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

November 20, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S CHILD

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONDOMINIUM CO-OPERATIVE ASSESSMENTS

ENTERPRISE GROWTH FUND

AGREEMENT FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

ACCOMMODATION TAX REBATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

HYDRO REVIEW

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

CAMPSITE DEVELOPMENT

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

RONDEAU PARK

CAMPING FEE

COMMERCIAL FISHING QUOTAS

CONDOMINIUM CO-OPERATIVE ASSESSMENTS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITIEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S CHILD

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure that you and my colleagues in the House will want to join me in congratulating the member for York South (Mr. Rae) on the arrival of his third child, Eleanor Grace, some time yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we are very much in favour of that kind of activity. I would like to add our note of congratulations, and as much as we dislike seeing another socialist born, we are very happy in this particular instance for the leader of the New Democratic Party. I know what a great joy she will add to the already happy household.

If he needs any advice on how to raise his offspring, I will be happy to volunteer at any time. I hope that this new child will follow the political leadership of her uncle John as opposed to that of her father and that she will find the true way.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for York South going to distribute cigars?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, baby Eleanor was born at precisely two o'clock yesterday afternoon, just as the House was convening. I thought that was an appropriate omen of some kind. Mother and daughter are doing well, and father is surviving well too. I thank the members for their good wishes.

I do have some cigars. In fact, I will give one to the Speaker as long as he promises to recognize me today. I have one for the leader of the Liberal Party. I was going to provide one for every member of his caucus, but I was not sure how many there would be; so I just have the one here.

I have a very nice letter from the Premier (Mr. Davis). I might say that even in congratulations he is convoluted, but I do want to thank him very kindly for the congratulations. I know he is unable to be here today for reasons that I am sure he will explain at some point. He says, "Please tell Arlene how happy we both were to hear the good news, and I will, of course, look forward to receiving a cigar in due course."

I want the Premier to know that I have his cigar here, and perhaps I could give it to one of his illustrious would-be successors. I was going to say I would give it to him the next time he comes into the House, but the problem with that is that it will be too dry to smoke if we wait that long. So I will give it to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). I know he sees the Premier regularly, obviously consulting on matters of policy. I hope he will pass it along to the Premier and not smoke it himself.

[Later]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for a cigar made in number one factory, or is it factory number one grade? I have never had a first cigar before; I have always had to buy seconds, so I appreciate the quality of this one.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It smells good. The Premier will never see it; I will admit it now that I have it.

VISITOR

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) is complaining about not getting a cigar, but before I give him one, I wonder if I could introduce to the House, with the permission of all members, a very distinguished former member of this Legislature who is now a member of the House of Commons. I am referring, of course, to Mr. Iain Angus, the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: The leader of the New Democratic Party offered one cigar to our caucus and, in true socialist form, decided we would all take a puff from it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my statement I would like to add my congratulations to the leader of the third party on his third child. I hope he will convey to his wife our best wishes from this side of the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONDOMINIUM CO-OPERATIVE ASSESSMENTS

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to make an announcement regarding the assessment of condominium and co-operative housing units.

As honourable members know, the subject of condominium and co-operative property assessment has been a contentious issue. This could not have been effectively resolved until clarification was received from a comprehensive judicial review. That review has culminated in a decision of the Divisional Court in Peel Condominium Number 57 et al versus the regional assessment commissioner for Halton-Peel.

In response to this decision of the Divisional Court, property assessors throughout Ontario are now making adjustments to the assessments of condominium and co-operative units. These adjusted assessments will ensure that condominiums and co-operatives are assessed at the same general level of assessment to 1984 market value as that of owner-occupied residential properties.

These adjusted condominium and co-operative assessments will be reflected in all 1984 assessment rolls. In this regard, every condominium and co-operative unit owner will receive a notice of assessment even though some assessments may remain unchanged as a result of the adjustment process. Accompanying each mailed notice will be an information insert that describes the reasons for the assessment adjustment together with the location, dates and times of open-house information sessions held to answer any assessment-related questions.

In this way my ministry will have fully complied with the instructions of the Divisional Court and will have brought the assessments of condominium and co-operative units in line with those of owner-occupied residential properties.

2:10 p.m.

ENTERPRISE GROWTH FUND

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in his budget of May 15 my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) announced the creation of the $10-million, three-year enterprise growth fund under the auspices of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. This fund was established to support three initiatives: (1) enterprise centres, (2) innovation centres and (3) corporate spinoffs.

On behalf of BILD, I am pleased to announce today the implementation of all three programs. BILD has approved three specific enterprise centre sites proposed by two very distinct groups. A private sector firm, The Innovation and Entrepreneurial Management Corp., known as TIEM, intends to establish two centres, one in Scarborough and one in St. Catharines. These will provide management advice and pre-startup services critical to the success of a new business.

The third enterprise centre will be established under the auspices of Confederation College in Thunder Bay. This centre will work on an extension basis and will deliver expert advice and counsel to small businesses in the communities of northwestern Ontario.

BILD is prepared to support up to seven enterprise centres on a cost-shared basis over three years. We expect these centres will demonstrate immediate and substantial benefit to small businesses, a commitment to professional management, a responsiveness to local conditions and active community involvement.

We are now examining a number of other proposals and understand several municipalities in Ontario are considering the sponsorship of additional centres.

We have completed the research and consultative process on our second initiative, which will lead us to the launching of as many as 10 innovation centres across Ontario. The innovation centre concept has become a popular tool in assisting universities and colleges to link the marketplace with the academic community.

It is our intent that the focus of such centres in Ontario will be on the commercialization of products, processes and services, while allowing the maximum flexibility for post-secondary institutions and the private sector to develop projects that are commercially successful and meet the long-term strategic needs of industry.

The innovation centres will provide business counselling to students and faculty using such techniques as business planning, prospectus preparation, brokerage between the client and private sector and marketing assistance. Innovation centres will be established on a cost-shared basis, with my ministry providing up to $300,000 per centre for three years.

The third initiative under the enterprise growth fund concerns corporate spinoffs. The increasing competitiveness of the world economy in recent years has had a heavy impact on Ontario's traditional large and middle-sized employers. In their efforts to adapt, many of these firms have undertaken significant plant and product rationalizations, including divestitures. Fortunately, at the same time, an increasing number of individuals are showing an interest in entrepreneurship as a career option. This growth is reflected in the rising number of small business registrations, up to 45,000 in Ontario alone this year.

These twin trends present us with an opportunity to help ease the transition for larger firms while simultaneously encouraging creative entrepreneurial activity. Our initiative will provide up to 50 per cent of the cost, to a maximum of $15,000, of preparing business proposals for viable corporate spinoffs.

In a typical case, an evaluation would be made of the potential for spinning off some in-house activity from a large firm to a new business operated by current employees or to another local firm. The plan would address the proposed venture's prospects for success and the negotiation and securing of financing from the private sector. The divesting firm will be expected to provide support, which might include direct investment, a mortgage, plant space, equipment, technical know-how, support services or sales guarantees.

This program is intended to run for three years with an estimated budget annually of $500,000 from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. It will be administered by my ministry, whose 18 field offices throughout the province will be the primary point of contact for assistance.

Clearly, these new programs will help serve the pressing needs of three distinct classes of business: the entrepreneur seeking to organize a new business; the commercialization of post-secondary research and development; and the establishment of new business by employees interested in corporate spinoffs. Since most employment growth in the province is occurring in the small business sector, I expect the end result of these new programs will be more jobs in the province.

AGREEMENT FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that earlier today I took

part in the signing of the new Canada-Ontario subsidiary agreement for tourism development. Also signing the agreement were my colleagues the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and the Honourable Tom McMillan, federal Minister of State for Tourism.

The new, $44-million program will be split 50:50 by the provincial and the federal governments and will apply to all regions of Ontario except Metro Toronto. This is the first federal-provincial development agreement drafted exclusively for tourism in Ontario. Through this agreement, substantial assistance will flow to the provincial tourism industry over the next five years.

This agreement is an important step in solidifying federal-provincial relations in the tourism sector. As a result of this co-operation, the tourism industry in Ontario stands to benefit substantially.

The major priority of the new program will be the establishment of new and the development of existing major year-round destination resorts and attractions. Projects that attract Americans and other visitors will receive particular attention. This segment of the program will account for $38 million of the $44 million available. The remaining $6 million will be allocated for planning and feasibility studies, marketing and visitor services. The funds will be made available through repayable and nonrepayable assistance.

People today take trips to see and do things, to enjoy new experiences and to be entertained. It is the resort and the attraction sectors that increasingly motivate travel, and this fact has been recognized in today's announcement.

As I have stated, this agreement will have a positive effect on larger tourist operations. It is therefore relevant and timely to note some of the provincially funded assistance programs available to the smaller operators who are not beneficiaries of today's signing. For example, in the next few weeks I will be discussing with the Treasurer an extension to the tourist redevelopment incentive program, commonly known by the acronym TRIP, as well as the grading assistance program. The tourism term loan program will also remain in place.

In addition to and in conjunction with the Ontario Development Corp., we are developing a means whereby incentive loans will be made available to help smaller operators meet the recent changes in provincial fire safety regulations. This money will be available for the purchase of fire safety equipment to ensure operators will be able to meet the new requirements.

While today's notice focuses on the larger tourism establishments, I would like our partners from the industry to realize we are aware of the needs of smaller operators who comprise such a large and important sector of Ontario's tourism industry. Key representatives of Ontario's tourism industry were also present at the signing this morning. I felt the following announcement would be of interest to the accommodation sector, especially hotel and motel operators.

ACCOMMODATION TAX REBATE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations by the industry and after extensive consultation with my cabinet colleagues, particularly the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory), I am pleased to announce that the accommodation sales tax rebate program scheduled to end in December 1984 will be extended to the end of 1985. Through this program, out-of-province visitors may apply for a refund of the five per cent retail sales tax paid on accommodation while in Ontario.

The accommodation sales tax rebate was introduced in the last budget. Although not every out-of-province visitor takes advantage of the rebate on every visit, it has proved beneficial to a substantial number of tourist organizations and especially in attracting conventions and meetings to this province.

