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

June 20, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr White: Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that there is an all-party agreement among the House leaders to change the order of this morning so that Mr Dadamo will commence and then Mr Stockwell will have the second hour.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (NOTICE OF TERMINATION), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU PRÉAVIS DE LICENCIEMENT

Mr Dadamo moved second reading of Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Notice of Termination.

M. Dadamo propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui a trait au préavis de licenciement.

Mr Dadamo: In the past year, we have experienced a tremendous amount of job losses, due largely to the major economic restructuring brought on by the current federal government. Policies such as free trade, high interest rates, the overvalued Canadian dollar and the GST combined are creating a shift in our economy that is hammering at the very foundation of Ontario's industrial strength.

The basis of our prosperity, which has been the twin pillars of a unionized workforce employed in large-scale manufacturing, has been fundamentally undermined by these economic policies. The results of that show quite clearly that the workers in this province are suffering, and changes are needed now to better protect our living standards.

Job loss resulting from plant closures and involving at least 50 workers is at a level above that of the 1982 recession. Layoffs occurring as a result of a reduction in plant operations are now also on the rise. Unfortunately, statistics for workplace closures of less than 50 workers are not required to be provided to the Minister of Labour. However, the closure-related job loss figures are staggering: in 1982, 11,150 job losses; in 1989, 12,684; in 1990, 20,554 job losses.

Industries especially hard hit by the increased closure activity are mining, food processing, transportation equipment -- including auto parts -- and electrical products. The impact is especially severe where closure occurs in single-industry communities.

In the last six months of 1990, 2,558 workers in the Windsor area were displaced as a result of their companies' closure. Many of these closures occurred with minimum notice, putting the burden of the adjustment on the employees and not allowing sufficient time to identify alternatives or facilitate any type of adjustment whatsoever.

If termination cannot be avoided, advance notice allows employees, employers, communities and the government to begin working on the adjustment process before unemployment becomes a reality. This bill will increase the amount of notice of termination required under the Employment Standards Act in cases involving 10 or more terminations caused by permanent discontinuance of all or part of the employer's business at an establishment. Twenty-six weeks' notice would be required if there were fewer than 200 terminations, and 52 weeks' notice would be required if there were 200 or more.

The only exceptions to entitlement to the notice would be if the employee had been employed for less than three months or if he or she had been guilty of wilful misconduct, disobedience or wilful neglect of duty.

This amendment also removes the exemption of notice of termination, which is not required if an employee is laid off or terminated during or as a result of a strike or lockout at his or her place of employment. This exemption allows employers to defeat the intent of the Employment Standards Act, as employers can postpone terminations until after the commencement of a strike or a lockout in order to avoid notice requirements.

An example of this occurred in Windsor last August, when 295 employees of Wickes Manufacturing Co were locked out by the employer after General Motors had announced three months earlier that a major contract to produce bumpers was being transferred to another competitor. Negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers were a mere formality that allowed the company to wait until it was in a legal position to lock the workers out and avoid paying the 12 weeks' notice that would have been required by the Employment Standards Act, had it not been for the lockout exclusion.

This amendment also requires employers to provide certain information to the minister about the planned terminations. This information must include the economic circumstances surrounding the intended terminations; any consultations which have been or are proposed with the affected employees or their agents or with local communities; proposed adjustment measures and the number of employees expected to benefit from each; and a statistical profile of the affected employees. This information has to be provided to the minister before notice to workers will take effect.

Advance notification builds on the assumption that the burden of adjustment should not be placed only on employees. At the same time, its purpose is not to penalize firms, but to allow sufficient time to identify alternatives or facilitate adjustment. Advance notice may allow, if it is accompanied by consultation, an exploration of alternatives to cutback or closure.

If termination cannot be advised, employees can begin implementing job search strategies, exploring available employment services and, of course, training options. Employees and employers can implement an adjustment plan which might include identifying skill shortages among affected employees and providing counselling.

Government can activate programs to assist in worker and community adjustment, possibly through needs assessment, skill inventories, employment services, counselling and training. Governments and communities are given time to plan for decreased revenues and simultaneous increases in public expenditures. With advance notice, timely adjustment and appropriate support levels, workers may be less likely to have to rely on unemployment insurance for lengthy periods, and the stigmatization associated with being jobless might be reduced.

Notification legislation emphasizes the notion of corporate responsibility towards the workforce in case of downsizing. By complying, firms can enhance their image as responsible employers. To give advance notice of termination is in principle a cost-free obligation to the employer who complies with this legislation. This advance notice becomes a key component for an exploration of alternatives or for co-ordinating successful adjustment programs.

Advance notice legislation currently sets the lower threshold for mass termination at 50 employees. In small communities and single-industry towns, and in the case of overall deteriorating labour market conditions, terminated employees, especially those affected by closures involving less than 50 employees, can face the same difficulties of finding a new job as other workers involved in layoffs of 50 or more employees. It is for this reason that I promise a lowering of the threshold from 50 or more employees to 10 or more employees.

As I stated earlier, the purpose is not to penalize firms and cause more hardship. If the employer complies with the legislation, no money is paid out. The intent of this change is to allow more time for adjustment or alternatives.

These amendments were being looked at by the Ministry of Labour after holding meetings with labour, business and community groups in February and March of this year. They found that the current statutory projections are limited in scope; specifically, that the notice requirements are insufficient to allow workers to plan for this job loss and providers of adjustment services to implement them in a timely fashion.

The current legislation falls short of what is required of employers in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as well as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, with respect to the threshold limits for mass layoff notification. It is obvious that the previous government showed a complete lack of regard for the plight of displaced workers by not addressing these inadequacies and that it did not consult properly. Unfortunately, workers are finding out how limited the legislation is at a time when progressive notification requirements would have been most beneficial.

The lack of more advance notice is causing hardship for workers and their families because the minimum established by the previous government was so inadequate. Too many employees are excluded because of the poorly established threshold limits and also the lack of sufficient notice needed for proper adjustment.

This bill will bring us more in tune with some of the western European legislation that has created the most responsible adjustment programs in the world. I am confident that my colleagues will join me in supporting this very important legislation. Hopefully the members from the official opposition and the third party will also see fit to ensure that displaced workers will get the best job protection available anywhere in Canada.

Mr Offer: Let me say what a pleasure it is for me to join in the debate on the bill put forward by the honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich.

I am going to talk about a number of different aspects of this particular legislation, but at the outset I want to say I am a little concerned about the way in which the honourable member made his opening comments, because I believe they were founded on acrimony. I believe they were founded on an "us and them" type of camp. I do not know that this is necessarily correct. I do not know if this is necessarily the best way to achieve the type of protection that all members of this Legislature always work towards. None the less, that is certainly the way in which the member put forward this particular matter.

He spoke not necessarily to the substance of the particular legislation. I think of three areas where the member spoke about the acrimony between labour on one hand and management on the other. He spoke about the difficulties between the government which he represents and the federal government and spoke also, and I took specific note of that, about a lack of consultation by the previous government, of which I was a member, with the labour sector.

The whole basis for this legislation that the member puts forward is one that is based on conflict, an "us and them" type of camp -- "If you're not with us, then you're against us" -- a finger-pointing type of exercise, that the cause of all of the problems in this province in terms of job loss is the federal government and its fiscal and monetary policies. I do not think the people in this province and the 250,000 who lost their jobs in the last year really do take great solace in the fact that one member of this Legislature stands up and says, "If not for the federal government everything would be fine." I do not believe that helps people at all.

Far be it from me to defend the actions of the federal government. I find them to be lacking, wanting, in many areas. But I do not think it is always the most responsible tack to take that no matter what the ills of this province are, they are always the fault of the federal government.

I believe it certainly does take a substantial share in that, but I think there are a lot of people who might say the same about this provincial government, that indeed this government too must be concerned about what it has done in the area of job creation in this, the worst recession -- I believe the Treasurer has stated -- since the 1930s. In the last year, 250,000 jobs have been lost and bankruptcies are up in the area of 80%.

