what it is in global product mandating that is going to work. There is nothing. Then they have to earn a mission. The report says you have to earn a mission. What in fact they have to do is prove to the multinational in the United States that they have a product which they can sell. Except, that when we looked at Essex International we found they didn't even consult with the Canadian firm when they decided to close down; they simply decided it was time to close down.

8:40 p.m.

If one looks at McDonnell Douglas -- I understand the Premier has been to St. Louis to talk to them -- the contracts were released without the McDonnell Douglas operation in Ontario even being consulted by the parent company, which simply said, "Whoever can produce it cheaper; and if it costs jobs in Ontario, so what?"

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not true either.

Mr. Martel: That is not what the president said to us. I defy the Premier to read in Hansard what the president of McDonnell Douglas in Ontario said when he was before us. He said they were not even consulted. If the Premier thinks he can go on a mission with that sort of attitude adopted by the parent company in the United States, he is whistling in the dark.

One thing in this report that bothers me is the not so veiled threat that "the most effective way to achieve these objectives is to emphasize performance rather than ownership." Ownership is the problem in Ontario, and the select committee said that in 1973. Then they threaten us with, "Government policies of statement for greater Canadian ownership and possible nationalization without regard to performance are understandably a serious deterrent to further investment."

It goes on, "We question the usefulness of government efforts to designate certain sectors to support." That is really telling us what we should do. If the government wants to put all its eggs in this basket of global product mandating, it is really inviting disaster.

I looked at the number of crown corporations the Premier and his predecessors have given Ontario. There are at present 22 and I believe the Premier, as a result of the election campaign, is going to create 12 more, which will make it 34. But Saskatchewan has only 18 crown corporations. The government goes around waving its finger at us, the Socialists who would create crown corporations, but it had better look at its own record.

But if there is one area in which we should establish a crown corporation -- and I am glad the member for Sudbury is now here because he supports it -- it is in the resource sector. The rest of the Tories might not support it, but the member for Sudbury supports takeover of the resource sector. He is with us, and I am glad to see that.

A select committee on which many of the cabinet sat said the government should be empowered to take up to 50 per cent of the equity in new ventures in the nonrenewable natural resource sector. That is the first step towards getting control of the resources. Look at Japan, without resources, and what they have done. Then look at Ontario and our abundance of resources which we have frittered away.

The government's policies make no sense. Two years ago there was one to allow Falconbridge to write off the cost of refining in Norway through Ontario profits. There is something totally insane about that, because it means we will never get refining in the Sudbury basin. That is the first step towards using those resources to produce an economy that is sound and includes not only refining but manufacturing as well.

We cannot use it all -- I recognize we have to sell some of it to other countries -- but we have to use our resources as a source of strength. Our return in manufacturing dollars is nil. Yet look at what Switzerland and Japan have done without resources. We have an abundance, but we have done nothing with it except to give it away.

The next thing we have to do is to reduce direct foreign investment. The select committee recommended that too. It said we had to have more manufacturing, but must encourage portfolio investment rather than direct foreign investment.

We also need to have import replacement. The manufacture of mining equipment is a good example of that. After eight years of recommending the production of mining equipment, we need more than an advisory board to create these kinds of jobs. We must move. There is a $1.5 billion trade deficit annually.

Finally, we have to deal with government procurement. Those are just some of the ways we could move.

The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program does not do it on the money that is there; the throne speech does nothing to do it, because it deals in cosmetics and it is not going to work. The Premier recognized in 1971, when he established that select committee, that unless we are prepared now to take those drastic actions -- and I think most of those recommendations are still valid, those on farm land and everything else that was there -- to overcome the weakest link, as Professor Britton would say, and that is foreign domination, then 10 years from now we might well still be here arguing the same point.

I would urge the Premier to set some cabinet minister up to look at those recommendations so that we might start to institute some of them and have a sound economy based on resources.

For those reasons I cannot support the throne speech.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take the opportunity, as I know all members of the Legislature have, to congratulate you on being chosen as the Speaker of this assembly.

The role of the Speaker, it seems to me as an individual member of this assembly, increases in importance as a majority government is implemented in Ontario through the choice of the voters on March 19. It is said that there is a real challenge for a Speaker. The former Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), handled that office with a good deal of excellence. I think most of the assembly -- indeed, all members -- would concede that he was a man who was very distinguished in that office and certainly lent to the Legislature a lot of decorum, a degree of independence that has not been seen in a good many years, and the kind of fairness that is necessary to allow this Legislature to operate as we in the democratic system feel it should.

So I commend him, as I commend the new Speaker of the Ontario Legislature; and I say that in the majority situation, where we have 70 government members as opposed to 55 opposition members, it is important that the opposition members -- and indeed, to a certain extent the individual back-bench members of the government side -- have the opportunity to participate in the debates to the greatest extent.

It seems to me that in a situation where the Speaker may rule one way or the other it would be wise for him to come down on the side of the democratic system, to come down on the side of allowing the full participation of members of the opposition particularly, in a situation where the government, through the votes that it holds in the Legislature, has the opportunity to see its will fulfilled.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The way it used to be.

Mr. Bradley: As the member says, the way it used to be.

I think there is also an opportunity to congratulate all members of the Legislature who have been returned, and most particularly those who grace the benches of the Ontario Legislature for the first time.

I notice with a good deal of interest the degree of independence that was shown by the new members of the Ontario Legislature on the government side in the justice committee last Thursday.

I recognize that when government backbenchers are first elected to public office, when they first sit in the back benches on the government side, they are keeping in mind at all times that they would like to move down to the second and first rows. They are keeping in mind that there are certain privileges that come with being on the government side. Some of those are monetary, of course, because we recognize that when one is a parliamentary assistant or when one is a cabinet minister or holds one of the other special privileged positions that belong to those on the government side it is very unwise to rock the boat.