The tourism subagreement, the extension of the tax rebate and other initiatives of my ministry, both current and planned, will generate significant new income and employment opportunities in the tourism industry in Ontario. Further, and also important, they are a major step in forging new partnerships between federal and provincial governments and between the private and public sectors.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADHERENCE TO MANUAL OF ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Chairman of Management Board. I note he released a letter yesterday, dated November 6, from McCarthy and McCarthy under the hand of one John J. Robinette with respect to the Public Service Act concerning Mr. Parsons.

Why did the minister choose to release only the one letter and not his earlier letter? He is aware that Mr. Robinette's letter to Archie Campbell, the Deputy Attorney General, quotes Mr. Justice Labrosse as saying, "Public confidence in the civil service requires its political neutrality and impartial service to whatever political party is in power." Why did the minister choose not to release both letters?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) is right. I was not aware of that letter.

Mr. Peterson: How could the minister not be aware of that letter when it was addressed to his colleague? A great deal of public funds have been expended obtaining these legal opinions. The two letters differ a little bit in tone. In the first, there is a very strong condemnation of any lack of impartiality in the public service. Does the minister feel he was misled by his colleague who did not give him all the facts in that instance?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, I am sorry to report to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not get copies of all the correspondence my colleagues on this side get.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the double standard that is going on here. There are literally thousands of part-time employees in the government who for years have been working under the assumption that political activity was being denied to them, the same way it was denied to every member who is covered by legislation for full-time public servants.

There is real resentment at the double standard existing in Ontario today. There is one standard for senior employees of the crown who happen to be Tories. In the case of Mr. Parsons, he happens to be the membership secretary of the Mississauga South riding association in addition to his other activities.

Does the minister not realize this places every other employee at a significant and systematic disadvantage in his or her political choice? Why does the minister not free up the standards as they apply to everybody? Why does he do so only in the case of a select few who happen to be Tories, senior employees or part-timers who are involved in this leadership campaign?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, while the member did conveniently work a bit of a question in there, I would say that was more of a statement. I do not say the rule should not be reviewed from time to time. That can be done. I will take the statement the member has just made under consideration.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the minister who is responsible for the public service say moments ago he has not yet seen this three-page letter from Js. J. Robinette, dated October 19? That letter deals at length with a very critical and timely question under his ministerial responsibility. In it, Mr. Robinette points out strongly that it would be specious and unreasonable for anyone in government to argue that a crown employee or a public servant could actively involve himself or herself in partisan politics while continuing in the public service.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Conway: Surely the minister responsible for the public service has seen this three-page letter in which Mr. Robinette argues that very strong and compelling case?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, I have not seen that letter. I said I would ask the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to obtain for me an opinion on the matter at hand. That was regarding Mr. Parsons. I have a copy of that letter and I will be glad to look at the one the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has and study it.

HYDRO REVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that three of the contenders for the throne have now become Hydro-bashers. They are very critical of the way Ontario Hydro is being run at the moment.

The Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has said Ontario Hydro needs a review. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has said Ontario Hydro is not truly accountable, and I gather he favours the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs now following a policy we have talked about for some years. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) is talking about giving more teeth to the Ontario Energy Board to bring Hydro under control.

Which route is the Minister of Energy going to choose to bring Hydro under control?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the policies of the government as they relate to Hydro will be discussed by my colleagues in cabinet and I will act at their direction.

I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) that if he wants opinions, perhaps he should ask the relevant members.

Mr. Peterson: Is it not clear to the minister that these gentlemen out travelling the province, listening with their ears close to the ground, are now very much aware that the public feeling is there are tremendous problems at Ontario Hydro, that Hydro is out of control and people are searching for new methods of accountability for that institution? Surely the minister is aware of that. He has heard their remarks on the subject. They have finally come around. They finally had their conversions on the way to Exhibition Place.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister not persuaded now, as the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, that indeed we do have to look at new ways to bring Hydro into some form of accountability? Is he persuaded that is necessary or is he going to go along blithely defending the past? Is he, as the minister, going to do something now?

He has been berated by the opposition for a long time, for years. Now his own colleagues are critical of the same things we have been critical of. What is he going to do, as the appropriate minister, to bring Ontario Hydro under control? Is he going to do it now or is he going to let whoever wins the leadership do it?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am not here to defend the past. I have never in this House suggested that we are not prepared to take approaches towards offering information and offering opportunities for the members of the opposition to review the activities of Ontario Hydro.

I have been in my place in this House every day since October, unlike many other members. I am prepared to be accountable on behalf of the government for the activities of Ontario Hydro. I am prepared to be accountable through the estimates process, which we have just completed. I am prepared to be accountable through the public accounts committee, which spent four days this summer considering the activities of Ontario Hydro. It was scheduled for seven days but had to adjourn after four days because it ran out of material to work with.

I am prepared to be accountable through the various means by which the government has established, and will review and continue to establish, the activities of Ontario Hydro. I am not prepared to be accountable for statements made by my colleagues outside this Legislature.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that the statements made by his colleagues who are running for the leadership of the Conservative Party reflect a reality in Ontario? As he knows, Ontario Hydro, from now until the year 2000, will be needing $60 billion, but at this time there is no mechanism to control the decisions that are made by Hydro and for which this government is theoretically responsible.

Here are the questions I want to ask the minister, and I want him to answer directly and not try to fudge the issue:

(1) Is he in agreement with resuming the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs?

(2) Is he in agreement with his colleagues that the rate setting now is a sham and there should be more responsibility on the part of the Ontario Energy Board?

(3) Can he tell the House how the government can pursue its goals of encouraging alternative sources and renewable energy when, in his budget for the current year, these are the two items he has cut dramatically in the last few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I think the member clearly understands we had a reasonable discussion on these points in the estimates process. The rate-setting procedures, as they are in place today, require the Ontario Hydro board, which is responsible for the financial integrity of that organization and responsible for the future borrowings --

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will those people who are holding private meetings please resume their seats. They are the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), the government House leader (Mr. Wells), and the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the issue has not attracted the full attention of my colleagues. I apologize on their behalf.

To complete my answer, I would only remind the honourable member that the Ontario Energy Board does review the rate proposals of Ontario Hydro and does make recommendations. If he will check the track record during the past decade, on two occasions Ontario Hydro did not accept the recommendations of the energy board and set a rate somewhat higher. On eight occasions it set a rate at least equal to the recommendations of the energy board, except in two cases where it set a rate lower than that recommended by the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Peterson: The minister and the energy board have no control over rates, which is increasingly a major issue in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: His colleagues are now joining the chorus of criticism that is coming from across this province that there is no effective control on Ontario Hydro. Bill Wilder said Hydro's borrowing could add to the reduction of the province's triple-A credit rating or the moderating down of that credit rating; the Treasurer has found that out, much to his chagrin. The president of Kidd Creek Mines said the rates would have disastrous long-term effects. The Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario is predicting job losses. The list goes on, of people screaming for some kind of accountability and efficient management.

Is it now the minister's position that it is all efficiently managed, that the system is quite fine as it is in place now and that he does not need any further accountability? Is the minister standing up and saying his colleagues are wrong and that he is going to resist any kind of method to bring more accountability? Is that his position?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I think the Leader of the Opposition is at some peril in quoting Mr. Wilder. Mr. Wilder, of course, is the president of Hiram Walker Resources, which has some vested interest in selling natural gas in this province in opposition to Ontario Hydro, so I think he might perhaps want to be a bit careful.

As I said at the outset, I am prepared to be here and to be accountable for the activities of Ontario Hydro on a daily basis. Concerning the opinion of the government and how we approach accountability, the member knows what the system is, how we utilize it and how we approach changing it. I am quite open to having that kind of discussion and I will act at the direction of the government when that decision is made.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier about a question in which I personally have an ever increasing stake. That, of course, is the question of affirmative action.

I am sure the Deputy Premier is aware that recent investigations, both by our party and by the Toronto Star, have shown that the affirmative action program he described, I think in his estimates, as the flagship of his directorate is nothing short of a hoax in what it has produced and who is involved.

Can the Deputy Premier confirm that, of the 39 companies that have declared they are part of this great program of the government, only nine are private employers that come under provincial jurisdiction? Is he aware of that fact, and can he tell us why the government continues to refuse to release the names of the companies that are involved in this program overall? Why does he refuse to tell us exactly what these companies are doing? Why does he refuse to make those two points of policy perfectly clear and a matter for public debate?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in apologizing for being late for the opening exercises, may I add my congratulations to others that have been extended to the leader of the third party on the birth of his daughter. I can understand his particular interest in affirmative action; as a recent grandfather of a granddaughter, I would join with him to make sure we do make some progress in this matter.

In view of this personal matter, it is understandable the leader of the third party was not here yesterday to hear every word I was saying in the estimates. The place was really jammed. As I recall, there were only one or two vacancies yesterday afternoon.

As we talked about affirmative action, I pointed out it was far from being a hoax. In all fairness, I do not suggest for a moment our records are necessarily up to date with respect to what is going on in the so-called private sector. Yesterday in my estimates I said I felt Jackie Smith's

article in yesterday's Toronto Star provided a great service by giving some focus for this.

We have reason to believe that some time this afternoon Judge Abella's report on this subject will be made public as we have the results of those public hearings with respect to affirmative action in federal crown agencies and federally incorporated companies.

If the member for York South (Mr. Rae) had had the opportunity to review it, he would have heard that as far as our records are concerned we are talking about 258 major employers in this province outside the Ontario public service. If memory serves me correctly, of that list there were 218 that were what we call truly private sector employers.

I pointed out to the member some time ago that in order to gain that information there were certain undertakings made with respect to confidentiality. About 30 of the 218 -- although members should not hold me to that number -- allowed us to indicate they had used the consultative service of government and were on our list.

The employers that happen to be on our public disclosure list have really simply indicated they were prepared to share specific measures they had undertaken to improve the status of women. That is how they got on the list. I point out again, as I did yesterday, that the directorate has never made claims that all had rigidly defined programs with numerical goals and timetables.