There is a certain malaise which is affecting so many people in this province and the Treasurer has just recently announced a budget which carries with it a deficit of almost $10 billion.

Many people in this province are now saying: "Where am I in that budget? I don't see my interest being acknowledged in the budget, being advanced in the budget. I don't see one single job being created in the budget." They are not saying that is because of the federal government; they are saying that was a provincial budget, a provincial budget which does not create one single new job at a time when, in the words of the Treasurer, we are going through the worst recession since the 1930s.

By way of opening comment, I say that to bring forward this type of legislation in a way which says everyone belongs in one camp or another -- "You are either in the labour camp or in the management camp, you are either for the federal government or against it, you are either for the provincial government or you are against it" -- really does not serve people's best interests. It really does not promote the economic well-being and viability of the province and its future.

It really does not send out a message that there is the need for consultation, that generally people do not want to be looked upon as being on one side or the other, that they do not really feel they are on one side or the other, that they do not really take much satisfaction in finger-pointing, in saying, "Gee, we're perfect except for the other guy," or some other type of area. That does not help when people are out of work.

I hoped the government would have put an awful lot more emphasis on the issue of job creation, on getting to how we can create real, permanent, good jobs in this province which will, in a very fundamental way, provide the basis for continued growth in our economy. But that is not here and that, I must say, has not been the action of the government to date.

Having made those opening comments, what does the bill do? I have read the bill, and basically it talks about calling for substantial increases in the notice period compared to the existing legislation, it talks about recommending a slight change in the posting procedure and it talks about removing the right for employers to refuse notice to employees hired for a definite term; ie, contract employees.

I guess all of our concern and attention today is probably going to be on the whole issue of the notice provision. The member spoke about how he sees himself and his party as the holders of all that is good and virtuous and moral in terms of workers' protection. He seems to have forgotten that the severance and notice provisions which we, the previous government, put into the Employment Standards Act were the most comprehensive and generous in all of North America. That is not to say that more work cannot be done in that area, but I think that instead of taking this acrimonious type of position the member has taken, we have to say:

"Yes, good work has been done in the past. The enhancements, the provisions, the rights, the entitlements under the Employment Standards Act in terms of severance and notice provisions have been introduced by previous governments and yes, we have to continue to look at ways in which we can continue on in the work, if not in this area, then in occupational health and safety and a variety of other areas."

But the member just seems to put forward -- I will say confusing as opposed to misleading, because misleading might not be terribly proper -- certainly a confusing type of message. All governments have worked in terms of the Employment Standards Act. All governments have looked towards enhancing notice and severance provisions for employees. All governments have done that.

One of the things I think the member should be very concerned about is consultation. I hear two messages in terms of consultation in this province. One message which is heard in this Legislature, mainly from the Minister of Labour, is that they are conducting consultation extensively, broadly, with a variety of people across this province. It sounds very good in this Legislature, I must say, and probably there have been speeches to that effect.

But the interesting thing is that when I go outside this Legislature and speak to a variety of people whom I thought would be the subject matter of the consultation, they are saying something very different. They are saying that there is not any consultation, that their views, their thoughts, their opinions, not only on labour-related matters but in the social service area, to name one other, are not being asked for and they are not even being approached. That is something that is of concern to very many people outside this Legislature.

If the government hopes to have legislation, of whatever nature and kind, that it believes is right and hopes to have some sort of approval, it must be based on real consultation. I will share two areas. The Minister of Community and Social Services, in terms of her area, and the Minister of Labour, in his, are falling very short of any type of consultation. I did not even use the word "meaningful," because I am talking to people all across this province who are saying there is not any consultation. They cannot get in the door. They cannot even share their opinion.

Before one ever brings forward legislation of this kind, it must be based on consultation. We have to have a very strong appreciation for the impact that this bill will have on small business. Small business creates more new jobs in this province than anything else. What does this bill do to small business? How is small business able, when one talks of a reduction to a level of 10 persons, to plan, to project for the future? What does it mean? What message does it send out? What does it do to the ability of small business not only to continue to exist but also to be formed in this province and, of major importance, to continue to be the job creator that it has been in the past?

This bill and the opening comments of the member just do not address those concerns. I think it is absolutely essential that before any particular bill of this nature is approved, we have to hear from small business just as one aspect -- what it means to it, what it means to its being able to continue in this province, how this will impact on its being able to grow and create jobs in this province. As such, I think this bill is premature in the extreme.

I also believe we have to take a look at what the government has done in terms of listening to those people who might be affected by this particular piece of legislation. I do not focus just on management; I also bring into issue labour. What type of consultation has been done prior to this bill being introduced in listening to how these types of proposals would impact on both management and labour? What does this mean in terms of accelerating closures?

What does this mean in terms of creating new business, in terms of creating new jobs, in terms of building a foundation for the economic growth of this province of which we will all be the beneficiaries? This bill and the member's opening comments are silent on that aspect.

I am very concerned about a bill of this nature. I am concerned because the process by which it was formed leaves out so much. We leave out discussion and consultation with small business, with management, with labour. Before any bill of this nature can be approved, even in principle as we discuss here today, there must be the foundation of good, open, broad consultation. That has not happened in this bill, it has not happened with the Minister of Labour in all of his stated intentions, and certainly the Minister of Community and Social Services is following in the footsteps of no consultation. As such, I do not support this legislation.

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to join in the debate on this bill of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I would like to preface my remarks by indicating that I appreciate the very sincere and very good intentions of the member in making sure the workers in this province are protected. However, I would also like to point out that although there are some cases where management perhaps does not treat employees fairly, I do believe that on the whole every attempt is made to deal with the individuals as fairly as possible.

I believe this legislation in the end will be very harmful to the economic climate of this province. I do support the fact that there does need to be reasonable protection for workers. However, I do not believe this piece of legislation does protect workers. I do not believe it will protect their jobs. In fact, I feel it could have a very serious impact and I feel it could discourage job creation and job retention in this province.

What is going to happen under this bill is that it is going to increase the notice of termination in the Employment Standards Act. Instead of having to give eight or 12 weeks' notice, now if you have less than 200 employees you are going to have to provide 26 weeks' notice, and if you have more than 200 employees, instead of giving them 16 weeks' notice, you are going to have to give them 52 weeks' or a year's notice. I have a lot of concern about the changes being suggested here.

I would also like to indicate I understand that what is being suggested here has been taken from An Agenda for People under the title "Job Protection." An Agenda for People promised "improving the severance and notice provisions of the Employment Standards Act to increase the protection of workers facing layoffs with lower worker threshold, a lower years-of-service threshold and an extended notice period."

Bill 116 deals with the notice of termination element of the Premier's election promise. However, I am concerned because this bill and the changes contemplated here today are unprecedented in any other North American jurisdiction and, as has been pointed out by the member, although they are part of the western Europe countries they are nowhere a part of any jurisdiction in North America.

It is going to represent a very substantial change, particularly for the small business sector, and I would have to ask the question, at a time of recession, can we afford this type of legislation? I believe it is going to have a very serious impact on the retention of jobs and the creation of new ones; we have to remember those new jobs are created by small business and this certainly does not provide any incentive to create those new jobs.

Another change in this act is the fact that before employers with less than 50 employees were not covered by regulation 286; now all businesses in this province, no matter how small, are going to be covered. This is going to have a very dramatic effect on employers who are struggling during the recession. It is going to force some businesses into premature insolvency because of the increased exposure to a termination pay liability.

I am going to give an example. There is a company that has 40 employees. They have to lay off half their staff because of declining sales or the bankruptcy of one of their main customers. Unfortunately, in these tough economic times, they were unable to give 26 weeks' notice, as is suggested here, because they had no way of anticipating that the other firm, upon whom they depended as a customer, was going to go bankrupt. The termination pay liability of six months' wages for each employee could force this second company into bankruptcy because 20 long-serving employees who earn $500 a week would cost $260,000.

If the second company goes into receivership and is unable to meet its wage, vacation pay, termination and severance pay obligations, then under the terms of Bill 70 the new employee wage protection program would be liable for this $260,000 in termination pay. Who is going to pay for that? The Ontario taxpayers.

