role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 12, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WETLANDS POLICY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO REACTORS

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

VISITOR

HYDRO RATES

BARTON PLACE NURSING HOME

HOTEL LABOUR DISPUTE

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ORDERS

PAROLE PROCEDURES

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

TRAINING FOR CRANE OPERATORS

POLLUTION CONTROL EXEMPTIONS

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

MOTION

REPORTS, SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUSDMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

EXPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WETLANDS POLICY

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce guidelines for wetlands management in southern Ontario, the first phase of a new wetlands policy for Ontario. The policy represents this government's commitment to responsible wetlands management for Ontario.

The guidelines I am introducing today are part of the process leading to a policy statement under the provincial Planning Act and will be finalized after appropriate testing, refinement and consultation with municipal officials. It is appropriate that these guidelines be introduced this week, for it is also National Wildlife Week and the 1984 theme focuses on wetlands and wildlife.

Wetlands, as members know, are an important natural resource for the people of Ontario, yet their value is often not recognized. Many people do not know that wetlands in their natural state maintain and improve water quality, help control flooding, provide habitat for fish and wildlife and contribute substantial social and economic benefits to our province.

The social and economic benefits include outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing and birdwatching. Each year Ontario collects direct revenues exceeding $20 million from the sale of hunting and fishing licences and from royalties from fur sales. Many of the wildlife species that provide the basis for this revenue live in wetlands habitat.

There are other social and economic benefits from wetlands. They are a source of many important resource products, such as fur, wood and wild rice, products valued at in excess of $300 million a year. Wetlands also contribute to the ecological diversity of the landscape and provide habitat for several threatened and endangered species.

It is obvious that wetlands are essential natural resources to this province and, as members know, the importance of our remaining wetlands is increasing. Approximately 80 per cent of the original wetlands in southern Ontario have been drained for a variety of uses, and the remaining wetlands area continues to be reduced in southern Ontario at a rate of one to two per cent annually.

The guidelines I am introducing today reinforce this government's commitment to carefully managing our remaining wetlands to meet both the present and long-term needs of the people of Ontario. We want to ensure that optimum economic and social benefits are obtained from the land with minimal disturbance to wetlands of provincial significance.

Of course, the wetlands guidelines will be used in conjunction with other provincial planning policies. We recognize that other important matters also must be considered in developing any provincial land use policies. These include housing, forestry, agriculture, mining, watershed management, tourism, recreation, environmental protection and the concerns of native people.

A key element to the guidelines is a provincial evaluation system that will identify and classify all wetlands in southern Ontario, ranking them into seven classes. The first two classes will designate wetlands of provincial significance. This system will be used as a tool or instrument at various levels in Ontario's planning process. My ministry will set aside $250,000 annually over the next three to four years towards the target of completing the inventory and classification of southern Ontario's wetlands.

Proper classification according to significance will assist municipal governments, conservation authorities and other land use planning agencies when dealing with proposed alternative uses of land. Planners will be able to identify which wetlands in a given municipality are the most important to the province, to the region and to the local area.

As the members know, this policy was not formulated overnight. A great deal of work and careful planning was necessary to represent fairly all sides of this highly complex issue. Three years ago my ministry circulated a discussion paper entitled Towards a Wetland Policy for Ontario. We received more than 500 letters from the public, outlining their areas of concern and offering suggestions for a provincial wetlands management program. These suggestions were taken into consideration during the process of policy development. We welcomed the high level of public input on this important matter.

Wetlands are truly unique areas having special recreational, educational, economic and scientific value to our society. The guidelines introduced today will ensure a balanced approach to land use planning where wetlands are concerned and will provide a fair and rational framework on which to base land use decisions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that in every reactor that has been checked, garter springs have been found out of place. That is, according to many people, one of the potential causes of the harm that happened in Pickering units I and 2, leading to the embrittlement and rupture of those tubes.

We know that roughly one third of the garter springs are out of place in Bruce reactor units 5, 6 and 7. Can the minister bring this House up to date on what is happening with respect to those inspections? Is he going to have to close those reactors? What is he going to do to rectify that problem?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro is in the process of determining a

schedule by which all operating reactors will be checked during their out-of-service period. A

schedule will be drawn up as to the appropriate time to put the garter springs in question back in place.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I just told the minister that we know those garter springs are out of place in those reactors. Whether or not the minister knows it, that is current knowledge.

What is the state of the garter springs in Bruce units I to 4 and Pickering units 4, 5 and 6? We do know that with every single reactor that has been tested, garter springs have been found out of place. That is a reality. Surely the minister must be persuaded of the urgency of having full knowledge of what is going on inside those reactors. I would like him to bring this House up to date on that

schedule and what is happening with those reactors where we know the garter springs are out of place.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Of the reactors under construction, Pickering units 7 and 8, the relocation of garter springs is under way. In reactor 8, this will take place during 1984 and there will be no delay in the in-service state of those two reactors.

In Bruce unit 6, the relocation of garter springs is very nearly completed. There has been a six-month delay in the in-service date of that reactor. In Bruce unit 5, there has been a three-month delay in the in-service date; but the garter spring relocation will be completed in 1984. In Bruce unit 7, the garter spring relocation will be completed during 1984, with zero months' delay in the in-service date.

Of the reactors in operation, Pickering units 3, 4, 5 and 6 are scheduled for garter spring relocation during 1986. Bruce units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are scheduled for relocation during 1986.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not agree that no other energy technology has run into such technical difficulties in our history? Will he not agree that it is time for him to call a full public inquiry into Ontario Hydro's mindless and boneheaded commitment to 70 per cent of our electricity being produced by nuclear power when the repair to nuclear power facilities in this province at Pickering units I and 2, for example, is going to cost us as much as the original construction of that plant? Is it not time to have a full public inquiry, since the lifetime of the facilities appears to be about 15 years instead of 30 years?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with the honourable member. There are several other reactor technologies that have significantly more problems in terms of their in-service operation and in meeting the requirements --

Mr. Foulds: Nothing in the history of Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Nothing in the history of Hydro. That is a fair statement to make considering the fact that Ontario Hydro is dedicated to one technology, and that is the Candu technology. It has been an outstanding technology, and in contrast to the other technologies around the world, stands out superbly.

Mr. Peterson: What is the minister's estimate of the cost of replacing or changing the position of these garter springs that are out of place? What contingency fund has he put aside should that be necessary? It appears it is necessary. What is the cost of all that, and how will that impact on rates in this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I have not established any contingency fund for those programs. I will make those inquiries of Hydro and report back to the honourable member.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education, and it concerns the cutting off of funding for students who want upgrading in our system.

The minister will be aware that in the past, students who were enrolled in pre-post-secondary courses at colleges were eligible for the Ontario student assistance program. She has cut them off. She changed that policy. Now students in those programs can only receive assistance under the Ontario special bursaries program.

Under OSAP and the grants program, the students' living costs were a consideration, but under the special bursaries program, only the educational, transportation and sometimes the baby-sitting costs are considered.

When her own Premier (Mr. Davis) has acknowledged that we have a major job to do in this province in upgrading skills and matching them better to the marketplace, can the minister explain why she would cut off funds to those people desperately in need of help to upgrade their own skills?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member fails to note for the remainder of members in the House that those people about whom he is speaking are already benefiting under support programs from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They are receiving public funding for sustenance and maintenance, and we do try to assist them in the provision of support for education costs through the college system in the upgrading that is necessary.

I remind the member that the purpose of the Ontario student assistance program is to support students in the area of post-secondary education; it has not been designed in principle or in practice for lo these many years for the support specifically of upgrading. But with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr.

Drea), we have looked very seriously at the way in which we can best support these young women primarily, many of whom have families, to ensure they are given an opportunity to upgrade their skills so they may participate in post-secondary programs or skill development programs that would assist them in finding appropriate employment. We shall continue to do that.

I am aware that there are some who are having some problems with this at the present time, and we are reviewing that policy as well.

Mr. Peterson: I say with great respect to the minister that she is factually incorrect. Only single mothers can receive some welfare assistance; single fathers cannot. This is a desperate need, whether she knows it or not, at almost every community college in this province. They are pleading with her and they are sending letters to the Premier.

I can point out the situation at Fanshawe, for example, where they tell me from a survey taken last week that 60 students are on the waiting list; contacted regarding program openings, none of them could take advantage of those upgrading programs, because they could not afford it. There are thousands in this province in a similar situation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the minister must review her policies immediately. She did do it in the past; she cut them off two years ago. The minister cut them off, no one else; she changed the policy. That was wrong.

I am now asking the minister, will she change that policy to allow people to upgrade their skills to enter the marketplace?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I certainly applaud the crocodile tears of the Leader of the Opposition, but we have been looking at that policy very critically and very seriously for a significant period of time, and in fact we did provide additional funding through the bursary program for those students.

I remind the member there are certain principles that must be upheld, and if a policy is to be established for a program related to one specific group that does abrogate all the principles related to the total program, then one has to be very sure that one is doing this in the best possible way and for the best possible reasons.

I do not have letters from thousands. The member is suggesting I said that only single mothers were involved. I did not say that; he said it. Is he suggesting the program should be for single mothers only? If he is, why does he not stand up and say so?

An hon. member: Get serious.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am serious; he is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I learned of this problem when I was in London recently. The problem is exactly as it has been described. I raised it in the debate on the speech from the throne on Monday.

Does the minister not realize what is happening to a large number of these people, whether they happen to be single mothers or just unemployed young men without proper education? They are going on waiting lists for Canada Employment and Immigration Commission programs. Those waiting lists, because of the limitation of the number of places for retraining that are made available, are as long as 16 to 18 months in London; similar sorts of things are happening around the province.