After an entire summer of meeting with presidents and chief executive officers, I am quite satisfied our records are quite incomplete. There is far more going on out in the community than that of which we have knowledge. We want to do something about that through trade organizations. I am not here to be an apologist for these companies. I think it is for them to defend themselves.

Mr. Rae: The problem is not that there is more going on; the problem is that there is less going on than the government is claiming.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I have heard the minister. He has stood here in this House time and again and said this is his flagship program. I can tell the minister the flagship is sinking fast.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please place his question.

Mr. Rae: How is it possible the city of Cornwall would be on this list when it says it is only exploring the possibility of having a program? How is it possible that Xerox would be on his list when it says: "We have only a bit of a program. We do not want to talk about it publicly"?

How would it be possible that IBM would be on his list when it admits it does not have a formal equal opportunity program because it already promotes on merit and that is what counts? It says, "The government probably put IBM on its list because it felt the company's practices constitute a program." What is this program? Why is it such a state secret?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I completely understand, and most reasonable people understand, what positive affirmative action is. In its

interpretation or implementation, it may vary from company to company. I would remind the member and bring him back to the fact that for 10 years the Ontario government as an employer has set the example in this province with respect to affirmative action.

I invite the member to show me any other political jurisdiction on this continent that can match the Ontario government's record now. Against that background we have been dealing with the private sector through our consultative service.

I would repeat that the employers on our public disclosure list have indicated they were prepared to share some specific measures dealing with the equality of women. The people who were in to see me were not necessarily satisfied with their own progress.

I think our program of affirmative action is something of which we should be proud and I would hope the member would join with other members of the Legislature in giving credit to the progress we have made in the Ontario public service.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, as estimates proceeded yesterday I became more and more aware -- and I think my colleagues who jammed this Legislature did as well -- that what we are playing here is some kind of numerical shell game. I want to ask the minister two specific questions about the famous 258.

How many of the 258 firms that he claims have some kind of affirmative action program have an ongoing affirmative program today? Second, how can he claim that 11 school boards that have not yet committed themselves to an affirmative action program are on the list of 258? He gave us that number yesterday. Is that not just so much exaggeration to puff up the numbers?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No. I think in all fairness we are not attempting to puff up anything. I am quite in agreement with the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) and the member for York South that there is a lot of work yet to be done.

I stand here accountable for the work of the Ontario public service and I am very proud, and I hope the member is proud, of the progress we have made in this area. We say to other public agencies in this province: "Match us. Let us get busy because the public expects you, spending public money, to translate and implement public policy in this regard." We say to the private sector, "Let us get busy showing some evidence of this as well."

We have these particular numbers. I am satisfied they do not reflect the true picture of what is going on at all.

Mr. Rae: We have finally had an admission from the government that its flagship program is not describing the situation that exists. If this is their flagship, then the rest of the fleet must be the Titanic, because this program is nothing short of a complete and utter hoax.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Rae: We do not know who the companies are or what they are doing. When we ask them, they say they are not doing what the minister says they are doing.

Is it not true that only nine private companies are now prepared to say they are involved in the program? Of those nine, the ones that have been cross-examined, the ones we have challenged, a great many of them, are admitting they do not have an affirmative action program or anything approaching it by name, they are on the list simply because somebody from the minister's office may have phoned them once and they continued to talk to them and did not hang up.

Is that not in fact the definition of the so-called program?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The answer to that question is no. To be fair, the member has to have a clear definition of what he is talking about as far as affirmative action is concerned.

I told him three times already how people get on our list and the number who have allowed public disclosure. Indeed, I have made it quite clear to the private sector when they are coming in. I do not stand here as their apologist. They have to stand on their own feet and respond to the questions the member has directed to them. That is the service Jackie Smith and others provide by naming them.

I can give reasons to the member of how the city of Cornwall or how IBM or others got on the list. It is quite clear how they got on the list. Indeed, there is a lot more to be done. It is obvious we do not have complete information with respect to the private sector. We should also take some encouragement from the fact that as employers we are setting a very positive example of affirmative action and we have to make sure that is translated in some meaningful way as far as other major employers are concerned.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, this is another question in the series inspired by those leadership candidates who have suddenly got religion. I have a question of the Minister of Health, who has not suddenly got religion at all from what I can determine, certainly not of the leadership kind.

The minister's colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has been all over northern Ontario preaching the gospel about northern health care and the need to subsidize northern transportation costs. The candidate for whom the minister is one of the leading acolytes, his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), has even gone on record as saying he is now prepared to look at the costs, has gone out on a limb in the city of Thunder Bay and has said it is certainly something that should be studied, which, in the case of that minister, is practically a revolutionary declaration.

As the minister responsible for delivering on all the promises these gentlemen are making across the province, is the position of the Minister of Health still the same as he declared in the famous interview with Sam Bornstein on May 23, 1984, where he said, "I think if one looks at the priorities across the health care system, there are much higher priorities than that"?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, that is still my position. However, I think if the member's colleague from Thunder Bay had briefed him on the discussion we had in estimates, he might have understood a little more fully what my position was on this issue.

I stand, as I did before, opposed to the expenditure of $50 million or $70 million of health dollars on transportation costs at the expense of an expansion of services to communities and residents of northern Ontario. I do not subscribe to the colonial mentality that is reflected in the policy of the member's party. The people of northern Ontario are entitled to services provided in their communities. I have indicated in discussions with the member's colleague that I am not opposed to looking at ways to address that where there may be evidence of a barrier to access as a result of the cost of transportation.

I am not going to allow my position vis-ä-vis any leadership candidate in this party to colour my views on that subject. I have confidence in my colleague the Treasurer. I am sure he would not make statements such as he apparently is reported to have made. I do not know the details of his position. I have confidence that he would not make such statements without having --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Rae: Let me ask the minister this question. Half of his cabinet colleagues voted for the resolution that came from my colleague from Thunder Bay. The Treasurer was in the north last week and was quoted thus: "While campaigning for the Progressive Conservative leadership yesterday, Grossman said northerners should not have to shoulder the burden of expensive travel and accommodation costs when getting medical treatment in Toronto." Is the minister saying his colleague the Treasurer suffers from a colonial mentality?

Hon. Mr. Norton: In many instances, the citizens of northern Ontario do not have to bear the costs of expensive travel. As members know, we already have in place probably the most extensive air ambulance service of any jurisdiction in this country and perhaps the world. There are precedents for provision of some subsidies for other transportation costs as well.

My position is the correct one, and it is not entirely inconsistent with that of my colleague. The resolution of the member's colleague is not necessarily what may be proposed by my colleagues on this side. His colleague's resolution was very specific in relating to travel of over 200 miles under a universal program. That would be entirely too costly; that is my position. It is quite possible there could be something less than a universal subsidized program for all travel over 200 miles, which would have to apply to southern Ontario as well and which would meet the concerns that have been expressed.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, in his response the minister referred to the recent estimates debates. I would remind him that during those debates his own director of emergency services made it very clear to us that the sparsity of the population in northern Ontario and the wide distances that have to be traversed made it absolutely mandatory that there be transportation services that simply would not be necessary in the south.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: Would the minister not agree that using the term "colonial mentality" when referring to the opposition benches is inappropriate? We need to recognize that the provision of health services in northern Ontario has to be done in an essentially different way from the way it is done in the south.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are distinctions to be made for geographic reasons and for reasons relating to concentrations of population. If the member recalls the context of the discussion he referred to, it related to specific areas of expertise that could only be provided on a regional basis -- bone marrow transplants are just one example of a number of things -- wherever one lives in the province. In some instances, those services could only be provided in one place because of the high degree of specialization in the training of the personnel required. I do not suggest anything to the contrary.

In terms of recognizing the differences geographically and the need for specialized transportation, this government has already done that in that the air ambulance services from the north are not available in all parts of the south.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this great and wonderful system he talks about, is the minister not aware that when people need to have transportation to the south, ordered by a doctor, they have to pay their own fare down here? They can submit an appeal, which is automatically rejected, and then they have to take it to a health board appeal. People who need the money do without the service because they cannot wait for the government to determine whether they are going to have coverage to come down here. What are they supposed to do -- die first?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, a balanced review of the facts would point out that what the member says is not universally the case. There might be some specific cases of which the member is aware, in which case I ask him to bring them to my attention somewhere other than on the floor of the House. He knows he has ready access to my office. He uses it all the time through correspondence and otherwise. I will be glad to look into any case of hardship he raises.

The point is, if it is a matter of life and death, it is presumably an emergency situation and the person will be eligible for transportation on the air ambulance system. If it is a matter of continual need for transportation for treatment of cancer, for example, we do cover that cost through the subsidies we provide through the cancer foundation. There may be some other specific cases of hardship of which the member is aware which are not simply a matter of choice on the part of the patient. If the member brings those matters forward, we will try to address them.

CAMPSITE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. It is a question of growing concern over the direction the ministry's policy concerning campsites in provincial parks is taking.

For the minister's information, I would like to quote from a speech made by his deputy minister in which he says, "and in future we intend to de-emphasize campsite development not only in future parks but also in parks now in the system." Considering that campsite development at present is at about the 1975 level, are we witnessing the end of campsites in provincial parks?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reed: I wonder if the minister would then explain that statement made by his deputy minister and confirm to us there is no hidden agenda to reduce these and that the minister will go on and develop additional campsites in new provincial parks as they are created.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I think the member is aware of the land use planning process over the past two and a half years that resulted in the commitment by the ministry and this government to create new provincial parks in our system. He is aware of the classification system of the provincial parks. Some are of low-intensity utilization related to wilderness and natural reserves. Others have a higher degree of use by our fellow citizens and visitors; they are recreational class and historical class parks. In each one, in each area of the province, we analyse the needs for overnight camping facilities and day use facilities. There are two different markets we are attempting to reach.

With regard to overnight facilities, we determine whether campsites are needed in the park, based on private campgrounds located in surrounding areas immediately adjacent to the parks and the state of those businesses. We look at any other park facilities that already have campgrounds in the same area that are underutilized.