I recall that the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor), who showed a degree of independence over his first term in the Ontario Legislature, has not been elevated to a very high position. Indeed, on many occasions he used to rise in the back benches of the Legislature and ask some rather embarrassing questions of the ministers -- not those questions that are rehearsed at caucus, not those questions for which the member has been warned, but questions that were genuinely his own concern and the concern of those whom he represented in Barrie.

I commend him on that and I set him up as an example for those who sit on the back benches at the present time. We in the opposition look forward to having individual members in the back benches play that independent role, whereby they are speaking for all the constituents they represent and not just for those who voted for them in the last provincial election.

8:50 p.m.

I commend them on their election to the Legislature and I look forward with some anticipation to their meeting the challenge of the independence of mind that can be shown, particularly in the committee system, if not in the Legislature itself, where they are under the watchful eye of their superiors in the front row.

I would like also, as is our opportunity to do in the Ontario Legislature, to thank the people of the provincial constituency of St. Catharines who were kind enough to return me to the Ontario Legislature. My colleagues on the Liberal benches used to refer to me in my first term as Landslide Bradley, as I managed to squeak into the Ontario Legislature with a huge plurality of some 722.

It seemed to me on that occasion there were not nearly so many cabinet ministers who were interested in coming into the riding as there were last time. This time we in St. Catharines were graced on at least two occasions with the presence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I really felt that one more visit would have driven the plurality somewhere over the 7,000 mark. The Premier chose not to visit the riding one more time.

I also welcomed the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) to assist the Progressive Conservative candidate. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) was another individual there and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Indeed, every time I turned around it seemed I ran into a Progressive Conservative minister in the riding to bolster the cause. Fortunately the people of the provincial constituency of St. Catharines did not see fit to buy the Board of Industrial Leadership Development program and package that was presented to them by the Progressive Conservative Party in this election.

I planned to talk a little bit about the way in which the campaign was conducted, because I think it is important immediately after the election in the throne speech debate to discuss the kind of campaign that was carried out.

I begin on a very conciliatory note by commending the Progressive Conservative candidate in St. Catharines, Mr. John Larocque, who conducted himself throughout the campaign as a gentleman. He was an individual who was not prepared to engage in the personal attacks which did characterize certain of the ridings. He was prepared to play fair throughout, as was the New Democratic Party candidate, Mr. Don Loucks. From the point of view of those of us in the provincial constituency of St. Catharines, we believe that many ridings in Ontario could learn the gentlemanly art of political practice as practised by the three candidates representing the parties.

On the campaign as a whole -- because it is not conducted, as we agree, on a riding by riding basis alone -- preceding the Ontario election, we in Ontario were subjected to a barrage of advertising which was unprecedented in terms of the dollars spent in the history of Ontario, particularly last spring, last summer, last fall and early into the new year.

Seldom could we turn on the radio or watch television without hearing the jingle, "Life is good, Ontario. Preserve it; conserve it," and members opposite had the audacity to suggest that it did not have a political overtone or a political connotation. We had the Ministry of the Environment ads telling us that Ontario was one of the cleanest places in the world because the government had done such an excellent job in cleaning it up. We had the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) on Hospital Day taking out large ads in the newspapers telling us what a great job he thought he was doing as the Minister of Health in this province in providing facilities for Ontario. We had the former Minister of Revenue talking about the grants to seniors program and telling us that it was because Ontario cares.

If these advertisements had been paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, that would have been legitimate. However, the taxpayers in this province, regardless of their political affiliation to the three major parties and those who have no particular political affiliation, were forced to pay for political advertising in the disguise of government programs being advertised or information being provided to the public of Ontario. Surely this is politically immoral conduct that could not be condoned, particularly by those in the back benches who are new to the partisan political game at least at the provincial level.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about party polls conducted on telephones?

Mr. Bradley: The Premier reminds me of polls that were taken, the results of which had to be extracted -- thanks to the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and thanks to the minority government situation -- by public pressure and by political pressure in this House and in committees from that government. The government had for so long taken advantage of that information which was kept secret from the people on this side of the House and the people who paid for it, the people of Ontario. The government had that to their advantage and, of course, once again used one of the levers of office to perpetuate themselves in power.

They also are in a situation -- sorry, I did not hear the member for Middlesex.

Mr. Eaton: What is he making so many excuses for? He knows his leader blew it for him.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Middlesex, of course, would condone this kind of behaviour with the government using the taxpayers' funds to perpetuate itself in office, but we in the official opposition -- and I am sure it is shared by the other opposition party -- cannot believe that is moral conduct at the political level in this province.

We also had the usual expensive campaign conducted by a party which seems to be able to attract an endless amount of funding during the election campaign. We had the advertisements and the jingles that are a part of the Progressive Conservative campaign year after year.

One thing I must commend the members and the party opposite for is that their spending is at least good for the local economy because in most cases they outspent the candidates on this side on about a two to one basis. At least the local newspapers, media and print shops were able to derive some benefit from this and just a little bit of the difficult unemployment problem in Ontario is alleviated by that.

What we really need in the province -- and this is demonstrated by the kind of spending that takes place by the government party -- are further restrictions on the amount of money that can be spent in an election campaign so money does not determine who will be the government in this province.

It was also stated during the campaign that it would be advantageous to elect a government member. If we were to take this to its full extent, we would have 125 government members and no opposition. What we have to be careful of now, what we in the opposition have to be ever vigilant for, is the fact that the government might well now attempt to punish those who did not elect Progressive Conservative members or unduly reward those who did. We in the official opposition will be watching very carefully to see that they do not conduct this kind of sleazy politics in this province.

