SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORK PLACE
MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT
JOHN F. MCCLENNAN (BLOOR) LIMITED ACT
MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDINARY BUSINESS
The House met at 2:03 p.m.
Prayers.
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Speaker: Before embarking on routine proceedings, I would like to advise all honourable members that on Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) raised what he considered to be a matter of privilege with respect to a letter by one Bryan Rowntree, president of the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association, calling on the members of that association to support a fund-raising dinner apparently organized by the Muskoka Progressive Conservative Association in honour of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller).
At the outset I must point out to all honourable members, as I have before and as my predecessors have on many occasions, that it is no part of the responsibility of the Speaker to investigate and report back to the House. The Speaker's sole function in such matters is to decide whether or not a prima facie case of a breach of privilege has been made. If he rules that there is a prima facie case, then the House must deal with it as it sees fit.
I have examined the documents that were presented to me with great care and I find the notice of the dinner appears to be an ordinary notice of a political fund-raising dinner such as is common to all parties. Mr. Rowntree's letter urges the members of his association to subscribe to this dinner. I suggest it is his privilege if he wishes to do so and does not come under the control of this House.
There is no suggestion that the member for Muskoka was a party to Mr. Rowntree's action. Mr. Rowntree's motives for that action are his own and are not the responsibility of the member for Muskoka, nor indeed of this House. It is therefore my ruling that this is not a matter of privilege.
Mr. Roy: Just on that point, Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but it is not debatable.
Mr. Roy: Can I --
Mr. Speaker: No. There are procedures to be followed, and you are out of order.
Mr. Roy: I want to ask a question.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, you cannot ask a question.
Mr. Roy: Can I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker? You have to hear my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will hear a point of order.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, please listen to the members, for God's sake, before you make a ruling. That is all I am asking.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will indeed.
Mr. Roy: The point is simply this: You have made a ruling that it is questionable whether you have jurisdiction to investigate this matter. I do not quarrel with that. Do you intend therefore to transfer this matter to any other official of this House, for instance the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), to investigate the situation to see whether there has been a breach of the Legislative Assembly Act or any other statute?
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the member for Ottawa East was not listening. I said it is the responsibility of the House and not the Speaker to take such action.
Mr. Roy: Then transfer it.
Mr. Speaker: That is not my responsibility.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to your statement on a point of privilege: I understand your ruling that you do not feel you have investigative powers in this circumstance but, as I understand the rules, you do have the power to refer it to the standing committee on procedural affairs of this House.
Also, as I understand it, the government House leader (Mr. Wells) or the Premier (Mr. Davis) has the power to refer this matter for further investigation to that committee. I believe you should exercise your power to refer this matter to that committee for an investigation to make up for your lack of investigative powers in this circumstance.
Mr. Speaker: I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that was not the point in question. The point in question was whether you had a point of privilege, and I have ruled that you did not.
Mr. Sargent: Why don't you stop protecting the government?
Mr. Speaker: I ask the member for Grey-Bruce to withdraw that remark. I will not tolerate personal references to the chair.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: You are out of order. I asked you to do something, and I expect you to do it.
Mr. Sargent: Do what?
Mr. Speaker: Withdraw that remark.
Mr. Sargent: I certainly feel you are protecting the government.
Mr. Speaker: I find your remark out of order. I will not tolerate a personal criticism of the chair.
Mr. Sargent: It is a total conflict of interest. You know it is.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the member does not want to take part in the proceedings of this House.
Ms. Copps: He just said he withdrew it.
Mr. Speaker: Did he?
Mr. Sargent: You know my feelings, but I will withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: I hate to lecture and sermonize, as somebody pointed out, but I have to point out to all the members that a criticism of the chair is a criticism of this chamber.
2:10 p.m.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
FISH TESTING PROGRAM
Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, last October I reported to honourable members on the results up to that time of my ministry's comprehensive testing programs for chemicals in fish. Today I wish to bring that information up to date.
I emphasize at the outset two positive factors: (1) the increasing ability of our environmental scientists to detect and to analyse minute quantities of a wide range of chemicals and (2) the high priority that has been assigned to this continuing and expanding activity.
I will describe the results of two series of tests, one on minnows from the Canadian and American sides of the Niagara River and one on sport fish in Lake Ontario, the Niagara River, the Grand River and Lake Superior.
Spottail shiner minnows taken from the Niagara River contained trace levels of the chemical known as dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Our scientists are satisfied the dioxin originated on the New York side of the river as a result of previous disposal practices at sites associated with chemical companies in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York, area.
Fish species from Lake Ontario and from the lower Niagara River contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD but in no case, except in the lake trout from the Port Credit area, did the average value exceed the 20 parts per trillion federal guideline. No dioxin was detected in fish from the Grand River near Waterloo, and trace levels of one or two parts per trillion were measured in three of 11 lake trout from Lake Superior.
Niagara River and Lake Ontario drinking water supplies were tested for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other contaminants found in the minnows and sport fish. Dioxin was not found in any water sample at or above the detection limits of 0.2 parts per trillion. Mirex and DDT were not found in any water samples. Polychlorinated biphenyls have been measured occasionally in Lake Ontario waters but concentrations are much below the interim Ontario drinking water objective of 0.003 milligrams per litre.
However, findings for 11 lake trout collected in the Port Credit area of western Lake Ontario are of particular concern. Dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD in these fish averaged 27.4 parts per trillion, with individual values ranging from 17 to 57 parts per trillion.
These findings mark the first time in the ministry's dioxin testing program that the average concentration of a sampling of fish exceeds the 20 parts per trillion federal guideline. These trout also exceed the unrestricted consumption guidelines for the chemical substances PCB and Mirex.
Medical specialists with the Ontario Ministry of Labour were consulted by my staff and have recommended the continuation of the limited consumption advice for lake trout from the Port Credit area as defined in the October 1981 Environmental Health Bulletin. This recommends that an adult male should consume only one or two meals of lake trout a month and that no lake trout caught in the area should be consumed by women of child-bearing age or by children under the age of 15. Anglers and consumers are advised to consult the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish published by the Ontario government for advice on consumption of specific species at specific locations.
PCB and dioxin concentration in minnows from Cayuga Creek, New York, which contains drainage from the Love Canal area, reinforce concerns about seepage of contaminants from industrial waste disposal sites. The dioxin level there, averaging 59 parts per trillion of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Cayuga Creek site, was four times higher than dioxin in minnows from other Niagara River locations sampled in 1981.
Dioxin was not detected in spottail shiners collected in the Nanticoke area of eastern Lake Erie which is upstream from the area and unaffected by industrial waste losses to the Niagara River.
The current test sport fish results support earlier tests which showed that levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are higher in Lake Ontario fish than in fish from other Ontario water bodies tested, and they support the opinion that industrial waste disposal sources in the Niagara Falls, New York, area are the main source of this chemical in Lake Ontario fish.
As I have stated, our drinking water is safe and of good quality. I am concerned, however, about the potential long-term problems which these increased levels of dioxin in fish may present.
Consistent with my concern, I would like to outline for honourable members some of the steps I have taken so that there will be no doubt in anyone's mind about how seriously I view these developments.
These new dioxin findings by our Ontario scientists are being communicated immediately to the Canadian Minister of the Environment, the Honourable John Roberts, and to the appropriate officials of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
In addition, I have instructed my officials to send copies to all the US and Canadian environmental groups involved in recent judicial proceedings on Niagara River pollution problems.
I am seeking, at the earliest possible date, a meeting with the Honourable Robert Flacke, commissioner of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, to discuss new and urgent priorities for pollution crackdowns.
In addition, the Premier (Mr. Davis) will raise the question of discharge to the Niagara River at his pending meeting with Governor Carey of New York state.
The Premier has also accepted an invitation from the Governor of Michigan, Mr. Milliken, to participate in a meeting on Mackinac Island about Great Lake problems. We will take this opportunity to raise our concerns over transboundary pollution and especially the question of chemical discharges into the Niagara River raised by our current findings.
The US-Canada Niagara River Toxics Committee is continuing development of long-range plans for the control of hazardous contaminants in the Niagara River, and Ontario will continue to participate in hearings held in the United States to deal with pollution of the river.
The honourable members will recall that in November I established a special scientific team to deal with the problem of pollution of the Niagara River and to ensure that the quality of this river is protected and improved. My ministry's Niagara River improvement team has been in operation for some months, and I have now expanded the team to include a hydrogeologist to zero in on the suspected source of contamination on the New York side, including the Hyde Park and the Love Canal dump sites.
Our scientists are convinced that this dioxin originated and is continuing to enter our waters from American sources. Our findings give clear indication of a potential long-term problem. Chemical sources in New York state must come under tighter control, and some additional cleanup may very well be necessary in the very near future.
Mr. Elston: Are you considering any legal action?
Hon. Mr. Norton: We are already engaged in legal action.
WINDSOR WATER QUALITY
Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have a further statement which I would like to deliver at this time. I would like to inform the House about the results of my ministry's investigation into allegations that have been made about the safety of drinking water in Windsor.
These allegations were made by Professor Joseph Cummins of the University of Western Ontario, primarily during an interview on a local Leamington radio station, February 21. His remarks about the quality of Windsor's drinking water were subsequently distributed through an open letter by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) on March 9.
Professor Cummins's charges, as given to us in a transcript of that radio interview, have proven to be inaccurate upon close examination.
About Windsor's water, Professor Cummins says: "It's as clear as it can be, but there is something very bad with this water." He goes on to claim that the number of spontaneous abortions, birth defects and digestive system cancers in this community are abnormally high and are attributable to chemicals in Windsor's drinking water.
He says some of these statistics are "incredibly spectacular. They just blow your mind ... they tend to light up and say bad water, bad water, bad water." That is a very restrained statement for a scientist, is it not? He also advised pregnant women in Windsor to buy their water from London. And he makes comparisons of cancer statistics between the two communities to demonstrate that there is some kind of health problem resulting from Windsor water.
I take very seriously any fact or evidence that indicates any community's health is potentially at risk because of contaminants in the water or for any other environmental reason. When these particular allegations were brought to my attention, I instructed staff to launch an immediate investigation. The facts, as determined by that investigation, are simply as follows.
First, the water supply of the city of Windsor is well within the acceptable guidelines for drinking water quality. A check of test results from my ministry and the Windsor Utilities Commission consistently shows that there is no evidence to support Professor Cummins's allegations about bad water.
In fact, there is no meaningful difference between the drinking water quality of London and Windsor and no evidence to justify his warning to pregnant women that they drink only water from London. Staff of my ministry have advised the commission of this verbally and will be replying formally by letter.
2:20 p.m.
Second, ministry staff have met with the local medical officer of health to determine whether there are indeed any anomalies in health statistics that are attributable to Windsor's drinking water quality. They have been advised that the data do not support Professor Cummins's allegations.
In a letter to the Windsor Utilities Commission, the medical officer of health, Dr. Jones, concludes as follows: "There is no proven association between the domestic water supply and health problems ... in my opinion, the residents of Windsor-Essex should have no fear from drinking the domestic water supply."
Ministry of the Environment staff have also received written opinions from Professor Frank Innes, a medical geographer with the University of Windsor. He is conducting research into the epidemiology of specific mortalities under a grant from the Ministry of Health.
In his opinion, his findings for infant mortality and digestive cancers, while high in some instances, show trends that more likely reflect occupational, ethnic, lifestyle and socioeconomic relationships rather than the quality of the common water supply. This opinion is shared by MOE's medical advisers in the Ministry of Labour's special studies and services branch.
Third, Professor Cummins referred to a report done by the bureau of chemical hazards environmental health directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare as evidence to back up his view that Windsor is suffering health effects because of contaminated water.
Due to be released soon, the Williams-Nestmann report is a study into the relationship of chemical substances in raw and treated drinking water to possible mutagenic effects. However, in the report's conclusion, it states that no relationship between mutagenic activity and the presence of individual or groups of chemicals could be found.
Fourth, since 1977, the ministry has been engaged in detailed work and monitoring on the St. Clair River. The entire purpose of this study is to define any existing and/or potential problems with the water quality that could have an impact on human consumption and to devise solutions before any problems could become serious.
While this investigation is continuing, there is no evidence to date to indicate that a serious water quality problem currently exists in Windsor. Strategies are being developed to prevent any potential problems from occurring in the future.
Drinking water quality is a high priority to me personally and to the staff of the ministry. We have been able to speak with expertise and accuracy on drinking water safety, knowing that our statements are backed up by a continual updating of our scientific expertise, technology and knowledge in this field.
There is currently considerable controversy about the potential long-term impact of minute traces of chemicals which scientists can now detect through advanced analytical techniques. In order for us to continue optimum public safety, I feel it is necessary for the ministry to constantly review our monitoring programs, our knowledge and our testing capabilities to reflect the latest research into drinking water quality.
I would like to inform the House that the Ministry of the Environment is actively involved in doing this. In addition to ongoing studies in the St. Clair River, our examination of latest testing procedures and our fish testing program, which operates as an early warning system for drinking water problems, the ministry has under way a special examination of our entire drinking water guidelines program.
This examination, scheduled for completion in early summer, will ensure that our guidelines, technology, testing and monitoring programs continue to reflect the latest scientific knowledge about water quality effects on human health.
With these recent allegations about Windsor water, I consider it irresponsible when the best interests of a community are treated as they have been in this case. If there is evidence that a water supply is contaminated, I would hope that evidence would be brought forward immediately to the agencies responsible for verification and prompt remedial action.
I do not feel the public interest is served when questionable and unfounded allegations about public safety are aired as scientific fact. There has been much attention focused recently on drinking water quality, not only in this province but also across North America, and people are quite understandably concerned and certainly more aware of potential dangers.
In a situation like this, those citizens have an unqualified right to be completely and fully informed about the situation. But they also have a right to accurate and responsible information. That is the approach which the ministry has consistently taken in the past in matters of this kind and will continue to take in the future. I would ask the co-operation of both the media and the members of this House to ensure that citizens receive that service to which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members in keeping the level of their personal conversations down so that the chair may hear the statements.
SPACESHIP COLUMBIA
Mrs. Scrivener: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sure members of this Legislature have been thrilled and excited by the adventures of the spaceship Columbia II and the men associated with her during her recent eight-day journey through outer space as she undertook important tests for future missions, and were awed, as I was, by Columbia's incredibly beautiful re-entry and landing last Tuesday at White Sands, New Mexico.
As Canadians, we have been especially proud of the achievement of the Canadarm, the 50-foot-long manipulative device which is probably the most important component of the Columbia. Astronauts Jack Lousma and Gordon Fullerton heaped lavish praise upon its performance during the flight, declaring that it is a "fantastic piece of machinery."
Designed and built by Spar Aerospace Ltd., a Canadian firm based here in Toronto, the remote manipulator system, the RMS or Canadarm as it is called, was first tested on board the space shuttle during its November voyage last year. These two missions have confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt that the arm is indeed capable of conducting the operations for which it was designed; that is, spacecraft deployment and retrieval, as well as platform assembly in space.
This fine achievement has been executed within a remarkably short time. In 1969, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, invited Canada --
Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are all moderate people on this side, but you have refused to allow my colleagues to put valid points of order to you, yet you are allowing the honourable member to go on at great length on a subject in which we are all very interested and of which we are all proud but which really is out of order.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on the same point: I was very deliberately allowing the honourable member to continue, because you are setting a precedent whereby all of us, on any given day, can get up and make a statement. I wish my friend had not said anything, because you would have allowed that to occur and, in conjunction with the ministers making daily statements, this side of the House would have been allowed to make statements as well.
Mrs. Scrivener: In response, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while the members are perhaps making a valid point, in most instances very few members have an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House an important feat of this province and of this city, of a nature that is historic in world space transportation. Therefore, I would appeal to you to permit me to continue.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I take exception to the remarks that were made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). Indeed, I did not disallow anybody from making a point of order, valid or otherwise.
The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) came to the heart of the matter, of course, and obviously there is an objection to the statement carrying on.
Ms. Copps: Statement is right.
Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what it was.
Ms. Copps: It was not a ministerial statement. It was a point of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: I did not recognize a point of privilege. However, the objection having been raised, I will uphold it. I will also make note of the great and historic event, and of the part played in it by Spar Aerospace of this province and of Canada. I would ask all members of this Legislature to join me in greeting some of the people responsible for this great feat.
[Applause]
2:30 p.m.
Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, may I introduce the guests in your gallery?
Mr. Speaker: I think we have already done that, other than by name. Unfortunately, I do not have a list of their names, but I suggest if you will table the names they will be recorded in the proceedings.
Mrs. Scrivener: The gentlemen in your gallery are the leaders in this operation, in the production of the Canadarm, as well as the head of all of the shop stewards --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Scrivener: -- representing over 200 --
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is this the new minister for outer space?
Mrs. Scrivener: The New Democratic Party did not want their names read into the record.
Interjections.
PHYSICIANS' FEES
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a very important statement on the matter of the physicians' negotiations, might I first apologize to my opposition critics and others across the House who, I think, will be getting copies of the statement momentarily. I think they have them now.
Second, may I indicate there are one or two important typographical errors contained in it and that is the result of the fact we wanted to be very careful with this statement. Copies are still being produced for some members of the media and others as I rise.
Finally, there are appendices to this statement which will also be forwarded in the next few minutes as indicated in the statement. I apologize, but I should indicate that I think it was important we not rush this matter unduly and that we take as much care as possible to get the right tenor and the right wording in this statement.