Based on those decisions, we make an assessment of whether we need to spend the kind of money that must be spent on these overnight camping facilities, including hookups for trailers, pavement of parking areas and pavement of access roads. In making all those decisions, we want to balance the outdoor recreation experience we are trying to promote among Ontario residents and visitors with the need to protect and preserve the quality of the natural environment that is represented within the confines of those park boundaries.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why, during the entire land use planning process, the whole question of the privatization of parks was never put forth as an option. Is it because the ministry had done its polls, which showed there was no support and that, as a matter of fact, there was antagonism towards the whole idea of the privatization of parks?

When the minister does conduct an open process, as he calls it, why does he not lay before the people in an honest way the kinds of options he is really considering? Why does this bunker mentality persist within the Ministry of Natural Resources, particularly when it involves an issue he knows the public does not support? Why did he not lay before the Ontario public what he was really considering on the whole question of the privatization of parks?

Hon. Mr. Pope: If we had followed public opinion in the poll, to which the member has access, then he would have accused us of being led by public opinion polls. Those guys over there want to have it both ways on these issues. That is typical.

This decision, as he knows, was made in 1978. It was well known. It was controversial when we started with Craigleith and, as he knows, since 1979 it has been the subject of public discussion. So enough of this nonsense about secrecy. He does not know what he is talking about over there.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Surely it is unparliamentary for a minister of the crown to accuse a New Democrat of not knowing what he is talking about.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, just on that point, if I may?

Mr. Speaker: What point was that?

Mr. Conway: On the point made by my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). I think this parliament would be well served if the Minister of Natural Resources would not attack the member for Nickel Belt as though he were the member for Kenora and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier).

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr. Swan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and it concerns the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Is the minister aware of an unincorporated company based in Streetsville by the name of Financial Freedom Group, which markets Lotto 6/49 tickets in the United States as far away as Denver, Colorado? If so, will he confirm they sell those tickets for US$2, or about C$2.65, without ever mentioning in their direct mail literature that the price here is $1?

Will the minister also tell the House how the postal law in the United States is circumvented, a law that bans the transmission by mail of tickets or orders for tickets on any foreign lotteries?

Is the minister part of that scam? Will he tell us if the company is an agent or vendor for the Ontario Lottery Corp.? If not, where does it get its tickets? Does the minister not think this kind of operation brings into question his integrity and that of the Ontario Lottery Corp.?

Mr. Speaker: I think that was a four-part question. You may take any one of the four parts.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to say the member for Welland-Thorold could get those answers from the Ontario Lottery Corp. directly and fully if he did not disguise his voice. Every time he phones the lottery corporation, he is talking through a hat.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: He does, he does. He talks through his hat or through his sock. Why does he not tell them who he is?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: When I phone the Ontario Lottery Corp., I identify myself. I am not ashamed of my questions.

I did not receive an answer to my first question. Perhaps the minister does not have any. I hope he will look into this matter. While he is doing that, will he also note that the Financial Freedom Group sells Wintario tickets in the United States for US$1.50; that is C$2. I guess that company has found out how to get more bucks for a bang.

Does the minister know the company's promotional material -- which I will send to him now so he will know something about it -- indicates winners in the United States do not have to pay taxes on their winnings? Such winnings in the United States are taxable when they come from outside the country.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: Will the minister consult with the federal authorities on whether this is misleading advertising? Second, will he introduce legislation to make it illegal for provincial or interprovincial tickets to be resold above the original price?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: A simple answer is that the Ontario Lottery Corp. does not condone this kind of activity of sales in the United States. The Ontario Lottery Corp. does a fine business right in this province and does not have to stimulate sales of tickets in the United States.

Furthermore, the Ontario Lottery Corp. is aware this has been going on. It is trying to get to the bottom of it. The board of directors is trying to see what it can do to stop it. The member for Welland-Thorold knows it is not a very simple thing to try to stop this practice; but the lottery corporation (

a) does not condone the practice and (

b) certainly will take every step it can to stop it. We do not believe in breaking American law. This is not breaking the Canadian law, it is breaking American law; but we do not condone it and we will try to do what we can about it.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, since the question under discussion is about lotteries, how does the minister view the statement by his friend in Ottawa, Mr. Jelinek, that the sale of lottery tickets is really immoral and a tax on the poor? How does he see that?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Otto Jelinek has accused the minister of indulging in an immoral act.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since when does the Speaker have the right to censor the value of questions?

Mr. Speaker: I have a lot of discretion in this House that you may not even be aware of.

Mr. Sargent: That was a hell of a good question. Why did the Speaker not let him answer?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member please sit down?

RONDEAU PARK

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

On October 23, when I asked the minister about the Rondeau Provincial Park leaseholders and his intentions of fair compensation, he said he had no knowledge of any cottages being bought by the ministry. Is he aware there is a suit in the process of being brought by Rev. Donald Suter? The transcript of the cross-examination of John Robert Morton, supervisor of the public land section, has him testifying that the Ministry of Natural Resources bought one cottage each in 1981, 1982 and 1983. Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that in 1962 the then Department of Lands and Forests announced an initiative for a land acquisition program focusing on parks and indicated the government had some intention of acquiring outstanding leasehold interests situated within the parks, that the average cost per leasehold interest acquired was $10,000 while the leases were outstanding, that 141 cottage leases were acquired between 1964 and 1982, and only two cottage leases have been acquired since 1977. I am aware of those facts.

Mr. McGuigan: I do not see how that changes the case of the people who are facing the loss of their leases today. In view of these recent three purchases, does the minister not think it would be sensible and fair for the government to announce a reasonable cash settlement for these people, balancing all the pluses and minuses, such as the facts that they have enjoyed cheap leases over the time, that they have made a positive contribution to the economy of the park and the negative impact of the forced move?

Given the poor legal advice the minister seems to be receiving in recent days, does he not think it would be reasonable to make an equitable settlement with these people and not face this series of lawsuits?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The fact of the matter is that of course I am sensitive to their point of view with respect to this. They were aware of the terms of the lease document when they signed it. They were aware of the terms when they renewed it. They were aware of the government offer in 1977, which they rejected. They are aware of fellow leaseholders, not only in this park but also in many other parks across the province, who did not get the kind of offer the honourable member is asking me to give now. What about all those people who might have some retroactive rights?

What about the people who have land use permits on a year-to-year basis? Every time one of those is cancelled, would we give compensation for the value of anything they may have placed upon the land, knowing it is a one-year right?

These are all basic issues that involve a lot of money for the government to consider before it changes its basic policy.

CAMPING FEE

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Why, at a meeting that was held on Tuesday, October 30, did he leave the Ontario Private Campground Association with the impression that he will bring into effect by January 1, 1985, a fee or a tax on campers of $10 a month? How did they get that impression?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Ontario Private Campground Association, along with some of their associate members, to discuss the potential of bringing legislation into this House that would relate to taxation or fees against trailers that are stationary on a park for a period longer than 30 days.

The House is fully aware that this comes as a result of municipality after municipality asking the government to look at the possibilities of putting into place some revenue-producing opportunities for them as far as trailers are concerned. It comes as a result of requests from not only municipalities but also cottage owners who believe there is an unfair advantage being taken by people whose trailers are stationary on a piece of property for a longer period than 30 days.

I told them we were looking at some potential legislation. I reviewed with them some opportunities, and I want to underline that phrase "some opportunities." They expressed to me some views that they thought might be included in legislation if we were to produce some in this House during this session. I am looking at that. I have not offered them or my caucus colleagues any guarantee that we will be introducing legislation in this session.

Mr. Breaugh: I must say the campground owners and campers are under the impression the minister will introduce legislation which will be in effect in January. Let me put it to him a little more succinctly. Will he or will he not be taxing campers an additional $10 a month come January 1, 1985?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As far as the date of 1985 is concerned, there will be no fee implemented in relation to the campers. I indicated that thinking to the camp owners' association because of the time factors that are involved in producing a legislative piece of business. I clearly indicated that to them at the time, and I emphasize it again here today. It will not come into effect on January 1, 1985.

3:10 p.m.

As the minister, I still take the privilege of reviewing the situation in relation to the comments that were made by the camp owners and of discussing with the members of the caucus of this government party which direction we might want to take, whether to produce a bill or whether to get into a white paper and to try to flush out more comments from municipal associations, the camp owners' association and private citizens. That is a privilege I will retain, and I will make that decision as we go along.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, if it is as the minister says, there are a lot of these people who are very upset. The minister is saying the municipalities want additional income. Can the minister tell us whether it is actually the municipalities' intention to do this, have they asked for it, or is it something the minister has suggested?

We have also been told the minister is going to phase it in, with $3 in 1985 and increasing it over two or three years. Is there legislation that has been presented to cabinet on this? Where does it stand? Is the minister saying it is not going to be coming in next year? Is it coming in the following year? What is happening? Let us clarify it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second question of the member of the New Democratic Party I indicated very clearly the options I retain are whether I introduce a bill into this House or go by a white paper, which will draw out more comments from the municipalities.

The municipalities have asked for this type of procedure. More than 300 municipalities have written directly to us in the ministry to do something to allow them to secure some degree of revenue from those trailers that are stationary in a park for a longer period than 30 days.

It is an attempt to respond to the municipalities that believe they are entitled to some additional revenues, the same as they get revenue from a cottage owner whose property is there and used only for a time in the summer. They think they are entitled to some additional revenue from the trailer owners, not the camp owners, and we are looking at that.

COMMERCIAL FISHING QUOTAS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The members of the House know full well that the minister and some members of the commercial fishing industry have been at loggerheads and have been trying to resolve their problems in court. We are all aware that the minister has now lost in court six consecutive times. At one time he was even threatened by a justice that he might be found in contempt of court.

A significant period of time has now passed and the fishermen who have taken the minister to court have stated publicly they are willing to sit down and negotiate new quotas with the minister. Will he accept that suggestion? Instead of prolonging the chaos in this industry caused by the ministry, will he sit down in a rational way to meet with the industry to resolve the problems that have been caused?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the associations. I have met with the Eastern Lake Erie Trawlers' Association and the association of eastern Lake Erie commercial fishermen four times in the past year with respect to the modernization program. I have met in Wheatley with the representatives of commercial fishermen from western Lake Erie on two occasions; they have been in my office on two occasions with respect to outstanding matters on the modernization program.