Unfortunately, I believe this bill is punitive in nature. I believe it is going to further erode investor confidence. I believe it is going to discourage job creation and investment in Ontario.

I had a call yesterday from a businessman who was in the process of making an important decision. He had heard about this bill that was being discussed this morning and he was concerned about it. The very fact that this legislation was being considered was a factor he was taking into account this week in deciding whether he was going to close his business.

I do not know what decision he is going to make ultimately, but I would like to point out that business is very concerned about some of the initiatives that the government is taking at the present time. They do not feel they are being understood and they feel they are being treated in a very punitive manner.

There needs to be more consultation, real consultation. I believe the views of labour and management both need to be considered in the final pieces of legislation that are brought before this House. Only in this way are we going to have a healthy economy in this province, one that is going to provide well-paying and secure jobs for all the workers. We need to be concentrating on providing them with jobs and saving the jobs they have, and that is not what we are doing; we seem to be spending our time and effort on dealing with the layoffs.

I also want to point out that the length of the notice period needs to be examined. How realistic is it that a company can plan a plant closure one year ahead? How many of us know what is going to happen in our lives one year ahead? None of us. This bill is based on the erroneous assumption that a business goes bankrupt and knows about it a year in advance. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out, this is not always so. Businesses often collapse because of circumstances beyond their control and often quite suddenly.

I have talked about losing a major customer who goes bankrupt. Think about the government taxes in the policy. Consider the role of the workers and the changing nature of the marketplace. These are all factors that contribute to bankruptcy and, unfortunately, bankruptcy can happen very quickly and you cannot plan for it a year ahead. If that plant closure was due to financial distress, a year's notice would only send the creditors in to recover what they could from the remaining assets. Bill 70 in its original form prevented workouts of Ontario corporations, with the result that jobs that might have been saved have been lost.

Bill 116 is going to have the same negative effect on efforts of companies to reorganize a firm to save jobs. Now if a company with 200 employees did not give a year's notice, the termination pay liability could be $5.2 million, assuming the employees earned $500 a week and had eight years of service. Bill 70 is going to expose the Treasury to this termination pay liability of $5.2 million. I ask you, can we in Ontario afford this at the present time? Can the taxpayers afford it?

The liability exposure is so large that a company with 199 employees would be hesitant before hiring any more employees because one extra person, under this new legislation, would mean that the notice period is going to go from six months to one year. It is not going to encourage the expansion of any business or industry.

The budget has already predicted that an additional 184,000 jobs are going to be lost this year. I sympathize with the men and women who are going to lose those jobs. The negative signal sent out by the $9.7-billion deficit is already affecting investment decisions by Ontario businesses and, unfortunately, it is also contributing to the loss of potential new jobs.

To add these punitive labour law changes at this time, at the height of a recession, is only going to exacerbate the negative impact of the budget. We in this province simply cannot afford to lose one more job. We have to start creating an investment climate for business that is going to encourage the private sector to create jobs so Ontario can finally come out of this recession. Changes to the Employment Standards Act, as outlined in Bill 116, are going to have exactly the opposite effect. They will create a very powerful disincentive to doing business in this province. They are going to restrict new employment opportunities for the men and women in this province.

The workers in this province do not need more legislation that is going to cost them their present and future jobs. They need a government that is going to encourage job creation and retention, a government that is going to work with the business community, a government that will consult and take into serious consideration the views of all individuals, whether business, labour, management or whatever, and incorporate them into the final policy. They need a government that is going to provide a good economic climate for investment, provide incentives for business and encourage them once again to look at Ontario as a place for investment.

Unfortunately, we believe Bill 116, if passed, is going to cost this province present jobs and future jobs, and we will be unable to support it today for that reason.

Mr Hope: It is my pleasure to stand here today as the sun starts to shine upon Queen's Park and the workers of this province start to be recognized and a foundation is being built.

I could not understand the comments that were being raised about there being no consultation. I reflect back on the five years of my time as a labour leader. I could be a little bit modest here and say there has been three years, but I know it is closer to five years, of consultation that has taken place on this piece of legislation because, as a worker representative, one of the key factors we tried to get across was notification.

We talk about a foundation. Let me tell the members this is a stronger foundation than the pyramids that the Egyptians built. This is a foundation that will build this province into making it what it should be. I want to explain why, because we have heard the negative points of view, and I would like to reflect the positive point of view because there are so many positive views in this piece of legislation.

To the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I say I am a little jealous. He had the opportunity to introduce this legislation before I did, because he comes from Windsor, where there is a large labour market that is losing jobs. We have waited too long for this. It is good to see, and I will not hold it against him; he has my 100% support on this bill, because it is something we have been looking for for a long time.

This bill will require companies to give employees longer termination notice. That will give employees the time to do an analysis and to find alternative employment or, more positively, to sit down with the companies and discuss the possibilities of being laid off. We talk in this government of bringing labour and management together. One of the problems has always been that one has not trusted the other. I do not want to point fingers -- do not get me wrong here -- but the government has to admit to some of that; it has created this confrontation.

This is a foundation because, as workers go up to a plant, walk in one morning and look up on the plant bulletin board, what do they see? A layoff notice. A lot of these people work and live from week to week on their paycheques. I could say they could depend on their savings account, but they never had a savings account. Most of us do not even know what a savings account is.

Let me explain why it is a foundation. As people are receiving notification of termination and do not know if they are coming back -- this is not a temporary layoff, this is a layoff; they do not know if they are coming back -- one of the things they are really focusing on is that it will give them the opportunity to sit down and discuss with management whether it is because of the marketplace or it is because of machinery. It is going to give them the ability to sit down and discuss with management the possibilities and alternative routes other than being terminated, which gives better planning for the company.

It is a very positive foundation. Not all the time are you able to sit down and have a conversation without choosing sides.

But there is a conversation that will take place dealing with the family and preparing themselves because, as I indicated a little earlier, most of them live week to week on their paycheques. If they look up on the bulletin board and they are over a certain limit, they are entitled to 52 weeks. That gives that individual one year to plan his life, whether it be while he is currently still working to go and get more education, increase his education and maybe look at a skilled job -- there is so much possibility here.

There is a ray of hope for Queen's Park; I must add that. When I start to look at this legislation, we must take it in the context that it is a very positive piece of legislation. The limitations that are in this legislation is a foundation that I feel is very positive. As I look a lot at the brothers and sisters who are out there, who do not know from one day to the next because -- and everybody says, "Don't point fingers." Well, I must point fingers because of the content legislation we lost in the auto pact. We lost it because of the Mulroney brainstorm trade deal that was there.

Mr Kormos: Some brainstorm.

Mr Dadamo: Yes. It was a storm. It was like lightning that came down and hit the people. Because of that, workers need protection. They need an opportunity to expand their horizons. If they know there are no possibilities of diverting the layoff or the termination, they can, through the 52 weeks, go to community colleges -- excellent education, I must add -- and expand their horizons.

I know that other members of my caucus would like speak, which will reflect this province's concerns on this piece of legislation. The member for Windsor-Sandwich does not have to worry about my support. As I indicated earlier, I am very jealous that he got to to introduce it before I did, but he has my 100% support on this piece of legislation, and I encourage all members to take a closer at it, to quit doing the division of labour and management but to look it at in a more positive way as a foundation that builds this province.

Mr Martin: This morning I would just like to make two points on this very important issue. They come under an examination of the climate within which business is done today in Ontario and the climate and the environment within which people work today. I would like to speak on how that impacts both on the worker and on business itself.

I think in front of this legislation we must understand that in today's work-a-day world none of us is ever more than a paycheque away from poverty, from not being able to pay the bills.

The economic environment that faces the working person each day that he gets up and goes to his job is that if for one reason or another he loses his job or is without work, his family is then thrown almost automatically into a position of poverty because of the debt load that many of us in Ontario have been forced to accept in order to have a home to house our family, in order to be able to provide the transportation that we need to get to the things that we all take for granted as part of our quality of life and in order to be able to put food on our tables.