I would like to share with the House our plans to protect medical services in Ontario as a result of the Ontario Medical Association's refusal to accept what we consider to be a fair adjustment in the Ontario health insurance plan schedule of benefits. At the same time, I would like to deal with some of the recommendations which the council of the association has made to its members.
In doing so, I want first to make clear our belief that medicare is one of the most precious possessions of the people of Ontario and to re-emphasize my determination to protect it. To achieve this, we will take necessary steps to ensure that physicians are adequately rewarded for the contribution they make, that patients have the quality of care they require and that hospitals are able to function in a safe and efficient manner.
The situation we find ourselves in today is unique in the experience with medicare in Ontario. After five months of negotiations, including the use of a fact-finder, we have not been able to reach an agreement for a schedule of benefits, which we must have in order to pay for medical services provided since the formal agreement expired at midnight.
Since the inception of OHIP 10 years ago, the government has, in the language of our agreements, recognized the Ontario Medical Association "as the sole negotiator on behalf of physicians of Ontario generally with respect to the schedule of benefits."
Through an annual negotiating process, we have agreed to a global amount by which the government would enrich the schedule of benefits. The association would in turn adjust the fees for various procedures performed by physicians and OHIP would pay this amount.
Three years ago, the negotiating process was refined by the introduction of an independent chairman who could, on request, act as a fact-finder to resolve issues in dispute. While his proposals were and are not binding, they did form a basis for settlement of the last two agreements.
Negotiations for a new agreement began late last year with Professor Paul Weiler of Harvard as our agreed choice as chairman. Professor Weiler was chairman for the 1981-82 negotiations and his report, which was made public last year, recommended an increase of 14.75 per cent to the schedule of benefits which expired yesterday. Last year the government and the Ontario Medical Association agreed on that figure and it was implemented. That agreement raised the income of the average full-time physician from $67,000 to $80,300 after deducting the cost of practice.
Members will recall that this year the government originally offered a 10 per cent increase in the schedule of benefits. The OMA asked for a one or two-year agreement with an effective increase of 27 per cent per year.
Although we believed the 10 per cent increase we proposed would provide physicians with a fair settlement, Professor Weiler found in a report, which I am formally tabling today, that a staged increase of 14.25 per cent would reconcile what he understood to be the principal concerns of both the government and the physicians of Ontario.
Regardless of what the government's reaction to Weiler might have been, the recommendation was almost immediately rejected by the council of the Ontario Medical Association. Their negotiators, in turn, suggested a longer-term agreement.
We found this concept attractive but, unfortunately, the OMA request was a complex variation of their original monetary demands which we calculated would, over three years, increase the bill for OHIP from $1.29 billion to $2.43 billion and almost double the income of participating physicians over the next three years.
Over the past three weeks, the negotiators for the government devised a series of options to alter the framework proposed by Professor Weiler with a one, two or three-year agreement. The outline of this is provided in a letter which I am tabling from Robert Butler, our chief negotiator, to Dr. William Vail of the OMA.
Within this, we proposed a three-year agreement with six increases based on the 1981-82 agreement. These are 11 per cent on April 1, 1982; three per cent on January 1, 1983; eight per cent on April 1, 1983; three per cent on January 1, 1984; six per cent on April 1, 1984; and a final three per cent on January 1, 1985. In other words, for the next three years there will be increases in April and January of respectively 11 and three, eight and three and six and three, for a total of 34 per cent.
This would add an additional $656 million to OHIP payments over three years and, using the methods adopted by Professor Weiler, would raise the after-expense income of an average full-time physician from the present $80,300 to $114,100 when it expires on April 1, 1985.
This was the offer which the council of the Ontario Medical Association considered and rejected yesterday. In doing so, the council recommended to its members a series of actions which the president described to me as the first phase of a plan which the council has to force the government to terms acceptable to the OMA.
Because these actions impact on hospitals and patients using the health care system, I would like to share with the House our response to them.
First, doctors have been asked to discontinue free advice or the renewal of prescriptions by telephone in order to force patients to come to their offices so that they can bill OHIP for an office visit.
As a bargaining tactic, this will be effective only to the extent that doctors wish to inconvenience their patients, and I doubt that very many doctors in Ontario will do this to the elderly, the infirm and the single parents who are the most vulnerable to such action.
With regard to the balance of our population, from the standpoint of ethics, this tactic would seem to suggest that physicians will bring patients back for unnecessary visits and bill OHIP for unnecessary consultations. Such deviation from normal practice will be apparent from billing practices and these will automatically be referred for consideration by the medical review committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Citizens who feel they are being exploited in these negotiations should report their experience to us and to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for ensuring the quality of care and ethics of the medical profession and practice in Ontario.
2:40 p.m.
Second, doctors have been asked to prevent pharmacists from substituting generic drugs for brand-named prescriptions for patients covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan -- that is the elderly and those receiving social assistance.
This proposal would encourage physicians to increase their bargaining power and income by forcing the government to use already scarce tax dollars on interchangeable but more expensive drugs.
As well, it would harm some pharmacists in the event that they were unable to obtain the necessary documentation from physicians to justify a claim for the cost of the more expensive drugs from the government. Thus, both taxpayers and pharmacists will be affected by this action in a way which contributes nothing to the improvement of health care in Ontario.
I should add -- and this is not included in the statement but it is a very key point -- that if this kind of activity continues we will have no choice but to take some action to make appropriate amendments to the Parcost scheme in this province.
Third, physicians will be asked to boycott all hospital committees except those dealing with therapeutic abortion.
The quality of medical care in hospitals depends in varying degrees on the various committees and as a result there is a legal requirement for hospitals to use committees if they are to retain their accreditation or teaching capacity. I have asked the Ontario Hospital Association, along with the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals, to advise me on what steps they are taking to protect the integrity and quality of care of their institutions in the event their committee structure is disrupted. I do not believe that hospitals can ensure patient care without the participation of physicians on these committees and I do not expect many doctors can boycott them.
Fourth, physicians will be asked not to sign the cover sheets of medical information when patients are discharged.
In some cases, the practical effect of this would delay the discharge of patients or the processing of medical records. This could keep healthy patients in hospital while ill patients are denied beds and could make it difficult to obtain access to medical records of patients in emergencies. The College of Physicians and Surgeons has advised me that it will respond directly to any community or hospital affected by this action.
In short, we do not expect, but will not allow, any action which threatens health care or allows the most vulnerable group in our society to be unfairly treated as part of a bargaining technique by any group, no matter how influential or aggressive.
Which now brings me to a resolution of the situation we face today in meeting our obligation to patients and physicians using medicare in Ontario. While we would have preferred to proceed with a negotiated settlement, that is now impossible. The government has an ethical obligation to reimburse both patients and physicians for the medical care provided after our agreement expired yesterday.
We must properly and promptly reimburse patients of non-participating physicians who will be billed at the higher rates adopted today by the Ontario Medical Association. Also, in fairness to the vast majority of physicians who accept the OHIP fee as full payment, we cannot in conscience use the schedule of benefits as a tool in public bargaining.
May I say -- and this is not contained in the statement but is a key point -- that it was anticipated by some and considered by some that an appropriate tactic at this point would have been to make a lower amendment to the schedule of benefits in order to in fact set a lower base for future bargaining. I think I must show greater honour to the OHIP schedule of benefits and its intention and not use it as a bargaining tactic, as our statement says.
Therefore, rather than use today's change to either respond to negotiating tactics or to set the stage for further discussions, we have decided the appropriate thing to do here today is to do as we would ordinarily do, and that is treat the physicians and the patients as we think is right and proper in the circumstances. Accordingly, we will implement our most recent offer in full, effective today.
The OHIP schedule of benefits will be adjusted upwards by 11 per cent immediately and the subsequent steps will be programmed in on the dates I mentioned earlier; that is, a further three per cent on January 1, 1983; eight per cent on April 1, 1983; three per cent on January 1, 1984; six per cent on April 1, 1984; and three per cent on January 1, 1985.
We have come to this decision after a great deal of thought. We have looked for precedents elsewhere, and we have considered the traditional techniques used in conventional labour relations. Medicare and our relationship with physicians has no parallel. It is unique and must always be based on integrity and trust. Our final offer, we believe, is fair and reasonable. It will give the physicians of Ontario a just remuneration for their contribution to medicare and it will provide over the three years a climate in which we, together with physicians, hospitals and other health care workers, can deal with the many pressures on all parts of that system.
Clearly, the system cannot tolerate the kind of trauma which annual negotiations such as this most recent one produced, and I believe the Ontario Medical Association was well advised in indicating its preference for a longer term.
I am sure the House and the public will recognize the good faith involved in the government implementing in full the offer which we developed after listening very closely to what the profession said and the conclusions which Professor Weiler reached. We also believe this offer is within the financial capacity of the province and will not be seen to be violating any principles of the government's economic determination.
Finally, I think it would be useful to respond briefly with a variety of other figures which have been bandied about in the past 24 hours. The government's final offer is as I have stated and as I have implemented today. The final proposal we have from the OMA is for a staged series of increases over three years, which could raise the present schedule of benefits by more than 70 per cent by March 31, 1985. Over the three years, this would almost double the average income of full-time physicians from the present $80,300 estimated by Professor Weiler's methodology to $158,300 after deducting the expenses of practice.
In percentage terms the difference between our offer of 34 per cent over three years and their request for 70 per cent is 36 per cent; or in dollars approximately $44,200 more a year between our offer of $114,100 and their request for $158,300 by 1985. That is as we understood the position when the negotiation process expired at midnight last night.
In conclusion, might I say I believe the actions suggested by the OMA are not appropriate in the light of the government's decision to fully implement our final offer.
The public will, I believe, agree that the physicians have been fairly treated. While physicians may have wanted more -- as everyone does -- I feel they have been equitably treated and that "job action" is accordingly inappropriate and unwarranted.
ORAL QUESTIONS
PHYSICIANS' FEES
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Minister of Health I get no pleasure in hearing the statement he has given us today. What I am concerned about is the Ontario Medical Association's threats in a variety of areas. The minister has dealt with them one by one, but his response seems to be, and I quote, he "doubts that many doctors in Ontario will follow the OMA's recommendations."
He is hoping the doctors will break ranks with the OMA so that a number of the threatened responses -- for example, prescribing drugs or giving medical advice over the phone, bringing additional costs into the system -- will not come about. I gather the minister is appealing to their sense of fair play or the fact that there is no discipline in those ranks.
2:50 p.m.
What is the minister going to do if, in fact, there is discipline in those ranks? What is he going to do to protect those people who will be very much threatened by the action the doctors are suggesting today, as well as the further escalation of action that will come about in various stages?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, by way of responding to that, I should read into the record a letter dictated to me over the phone this morning from Dr. Michael Dixon of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
"Dear Mr. Grossman:
"As a follow-up to our meeting with you and Mr. Scott, I would like to formally record the college's view as to its role and function during the present circumstances. The CPSO is confident that its members will act in a responsible and professional manner during the current dispute with the government.
"However, it is recognized that when steps are taken which could disrupt a complex system such as the one which provides medical services, individuals may be seriously inconvenienced or even harmed unintentionally. As the statutory body responsible for the medical profession in Ontario, the college will be carefully assessing the availability and provision of medical services to ensure that patients are not denied necessary care and treatment.
"The college will respond to hospitals and communities which request an independent assessment of the adequacy of the arrangements which have been made for the provision of essential services should normal services be restricted."
Mr. Peterson: In the event that the OMA plan does go ahead, obviously we are setting the college against the OMA and there is going to be a considerable amount of tension within that profession as we set brother against brother. I gather that is the minister's strategy in this particular matter, to encourage dissension in the medical profession.
What I am concerned about is the power of this government. Is the minister prepared to exercise that power to make sure we do not disrupt the medical profession any further and, more important, to guarantee that every person in this province has access to decent medical care? What instructions is the minister giving to hospital administrators under the Public Hospitals Act to make sure there is no deterioration of services in those hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, may I say that the Ontario Hospital Association has issued a press release today which I had hoped the Leader of the Opposition would have had by now. I will read it for him.
"George Ingram, president of the Ontario Hospital Association, said today that the OHA will be monitoring very closely the effects of the Ontario Medical Association's proposed job actions on hospitals and particularly patient care.
"From the outset of this dispute, hospitals have relied on the professional integrity of the OMA and its members and their assurance that physicians will take no action to prejudice or harm the care of their patients.
"'We are concerned, however, that the situation has escalated to the point of sanctions and the threat of more to come,' said Mr. Ingram. 'Clearly they have potential implications for hospitals. However, apart from the obvious administrative frustrations that hospitals will suffer, it is unclear whether the doctors' actions will affect the care of patients. That situation might vary from hospital to hospital and, in order to maintain an objective overall picture, I am today requesting every hospital to notify the OHA promptly of any significant developments that occur.'" That is Mr. Ingram's statement on behalf of the OHA.
On behalf of the government, I might add that we will also be monitoring that situation very carefully. We are aware that if physicians refuse to serve on medical committees then the hospitals will find that the committees, which they must set up under the legislation of this province, will not be able to function. They will be in violation of the regulations and the hospitals' accreditation will be risked.
I am satisfied at the present time that the OHA is aware of that and will take the appropriate steps within their hospitals to encourage their doctors not to do that.
I still believe that because of the implications to the hospitals of doctors withdrawing their services from the medical committees in the hospitals and because of the other implications for the medical profession, when the medical profession sits back and looks at the implications of some of the job actions, now that the implications have been made very clear, these things will not happen.
By and large, the physicians in hospitals will not want to risk their positions within hospitals by refusing to serve on committees. Above and beyond that, I believe physicians in hospitals will not want to risk patient care by refusing to serve on committees which are very important to the proper handling of patients within those hospitals.
Finally, might I say with some respect to the Leader of the Opposition that, as he has watched this develop over the past couple of weeks, if he will reflect for a moment I know he will realize his suggestion of a moment ago that I am trying to divide up the medical profession -- in his words, "set brother against brother" -- has not at all been the hallmark of what this government has been doing for the past several weeks. There are all sorts of positions this government might have taken which could have had that effect, all sorts of alternatives which would have been much more successful in having that effect, and we chose not to follow any of those alternatives.
Quite frankly, one of my concerns in looking at the option of putting in a 10 per cent increase across the board, our original offer, was that in itself might have had the effect of causing more friction within the Ontario Medical Association. I chose not to do that because I do not want that kind of friction within the OMA. I had hoped that all physicians, whether they are members of the OMA, the OMA council or not members of the OMA at all, will see this to be a fair and equitable situation.
If one suggests that calling on the long, time-honoured system of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to supervise a profession and be the ultimate disciplinary body for the profession pits brother against brother, then with respect one is attacking the very essence upon which the Law Society of Upper Canada deals with lawyers and the CPSO deals with the medical profession.
If the member believes the CPSO should no longer be the disciplinary body for the profession and that government should become the disciplinary body for the profession, then he ought to say that. Otherwise, I suggest with all due respect his suggestion that this government is trying to pit brother against brother by simply looking to the CPSO to exercise its statutory responsibility is rather irresponsible.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the difficulty is that the government has imposed compulsory arbitration and a new contract on a group of workers with no means of enforcing it, so that the rotating strikes which have been scheduled can really proceed as though the minister had not intervened at all.
Aside from that -- and we will probably come back to that -- how does the minister intend to prevent violations of the law? How does he intend to prevent the kind of illegal behaviour that has been threatened by the OMA job action committee? Specifically, does he have and does he intend to make available the power to prosecute people who violate provincial statutes and, in so doing, place patients at risk? Does he also intend to prosecute those who counsel people to violate the law as he did with so much vim and vigour during the hospital workers' strike a little over a year ago?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that, the member should look carefully at my statement. I want to find the proper place in my statement because it was not done without the knowledge that concern would be raised. I would refer him to page 8: "In short, we do not expect but will not allow any action which threatens health care or allows the most vulnerable group in our society to be unfairly treated as part of a bargaining technique by any group, no matter how influential or aggressive."
3 p.m.
The words "by any group" mean just that. There is no differentiation in the sense that no group in society ought to be allowed to threaten health care or to treat our patients unfairly. All appropriate steps will be taken.
So that we understand the tenor of what this minister is trying to do, and the House can probably sense it, I prefer, and I think it is important, not to get into a situation where I am exchanging threat for threat with Dr. Reese, for the very reason that I do not believe, as of three o'clock today, any doctor has yet violated his code of ethics or broken the law.
I do not believe there are many doctors, if any, in this province who will violate the law or break their code of ethics. Given that state of affairs, particularly in light of the very fair offer of implementation the government put in today, I do not think it is constructive to the right atmosphere in this province for a minister of the crown, at this stage, to start exchanging threat for threat.
If the member wants to conjure up various alternatives for us and wants to say the government should be doing various things, I can understand that. For those of us who are responsible for the long-term stability of the system, I think it is counterproductive to exchange threat for threat.
I think I made it clear in my statement, which I thought we worded carefully, that we would not tolerate or allow any action that threatens health care. I think that should speak for itself.
Mr. Peterson: Is it not true, when one distils everything the minister said here today in his statement as well as in his responses, that his policy and prayer is that the OMA leadership does not represent the doctors in this province, that he is counting on them breaking ranks, and that is his only solution to the dilemma we are in right now?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The internal order and the internal politics of the OMA, to use the Leader of the Opposition's word, are not my concern. My concern is to treat all doctors in this province fairly.
In terms of the internal politics of the OMA, as I said earlier, I might have taken a different position in terms of whether I was going to indicate my view of how the negotiations went and appeal to other doctors to take a different view. I chose not to engage in any of that, because my view is a subjective one, as is Dr. Reese's.