9 p.m.

There has been some mention of the BILD program in Ontario. This was announced with much fanfare just before the campaign, of course, with a number of important people in the province brought to Toronto; the appropriately decorated room, the Premier and other cabinet ministers there to tell us what a great program it was going to be. At that time there was no particularly strong suggestion that there was going to be an election in the province, but any who were in doubts had those doubts withdrawn after that particular press conference.

We find out now, however, up to and including today -- and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) is reminding me that earlier today the Treasurer was asking the federal government for its participation in the BILD program. In other words, no mention was really made -- certainly there was no emphasis on it -- on federal participation in the BILD program, or on the municipal participation, or on the private sector participation in the BILD program.

What was emphasized during the campaign, of course, was provincial participation, and how -- somehow -- this program was going to solve the province's problems. We now find, after the election, as we get into the months of April and May, that these solutions are contingent upon money coming from the other levels of government and from the private sector, and that, indeed, these programs cannot be implemented without it.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government party was not being entirely honest with the people of Ontario when it introduced this program previous to the election, and talked about it during the campaign.

We also have a situation -- the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) is making a good deal of noise; perhaps he is a good example of what I want to talk about next. That is about those who are the political opportunists in the province.

One could suggest, with a good deal of validity, that had the federal Liberal Party approached the same candidate, the member who now sits for Sudbury, asking him to run, he would have been first in line to be a candidate because he wanted to sit on the government benches.

There are some, of course -- in fact, there are many, as I look along the benches -- the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), who might well have been attracted to --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Every second one of you.

Mr. Bradley: The member for St. George (Ms. Fish) is not a person whom I have known as a Progressive Conservative over the years.


Mr. Speaker: Order, order, Mr. Bradley has the floor.

Mr. Roy: It is called prostitution.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie), all prepared to sacrifice principles to sit on the government side because they know that party has the financial wherewithal and the levers of power to get itself re-elected, and that is their best chance of sitting somewhere in the cabinet, or near it.

Where are the principles of those particular members?

Mr. Roy: It is called prostitution.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Fish was NDP. Say that Fish was NDP.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Rainy River reminds me that the member for St. George was once supposed to be a member of the New Democratic Party, and I look to their benches for an acknowledgement of that.

Of course, the chances are much better on the government side.


Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Bradley: There was another aspect of the campaign I would like to discuss that is somewhat less amusing to members on this side, and I am sure to members on that side. That is the kind of campaign that was conducted. I suppose the beginning was in the riding of Carleton.

We all remember a pamphlet. I was in Carleton at the time, observing what happened. I stopped at a booth at a shopping centre. One of the individuals who hangs around Queen's Park -- I am not sure what his name is -- was giving out the pamphlets at the time. One that looked particularly attractive was called "Building Canada." Of course, inside it had a photograph of the Premier with a very pensive look. He was probably at a federal-provincial conference. He had the pipe and a smile on his face.

One would say a pamphlet of this kind would talk about the role the Premier has played at federal-provincial conferences over the years, but I want to read a part of the pamphlet, which is somewhat disturbing to those who fear there might be those in Ontario who would touch that resentment which is supposed to be just below the surface, that resentment in Ontario of bilingualism and biculturalism.

Let me read from this pamphlet called Building Canada. It says: "For the last 10 years the Ontario Progressive Conservative government has fought for fundamental principles of importance to all Ontarians. They are" -- and this is one of them -- "avoiding another federal bilingual mistake. The Ontario Progressive Conservative government worked and negotiated hard to keep a revised section 133 that would make Ontario bilingual, what federal and provincial Liberals and New Democrats want, out of a new constitution. The success in doing so is due largely to the perseverance and hard work of Ontario's Premier."

This is in a pamphlet entitled, Building Canada.

The Premier of Ontario is characterized by his supporters and by his fellow members as a nation builder, as a person who has a great commitment to Canada, as a person who has played a significant role in federal-provincial conferences.

In many of his lectures to those of us on this side of the House, the Premier of Ontario has said, "You can't have it both ways." I am suggesting the Premier of Ontario cannot have it both ways. He cannot on one hand be characterized as an individual who is a nation builder, as an individual who is attempting to bring the people of this country together, and on the other hand be part of a campaign which seeks to set one part of this province against another in an election campaign.

The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), in his remarks in the Legislature before, indicated that while --


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the members on this side of the House please let the member proceed with his speech?

9:10 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we have in one pamphlet the comment about avoiding another federal bilingual mistake and not imposing institutional bilingualism in Ontario, we have for the French-speaking people of Ontario the advertisement that says "It's easy" and talks about the number of services that are provided to the French-speaking population in the province.

I did not see any of these posters in my riding, and I do not think many of the members on this side saw them in their ridings.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Why didn't the member put them up?

Mr. Bradley: Were there some in his? He cannot have it both ways.

I want to move to an area that has become current once again and was somewhat significant before the campaign; that, of course, is the matter of Re-Mor and Astra Trust, and its history in Ontario and in this Legislature.

Members who sat in the Legislature last time will recall how the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) put every roadblock in front of this Legislature in an attempt to prevent members from investigating the matter of the collapse of Re-Mor, a company that was licensed by the provincial government just 13 days after C and M, a company controlled by the same person, was ordered wound down. The history of that, of course, is well known to the people of this province.