Will the minister please extend the time that OSAP coverage can be made available to these people so they have equal access to upgrading at the college level and do not have to go back and take credit in high schools, which takes much longer to do and which is a real deterrent to their upgrading themselves to get back into meaningful employment?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, again I would reiterate that the Ontario student assistance program is specifically designed for post-secondary education; it is not designed for upgrading to the level of secondary school graduation, which is what is required in almost all of these instances.

We have ensured that all boards of education are funded to provide those programs through the secondary school system, and there are significant numbers of students who, recognizing the need for further education, have dropped back into the education system, either on a regular daily basis or through night school programs, and are availing themselves of the totally free educational program in those circumstances in order to upgrade their skills. They are supported at the present time. If they are supported under general welfare benefits, then they do not qualify as post-secondary students.

If we have to modify that policy, it will be in the development of a further arrangement, rather than in attempting to destroy the OSAP principle in order to accommodate a group of students with very real needs. We have been trying to accommodate them through the most appropriate methods.

Mr. Peterson: I will take the minister back to her own area of responsibility. She kicked the props out from under these people who have such a desperate need by removing them from eligibility for OSAP. Then she replaced that assistance, to some extent at least, with the special bursaries program. She will be aware that in a number of community colleges across Ontario those funds have run out and there is a desperate need for that program, as inadequate as it was compared to the last one. She is the one who changed the policy and replaced it with nothing. Meanwhile, the need is desperate.

How does the minister respond to the statement by Mr. Jim Silverthorne, academic coordinator at Fanshawe College in London, who wrote to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and referred to people who are attempting to "'return to school to acquire those basic academic skills...which will in turn lead to their primary goal...to get a job and get off the UIC and welfare rolls, to once more become useful members of society...and are, in effect, being told to give up...and to return to the self-degrading idleness of unemployment." How does the minister respond to that statement?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I responded extremely positively by attempting to replace the basic skills development program through the college system, which was funded initially by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. It was the feds who kicked the props out from under it two and a half years ago, not anybody else. We have been trying all that time to replace what the feds have removed.

I would be delighted if I thought the federal government was the least bit interested in providing us with assistance to ensure that basic skills development for those people could be supplied. I do not have that assurance at this time. Therefore, I am doing my very best to replace what has been removed.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: If I may have the concurrence of the House, I have just spied a member from the senior assembly who is undoubtedly joining us to pick up some pointers. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the member for Yorkton-Melville, Lorne Nystrom, MP.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that it has been pointed out that the member is with us, because, before entering the assembly, Mr. Nystrom assured me there is no federal leadership in that party now in spite of rumours.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy will be aware that Ontario Hydro is continuing to spend huge amounts of public funds on the "Go Electric" campaign, in particular on that great "talking" furnace. It is all being done to get home owners to switch to electric heating.

I would like to ask the minister how he can justify that in the face of a 7.8 per cent increase in hydro rates this year and a proposed 9.1 per cent hike next year. By themselves, these increases will cost the average home owner heating with electricity at least $100 more next year. The "talking" furnace does not say anything about that.

I would like to ask why it is that the minister's friend, the "talking" furnace, is permitted deliberately to mislead the people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member for Welland-Thorold, my colleague for the next riding, has managed to highlight one of Hydro's most innovative and creative advertising programs. It is recognized by authorities in the business as being a very effective and potent advertising program.

I would only suggest to the member that Ontario Hydro, in competition with natural gas utilities, oil companies and any other suppliers of energy to home owners, can go on the open market and compete with an advertising program that highlights the opportunities available.

I want to remind the member, who at times appears to be very concerned about rural home owners, that in many cases they have no choice when they are moving off oil -- I think his party has endorsed that concept on occasion -- but to go to electrical energy.

Mr. Swart: It certainly is potent advertising, designed to suck in those home owners who do not know what is going to happen to hydro rates in the next year or two.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: With the present federal government policy on natural gas and the current worldwide oil price policies, the minister knows very well hydro rates in Ontario, with all the costly capital and repair problems, are going to increase much more rapidly than other forms of home heating. Why does he not tell the "talking" furnace to shut up? It is misleading and stupid advertising. Put an oily rag in its mouth. He can create his own hot air: he does not need a furnace to do it.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member for Welland-Thorold is becoming very creative in his questions. I think there is a lesson here for the rest of us to learn. I only hope I can be as creative and as expletive in my answers to the member.

I want to draw to his attention that in the 10-year period from 1973 to 1982 the consumer price index rose 130 per cent, retail gasoline prices rose 250 per cent, home heating prices rose 400 per cent, natural gas prices rose 330 to 350 per cent depending on the difference in customer groups, and electricity prices rose 180 per cent.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I wonder why gas is still cheaper.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the question?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, has the minister examined those ads to ascertain for himself just how misleading they are? They set up the premise that somehow electric power is cheaper, when in fact it is not. It is also interesting to hear the minister say Hydro considers itself a competitor with these other energy forms, while at the same time and almost in the same sentence he says some consumers have no other option.

Will the minister please clarify what he is telling us, if he has examined those ads, to establish the fact that they are misleading to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I do not find the ads misleading at all. I think the ads invite consumers (

a) to make a choice when they are considering converting the heating systems in their homes and (

b) to participate in conservation.

Mr. Swart: In reply to my question, the minister quoted past costs of other forms of energy. It may be appropriate for him and members in the government to dwell in the past, but we are talking about now and the future when hydro costs are going to go up more rapidly than other forms of energy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Why would he promote the use of hydro in this manner to increase generating capacity requirements ultimately when those capital requirements are so prohibitively expensive because of the dependence on nuclear? Or is he just trying to cover up at any cost his past overbuilding at any cost so the government will not look quite so bad in the immediate future?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I cannot accept the premise that nuclear costs are contributing to the increasing cost of electrical energy. I can produce a lot of the information that is available for the member's consideration if he wishes to see it. Ontario faced a choice back in the 1950s of moving either to a stronger nuclear component or to fossil-fired generation. It made the choice to go to a nuclear component. That was a wise choice. Hydro's rates today are among the lowest in North America. That decision was a prudent and wise one when it was made and will be continue to be in the next two decades.

BARTON PLACE NURSING HOME

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to Barton Place Nursing Home, arising out of the circumstances surrounding the death of a resident, Mr. Hayden. Has the minister familiarized himself with the results of the coroner's inquest into that very unfortunate death?

The circumstances involved an admission to a hospital in which the doctor indicated Mr. Hayden was suffering gross neglect and was in a terrible condition. In view of the fact that serious and ongoing problems at Barton Place Nursing Home were raised in this Legislature on February 21, April 25 and June 20, 1983, may I ask the minister whether he is now, at last, prepared to institute proceedings to revoke the nursing home licence at Barton Place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member ought to take into consideration, in whatever recommendation he may make to me on that matter, the fact that the ministry has already responded quickly to the allegations made with respect to the situation at Barton Place.

On hearing of those allegations and of the neglect, we took immediate action. A nurse inspector was dispatched to the home immediately to review the nursing care and to provide us with an in-depth assessment of the situation. Examinations of the residents were made on February 24 and 25 by a nurse inspector and a ministry long-term care consultant to ascertain whether there were any indications of neglect.

In addition, the medical history of the gentleman in question, especially because of the comment reported to us of the admitting physician at the hospital, was reviewed by a gerontologist, a medical consultant. In addition to that, a medical audit was done of residents throughout the home. This was conducted on March 15 and 16 by a nonministry gerontologist. That gerontologist is the medical director of acute geriatric care at Toronto Western Hospital and a medical consultant to the Metro Toronto homes for the aged. As well, a registered nurse was on that team.

No report of their findings will be made available at present, but I can assure the member no evidence of neglect flowed from those findings. A complete review by an external person to the ministry, a specialist in gerontology, of the medical record of the gentleman in question said there was no evidence to sustain the allegation that had been made.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know what evidence this ministry and this government need. Does the minister not consider the record at a single nursing home to be significant? The record is as follows. In 1982, 12 violations were recorded by the minister's inspectors on 12 separate occasions. In 1983, seven violations were recorded by his inspectors on six separate occasions.

In the annual nursing home inspection in September and October 1983, at the time Mr. Hayden was being admitted to hospital, a total of 38 violations of the act was recorded in the annual inspection report covering every single aspect of care in the home. During 1983 alone two revocation orders were issued against Barton Place Nursing Home and subsequently withdrawn.

How much evidence does the minister need that this nursing home does not intend to comply at any time with the Nursing Homes Act and the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is important to put the specific violations in perspective. In some cases there have been matters of very real concern. However, if compliance is made within a specified time frame, obviously the basis upon which action could be taken no longer exists.

I share with the member that I have experienced a great deal of frustration with respect to this nursing home. Either they will remain in compliance or I will obviously take appropriate action to ensure they will no longer slip out of compliance. I hope that message has already got through to them loud and clear. Their record has not been an enviable one and they will not be permitted to continue in that way. However, any time we have found noncompliance, they have complied within a reasonable time frame.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware of complaints raised by people across Ontario about the situation in a number of nursing homes. As a follow-up to this, I refer the minister to a letter he received on March 27 from the nephew of a woman who is in a Mount Forest nursing home. He states, "It must seem to her, as it does to me, that after a lifetime of hard work she has been sentenced to some kind of bizarre prison without a trial." That is a complaint regarding a nursing home in Mount Forest.

Does the minister not agree with Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities that the time has come to appoint an independent arbiter outside the Ministry of Health who would be charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints, not only from the residents and their families, but also from organizations such as Concerned Friends that have been impeded from receiving information to date by the bureaucratic intricacies of the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to rise to debate the totally irrational and unfounded statement that crept in at the end of the question, so I will not.

I do not agree with Concerned Friends on that point. There are two things Concerned Friends is failing to take into consideration. It is already aware of one; it might not be aware of the other.

First, as of the beginning of this year, it became mandatory that each nursing home in this province provide for the establishment of a residents' council. I have a package of recommendations that I hope I will be in a position to make public shortly. Among those is an appeal process that will result in any unresolved concerns expressed by the residents' council being brought to an objective review process at the provincial level. I trust that will result.