I think it is in light of this fact, the fact that we who are workers in our communities need to plan long in advance for any change in the economic situation in which we live, that this legislation makes a whole lot of sense. Not only does business out there have to plan in creative and ever more futuristic ways, but we, as people who work in our communities, who have families to support, who want to be constructive, contributing members of society, have to plan as well. It is difficult for us to plan if we do not know well in advance those things that significantly change any plans that we might have, so I support this legislation this morning in light of that.

The other thing I would like to comment on and challenge the members opposite and my own colleagues to reflect on is the fact that also in this day and age, businesses are more and more beginning to be able to make plans well in advance. They are being asked to put together business plans that speak to one-, two- and three-year, and oftentimes five- and 10-year, projections and plans. They know, more than ever before, well in advance what the future holds for them, they know what the economic climate is, they know what is coming down the pike.

Certainly if they are experiencing some difficulties, if they are beginning to have some problems in any part of their operation, the banks are on their case to let them know if there are problems.

There is no real argument that they can present to us that they do not know, that the time we are talking about here in terms of notice to workers is too long. There is no argument in today's world. Businesses are well aware of what is coming. They are being told by their creditors what is coming, and just as they consider those folks in any decision they make, all we are asking today in this legislation is that they consider the workers as well.

Mrs Fawcett: Madam Speaker, could I have unanimous consent to use the two minutes and the few seconds remaining from the third party?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mrs Fawcett: I appreciate my colleagues giving me the opportunity to place a few remarks on the record because I would like to reflect some of the concerns that many of the constituents have expressed to me regarding the NDP government's total disregard for small business and the manufacturing sector of the economy.

This government does seem to be fixated on job compensation rather than job creation, and certainly in the county of Northumberland we are experiencing the highest levels of unemployment in eastern Ontario. The latest data indicate that it really is over 15% right now and has been for some time. Coupled with that, over 2% of the entire population of Northumberland is on welfare, so the members can see that we are looking for some type of relief from this government in the form of new permanent jobs.

I look in vain to find anything in this type of legislation that would encourage manufacturing or small business to set up shop in Ontario, let alone Northumberland. Certainly the member for Windsor-Sandwich has not consulted with those industries from my riding. Really, if he or any member of his socialist government had talked to Frankie Liberty of the Diamond Triangle Economic Commission, he would have found out that this type of labour reform is a disincentive to manufacturers and small businesses.

The member may be trying to enact the legislation because he knows full well that his government is really driving business out of the province and wants to ensure that an employee's last paycheque is a good one, but I say that the employees in my riding want a paycheque, not a severance cheque. I really have a great deal of trouble trying to find solace in this type of legislation, so I do not feel that I can support it at this time.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate this chance to rise here in the back benches, among the Ws, to speak on this. Madam Speaker knows this, and the other members: Thursday morning is probably one of the most interesting times in the House, because what happens Thursday morning, as compared to what oftentimes does not happen during the rest of the sitting week, is that private members' business is dealt with.

What we are dealing with here, Bill 116, is a piece of legislation, amendments to the Employment Standards Act, which was authored by the member for Windsor-Sandwich. Every member of this Legislature can, as of right, present bills. Members know that. That is our right, and it is an unfettered right. But what is important is that Thursday mornings are reserved so that those bills which are presented are debated at the instance of the author.

Windsor-Sandwich can be very proud of its member of the provincial Parliament. Since the member's election on 6 September, he has been tireless -- and I say this as somebody who has been here for a few years longer than he has been -- not just in his pursuit of resolutions for issues that impact on Windsor-Sandwich very specifically, and I suppose that is the job of each and every one us, but there is nobody in this Legislature who does it more aggressively. In my opinion, there is nobody in this Legislature who does it as effectively as the member does for his riding.

So he comes here with a lot of talent, a lot of insight, but his efforts are not restricted to issues that are isolated or situated solely in Windsor-Sandwich. The member comes here with a strong background; he comes here with a social conscience. What more valuable trait could one expect for an MPP.

What we are talking about here is people and families and lives. We are not talking hypothetically; we do not have to. We can talk about factories. Down where I come from in Welland-Thorold, down in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula, we can talk about factories like Welmet. The folks down there know what Welmet was. It was a long-time industry, had been in Welland for decades and decades, and then it was gone, and those hundreds of people who had really intended to spend their working lives there and had made that commitment to Welmet, and their families and their children, were left in the lurch.

We can talk about Wabasso cotton down in the city of Welland where, once again, hundreds of employees had made a commitment. They were prepared to spend the rest of their working lives producing for Wabasso, but then Wabasso was gone and those hundreds of workers, those women and men who had made their commitment to Wabasso, were betrayed as well, and their families, their children or their grandchildren are left hanging in the wind.

We do not have to talk about hypotheticals; we are talking here about plant shutdowns. We are talking about a legacy of plant shutdowns that occurred not during the life of this government; we are talking about a legacy of plant shutdowns that occurred during the Liberal government that preceded this one for five years and during the Tory governments that preceded it. It is those previous regimes that generated the shutdowns. It is those previous regimes that generated the economic disaster that this government is attempting to cope with now.

Rather than fear-monger, as the Liberal critics and Tory critics have attempted to do, let's think about the lives and let's think about the human element. Let's think about the motivation of the member for Windsor-Sandwich for presenting this legislation. His motivation is to protect those workers and their families from the cruelty of arbitrary and, quite frankly, spur-of-the-moment plant shutdowns. Any caring person would support this legislation, Madam Speaker, as I know you do.

Mr Dadamo: I would like to thank my colleagues for the eloquent words that they used this morning. Thank you to the members for Welland-Thorold, Sault Ste Marie and, of course, my dear friend from Chatham-Kent. As well I would like to thank the members for any of the comments from the opposition side this morning, as long-winded as sometimes they may have been. I just want to stress that if this goes on for committee work or for consultation further in the province, the sky will not fall and the sun will come out tomorrow and we will be fine.

I would also urge opposition members who are critical of Bill 116 to maybe come to Windsor some time and experience and see at first hand the 16%, 17%, 18%, 19% and 20% unemployment rate, all the plants that have closed in the city of Windsor and in all the area ridings in the last year and a half and two years, and the thousands of people who have been thrown out of work.

I put my hand out to Kenny Maheux, who is president of CAW Local 195 in Windsor, who has worked tirelessly endless hours, along with his executive, in the painstaking course that they have taken to try to put people back to work. Notice at 3 o'clock in the afternoon when the people walk in and their plants are closed.

Corporations in this province, little or large, know when they are going to make money. They also know when they are not going to make money, and they know when they are not going to make money well in advance. They should tell employees of this province that their plant is about to close. It is only the right thing to do, and sometimes we forget there are thousands of children in this province who are affected as well. I urge all members to support Bill 116.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Carr: Madam Speaker, Mr Stockwell is late arriving. He was actually speaking about this point last night up in Thunder Bay and his plane was supposed to arrive, so obviously there has been a problem. I would like to have unanimous consent to begin the debate and then have Mr Stockwell finish up later on.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oakville South will now move the resolution in his absence.

Mr Carr, on behalf of Mr Stockwell, moved resolution 17:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the tax, borrow and spend policies of the government are undermining Ontario's economic competitiveness, discouraging investment, exacerbating the problem of cross-border shopping and that these policies will burden this and future generations of taxpayers with a massive debt, this House therefore calls upon the government to immediatialy introduce legislation: (1) to impose a 2% cap on wage increases in the broader public sector in Ontario for a one-year period, (2) to establish a budget stabilization fund to be financed through the allocation of any in-year revenue windfalls, (3) to hold its own direct operating expenditures at last year's levels, (4) to implement a program freeze.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to be able to speak on behalf of my colleague for Etobicoke.

I guess what we have here in this province is a continuation of the old and decidedly failed policies of the last government, the one that carried on the tax-and-spend approach that has been such a failure. In fact, over the last little while, the previous government had a 132% increase in taxes in this province and we, as we sit here today, are now not only the highest-taxed province in Canada but we are now the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America.