Only through the combined efforts of members of the opposition, who at that time formed the majority in this Legislature -- and, I must say in fairness, ultimately a few of the members on the other side who managed to show some independence, and I particularly commend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) in that regard -- only through that and the vehicle of a Speaker's warrant were members of the justice committee and members of this House able to have the documents that were necessary to carry out that particular investigation. This, of course, was one of the great advantages of minority government at that time, that the government could not arrogantly cast this aside or sweep it under the rug.

We all recall the famous night of December 4 -- I know the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), who was the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General at that time, will recall that night, as will the government House leader (Mr. Wells) -- when a negotiated settlement brought about a situation where this matter was finally able to be discussed in committee in a proper fashion; but not until many threats had been used.

We had the comments of the Attorney General in different locations, "You people had better watch out, because you may be sorry that this matter came forward," and appealing to certain members of our caucus who are lawyers that, "Indeed, you are officers of the court and you should recognize that we should not deal with matters that are before the court" etcetera. Many of these tactics were used, most particularly by the Attorney General, to prevent a full investigation.

The committee conducted itself in a very responsible way, in my view, in dealing with those documents. I think that is a view that would be shared even by some members of the government party who sat on that committee and conducted themselves in a very responsible manner.

In its interim report the committee indicated certain conclusions had been reached, but it also indicated that it felt the investigation had not been completed and it would be useful to continue that investigation. There were certainly indications of incompetence that had taken place, some concessions of incompetence in terms of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and perhaps in the agency known as the Ontario Securities Commission.

There were some who suggested that there may have been political influence exerted, and that required more investigation and more consideration before a definitive conclusion could be reached. This, of course, was one of the reasons we felt that it would be necessary to pursue this matter further.

During the election campaign, this turned out to be much more of an issue than, I am sure, the government side had predicted it would be; and the people who were protesting were pretty genuine people.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Too bad the politicians were not genuine on this issue.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Carleton-Grenville, who is a Minister without Portfolio, should listen carefully to this. These people were pretty genuine people. He should ask the member for Burlington South if he does not believe that. They were not average investors. They were not people who were heavily involved in investment as an occupation. Many of them were the classic widows, senior citizens and others who were pretty hard done by when they lost what were essentially their life savings.

These people were looking for some kind of compensation if incompetence or other wrongdoing could be proven. They received a commitment from the Premier during the campaign that this matter would be dealt with in the courts, that the cases would be expedited. We find after the election, however, that the government will fight the cases as hard as possible. The excuse is the federal government. The government in this province is first in line when there is credit to be taken and last in line when there is responsibility to be taken, when things go wrong in this province.

We feel that this matter should be investigated further. We were hopeful last Thursday when we had some bright new faces sitting around the table in the justice committee that this would be the case, that indeed we would have a continuation of the investigation and recommendations would be forthcoming. Unfortunately, with the government whip standing in the background, smiling from ear to ear, the members did their duty and all voted against continuing the investigation immediately, and voted in favour of a resolution that would postpone any consideration. Ultimately we are probably going to see no further investigation. At that time, I suggested the broom that was to sweep it under the rug had 70 bristles who had been elected.

I could go on to speak at some length about the patronage system that exists in Ontario. We have gone through how the government got elected, but how it keeps itself in office is a matter of record. We had a lengthy speech by the then member for High Park-Swansea, Mr. Ziemba, on this. While some of us in this Legislature might not have agreed with the tone of that speech or with certain of the items included in that speech, nevertheless it catalogued a record of patronage that is second to none in this country, and that is how this government is able to stay in power.

If we want to find evidence of arrogance on that side, we need only look to the main environmental issues that have been before us, at least in the dying days of the last Legislature. I refer, of course, to the South Cayuga situation. where the government was embarrassed by a particular piece of property that had been purchased for other purposes and decided to defy its own legislation and place in that particular area a facility that certainly required a full environmental hearing before it could be placed in that specific location. Yet the government decided to circumvent its own legislation and to place that facility there. With a majority now, they can confirm that decision.

The government also decided to avoid a direct interventionist role in the SCA Chemical Waste Service situation where millions of gallon of treated industrial waste are going into the Niagara River. While there were certain protestations on the part of the then Minister of the Environment, Mr. Parrott, he did not appear at the hearings, as we have said on this side, because if placed on the stand at those hearings, he would have to concede that the role of the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario was certainly nothing to write home about.

In Ontario we have been saddled with, and obviously have no chance of removing now, regional government in many of the municipalities and we will have mergers that will be given other names, but ultimately they will be regional government as well. What has the reaction been of those who have regional government in their area now? They are all interested in constructing new palaces across the province to solidify regional government at a time when the mill rates are increasing.

9:20 p.m.

We recall that during the election campaign the Premier, and certainly the Progressive Conservative candidates, indicated to the people of Ontario that there would be no change in the rent control legislation. Now we are getting hints from the government side that there might well be changes in the rent control legislation in Ontario. Of course, being in power and having a majority, they have the opportunity to do that if necessary.

We have in Ontario at the present time a government whose reason for existence, whose goal, whose purpose, whose passion revolves around gaining and holding power. In this, I must concede, they have been very successful. They are plagued with the disease that many other governments have had, the arrogance of power. They have lost their sensitivity to the real needs of the people of this province. They rule this province with 70 members and 44 per cent of those who chose to go to the polls voting for them.

This government is a party whose energies are used to perpetuate itself in power, to perpetuate the privileges enjoyed by the rich and the secure in this province. But I cannot believe that the government benches are populated entirely by those who are without compassion. We on this side of the House do not have a monopoly on compassion, and I think that is a political reality.