2:40 p.m.

I should point out that the residents' council need not be composed only of residents of the nursing home. It is free to invite interested persons from the community to sit on the council. That could include members of the family or it could conceivably include interest groups, such as Concerned Friends, in cases where the residents deem that to be appropriate. Those steps we have taken and the ones we are planning to take ought to meet the concerns that have been identified by the citizens' group.

Mr. McClellan: The minister said in his answer there was absolutely no evidence of neglect. Has he read his own nursing home inspection report? Page 8 of the annual inspection report, under "Violation," states, "Not all residents who require nursing measures to prevent and care for decubitus ulcers were provided with such measures." Mr. Hayden was admitted to hospital suffering from such severe ulcers that he was described by the physician who admitted him as "being in a state of gross neglect." The physician testified at the inquest, "I would not want my worst enemy to look like that."

How much evidence does the minister require? Does he not know reports have been submitted to his ministry since October 1973? I challenge the minister to get up in his place and tell this House Barton Place Nursing Home has not been in violation of the act each and every year from 1973 through 1983. I challenge him to go back to his records and tell us that nursing home has not been in violation each and every year for the last 10 years, and continues to thumb its nose at the minister because it knows with absolute certainty, as does everybody else in Ontario, he is not prepared to enforce the Nursing Homes Act in this province.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again, that latter gratuitous comment is utter nonsense.

Mr. McClellan: Two revocation orders were withdrawn last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Even that member knows the steps that have been taken over the last six months during my still rather brief tenure in this ministry to beef up the inspection and prosecute any violations under the Nursing Homes Act. He initially asked me a question about a specific case and when he got an answer that more than adequately dealt with the concern he raised, he squirmed out from under that and started talking about a 10-year history.

Mr. McClellan: The answer did not deal with my question at all. I know a coverup when I see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member can squirm all he likes, but he is going to get forthright and honest answers from me. If he wants to twist and turn and try to change his original question he can do so, but next time he should ask the question he intends to ask when he stands up.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is not prepared to do anything. I know a coverup when I see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOTEL LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is absent, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Premier of our province. Can he inform the House whether he has been following the unfortunate strike now taking place by the employees of 10 of Toronto's major hotels? Can he give us any information on how the situation is proceeding and whether the impasse is soon to be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker. my colleague the Minister of Labour is expected in the House before the end of question period. It is my understanding he is meeting with the executive of the Ontario Federation of Labour this afternoon.

On the basis of information I have, mediation was last held on Monday, April 9, and was followed by strike action on Tuesday, April 10. I am also advised that the director of mediation services is currently monitoring the situation very closely and remaining in contact with the parties. He will reconvene the mediation effort when it appears appropriate to do so. We are leaving that as a matter of his judgement call at the moment.

Mr. Mancini: I did not quite hear the Deputy Premier's answer. Did he say mediation is not now taking place and that it is going to reconvene?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The director of mediation services is monitoring the situation at present. He is remaining in contact with the parties, and there will be a reconvening of meetings when he feels it is appropriate under the circumstances.

Mr. Mancini: I find this almost unbelievable. There are 3,500 people on strike, 10 of the major hotels here in this city are not being properly operated, and we hear from the Deputy Premier that mediation may be reconvened. This is a very serious matter. I want to know from the Deputy Premier whether he and the Minister of Labour will get involved immediately to have this strike resolved to the best possible conclusion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: My colleague the Minister of Labour has the utmost confidence in his director of mediation services.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Deputy Premier would not consider it his obligation to look into this particular dispute in view of the number of the employees who are women. The chambermaids in many of those hotels are making as little as $8,000 a year for a full 40-hour week and in some cases are making less than they would if they were on welfare or assistance with their families. Does the minister not think that is deplorable and does that not give him reason to involve himself in this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Whatever anyone's personal views may be with respect to the adequacy of compensation or whatever else is at present the subject matter of the dispute, I would feel the honourable member who just asked me that question would feel the integrity of the collective bargaining system is perhaps of paramount importance at this time and that this matter is the subject of negotiation between the parties.

[Later]

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My colleague the member for Essex South asked the Deputy Premier a question about the ongoing hotel strike, and I thought the Deputy Premier indicated the Minister of Labour might have a statement to make. I am sure we would give him unanimous consent to make it.

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think he indicated that. He indicated the Minister of Labour would appear and he did appear.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ORDERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. In the speech from the throne, the government said "a strict enforcement of family maintenance orders will be instituted." This appears to be an admission of the government's weak enforcement in the past and is borne out by the statistics published one year ago in the Globe and Mail, which estimated that $42 million in unpaid maintenance orders were outstanding in Ontario.

In view of the very serious hardship that this failure to enforce maintenance orders imposes on an estimated 40,000 women and thousands of children in this province, will the Attorney General indicate precisely what measures he is planning in order to institute strict enforcement of maintenance orders, or is this part of the empty rhetoric in the throne speech?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the member appears to harbour a little confusion about what the role of the government is in relation to enforcing maintenance orders which are the result of litigation between two individuals. Much of the problem is related to the fact that in the very mobile society in which we live, it is often very difficult for individuals to trace their spouses or former spouses.

In any event, notwithstanding the fact that fundamentally or legally the responsibility has always been for the individual to enforce, or to go to court to enforce, his or her own orders obtained as an individual from the courtroom, we in Ontario have recognized that this is a very significant problem and believe the government can play an increasing role in assisting individuals to enforce their individual orders, although it is not primarily the government's responsibility.

Ontario, I am proud to say, has been a leader in this country in developing concepts such as automatic enforcement of maintenance payments. Right now we are involved in the development of a system whereby there will be a national registry where it will be easier for citizens of all provinces to locate their defaulting spouses. We intend to enhance considerably our resources with respect to the automatic enforcement of these maintenance orders in order to alleviate this problem.

This is certainly an issue about which I have had many discussions with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), who has a real interest in these issues. I can fairly state that before the end of the spring we will have some quite significant initiatives to announce.

2:50 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: The Attorney General seems to resort to saying Ontario is a leader in family law whenever we ask questions about its deficiencies, but other provinces are passing us by and have already instituted methods of contacting defaulting spouses.

When he brought in a minor amendment last fall to the Family Law Reform Act which made it somewhat easier to attach pension payments for the enforcement of a support order, I moved an amendment that would have permitted an attachment order to be placed on pension entitlements prior to the payout of the pensions.

In view of the recent case of Simon versus Simon in the Supreme Court of Ontario, is the Attorney General now ready to enact an amendment that would make it unnecessary for someone in the position of Mrs. Jean Simon to have to go through the expense of two court hearings in order to get her maintenance order of $20,000 enforced against the pension entitlement of her spouse? She anticipated and had reason to believe he would likely skip the country before his pension started to pay out, and he had no other assets that could be attached by her. Is the Attorney General prepared to consider that kind of amendment?

It is now 15 months since he promised us his package of amendments to the act. Will he table those amendments and the report of his internal review committee as soon as possible so we can see exactly what amendments he is bringing in and then have public hearings to bring out all the deficiencies in the act and, we hope, have them corrected?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not sure I am familiar with the case of Simon versus Simon. I cannot actually address the facts of that case.

As I explained to the member earlier in relation to her amendment, the garnishment of the capital in relation to a pension could create a good deal of chaos throughout pension plans. It could be an issue of some concern. Certainly, it is an issue of great concern to labour unions. I would suggest that the member might discuss some of these issues with those who have the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of pension plans from which so many of our workers in the province benefit. I would think the member would want to be a little careful as to the amount of chaos she would want to inject into that process if she undermines the financial integrity of these pension plans.

As I said before, we will be introducing amendments during the spring that address most, but not all, of the issues about which the member is concerned.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has pointed out that he is going to bring in a package of amendments to the Family Law Reform Act some time this spring, hopefully before the middle of June, which will presumably take us further ahead in terms of the proper division of assets within a marriage.

Given the problems we have right now in just enforcing the current maintenance orders, can the Attorney General indicate to us specifically what he plans to do, what he is prepared to come forward with to ensure there is going to be an enforcement of those maintenance orders and when is he going to do that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think I may be repeating what I said earlier. As I have said on other occasions, Ontario has provided a good deal of leadership with respect to the development of a national registry. We are also going to enhance our capacity for the automatic enforcement of these maintenance and support payments through our courts, and I have made that very clear.

The specific initiatives in this context, or the details of what we are going to do, of course, will be announced when we are ready to put them in place.

PAROLE PROCEDURES

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General with respect to Richard Stevens's killing of Joseph Muglia.

According to press reports, Stevens was released after serving seven months of a 36- month sentence. As I understand this case, the original sentence was 21 months and he was to be eligible for parole after seven months; this was appealed and the sentence was raised to 36 months. Yet, according to the news reports, the Stevens gentleman was still released after having served only seven months. As a result of the appeal, the sentence was to be in penitentiary.

Was any time ever served in penitentiary? Can the Attorney General explain why, having gone through the appeal process, the time in prison turns out to have been the same as before the appeal? After having gone through all that exercise, it seems to me the parole board ignored the new judgement following the appeal.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I read a newspaper report today to indicate that this individual had not been released but had been placed on a form of day parole, during which he must report back to a halfway house every evening.

Obviously, we were interested in this particular case because the crown appealed the original sentence, as the honourable member stated, feeling it was inadequate, and the Court of Appeal, as the member has correctly stated, did increase it to 36 months.

I am not advised as to the reasons for the National Parole Board permitting this day parole after only seven months of a 36-month sentence. It is obviously an issue that concerns us, because certainly it does appear to send out a message that, notwithstanding the view of the Court of Appeal in relation to the desirability of increasing the sentence, the National Parole Board would appear, at least on the surface, to be frustrating the view of our Court of Appeal.