This program has not been developed in isolation from the objections and concerns of the commercial fishing organizations of Ontario. As the honourable member is aware, they themselves support the need for some type of individual quota system. As is usual with such a system in its first couple of years, the argument is between individuals on their allocations and between catch basins on the allocations between the basins, particularly in Lake Erie. These discussions and arguments will continue. I will continue to be a part of them in trying to make sure every commercial fisherman on Lake Erie has a say and has some explanation of the quotas.

The member is aware we have international obligations. We also have obligations to other user groups on the lake and we have an obligation to the commercial fishing industry itself to have a stable, sustained-yield supply of commercial species now and for the future, and by doing so to protect their very livelihoods and ensure the survival of a very important export market they depend upon. It is not this minister who is throwing that market and their livelihoods into jeopardy; it is a small minority that does not want any limits on its commercial fishing activity.

Mr. Mancini: If the minister does have any biological reports that would indicate the size of the resource in our Great Lakes, which we have asked him for in the past, we would be willing to accept these reports and go over them; but, as usual, he feigns that he has these reports and then we do not see anything.

After being given an opportunity by me today to state clearly that he understands the problems and that he knows the quotas for a good number of people --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: -- have to be increased to prevent many bankruptcies and a severe financial loss by many people in the industry, why does the minister continue to put up the red herring that they are fishing out the lake instead of saying, "Yes, I will meet with the fishermen; yes, I will go over the allocation of quotas; and yes, if there are fish there we will allow the fishermen to have access to these particular resources"?

Hon. Mr. Pope: In my response to the initial question I indicated to the member I have met with the commercial fishermen and with their organizations and I will continue to do so.

The member is aware of one of the issues that arose during the summer months with respect to the allocation of yellow pickerel in Lake Erie. The commercial fishermen came to us and indicated additional supplies of yellow pickerel were available that should be harvested. Our biologists, in concert with them, arrived at an estimate of a total increase in harvest in eastern Lake Erie. We allocated more than 50 per cent of that additional resource to the commercial fishermen over the objections of the sports fishermen on the basis of a biological assessment they knew of, we knew of and the public knew of.

That is the approach we have taken with respect to yellow pickerel in Lake Erie, that is the approach we took with respect to whitefish in Lake Ontario and that is the approach we will continue to take with respect to all these species.

The member knows that I did not say that all commercial fishermen were ignoring their resource and were fishing it out. I said there were three or four individuals, a minority, who had no --

Mr. Mancini: It is not three or four fishermen.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CONDOMINIUM CO-OPERATIVE ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue stemming from his very welcome statement that he finally recognizes the unfair assessment on condominiums and cooperatives and will change the assessment system to correct this injustice.

Has he calculated what the shortfall will be to each municipality as a result of this reassessment? Has he met with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett)? Will there be a system of rebates to the municipalities to cover the shortfall they will be experiencing as a result of the mistakes of the provincial government's assessment program?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to answer this question. I wish the honourable member had been here at the time I read my statement. Of course, he has had a chance to examine it now.

We are responding to the decision of the courts as opposed to admitting that there is anything wrong or that a mistake has been made in the assessment practices of this province.

Concerning the amounts and being able to recognize any shortfall, that is impossible to determine because, as I am sure the member will be aware, not only will some assessments go down but a certain percentage of them will also go up.

Mr. Philip: Does the minister not recognize in the case of Mississauga alone that Mississauga will have a shortfall of some $5 million and similar shortfalls will occur in other cities? Indeed, the research I tabled in this Legislature, which the minister admits stands up to his staff's examination, shows that assessments as a whole will go down because condominiums have been overassessed.

Is he prepared to say that since it is his fault this unjust assessment has gone on over the years, the municipalities will now have some kind of reimbursement from the provincial government by way of unconditional grants or another such scheme to make up for the shortfall of millions of dollars they are going to experience?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It is nice to know the member across the House has such foresight that he can determine fault before it has been dealt with.

As he well knows, there are many thousands --

Mr. Philip: They admitted it.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Does the member want to hear the answer or not?

Many thousands of these condominium appeals will be held before the Ontario Municipal Board, a fact the member happened to omit. He is not even aware that is going to happen. These appeals will still go to the municipal board and only then can we determine whether there is going to be a shortfall and, if so, how much.

The member's question is a little premature and I think he should check his facts before he asks a question such as that.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITIEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kolyn, on behalf of Mr. Kerr, from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Ministry administration program, $8,008,500; heritage conservation program, $26,073,900; arts support program, $72,185,500; citizenship and multicultural support program, $10,888,000; libraries and community information program, $30,218,300; capital support and regional services program, $23,957,800.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

Mr. Sheppard moved, seconded by Mr. Villeneuve, first reading of Bill Pr44,

An act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Motion agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. MacQuarrie, first reading of Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Mackenzie moved, pursuant to standing order 34(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the closure by Black and Decker Canada Inc. of its manufacturing plant in Barrie, with the attendant loss of more than 600 jobs in that community; the fact that the government has totally failed to respond to protect the jobs of the workers and the community economic base they represent, and the fact that there is no process of public accountability in such instances that would ensure every possible alternative is explored to prevent the closure of the plant.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to advise all honourable members that the motion for emergency debate was received in my office within the time frame prescribed by the standing orders. I will listen for up to five minutes to why the honourable member would like the ordinary business of the House set aside.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am asking that this House and the members of all parties in this House agree to approve an emergency debate on the Black and Decker closure. This closure is a continuation of the rather sickening pattern of branch plant closures we have seen in Canada in the last several years, a practice that seems to have totally handcuffed this government.

In the case of the Black and Decker plant in Barrie, it is a move that has serious implications for a small city of some 40,000 people. The closure of Black and Decker in Barrie means 600 jobs lost in the primary plant closure. It is the second largest employer in that city. It could mean as many as 900 additional jobs lost due to the spinoff effects. It is a cost to the community of almost $30 million in lost wages.

The people in the city of Barrie are going to pay a horrible price for a government that seems to be tucked into the hip pocket of the international corporations and owners of the offshore operations.

This plant closure mirrors hundreds of others and underlines the inability on the part of this government to protect people when business whistles and says it is going to shut down a small plant. When I say it mirrors many others, in this case the plant is modern, made a pre-tax profit of $6.6 million, an after-tax profit of more than $4 million last year and a return on investment of 15 per cent.

The company in Barrie has developed some real sales winners such as the electric skillet. Production is up from 30,000 to 250,000 in only five years, with an expected production of 500,000 in the next two years.

The sale by Canadian General Electric to Black and Decker was supposed to protect the jobs of the workers in Barrie. In the period immediately preceding that -- one sometimes wonders if there is not a little milking going on -- we had seen the product lines of this company, that previously numbered 27, shrink to seven as production has shifted offshore and imports increase. We saw some of this in the SKF operation as well.

Seventy per cent of our housewares market is now controlled by imports from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Brazil, Singapore, Mexico and the United States. This is part of the pattern with which every member in this House should be concerned.

This government has refused an all-party resolution to declare support for the effort of the workers at Black and Decker. We tried to get an all-party resolution that would say, "We, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, declare our support for the efforts of the workers at Black and Decker in Barrie to save their jobs and we urge Black and Decker Manufacturing Co. to reverse its decision to close the Barrie facility." We were not successful.

However, as soon as we saw or heard of the closure of the Griffith mine, we had the spectacle of the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- and I do not disagree with it -- sending a letter to Stelco asking the company to reconsider. We had the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) commenting that Stelco should take another look at its move to close the Griffith mine operation.

What kind of a double standard are we operating in this province? When are we going to move as quickly on an American-owned plant as we seem to be willing to do on a Canadian-owned plant in this province of ours? When are we going to start doing something about the loss of jobs to Canadian workers? When are we going to deal with the never-ending litany of runaway plants in this province?

Mr. Martel: When are we going to reintroduce the select committee?

Mr. Mackenzie: When are we going to see the select committee reintroduced, as my colleague asks? When are we going to see some move on the part of this government to deal with this never-ending loss of jobs to Canadian and Ontario workers?

If this government is not prepared to deal now with something as serious as this matter and to have a debate on what we might do and what we should be doing with this kind of loss of jobs, if we are going to continue to take no action and continue to be tucked into the hip pocket of these corporations, if we are going to continue to be afraid to move when it means protecting workers, and if we are going to allow these double standards, then this government has no more morals than a mongrel.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, we did not get the name of the seconder to the member's motion. Did he have one?

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in support of the motion put forward by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). The member has asked for an emergency debate to discuss the announced closure of the Black and Decker plant in Barrie. We are aware this closure will affect 600 individuals. We will be losing 600 jobs in Ontario.

On November 14, my colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) issued a press statement. It said:

"Like all observers of the industrial scene in Ontario I am deeply disturbed by the circumstances surrounding the planned closure of the Black and Decker housewares plant in Barrie. While there is much dispute about the exact figures, of one thing there can be no doubt: hundreds of jobs will be lost.

"The employees and thousands of citizens of Barrie have requested the Ontario Legislature to act as part of a campaign of conscience directed at the company by giving unanimous all-party approval to a resolution that Black and Decker reverse its decision.

"I support this goal, as does the Ontario Liberal Party, and I am pleased to table the attached resolution for the consideration and, we hope, approval of all members." My colleague the member for Quinte did table such a resolution on November 14.

Again we are seeing the trend to mass layoffs and plant closures. It was announced only recently at the Burns plant in Kitchener that 600 hourly-paid and salaried workers would be laid off. The Black and Decker Co. of Barrie announced 600 layoffs and a plant closure. Alcan Ltd. will shut down its Kingston plant. A lot of plant closures are occurring in areas represented by government members.

Where are these members when their citizens need them? They always campaign on the premise that people should vote for a member on the government side. Yet here we have 600 jobs being taken away from an area represented by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and another 500 jobs being lost in an area represented by the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). Where are these people when the general public needs them?