With this in mind I would like to say we are attracted by some of the points that are included in the no-confidence motion of members of the New Democratic Party. But we find that in every motion put forward by the members of the third party there appears to be a hook, and the hook in this one that would lead us not to support it involves the nationalization of certain industries. For that reason, we will not be supporting the motion of the New Democratic Party.

We will be proposing a motion of our own. because we in the Liberal Party speak for the little people in this province, for the individuals, for the disadvantaged and for the disabled. We in the official opposition speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and we will continue to do that.

Because there is, as I am told by some of my friends in the Conservative Party, a perceptible shift to the right, despite what has happened in France, I implore the members opposite, many of whom are talking about deregulation, many of whom are talking about a less interventionist policy on the part of the government of Ontario, at least to remember those in this province who require the assistance, the intervention and the backing of those of us who sit in this Legislature to have some kind of equal opportunity in this province, which characterizes itself as the province of opportunity.

In the hope that members opposite will listen to this and search their own consciences to be sure these people are not cast aside, I want to speak to the members of the Legislature about a challenge that was issued by a former Governor General of Canada. I noticed it on the back of a church calendar on Sunday afternoon. It is a challenge to all of us, regardless of what our political affiliation might be, by Georges P. Vanier, former Governor General of Canada. That is why I indicated in the preamble to this that I do not think any one party in this House has a monopoly on compassion. They are words that I think we should take into consideration these days when many are worshipping the Reagan policies and the kind of economic policies that are having a detrimental effect on the middle- and lower-income people in this province and in this country.

To conclude my speech, I quote from Georges Vanier: "I throw out this challenge to all of those who believe in the value of the human being: There are hundreds of thousands of inadequately cared for persons who have need of your heart, your affection and your love; they have already been waiting too long."

Mr. Speaker: The Premier.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I express regret over the behaviour of some of the visitors in the gallery. I will speak to them at home this evening.

It is my delightful while somewhat onerous task, in winding up this traditional debate, to exercise the logic and judgement that prevails on this side of the House to persuade the members opposite to change their points of view.

I regret that the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is leaving, because I am rather anxious to refer to what I think was a questionable observation made about one of the candidates and his wife and secretary. It is very easy in this House to hand it out, but it is not so easy to take it.


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Probably the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen got to the member for Ottawa East for his grossly unfair attack, not on our party's candidate in Ottawa East but on his wife and his secretary. There have been observations made here about sexist remarks. The member for Ottawa East indicated that Omer Deslauriers' wife obtained employment because he was a candidate. I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith), who always takes much umbrage at these remarks, to assess that sort of approach.

I really did not intend to open my remarks by being provocative this evening. I listened to the temperate remarks from the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), apart from those at the beginning, and was lulled into believing he was endeavouring to make a positive contribution. I will come to those early remarks a little later on.

Then I listened to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). Quite obviously there was some thought at the beginning of his speech that he might be joining the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) on the list for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Ontario. I understand the member of Niagara Falls has announced his candidacy already. I extend my congratulations to him. We wish him well.

But, after listening to the member for St. Catharines, it is quite obvious he has no such ambition, because it was so obvious in his remarks tonight that he could never attain it. They will have to go back to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the only viable alternative.

9:30 p.m.

I listened to the member for St. Catharines, and what he said was so indicative of why they lost the election. There was not a constructive suggestion in the whole speech, nothing to do with what should be happening in this province.

I have some excellent notes prepared here, but I may digress a little. I spent 44 days travelling this province, and I said to the people I was visiting, "Maybe tomorrow the Liberal leader of this province will come out with something affirmative, something constructive, something of interest to the voters of Ontario."

I said it on day 43 and on day 42. One day before the election I was saying, in amazement, to the people with whom I consulted on occasion that not once during the campaign was there a comprehensive, constructive policy enunciated by the Liberal Party of Ontario. That is one reason they are over there and we are over here.

Talk about patronage. He can be a little cheap on these things. I rather like the member for St. Catharines, but it is a bit of a cheap shot. His leader made a great fuss over the new chairman of Ontario Hydro, over what a terrible appointment it was and how it was patronage at its worst. I will bring and show him a letter, one of the nice letters his leader wrote to raise money and obviously personally signed. Who was it addressed to? It was addressed to Hugh Macaulay, chairman of Ontario Hydro, seeking his financial support. He has to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Nixon: Did he send a cheque?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I have a feeling he did not make a contribution and I think for very just reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I have neglected the traditions. I want to compliment and congratulate you on your election to this most important office in this assembly. It is a clear indication of the confidence that all members of the House, with the exception of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), have in your abilities, your integrity and the way we know you will conduct the affairs of this House.

I say to the member for Ottawa Centre, that was not one of his great moments. This is my night to tell him what I think. I have listened to him for a lot of years, and I tell him that on the opening day of the House he did himself no credit. The only person who redeemed his party was the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), the former Speaker of the House, and I tell him that he has earned and has our respect.

I want to congratulate all new members of the House and all those who participated in the throne speech debate. I want to express my best wishes to the young but very distinguished member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). I think his contribution, pointing out what he wants to see happen in his constituency, his commitment to growth, his support of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, clearly identifies him as a man who has a sensitivity and understanding of the issues not only in Brantford but also right across this province. That is one of the reasons we are over here and they are over there. It is because of men like the member for Brantford.

I have to be very careful not to get into any facetious observations about the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) -- the present member. She is a great addition to this House for a variety of reasons. I will not say any more than that. That takes nothing away from the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps). The member for St. George is a great addition, and her contribution demonstrated the sensitivity of this party, its understanding and its awareness of the social issues, something the people in the Liberal Party talk about but have never really understood.