This issue of the extent to which the National Parole Board does allow this form of parole at a relatively early stage during the sentence is becoming of increasing concern to all citizens, and I expect this is a matter that will continue to be debated, certainly at the national level, where of course the parole legislation has to be amended if there are going to be amendments.

All I can say to the member is that I was a little concerned with this newspaper report, and I intend to speak to my criminal law advisers to ascertain whether or not we are able to obtain any information in relation to this decision.

3 p.m.

Mr. Kennedy: According to the press report, the Attorney General's aide, Mr. Allen, heard complaints about "the inadequacy of sentences (and) in hundreds of cases a year we appeal" sentences. It seems to me this just reflects that the easy parole judicial system is pretty soft and that the judicial system is not working properly.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Attorney General have this whole situation reviewed with a view to having more evenhanded justice and thereby reflect the public will?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Our crown counsel will continue to launch and argue appeals where we believe the sentences are inadequate.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to my dear friend Mme le ministre, the Minister of Education. My question deals with --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am listening.

Mr. Boudria: It was not derogatory, Bette.

Mr. Roy: I just said "Mme le ministre."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: I do not want to be nasty. The last time we were nasty she left, and I want her to stay.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Roy: My question to the minister has to do with the continuing problem of Algonquin College and the concern that is expressed throughout the community of eastern Ontario about this.

Why will the minister not accept the very sensible suggestion of my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) to have the Provincial Auditor review the administrative and financial practices of Algonquin College? Not only might some answers be given to the community about the practices that are going on there, but other community colleges that have expressed some concern about the forgiving of more than $2 million might also get some explanation or at least some reason why this situation took place so that it will not be repeated in the future.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I think I explained earlier, we will be seriously considering a range of options once the police investigations into this matter are completed. I believe that will be relatively soon.

However, I think the honourable member should know that just the day before yesterday, Algonquin College was fortunate enough to hire from the ministry one of the best systems analysts, management individuals, accountants or auditors we have ever had within the system. He will become the vice-president of administration at Algonquin. I believe that if anyone can straighten out the matters at Algonquin College, Mr. Myron will be able to do so.

I am aware that with every effort it expends the board is attempting to ensure the management of that college comes into the most appropriate structure. We are requiring of them a great deal of information regarding the activities that are being carried on by the college.

I am aware as well that concern has been expressed by some very responsible citizens who have made up that college board and who feel it is time members of political parties and other groups stop harassing the members of the board of governors and allow them to get on with the job they are trying to do, at no cost to this province but on behalf of the people of this province, to ensure the viability of that institution.

Mr. Roy: The minister and the board of governors understand each other very well. She will understand there has been some criticism, and my colleagues have expressed it, that sometimes with the boards of governors there was not sufficient communication or interchange with the community.

Will there be some structure set up whereby concerned citizens and even politicians may be allowed to make certain representations in a way that would be organized and systematic? With that, we would not have the sorry spectacle, as she has mentioned, of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) pontificating and trying to grandstand at a board of governors' meeting with the result that one member has quit and two have threatened to quit.

The minister will understand that the director, Mr. Denzil Doyle, is the type of individual we want on the board of governors of that college and that we need to stop this type of grandstanding by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I remind the honour- able members that the board of governors of that institution had provided a mechanism to allow the member in question to make a presentation, but certain rules were to be followed. The member chose not to follow any of the rules that were established, which were reasonable; they were simply that his brief be submitted in advance so the board could be prepared to understand what it was he was questioning.

Since the member refused to do that, the board's decision was simply that if their rules were not appropriate for him, it was not appropriate for them to listen to him on that occasion. Members do have the opportunity to make presentations, as do all members of the public, if such opportunity is needed, because meetings of boards of governors of colleges within this province are open, public meetings, except in very specific circumstances, which I believe the member recognizes.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statements about the board, is she aware that Mr. Doyle in resigning wrote an

article in the Ottawa Citizen in which he said the management problems at Algonquin dated back to the 1960s? What does she think of a board of governors that could have tolerated those management problems going on over all that time? Does the minister believe that over this period of time the board of governors was doing an effective job? Mr. Doyle says the management was a chronic and continuing problem over the course of 15 or 16 years.

I ask the minister this question because I would like her to say what she thinks should be done about Algonquin College when those problems have been allowed to persist by the board of governors and by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities while at the same time people in the Ottawa area find their confidence in Algonquin College seriously shaken by the inability of either the ministry or the board to get Algonquin's problems sorted out.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the current board of governors has been diligent in its pursuit of its responsibilities, and I certainly cannot fault it at all at this point. I do believe there have been difficulties within the administration that need to be corrected. It is also my firm belief that the board is attempting, diligently now, to resolve those difficulties within the administration so this institution will receive the kind of guidance it deserves.

I believe that what is necessary right now is the full co-operation of everyone related to that college -- staff, faculty, students, board of governors, administration and the members of the public -- to encourage and assist the board to resolve the problems and to help the college to remain a viable institution providing the kinds of programs it should for the Ottawa area.

TRAINING FOR CRANE OPERATORS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the lack of training for crane operators at Tecumseh Metal Products in Windsor.

Can the minister explain why his ministry is unprepared to order job training for coil hoist operators at Tecumseh Metals? Does he support the statement by his inspector from last fall that he would not order training because, "due to previous work experiences and learning abilities, no two workers would necessarily require the same amount of training," and "no matter how much training a crane operator received, he from time to time could encounter a lifting problem never experienced before at this plant"?

Is that not rather ludicrous? Is it not like saying that since doctors have different learning abilities, there should be no minimum training and because they might encounter new problems from time to time in their practice, there is no reason to require minimum training for them?

If the minister takes that position, can he explain why he has not as yet ordered training in that facility and why the joint health and safety committee at that plant has not met for almost five months?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this particular circumstance just does not come immediately to mind. I will have to follow up on the question. and I will report to the honourable member tomorrow.

3:10 p.m.

POLLUTION CONTROL EXEMPTIONS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to procedure. Earlier this week, in Hamilton, a meeting was held by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) on the subject of extending exemptions on pollution control orders for Stelco. A number of members, including myself, have expressed concern about the fact that the minister gave no advance notice to any members about the decision to request an extension on a pollution control order exemption for Stelco.

I wonder whether the Speaker might provide us with any direction as to whether members in whose ridings the major Stelco factories exist, and other members in the area, could expect to receive prior notice of Environment meetings over such important issues. The whole community was caught by surprise, it seems to me, and the ministry has the responsibility at least to inform the members about meetings on such serious issues.

Mr. Speaker: First, that is not a point of order you rose on. Second, it is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Speaker to do what you have asked. The only way to do that, or to make sure it happens, is for you to contact the minister and make him aware of your concerns.

Ms. Copps: With respect to carrying out our duties as members, I think we have to be apprised of these situations to be able to act, that is all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents from my riding in east Toronto.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present on behalf of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) and the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson).

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of electors in the great riding of Renfrew North, I have a petition to present on the same subject and in the same language as the petitions presented by my colleagues the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents from the ridings of Beaches-Woodbine and Don Mills. I support this petition, which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is a different petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and wine in small, independent grocery stores."

M. le Président, j'ai une pétition à présenter, pétition adressée au Lieutenant Gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous soussignés, par la présente pétition, demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer le projet de loi du député Don Boudria, qui permettrait aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre la bière et les vins de l'Ontario."

M. le Président, la pétition est signée par 241 personnes.

The petition is signed by 241 people. There are several more to come.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1,

An Act to revive Moramos Holding Club of Essex.

Bill Pr4,

An Act to incorporate Central Baptist Seminary and Bible College.

Bill Pr11,

An Act to incorporate the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Bill Pr18,

An Act to revive Zeta Psi Elders Association of Toronto.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on the bills.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

REPORTS, SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUSDMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the recommendations contained in the special report and the 10th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman be referred to the committee of the whole House for consideration this evening, order number 20 to be considered first, followed by order number 19.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the best way to describe this bill is to say that it is the brewpub bill for Ontario. It is aimed to ensure there is more diversity in the kinds and quality of beer available on the market, to encourage small businesses to respond to the diversity of consumer taste, to create employment and to encourage tourism in Ontario.

Currently, the Liquor Licence Act makes it impossible for a small brewery to be operated in conjunction with a pub, lounge or other licensed premise. As a consequence, it is not possible for a microbrewery which is selling on the same premise to operate. The bill will make that possible by a small change within the legislation. This will encourage not only real ale but also a great diversity in types of beer in Ontario.

3:20 p.m.

This bill has the support of a lobby group of consumers known as the Campaign for Real Ale, which is dedicated to ensuring a broader variety of beer on the Ontario market. The bill limits this privilege to manufacturers of less than 2,000 hectolitres of beer annually. For those who wish to understand the metric system, a hectolitre is equal to 100 litres, and 2,000 hectolitres is equal to 24,452 cases of beer. It is a small business bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Mr. Cousens, seconded by Mr. Barlow, moved resolution 5:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government, recognizing that the prosperity and job creation capability of the Ontario economy are directly linked to the province's competitive position in the international marketplace and the corresponding performance of Ontario's export trade sector, should therefore further attempt to co-ordinate and consolidate existing and disparate ministry export programs, product promotion initiatives and technology improvement efforts under a comprehensive, unified and progressive export development strategy.

Mr. Speaker: I would just remind the honourable member he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of that time for a windup.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to reserve any portion remaining at the end of my remarks for a follow-up later on.

With the recession behind us now and with recovery under way, we can begin to look to the future with more optimism. There is every reason for this province and this country to be confident we will continue to thrive and prosper for the remainder of this century and well into the next.

Canada has a competitive edge in human resources and natural resources and is a leader in world-class technology. What we now need is more political will to take advantage of the great opportunities existing in the political marketplace.