I think it is important that I not allow my subjective views to intervene in the internal workings of the OMA. It is not my responsibility to deal with the internal workings or politics of the OMA but to recognize its official role as being the negotiating party for the profession in negotiating the schedule of benefits.
I have to look beyond that in this sense: I cannot allow anything that was said over the table, any harsh words spoken over the table or, I might say in all sincerity to the Leader of the Opposition, any of the things that Dr. Reese or others said about this minister or this government over the course of the past three weeks, to interfere with our good and fair judgement with regard to how to treat those doctors.
Consequently, we decided to do what we thought was the fair thing, having listened to their arguments, and look past all the rhetoric or any of the things that have been said over the past couple of weeks by any member of the profession in any way whatsoever. I think that is the proper way for the government to handle the situation.
Mr. Speaker: For the benefit of all members, I realize how important this is, but 15 minutes have been spent on one question. A new question, the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will go to the Minister of Health again. I realize the very difficult position the minister is in, because on the one hand, on page two of the statement, as I just reiterated, he recognizes the OMA as the sole negotiator on behalf of the physicians of Ontario generally with respect to the schedule of benefits and then, on the other hand, he hopes they will divide in terms of following their leadership on this matter. Does that not perhaps speak of a breakdown of the system the minister is currently using?
Given that there will probably be visible distress for a number of people over the next few months, particularly the patients, which is a concern of the members of the Liberal Party, does it not perhaps speak of our need for a new system to negotiate these kinds of disputes? Maybe we should be looking at the suggestion of the father of medicare, the former royal commissioner, that we need compulsory arbitration to solve these kinds of matters.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if the member's proposition is that the fact-finding process and the deal we have worked out with the OMA should be scuppered and not followed any longer, then I would say --
Mr. Peterson: There is no deal.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition should learn the facts before he reacts like that. The deal I am talking about is this: if the member turns to the last couple of pages of the Weiler report, he will find an agreement, an agreement to negotiate. If he is suggesting that we should no longer recognize the OMA as the bargaining agent for the physicians of Ontario, then I wonder what --
Mr. Peterson: You are the one who is trying to destroy the OMA.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hold on. I wonder who is trying to divide the OMA. The member is saying we should not recognize the OMA as the bargaining agent any more.
Second, I have acknowledged in my statement that the OMA played that role, that we met all the obligations under that agreement with them to negotiate, that they suggested a three-year agreement. and because I share the concern of the Leader of the Opposition that the trauma brought upon the system by this kind of negotiation is too much for the system to bear, we have decided to implement a three-year arrangement.
I hope this will stand for three years and will allow us to deal with other arrangements and, as part of that, perhaps work out with the OMA, in spite of our difficulties, a better system for determining these matters.
Mr. Peterson: Surely the minister is not trying to tell us now that he has a negotiated agreement? What we have here is a unilateral offer on the minister's part and a threat to withdraw services in a variety of ways on their part; it is obvious the system is not working very well. It is also obvious that the OMA felt quite betrayed and very unhappy about the way the government negotiated in so many unilateral moves, bringing in fact-finders at times that they felt were inappropriate. That is a reality too.
They are not happy with the negotiating process. The minister is not very happy with it, obviously, because he was brought to this last resolution of the question. Why is the minister not looking at alternative methods of solving these kinds of disputes which affect every single person in Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have never suggested that the negotiation procedure was always going to be successful --
Mr. Laughren: Don't you understand the Liberal position?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are going to get to that. But if members will pause for a moment, they will find once again that there was an agreement to negotiate, which is what I am talking about. That was the sensible thing to do. We agreed upon a certain process. The fact that this process did not end in an agreement for the first time does not necessarily mean that all parts of that process were wrong, nor do I think it means they were all right. In this case, it did not work out and we are going to a three-year arrangement.
Second, may I make it clear that I agree a new procedure or a different one has to be adopted in view of the difficulties this entails. Third, if the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting compulsory or binding arbitration, he should stand up and say that.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a minute. Just to make it quite clear as to why the Leader of the Opposition probably had some difficulty in saying anything over the past three weeks while this assembly was sitting, perhaps by way of pointing out to this House the difficulty in negotiation, the following kinds of things happen. I think this is very important.
I quote: "The Ministry of Health negotiators have offered the doctors a clearly inadequate increase of just 10 per cent for one year, knowing full well this offer is unfair and unacceptable." That was the Liberals' former Health critic, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne).
The new Health critic says, "'I think the government offer is very reasonable,' said Copps, noting that full-time doctors now earn an average of $83,000 per year." The dates on those were exactly seven days apart.
Interjections.
3:10 p.m.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: To clear the record, I do not want to leave the impression with anyone in this House, including the honourable minister, that those statements were made in my position, or my predecessor's position, as the Liberal Health critic.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for myself. Now that I am Minister of Health, I believe in the same things I believed in when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism. The member may have changed her principles, but I understand the members opposite have to change their principles as often as they have to change leaders.
Just to put the full context on the difference between the new Health critic and the old Health critic: two days after the member for London North took his position, the leader of the Liberal Party, who wanted the middle-of-the-road vote in his party, would not say how much they should be paid but suggested it should be more than a 10 per cent increase. That outlines the Liberal Party's various positions and points out how difficult it is to handle negotiations.
Interjections.
Ms. Copps: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has impugned my motives and I would ask --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are brighter than that, for goodness' sake.
Interjections.
Ms. Copps: He stood in this House and said that I was changing my principles because I was the Health critic. That is not true, and I ask that he withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I did not hear him say that.
The member for Bellwoods with a supplementary.
Mr. McClellan: If he didn't say it, he should have.
Mr. Speaker: Now to the question.
Mr. McClellan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether the procedure that has evolved over the course of the dispute -- and the dispute is by no means over, because the strikes will proceed -- is analogous to the proposals put forward by Mr. Justice Hall in the Hall commission, and specifically this one I will quote:
"My conclusion and recommendation is that when negotiations fail and an impasse occurs, the issues in dispute must be sent to binding arbitration, to an arbitration board consisting of three persons, with an independent chairperson to be named by the chief justice of the relevant province, one nominee from the profession and one from the government."
The minister has imposed compulsory arbitration and a binding three-year contract. The problem is that there is no third party to ensure impartiality and there is no means of resolving the dispute and preventing the strike from occurring on schedule. I ask the minister to accept Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation, which we have supported, and bring in a dispute settlement procedure based on his recommendation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that 13 weeks ago some members of the party opposite were gleefully rubbing their hands. There were also prosecutions of people, some of whom went to jail, because they were in what are deemed essential services under legislation.
Is there going to be similar legislation brought into this chamber, or changes in the acts now on the statute books? Is it the minister's intention to charge anybody if the essential services to patients are not carried out? What is the minister going to do if doctors start dropping out of the Ontario health insurance plan schedule in any great numbers and go on the fee-for-service basis themselves?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the statement I made earlier today.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Since the Minister of Health has now guaranteed the doctors an annual income of $114,000 -- in a rather dictatorial fashion, but none the less far beyond what Mr. Justice Hall recommended -- will he go one step further now and outlaw extra billing?
If the minister is willing to unilaterally impose a fee assessment, as he has done, why does he not go the one extra step and eliminate extra billing once and for all and have one-price medicine in this province?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because I believe that as of 3:15 p.m. today -- and I do not want to give the date -- we have a system that has worked in the past and that I continue to believe will work in the future.
Obviously, I cannot put a dollar value on the value of having the opt-out safety valve. I cannot tell him what figures we would be talking about if all the doctors were opted-in. All I can say is that to go the compulsory opting-in route right now would not be productive to the system. It would be bound to cost the system more in the longer term and, in fact, we would end up with a total health care community that was less productive and less happy than it is today.
We have a difficult situation today but, in the emotions of the difficulties that we face at this time and at this hour, I do not think we ought to be carried away and move from a principle and a philosophy that I believe have worked very well in this province for very many years.
Mr. Martel: One out of seven doctors are extra billing. I remind the minister that I am a teacher by profession and, once an agreement is signed with my board, I am not allowed to bill an extra $3 daily per student if I do not like the agreement. Tell me why it is that doctors are allowed this privilege. Why is one doctor out of seven allowed this extra privilege when I know of no one else in society who is allowed to do it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I guess we should refer this question to Mr. Blakeney during the election campaign out west because, as members know, he too allows extra billing. I presume that even people who come from the social democratic part of the political extreme see that there is some value in having the opting-out route.
In point of fact, I do not mind saying to my friend that I find the way the Saskatchewan scheme works, where a physician says, "You, patient, are going to be on the opted-out scheme and you are going to be one of my opted-in patients," to be far less fair than the scheme practised in Ontario. It is far less equitable than we have in Ontario.
I refer the member to some of his colleagues and friends in other provinces for a full and complete answer to that question.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, let us be quite specific. If the doctors follow the OMA's direction, they will be in violation of the Public Hospitals Act. Their hospital privileges are given on condition that they participate on medical committees and fill out medical documents. What specific instructions is the minister giving the public hospitals of this province regarding their power to suspend admitting privileges of doctors who act illegally?
Mr. Speaker: I think that was not a supplementary to the main question. It was a separate question. Do you have a supplementary to the main question?
Mr. Conway: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much your care in the application of the rules, and I will be guided by what you have said in relation to my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), but I would hope that when honourable ministers of the crown opposite stray, as they do so happily and so often -- and I cite the Minister of Health's second-to-last answer when he clearly violated every rule of the book as I know it -- you too would apply the whip with some vigour.
3:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I would be happy to, but I am sure if you peruse the standing orders you will see a minister may choose to answer a question as he or she sees fit.
The member for Hamilton Centre.
Ms. Copps: I am going to be asking a new question.
Mr. Speaker: Then the member for Bellwoods with a final supplementary.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that I understand what is happening here. The minister is imposing arbitration and giving what can only be described as a very generous offer to Ontario's doctors. In return for that, the rotating strikes and job actions will continue as scheduled and extra billing will continue as usual. Is that a correct understanding of the situation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What options does the government have, Mr. Speaker? The member wants to use the words "we imposed compulsory arbitration" or whatever.
Mr. McClellan: That's what you are doing.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The government has several options. It could do nothing today and allow a situation where the physicians, in my view, would be underpaid because they would he working into this year on the basis of an old fee schedule and the patients of opted-out physicians in particular would be unfairly treated. We could allow all that to happen or we could take some action, as is our duty, in my view, so that people are remunerated on an updated schedule of benefits on April 1, 1982.
We exercised our duty t adjust the schedule of benefits. Simply, that is what we did. Whether the rotating strikes and everything else will continue is a question I cannot answer. Each and every physician in this province has to answer that question for himself or herself.
Because we have treated them fairly and have taken a step today that does not indicate we are using today's step as a bargaining tool, a tactic, a hammer or anything like that, but just intend to treat them fairly, it is my belief and fervent hope that this reasonable and fair treatment by the government will cause a great deal of that action and threat to disappear. I hope I am not disappointed. It will greatly change my view of the scene.
Mr. Martel: It is interesting the Minister of Health talked about extremes. That is an extreme. It is called dictatorial or dictatorship.
AID TO AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. In the throne speech, the Treasurer offered little hope to the people in the auto industries, save for the announcement with respect to a possible joint advertising program between the feds and the province. I am sure the minister agrees with me that is not a solution to the problem. Is the minister prepared to tell us what initiatives he is prepared to undertake to put some of those workers back to work in this province?
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member gives me credit for writing a throne speech when I would hope it was His Honour who produced those fine words.
I will have an opportunity to bring forward a budget before long, and I am sure that once he has seen my budget he will be the first to stand up and support it.
Mr. Martel: If His Honour wrote the throne speech, I am sure he would not have made the reference to laissez-faire Liberalism that was included.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Who do you think put that in?
Mr. Martel: I can assure the Premier it would not have been His Honour.
There are at present some 25,000 workers unemployed either permanently or for an indefinite period of time. The cost to Ontario is probably some $500 million this year.
Is the minister prepared to urge the federal government to pass content legislation that will require companies selling here to provide certain parts creation here?
Will he immediately establish a community adjustment fund to assist municipalities such as Windsor, Chatham and Oshawa?
Finally, will he establish a crown corporation or introduce an automotive investment program that will lead to the development of parts creation here in Ontario?
Hon. F. S. Miller: I assume the honourable member is asking these questions so that at the weekend meeting in Windsor he may have some fodder from our party to use in his propaganda machine. If it will help him, I will be glad to answer the questions.
Mr. Martel: I hope so.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Am I in favour of Canadian content for Japanese vehicles? Yes. Are we willing to urge that there should be a Canadian content requirement? Yes. I, along with the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), have suggested that to Mr. Lumley.
Mr. Lumley has been to Japan. He has, I think, come home somewhat disillusioned. He was told to wait until there was an agreement with the United States. That agreement has been reached. I would hope that would pave the way for an agreement with Canada. I do not know if it will be restricted to a percentage of the market or total vehicles but most certainly the ultimate objective should be Canadian content in one form or another.
Mr. Martel: What about a crown corporation?
Hon. F. S. Miller: The question of a crown corporation is one that comes up with regularity --
Mr. Speaker: That was the second supplementary, with all respect.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, when the Treasurer is considering this array of new programs, will he come up with one that will emphasize not only the Canadian content but also the Canadian ownership of our manufacturing enterprises so that his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade will leave off his consideration to allow the sale of White Farm Equipment in Brantford to American interests? In the long run, that would see the loss of that industry and 1,000 jobs as well as our rights to the manufacture of the axial-flow combine, which was developed by Canadians in Canada, in fact in Brantford.
Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the note the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is getting may refer to a statement my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade may wish to make on that matter.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, last year the minister's document, the Treasury study on the automobile industry, was leaked. We looked at it and it predicted what he called the worst-case scenario.
Now that most of the projections in that report are coming true, and that document indicated it was time for the provincial government to make certain policy decisions to create the jobs here in the automobile industry, what policy decisions has the Treasurer made and what programs is he prepared to put in place at the provincial level to enable the automobile industry to be restructured to keep jobs here?
Hon. F. S. Miller: My colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade is perhaps more directly involved in some of these matters than I am.
The question of our share of the total passenger and truck market has to remain a key ingredient in any policy to create jobs here. Unless my recollection of the figures is inaccurate, the value of Japanese imports last year was in the range of $1.5 billion and the export to Japan of Canadian parts for automobiles was in the range of $8 million. So one can see there is something of an imbalance in that area.
Obviously, the replacement of $1.5 billion worth of imported steel, labour and components would create many jobs in our country; so I am sure the comments made by my Premier, the Minister of Industry and Trade and others to urge our federal government to see that we do have protective legislation have to be extremely important.
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond further to questions raised by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) on Monday regarding health and safety conditions at Wilco Canada Inc. in London.
On February 24, 1982, a thorough investigation of this plant was performed by ministry officials and comprehensive orders were issued to correct the health hazards that were found.
As I mentioned in the Legislature on Monday, representatives of the company and of the Ministry of Labour and others were meeting on the same day. The outcome of that meeting was an undertaking by the company to fulfil its obligations under the lead regulation by April 16, and in the interim the company will be required to provide protective equipment and to institute work practices to ensure that no worker is exposed to health hazards.
3:30 p.m.
I can tell the member that on the basis of present information there appears to me to be a clear need for continuing surveillance of this plant and I have so advised my officials. The ministry is prepared to assist the company to satisfy its undertakings to achieve compliance with the act. At the same time, however, I want to emphasize that the company's operations will be subject to continuing inspection to ensure that the orders issued to date are being observed.
If satisfactory results are not achieved, the director of industrial health and safety has other measures that will be taken if circumstances warrant it, including partial or total closure of the operation and, depending upon legal advice, prosecution if warranted. This is a complex matter and our investigation is continuing.
Mr. Martel: Something bothers me, Mr. Speaker. The lead regulations came in last August and in their totality in November. There must be 25 to 30 contraventions of the act. The Workmen's Compensation Board should have notified the Ministry of Labour sooner. Today's London Free Press indicates that a medical report was sent to the ministry in 1980 warning of the dangers. How long is the minister going to allow companies to ignore the Occupational Health and Safety Act in this province without prosecuting?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe I have answered that question in my statement.
Mr. Martel: In other words, you're not going to.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is not correct.
I have the answers to two other questions, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I think we will proceed with the question period. We have taken quite a bit of time already.
Mr. Sargent: Get the Premier back in here, will you, please?
URANIUM CONTRACTS
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I am glad to see him back so tanned and fit. I have been trying to get a shot at the Premier for a long time on this.
In view of the Premier's ongoing fiscal debauchery and the fact that he personally hurried through this House legislation costing Ontario about $7 billion, for four companies that have already been indicted in federal courts on criminal counts for corrupt practices, for conspiring to fix uranium prices, and that at that time the Premier pushed this through the House on a time deadline at a cost that is 20 times the basic price for uranium, will the Premier tell the House why he personally is not in contempt of this House and the rights of the people of Ontario?
Why will he not take immediate steps to renegotiate these contracts? Further, until this process starts, why will the Premier not immediately block the $650 million up-front loan with no interest for 40 years to Mr. Roman, who is now buying uranium mines with our loan? Why can the Premier not put this in motion immediately to renegotiate these contracts?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the member asked me this identical question, with a little different preface in terms of the rhetoric he used --
Mr. Sargent: I never asked it once.
Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I think he did on at least three occasions in the last session and the answer is still the same. I can go through the litany, but my recollection is that this contract was not legislated. It was debated here in the House by a committee and executed by Ontario Hydro. If the member wants to get further information, he should read what I said in Hansard some weeks ago when he asked me a similar question.