I wish to say something to the member for St. Catharines. I nearly had tears in my eyes when he talked about the little people. Does he know what his leader was saying during the campaign? He said that only he now had connections with Bay Street. I never thought I would hear a Liberal leader say, "You know, the Tories don't have any relationship with Bay Street any more." I have news for him: We never did. But here was the Liberal leader trying to identify himself with Bay Street. I thought it was tremendous, delightful and I am sure it cost him 100 votes in his own riding, but that is what he was saying.

I heard so many people who were here and listened to the new members make their contribution say just how impressed they were. I have not had time to read all their remarks, but I have read many of them. I have read the remarks from the member for Ottawa East and the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I do not know that I would include them as being the most constructive in this debate, and I will get around to them in just a few moments, but I will touch on the matter raised by the member for Ottawa East and indirectly by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

We are dealing in this country with some difficult and sensitive issues; no one minimizes them. One can disagree with the position that this government and this Premier has taken on some issues related to the constitution, but I say to the member for Sudbury East that we have been consistent. In fairness, so has his party. I am not quarrelling with it. I want to say -- read that pamphlet, that is fine, he can go ahead and read all he wants -- I can recall his leader saying that it was he who prevailed on the Prime Minister in a phone call not to impose section 133 on the province. I do not know whether he ever made that phone call, but they cannot have it both ways.

I know how they campaigned across this province. I know what was being said in Essex county, not only in this election but also in 1977. The member should not talk to us about who takes the high road. We have been consistent, we have been honest about it and we have not been saying one thing in one part of the province and something somewhere else, which his leader has done day after day after day.

The member for St. Catharines knows it is true. The member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) knows it is true. He is a very decent soul; I hate to say it, but he is. He knows that is what was happening. That is why he ran as an independent. That is why, when I made my significant visit to that riding which had such an impact on the results, I tried to find the word "Liberal" --

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I think the Premier needs a rest anyway, but I have to remind him that when he does come to my riding, he does remember my name, and he does remember the riding. I must say that when he was there he drew a group of about 70, and our leader drew about 400.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will never quarrel with the large crowd that the member's leader drew; it was because the member happened to be the candidate. I have to tell him, if he had not been the candidate, probably there would have been zip there. He knows that, and I know that.

I do not travel into many areas of the province where the local member makes me any more welcome than the member for Quinte. In fact, I come in to his riding, I go to the odd event with him, and you would think he was a member of our party. I feel very comfortable with that.

Mr. O'Neil: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As I think I have mentioned to the Premier, I would like him to do two things when he comes to my riding: first, bring money when he comes and, second, let me know when he is coming so I can keep an eye on him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will meet both of those qualifications, except it will be a credit card.

I was in Brantford during the campaign, and actually campaigns are kind of fun --

Mr. Kerrio: We welcomed you at Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly we were in Niagara, but I was in Brantford and I met the candidate for the Liberal Party in the neighbouring riding. I have to tell members, he was working in the hall in Brantford. It did not do the Liberal Brantford candidate any good, but he kissed my wife. I mean, I saw him, right in the midst of the chief electoral officer or something of that nature. Who was he trying to impress? He impressed Kathleen, but he did not get any votes for the candidate in Brantford. He did not get her vote either.

Mr. Nixon: The question is, did you get her vote?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the member, I think some days I have to ask that question myself.

9:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, we could spend the next four years in this House reliving March 19.

Mr. Cassidy: And probably will.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to do it. The member for Ottawa Centre will not relive it; he is dead in a political sense, or retired -- at least he says he is going to retire.

The members opposite have been talking about our promises. We made no promises during the campaign; we only made commitments. The members opposite made the promises.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the leader of the Liberal Party promised that, if he lost, he would quit. Is he going to keep that promise? On this side of the House we have very mixed views on whether he should, very mixed views.


Hon. Mr. Davis: I suggest with respect, Mr. Speaker, that we can have fun and we can debate March 19 day after day as we have done in question period. That is part of politics, and this is a political forum. No one should ever minimize it; no one should understate it. But at the same time, and I say this with respect to the member for St. Catharines, there are other issues than trying to tell the people of this province why he thinks we won the election.

I have to say, I have had my shares of wins and losses in many respects. I listened to the honourable member's speech tonight, and I think it can be characterized quite simply by saying -- and I say this kindly -- it sounded to me like sour grapes, it really did.

I will tell him why his party lost. I will try to be helpful to the honourable member's leader. I will make a small wager with the member that neither of us will ever be able to prove that the attitude of the people on the day the writ was issued changed very much in the 44 days of the campaign. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It was because this party and this government campaign. I was about ready to complain to the presented a positive attitude, a constructive sort of approach. The people of Ontario do not want to be told for 44 days that we are going down the tube, that we are number 10, that nothing the government does is right. They did not believe it then, and they do not believe it today.

If the member had any wisdom whatsoever, he would understand that one has to be more positive; one has to have something specific to present.

Mr. Speaker, we face major issues in this country. I am not going to discuss the constitution tonight, because it is before the courts, except to make one observation --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is before the courts.

Mr. Foulds: It is sub judice, is it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is, in my view.

Mr. Nixon: You would think it was a rape case.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where, over there?

Mr. Nixon: A lot of your friends think it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is suddenly suggesting that a lot of my friends are in total agreement with the position I have taken on the constitution. Some of my friends are not; I freely confess it. But I have to say, they voted for us on March 19, along with a lot of disenchanted Liberals as well. They also voted for us.