In the past, we used to have a 10% advantage over Quebec. After 32 tax increases by the previous government, we are now the highest-taxed province in all of Canada. Yet the worst

part is that the quality of our public service continues to decline.

When the last government came in, when the Liberal government took over from the Conservatives, they said, "We care more about people so we are going to spend more money on social programs and more programs for social assistance." Then in comes the NDP government and it says, "No, we care more about people so we are going to spend more."

But I say that the people of this province do not want more money spent. The people who are on social assistance, whether it be a single mother or a middle-aged man who has just lost his job, do not want social assistance. What they want is jobs. They want to get back into the workforce and get off social assistance.

So instead of saying, "We spend more. We care more so we spend more on it," I think most people in this province would believe that what we should be doing is seeing the amount and number of people we can get off social assistance. As for the amount of money spent on social assistance, we would be successful if we reduced it, not increased it, and we could do that by getting people jobs through training, retraining and apprenticeship programs.

As we sit here today, the big problem between this government and the ideas of the Progressive Conservatives is that it does not matter today how much we spend but it is where we spend the money that counts. If we can reduce some of the spending on social assistance programs and get people off social assistance, that is what people are looking for.

The last government spent more on the environment, they increased the amount that was spent, and yet the quality of the environment continued to deteriorate. They spent more on health care, they doubled the amount on health care, and yet we had waiting lists in this province under their regime, not only waiting lists for elective surgery but for life-saving heart surgery as well. When it came to education, they spent more and still the quality continues to decline.

All we have done over the last little while is replace one big, high-taxing government that spent and was beholden to special interest groups with another high-taxing, big-spending government that is beholden to special interest groups. That is not what the public of this province want.

It is interesting to note, and I will reflect on it a little bit, that a polling company did a poll and during that period of time they asked people -- and I will paraphrase it because the question they asked is fairly long -- "Basically, do you think your taxes are being spent properly?" The overwhelming majority, close to about 80%, said they were not. They honestly, truly believe in this province that we are not spending wisely.

There was another question asked: "Do you agree that they should limit increases in government spending in the budget that is coming down in the province of Ontario?" Fully 79% said that they should, that we should not spend more.

They actually asked the question of what party one supported and NDP supporters were right up there with everybody else saying that we should not spend more. The NDP supporters who helped elect this government, who said they voted for them, are the ones who said we should not spend more.

It is kind of ironic that in the throne speech, on the very first page, this government said it is a government that will listen to the people and respond to their needs to the best of its ability. They heard from the people -- Conservatives, Liberal, NDP, non-aligned people -- who said, "We do not need more spending." What do they do? A 13.4% increase, a $10-billion deficit.

Let's put that $10 billion into perspective. In the amount of time that we will spend here this morning, the two hours from 10 until noon, by the end of this mandate we will be spending $2 million -- $1 million an hour or about $15,000 per minute; $1 million an hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year -- not to pay for health care, not to pay for the environment or social programs, but just to pay the interest on the provincial debt alone.

What we need in this province is a comprehensive review to eliminate waste. During the last period of time we have identified some of the abuses that are out there, the wastes that are out there. We heard, during some of the questions earlier on in this Parliament, of the amount that was spent on speeches. The previous Premier, Mr Peterson, spent I believe in the neighbourhood of $7,000 just to have his speech written for him for Meech Lake when he was meeting with the other premiers. We heard as early as yesterday about the 17 letters sent to the same individual company, and we have the chairman of TVOntario who has nine TVs in his office.

In 1985 virtually 80% of the housing units built in this province were built by the private sector. Today it is completely reversed -- 80% are built by the public sector and only 10% by the private sector. What this government has done is thrown out the private sector, scared off the private sector in housing, scared it with its labour legislation.

What we need, as this motion says, is to take a look at a cap in spending programs and a program freeze as is advocated in point 4. I would ask any of the members to take a look at the estimates book in connection with point 1 which would impose a 2% cap on wage increases. The salaries that are listed in the estimates book are broken down by salaries and wages, in every ministry. One of the largest portions of spending is salaries and wages. You look through it and you see the percentages, you see the amount that is spent.

We are saying that in this day and age, when businesses, households and families have to control spending, they expect from this government that it will do the same thing. In a day and age when most people in this province are fearful for their jobs, and our previous debate was about jobs in this province -- whether they are at the low end of the scale, whether they are workers in factories, whether they are management, whether they are clerks, everybody in this province is fearful for his or her job except for the public service because they know they are safe -- what we are saying is that those people who have secure jobs at this tough economic time should be able to give a little bit.

For a party that historically has prided itself on being socialists and giving for the good of everyone, we say the public service should at this time be able to take a cap freeze because their jobs are secure. They know six months from now they are going to have a job. The workers at General Motors do not. The workers at the Ford motor plant in my riding do not know if they will have a job, but the public sector does, so they therefore are the ones who should be able to accept the 2% cap.

What we need to do, and what we should have done, is during the good times be able to build up surpluses. But what happened with the previous governments? They not only taxed us with 132% increase but do you know what they did with the money? They spent every last cent of it and then some, because they even ran up the debt totally, too. They spent every last cent -- the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all North America and they went out and spent everything.

Yet when we sat here under their regime, the environment declined, there were waiting lists at hospitals, the quality of our education declined, and in all the fundamental facts and programs in this province, through all that, the quality of our public service continued to deteriorate. That, I think, is the sad part.

What we need to do, what we need to reflect on and what the people are saying out there -- and very clearly, as this poll indicated -- is that they do not believe the government is spending their tax dollars wisely. They believe there should be some controls. We need to have some reviews on these programs.

These programs need to be reviewed in this day and age when businesses have to take a hard look at where their money is spent, when workers have had to be more efficient in their operations, when households have had to look at the cost of everything and where they are spending money and what money is going to go into the kids. Everything is being reviewed except in the public sector, except in the province of Ontario where tax-and-spend continues on like there is no tomorrow, like the money will never end.

So this particular motion was, I think, on behalf of the vast majority of the people in this province who are saying: "Get control of spending. Get control of your spending in the province." Hopefully this resolution will pass and the government will abide by the resolution that we are talking about today.

Those are a couple of comments and, as I said, I pass these on on behalf of my colleague who is coming in, having spoken on this last night.

Mr Huget: I am pleased to join the debate on the resolution put forward by the member for Oakville South on behalf of the member for Etobicoke West. Both members have some fairly strong views on this subject, but I know they will be fairminded enough to listen to a legitimate alternative.

The member's resolution clearly illustrates the difference between his party's view of what should be done in these tough times and the view of my government. In my opinion, it also seems to reflect a slash-and-burn mentality that his federal cousins have become famous for.

It is interesting to note that the federal government, in spite of its cutbacks and insensitivity to the needs of people, has made very little progress in controlling the deficit in this country and a lot of progress in increasing the hardship.

In my role as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I am pleased to say that our ministry is working diligently at helping Ontario prepare for a bright future by initiating programs in a number of areas, programs which cost money but programs which, we believe, are responsible and wise strategies, investments in the future.

Ontario has two hard realities to face. One is economic and one is environmental. Both are crucial and both are immediate. This government is committed to facing them both with equal determination. We have a genuine conviction that sustainable development is a common obligation, that our economy cannot thrive at the expense of the environment and that true prosperity must be durable. No truly thoughtful person and no truly responsible government can reject the idea that equal access to both prosperity and environmental security is a noble and achievable principle.

The people of Ontario deserve to share in a common wealth and that is precisely what this government will ensure. It means we are devoting enough technological muscle, scientific ingenuity and money to ensure that Ontario will have the most energy-efficient economy on the continent. The people of Ontario have faith in this government's energy strategy. It is a strategy that will make this province more self-sufficient, more prosperous and the North American leader in energy-efficient practices and technology.

I want to emphasize some of the energy commitments this government has made to the people of Ontario since last November, commitments which will help raise the confidence level in Ontario and make sound economic sense.