Mr. Sargent: I have never spoken to the Premier this session at all, or asked questions in the House.
The Premier is the only one who can trigger this. It is $10 billion now, because interest on this loan alone is going to cost us $2 billion. Some people are going to go to the slammer for this --
Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the supplementary.
Mr. Sargent: We do not want to see the Premier there. Why can the Premier not stop all the BS? I can enlarge upon that too. He knows it is. Westinghouse in the US was in the same box at $40 a pound, which would have made it bankrupt. They renegotiated through their Supreme Court and they totally cancelled it by a $7-billion or $10-billion decision. There is not a court in the land that would refuse to cancel this contract. I put it to the Premier that we respect him and I think he owes it to the people of Ontario. Because of the terrible things that are happening in my riding, we want some answers.
Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not just sure what the references were to the problems in his riding. I have always been sympathetic to the constituents the honourable member represents, many of whom I have known a lot longer than he has. They have always had access and I always endeavour to help them. I do not know how that relates to the initial question or the early part of his supplementary question.
The member did make some reference to extraneous materials. I would only say, having listened to him over the years in this House, he might be the first to make a contribution to lessen that.
Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.
Mr. J. A. Reed: That was the first supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, indeed. We have been through this several times. The question period consists of a new question, a supplementary, the opposition gets a supplementary and then another new question. The opposition did not have a supplementary so I am recognizing the member for Oshawa with a new question.
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. He has had a chance to look at the impact of the layoffs at General Motors in Oshawa and so have I. Could he now give us some concept of what he will do for people like Joe McCullough, who worked for 25 years at Firestone, lost his job when that plant went under, came into this establishment, went through the committee system, looked at a layoff committee, looked at several options and had virtually all of those things shut down? Can the Premier now provide some hope for people like Joe McCullough about their house, their job and their future?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the honourable member has put on the Order Paper -- or is involved in seconding, I am not sure which -- the possibility of a debate as it relates to the automotive industry. I think that is the kind of question or issue that would be properly raised. I would only say to the honourable member --
Mr. Martel: Pretty weak.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Downsview would exercise just a little patience I would be delighted to expand upon it, but I did not want to encroach on the question period.
I would say to the member for Oshawa that I, too, have parts of the auto sector in my own constituency. In fact, I was there on the line this morning. I drove one of the great products of American Motors-Renault off the line. I had in company with me the minister of industry or trade from France, the government of which has some modest interest in Renault, discussing the potential and future of that company and with some degree of optimism in spite of some of the negative comments made by some members with respect to that company.
I would say to the honourable member I think it has been clear in terms of the auto sector that this government has taken a number of initiatives over the past two or three years, some of which his party had rejected and opposed. I think it is fair to state that the auto sector -- we all know this -- does rely to a great extent on the American marketplace.
I am sure we will hear his solution to the auto sector problem this afternoon. That is the nationalization of the industry, moving out the multinationals, which incidentally would not be supported by the bulk of the membership of the United Auto Workers. I think it is abundantly clear to them that the main problem we face at the moment is the problem in the US market. Eighty per cent of the product, 80 per cent of what is happening at General Motors, goes to the United States. The member knows that and I know that.
3:40 p.m.
At the same time, I remain relatively optimistic about the future of the auto sector. I think one of the problems we have been dealing with is the penetration of our market by the importation of Japanese cars. Once again, I repeat that I have no criticism of the quality of the product. I have no criticism at all, but I was interested to find in my discussions this morning that France has a very simple policy. Only three per cent of the market is allowed in from Japan. I say to myself: "Sure, we are being attacked now by the United States with respect to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and so on. They have been able to negotiate a tougher position with the Japanese on imports."
I say the responsibility is there with Mr. Lumley and the government of Canada to take a tougher or firmer attitude with respect to the importation of vehicles into this country. That is a partial solution to the problem.
Mr. Breaugh: I will relay the Premier's answer to Joe McCullough. I do not think it is going to help him a hell of a lot. Perhaps the Premier might now tell us, in a small second attempt to find out, what he is going to do for those people, of whom better than half of those taking this layoff have worked less than 12 weeks in the last year. For many of them those 12 weeks have been all they have had for three or four years. Aside from the malarkey he has just spewed, what do we tell those individuals, those human beings and their families and kids, the government of Ontario is going to do to help them?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The member may refer to some of what I have said as malarkey, but a lot of what I said is quite consistent with the position of the United Auto Workers as they presented it to Mr. Gray, and to me, in terms of what they think a partial solution to the problem may be. The member can go home to Oshawa if he wants to and tell the UAW that what we are saying about content and importation is malarkey and he can live with that.
Mr. Peterson: I am interested, Mr. Speaker, in seeing the Premier's position evolve on this whole question of the automotive industry. A couple of years ago he was out to ban the Lada. That was all we ever heard out of him then. Two or three months ago he started to take a tough line with the federal government with respect to importation. Then, because it was an obvious, easy out for him to find someone to blame, he could come here everyday and castigate the feds.
Mr. Speaker: And now to the supplementary.
Mr. Peterson: My question of the Premier is this: He knows, I know, all of his internal documents show that even if the automotive industry comes back to a reasonable degree of health it will not employ the people it did previously. We have to take corrective action here in Ontario in other kinds of industries. I want to know what he is going to do about those people who will never go back to the automotive industry?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to provoke the Leader of the Opposition by reminding him of his party's opposition to those things we have done over the years to stimulate the auto sector. But I recall what his former leader said, when the member was sitting there as finance critic, about the movement of the 1981 inventory last fall. The member was sitting there opposed to it. The UAW was in favour of it. It worked. It helped the dealerships in this province.
I can recall very vividly the member's opposition to many of the initiatives we took with respect to the auto sector. I can recall his opposition to Ford, to Chrysler, to many things we have done to give some stability to the auto sector of this province. I know it came home to haunt his party in the last election, and if he keeps it up it will come home to haunt him if he manages to survive until the next election.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, in as friendly a fashion as I can, he should look at what we are doing in terms of technology, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, of which he was critical, and the positive potential impacts of this in terms of employment opportunities in Ontario. He can hold up his fingers in a big zero. That will be his batting record when he finishes his three years in office around this building. As a final word of advice, I would say if that is his starting line in the front bench, I have visions of him making some substitutions before too many weeks go by.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of the House, I would like to ask if we could revert to statements. My colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade has a statement on White Farm Equipment in Brantford. I think the House would be quite interested in hearing it if we could have that permission.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that we revert to statements?
Agreed to.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House a proposed resolution to the problems of White Farm Equipment in Brantford. As the members know, my ministry signed an agreement in April last year to provide a $2 million loan and a $3 million guarantee to White Farm Equipment to reopen that plant.
This new Canadian company is now 50 per cent owned by Linamar Machine of Guelph and 50 per cent by TIC Investment Corp. of Dallas. TIC is the sole owner of White Farm Equipment in the United States. In the agreement reached a year ago, White Canada undertook to Ontario to maintain 1,200 jobs after 1983, to buy Canadian, to provide a training program for employees and to make future expansions in Ontario. It made similar agreements with Ottawa.
Since its start one year ago. White has faced a major and continuing problem -- how to finance its dealer inventory, given present high interest rates. The present situation is a direct result of its failure to solve that problem.
The province and the federal government have been negotiating continuously over the past five months with the present owners and the various institutions that have financed White Canada in an attempt to resolve this problem.
The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), and I stress this, has played a valuable part in these discussions. I am very pleased with the role he has taken in them. I am now pleased to report that an agreement was signed last night. First, TIC Investments has agreed to purchase the shares of Linamar Machine and to guarantee the financing of the dealer inventory.
In addition, TIC Investments has reaffirmed that White Canada will continue to honour the spirit and the letter of its commitments to Ontario and to Canada regarding employment, Canadian purchasing, training and future expansion in Ontario.
The proposed agreement basically is identical to that already agreed to by Ontario and Canada last year, with only minor amendments. Ontario supports this initiative that will restore the 750 White Farm jobs in Brantford as soon as the federal government accepts the changes. I have indicated the province's support to my federal colleague, the Honourable Herb Gray, and I urge him also to support those minor changes necessary to get White Farm Equipment in Brantford operating as soon as possible.
ORAL QUESTIONS (CONCLUDED)
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who just made the statement. Since he considers the transfer of the 50 per cent Canadian ownership to American ownership as a minor change, can he indicate why TIC Investment Corp. did not accept the offer of a loan from the government of Canada to assist it in its dealer financing, which he refers to on the second page of his statement, rather than forcing the company to lay off almost 1,000 of its employees last Friday to put unnatural pressure on the governments of Ontario and Canada, as well as on the Canadian shareholder, to force, in my view, the sellout of the Canadian ownership in this important company?
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it was a complicated negotiating procedure and it was not solely a question of a loan that would have been extended to the American company. The question was whether the same kind of provision would be extended to the Canadian company and, indeed, whether the Canadian company was prepared to be involved in it. That simply was not going to fly in the whole process. It was not going to work. The member has to understand the complications of the negotiations. Then I think he would fully appreciate the nature of the problems they were beset with.
Mr. Nixon: Since the minister must be aware the American shareholder used his right to veto the acceptance of the $20 million offered by the government of Canada, does he not feel he is being somewhat naive when he sees that he is prepared to support the loss of the Canadian ownership of this company, which developed the axial-flow combine, undoubtedly the best combine in the world?
In spite of the assurances he refers to, there is the chance White Farm Equipment may be closed down within a few months. The rights to that combine may be taken away to the United States and the patents which were developed with Canadian expertise and financing will be lost to us forever.
3:50 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Why are the members opposite banging the table for that? Are they all opposed to supporting jobs? That is exactly what it is all about.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that this government has buckled under to a power play by TIC Investment of Dallas to ensure the foreign ownership of this company and it is now asking the federal government to agree to it too? Does the minister not think he should be doing something to protect Canadian ownership in this industry in this country?
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, what does the member mean, saying something like that? This government has saved 750 jobs, as the member for Brantford can tell the members.
Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be somewhat happier about the outcome of this than a number of members, but I would like to ask the minister --
Mr. Roy: You are all Tories, that is obvious.
Mr. Gillies: Albert, your plane is leaving soon. In view of the $15 million investment in this company by both the governments of Canada and of Ontario, could the minister tell the House what steps could be taken now to ensure this company will not eventually be repatriated to the United States by the new American owner?
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has asked that very question, because there was an imputation raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that would have suggested that kind of repatriation happening. I just do not see how that is going to happen.
When we consider they would have to pay back millions and millions of dollars immediately and there is no capacity in the states to do that now, and when we consider they would have to build an entirely new enterprise, it just practically would not happen. The member knows that and he should not be saying that. He should watch what he is saying.
SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORK PLACE
Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware that Fleet Industries of Fort Erie is one of the 10 companies receiving his ministry's 1981 industrial achievement award for outstanding performance in the fields of employment, production and marketing over a three-year period? And is he aware that in the same three years the Ontario Human Rights Commission found Fleet Industries guilty of grossly discriminating against women in its hiring and promotion practices?
Is he aware this honoured corporate citizen has steadfastly refused to provide any compensation or redress to the women who were discriminated against and has also refused to have affirmative action hiring and promotion programs?
Will the minister revise the rules for judging industrial achievement in this province so that any company that discriminates against women or violates any other part of the Human Rights Code, is automatically declared ineligible for this award?
Hon. Mr. Walker: Of course, those awards were made before I arrived in the ministry, but the net effect is the same. We measured the achievement of the firm in terms of its sales progress, in terms of its accomplishments and in terms of its employment.
Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.
Mr. Wrye: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday last the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) promised an answer today to questions that were raised on Monday regarding Dominion Auto Accessories Ltd. in Windsor, and we did not receive that answer. I wonder if we could get that answer.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that was my fault. He did have the answer, but because of the length of time question period was taking and because of the interest in other matters, I cut him off. I presume he has those answers and will perhaps table them for the benefit of all members.
Mr. Wrye: Perhaps we could revert to statements and have the matter dealt with by means of a statement at least.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is a question of reverting to statements; it is a matter of reverting to oral questions.
Mr. Stokes: No, he can handle it as a ministerial statement if the House agrees.
Mr. Speaker: Do you want to handle it as a statement? Is it the pleasure of the House that we revert to statements?
Agreed to.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
SEVERANCE PAY
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a question concerning the Dominion Auto Accessories Ltd. plant in Windsor. The member noted correctly that the workers in that plant had not received severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, and went on to suggest that this indicated an inadequacy or loophole in the legislation.
The facts, as I understand them, are these: Two years ago, well before the enactment of the severance pay provisions of the act, the company employed approximately 150 persons. In the intervening period, the work force has fallen at irregular intervals in apparent response to progressively weakening markets. However, from last July to the date of closure on March 19, I am advised there were only 46 persons employed. I have no evidence in my possession to indicate that the reduction in the work force was deliberately phased for the purpose of avoiding statutory obligations.
The severance pay provisions of the act, which became fully effective on July 3, 1981, apply to full or partial plant closures where 50 or more employees are terminated in a six-month period. The purpose of introducing a six-month period was precisely to prevent the abuse to which my friend's question alludes; namely, the abrupt phase-out of business over a short period so that the number of employees at final phase-out is below the number needed to qualify for severance pay.
Without the stipulation of a six-month period in the statute, the potential abuses are obvious. One may argue that the six-month period should be longer or that severance pay should be paid regardless of the size of the work force. However, these and similar arguments were made when the legislation was before the House last year, but they did not prevail.
If I were persuaded that the act as it now stands did not carry out the intention of the House, or that the procedures as presently drafted were capable of improper circumvention or, indeed, that it appeared the present provisions would result in unanticipated inequities, then I would be prepared to consider amendments. However, as I have said, I am not satisfied in this particular case that there was a deliberate attempt to avoid the statutory obligation.
If my friend, or the member for Windsor-Sandwich, has evidence to the contrary, I would be pleased to discuss the matter further with them.
Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate, I know we ran out of time, but the one aspect the minister did not respond to is the fact that nonunion employees are getting $3,000 worth of severance pay, whereas the union employees have been cut out.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of order.
4 p.m.
REPORT
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS
Mr. J. A. Taylor from the select committee on pensions presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with standing order 30(h), I have a short statement.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario was constituted in April 1977. The commission met periodically during the next three years and in 1980 it produced its 10-volume report.
The select committee on pensions was established in 1981 to review the royal commission's report, but the select committee's task was not simply to endorse the royal commission's 163 proposals for pension reform. From the beginning, the select committee believed that it had a responsibility to offer constructive criticism of the royal commission's report and to make practical and affordable pension reform suggestions of its own where appropriate.
The royal commission's recommendations were organized into five chapters, and the select committee followed the same sequence of topics and proposals. The first group of recommendations in the royal commission's report dealt with a government retirement income program. The second group dealt with Ontario's relationship with the Canada pension plan. Parts three and four considered employment pension plans in the private and public sectors of Ontario's economy. The fifth and last group of recommendations dealt with special retirement concerns.
Government retirement income programs: The government in Canada provides retirement income benefits through federal programs such as old age security (OAS) and the guaranteed income supplement GIS) and through provincial programs such as Ontario guaranteed annual income system (Gains). The royal commission and the select committee recognized that these programs require immediate attention to improve benefits, particularly for single pensioners.
The select committee endorsed the principle of the royal commission's proposal for a standard of retirement income adequacy, and the select committee recommended that it be linked to the average industrial wage (AIW). For single retirees, the select committee recommended that they receive not less than 60 per cent of the benefit that couples receive.
The select committee and the royal commission diverged in their recommendations on government retirement income programs in one major area. The royal commission made a series of recommendations to eliminate some and limit other universal programs. The royal commission proposed allocating money and services on a strict need basis.
The select committee agreed that those who are most in need should receive highest priority for money and services, but the select committee also saw value in continuing the current universal programs. So the select committee's recommendations with respect to government retirement income programs reflect an approach that tries to balance the urgent needs of some retirees with the universal requirements of all pensioners.
Ontario and the Canada pension plan: The Canada pension plan (CPP) came into being on January 1, 1966, with the aim of providing paid workers with a basic employment pension of up to 25 per cent of the AIW. Since then, CPP has become more than just an employment pension plan. It provides disability pensions and survivor benefits. Some groups in Canada have also come to regard CPP as an appropriate vehicle to provide retirement incomes for persons who are not part of the paid labour force.
Issues concerning CPP include the level of benefits the plan provides, the persons for whom it provides pensions, the plan's cost to participants and taxpayers because it is not fully funded, and its investment strategy. At the moment there are those who argue for an expanded CPP which would include paid and unpaid workers. The royal commission's proposals reflect those of another concerned group which wants to limit further expansion of CPP to control its costs. On these CPP issues the select committee endorsed the royal commission's recommendations.
The select committee carefully examined CPP and proposals to expand it and the committee was persuaded that the cost of CPP, as it is currently structured, will be difficult to bear in the near future. An expansion would create costs that would be unacceptably high. As it is, premiums will have to rise, as was planned from the beginning of CPP. But if the royal commission's funding and investment proposals --
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox is talking about a matter of great importance. As I understand it, when a select committee report is put before the House, normally the intention is that the chairman may make a brief statement about its contents and then move the adjournment of the debate on the report so that all members, at a time that is convenient to those particularly interested in the matter, may proceed with an orderly debate.