The rapid pace of development we are witnessing throughout the world today is unprecedented in the history of mankind. The global economic structures are undergoing a massive transformation. Moreover, this transformation is creating new needs and demands. Through Canada's people, resources and skills, we are in an optimal position to meet these challenges. For these reasons, our economy appears poised to become a winner on the international economic stage.

Thus, today I wish to address the importance of further co-ordinating and consolidating Ontario's export development programs and strategy. This government recognizes that it is only with increased export trade that Canada will continue to have a prosperous, dynamic economy. As a province, we must address the realities of the changing world economy. No longer can we assume that what made sense economically in the past will make economic sense in the future. Ontario must come to grips in a positive way with the significant structural changes occurring throughout the global economy. We must continue, as this government is doing, to make economic issues a priority.

In the minds of Ontario citizens, the economy remains at the forefront of the public policy agenda. After the worst recession since the Great Depression, this province is now witnessing a most encouraging recovery. At the end of last year the national inflation rate had declined to 5.8 per cent per annum for 1983. Ontario's unemployment rate had dropped to 8.9 per cent. In November of last year the manufacturing sector alone had 79,000 more jobs than it did a year earlier. Our gross national product increased by eight per cent in the third quarter of 1983.

In large part the fiscal policies of this government have been responsible for this recovery. It is through strong and effective leadership that this province has been able to achieve a growing economy. Despite this encouraging news, there still remains a high degree of economic uncertainty. We remember what preceded the present recovery. Each one of us can identify with all those people who have not yet felt its positive repercussions.

The despair caused by the recession is something we must all work towards avoiding. No one wants to see the indignity faced by so many Canadians because of double-digit unemployment rates or the value of hard-earned dollars eroded by climbing inflation. No one wants to see the economy in a downturn position again. We all know this does not have to happen.

Ontario is fortunate to be one of the world's most richly endowed regions, but we cannot rest on our laurels alone. This province must take hold of its current recovery. With our diverse areas of expertise, we can begin to secure a long-term solution for a stable, prosperous and dynamic economy.

Immediate and decisive action is required to spearhead Canada's drive towards a larger and more competitive role in the world economy. We must recognize that major adjustments are required in the Ontario economy if we are to survive in an increasingly competitive world. Our economic horizons must shift beyond the borders of Ontario and Canada. The globe must become our marketplace.

I am not forgetting that barriers are being dropped and there is increased competition here. We face great challenges. As a government and a province, we must recognize and facilitate the adjustments which will be required in our economic structure. Our objective of increased international competitiveness is dependent on such action.

It is true that such economic adjustments will have major implications that will reverberate throughout our social structure. For some, there may be temporary hardships associated with the pursuit of our long-term economic goals. This government will attempt to minimize that.

I am proud our government has addressed this challenge. It has been a leader among the provinces in Canada, stressing the need to become more important in this global market. Our own Premier (Mr. Davis) supported the annual Premiers' communiqué on the economy, which identified improvements in Canada's international competitiveness, expanded international marketing activities and the adoption of the manufacturing and resource sectors to changing world economic priorities. All of these became key elements in a comprehensive economic recovery strategy.

The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) has made a concerted effort to establish the infrastructure necessary to foster increasing competitiveness in Ontario. Last fall his ministry developed an export strategy designed to promote Ontario goods and services. It set a goal of increasing this province's exports to $60 billion from $40 billion, and that should happen by the end of 1987. He has special programs -- the export success fund, export marketing group and an international marketing interim program. All of these are being positively received by the marketplace.

Making Ontario more competitive in the global sense is a vital step to our provincial wellbeing. The world market is such that Canadians must build on our advantages and strengths. We cannot pretend to be insular. We cannot just have protective policies. The realities are such that increased export trade is the only viable solution for a strong economy and an improved standard of living. For this reason, I am truly hopeful this House will unanimously endorse this resolution.

To realize our trading objectives, we must improve our competitive edge and productivity. Improving our competitive edge means concentrating on what we do best. We must recognize Canadian manufacturing can no longer compete with some of the mass-produced products of the Third World. Further, Canada must recognize the limitations of its domestic economy.

The international marketplace opens many doors for our internationally competitive products. However, developing government policies which promote innovative, specialized and technically advanced products with a high value- added component is one feasible method through which government can assist. Our six high-technology centres are examples of where our government is doing something concrete and worth while to accelerate the whole process of manufacturing and improving productivity in this province.

I am pleased to be on the board of directors of the Ontario Centre for Advanced Manufacturing. I know that some of the 60,000 people who have gone through that centre are starting to think seriously about doing something about their own manufacturing businesses.

3:30 p.m.

We in this province have an important task to do to address that global challenge. We need to develop innovative products and to streamline our factories; we have to do everything we can. But one of the basic things we need to do is to improve the productivity of the people who are already out there working.

In the last few years it has been fascinating to see how the productivity in this country has been getting worse. In a recent study completed by the prestigious European Management Forum, the rating of Canada's international competitiveness had dropped to 11th position in 1983 from sixth position in 1982 and fifth in 1981. Such a performance is not going to give Ontario a place in the winner's circle.

This House will agree that Ontario is in a position to change this. Economists forecast that the remainder of this decade should bring sustained economic growth to Canada. We want to be part of that growth and leaders in making that growth happen. We want to have more productivity and become part of the real decision-making process that is going to make Ontario and Canada one of the great, leading countries of the industrial world. But governments and agencies must work together to make this happen. Governments must begin to think more seriously of establishing an economic climate, an environment where business can prosper and make a profit and contribute to the wellbeing of society.

One of the important things our province can do to improve productivity is to concentrate on strengthening our technological foundation and base through our organizations such as the York Technology Association, of which I happen to be co-chairman along with the president of MDS Canada. This is an association of some 100 companies in northeast Metro and south York region coming together to try to do something to improve the opportunities for high-technology businesses.

There are very great success stories there but we need to make more success stories. Perhaps what needs to happen is some of the industrialists of our country have to start contributing more to the decision-making process of government so the government can then start to take more advantage of what the high-technology industry and our people out there whom we are trying to serve really want. Government cannot do it alone; we need to involve the people of industry far more.

I do not think there is any doubt we have to take greater advantage of our educational institutions and establish links with the educational industry, as we know it -- where we have $150-million labs at the University of Toronto -- to get it out there working with the small entrepreneur and the small businessman to develop new gadgets, new devices so they can succeed on the Canadian and international market.

The York Technology Association has already established linkages with the University of Toronto through initial discussions which could lead to even more advancement of the educational community getting out there to work with the world of industry.

One need not understand more than basic economics to realize that greater product demand means economic growth, more jobs and a better standard of living. Ontario cannot just look towards improving efficiency and productivity in our existing industries. Government must foster the development and growth of new internationally competitive industries. The possibilities in this area are limited only by our creativeness and our innovativeness.

Small companies everywhere are finding demand for specialized products and changing markets. Opportunities exist in largely unthought-of markets such as the Third World. The 94 countries the World Bank classifies as developing countries have a total gross domestic product of more than $2.4 trillion. These nations are urbanizing and industrializing at a phenomenal pace. Thus, they demand modern technology to help them cope with the problems they are having.

What we need to do in Ontario is to find the niches, so we can then go out into this world of free enterprise and help our businesses and industry not only to survive today, but to prepare for the future where they can then succeed as they have never succeeded.

We have examples where the Urban Transportation Development Corp. project is something that could be used in other parts of the world. We should push it, sell it, promote it. Ontario's opportunities do not end with the developing countries alone. Opportunities are everywhere to develop our manufacturing and service sectors to assist us in becoming a major player in the whole world arena.

This past week Canadians were thrilled when the Canadarm was again used in an exciting project in outer space. It was an example of Canadian technology being used in a marvellous way. If de Havilland survives, and I hope it does survive, we will have the Dash-8 and the expertise behind the Dash-8 in this province and in this country. It should be sold not only here but around the world.

We see companies such as Geac Canada Ltd. and Lanpar Ltd. in my own riding, computer companies succeeding in the world marketplace with Canadian design, Canadian software and Canadian innovation. Ontario needs to gain a larger share of the international market. We must promote our products and our services to the rest of the world.

It means we should participate in trade shows. There was a huge trade show in Japan last year. It was the annual electronics show. For once Ontario was there. Our own Ministry of Industry and Trade is supporting this kind of endeavour. The fair in Hanover is on now and Ontario is represented. This is the kind of thing that is beginning, but we must maintain momentum so the people of our province can take advantage of those opportunities.

The opportunities are virtually limitless. Nations around the world crave the products of Ontario and the skills that are in Ontario products, in Ontario people and in Ontario services. They require these things and it is for us to sell them.

We already know Ontario is doing a great deal in these areas. I am saying it must do more. It must find more opportunities. It must find ways in which we can promote Ontario to potential markets. As I said before, the government must provide the political will to make sure this happens.

With this resolution I am hoping we will see co-operation begin to take place, where all parties in this House can be like all governments in this country, working together to make this country one of the greatest countries in the world. I think it is great now, but to face up to the opportunities that exist throughout the whole world we need to work together with strategies co-ordinated by the federal and provincial governments and go forward with something that will bring more success.

If Ontario reaches its export goal of $60 billion in trade by the end of 1987, it will gain 150,000 new jobs and add $1.5 billion in provincial revenue. That is one of the goals our own Minister of Industry and Trade has.

We need to see ourselves working together in a common goal that leads to success and leads to a reward we are going to need to have. Unless we do this, our own standard of living will not be maintained. It will be eroded by other countries that have started this process before us.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I am a little unsure exactly what the member had in mind when he put this resolution forward. I have no doubt whatsoever of his own personal feelings on this issue. As a matter of fact, I compliment him for the work he is doing in his own area with respect to the issue and with respect to upgrading industry in the new technologies. He is known for that and is complimented for it.

The resolution itself leaves me a little perplexed. After having heard the member, I must say my perplexity has not changed. His comments were a series of generalities; there was nothing specific. The comments seemed to repeat what the ministry had indicated it is already doing and supporting. Perhaps in his last four minutes the member can be a little more specific and indicate exactly what he had in mind here.