The provincial electrical utility, Ontario Hydro, will spend at least $3 billion during the next 10 years on conservation and energy-efficiency programs. In an energy-efficiency pilot project in Espanola, the community's response for a call to participate has been overwhelmingly positive.

To make sure our own house is in order and to be fiscally responsible, we have made a commitment to reduce energy consumption in all government buildings by a minimum of 20%. To ensure that, we have initiated a comprehensive energy audit program to cover all 8,000 buildings. To date, more than 780 of those buildings have been audited.

Over the past few months, the Ministry of Energy has consulted industry, labour, education, business and environmental and community groups on nearly 200 policy initiatives the ministry is considering for implementation in the coming months.

Just last Friday, the Minister of Energy hosted a policy consultation session with 150 representatives from various sectors of the province. The large industries were there, the environmentalists were there, the commercial sector was there, the independent power producers were there, the educators were there and the municipalities were there.

The purpose of this session was to listen to the ideas of the people, to open up the policy creation process to as many Ontarians as possible and to form partnerships to meet the province's energy goals. The response to this consultation was overwhelmingly positive. Participants welcomed the opportunity to work with their government and they welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the energy future of their province.

The Ministry of Energy also launched its new program initiatives last Friday. These initiatives are possible only through the financial support of the Treasury. This support clearly demonstrates the government's commitment to investing in Ontario's economic and environmental future through energy conservation and efficiency.

The Ministry of Energy now has $10 million more to work with and it has already increased the number and scope of the programs it offers. The additional allocation of funds allows the Ministry of Energy to increase its energy-efficiency activities by almost 75% in the current fiscal year. These program initiatives will have the double blessing of putting the province on the cutting edge of competitiveness and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.

These new and enhanced programs are inclusive. They are aimed at all parts of Ontario's society. They were developed through extensive consultation and they operate on the premise of a partnership with the people. As the ministry develops more programs, we will continue to listen to the voice of the people of Ontario. Through a combination of education, advocacy and incentives, discussions will continue about the best ways the government can work with the public to achieve the province's energy goals.

This week the Minister of Northern Development informed the House that the combined efforts of the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Hydro, based on consultation with the north shore communities, has resulted in a $250-million economic diversification and adjustment package for the people of Elliot Lake.

This government sees its action as responsible, as making good business sense, as laying the foundation for long-term economic stability in an area that has been dependent on Hydro for its livelihood. Again, we have listened to the people and have responded to their needs. In the past 10 years, Elliot Lake uranium has cost Ontario's electricity consumers $1.2 billion more than if it had been purchased from other sources. The people of Ontario deserve a better deal and they will receive substantial savings from Hydro's new uranium arrangement.

This is only a sampling of the commitments this government is prepared to make to bring about prosperity and ecological security for this province. We make this commitment with the support of, and in partnership with, the people of Ontario.

We are confident that under the test of sustainable development our balanced commitment to economic security and environmental integrity will speak for itself. The leadership this government is showing on many difficult issues will help to ensure a better Ontario and will earn the confidence of all our citizens.

This government intends to continue investing in Ontario, in our communities, in our people and in our industries. It is a sound investment strategy and like all sound investments will pay off in the future. Cutting back now would only ensure that we are not prepared to benefit fully when this made-in-Canada recession comes to an end.

Mr McClelland: I found the previous presentation to be very interesting with respect to the energy policy of the government. I might add parenthetically that although I understand the link with respect to the motion before us this morning, I did not find it to be precisely on topic. But I do I believe the energy policy of this government and any future government will be vital to the economic development of this province.

Indeed, I happen to believe personally that the Ministry of Energy will become one of the most important economic ministries in future governments, whatever political stripe they may be, in Ontario. I would not want to put it above another, but I would say that it would be on a level with such senior ministries as the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in terms of economic portfolios and, perhaps with the exception of Treasury, it will be the number one economic ministry in the future.

I understand where the parliamentary assistant is coming from in terms of speaking about energy and trying to tie it, in very general terms, to the resolution before us today. So I appreciate those comments, although, in candour, I found it difficult to tie it specifically to the resolution and the four points that are set forth. But I understand in general terms how very vital energy is to the economic development and prosperity of this province. We will have another day or two, I am sure, to discuss the energy policies of the current government and how they relate to the economic future and prosperity of this province. I look forward to that opportunity.

We could turn our minds to the resolution before us for a short while right now. I want to address briefly the resolution presented by the member for Oakville South on behalf of his colleague the member for Etobicoke West.

He said that one of the fundamental bases of the resolution is the desire of the electorate and people of this province that government get its spending under control. I do not think anybody would disagree with that on this side of the House and I feel very strongly that it is a vital theme to be pursued.

President Abraham Lincoln said over 200 years ago that governments ought not to do what people can do, and society can do, for themselves. I think that ought to be fundamental to our concept as we look to the future and what government has to do to respond to the changing pressures on society. The demands on government are going to be so very complex and excessive over the next number of years that they will create pressures that will require the wisdom of Solomon to be a Treasurer or any senior minister in any government. To balance the desires, the needs and the pressures based on the limited resources available will indeed be a tremendous task ahead for the government of the day.

I want to comment a little bit about the specifics of the resolution. The general concept behind it, I think, is wise if we tie it to the theme of getting control of government spending, but I think it is ultimately too restrictive. Governments clearly have the responsibility or are charged with the responsibility of adapting to and being flexible to the changing needs around them. I would find it difficult for any government -- and I suggest, with great respect, that so would a Conservative government, and certainly the history of previous Conservative regimes indicates that -- to change its spending patterns and positions based on the economy at the time.

We are clearly in a recessionary period right now in this province. I think the idea that the current government has about pumping money into the economy is laudable. I have considerable question and difficulty with where some of the money is going. I believe we now have an opportunity for charging the economy by building into the future of the economy, for example, land that is serviced and ready for future development and for the government to invest in capital expenditures that will be there for the future. Those are the kinds of things the government ought to be doing in recessionary times and focusing its energy to create jobs, to create opportunity and to get the economy kickstarted.

The rest of the country is slowly easing out of the recession. Ontario remains lagging behind. I think that is indicative of the fact that, I say with respect to my friends opposite, the huge deficit they have has provided them with an opportunity. I am completely against the concept of a deficit of that size and that magnitude. I think there are times that deficits are appropriate; I think they are the exception rather than the rule. But to set out and have a program or a plan that says, "For four years we're going to double the deficit of this province," I think is absolute folly.

I draw to members' attention again that it took 140 years for us to reach the current cumulative deficit in this province and they are going to double it in the projected life of their government. I find that just so remarkable, it is almost beyond comment. I think it is the height of absolute folly. It is going to mortgage our future and restrict whichever government is in power after the next election. Its options are going to be so very limited.

When they have hard times like they have now, they should look very carefully at where that money is going. I really believe they had an opportunity to kickstart the economy, to plug into infrastructure development and capital expenditure. That would really have done something positive and got men and women back to work. I think that opportunity has been missed.

I would say with respect to my friends in the Conservative Party who have put forward this resolution, I do not think they can say categorically that we are going to define what governments are going to do, as this resolution does. I think governments are required and have a responsibility to be flexible in terms of where their moneys are going to be spent. I find that problematic in the resolution that is before us.

As for the imposition of wage increases in the broader public sector in Ontario for a one-year period -- the 2% -- I think a rate tied to inflation is reasonable. I think people ought to at least hold their own in tough times. Although I agree with the concept that we have to control the expenditure in the public sector, there is a sense of equity and fairness, that people ought to be given the opportunity to hold their own, if not have any advances. I would agree that we all have to tighten our belts a little bit and the public sector is no exception. I think holding it at inflation is reasonable.

Item 3 on the resolution indicates that there would be a resolution to hold the government's direct operating expenditures at last year's levels. Again I find that somewhat restrictive. I do not know what the member for Etobicoke West, in drafting the resolution, meant by that. If he meant line-by-line, I would have difficulty. If he meant in global terms, I would agree with it conceptually and think that it is a valid point. I wish he were here to flesh that out a little bit, and upon his arrival he may be able to shed some light on that.