Do the Liberals know where they made another mistake during the campaign? If they recall the way their party has sort of gone up and down the roller coaster with respect to the popularity of the present Prime Minister of Canada, they will remember their leader quietly going up into the press gallery a couple of years ago and saying: "I have to dissociate myself from the federal Liberals. You know Pierre Elliott Trudeau is dead; it is never going to work; I have to get away from him." Then Pierre Elliott Trudeau came back. He won a year ago February. One day later, the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario said: "My gosh, we have to have a provincial election. I want to get on his coattails." The members must remember him going around Ontario doing that.

I remember one of the Leader of the Opposition's great lines. He was referring to the wimp and the blimp. Do members remember the great respect he showed for Mr. Clark? I do not mind what he calls me, except I will match my blimpishness with the member for Niagara Falls these days any day of the week. That is being unkind, but I have been working on it and the members opposite should try it.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier goes through cycles himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did, certainly; we all go through cycles. The member goes in circles; I go in cycles. The member for St. Catharines has not been here long enough to know the circles the party goes in.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was a great leader, I have great respect for him, but he was leader of a Liberal Party that was Liberal. It believed in certain reforms. It tried to make a little progress. He had the nerve to put his picture on a pamphlet calling for regional government in county school boards. That is when the Liberal Party, I say to the member for St. Catharines, stood for something and was not trying to be all things to all people in all parts. That is where they made their mistake.

Let us try to forget about March 19. I have difficulty, because I enjoyed t. I would be less than honest if I said I did not. But that March 19 election, I think, said something else. It said something about the people of this province, because the Leader of the Opposition was being pretty negative. Remember what he said about the manufacturing sector --

Mr. Bradley: Forty-four per cent of them voted for your party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, sure. I know the percentages, and we can play the percentage game all night. But what the people of this province were really saying was that they were not going to buy that negative bill of goods. The people of Ontario have confidence in their abilities. They know we face difficult times. No one is minimizing that. No one is minimizing the problems in the farm community, the small business community, and for everybody.

With respect to some of the economics in this country -- I am not going to pass the buck tonight, but I am going to make a factual observation -- one of the main reasons we are in difficulty in Canada is the consistently ill-advised monetary policy of the government of Canada. I make no apologies for saying that, because it happens to be true.

Mr. Cassidy: That was Joe Clark's policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. With great respect, Mr. Clark did not have ample opportunity to develop his policy fully. I have been far more supportive of my national leader than some provincial NDP premiers have been of their national leader.

Mr. Martel: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand that some NDP members were making Allan Blakeney's life difficult out west a few days ago. Is that true? I get reports.

Mr. Breaugh: The KGB is wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Oshawa that we probably have more friends in the labour movement now than his party has, because the NDP has been a disaster to them. We probably have more friends.

Mr. Breaugh: Name some.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, in my riding most of them voted for me instead of the NDP candidate. I could not get those figures in Brampton without that union support.

Mr. Breaugh: Not in my riding, and the Premier was there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was in the member's riding, and that is when he tried to cosy up to me to get his picture taken.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought the Premier was getting his picture taken with me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, that was right. I wanted my picture with the member back in Brampton. It would have got a lot of votes. I cannot think of anyone --

Mr. Sargent: The Premier has 10 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Grey-Bruce, I have not started on him yet and, what is more, I will not.

Mr. Gillies: It is not worth it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not quite agree with that. I think that is a modest exaggeration.

Mr. Cooke: Let us hear something positive.

Mr. Wildman: When does the constructive part start?

Mr. Breaugh: Back to the notes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not got to the notes yet.

Mr. Nixon: What do you pay this guy for?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know. What do the Liberals pay Brother Deeks for? I have to repeat his line. He said, "Joining the Liberal Party of Ontario is like becoming general manager of the Toronto Argonauts."

Mr. Martel: The Premier should know about that. He has been going to them for 20 years. Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. But I can draw the distinction between my affection for the Toronto Argonauts and leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Martel: He bets his money on them all the time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One has been successful, the other not quite so much.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should understand something else as we are debating these issues over the next four years. We are really talking not just in terms of the partisan nature of this House or the politics of this House --

Mr. Boudria: We are getting into partisanship now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is partisan. I say to the new member, he has a little bit to learn too. I am trying to give a little instruction tonight to his colleague on his left. He is in the process of learning that one can be partisan part of the time, but it is helpful to be constructive part of the time. It also has a greater impact.

9:50 p.m.

One of the great members who left this House, and I saw him last night at the dinner for Dr. Parrott, was Murray Gaunt -- I can now call him by name. I think he was one of the great members of this Legislature.

Do the members opposite know why he was great? Some of them could learn something from him. It is too bad they were not here to see how he operated. It is too bad they did not read his news columns; they were very clever, very subtle, but very honest. He was always prepared to give government credit, always prepared to stand on the other side of government when he did not agree. But he took a constructive approach to the process here in this House. He did not come out with the kind of negative, cynical speech that the member for St. Catharines delivered. He would not do that sort of thing. He took a positive sort of approach; he was constructive in what he wanted to say. That, to me, is part of our responsibility.

I am not saying to the member for St. Catharines that he should not be critical; heaven knows, that is part of the process. But when he starts talking about how election campaigns are won, when he starts saying how some of his party's members felt that things were done because of media campaigns and all the rest of it, I have to say to the member for St. Catharines that is just total, utter hogwash.

This party won the election for one very simple reason: the capacity of our candidates, our record in office, the positive nature of our campaign and the confidence we had in the people of this province. They returned us to office because of the impression we created and the member's party did not. It was as simple and as fundamental as that.

We should be debating some of the other issues, such as the question of inflation. We have debated this at no great length in this House. We have had questions. But why did the member opposite not point out in his remarks that inflation, without question, is one of the basic economic issues facing not only this province but also this country and probably this continent?