One would certainly get the impression from the resolution that the member was unhappy with what is happening now. He refers, and I use his own words, to "disparate ministry export programs, product promotion initiatives and technology improvement efforts." After reading this resolution, one would be led to believe he had some real concerns about the effectiveness of the export programs, product promotion and technology improvements. Well he should, because we certainly have some concerns about what this government is doing and what it should be doing.

I certainly agree with him that the future economic health of Ontario and of Canada, and the job opportunities in Ontario and in Canada, depend to a very large extent on the ability we have to create more trade opportunities. As a matter of fact, what is not well known is that Ontario -- Canada as a whole, but Ontario in particular -- is more dependent upon trade than almost any other jurisdiction in the western world.

What is often not known is that Japan, which has a great international reputation for expending a great deal of energy and a great deal of its funds in trade, in fact exports only 12 per cent of all it manufactures. It manufactures a great deal and so that 12 per cent is a great deal, but what it also suggests to us is that 88 per cent of everything it makes is absorbed by its own domestic market,

whereas we here in Ontario export 33 per cent, one third, of everything we manufacture. We have to do that if we are going to remain a viable economic entity. Therefore, trade for Ontario -- trade for all of Canada, but particularly for Ontario -- is not only something that we can wish for, it is something we absolutely require.

The member did refer to the fact that Ontario has begun to move into the high-technology era and has begun to assist industry in Ontario by the setting up of the technology centres, and I compliment the government on that. I compliment the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) on his support for those centres. As the member may know, as the critic for the Ministry of Industry and Trade I have visited those various technology centres and I have been rather impressed by what I saw.

However, one of the points we have to keep in mind -- and I am looking at the member's resolution -- is that we are facing a potential dilemma. As we need to upgrade our technology so we can be competitive on the world stage and international markets, we are facing the possibility of not increasing job opportunities but, in fact, of decreasing job opportunities.

As a matter of fact, I would draw to the member's attention that just two months ago, on TVOntario, a program entitled The Future of Work, moderated by a Mr. McManus, predicted that within the next 15 years, as we move more and more into the new technologies in Ontario, we are going to lose 40 per cent of our jobs; 40 per cent of the people who are now working in industry in Ontario will no longer be working in an industry in Ontario.

It may very well be possible that some other kinds of jobs will be provided for those people. Whether or not we can provide more service jobs, whether or not we can provide different kinds of industrial jobs, only the future will tell, but we have to be very clear in understanding that just because we move into the new technologies -- and move into them we must; about that there can be little argument -- this does not necessarily mean we are going to create new jobs. It is something we are going to have to look at in tandem.

One of the points I would like to draw to the member's attention is the need for us here in Canada to work much more co-operatively than we do at the present time. I wonder, for example, if the minister is aware of the fact that in the city of London, England, there are six Canadian trade offices; not one, two or three, but six. Six different Canadian jurisdictions have seen fit to set up those trade offices. That happens to be the highest number, but there are a number of other American cities, a number of European jurisdictions and even places in the Pacific, in Japan and in Hong Kong, where we have this continuing duplication of services.

I wonder if we have any concept of what that does to the mentality of those people when they look upon Canada as a trading nation. When we look at the success of other countries -- Japan in particular; surely the classic example -- you do not have that kind of duplication, you do not have that kind of tripping over each other's feet. Why do we have it? Why is it necessary for the federal government and the various provincial governments all to feel they must be represented independently in these jurisdictions? When are we going to get together and do it co-operatively?

I am not sure. I do not have any magic answers as to the particular process that needs to be set up. What I do know is that we are all wasting millions of dollars. What I also know is that we are probably, from a business point of view, the laughing-stock of those other jurisdictions, "There are those silly Canadians tripping over here, tripping over one another instead of getting together, putting their act together and working together."

I also have to ask whether or not what we are doing at the present time is truly effective. I would draw to the member's attention that in the last 12-month period Ontario spent $2 million on trade missions and trade exhibitions, and for that expenditure 420 firms generated $25-million worth of business. That sounds pretty good except when you look at the previous 12-month period. Ontario spent only $1.2 million -- almost 50 per cent less -- and during that time 620 firms -- 200 more -- generated $38 million of sales.

That is a strange tradeoff. In the previous 12-month period we spent less, we involved more firms and we did more business; in the most recent 12-month period we spent more and got less for it. There may be lots of reasons for that, but surely the question that has to arise is what are we doing to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of what we are doing. Does anyone pull all of this together? I agree with some of the things the member has suggested need to be done, but what we really have to do is to look at the effectiveness of what we are already doing.

It does not appear to be nearly as effective as it could be, especially when our economic future and the welfare of our people are so dependent upon trade.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a number of resolutions like this come through Thursday afternoon debates here, and by and large I think most members have taken a look at them and said: "That is a good idea. It does not solve all of the problems, but it does address itself to a portion of things." So we have by and large tended to support this kind of resolution.

When I first saw this one, it struck me that this is part of what we should be doing. In it are some of the current trends in marketing strategies, developing new technologies, getting them on stream and then promoting them; and that is a worthwhile thing to do.

After a little reflection, I came to the conclusion that I am not going to support this resolution. At some point we must sit down collectively and say, "There is enough trendiness out there that we have to address ourselves to the larger problem."

3:50 p.m.

Members may recall that last year one of the resolutions had to do with high tech. In last year's economic parlance the flashy thing was to talk about Canada's development in high technology, how we have a bit of a leg up in certain fields and how we have problems in other fields. There was kind of a long economic discussion in here and in the real world outside as well as in the academic world about how we ought to go after the high-technology end of the market. The difficulty is that it is no longer trendy.

One of the latest things to come about is to talk about this export promotion stuff. The Ministry of Industry and Trade has a little program called the export success program, which is a relatively minor portion of things we need to do.

I have arrived at the stage where I am not going to be supportive of someone bringing us this year's trendy issue, putting it in front of the assembly and saying, "Let us go do this for a while." It is true, and I do not deny for a moment, that when we develop new product lines, new technology or a new way of doing things, we have to go out and compete in a world market. But that is at the end of the process; that assumes the rest of the process will look after itself. I know better than that; it is not going to happen.

I listened to the introductory remarks of the member who sponsored the resolution and they rather confirmed my suspicions that in supporting this kind of resolution one does not even address the major problem; one looks at one technique at the end of a process and pins all of one's hopes that the current little trend is going to resolve the problem. I do not believe for a moment it will, and that is why I am going to have to speak against it and vote against it.

I believe it is an old-fashioned notion to say any one sector of our economy is going to lead us out of this. I do not believe that will happen in the private sector. In my investigation of what the private sector is up to these days and what it has been up to in the past, I have never come across anyone in the private sector who says it is the responsibility of the private sector alone to provide full employment for a nation or for a province.

In my contacts with those people, they have always been rather straightforward. They have said: "We are in business to make a profit. That is why we are here. Along the way we will provide jobs for people. Along the way we will stimulate other parts of the economy. Along the way we will help the economy of the province or of Canada." But they have never said it was their responsibility to provide full employment.

There are many people around these days who would argue that we are in the middle of some kind of investment-led recovery. I believe that is quite wrong. In the reality where I live, it certainly is wrong. The recovery is happening in certain portions of our economy but it is not happening at all in other portions.

In Oshawa, for example, one could make a pretty good argument that General Motors is going good again: there are extra shifts being put on, guys are working overtime and all of that. If one is myopic enough to look at that one small sector of our local economy, one will get a wrong concept fixed in one's mind, because in the rest of the economy things are not at all rosy. The smaller plants remain closed and the trend is that they are continuing to close in Hamilton, in Collingwood and all over the place.

We are beginning to understand that we are in the middle of a world economy here. Our workers are competing on a world basis against nations that not only offer great incentives to industrialists these days but also have average daily wage rates of something like $8 to $10 per day, or $1.50 per hour. Our workers are not going to compete against those for very long, nor are our industries.

The other day I heard someone from Canadian General Electric say the ideal production facility should be built on a boat that simply would be towed along to the country with the lowest wage rate in the world, parked there while that remained the lowest wage rate and then moved to some other place where workers were exploited more.

There has been much yatter about Japan and how wonderful it is, but one should look at the trends in the current Japanese industrial structure. The radio, the television set or the VCR one buys is very likely thought to be a Japanese-made product, but when one investigates how it is put together, one is amazed to find out that it is not; many of the parts come from countries adjacent to Japan in the Pacific Rim. They are producing parts outside of Japan for production in Japan.

The other day I saw a study that suggested Japanese automobile makers, always thought to have an advantage in the world market, are contemplating almost totally moving their production facilities out of Japan into places where they can exploit lower wage rates.

That trend is there even in Japan and it is certainly the case here. We are losing the Allen Industries plant in Hamilton. That firm is going to Mexico for a lower wage rate.

We have to take a good look at what other nations are doing. In other jurisdictions, one of the things a company has to look at is that it cannot just shut down a plant and leave. It has obligations to the workers who have invested their lives in that plant and it has to make sure those obligations are fulfilled. There is an obligation to the government there. In other jurisdictions, a firm cannot just pack up and blow away. Very often we see Canadian plants shut down simply because it is so easy to do that in Canada. We have to address ourselves to that.

We have to talk about content legislation in everything from computers to automobiles because other investment nations such as Brazil and Mexico are saying that anyone wanting to sell in their market has to produce their goods there. That is an important point that has to be made. If we do not save the jobs we now have, we cannot realistically talk about an expansion of our economic growth elsewhere.

It would be nice to run around and say the simple solution is to sell new products in the world market, but we will not be able to do that for very long. It will not do very much for our economy if we lose our existing manufacturing base, which is exactly what is happening.