Again I say that governments need to be able to respond and have the flexibility that is required of them to change from time to time. Throughout the course of a budget fiscal year, things will change. That is why we have supplementary budgets and interim supply.

It is the responsibility of government. It is the responsibility that falls at a very difficult time on our friends opposite. I wish them well in these difficult times. I say again with respect to my friends in the Conservative Party, the member for Etobicoke West and our friend from Oakville South, that I understand where he is coming from on this, that getting control of spending is vital. It is absolutely essential.

In

summary, the resolution as worded is much too restrictive in terms of the responsibilities and reality of government. I think it has to have that opportunity to be flexible and to adapt to changing needs and changing circumstances. We applaud the direction that this would take us, but I feel that on the specifics of the resolution, I could not in good conscience support this particular resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate? The member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. May I congratulate you on doing a masterful job this morning in opening the House for the first time in your capacity as the Acting Speaker.

I rise to strongly support the resolution of my colleague the member for Etobicoke West. As you know, I come from eastern Ontario and I have to put on the record a few of the problems we are having. Some of them are very much related to cross-border shopping, which is being addressed in this particular private member's motion in that at least the government should recognize there is a major problem and that the major catalyst bringing Ontarians to New York state or to whatever state it might be on some of these border points is the cost of fuel and the taxation of fuel here in Ontario.

That is a very, very major problem. We are in effect going through a tax revolution. I believe the people of Ontario are in revolt and their revolt is being expressed by going to shop over in the US as opposed to shopping here in Ontario. That is very much a tax revolt.

We, I think, are fairly competitive, or have been reasonably competitive. The Tory task force that visited Ottawa and Cornwall several weeks ago made some important points, particularly when a tax consultant in Ottawa is suggesting to businesses that a more appropriate and gentle climate for business would be found in Quebec as opposed to here in Ontario. We had a 10% tax advantage as residents of Ontario prior to 1985. We are now at a 5% disadvantage in comparison to the citizens of Quebec.

Given that, with a foreseen budgetary deficit to total some $35 billion by 1994, the climate for business can be nothing but negative and getting more negative. This is what my friend the member for Etobicoke West is addressing, and why he is attempting to get the government's attention.

I heard the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy -- and it is great to see the Minister of Energy here this morning -- going to great lengths patting himself on the back, to the point where I was afraid he might break his arm. We hear the rhetoric that they want to clean the environment. We hear the rhetoric that they want to reduce the greenhouse effect.

We know that ethanol as an additive to our fuel would do exactly that. It is a renewable resource produced by our farmers, a product of distilled grain, and it would reduce by at least one third the greenhouse-effect emissions in today's petroleum products. This must be addressed in the near future. It could replace 10% of the fuel that we now use and would reduce the very harmful emissions that MMT is causing now.

Now back to eastern Ontario. In an attempt to get severances, and this is becoming more and more of a problem, we have seen the Ministry of Agriculture and Food opposing vehemently the construction of an arena on the outskirts of the city of Ottawa, an arena that would take up approximately 100 acres of land. The government of Ontario is spending more than $1 million in attempting to fight and say to the owners of the new Ottawa hockey franchise, "You are not welcome in Ontario." They are effectively telling them, "Why don't you go elsewhere?"

If we keep on sending businesses to the United States or to the province of Quebec, I say in all sincerity, "Will the last one in Ontario please shut off the lights." That is what this government is doing. It is promoting entrepreneurship to go elsewhere. I am for ever and always fighting to get severances on some very marginal land out in rural Ontario where the municipality, the land owner -- we have a willing purchaser, a willing vendor, and will be taking no agricultural land out of production at all.

This is marginal land growing nothing but willows, shallow soil, but because it happens to be in a so-called agricultural-designated area, they are saying no. The bureaucrats are driving by the properties, at best, and calling the shots from their ivory towers. No wonder lots are difficult to obtain and very expensive. They are artificially expensive because of the bureaucratic requirement.

Again, I am waiting from a call from Ministry of Agriculture and Food on several severances for which I, as a former real estate appraiser and as a farmer -- I think I understand the problem to a good degree -- am saying to the bureaucrats, "For goodness' sake, use common sense." In some instances they have looked at the wrong property and recommended that it not be allowed to have a store put on it, for example. That is terrible. It is happening under our eyes, with the last recourse being common sense. The bureaucracy is applied. They apply everything except common sense, and I cannot accept that.

It is simply interfering with the normal course of business. I represent a large rural area, and no wonder our population is going down. The government in its so-called wisdom is discouraging the movement of people to these parts of Ontario where lots are affordable, where the quality of life is excellent, but where the bureaucrats, in their so-called wisdom, stand in the way of progress.

This motion from my colleague the member for Etobicoke West is attempting to address this, the large deficit that is not only forecast but will inevitably occur, probably more than $35 billion of additional total debt to the province of Ontario by 1994. We do not like to sound negative, but it is a very real problem being addressed. I hope this government will recognize that indeed it cannot continue interfering with business and hope that taxpayers will continue to pay taxes, because they are moving and looking to moving and looking to not setting up new companies and new businesses here in Ontario.

I am not being negative; I am simply replying to exactly what I hear out in the areas that I represent. I tell members, one week from today they will see some Bay Street folks here very concerned. Who pays the taxes and who provides employment? I ask this government, who does provide employment? It is not governments. Do members know who these people will protect? They will protect people without jobs. That is terrible. They are taking credit for that.

Before I antagonize them too much -- I think I have their attention; I hope they listen. This is a most important private member's bill. Members saw fit to refuse and turn down my colleague the member for Cornwall's private member's bill two weeks ago. For goodness' sake, members should reconsider, recognize there is a problem and do something about it. They are the government.

Mr White: I would like to commend the member for Oakville South for his contribution. In fact, in deference to the member's gentler, kindlier presentation, I have had to temper my own remarks.

Our government believes in real investments in our provincial economy. To make our economy and to make us viable and competitive in the global economy of the 1990s and the 21st century, not only will we as a government be directly investing, but we will also be encouraging investments by individuals and groups -- investments in their own skills and their own work and their own communities.

We do not hold some monolithic beliefs that only government intervention should be encouraged. We believe that we have a whole economy, a mixed economy. The resolution before us presumes that only private investments are to be cherished and to be nurtured and that the only way in which those investments can be made is by stripping bare the essential fabric of our provincial economy, the essential fabric of our communities.

The resolution presumes that only those investments are important, but we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility which is clear in our budget in terms of economic investment. We also have a responsibility which is clear in terms of programs. Before us we have a serious situation. We have a situation where we have been frozen out by the federal government, where we, the industrial heartland of our country, are the only region which is not represented in terms of economic interest within the federal cabinet. Somehow we have been neglected, we have been frozen out.

The member's resolution would say we should stay frozen, but we as a provincial government have a profound sense of our responsibility to deal with the economic recession that is in front of us. We are doing that through investment in infrastructure. We are doing that through investment in skills training, in helping people and families deal with the effects of recession through some social spending. Those are important investments, because we need to ride out this time and beyond that we need a vision for the 21st century. The members opposite would have us frozen, unable to deal with these issues.

One issue I would tend to agree with them on is that of past spending habits. We have also been responsible economically, and we have been showing that day after day. Just yesterday we saw a bill introduced that would save us some $4 million or $5 million in the Ministry of Revenue. We have seen important, significant cuts in Health to trim expenses, to ensure the investments we make are proper investments and the most effective possible. We have also seen very significant efforts in Education and Revenue.

We are showing how we can be responsible. We are not embarking on the overspending endeavours during boom times as we have seen in the past with the previous government. We are saying instead that we have to be able to be flexible, to make significant investments in difficult times. This is the worst of all possible times to be freezing. This is a time when we should be investing. This is a time when governments, people and businesses should be making significant investments to the best of our potential in our provincial economy.

If we did not, the programs we can only now invest in would be unavailable to us in the future because those jobs would be lost. Those companies that are shutting down now are not coming back. The investments we are making now have to be made now. There is no alternative.