I would certainly regret if the member's important information were to be lost because certain members who will want to participate on the pension debate are not here. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that normally a motion for an adjournment on a matter like this is in order so that all members of the House can participate at a more suitable time.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member for Prince Edward-Lennox has just about finished his explanation and will proceed with the motion for adjournment.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: If I may reply to my friend, I am sure he is well intentioned, but I thought this précis or thumbnail sketch might be of assistance to all members of the Legislature. The report is a fairly lengthy one and covers a very complicated subject, and I thought it might be of assistance to have this statement with the report.
Mr. Speaker: I point out to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox that these matters can and probably will come up during debate, and I ask him to be as brief as possible in finishing off his remarks.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: I have said that the royal commission's proposal reflects some of those concerned groups that want to limit further expansion of CPP to control its costs. On these CPP issues the select committee endorsed the royal commission's recommendations.
The select committee carefully examined CPP and proposals to expand it and the committee was persuaded that the costs of CPP, as it is currently structured, will be difficult to bear in the near future. An expansion would create costs that would be unacceptably high. As it is, premiums will have to rise, as was planned from the beginning of CPP. But if the royal commission's funding and investment proposals, which the select committee endorsed, are acted upon, the premium deduction should not rise above a peak level of nine per cent in the year 2030.
In the area of benefits, the select committee endorsed the royal commission's proposal to institute immediately the child-rearing dropout provision and to make survivor benefits not less than 60 per cent. The committee also endorsed proposals to limit CPP to paid workers and not to alter the goal of providing a pension benefit greater than 25 per cent of the AIW.
Employment pension plans: The royal commission identified a number of issues concerning employment pension plans. The chief was that upwards of 1.5 million Ontario workers are not members of registered employment pension plans or holders of registered retirement savings plans. As a result of the belief that private pension --
Mr. Speaker: I am sure, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) pointed out, this is very interesting and very important. However, with all respect, I think the member for Prince Edward-Lennox is bringing out material that more properly would be dealt with in debate. I ask the honourable member for his indulgence and to please move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is okay. I am happy to oblige the Speaker.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a dissenting report, and I think that should be covered in any statement that is presented to the House to make it complete.
Mr. Speaker: I point out to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) that there is no provision for, and there is indeed no such thing as, a dissenting report. Now, having said that, I know the member for Prince Edward-Lennox will want to wind up his remarks.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will not ask your further indulgence. I was trying to be accommodating and helpful to all members of the House, and I will be happy to distribute my statement.
On motion by Mr. J. A. Taylor, the debate was adjourned.
4:10 p.m.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Baetz moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Walker, first reading of Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.
Motion agreed to.
CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT
Mr. Gillies moved, seconded by Mr. Brandt, first reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.
Motion agreed to.
JOHN F. MCCLENNAN (BLOOR) LIMITED ACT
Mr. Kennedy moved, seconded by Mr. Lane, first reading of Bill Pr15, An Act to revive John F. McClennan (Bloor) Limited.
Motion agreed to.
CITY OF BARRIE ACT
Mr. McLean moved, seconded by Mr. J. A. Taylor, first reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Barrie.
Motion agreed to.
373800 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT
Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. J. M. Johnson, first reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting 373800 Ontario Limited.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION TO SUSPEND ORDINARY BUSINESS
Mr. Breaugh moved, seconded by Mr. Cooke, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the acute and critical situation in Oshawa resulting from General Motors' indefinite layoff of 1,750 workers, the equally critical situation in Windsor with the announced shutdown of the Ford engine plant, other layoffs in the automotive sector around the province and the failure of this government to introduce programs that would begin to address this very compelling problem.
Mr. Speaker: I want to advise all honourable members that this notice of motion was received in time and does indeed comply with standing order 34(a). I will be pleased to listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as to why he thinks the ordinary business of the House may be set aside.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to put this business before the House this afternoon. It seems that no matter where one goes in Ontario, but particularly those communities that have some connection to the automotive industry, and roughly one in every six jobs is related directly or indirectly to that industrial sector, the picture is the same. On various occasions we have debated legislation and we have talked about plant shutdowns, but at some point in time it is important that this Legislature calls a halt to the process.
In the throne speech we looked for some commitment on the part of the government to end the decline in the automotive industry, and it was not there. We have repeatedly raised the issue, both in human terms and in economic terms, in the Legislature. There has seemingly been no result of all this. If one goes to most automotive towns and talks to people who work in the locals and who work in the plants, in many of them close to half of the membership of once very active locals is no longer employed.
In my own community, particularly hard hit in the past four or five years were plant shutdowns and layoffs all related to the automotive industry. We have brought those in one by one. The end result is the kind of thing that happened.
I tried to get the Premier (Mr. Davis) to respond to the situation that one individual is in, a guy by the name of Joe McCullough. Joe is perhaps a good example of many people out of many plants like Firestone Canada Inc., Houdaille Industries of Canada Ltd., Malleable Iron Co., Pedlar Industrial Inc., Fittings Inc. and Sklar Furniture Ltd., which is a furniture company adjacent to us. They are all just ordinary workers, human beings who have done what the world expects a worker to do: to work, do a good job and do it for a lengthy period of time, 25 and 30 years for some of them. They anticipated they would have what most of us consider to be normal amenities of life, a chance to live a reasonable and decent existence, a roof over their heads and their children being able to receive a better education than they did.
It seems to me that this whole emergence of a decline in the automotive sector has brought about for each of those individuals a crisis in their lives, an emergency. And it is not a statistical emergency. It is not something that should be left to the experts. It is not something that should be studied and redefined. It is something that cries out for this Legislature to do something about it. That is my frustration. The Legislature here seems to be aware of what the problem is and yet seems unable to come to grips with it.
In my own community we have not had a good week in Oshawa, that is for sure. I cannot remember a week when more disasters hit one community, but it is there. Seventeen hundred and fifty people have lost their jobs on indefinite layoff. Of that 1,750, the majority are people who came out of other plants, who have managed to get about 12 weeks of work in the past year, who are not going to draw from the supplementary unemployment benefits fund to which the United Auto Workers and the company contributes, who are not going to get Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits for very long and who are not exactly people who can pack up and move somewhere else; they are stuck.
The impact on my community is going to be dramatic. We are one of the few in the country that, because it has that dramatic impact, puts the situation of the automotive industry in our community on the front page of the city's budget book. We know now, with this kind of a layoff, that our people are not going to be able to pay their property taxes this year. Many of them are going to have trouble with foreclosures. Many of them are going to need some kind of assistance. We are looking for this government, for this Legislature, at least to address those problems.
4:20 p.m.
That is what I hope to get out of this debate this afternoon. I want the members of this Legislature to attempt to deal with a problem that is serious in its nature, a crisis in a sense. I know you will have some sympathy for the recent layoff notice in Oshawa, Mr. Speaker, because when I go to the gates at General Motors and talk to the brothers and sisters as they go into work, I see buses coming in from Peterborough, Belleville, Trenton and all over eastern Ontario. This dramatic layoff will have a critical effect in my community, and it will spread throughout the whole region of Durham and the rest of eastern Ontario.
If you add that to what has been happening in automotive communities across Ontario and, in fact, across the country, you have what amounts to an economic crisis, that is true, but it is also a personal and social crisis for people who have done no more than society expected them to do: spent their lives in industrial places making things the way other people told them to make them. It is neither fair nor reasonable, in my view, for them to have their lives ruined, to have their living taken away from them without this Legislature at least looking at that problem this afternoon.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I support the resolution. We hope that all members of the House will agree that the dislocation of so many thousands of working people is a matter of urgent public importance which, up until this point, has not been dealt with effectively or in any concentrated way by the members of this House either in debate or in response to government policy.
I draw the attention of the House to Hansard of Monday this week, March 29, in which my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), asked a question of the Premier as follows:
"I am sure the Premier is aware of the layoffs announced last week; just to refresh his memory, there were 1,750 people laid off at General Motors, 1,150 at Great Lakes Forest Products, 925 at White Farm Equipment, 140 further layoffs at de Havilland, 150 further layoffs at Algoma Steel, 140 layoffs at Umex Mines and 120 layoffs at Armco Canada Ltd."
The concern in this matter is one that is felt by members on both sides of the House. I am sure the member for Oshawa, in his resolution, does not intend to restrict the discussion to only those dislocations that have occurred in Oshawa and Windsor. While those are extremely important and are ones that have not been dealt with effectively by the government here at Queen's Park, I hope it will be possible for those of us who are trying to cope with layoffs in our own communities to be able to speak about the matter as well.
It is certainly to be hoped, however, that the government of this province will not simply look at the acceptance of this resolution as another excuse to goof off from its responsibilities here in the House. I look forward to the chief government whip being in his place, as he always is during these debates, but if we are going to take it seriously, as we must when we are dealing with a matter of this urgency, surely it is the responsibility of the government members, including the Premier if at all possible, to be in the House so they can hear the arguments put forward and respond to them with their own plans.
It is simply not enough to have the kind of glib reaction we had from the Premier in question period here today when he said that if the government of Canada would act and restrict Japanese imports our problems would be solved. We know that is one alternative that should be considered, and one that should be considered more fully in this House than the way it has been treated by the Premier, who said last year that Lada of the Soviet Union was our principal bugbear in this connection.
I hope the members of the government will be here. If they cannot all be here, then at least there should be a substantial representation. I urge all members of the House not only to approve the setting aside of the ordinary business but also to be here with their attention and to participate on behalf of so many of our citizens who are affected by the situation described in the resolution put forward by the member for Oshawa.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any government in Canada has been more interested in working out and trying to solve the problem in the automobile industry than this government. Of the 11 governments that represent the people across this country, I do not think there is any other government that has taken a more direct stand and got directly involved in advocacy of the resolution of the problems besetting us in this industry.
We have met with the industrial parts people and with manufacturers and labour. Indeed, we have presented a strong and determined position that is in concert with the United Automobile Workers, with the auto parts manufacturers and with the automobile manufacturers. We have all presented this case strongly as a united front to the federal government.
Mr. Cassidy: You ignored the industry all these years.
Hon. Mr. Walker: That is not quite right. The member for Ottawa Centre knows better than that. We have not heard from him for a while and it is better not to.
We have participated in a variety of automobile-involved matters. I am thinking of the Perkins-Chrysler diesel engine plant. We are trying to be very much a part of that, encouraging the ultimate deal. We have had continuous funding through the Ontario Development Corporation for auto parts investment projects. There was a commitment to Chrysler some time ago. Of course, there was the commitment to Ford several years ago in 1978 that saw the creation of many jobs.
I do not think there has been anyone more determined than the Premier, my predecessor in this ministry, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and myself in trying to get the problem solved as best we can within the provincial framework. We recognize the situation is very difficult. We recognize that in this province there are some 3,300 employees who are on indefinite layoffs. We realize the pain and suffering that must go through the mind of anyone beset with this kind of situation.
When the Oshawa plant layoffs finally take effect, when that second shift ultimately takes effect, there will be some 5,000 people who will be eliminated from jobs. This is very disturbing, although I have to say that while the figures have reached those proportions, they are substantially below the 11,700 people we had laid off in the automobile industry in July 1980; so there has been a substantial change.
Conditions in the industry are much worse in the United States. While it is not much of a salvation in terms of the Ontario situation to point to the American situation, it is far worse there. Given that 80 per cent of our total production goes to the American market, given the sales figures they have had in the United States, and given the kinds of layoffs they have had there, exceeding 253,000 -- which exceed last year's figure, by the way -- at least we are not in the same straits they seem to be in.
The American automobile industry has certainly been experiencing difficulties since 1979. With the fuel price increases, the cost of the vehicles and the redesign that has been involved, the cost has been phenomenal. It has certainly taken its toll.
We can say many things about this industry, Mr. Speaker, and should you decide to allow a debate to go forward this afternoon, I look forward to having the business of the House set aside and to presenting more of our views and our position.
We are prepared to support setting aside the business of today to discuss this rather important issue. I note, though, it was just a year ago, April 10, 1980, that another emergency debate was held on the automobile industry. One has to question the word "emergency," but there is no doubt that this is of concern to everyone in this House. It has no political side. It has no politics in it. All of us here have the same concern. Everybody should keep that in mind. We are looking for solutions.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully and with great interest to the comments of the members of all three parties. There is no doubt that this is a matter of great concern. There appears to be unanimous consent as to the degree of seriousness of the concern. I therefore put the question to the House. I find the motion in order. Shall the debate proceed?
Motion agreed to.
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Legislature has decided to allow this debate to proceed. I want to indicate, though, that in our opinion the government's response to the crisis in the auto industry has been very weak, and that is being kind.
4:30 p.m.
A prime example of the weakness of this government's response is the Premier's (Mr. Davis) speech to the first ministers' conference on the economy held in February of this year. Out of 11 pages on the economy, he made the following comments about the auto industry:
"In particular, governments should co-operate in the implementation of a national automotive parts program which would allow this critical industry to restructure to meet its competition.
"While that restructuring is taking place, Ontario would urge the federal government to increase substantially the Canadian content in vehicles imported from offshore. Surely some degree of domestic control within the automotive industry, an employer of thousands, is as worthy a goal as Canadian content is on our airwaves."
Those are comments that no one would disagree with, but what has this government done to accomplish this? Out of an 11-page speech by the Premier on the national economy, he spent two small paragraphs talking about the most important sector, the most important aspect of our manufacturing sector here in Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Who was it who forced the meeting with Lumley? Who was it?
Mr. Cooke: The minister who is talking right now understands that the basis of the economy in Ontario means the automobile industry is as important to Ontario as the oil industry is to Alberta. Can the members of this Legislature imagine what Premier Lougheed would be saying if his oil industry was going down the tubes the way the automobile industry has been in Ontario for the last number of years? He would be speaking out, he would be putting proposals forward and he would be speaking out in the way he did when there were negotiations on the price of energy.
Can members imagine how Brian Peckford would react if the federal government was doing nothing about the fisheries industry? Members know what Premier Blakeney did when the government of Canada decided to change the Crow rate.
This government simply has not reacted, has not put proposals forward and it is as much at fault as is the federal government because it has not taken the problem seriously. Instead, they continue to blame the federal government and continue to say that if Japanese imports were eliminated, the problems would go away. That is utter nonsense.
The fact of the matter is the deficit with the United States is just as significant and it is 30 per cent higher than that of the Japanese deficit, In 1981, the export of Canadian auto parts to the US increased by 25.6 per cent to $3 billion, but imports of auto parts from the United States increased by 29.2 per cent to $6.86 billion. That is the kind of deficit we are talking about in the auto parts sector.
Canadian content in North American vehicles in 1964 was 58 per cent. In 1981, it was around 60 per cent. When we look at the individual companies, we are talking about 50 per cent for Chrysler, 50 per cent for Ford and 60 per cent for General Motors. Yet this government says the Japanese are going to have to reach 85 per cent. What is wrong with 100 per cent Canadian value added for all auto makers who want to sell here in Canada? The job creation potential is 20,000 to 30,000 jobs and most of those jobs would be here in Ontario.
Canada's share contradicts the misleading figures the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) and his predecessor have presented to this Legislature time and time again. Canada's share of North American employment was 8.6 per cent in 1981 in the automobile sector, down from 9.3 per cent. Employment dropped 30.7 per cent to 85,600, yet in the United States employment declined by 20.5 per cent. The fact is we have been hit harder by this automobile crisis and the reason is that this government continues to neglect and refuses to address the structural problems that exist in the industry.
In the auto parts sector, employment was down to 38,000 employees from 63,000 employees. Communities like Chatham have a 40 per cent unemployment rate in the automobile sector and communities such as Kitchener have a 45 per cent unemployment rate. The situation in Windsor has been in a critical condition for going on four years now, yet this government refuses to act.
We can look at the foreign imports which are also part of the problem. This party understands that, but this party is not so silly as to believe that only the Japanese imports are causing the problems. We can look at Honda, for example, where from 1980 to 1981 imports are up 35.5 per cent; or Toyota where they are up 45.7 per cent, or Mazda where they are up 87.7 per cent. The figures are there. We understand the problems, but what are the Minister of Industry and Trade and his government prepared to do?
We put forward our proposals. Let me go through them very quickly. We have had an auto strategy and it will be debated, but it is about time this government responded instead of saying the only solution is the government of Canada. There are things that can be done at the provincial level.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Tell us you are going to nationalize.
Mr. Cooke: Maybe the minister would be quiet; we will listen to him later on. It might sink through that skull of his and his cabinet colleagues and they might do something for the auto industry.
We need content legislation. There is no doubt about that at all. We are not calling for 85 per cent Canadian content; we are calling for 100 per cent Canadian content. It is remarkable that the minister's predecessor also supported 100 per cent Canadian content, but he dropped back down to 85 per cent this year.
We also suggest we should establish an interdepartmental office of automotive policy to co-ordinate the programs and policies that should exist at the provincial level. We are also calling for a community adjustment fund that would provide direct aid to workers, like the one raised by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). It would also provide aid to the communities suffering from increased welfare rates and increased demands on social services because of high unemployment.
A further part of the community adjustment fund proposal is that the money be used to restructure industries in those communities to assist in diversification and in the creation of new jobs.
We also believe the government must obtain a significant presence in the auto parts sector. That means getting into joint ventures with Canadian-owned auto parts firms and getting into research and development in a big way so that we are technologically competitive. It means we must provide some capital to the auto parts sector through joint ventures and through part ownership. That way we can not only have a say in how the industry progresses but we can also have a stake in its future -- a window on the industry, if you want to call it -- but also an expansion of the Canadian auto parts sector, not just the multinationals that dominate the auto parts sector in Ontario at present.