The final point I want to touch on, because it is a matter of some concern to me, is the idea that anybody in the private sector or the public sector, any little bright idea even, is going to resolve our economic problems. That is hogwash and we should have learned that by now. We should have learned that lesson a long time ago. The solution to our economic problems relies on a collective will to take a positive approach to the future, to take a look at our existing practices within the industrial sector and within the public sector and to come to a consensus. That is not easy to do, in particular in the private sector where there is a lot of heavy competition back and forth.

The truth is that other nations have done just that. Governments must play a role in that and so must the private sector. Without that collective will to change the way we do things, without that collective will to use the new technology, that new technology will wind up being a curse to our society because the choice is plain: we use the new technology to change the means of production, to improve the lives of ordinary workers and to make products and marketing techniques better, or we wind up with something that is literally a curse on the whole industrial sector. It is of no great advantage to either the worker or the industry.

I believe now is the time we must stop fiddling around with notions from another century. We must develop here in Canada, by

an act of collective will, some new ways of doing things. This resolution this afternoon addresses itself to one portion of that, one rather small portion after the fact, so to speak. I believe it is time to stop touting these things as being solutions. It is time to be more comprehensive in our analysis of what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong.

It is time to recognize finally that this solution will come about only by

an act of collective will. That involves the workers, the private sector and governments creating a consensus and moving to implement the results of that consensus on the worldwide market which now exists so that this province and this country can have what they so desperately need. That is some economic revival.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am certainly going to support this resolution. I am surprised to hear the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) suggest he may not be supporting it. After he hears all of the arguments, perhaps he will swing over to the side of the member for York Centre and support the resolution.

There is no question that increased export trade for this province is necessary if we are to prosper through this century and on into the 21st century. Moreover, this government has a vital role to play in ensuring that Ontario receives and indeed increases its share of the massive export market. Through further attempting to coordinate our export programs and policies into one cohesive export strategy, this government will be doing its utmost to see this happen.

4 p.m.

As my colleague the member for York Centre has already stated, development of export trade is already a priority for this government, as it is for all provincial governments. Through its policies and programs, it fosters Ontario's growth in the international marketplace. As this resolution proposes, even further attempts should and must be made to develop Ontario's exports.

The importance of doing so cannot be underestimated. At present, it is the export industries that appear to be providing the current forward momentum for Canada's economy. It is these firms that are creating the new jobs and raising our output. Exports of manufactured goods increased by 16.5 per cent last year to $33.4 billion. In Ontario, export-related activity resulted in the employment of 800,000 people; that is nearly 20 per cent of Ontario's total employed labour force.

The value of Ontario's exports per capita surpasses that of the rest of this country and of the three major industrial powers of West Germany, the United States and, as has been recognized, Japan. On a per capita basis, Ontario's total exports were valued at US$3,432 in 1982; that is nearly three times the per capita trading value of Japan.

While these figures sound impressive, we must recognize that Ontario's share of the international market declined throughout the 1970s. Ontario's share of world trade has dropped from 2.3 per cent in 1970 to 1.6 per cent in 1982. This decline in share of world trade has meant a loss for Ontario of $16 billion in exports and 300,000 jobs. That is enough of the statistics.

The mover of this resolution has already spoken about how Ontario must work towards making adjustments in our economic structures. Initiatives in this area are necessary if this province is to meet the major challenge proposed by the changing world market and the international marketplace. I concur that this government should attempt further co-ordination of these activities. Free trade has its place in this industrial economy; there is no question about that.

Today I want to speak about the enterprises that will facilitate and ultimately reap the benefits of economic adjustments and increased export trade, the small businesses and industries found throughout Ontario. I will address how further co-ordination of government policy will assist and encourage these small- and medium-sized firms to export. I will discuss the importance of a cohesive export strategy for the average man on the street.

The potential for small Ontario firms in the export market is vast. In 1982 only 22 per cent of Ontario's manufacturers exported their products. That means that out of 14,500 manufacturing firms, roughly 11,300 limited themselves strictly to the domestic market. For Ontario to prosper, it is increasingly evident that our companies must identify the international opportunities that exist and begin to move into those markets. It is also necessary that the Ontario government further endeavour to provide the infrastructure and support necessary to achieve this.

In my riding there are some firms responding to this challenge with the help of the Ontario government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade. For example, one manufacturer recognized a growing market in the filtration equipment field. He developed a fuel filtration system with many safety features that are now required by the major airlines. These devices are now required by law throughout Canada.

This company, 3-L Filters Ltd., recognized the market was out there and went after it. The firm has been on many trade missions with the province. It has sold its products worldwide, and about 80 per cent of its products are exported. The government was with the firm on a recent trade mission to South America, discussing the problem of water filtration down there. They developed a water filtration system that is now on the world market.

This is just one industry that has recognized and realized through foresight that it must get involved in the export field. It has benefited not only the company, the riding of Cambridge and the city of Cambridge but also the entire country. Their product is characterized by high value added, high specialization and low volume demand. This is a really competitive area that had to be entered. This company has demonstrated that government initiatives and programs can assist in identification of countless innovative possibilities that exist in markets throughout the world.

The thrust of this resolution is to encourage the government to further attempt the co-ordination of such export policies so more companies can move into the export market. But we must not stop with assisting companies to find and identify the new world markets where Ontario firms can meet a demand.

As the member for York Centre has suggested, our export strategy must further co-ordinate in a fashion that encourages the creation of high- technology, innovative products that can effectively fill many of the voids in the world markets. As he stated, Ontario has the education, expertise and human resources to make major inroads in this sphere. The government must realize that the development of these products is not limited to the major laboratories across Canada.

A second firm I would like to recognize in this field in Cambridge is Com Dev Ltd. Com Dev manufactures microwave devices and subsystems for communications satellites and earth terminals. The company is the world's largest single supplier of microwave multiplexing systems for communications satellites. In fact, more than 40 satellites scheduled for launch between now and 1986 will carry components designed and manufactured by Com Dev Ltd.

It is obvious their technical expertise is matched by very few others. This advanced capability has opened doors for the company worldwide. Fully 94 per cent of their revenues for the last fiscal year were contributed by way of export sales. Their market has been growing. That is what is meant by this company selling on the export and worldwide markets.

Small companies do not know how to get out and sell in the world market. This is why the government has to co-ordinate and assist them in the promotion of their products on a worldwide basis. The government must attempt to make exporting to the other side of the world as easy as shipping across town. The village boundaries that were the parameters of trade 100 years ago have evolved into the global boundaries of today. This government must continue to ensure that Ontario businesses are prepared to compete within this sphere.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the resolution we see before us this afternoon.

It is particularly interesting to see a member of the government party introduce a resolution that indicates the government of this province should recognize the importance of a particular sector. We can only conclude from reading the resolution that the government has obviously ignored it in the past if it must now start recognizing what it was not doing before.

There is a sentence here that says in

part it "should therefore further attempt to coordinate." We can only assume from reading that phrase that the present policies are uncoordinated. I wholeheartedly agree with the lack of co-ordination we see on the part of this government vis-à-vis consolidating existing programs of any kind, let alone the export programs of the government of Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

We know it is very difficult for entrepreneurs attempting to start up a business in Ontario to obtain the necessary funding to start any kind of venture, in the export area or elsewhere. For instance, in the part of eastern Ontario where I am from -- and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), whom I see over there -- we know the eastern Ontario development agreement, through which we used to channel several projects to obtain some funding, has now run out of money. It was a federal-provincial five-year agreement, and although the fifth year is not quite over, there is no money left in it.

For its part, the federal government has established a program in at least parts of my constituency. I cannot think of the name of that program right now; they have changed it two or three times. In any case, it is a program to assist people starting new manufacturing plants in our area. I think part of the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is included in that program as well. We see no similar efforts on the part of this government to try to stimulate business and new entrepreneurship in our area.

It is very disheartening to see that while we have one million jobs in this province that depend on export-related activities, we are suffering from a problem whereby in the last decade our share of world trade has actually decreased. When we talk of exporting here we are talking of products of all kinds. We are not just talking about electronics, although that is a very important sector. We are talking about agriculture and a variety of products which, as members know, we have exported in the past.

Again, looking at Ontario's agricultural industry, which traditionally was at least a component of our exports -- and we have to look at this in the context not only of exporting but of import replacement as well -- we are losing that battle in the agricultural area. Certainly many of the products we at one time used to grow in Ontario we are now importing from the southern jurisdictions. We see those products coming into our province.

At the same time we see that our subsidies in the agricultural area are totally deficient, as we all know and as I am sure we all agree, in comparison to those of other jurisdictions. The net effect is that where we were competitive in the export of those products in the past we are no longer, and we find ourselves importing the same products we were exporting only a few years ago.

To get back to the area of manufacturing as it pertains to the exporting sector, it is interesting to note that had we properly retrained our labour force in the manufacturing sector for the new technology that we see coming, we would have found ourselves today with an unemployment rate of half of what it is now.

This is probably what the member for York Centre is referring to. We need a more coordinated approach which will result in higher employment, less unemployment and better opportunities for export trade of all kinds. When I refer to export trade, I naturally also think of import replacement, because one is as important as the other.

If we had maintained our share of world trade, we would have had another 200,000 to 300,000 people of this province working. Again, I agree with the member for York Centre who says that we need to be co-ordinated, because if we have lost 200,000 to 300,000 jobs in this province, we really are an unco-ordinated bunch.

For instance, let us just think that had we kept our share of the world market, and were we to have assigned those jobs among our young people -- we have 183,000 young people unemployed; those are the March 1984 statistics -- we could have employed all of our youth, had we done that right, and we would still be short some people. We would have had to get them from among the more senior of our workers who are unemployed, or we could have done it vice versa. This will indicate to members just how badly we have mismanaged this area in the past if we have become this deficient, where we lost such a great part of the market we had.