Several contradictions in the policies of the management teams of Canadian General Electric and now Black and Decker have appeared. In 1983 we were told through published reports in Corporate magazine that Black and Decker in Barrie had a rosy future. In fact, $5 million had been spent over the past five years to help upgrade the plant. The skillets made at the Black and Decker plant, which are famous, had sales increases of more than 700 per cent. We were told that once the sale was made it would assure the future of the Black and Decker plant in Barrie. Instead, five and a half months later, we had exactly the opposite. We had a full closure of the plant.

The new Conservative government in Ottawa must review immediately the Foreign Investment Review Agency agreements made with Black and Decker and CGE to make sure they lived up to every obligation they promised. We were promised by the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, that immediately after he was elected hundreds of thousands of new jobs would be created. What we see instead, through having Conservatives in Ottawa and in Ontario, is that we lose jobs. No jobs are being created.

While all of this turmoil was going on in Barrie, while these closures were announced, where was the Solicitor General? He was in Los Angeles at some convention. It was also stated in a news

article dated October 17, 1984, "Taylor ponders leadership bid."

Mr. Speaker: Your time has expired. Order.

Mr. Mancini: His future --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to oppose the motion by the member for Hamilton East. In making the decision not to vote against the motion, we have considered the importance of the closure of the Barrie plant of Black and Decker Canada Ltd. to the employees affected and to the community of Barrie. In addition, I believe the debate provides an opportunity for the government to describe the programs and activities that are available to address difficult matters of this sort.

In rising to indicate the government's position, I do not wish to be taken in any way to be concurring with the suggestion contained in the motion that there has been a failure on the part of the government to take appropriate action to do everything within its power to protect the jobs of the workers and the community's economic base.

As I indicated in the House last week, I was frankly not satisfied with the information and explanation originally provided to me by the Black and Decker officials and, thanks to the assistance of my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor), I have been able to arrange a further meeting with representatives from the international corporation in the United States as well as the Canadian president.

In attendance at that meeting will be representatives of the union. I also extended an invitation to representatives of the two opposition caucuses, and that invitation still stands. Also in attendance, I trust and hope, will be the federal member and the mayor of Barrie. That meeting will be held at 1:30 p.m., Friday, November 30, in my office and will go on as long as is necessary. At that time a full presentation will be made on the reasons for the closure of this facility, and everyone in attendance will have the opportunity to question those reasons.

To say, as the resolution does, that there is not a process of public accountability in these matters is to ignore the facts. As I said in the House the other day, I rarely encounter difficulty in obtaining full disclosure by company officials concerning the reasons that lead to decisions of this sort.

This is not to say that I am always totally satisfied with the explanations given, at least in the first instance. In a case where the reasons are incomplete or unsatisfactory, they are rigorously pursued by my officials and me and, as I said, almost invariably full economic and financial explanations are forthcoming. When received, they are then assessed not only by my officials and me but also by my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his officials.

These assessments include the examination of alternatives, such as maintaining the operation, the feasibility of the sale of the operation as a going concern with a view to maintaining employment and, where all else fails, the implementation of appropriate adjustment measures.

In short, while we are not opposing the debate of this motion, we will be taking the position that Ontario takes second place to no other North American jurisdiction in the adequacy of its laws and administrative arrangements in dealing with plant closures.

One of the difficulties faced by any of us in dealing with decisions of this sort is that no matter how adequate the arrangements, closures necessarily result in loss and hardship for those directly affected and, indeed, for others whose jobs depend on the activities of the enterprise in question. No laws or policies can totally eliminate this hardship, and often the most that can be done is to soften the effect.

As I will contend during the course of the debate that will follow, I believe the steps we have taken, both administratively and legislatively in this area generally and in the case of Black and Decker particularly, represent an active and thorough response to an extremely unfortunate situation.

Finally, without wishing to hold out any false hopes, I would like to say that I have not given up on this situation and I hope that, as a result of my meeting on November 30, more can be done to protect the interests of the affected workers.

Mr. Speaker: Before putting the question to the House, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the form of the motion itself. In my opinion it would have been proper for the motion to stop at the end of the word "community." The rest of the motion actually deals with the argument, which would better be heard, perhaps, at a later period.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The debate will proceed.

3:40 p.m.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak today and I thank my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) for allowing me to speak first. I have some urgent and pressing personal business to attend to at a hospital and I appreciate being allowed to speak in the debate before that happens.

I want to say a very few words in this debate because it is one of real importance to the people in Ontario and what is happening here

When I asked the minister a question about this, I made a comparison I want to make again in opening my remarks. If a management employee, or indeed any employee, was to be fired individually, that employee would have rights either at common law or under a collective agreement. Those rights for just cause would require the employer to produce evidence as to why that individual employee should be fired. Under a collective agreement, it would go to arbitration. In the case of common law, there would be a suit. Ultimately, there would have to be compensation from the employer if it was found that individual had been dismissed without cause.

With the number of plant closures in the province, what I find contradictory, very unfair and completely inappropriate is that when a whole plant is closed down -- not just one individual being fired -- the people working in that plant have very little legal protection in this province or indeed anywhere else.

I know the minister is going to say we are doing more than all the other jurisdictions. Just because the Reaganites in the United States are not prepared to deal with the problem of the runaway plant does not mean we should be putting our heads in the sand in Canada and failing to deal with the same problem.

We have a special problem here. Our industrial base is being eroded, and the minister knows it. With the announcement made last week, he knows perfectly well there are many communities in the north that are afraid because of the continuing decline in metal prices and because there is no corporate accountability by these multinational corporations. There is a real problem.

In the south we have a great many firms, of which Canadian General Electric and Black and Decker are just two, that have been here for 50 years or 100 years and are deciding to close because they have failed to respond to changing world conditions and markets. This poses an enormous threat to the very basic rights workers have to be informed fully, to be told what is going on and to have a measure of protection for the most important investment they have, their jobs.

Our legal system does less to protect job security than to protect any other property right that exists. If a government wants to put a highway through a person's house, it has to provide compensation under the Expropriations Act for that house. If somebody's job is expropriated, however, apparently there are no requirements in the legal system to respond. That amounts to expropriation without compensation. Even more serious, not only is it without compensation it is without any kind of justification.

We have now reached a stage at which it is no longer acceptable in Ontario that a group of workers have fewer rights than one worker has. If it is good enough for one worker, whether an executive or an employee making $4 an hour at a nonunion, unorganized plant, to be able to take his employer to court and get compensation and a justification, even if it is only to small claims court or a county court in some instances, that same right ought to apply to each and every worker in a group that is being fired as a group. It seems to me a worker should have just as many rights if he is being fired as part of a group as he would if he is being fired individually. That does not happen.

The minister himself has indicated he is not satisfied with the information he has received from the company. I am not satisfied with the information I have received from the company. The facts are very disturbing. I am sure the minister is aware of them.

I remember the first time I was involved with this plant. That was when it sent out steam irons to Singapore. I see the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) is here. He will remember that time. He will remember the CGE plant in Barrie used to make a whole range of household items and each one was sent offshore. The last one sent offshore that I can recall was the steam iron.

When they got rid of the steam iron line, I went and talked to the company and the workers. We were told, "This is the last time we are going to do this because we really want to focus on what we can do well. We are going to get the world product mandate for skillets and we are going to continue to focus on the lawn mower line. If we focus on those two lines in the Barrie plant" -- I can remember this conversation as if it were yesterday -- "and get the world product mandate, then everything is going to be okay."

The global product mandate -- this was the line. We have had that line from the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). I can remember it from when I was in Ottawa. The Tories and Liberals up there were saying, "The answer to the problem of the multinational is to get the world product mandate."

They got the world product mandate for skillets and they still have it, but apparently it did not work the wonders it was supposed to. They had a 700 per cent increase in international sales of skillets. It went from 30,000 units in 1978 to about 250,000 in 1983. According to the company itself, when it was CGE, "In the next two or three years, we intend to push that figure beyond the 500,000-mark."

Going on to talk about its business, CGE said in one of its annual reports: "By having access to a world market, CGE could justify the multi-million-dollar investment required to redesign and relaunch the skillet. We had to gear up and automate for long production runs, and securing the mandate was the first step. Part of the capital investment was financed by a $1-million interest-free loan provided by the Ontario Development Corp."

This is a company, in this great free enterprise system the Tories keep crowing about, which managed to get an interest-free loan. Boy, a lot of small business people out there would like to get that kind of a loan. A lot of my constituents would like to get that kind of loan, but they did not. In return for that loan, CGE sells its business to Black and Decker, a sale approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

The provincial government would have been involved in that approval because FIRA would have asked its opinion -- it is in the FIRA legislation -- and the government would have given it. We can only assume, because we have not heard otherwise, it approved the sale of CGE to Black and Decker.

Then Black and Decker turns around and says it is closing. Not only does it say it is closing in Barrie, it says the plant had not been profitable for years. It said it had been losing money for several years. However, according to the form GE had to file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission for 1983 when it was still CGE, the Canadian housewares division was reported as having a pre-tax profit of $6.6 million.

There is a question here of government protection and also of corporate honesty. How does the government expect any worker to have any faith in what a company tells him? If one reads through the history of this plant in Barrie, one will see plant manager after company executive telling the workers: "You are doing a great job. This thing is going but the next thing is going to be great." As recently as only a few months before announcing the closure, they were saying: "Everything is just fine. It is all hunky-dory."

I think this raises basic questions. As I said at the beginning, there is a basic question about the protection ordinary workers have in this province against these kinds of decisions and measures taken by companies. We should be taking legal measures to give workers some kind of stake and some kind of right they do not have today.

It should not be a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) going on his hands and knees to Black and Decker and saying, "Let us have an open session on this," and Black and Decker replying, "These are all the reasons we are moving." We have no way of challenging or getting at that information. The minister cannot subpoena documents. He has no power to get into the records. He cannot go back two and three years. He cannot go after the intercorporate memos. He cannot do any of the things that would be available to people in legal proceedings.

3:50 p.m.