We also feel there has to be a plan of Canadianization in this province for the large multinationals. The fact is that 65 per cent of the workers --
Mr. Riddell: You cannot get away from your foreign ownership mentality. That is all you can think of -- foreign ownership, foreign investment.
Mr. Swart: Oh, be quiet and listen. You may learn something.
Mr. Cooke: One of the structural problems that has caused the problems we have in the auto industry right now is ownership. The fact is that 65 per cent of the workers in the auto parts sector work for the multinationals. With the decline in the tariff rates, many of the multinationals will be moving out of Ontario and out of our market and shipping their parts in. The deficit is going to get larger, there will be a smaller investment and fewer jobs because of that structural problem.
It is no accident. The lack of research and development, the lack of reinvestment of profits and the lack of a proper mix of skilled and unskilled workers in the auto sector; those things all exist because of the foreign ownership and the structural difficulties in the industry.
I ask that the minister and this government take this problem seriously. Instead of approaching it simply on a fed-bashing basis and instead of just blaming the federal Liberals, who certainly do deserve a fair amount of the blame, he should take his responsibilities seriously and implement a program. If he does not like our program he should come up with an alternative program, but let us create some jobs. The auto industry is essential to the future development of the economy in Ontario.
4:40 p.m.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad there was general agreement during my earlier remarks that the debate should not be restricted simply to the unfortunate situation in Oshawa and Windsor. There was general agreement that we are talking about UAW members laid off in any part. I am interested to note that the member for York South feels the UAW members from Brantford should not be considered under the NDP resolution. Is he objecting?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Mr. Nixon: That is good. I just wanted to be sure there would be no objections. Once Mr. Makarchuk had left the House the NDP seems to have forgotten about Brantford. I am not sure what that means but it is rather interesting.
The initiative taken by the minister today, announcing his support for the sellout of the Canadian interest of White Farm Equipment to American concerns, affords me an opportunity to respond. This is directly on the meat of the resolution, since the trigger that brought about the decision to support the sellout was the layoff last Friday of 925 employees of White Farm Equipment. There is only a limited time at my disposal, but I want to say I regret no one in government at either level undertook to consult me, as an elected member for part of the city of Brantford, and since many of my constituents are employed in that company.
Since I am not a member of the government party, I suppose the minister can justify this. Even though I did bring the matter directly to his attention, he simply gave me his assurances that everything would be all right. I appreciate that, but the fact that I am a member for the area means I have a role to play too, which I consider to be extremely important.
I am very concerned that the minister's solution to this problem is to sell 50 per cent of the ownership in this company to American interests. The corporate development of this situation is positively Byzantine. It is too complex for a person like myself to actually hold and understand, but I do have some things to say about it.
It was just a year ago that the White Motor Co. in the United States went into receivership. Because of the initiative of the governments of Ontario and of Canada, there were more than $15 million in guarantees and grants funnelled into this company to re-establish it here in Ontario. There is a part of the company in BC that made trucks profitably. It was split off and continues to operate. The part here in Ontario was established as a corporation with 50 per cent of its shares bought by a company called Linamar Machine Co. in Guelph. The principal is Mr. Hasenfratz -- and I hope the Hansard reporter will not ask me to spell it just at this time.
A Texas investment corporation, TIC Investment Corp., with its principal, a gentleman called Mr. Georgoulis, was the American partner and with the support of the two governments, operations were resumed for the manufacture of the famous White axial-flow combine. I do not want to bad mouth other combine manufacturers -- Massey-Ferguson, one of the biggest in the world, is also in Brantford -- but there is no doubt the axial-flow combine developed by technology here in Ontario is, if not the best in the world, one of the best in the world. Other companies would give their right arm to have the patent rights to build it.
It is estimated that other companies which do not have such an advanced combine would have to spend up to $30 million for all of the patent development to develop a similar machine. I saw the machine working on my own farm last year, with the representatives of the receivers sitting in their cars watching. One of its great advantages is that its field speed can be twice that of an ordinary combine and still do a good job. The point is there is a huge, valuable patent associated with this company.
On Friday, with no warning, the workers were laid off with the explanation coming from management to the extent that there were problems with third party financing. This, of course, is of great concern to the 160 White Farm Equipment dealerships across Canada. They have an average of 10 employees. There are 1,600 people employed across Canada, a large proportion of them in Ontario, and I do business with one of the dealers just down the road from where I am.
They are very concerned about their future. They had to suffer through a receivership a year ago with all the problems about confidence that farmers would have. The farmers want to buy a machine for which the parts and service are going to be maintained. They do not want a company that is going to go out of business when they make an investment of well over $100,000 for a combine or a tractor.
The company has been functioning. Their combines are among the best in the world and, although sales are slow because of the depressed farm economy, if we are ever going to sell machinery, these White combines are certainly going to be sold. During this past year there has been a continuation of unhealthy and unnatural corporate pressures brought upon the Canadian operation by its American shareholder.
I want to choose my words carefully, because I am well aware of the immunity granted to me as a speaker in this House by virtue of my membership here and the fact that I am speaking in this House. But when I say the pressures were unnatural, there is no doubt about it. The money available for the payroll was often withheld until hours or even minutes before the final payroll had to be met. There is no doubt the American shareholder was doing everything he could to keep the Canadian company off balance and at the same time trying to force the Canadian shareholder to sell his Canadian rights in this company to the American owner.
I do not know Mr. Hasenfratz, but he must be a good businessman because his share in White Motors, put in just a year ago, was $2.5 million. He is now being offered $4 million to sell out and even I, being a Canadian nationalist, if I had an opportunity to make those kinds of dollars, would have to think about it very seriously, particularly when at the same time the stick being applied to Mr. Hasenfratz by his friend, the Texas partner, is that if he does not sell out the Texas partner will put the company into receivership. So Linamar will lose everything. Talk about a stick! Talk about a carrot! Certainly we see that the American principal in this is using everything at his command to force a sellout of the interest of this company into American, that is, into his hands.
We get to the third party finance, something that I do not understand very well, but Borg-Warner (Canada) Ltd., as an American company doing business here and a business associate of the Texas investment corporation, has in the past provided the money that permits the dealers to buy the combines and then to pay off the third party financier until they actually sell the combines -- very big items, Mr. Speaker, you will understand, well over $100,000 each, in many instances $150,000 each.
When these problems came to the fore, I am reliably informed and have seen a letter dated February 3, 1982, the government of Canada offered $20 million in special finance to assist in this third party finance problem. I am also informed that this proposal was vetoed by the American shareholder, once again putting cruel and unusual financial pressure on the administration in Brantford, which is almost helpless between these two principals and, of course, additional pressure on Guelph Machinery Co., which is the half-interest holder.
As a result, the administrators in Brantford last Friday just simply threw up their hands and said: "We cannot continue. We are going to close the place down." They made it clear there was nothing the administration of the company could do about it and they clearly left the implication that the problems were beyond their control and that in many respects, while you could not call them innocent bystanders, there was not very much they could do about it.
I see from your signal, Mr. Speaker, only one minute remains, but I say this to you, that the government of Ontario in supporting that kind of pressure that will result in the loss of control of this company to an American principal, who apparently has some difficulty in financing his own operations in the normal procedure, is not serving either the workers of Brantford or Canadian industry in any useful and effective way.
4:50 p.m.
We must remember the government of Canada is into this for twice the amount of money of the government of Ontario and has offered an additional $20 million. Surely, with the kind of co-operation that took place a year ago between Ontario and Canada, we can move towards the goal that must be in the minds of the minister, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and every member of this House to get that plant opened, get the 1,000 people back to work and at the same time maintain Canadian ownership and control.
I submit this is possible and, as a matter of high policy, it is essential. Anything less will in my view be inadequate in the service of the workers in this community and in the service of the industry and economy of Canada.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate --
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for London South has indicated his wish to participate in the debate. Following rotation, I think I am obliged to --
Mr. Laughren: Is the debate not going this way?
The Deputy Speaker: Is that what we are doing? Was that understood by the House leaders? I was not instructed.
Mr. Nixon: It's your responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Counter-clockwise is fine as far as we are concerned.
The Deputy Speaker: If that is the case and if there are no great objections in terms of rotation, I will turn to the member for London South.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
Mr. Riddell: We are assuming the minister will stay for the rest of the debate.
Hon. Mr. Walker: The member may have an unwarranted assumption because I have an attendance elsewhere. By the same token, the person who moved the debate has not chosen to stay for it.
Mr. Martel: He is here. You should talk.
Mr. MacDonald: Take a look at your own cabinet.
Mr. Wildman: He's in the lobby.
Hon. Mr. Walker: He may be here but he is not in the room. Given that the last member spent the time on a matter different from the motion itself, I want to say the auto industry does sit at the centre of this country's manufacturing economy.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The motion deals with the disruption, with the unemployment of people in industry associated with the auto industry.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would like to bring to the attention of the member for London South that I listened closely to the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and that thought crossed my mind but, thinking in terms of the ambience of the resolution before the House, I did not call him to order on the basis that I did think his remarks fell within the resolution. You may continue.
Hon. Mr. Walker: I think all of us were just being generous, Mr. Speaker, and that is fine.
Mr. Mancini: That is a cheap shot at the chair.
Hon. Mr. Walker: No, it is not meant to be.
Mr. Mancini: Yes-man to the government.
Hon. Mr. Walker: The master of cheap shots is sitting in the member's chair at the moment.
The Deputy Speaker: Continue with the debate.
Hon. Mr. Walker: Automotive products and the automotive industry generally represent the single largest consumer expenditure in our province and it is extremely important in terms of the largest single item of trade between Canada and the United States. The health of that industry is crucial and important to the provincial and national economy. That goes without saying and I think it has been echoed by members here today. The health of that industry is the basis of our own support for the Canadian automotive industry.
In the past, Ontario government initiatives have focused on support in five individual areas: first, technological upgrading; second, support in terms of investment; third, short-term fiscal stimulus; fourth, industrial co-operation and overseas investment; and fifth, advocacy.
In terms of technological upgrading, I think our record on the research and development centre at Chrysler was the essence of our involvement there. The automotive parts technology centre that was recently announced in Niagara and the grants to small businesses that have been established would clearly indicate to many in the automotive industry our intention to establish very strong technological upgrading to attempt to attack the problem as best we can, recognizing that it is an immense problem. This problem is North America-wide and has ramifications that go far beyond the question of Japanese imports to a lot of other issues in terms of fuel economy, size of the machines and the like, not to mention automotive trade.
At the moment we are concentrating our attention directly on the area of imports of Japanese vehicles where we hope our advocacy with the federal government, because it is the one that is carrying the entire load on this, is getting it to the point of advocating and arguing the position we have advocated for a long time. We now feel they have advanced our position. That was not entirely the case until the Honourable Mr. Lumley's visit to Japan as recently as two weeks ago. We are quite content that, in Japan, Mr. Lumley has been able to present the arguments as we saw them.
Indeed, at the conference of first ministers back in February, it was the Premier who insisted on having a rather important meeting on the whole question. This was the first meeting that had been brought together in terms of the very issue of the imports. That meeting, between our Premier, Mr. Lumley, Mr. Gray, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and myself took place back at the end of February and it was agreed that there would be a follow-up meeting early in March, and that did happen.
I have to tell the members of this House that we went to that particular meeting entirely in concert with the position advanced by the United Auto Workers, a position advanced by the auto parts manufacturers and by the automobile manufacturers, all of us and the Ontario government having precisely the same position. That had an effect on the federal government and that particular effect was translated in terms of the position ultimately taken by Mr. Lumley in his visit to Japan.
That chapter has perhaps closed with the return of Mr. Lumley from Japan, having received the benefit of the Japanese answer. However, the book has not yet been closed and there will be a number of things unfolding in that entire matter. The honourable members will see that in the weeks ahead the positions taken will strongly reflect the positions of the Ontario government. We are in concert with the federal government, with the United Auto Workers, with the automobile parts manufacturers and the auto manufacturers.
All of us have the same position and that is rather unique, generally speaking, given the range and spectrum normally existing in the politics of those various organizations. As the Premier would say, we are all singing from the same hymn book on the question. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it will have an effect. I think as we attack the issue of Japanese imports we will see some solution to the problem ultimately forthcoming.
Also, there are other matters that we have been directly involved in. One only needs to go over a number of the Ontario Development Corp. loans to automobile manufacturers, to automobile parts manufacturers, our support of the Ford Essex V6 engine plant under the employment development fund, an investment that saw some 2,000 jobs created. This province put in some $533 million.
In terms of joint ventures, a matter the honourable members in the New Democratic Party have raised, joint ventures have been very much a part of our way. Indeed, there have been a number of discussions along that line. As well, we have encouraged companies like Volkswagen to locate in Ontario. With some incentive, they located that plant in Ontario and that provides some 500 jobs to the people who live in the constituencies of our colleagues from the Barrie area.
In addition to that, in the ensuing months all kinds of short-term fiscal stimuli have occurred. Back in February of 1980, there was a one-month reprieve of the retail sales tax rebate on passenger cars. That helped then, was useful then and was needed then. For more than seven months, from November 13, 1980, to June 30, 1981, the retail sales tax rebate scheme was on for light trucks and vans. That had an effect and it resulted in more employment than would otherwise be the case.
In November of last year, there was a one-month sales tax rebate that had the effect of clearing the 1980 inventories and probably saved all kinds of little automobile industries all over the province.
Mr. Nixon: I understand there are a few Malibus around you can get.
Hon. Mr. Walker: I would not be a bit surprised.
We have pursued all kinds of international sourcing in Canada, industrial co-operation and overseas investments as well. In terms of the advocacy, we have talked to our federal counterpart about the automobile agreement. We have argued with them on the ultimate approach the auto pact must take. We have argued flexibility on the production to sales ratios in return for increased Canadian value added and intercorporate trade balance.
5 p.m.
One of the members across the way made a comment in reference to the figure of 85 per cent and asked, "So why not 100 per cent?" The 85 per cent figure was a compromise figure that was arrived at by the UAW, the auto parts manufacturers and the automobile manufacturers. That is how that figure was arrived at. There was nothing at all strange for my predecessor to back off the previous figure of 100 per cent to the agreed-upon figure of 85 per cent.
There have been those meetings that I talked about at some length. I have told the members what transpired with respect to those meetings. Mr. Lumley has taken our position as it relates to the Japanese issue. I discussed that situation with Mr. Lumley as recently as a week ago. I am satisfied that matter is progressing and properly unfolding, if I may borrow that word from another politician.
The consensus with the Japanese is absolutely necessary. In the short term, the number of vehicles exported from Japan to Canada must be reduced so that the North American manufacturers will have time to retool domestic capacity. In the long run, domestic production must represent a higher value for the domestic market.
The Deputy Speaker: The minister's time has expired.
Hon. Mr. Walker: The Canadian automotive industry is important to this government. Regardless of any past differences we may have had with the federal government, I can say that we have a united front at the moment. We are proceeding with that. We are trying to resolve a problem as it relates to the automobile industry that has beset not just this province but every single province in Canada and that affects the entire North American area.
I am glad to hear that the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) feels that we have taken the high road on this --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister's time is up.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise and speak on this matter and to have the opportunity, no matter where we come from in this province or what riding we represent, to speak about the auto industry in our area.
Although I agree almost totally with the remarks made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) in his speech, I regret that he prefaced it by remarks implying that somehow or other this resolution was drafted to exclude places like Brantford. That is not the case at all. If he had read it, he would have realized that after talking about Oshawa and Windsor it said, "...and other layoffs in the automotive sector around the province." In any event, I notice it did not impede him from speaking about the situation there.
The situation in my area, although the total numbers unemployed are smaller than they are in Windsor, Oshawa and other areas, nevertheless is rather serious. General Motors is not in as serious a situation as it is in the other two places, but the TRW plant in St. Catharines has had substantial layoffs of workers with as much as eight or 10 years' seniority. In my area, the Hayes-Dana plant, which is in Thorold and has almost all of its employment there, is down from a peak of 2,210 employees in 1979 to 945 at present, which means 60 per cent of the employees of that plant are laid off. That is serious in a small city of the size of Thorold.
I am glad to speak in this debate, not just from the point of view of my own area but also because of the general impact on society and because of the numbers of people who are being seriously hurt by the disastrous situation in the auto industry.
I sometimes think that one of the reasons those people across the hall do not take more dramatic action on these problems is simply that they, their families and their friends are buffered enough from it that they do not realize the serious situation and the people who are being hurt by being thrown out of work.
There is one general statement that should and can be made with validity regarding this situation: the policies of both the Liberal federal government and the Conservative provincial government have been abject failures. It would be difficult to envisage a much worse situation than we have in the auto industry here at present.
The Premier said today that we in the opposition do not seem to recognize what his government has done for the stabilization of the auto industry. The minister who was speaking a few moments ago and who has just left -- apparently he is not interested in the debate taking place here -- made the comment that the United States is worse than Canada.
Considering the sales of automobiles in Canada over the past few years, the United States is not worse than Canada. I suggest Canada has the worst situation of any country in the world with regard to the auto manufacturing industry at present. It is perhaps no accident that it is taking place in countries like Canada and the United States, which is the second worst, where they have this unqualified devotion to private enterprise and the governments opting out of any decisions in the major economic areas.
My colleague talked about the offshore imports. We in this party recognize the seriousness of that and of the auto trade deficit. I think we have to recognize that only about one third of it is due to that. The other two thirds is due to the auto trade pact, where we have a deficit of more than $2 billion.
Another factor in this serious situation is the general economy in this province and in this nation. Far fewer cars are being bought than would be the case if there were full employment and a healthy economy, particularly in the field of interest rates.