We know the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Ontario is 9.4 per cent right now. That is 434,000 people. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), who is listening at the present time, will know that had we a better export development strategy, 300,000 of those 434,000 people would be employed. This means there would be hardly any unemployment at all had the government listened to the kind of advice the member for York Centre is giving to us right now.

It is high time the government listened to some of this advice. It has not listened to it in the past when we have told it, and I have difficulty in imagining why it would listen to those members more than it has listened to us. The member knows as well as I do that the government does not listen to the back-benchers at all; it listens to them even less than it listens to us. It listens to us a little bit more because we tend to make more noise.

In the throne speech, the government talked about the export area. It said: "World trade almost doubled in the 1970s and is expanding once more. If Ontario is to prosper and maximize its potential, we must share fully in this adventure." Even looking at the throne speech, there is an admission there that if we are going to start doing things right -- which means we are not doing them right now -- we are going to have to start to wake up in this province and get into the export development area, which we have so badly neglected in the past.

Again, we read in the same throne speech document that the export success fund and all those other programs we have are going to be reinforced. There is another word governments use when they say they are going to put more money into something -- enrich; they are going to enrich a program. It is interesting to see that when they are talking about poverty cases and they are going to give them another $2 or something, they call that enriched. If I ever heard of an exaggeration of how the dictionary is used, that is certainly one case right there. So we are going to enrich in this particular area of concern.

We have such a variety of agencies from this government doing various things in this area right now that it is totally unco-ordinated. We are talking of the export success fund, the Ontario International Corp., the Ontario Educational Services Corp. and, last and certainly least, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, where we have put some BILD money into certain projects that otherwise probably would have been done anyway, but we have called them BILD to rationalize the propaganda of the last provincial election.

I am glad the member for York Centre has brought this resolution to our attention today. It helps to reinforce what we on this side of the House have been saying, that this government has not been doing its job in the past.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise with something of the same attitude of my colleague the member for Oshawa with regard to this resolution. We did not have any discussion about it before he rose. I feel as he does, that this resolution is one of the sort of motherhood resolutions that one would expect all members to support. The main thrust of this resolution is to increase our exports, but I, like my colleague, am going to vote against it.

I want to say that I recognize the place of exports in our economy. I realize that if we are going to buy from outside we have to sell to outside, but my objection --

Mr. Boudria: We buy constitutional medallions from outside.

Mr. Swart: And even lottery tickets.

My objection is related to priorities. This is put forward by the member for York Centre as the main answer to our massive economic problems. It is a Tory priority, especially his. I heard him say the other day he wants to fly with the eagles; he does not want to sit with the turkeys. I want to say to him he will be roosting with that back-bench flock for a long time, assuming he can get re-elected, if he comes out with statements like that. I mention that statement because it really was a right-wing statement. He raised that issue to show his government was too far to the left. He wanted to be with the true private enterprisers.

This resolution does not deal with the fundamental faults of our economic system, nor do other things the member and his government do. I am sure the member must know we had a favourable trade balance last year of something like $2 billion. We had a favourable trade balance the year before of something like $3 billion. We traditionally have a trade imbalance in this nation when times are prosperous. I realize all countries cannot have an excess of exports over imports. That is a real impossibility. If we can get the balance, that is the best goal we can achieve.

In depressions we have good trade balances. It has always been shown to be that way. In good times we have trade imbalances. I would not be a bit surprised if the member for York Centre might like to promote the depression so we would have a good trade balance. That would be the standard right-wing philosophy. The proposal here to increase exports, to have a good export trade, is part of the package, but it is not the real cause and, therefore, cannot be the solution to our present economic problems.

A much more important factor is to make this country self-sufficient. We have something like $4 billion worth of food imports, $2 billion worth of which we can produce ourselves. The government does nothing about this. This year in my area we are importing far more wines than we were previously. In fact, Canada is the third largest importing country for wines which we can produce ourselves. The government does nothing about achieving self-sufficiency in a natural resource industry.

In normal and prosperous times we have something like a $15-billion industrial production deficit. The federal Liberals and this provincial government do nothing about that. The Liberals and the Tories will not touch those things because they would have to interfere in the private sector. This government does not believe in that. That is hands off. But the government has to do that if it is going to show self-sufficiency. At present the multinational corporations are making the decisions, not the governments at all. They do not have a handle on the economy. The multinational corporations are making the decisions, based on what is good for them and not on what is good for Canada.

This brings me to the final and all-important point. What we must do in our economy is to change the system so that decisions are made on the basis of what is good for employment, what is good for production, what is good for fair sharing and what is good for internal consumption, not just on what is good for profit. What we have to do is plan to meet our own domestic needs. There are people in this nation who would love to have billions of dollars worth of things they need. They are not just wants; they are needs. But we do not plan to meet those kinds of things.

Pierre Berton, speaking at McMaster University in Hamilton last fall, made this comment, which I used the other day: "'I hope you will remember,' Berton told the more than 560 graduating students, 'if we are going to prosper, we are going to have to change the system." He went on to say, "If you do not change the system, the system will change you."

That is what has to be done. We have fallen behind much of the rest of the world because we have not changed the system to a democratic socialist way of doing things as have the other Western democracies that have passed us. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany and Switzerland have all moved ahead of us. According to the World Bank, they have a higher average standard of living than we have in this nation or in the United States. After the United States led the world for 40 years, for four decades, in average standard of living with Canada second, we are now down to 10th, 11th, 12th and probably 15th by this time.

Those countries do not have any greater exports proportionally or any better balance of trade than we have in this nation; they do not have any greater natural resources. In fact, they do not have anything like the natural resources we have in this nation.

They also do not have less unionization. The member who introduced this motion would like to see wages cut. He may not say so publicly, but we have to produce more cheaply, according to him, and that is one way to do it. Those countries have two or three times the percentage of the work force unionized that we have here; yet they have managed to pass us. Their average standard of living is better than ours and their numbers of unemployed proportionally are substantially below ours in most of those Western democracies -- not in England, of course, where they have gone back to the right wing again and are paying the price for it.

The best example we can use here of what has clobbered our economy has been the high interest rates. There is no question about this; I am sure even the people on the opposite side would agree. My God, if interest rates had never gone above 10 per cent, if interest rates now were down to six per cent, we would have greater prosperity. Why did governments not do something about it? Because they simply do not believe in interfering.

The democratic socialist countries in Western Europe did not raise their rates when they went up in the United States and Canada at first. They do not live on an island; no country does in this age. Ultimately, they did raise their interest rates, but it was the United States that led the increase in interest rates, and the United States and Canada have paid the price. We have more unemployed, and a great many of the other democracies across the world have surpassed us. Instead of intervening to keep the interest rates down, this government intervened to keep the wages down, and that price has been pretty substantial.

The government over there has done a pretty good job of restraint and keeping wages down, but the one that has done the most is that of British Columbia: "One of Five in BC Lives on Welfare, UI." This was in the paper on April 5. That is the route they have gone. It is the same route as this government. They have gone a little bit farther.

We in this party say the government has got to make fundamental changes. At this time, just to pass a resolution saying what we need is more exports misses the real point; therefore, we are voting against it.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have addressed the merits of, and further attempted to co-ordinate and consolidate, the various export policies throughout the many Ontario ministries.

Mr. Boudria: Put that sheet away and say it off the cuff. You can do better than that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.

Mr. Barlow: Listen to him. He spent all morning writing it. Be quiet.

Mr. Pollock: In their comments they have expanded on such things as the importance of developing new markets and the larger role small business must play in Ontario's export drive. They have suggested ways, government policies and programs that might foster this development. Attention has been focused on the manufacturing and service sectors.

4:30 p.m.

While not taking away from the importance of these sectors, it is important that the province remember its agricultural roots. The contribution agricultural products and natural resources make to Ontario's trade balance is significant. For that reason alone, these sectors cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, there is as much potential for growth in agricultural products and natural resources in the international marketplace as there is for manufactured products. Current government initiatives in the agricultural sector are well on their way to proving this. Already we are enjoying the positive effects of the trade missions and promotional policies of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

In 1983 Ontario undertook 24 agricultural trade missions. The missions took Ontario exporters around the world. Our message was taken as far away as Bahrain in the Middle East and as near as Detroit in Michigan. These initiatives contributed to Ontario agricultural exports. They were valued at $1.6 billion in 1982. This House will agree that such a contribution is significant to Ontario's overall export trade balance.

The government's trade missions do two things. First, they reinforce the quality and reliability of Ontario's agricultural commodities in already established markets. They prove to markets such as the United States that good things really do grow in Ontario. I urge the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to continue such initiatives. This province's agricultural community cannot be allowed to become too smug about established major markets such as the ones to the south of us.

Second, and more important, is the development of new markets for agricultural products. As with manufactured goods, there are many exciting market possibilities for Ontario producers to find and explore. Many regions of the world are not blessed with the rich agricultural lands Ontario has. Many countries in these regions are wealthy and growing and need to find a reliable source of food. For example, the desert climate of the Middle East is not suitable for many staple crops.

At present Saudi Arabia is said to be subsidizing domestically produced wheat up to $28 a bushel. The world price of this staple is only around $4 a bushel. It is impossible for nations such as Saudi Arabia to continue to make such massive agricultural subsidies. Instead, they will have to increase their trade with other nations. Ontario is in an optimal position to gain such markets.

Our opportunities stop neither at the Middle East nor with agricultural staples. As the member for York Centre has stated, the markets in the developing world are immense. Not only do they require foodstuff to feed their massive populations, but they require the technology and expertise to become independent in their own food production. Ontario can help to provide both. The province produces a broad range of agricultural products able to meet the various needs in diverse markets. Our capacity to fill international market demands in this area does not need to be questioned.

What is more exciting and important to Ontario is the potential for export growth for our agricultural know how and equipment.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, a very special thank you to the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) and the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) for the insights they have given into this resolution, the thought processes. Their contributions on the agricultural side and the industrial side have really helped to give more