Why do we not discuss the matter of energy? Why do we not have a discussion as it relates to the divorcing of the energy debate from the constitutional issues? To me it is patently clear that the energy issue has to be separated from the constitutional discussion. We have to find some way and means to bring two of the governments of this country, Alberta and Ottawa, to a realization that some form of agreement is fundamental to the stability and the economic wellbeing not only of the producing provinces but also of this province and the total country. That is not an easy task, but it is one that is fundamental and one that was not touched upon even by the member from Sudbury East.

In terms of the throne speech, the Leader of the Opposition plays games; he goes through the ritual. The throne speech sets out a practical, pragmatic, attainable objective in terms of economic growth.

Mr. Martel: But it does not deal with the issues.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I remind those people in the New Democratic Party that they cannot have that kind of support, that kind of quality of our health system and educational system, unless they are prepared to have the economic growth and development that go along with it, and it can never happen under the kind of philosophy that those people represent.

What all the members of this House must do in the next several months and several years is devote their energies in a constructive way, not in terms of comparing Ontario's record with that of Prince Edward Island.

I say to the members of the Liberal Party, tell your leader from me that if you have one significant industrial development in Prince Edward Island, it is true that you are going to have figures that reflect a somewhat larger percentage of growth than in Ontario. I accept that. But just remember something: The population of Prince Edward Island is roughly the same as that of the great constituency of the city of Brampton, which I happen to represent in this Legislature.

I think we should get away from these internal comparisons. It is valid to compare the economic performance of this province with that of the northern states of the United States. That has greater validity. I will match our record of achievement under the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), all of my cabinet colleagues, with that of any comparable jurisdiction in North America. The record speaks for itself.

Look at the job-creation record. Show me what they have done in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, you name it. A hundred thousand new jobs in this province this year. Let the member from St. Catharines show me any other jurisdiction that has a record of achievement of a comparable nature. He cannot.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One hundred and twenty-four thousand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One hundred and twenty-four thousand. I am sorry; I am far too conservative in my estimates.

Take a look at what we have done with respect not only to new job creation but also to some of the innovative programs of government. You know, I had the greatest fun in the campaign -- I hate going back to it -- with the Urban Transportation Development Corporation. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) is not here, because I had some fun about it with the member from whatever-his-riding-is, who was our great critic and never supported it. He was totally opposed to it.

It was great fun to go into riding after riding and find Ontarians who were proud of the fact that through this modest government initiative we have been able to beat off the challenges from Japan, West Germany, France and the United States.

Mr. Sweeney: I thought we weren't supposed to be compared with them; that we are only supposed to be looking at the northern states.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course we can be. I say to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot --

Mr. Sweeney: The Premier is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.


Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: I will give the Premier in Brampton the UTDC out of my riding. He can have it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Can I call the member Ms. Copps? Is that the new tradition? I will only say to her, if she wishes to give up the development of UTDC in Hamilton and transfer it to Brampton, while I cannot presume to speak for the mayor of Brampton, I think we will be delighted to have it.

Ms. Copps: The mayor of Hamilton does not want it. Doesn't the Premier read the Spectator?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I read the Spectator. He wants a stadium. I know what he wants and what he does not want, and I know what this government is prepared to do to help him in spite of the opposition we get from some Hamilton members. Is the member in favour of support for the arena? Does she want support for the arena?

Ms. Copps: Hamilton is the guinea pig for this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be interrupted by the new member for Hamilton Centre. I have a feeling we will hear a great deal from her during the next year or two. I am not going to talk about the quality of what we hear but there is no question we will hear it.

Ms. Copps: I will be speaking for Hamilton, you can bet on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the member for Hamilton Centre, she can speak from Hamilton and I will hear her. I say this very kindly to her: Quite obviously her very aggressive desire to speak for Hamilton is a clear indication that she thinks the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Smith) has not been doing so.

Ms. Copps: We all speak for Hamilton. If the government has done so well for Hamilton, why is it that all we have now is Liberals and New Democrats? There are no Tories in Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Premier will continue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must confess to you I have not enjoyed interruptions of this nature for a long time. I think it is tremendous.

Ms. Copps: Why didn't you come to my riding during the election?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Has the member invited me to her riding?

Ms. Copps: No, and I do not think I will.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought she had. I would be delighted to go.

I hope in the very few moments left before the bells ring that the members opposite, particularly those in the Liberal Party who really think of these things carefully and understand what it is we are attempting as a government -- those people over there never will -- will reassess their position, will vote in support of this enlightened throne speech and will join with us in keeping the promise.

I do not mean the promise of the politicians. I do not mean the promise of election campaigns. I urge the members opposite to join with us in keeping the promise, not of politicians or of campaigns, but of this province and its people, the unparalleled opportunity we have together to move this province ahead, to achieve, in terms of economic growth, social programs, that to which members of this House were committed. I urge them to seize the opportunity and to show the leadership they are all so eager to obtain for themselves by joining the government in the support of this great document.

10:25 p.m.

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Cassidy, which was negatived on the following vote:


Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.


Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Boudria, Bradley, Brandt, Conway, Copps, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp;

Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen;

McGuigan, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Peterson, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Roy, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston;

Sargent, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton, Wrye, Yakabuski.

Ayes 19; nays 98.

10:30 p.m.

The House divided on the amendment by Mr. Smith, which was negatived on the following vote:


Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini;

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


Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Henderson;

Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, 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 divided on the main motion by Mr. Gillies, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Resolved: That a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario as follows:

To the Honourable John Black Aird, an Officer of the Order of Canada, one of Her Majesty's Counsel Learned in the Law, Bachelor of Arts, Doctor of Laws, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.