Perhaps interest rates more than any other single factor have reduced the sales of automobiles. Yet we have governments in Ottawa and here which do not believe in intervening in those high interest rates. The Treasurer now says the polls have shown that the public would generally like to see lower interest rates.
We have both the Treasurer and the Premier saying the interest rates now should be lower. But they never go so far as to say they should be lowered by direct intervention of the federal government to force the Bank of Canada rates down. That is the only way we will get them down and get them down quickly. They leave those decisions to the free enterprise sector of our economy, and we are paying the price for it now.
It would not make a bit of difference whether one had the Liberal Party in power here and the Conservative Party in power in Ottawa. Their philosophy, their beliefs and their policies are so close to one another that we would be in exactly the same situation as we are in here today. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, there would be no difference.
I have before me a statement by Patrick Lavelle, who is president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada. The main thrust of what they are asking for is government intervention. This organization of the parts manufacturers -- the big free enterprisers -- is asking for government intervention in four ways to resolve this problem here in this nation; and our governments, whether here or in Ottawa, are not prepared to take that kind of intervention.
My colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) spoke about Autocan and the need to have a crown corporation for government to do some planning and to get involved in this whole matter. I am not going to repeat what he said, but I want to say that proposal found pretty substantial acceptance across this province. I have a clipping here from the Windsor Star in which they applauded the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for the speech he made in Windsor proposing the setting up of Autocan.
He proposed in his speech that we get involved in the auto industry and make the diesel motors in Windsor. This editorial, dated February 26, 1981, states:
"While the other two parties continue to rehash old disagreements, Ontario NDP leader Michael Cassidy has brought out the first genuinely new idea of the campaign. Cassidy's idea of forming a provincial parallel to Petro-Canada in the automotive field, which was first made public in Windsor, should have great political appeal at a time when Petro-Canada is much in the news and the automotive industry is in the doldrums.
"But there is more to Cassidy's plan than throwing out a catchy slogan coupled with an idea in vague general terms. He did not explain all the details, but what he did say shows that he has a good grasp of the automotive industry and its problems. He has put a good deal of thought and imagination into the subject."
5:10 p.m.
Then it goes on to say: "What is new in Cassidy's idea is a government corporation to bring two companies together and to get things started. Autocan might provide the incentive and the support to get the project under way. It might work. It might get idle plants into operation and open new opportunities to get the Canadian parts sector moving. It is at least a new idea, worthy of expansion and study. Autocan should not be dismissed as a routine campaign problem." That was a lead editorial from the Windsor Star.
Unless the kind of proposal that has been put forward by the NDP is adopted, unless there is the kind of intervention that we advocate, unless we get an overall handle on the auto industry in this province, there is not going to be any immediate solution to this problem and perhaps no long-term solution.
It is time that governments in this province and this nation realized, as they have done throughout the rest of the world, that governments have to get involved, that they have to give direction and that they have to put the interests of the workers of the provinces and the nation ahead of the manufacturers for once.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate as a representative of a municipality that has been very badly hit by layoffs in the automotive industry, particularly in those smaller industries that are associated with auto parts manufacturing.
We in St. Catharines have been fortunate to a certain extent that in our community the major employer has been General Motors, which up until recently, although hit by layoffs, has been the strongest of the so-called Big Three in terms of employment.
However, over a period of time, and most recently at a critical stage, we have seen a problem arising with mass layoffs. It is a problem affecting three big companies: TRW, which as the member for Welland-Thorold has mentioned is in auto parts manufacturing, Hayes-Dana and General Motors.
Many of the people who live on the street on which I live are auto workers -- probably the majority of them are auto workers -- and they are feeling the pinch of temporary layoffs and in some cases indefinite layoffs which are of a longer term.
We see the human tragedy of people who are now losing their homes because of the combination of high interest rates involved with their mortgages and the fact that they do not have a job.
Second, we see people who are unable to pay their property taxes and meet their other financial commitments, and this is having a fairly devastating effect on the community in that the local municipality is going to have to look elsewhere for funds.
In addition, the various businesses that do not have people making purchases, or with people unable to meet their financial commitments, are feeling a real pinch at this time.
It is not only the auto workers themselves who are affected by this tragedy; it is the entire community in our case, and ultimately the province and the country, that is affected by the massive layoffs in the automotive industry.
As members of the provincial Legislature, we do have a role to play. I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter and to ask questions of the minister in this House, as other members who are very concerned have done, in terms of the throne debate, the budget debate and debates such as this emergency debate on a specific problem.
I have had the opportunity to meet with the union officials of the United Automobile Workers in the city of St. Catharines. They have had public forums and they have had more limited meetings with individual members to discuss the real problems being faced by their employees within the jurisdiction of the United Auto Workers, and it has been a story of human tragedy.
I have had the opportunity, as other members from the Niagara Peninsula have had, both federal and provincial, and later the municipal members, to meet representatives of the auto parts manufacturers and their suppliers. I can recall a meeting on January 25, 1982, which discussed this situation; the general theme was, "You Auto Care."
We also had in St. Catharines, on the morning of February 19, in front of General Motors, a demonstration put on by the United Auto Workers, which invited the area political representatives to be present. I recall being present on that occasion to discuss with the people on the demonstration picket line the real problems facing the automotive industry and some of the solutions they had. I was there to indicate my sympathy with their situation and the fact that I was prepared to do anything possible from a provincial representative's point of view to assist them.
One of the real problems we face in this country and to a certain extent in the province is that people such as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the members from Windsor and Oakville and I -- in other words, those of us who represent the automotive centres -- know the problem on a firsthand basis; and our people in our communities know the problem, even those who are not directly employed in the automotive industry.
Nevertheless, we have a job to do as legislators to encourage others to become involved in solutions to this problem. I see the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) here, for instance, and very few people within his riding would be directly affected by a downturn in the automotive industry.
It seems to me, as a representative from an auto centre, and to others in the same situation, that we have to bring before members such as the member for Nipissing or the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), or members from other areas that are not directly affected by the auto industry, what the real problem is and encourage them to help us find a solution.
It becomes even a greater problem when talking to people from western Canada who might have somewhat less sympathy than those of us in this province who recognize the importance of the auto industry and the devastating effects of a downturn.
We have a role to play in educating others to the problem and encouraging them to support us in the solutions we recommend. Some of those solutions, of course, come at the federal level and I am happy that, generally speaking, we in this House have supported some of those solutions.
For instance, at this meeting, "You Auto Care," the political representatives who were there, and the representatives from the unions and companies, looked at a few possible short-term and some longer-term solutions to the problem, at least as relating to auto parts manufacturing.
In terms of the recommendations made, they talked about: (1) the negotiation of a new automotive products arrangement with the United States which must provide for a level of Canadian value added of not less than 85 per cent; (2) in the short term, a strict limit on foreign vehicle imports to afford our North American industry some breathing room, and (3) the negotiation of agreements with all other foreign vehicle producers, such as the Japanese and the Europeans, that require them to achieve a Canadian value added level of 85 per cent over a limited period of time.
Some of these are for the short term, but our industry does require a breathing space to be able to come up with some of the solutions that will be longer term. At present, we are facing what I consider to be unfair competition, most particularly from Japan in this case, which is noted for not allowing too much penetration of its own market.
In advancing these policies on a short-term basis, we are certainly not breaking new ground. Many other countries within the European Economic Community, for instance, and the Asian economic unit are prepared to implement these policies, and I think that we in this country certainly would be justified in doing that. We would not be initiating a new trade war. We simply would be attempting to play by the rules as they realistically exist at present.
But the solution does not lie only at the federal level. The provincial budget that was brought in the last time included increases in various taxes, most particularly, as discussed earlier by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), the tax known as the ad valorem tax on gas, which increases the take for the provincial government considerably and takes more money that could potentially be spent on consumer items such as automobiles out of the pockets of the people of Ontario. There were also increases in the provincial income tax in the last provincial budget -- and everybody forgets about that; we all talk about the federal budget, forgetting the provincial budget where there were those increases -- as well as the hotel tax coming back on, the Ontario health insurance plan premiums going up and so on. When I see these things, all of them seem to restrict the potential for growth in consumer spending.
5:20 p.m.
What we need at the present time at the provincial level is a budget that will encourage consumer spending and get the economy going again so that, in the long term, more people will be paying more taxes and we will have increased revenues for the government. It may appear in the short term to be an inflationary type of budget that is advocated, but in the long term we will find it will be beneficial to the Ontario economy.
In those communities that are adversely affected in a strong way -- I think of Oshawa, with the large layoffs, as well as Windsor, St. Catharines, Oakville and other areas -- there is going to be a tremendous drain on the local taxpayers in terms of people being on unemployment and needing other social services, because there are people going on welfare when they go off unemployment. The provincial government could provide some special assistance to those communities to allow them to adjust on a short-term basis to the fact that we have this problem with the automotive industry.
I encourage all members of this Legislature to participate in encouraging our Treasurer to take the steps I have advocated. He can certainly count on the support of those of us who represent automotive communities to encourage the federal government to play the role I have advocated, the role we feel it has to play in the future of the automotive industry.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, like all members in the House, I am deeply concerned about the situation in Oshawa and Windsor referred to in the motion under debate. These are two further examples of the troubling persistence of unemployment in this country, a matter that was fully debated in this House in an emergency debate and motion on March 11.
The motion asserts that this government has failed to introduce programs to begin to address this very compelling problem. That assertion is not correct, and in a moment I will turn to the measures we have taken to alleviate the effects of events such as the ones referred to in the motion.
Before doing so, however, I would like to reiterate the proposition that whether we like it or not -- and I know members opposite continue to argue that we attempt to shift the blame to the federal government, and I do not take any pleasure whatsoever in raising that point -- the fact is that in our national economy the major opportunities for bringing about economic recovery lie with the federal government.
It is the federal government that has the responsibility for macroeconomic policy. It is the federal government and the central bank that have responsibility for the restrictive monetary policy now being pursued that is contributing to the decline of job opportunities in this province and across the country. It is the Bank of Canada's interest rate policy that is causing the rise in business failures, with the human hardship that entails for the employees who are thrown out of work.
In February, the Premier went to Ottawa, met the Prime Minister and the other Premiers and laid before that meeting of first ministers a definite blueprint for economic recovery.
He dealt with ways in which the climate of confidence could be restored in this country. He made definite proposals as to the ways in which small business creation and development could be encouraged. He spoke about the definite steps that could and should be taken to enhance trade and export opportunities.
He expressed our government's views as to the ways in which investment can be encouraged and increased. Not least important, he advanced proposals for developing our most precious commodity, our human resources.
I do not propose to repeat those very definite recommendations, some 40 in all, which were outlined in detail by the Premier at the Ottawa conference. The fact of the matter is that the Premier's call for action was not heeded. Instead, the federal government persists in policies that fight inflation on the backs of our work force. The view persists that to fight inflation one must induce a recession.
We have argued that this policy of despair and defeat is not acceptable and that there are increasing signs that the vast majority of this province, and indeed Canada as a whole, agrees wholeheartedly.
Our pool of natural and human resources is the envy of the western world and yet, month by month, figures pile up to show that Canada continues to lose ground. As for Ontario, our level of unemployment is unacceptably high. However, I point out that in a relative sense, contrary to popular misconception, we are doing marginally better than the country as a whole.
The unemployment rate for Ontario dropped from 6.9 per cent in 1980 to 6.6 per cent in 1981, and the number of unemployed dropped overall by 5,000. By comparison, the unemployment rate for Canada as a whole went from 7.5 per cent in 1980 to 7.6 per cent in 1981.
Although the February figures for Ontario show a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent this is still lower than all provinces other than the three Prairie provinces.
I want to emphasize that I take no particular comfort from these figures, but I cite them so we can examine the problem in the proper national perspective.
What are we doing in Ontario to alleviate the situation? First, we are continuing to urge the federal government to abandon its present policies, which I have indicated are not working. The fact that the response has been negative to date will not prevent us from continuing to press for change.
This government is taking a leading role, together with the automotive employers and the United Auto Workers, in urging the federal government to take steps to restore the health of the automobile and automotive parts manufacturing industries.
The automobile industry is the linchpin of the Ontario manufacturing sector, accounting directly or indirectly for one in every six jobs in that sector. We, along with the manufacturers and the UAW, have urged the federal government to pursue trade and other policy initiatives to put the industry on a sound footing once again.
So far, regrettably, the federal Minister of State (Trade) has not achieved success in his negotiations with the Japanese concerning the difficult question of imports. Renewed efforts must be made in this regard and if members listened to my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade a few moments ago, he did hint there is progress being made.
In that respect, Ontario will continue to play a positive role, in collaboration with the federal government and the industry, to attempt to ensure that this vital industry is not subject to unfair treatment in the North American and world markets.
In this joint endeavour, I am reassured that the two levels of government, along with management and labour, share a common goal and that Ontario has played a key role in mobilizing this joint effort.
As to the programs in my ministry, we have taken steps which I believe put this province ahead of most other jurisdictions in North America.
Last year, the Employment Standards Act was amended to provide for severance pay in the event of plant closures. A special program to serve the needs of those affected by plant closures was established by the ministry under the leadership of Bob Joyce, an experienced and respected labour relations consultant.
As a result of Mr. Joyce's efforts and through recently enriched funding for this program, we have been able to make special counselling and training services available to increased numbers of laid-off employees.
Our participation in federal-provincial manpower adjustment committees has become more active. Incidentally, I have had some critical things to say about the federal government, but I must say in fairness that in this respect they have been most co-operative.
We have intensified our collaborative efforts with the ministries of Industry and Trade and Colleges and Universities to ensure there is full access to all government programs.
In addition, members will recall that the government introduced revisions to the Pension Benefits Act to protect employees' pension benefits in case of plant closures and to provide the employees with options as to how the funds will be applied.
Members are aware of the federal industry-labour adjustment program, which provides for the designation of specific communities and industries particularly hard hit by the economic recession.
Largely as a result of the timely intervention of my predecessor, who now is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration was persuaded before Christmas to designate Brantford as an eligible community under this program.
Thus, employees in Brantford as well as employees in Chatham and Windsor who meet the eligibility requirements of the federal program are, or will be, entitled to certain defined benefits including increased mobility grants, portable wage subsidies, early retirement benefit and special training opportunities.
I am quite prepared, in the light of more recent developments, to urge the federal minister to examine the possibility of designating other communities as well. It may well be that Oshawa is a prime candidate, although I hope that the situation in that community brought about by certain unfortunate international developments will be short-lived and that the employment at General Motors soon will be restored to previous levels. However, I will pursue the matter aggressively with Mr. Axworthy without delay.
In conclusion, I believe that despite our difficulties, this province has the capacity and determination to overcome them. The Premier has given his blueprint. We have outlined in the throne speech certain measures we propose to take in the coming months. The people of this province have a government that is sensitive to their needs and that will continue to do everything in its power to address them.
5:30 p.m.
As Minister of Labour and, more particularly, as a member from a northern community which is heavily industrialized and potentially at least may be subject to the same unpredictable employment problems as Oshawa, Windsor and other communities, I have a deep commitment to pressing for policies that will ensure we weather this period and emerge as a province characterized by growth and prosperity.
Mr. Breaugh: I listened to the debate this afternoon, both in the House and on the loudspeakers in the lobby, and it strikes me there is some consensus forming. As we look around now, perhaps part of the problem is that the ministers of the crown are rather badly represented in that only one of them is here.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: All day; I have been here all day.
Mr. Breaugh: That is fine. The minister has been here all day. He wins the attendance prize. He is the best cabinet minister here because he is the only one here. But he should not get carried away. One would have thought that perhaps the Treasurer would have a little something to say.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order: My comment a moment ago may have sounded a little smart-alecky; it was not intended as that. I came here today with the full intention of listening to all the comments made by all the members and to stay until six o'clock. I was not trying to be a hero or anything else.
Mr. T. P. Reid: What about some of the minister's colleagues?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was just coming to that. I am disappointed that more members from all parties are not in attendance. Thank you.
Mr. Breaugh: Let me show the House how quickly that consensus is forming here. That is precisely the point. We have had opportunities on a number of occasions to debate portions of the problems related to the auto industry, to my community, to Windsor, St. Thomas and a number of other automotive communities. What I am trying to get this afternoon is not a resolution of the problem; that obviously is not going to be possible. But there are component parts to this and there are players on the scene who I hope will read Hansard. I hope they are listening to the loudspeakers in their own offices so they can follow some of the things people have had to say today.
I am sure the Treasurer, whose economy depends so heavily on the automotive sector, is interested in what is going on here. I am sure the Premier is interested. The fact that he is not here this afternoon and has not participated in the debate may simply mean that at some future time he will want to and that is the purpose of the debate this afternoon.
I want to put a couple of other focal points together as well. One is to recognize that this is not just a debate between two ideas or three political parties or different communities within Ontario. We are talking about the economy of this province, plain and simple. Complicated though it might be, it comes back to that one fundamental fact.
We are also talking about a number of things that have to do with different levels of government trying to respond. It is difficult to put together actions that require initiatives by municipalities, support by provinces and funds in part by the federal government. That takes a long time. It seems to be an almost impossible process from time to time.
I am trying to get members to pay some attention to the fact that because of the state of the auto industry, that process will have to be activated eventually, after much kicking and screaming. It will have to go much faster, much smoother and much more effectively than it has ever done before in the history of Ontario or even in the history of Canada. The situation now is serious enough that the government will finally have to put together a co-ordinated effort.