It also raises the question, and I think this is fundamental, of what it means to be a corporate citizen. Clearly, it does not mean an awful lot to Black and Decker or CGE when it made its decision to sell this, knowing what the implications might be. It is not acceptable any more for workers to be left as vulnerable and defenseless as they are in the face of these kinds of corporate decisions. We need a government to protect those people.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on this issue, about which I am probably more concerned than any other member in this Legislature. I know their words express concern and I know the member for York South (Mr. Rae) has visited the riding. I find, however, that honourable members from time to time visit all ridings and express their concern, but I see no greater concern from them than that which the members on this side offer, the local member and the Minister of Labour.

He sees these closures all too frequently, as he has said, and he is trying to resolve the problem in such a way as to prevent them in the future and prevent all those things we know are attendant on these matters.

I served for a brief period on the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment, along with my friend the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), who was the chairman. We did learn a great deal about that problem. When that committee was working we came out with an interim report. I am not so sure, had it continued, whether we would be any more knowledgeable, except about the hardships closures bring. Whether there would have been any solutions that would have been palatable to the government or to the community is not known. I do not know whether, having read all the available literature on it --

Mr. Laughren: If the minister is concerned, he should do something about it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. 6. W. Taylor: I say to the member, who speaks platitudes such as we are told we are always speaking over here, my Minister of Labour has worked on this problem. The member has heard the minister say we are having a meeting, as we did with the other ones. Possibly nothing may come from it, but the workers know we are endeavouring as best we can to solve the matter.

We are not doing it the way the members opposite would, which would be the death knell for many industries in this province. They would set themselves up as the jurors to decide whether a company would continue or not continue in a particular place. They have no greater wisdom as to whether the company could or could not stay in business.

One has to know what these people are suffering and contemplate their suffering. The members opposite do not know. These are people who work in all areas of the community. When I hear the honourable members --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable members who are interrupting please refrain from doing so. There is a time allotment and each member is allowed 10 minutes. You are interrupting and dispersing thoughts.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: They always do. I remember one very vivid instance, and the people of Barrie remember how helpful the members in the New Democratic Party happened to be at Christmas time when CGE has its biggest sales. Who made the official announcement that one package happened to come from offshore? They certainly were not concerned at that time about all the workers in Barrie and jobs in Barrie when sales dropped. I think when they are talking about altruism and concern, they ought to reflect on what they have done over periods of time, particularly to the workers in that plant.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: The minister -- I am waiting for him to take his seat -- has implied we had something to do with the sales of a product made in Barrie. What we did at that time was show there was misrepresentation on the part of the company about where the product was made. The minister is doing nothing less than misleading the members of this House with that kind of stupid statement.

Mr. Mackenzie: He knows, or should know better, or he does not give a damn.

Mr. Laughren: I am getting tired of this.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I am getting tired of the interruptions.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The facts speak for themselves. The workers know what they did at that particular time. They know what the New Democratic Party stood for at that time in loss of sales and jobs.

Mr. Laughren: We stand for honesty. You wanted to let them --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have given the honourable member many warnings. Please refrain from interrupting.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would appeal to the fairness of the members opposite to hear the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor) out for two reasons. One is that he is the member for that area, and this is a very depressing circumstance for him. The second is that he got out of his sickbed today in order to come here. He has laryngitis and is having great difficulty in speaking as it is; so at least give him the opportunity.

Mr. Martel: Tell him to be factual.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: When I get back up, heckle me all you want, but please let him finish.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I thank my colleague very much for intervening on my behalf. However, I am sure all the interjections and comments they make will not be reviewed in any greater light by the people of Barrie than they are by my colleagues here. I do not want to be provocative. However, the honourable members do provoke, and that is consistent with their style.

Let us look at what this particular matter means and what we are looking forward to in this forthcoming meeting. I am sure that wild words and accusations will not assist the forthcoming meeting the Minister of Labour has planned. The members of the executive of the union and the members belonging to that union want to approach and have approached this matter from the very beginning in a very concerned and very intelligent way in trying to do the best both for the workers and for their community.

The executive there are people of the community. I know these people from their other activities. My family plays sports with them. I have known them. I know what this means to a community. We are trying to resolve a problem. We have had other pluses in that community with the Volkswagen plant coming there, the Honda plant and the Hayes-Dana plant. These are matters that this government has tried to look at in a positive way, just as we will try to look at this in a positive way.

Like the Minister of Labour, I am not satisfied with all the information that is currently there. There does appear to be some conflicting material in what is being put forward, but we have to look at the matter in a very intelligent, reasoned way. I do not think that accusations will in any way enable this plant to continue there. I think we have to approach it in a very responsible manner.

I heard the Liberal member get up and immediately start attacking me personally. I remember how we bailed out the member's area, with no help from that particular member. I remember the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) going to help out Chrysler and saving that particular matter. When I hear the comments by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), how quick he is to challenge and attack personally the members on this side, I do not think that helps the problem in Barrie at all. It is possible the members opposite may even have some good ideas to help assist this matter; I am not so sure.

So far I have not heard any conversation from them that would in any way assist the problem in Barrie and those workers in Barrie.

4 p.m.

I hope when management arrives at this meeting it can explain further. Maybe they will change their minds. I hope they will. Perhaps the workers can put forward their case in a little more precise manner about how this is affecting them. I have heard the Treasurer say he is not satisfied with the way the current legislation is or the notice. Maybe we all are not. Maybe this is an opportunity to improve on that legislation without just making derogatory remarks about the individual member who represents a riding or about the present legislation of the government.

Besides the cackling they seem to do on all these occasions, they put forward no ideas that are beneficial to the individual workers of that community.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, let me say immediately that in no way did I personally attack the member for Simcoe Centre during my opening five minutes of remarks. All I said was that during the three provincial campaigns I have run, not only in my riding but also in ridings all over Ontario, the favourite slogan of that party was: "Elect a Conservative member. Elect a member on the government side of the House."

I am pinpointing today the fact that we have not only a Conservative member but also a cabinet member who is seeing his community being stabbed in the heart because the second largest employer is closing. I pointed out also that the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) had a large plant closure in his community.

I say the slogan the Conservatives have used in the past, and will use in the future, "Elect a Conservative member, a member on the government side of the House, and everything will be wonderful," is not true. We should expose it for exactly what it is: nothing but political dogma.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Mancini: I did not interrupt the member for Simcoe Centre.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member did what?

Mr. Mancini: I did not interrupt the minister.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I think the rules allow for an interruption on a point of privilege. I did say in my text that the member personally attacked me. Indeed, he did. In fact, he has just again attributed words to me as a government member that I have never used in an election. Further on, he did say I had done nothing for the riding in this matter. Indeed, I have. To attack in that way is not in any way becoming of that member.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, why was the time not running out when the member was up on his feet on a purported point of personal privilege?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The clocks never stop.

Mr. Mancini: Those are exactly the facts as they are.

I know it is tough when one has large closures in one's own community. A couple of years ago Bob-Lo Island, which was the biggest summer employer not only in Essex county but also in Windsor, because it employs 600 people, went into receivership in the United States. I asked this government for assistance to find a buyer for Bob-Lo Island. I had to fly to Florida at my own expense to meet with certain officials to find a buyer for Bob-Lo Island.

I say to the member for Simcoe Centre, when we have these big closures they are tough and they hurt, but the facts have to be put on the record. It is nothing personal against the minister. They are the slogans that his party uses every election campaign. I will send him a slogan during the next election, which we expect within the next few months.

I want to respond to the Minister of Labour, who said a meeting is being convened on Friday with officials from the management team to discuss what can be done over this announced closure.

I want to read a statement from the Barrie Banner of October 10,s 1984, as follows: "There is no possibility that Black and Decker will reverse its decision to close down its Barrie plant, said general manager Ken Lyons... ."

I do not know whether the Minister of Labour has met with Mr. Lyons, but this is a public statement that has been recorded. I am sure he is aware of it, and the Solicitor General is also aware of it.

I am not sure exactly what the minister is going to discuss at his meeting on Friday, but the first thing he has to discuss is the $1-million, interest-free loan that was given to Canadian General Electric. He should see if we can recoup that money. The second thing he will have to discuss --

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member should not be at the meeting. He is too negative. We do not want his lack of positivism.

Mr. Mancini: I am putting forward proposals. We have to get back the money we gave to this giant corporation because it was going to build in a part of this province, in a part of the minister's community. It reneged. We want the money back.

Second, we have to know what Foreign Investment Review Agency arrangements were made. In that regard, I have to say hypocrisy knows no bounds. The minister knows as well as every member in this House knows that when in opposition in Ottawa the Conservative Party talked about dismantling FIRA because FIRA got in the way of business.

Mr. Wrye: That is what they are still saying too.

Mr. Mancini: These people say the same thing, that is true, as my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich says. FIRA stops business, creates all kinds of problems and so on. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I wish to quote from the same paper I quoted earlier. It is a statement that was made on November 7, 1984. I will quote the whole thing:

"The federal government's Foreign Investment Review Agency should have rejected Black and Decker's bid to take over Canadian General Electric's housewares division, says MP Ron Stewart (PC, Simcoe South)."

The same people who say we should not have a FIRA are now the same people who are saying it should be tougher. What hypocrisy. This Mr. Stewart goes on to say:

'"This is a case where FIRA could have been effective but was not and it is sad for Barrie. We may have lost some other company that would have been better for Canada.'"

How can the minister sit there and allow his federal colleague to say that when he himself knows and all members in this House know they would not have any kind of examination of funds being invested in this country?

What we have here is one giant multinational corporation buying out a portion of another giant multinational corporation; and yes, they are going to rationalize, absolutely. They are going to close a plant here in Ontario, in Barrie, which is represented by a Progressive Conservative cabinet minister.

The closure will cause the loss of 600 jobs and part of the operation, but by no stretch of the imagination will a lot of the operation be relocated to some other part of Ontario. The same things we now manufacture here will be manufactured outside Canada and will be brought in because there are no manufacturers of that product here in Canada. We will be importing something we could manufacture right here in Ontario.

I understand the sad feelings of the member for Simcoe Centre; I went through it myself. He can do a lot on a personal basis to try to resolve what has happened, because he has the support of the whole government of Ontario and its $24 billion budget. I did not.