I also want to say that it is no longer good enough, not by a long shot, for Ontario to say it is somebody else's primary responsibility to develop, to protect and to extend the automotive industry. It may be true -- I believe it is -- that it is essentially a problem for which the federal government can have the largest share of responsibility. But it should also be clear they are not going to do a hell of a lot and that inevitable fact has to be recognized.
The government has my condolences. If they want to fed bash, if they want to call federal ministers names, that is fine, but the bottom line is that the automotive sector is the economy of this province. Calling people names and saying they have not done their jobs properly may be true and it may be fun, but it is not going to do anything for the economy of Ontario. There is a need, too, to say that whether it is our prime responsibility or not we now have to take the Ontario government into this field.
I want to deal with a couple of other things. Other members have put out their party programs and read the statistics into the record and so on. That has to be done but I want to deal with a couple of other aspects of it. I would like some of the foolishness of the debate around this to cease. I listened to the Premier this afternoon and I tried to get him to give a straight answer to a question.
I suppose I should have known better but his first response was, "You and the NDP want to nationalize everything." This was about five minutes after he had said how proud he was to participate in a function in his own riding where the French Socialist government has a nationalized car industry which has come into Brampton, Ontario, and sought to do something positive for American Motors.
Well, kiddies, you can't stand on the street and call somebody else names one minute and then the next minute recognize that if it were not for a government in another country participating in the auto industry in its own country and then extrapolating that to Brampton, Ontario, American Motors would not be much in Brampton. Stop the malarkey around the edges.
I listened to the Minister of Industry and Trade do the same kind of thing and talk about joint ventures. We are not opposed to joint ventures. We think they are a good idea. We have opposed on occasion some decisions about priorities or about how the government should do that when we thought it was not quite the proper thing to do, but it does not do any of us any good. More important, it does nothing for Joe McCullough or anybody else who is going to be out of work after April 12 in Oshawa or the people in Windsor, St. Thomas, St. Catharines or anywhere else to have this kind of exchange be all that happens.
I have no qualms about the Minister of Labour calling me names or the Premier making little jokes about it. That is par for the day in here. There is nothing wrong with that. That is part of the political process. What is wrong is when that is the only level of --
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not recall calling the member any names.
Mr. Breaugh: I did not say you called me names. If you would sit down and let us continue our debate instead of defending your honour, we might --
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I'm not defending my honour.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Sault Ste. Marie has the floor on a point of privilege.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not defending my honour, Mr. Speaker. I am merely asking for a clarification of what he means by calling him names. I do not recall calling him any names.
Mr. Breaugh: I really do apologize if I in any manner offended the sensitivities of the minister. Is that good enough for him?
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I hate to be persistent on this point. Any time he wants he can make any comments about me or my sensitivity. That is his privilege and I would not object to it on any occasion. I thought I heard him say, and Hansard perhaps will prove me correct, that he had been called names by the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Breaugh: No; I have been called names by a lot of good people but not by you.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has lodged his point of privilege. It has been listened to.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, perhaps on occasion we are oversensitive or whatever you might want to call it.
The point I am trying to make in all this is that, while the politicians do the yelling and screaming back and forth, it is the people, the workers, who suffer. There are those who will look at layoffs of the size and proportion announced for Oshawa and say: "Nothing much will happen. Doesn't the United Auto Workers, that big, powerful trade union, have a SUB fund?"
Perhaps they do not realize that better than half the people who will be laid off will not get a chance to draw on that supplementary unemployment benefits fund at all. Some of them will not even get any unemployment insurance benefits because they have not had enough work in recent years to draw on that. Many of them are not in a position to be retrained, so even if there were the greatest retraining program in the world, it would be of virtually no use to them.
What I am urging the members to get at is the truth of the whole thing. Whether it is primarily a provincial responsibility or not, the government has to take some initiative. Whether they want to call it joint ventures, nationalization or whatever language they want to use, I am urging them to do it. Whatever response they want to make, I am urging them to do that as well.
5:40 p.m.
I would caution all members here that there is no great secret about the kinds of things that must be done. That has been before this Legislature, both in the House and in committee --
The Acting Speaker: The member has one minute.
Mr. Breaugh: -- and we know the kinds of things that must take place. We know that in a city like Oshawa there is going to be a dramatic impact on the city's budget itself, and on the people. I am not anticipating we are going to solve a great deal this afternoon, but I do hope the members of the Legislature have had an afternoon of debate that points out to them that this is an emergency. While we will not deal with the emergency this afternoon, we have decided collectively that is what it is. It requires a response, and not a rhetorical response. It does require money; it does require programs. That is exactly what ought to happen in the remainder of this session, the government responding legislatively, financially and in terms of commitment to solve what is, without question, a crisis in the economy of this province, and a crisis in real and human terms.
Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate because I, too, come from an automotive town. As a matter of fact, prior to the First World War, when the city of Kitchener was known as Berlin, one of the first automobiles that was ever assembled in Ontario, if not in Canada, was built in Berlin.
Mr. Newman: It's still running.
Mr. Sweeney: And I hear some of them are still running. The point, however, continues today that Kitchener is still very much an automotive town. As a matter of fact, up until a year ago, we had the largest single industry in Kitchener, the Budd automotive company, which made frames for many North American cars. Recently, of course, that industry has had to reduce its labour force considerably. As a matter of fact, in 1979, Budd had a labour force in excess of 3,000, something like 3,140 people to be exact. As of today, that figure is down to something like 760. I need not tell anyone in the House this is a significant decrease.
It is also interesting to note that the chamber of commerce in Kitchener, in conjunction with the various automotive industries, the parts manufacturers, in particular, held a seminar a couple of weeks ago which about 40 people attended. One of the points that was brought up was the serious social, human and economic impact on a community such as mine when so many people are laid off by a single industry. That is not the only one. We have Lear Siegler Industries, for example, in my riding that makes seats and various other parts. We have two of the largest tire manufacturers, Uniroyal and Goodrich, which have an impact in this particular area. We have literally hundreds of small parts manufacturers in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge area that are being affected by the automotive downturn.
That makes us stop and ask a question. The figure has been quoted by a number of previous speakers, that one in six people in this province is somehow associated with the automotive industry. I guess we have to ask ourselves somewhere along the line how we ever got to the point where such a large segment of the working population of any jurisdiction happened to get tied up with a single industry. Perhaps that is part of the overall question we have to ask ourselves. We are not going to deal with that, as the previous speaker said, this afternoon, but it is something we certainly have to take a look at.
I also want to participate in this debate this afternoon because, in the previous five or six months, I have had a chance to criss-cross Ontario. I saw the human face of this problem on a number of occasions. As a matter of fact, one evening when we were in St. Thomas, where the Ford Talbotville plant is located, where many of the workers from that plant live, I met a number of those workers. They told me that the next morning they were going to form a human chain across Highway 401 to dramatize the very serious problems they were facing in their community, the very serious human and economic problems they were facing.
I see that same thing in my own community. It is not just a case of a man or a woman being out of work, it is all the things that go with that. It is the loss of dignity, the loss of pride, the loss of hope. It is the impact on the family, the impact on the relationship between a husband and his wife; it is the impact between a father and his children. It is the impact on those children when they have to go to school. It is the impact on the whole social family structure. That is something, surely, we have to consider.
We are not talking just of an economic situation, as deeply serious as that is. The chamber of commerce in Kitchener has estimated that the layoff of more than 2,000 people from Budd automotive alone has taken out of our community something like $100 million, if one takes into consideration all the spinoff jobs that are associated with it. That is a significant impact on one community from just one of the many industries in that community. So there is very much an economic impact. But the social impact and the human impact are just as serious if not more so. I would hope my colleagues in this Legislature, when we look at some of the things that are going to have to be done, will take those factors into consideration as well.
We know what the problems are. We know that in an economy that is turned down, cars are priced beyond the reach of too many people. We know that the high interest rates are forcing people to hold on to the cars they now have where they might have purchased a new one. We know the import problem; we know the Japanese have increased their share of our market from something like three or four per cent to 23 or 24 per cent. That is a significant increase.
We know, for example, that back in 1966 Canada supplied 75 per cent of all of the car automotive parts that were imported by the United States. And Japan at that time supplied only four per cent. In the United States' market today Canada supplies only 35 per cent. It used to supply 75 per cent; now it supplies only 35 per cent. Japan, on the other hand, has increased from four per cent to 32 per cent.
When we also keep in mind that the American market is a shrinking market, of course, what we have to recognize is that we have a smaller slice of a smaller market. It is no wonder we have a problem, a serious problem.
The other part of the problem is the auto pact between Canada and the United States. Back in 1965 when this pact was negotiated it looked like a good deal. Everyone felt there was going to be fairness, there was going to be a sharing, there was going to be a distribution of the sales and the net value of the entire North American auto industry. It has not worked out that way.
As far as assembled cars, or assembled automotive units are concerned, Canada has done well. Where Canada has done very poorly -- and when we talk of the automotive industry and we talk of Canada, we are talking primarily of Ontario; not exclusively but primarily. In that part of the deal, Canada now has a net debit of $35 billion over that period of time. And when one nets the two of them out, the assembly and the parts, we have a net debit of something like $15 billion or $16 billion.
That contract must be negotiated. It has to be negotiated. At some time in the very near future, if we are not going to be able to deal with that auto pact, if we are not going to be able to negotiate it on more favourable terms, then Canada, and particularly Ontario, is going to have to look at some form of Canadianization of the automotive industry here. If other jurisdictions can do that type of thing, if other European countries with populations smaller than ours can do it, then we have to consider it seriously. I know all the ramifications of that but it is something we certainly have to take a look at.
The third reason I want to speak to this, Mr. Speaker, is because of the future. We know that the technology in the automotive industry must change. It has now been pretty well agreed by the automotive unions themselves, by the automotive industry and by all levels of government that approximately 25 per cent of automotive jobs are lost permanently. They will never come back. The industry is going to change in such a way that those people will not be needed in the same way, so there has got to be some difference.
5:50 p.m.
A few months ago in this very chamber I spoke to the Treasurer in terms of funding an innovative retraining program. At that time I asked him to consult with his colleague the Minister of Labour, his colleague the Minister of Industry and Tourism and his colleague the Minister of Education, Colleges and Universities, to develop jointly an innovative retraining program for these workers who will never be able to go back to those jobs.
If we are going to move into robotics as far as assembling automotive units in this province is concerned, who is going to build them? Do we have the trained people to build them? Who is going to design them? Do we have the trained people to design them? Who is going to maintain them? Do we have the trained people to maintain them and repair them? At this point I say we do not. What we are going to be facing is the same thing we faced in so many other areas of industry in this province. We wait until the problem arrives and then we say we do not have the skilled workers and we are going to have to import them. For God's sake, let us not make that mistake again.
Mr. Gillies: I feel that this debate this afternoon has been very productive and I would like to offer my own congratulations to the member for Oshawa for precipitating it. The tone of the debate has been very high indeed and I hope it will continue. There have been a lot of disparate but very productive points of view conveyed.
I would like to spend a moment or two initially on the situation of White Farm Equipment, as it was debated earlier and was brought up by my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. Early in the week I became convinced that as the negotiations developed, one or the other of the partners in White Farm Equipment would emerge the victor in control of that company, but I had very little hope that the partnership would survive the exercise that we have been through in the past week.
I was shocked, as I am sure my colleague was, when on Friday the company announced the layoff of not 750 workers, as I think has been said once or twice, but 750 hourly paid workers and a further 185 salaried workers, a total of almost 1,000 people. They were told on Friday that they would not be able to report for work on Monday. It sent shock waves through my community.
Members would be aware of the problems we have had in the last year with Massey-Ferguson. All but about 1,000 of the Massey workers are back to work now, but with the current climate, as has been pointed out by many speakers, with high interest rates and market conditions being what they are, I have been left wondering just how long the bulk of those Massey workers will be back at work.
On top of this, the second largest employer in my riding suddenly seems to be in very serious trouble indeed. As the management of White Farm Equipment put it, they were forced to suspend production not because of market conditions, not because they were not holding their share of the market and selling their products, which they are, but because of financial constraints being put on the management of the company by, as my friend alluded to earlier, the third party financier. I have had one heck of a lot of workers in my riding calling my office who really did not care about the ins and outs of third party finance; what they wanted to know was whether they still had jobs.
It would appear they do. I cannot say in all honesty that I am entirely happy with the outcome of this matter. I would have preferred that the ownership of the company remain in Canadian hands, and in the long run I would hope and think that may still be a reasonable expectation.
In the meantime, we find ourselves in a situation where the Canadian partner in the venture, Mr. Hasenfratz and his Linamar corporation, are the heroes of the exercise, in a way, as a small and very plucky Canadian enterprise that tried to take on something very big indeed. There have been questions not just in the last week but in the year that this partnership survived as to whether or not Hasenfratz and his company would be able to make it go. It would appear not. They did not seem to have the resources in terms of a line of credit that would allow it to continue. So we find that the larger and the more financially strong partner has survived, as is so often the case in the business world, and the ownership of the company will become American.
Again, I am not particularly happy about it. If, however, the minister is to be taken at his word, in this afternoon's statement that TIC Investment Corp. --
Mr. McClellan: What do you mean "if"?
Mr. Gillies: If and when, the minister is to be taken at his word that TIC will honour the conditions which are very similar to those negotiated last year prior to the involvement of the two levels of government in the refinancing package that allowed them to continue at that time --
Mr. Wlldman: What guarantees have you got?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gillies: And so we have a commitment apparently -- of course, none of us has seen the written agreement at this point -- whereby White will continue to honour its commitment to Ontario with regard to employment, Canadian purchasing, training and future expansion. Indeed, we look forward to that and we look forward to the continued health of White Farm in the city of Brantford. We would hope the 925 jobs are secure.
However, I have to reflect on another debate which took place in this Legislature last year.
Mr. T. P. Reid: You will resign when they go to the United States?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gillies: Absolutely, Patrick. I reflect on another debate last year, with regard to the loan agreements with the Massey-Ferguson company. We are still waiting for another foot to come down on the Massey-Ferguson agreement. As members will recall, the terms of that loan agreement are to construct and run a research and development facility in Canada. I have asked Massey management a number of times and I have talked to the ministry a number of times, as to when we are to see this particular development. As yet, nothing has materialized. I had a bit of an interest, I might add, as to where that facility might be located. I had a certain thought about that, but to this point we have not seen it. I look forward to that.
I am also sure the members for the Windsor area are looking forward to the fruition of the Perkins Diesel arrangement with Chrysler, which is dependent on the health and the continued operation of the Massey-Ferguson company. Again, we have yet to see the finalization of that particular arrangement and we look forward to that.
However, the bottom line for me today is that it would appear that more than 900 people from White Farm have jobs. I spoke to Pete White, the senior United Automobile Workers' representative in Brantford, just a half hour or so ago. I think Mr. White agrees with me that while this is perhaps not the optimum solution to the employment problems at White Farm, it is a solution. As we debate --
Mr. T. P. Reid: Can we debate that proposition?
Mr. Gillies: You may not get a chance; we are running out of time. As we debate the auto industry, we look at the situation with our domestic auto industry and at the increasing incursions into this country of foreign automobiles. I am left wondering why people like myself, three and a half years ago, bought a foreign car. What did I do it for? I look back three and a half years ago and I think perhaps the social and the economic priorities were a little different than they are now.
The big bugbear and the great social responsibility of us all was to buy automobiles that were fuel efficient. At that time, and I think in some years previous to that, the imports were way ahead of us. I would venture to say that we do have a problem in our domestic auto industry in that there is a very popular conception among the purchasing public that certain imports are more reliable, more efficient, more durable and have a longer life expectancy.
I do not happen to think that is true any more. We have seen a change in emphasis on the part of the big three auto makers. We see more small models coming out and we see innovations in size of engine and fuel economy and so forth. That would lead me to think we are headed for a period where the auto industry in this country, faced with the fuel economics of the 1980s, can hold its own against any other.
But I would say to you that the so-called realities of the auto industry four and five years ago are still ingrained in the psyche of the buying public today. The auto industry has a major task ahead of it in not only producing a automobile which is efficient and durable, but in convincing the buying public that it is efficient and durable.
The governments, certainly this government and the government of Canada, must take greater and greater strides towards the development and health of our auto industry. I do look forward to joint venture and I am not reluctant at all to see greater emphasis on government involvement in the development of an up-to-date and modern --
Mr. T. P. Reid: That is not what the Minister of Industry and Trade says.
Mr. Gillies: We are all singing from the same hymn book but perhaps different hymns as to the development of our industry.
I would direct members' attention to a few independent corporate moves of late such as --
The Acting Speaker: We thank the member.
The time allotted for debate is now exhausted and he has concluded his opportunity.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Pursuant to the standing orders, I would indicate to the House the business for the rest of this week and for next week.
Tonight, we will continue with the supplementary estimates, beginning with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, followed by the Treasurer and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and if any time remains move to throne debate.
Tomorrow, we will deal with the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of the Attorney General and, if any time also remains after those are completed, the throne speech debate.
On Monday, April 5, we will do the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and then move on to the throne speech debate until six o'clock.
On Tuesday, April 6, in the afternoon and the evening, we will proceed with the throne speech debate.
On Wednesday, April 7, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: justice, general government and resources development.
On Thursday, April 8, in the afternoon we will deal with the private members' ballot items standing in the names of Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Cooke.
It being Maundy Thursday, we will adjourn at six o'clock and not meet in the evening. Of course, the House will not meet on Good Friday, April 9, or Easter Monday, April 12.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.