It is not enough for us to sit here and listen from the other side to how concerned they are. We noticed their concern on March 19, 1981, when it was repeated to us by the Premier (Mr. Davis) after he abolished the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment. He told the members of the opposition, "That is one of the realities of March 19."

I say to the member for Simcoe Centre, this is one of the realities of March 19. We could have worked on that committee. We would not have resolved all the problems, we would not have had all the answers, that is true, but we would have written a report. The report would have been tabled, it would have been offered to the government for assistance and it might have been used in this particular case, who knows? Yet we were blocked from doing our legislative duty by a majority Conservative government that reminded us it was a reality of the last election campaign.

I again reject the criticism of the member for Simcoe Centre that I am attacking him personally, because I am not. If he rereads the record, it will show I am not.

4:10 p.m.

I am a bit concerned. I went through just about every news

article from the Barrie Examiner and the Barrie Banner, and I do not think I found more than one area in which the member was quoted. I believe I saw one statement he made from Los Angeles in which he said, "We are going to try to retrain these people through Georgian College." I did see two or three articles about the intentions of the member for Simcoe Centre to run for the leadership. I saw an

article on November 7 which had a nice picture of the member planting a bicentennial tree.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member, whose time has expired.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your patience.

Interjection.

Mr. Mancini: I went through it. I did not have any help like the minister had.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Do not resort to personal attacks.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to attack people personally, although I understand we should not. We try not to, but I have a little bit of a --

Mr. Harris: We expect it from the member opposite.

Mr. Mackenzie: We do not expect action from the government side and it is obvious we are not getting it.

The member for Simcoe Centre is really feeling his neck when he has to resort to an appeal such as, "Do not attack me personally" and a question such as, "What are you people doing?" The example he used was garbage. As the minister well knows, what we did in this House was point out a dishonest misrepresentation that was and is going on in plants all over Ontario where they bring in materials and indicate the products are manufactured here.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The members opposite were not concerned about those workers. They are never concerned about the workers.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is one of the things that is wrong with what is happening in Ontario. The member for Simcoe Centre has not got the guts to stand up and say so.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member for Hamilton East has not got the guts himself. As a union leader, he has never been concerned about the workers.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: He would rather cry: "Oh, do not attack me. You are hurting me." He will not do a damned thing about the workers in his riding.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The member for Hamilton East is never concerned about the workers.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for Simcoe Centre to be quiet.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Simcoe Centre is not worth talking to any further.

I will say something else that comes back to the Minister of Labour. I acknowledge, as I have done publicly at a meeting where I followed him recently when we were speaking to one of the conventions in Ontario, that he means well, that he tries hard, that he is in his office at seven in the mornings and all the rest of it, but I have to say that is not good enough.

We now have a meeting scheduled for November 30. I do not disagree with it, but forgive my cynicism -- I will ask forgiveness for that -- we did the same thing with Consolidated-Bathurst and the company would not begin to give the workers even a chance to put together a package if they had wanted to.

I sat in at that meeting, as the mayor and officials of Hamilton did, and as the Minister of Labour did. What did the president of Consolidated-Bathurst, Mr. Stangeland, say to us? He was asked why he would not consider selling the plant to some of the workers if they could put together a package. I want to remind the members in this House of his answer: "Imperial Oil would not sell a good choice corner lot to Texaco. Why should we have the competition?" That is what the minister is defending. That is his private enterprise system. The company would not even consider the workers putting in an offer on that plant.

Incidentally, those particular questions came from me, from one of the Liberal members who was sitting in at that meeting and from the mayor of Hamilton and the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth. We found out only at that meeting who they were selling the plant to. Apparently, even the minister did not know before the meeting to whom they were selling the property and plant.

Mr. Stangeland made it very clear. He was asked if he would consider as part of the terms of selling that operation an appeal that the firm buying the plant take care of some of the workers, all of whom had more than 21 years of service in the plant. What did we get from the president of the container division of Consolidated-Bathurst? We got the observation that his company would not appreciate anybody telling it whom to hire, so it did not intend to tell anybody else whom to hire. Incidentally, the company would not even have the unions sit in at that meeting, as the minister well knows.

We did not get a heck of a lot more, although we did not have such outstanding and hypocritical comments from management as we got in that case, when we dealt with Allen and some of the other firms. So forgive my cynicism. What are they going to tell the minister this time? How tough is he going to be on the company in his questions? The tough questions were not coming from the Minister of Labour at that meeting.

I say to the Minister of Labour and to the cabinet minister who says they are doing what they can and we are attacking him and this is wrong, they have to understand that both of them are cabinet ministers in this government and that if they are cabinet ministers they are supposed -- as I understand it; maybe I am totally wrong -- they are supposed to represent policy and have some input into policy. Some of that policy surely should be to protect workers when they are losing their jobs right, left, and centre in Ontario. It is not good enough to say, "We are going to call them to another meeting and say, 'Please, boys.'" We have corporate milking going on here.

In the SKF case, from the evidence before our select committee on plant closures, it became clear that over a five-year period they transferred things out. First, it was the small bearing assembly section, the big money-maker in the plant in Scarborough. Then they started to replace that with the less profitable large ball bearing assembly operation in which they were not manufacturing. Then they got into nothing but the repair assemblies, which were less profitable still, and set the stage all along the way for saying, "We are finally going to close this plant." We lost 250 or 270 workers in SKF.

In this Black and Decker plant it is pretty obvious. There were 27 product lines a short 10 years ago. Now there are only seven product lines left, including the successful skillet line. All of them were shuffled offshore. Now those same products and 70 per cent of the housewares purchased in this country are coming in from Singapore, Mexico, the United States, Taiwan and Brazil.

In the case of Allen Industries we pointed it out. That company lied to us about what they were doing with the machinery and what would happen when they moved to the Mexican plant. They shipped the production there at about $1 an hour, down from $10 a hour. The only thing this government seems to approve is the few jobs going from Barrie to Brockville. I guess that is because they are going to be paying $2.50 an hour less because that is not an organized plant. Is that part of it? Is that part of the policy we are now into in this province -- deliberately downgrading the wages? It sure as blazes looks like it.

We cannot let them mislead people by saying stuff is being manufactured here when it is not. We have to look at the fact that branch plant after branch plant is closing and the production is going out of this province and out of this country, and this government is not doing a darned thing about it.

When we do meet with them the tough questions do not come from the minister. If we are invited to the meetings, and I understand we have been invited again this time, as we certainly were in the Consolidated-Bathurst case, the tough questions do not come from the minister and his staff but from some of the rest of us who are at that meeting.

The answers we got in the Consolidated-Bathurst case were sickening. What was the best response in this House? That really tells the tale, and it tells why I am such a cynic and getting so damned mad about what is happening to workers. I think the then Minister of Industry and Trade was the current Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker), who is in the House; he can tell me if I am wrong.

The very day after that meeting, when we asked what the government thought of the kinds of answers we got from Mr. Stangeland, the president of Consolidated-Bathurst, what response did we get? He said, "They are not the best corporate citizens." I think that is what can be found in Hansard and what I heard him say. But we did not see the minister who was at that meeting, or anybody else, do a darned thing about that case.

One begins to wonder what is the use of talking? They are so bloody committed to private enterprise, to the rights of these offshore corporations and to the branch plant philosophy. They are down on their knees begging so often and so hard for their money. They are being played for such complete suckers, but it does not seem to matter. The losers in every single case, and there have been so many over the past few weeks that it should hurt every member in this House, are the workers and their communities.

While we are increasing our imports, I am wondering, what happens to our balance of trade in consequence of this kind of situation? How long can we continue either downgrading wages or bringing in the imports and losing the plants here? When is it going to get through to people on that side of the House that just maybe they have some responsibility? They are building up a case for which we will pay one terrible price in this province and country. We are already paying it but it is going to get worse, and it continues.

4:20 p.m.

Very shortly in this House, I hope, we will be talking about the Griffith mine closure. We shut down Marmoraton in 1978; Steep Rock in 1978-79; National Steel Corp. at Capreol, 1979; Inco's iron ore recovery plant at Capreol, 1980; the termination of the Steep Rock Resources Bending Lake development project in 1983. Now in 1984 there is the shutdown of Griffith mine by Stelco Inc., with the number of mine workers declining from 3,772 to 1,716, a decline of 55 per cent.

Our production has dropped from 10.3 million to 3.7 million tons, but our imports are up to 4,448,352 tons. We are replacing our entire productive capacity here with imports and we are losing the jobs along the way. Yet these two ministers tell us that somehow or other we are attacking them personally. Are they or are they not cabinet ministers and part of it? Is this government going to come up with some policy that starts to protect workers in Ontario? They are not doing it now.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, the closing of any plant or place of business anywhere in Ontario is of importance to the employees who are mostly involved in such a sad event. When the closure involves one of the largest employers in a town or city, then the impact is so much greater. Not only are the employees and their families affected, but the entire local and regional economies are affected as well.

According to some reports, the Barrie area stands to lose some $30 million in wages. As members here over the last few years, a number of us have faced situations in our constituencies where partial closures or outright shutdowns have taken place. We all have to ask ourselves:

"Is there any more we could do to stop it? Can the provincial government help? Could employers or unions have done something to prevent such an occurrence or to make it easier?"

Having gone through such a process in Simcoe East myself, I can state there is no easy way to close or partially close a plant. It is a very sensitive matter that deeply affects employees, particularly those who have worked in a plant for many years. I do not believe anyone in management is the ogre the New Democratic Party would like to portray. It is a difficult decision at the management level as well, and in my experience a decision that is required by market and business forces.

The opposition and others can, and should at times, question whether a decision is in fact based on valid business reasons. They are perfectly within their right to do so and make the public aware of any factual information that is revealed. They have had that opportunity in the past and do today. If the public feels the employer has acted improperly, it can make its weight felt.

I am not an expert on the issue, as others think they are, but I have kept up with it and know what is taking place at Barrie. It is not too far from my own riding and I believe my constituents will also suffer some of the economic fallout from the closing. I believe the Minister of Labour and the government have done a great deal to try to prevent the closure from occurring and to minimize its impact. If today's debate does not shed any new light on this topic -- and I do not think it will -- there will still be much more work for the government to do, long after the third party will have forgot