I would like to summarize by simply saying that we are being responsible both economically and socially and that this the worst of all possible times to freeze. I would also like to mention to the member that I do not think most people in Ontario would say the public servants of this province -- the teachers, the educators, the doctors, the nurses, the public officials -- are delivering poor service. I would think the member might want to consider those remarks. Generally, most of his remarks I would commend, because I consider them to be coming from a genuine point of concern.

I would like to summarize simply by repeating that we are being responsible. We do not have alternatives if we wish to have a viable economy into the 21st century.

Mr Callahan: Having reviewed the resolution by my friend the member for Etobicoke West, I guess I could rise in the House and be very partisan and emphasize the fact that prior to the government's budget, the Conservative government went from a $7-billion deficit to a $30-billion deficit. However, the NDP government is going to get into the Guinness Book of World Records because its deficit will even be greater.

Rather than be partisan, I would like to say that the big problem we have is that we run governments like it is our money. It is not; it is the taxpayers' money. They work hard for it, as was said. It is paid for not just by the workers but by every citizen of Ontario. We have to spend that money wisely and in a way that we would have to do if we were out in the business world or in the real world, or even in a home. We cannot just say, "Because I still have cheques left, I must have money in the bank." We have to approach it from the standpoint of using the money wisely, particularly in a time of recession such as we are going through now.

The recession is twice as bad in Ontario. The recovery time for Ontario is probably twice as long. We are losing jobs at a record rate. It is suggested that some 226,000 jobs may be lost in this province. Think about it. Just take it down to the simple fact if you were in your home and you were in tough times; surely to heaven you would not go into strong deficit financing, because it would wreak havoc on the confidence of the family. That is exactly what we are doing in this province: We are wreaking havoc on the confidence of the family of Ontarians.

Through this past budget, we have placed the equivalent of $1,000 on every man, woman and child in this province in terms of debt. We have mortgaged the future of this province. People looking from the outside, from the United States and other foreign jurisdictions, have to be worried about that. They have to be worried that this is not a fiscally responsible way to approach it.

Even though the Tories were the ones that created probably the largest deficit next to the one this government is creating, we do have to change our approach. I think that takes a collective effort on the part of all members of the Legislature. We can no longer simply respond to the groups that pressure us the most -- an almost 6% increase for members of the public service, and pittances thrown to other people; $1 billion in taxes increased through the budget -- we have to look at it more responsibly and in a better way.

Finally, in the standing committee on public accounts we are receiving some very important information from the Donwood and Bellwood clinics, telling us that we can come up with better ways to deal with the question of drug and alcohol abuse and to deal with it effectively in this province and in a much more cost-effective way.

We are looking at taking a look at some of the facilities in the United States. But the Board of Internal Economy -- I applaud it if the reason it took this approach was to try to have restraints on spending -- would not allow us to even effectively carry out our mandate as the public accounts committee. So what are we doing? We are paying $500,000 to send some unfortunate young person to the United States where we could deal with an issue, and much more effectively here in this province, for about $7 million for the totality of people going to the Donwood or Bellwood clinics.

We require a reshuffling of money. It is not a question of taxing the taxpayers to death. What you do is you plan and reshuffle your money wisely. Some of the money now being spent in education perhaps could be spent more wisely in identifying young people with learning disabilities before they get to the point where they are asocial.

Some benefits could be given in the correctional system, rather than locking people up and passing legislation that may be politically sexy but providing no treatment or essentially very little treatment for people with drug and alcohol problems in our correctional system and simply having them in the revolving-door syndrome, coming back out equally as bad as when they went in, maybe a little dried out.

We have to spend our money wisely. We have to place it in the proper places. We can no longer be simply allocating money because pressure group A is stronger than pressure group B. Someone has to control what is happening. It cannot be a matter of helping your friends -- when you get into power, you help those people who are your friends, and then when another government gets into power, it helps its friends.

Mr Hope: Words to the wise.

Mr Callahan: Well, let me tell my friend, I am proud of the record of the Liberal government. They were able for the first time to reduce the accumulated deficit. They were able for the first time to come up with two budgets that had no deficit whatsoever. Granted, times were good when that happened, but still they were the first in history to have done that. That means that at least we were moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, the people of Ontario are being taxed to death by the federal government; they are being taxed to death by every jurisdiction going.

I think they said, "Enough is enough," and we just happened to be the first live politicians to hit the bricks. They were really waiting for the Prime Minister but he would not call an election. We called it and, of course, they told us, up front, "We are tired of taxes, we are tired of seeing money being taken and the programs not being significant."

We were far more progressive in terms of the programs we brought forward; some of them this government is wise enough to carry forward, but others it is just sort of shelving, others it is just not introducing, and I suggest that this is not the way this House should work. I think we need a revamping of the system, and I will be debating that next Thursday in private members' hour.

Parliament is an anachronism. It requires a total overhaul. It requires a situation where members in this Legislature can act on the sacred trust that is given to them by their taxpayers to ensure that the economy is sound and vibrant and that we do not continue to pour debt on to the children of the future.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to deal with the four points brought up on the order paper today and in order from the top.

The first one I thought was rather reasonable, and it is pretty self-explanatory: "To impose a 2% cap on wage increases in the broader public sector in Ontario for a one-year period." It is not an extended length of time; it is for one year.

Considering that everyone, including the Treasurer, has conceded we are in a recession and the debt we are piling up this year is record-setting -- no one would debate the fact that it is record-setting -- it seemed reasonable to me, probably very reasonable to the private sector, probably equally reasonable to those people who have lost their jobs, probably very reasonable to those people who did not get any pay increase at all, probably very reasonable to those people who operate retail stores in border communities, probably very reasonable to any of those people that a 2% cap on a wage increase did not seem to be much of a hardship for the bureaucracy to accept.

We were not saying, "No increase." We were not saying, "You're losing your job." We were not saying, "We're going to hold the line for four or five years." We are saying, "For one year, considering there's a recession, considering that it's difficult for the private sector, for ordinary citizens, for taxpayers to get by, maybe you'd consider taking 2%." It does not seem that unreasonable. But that is dismissed out of hand. The suggestion is made by the government, from the cabinet ministers to the seals, that it would be attacking the bureaucracy. I do not believe that is the case.

In fact, I have talked to many people who work for the government and they have said, "It's unreasonable for us to expect an increase of 6% this year, when everyone else is suffering." They found it very difficult to defend to the people they were talking to.

The second point is "to establish a budget stabilization fund to be financed through the allocation of any in-year revenue windfalls." That is very self-explanatory again. Rather than being caught again in a position where the government would have to absorb a $9.7-billion debt in one year, it adopts a budget stabilization fund. Some of the members across the floor and some of the members on this side of the House have come from municipal councils. It is a very acceptable accounting function at municipal levels to adopt budget stabilization funds. They are called reserve funds.

Those reserve funds are used during rainy days or possibly during periods when there is large economic growth and there have to be major infrastructures built. Those budget stabilization funds are used to offset the tax hike in a particular year.

We know about windfall profits from last year, the $1 billion or so increase in PIT. Why could we not take that money, rather than simply applying it to general revenue, when the government never expected to have it anyway, and put it in the budget stabilization fund? That is good, solid fiscal management. That kind of fiscal management makes for profitable, prosperous companies. That is not an unreasonable request; it is a request that probably all members' municipalities operate under, all sound businesses operate under, but not the province of Ontario, which considers it radical and without merit. It seems rather silly to me it is considered without merit.

Point 3 was "to hold its own direct operating expenditures at last year's levels." That is called a recession. We know this government is recession-proof. We know it does not even know there is a recession going on. We know when it gives 6% increases it does not even know that people are losing their jobs. We know they do not understand that people are getting held at the same rate as last year, that programs are being slashed in the private sector, that jobs are being lost. All we are suggesting is that when the government has program growth, it just hold the line for one year again.

The private sector does it, other provinces are doing it and municipalities are doing it. What makes this government so special, so high and mighty that it cannot even look at reductions, restraints or cost-saving measures? It is unbelievable irresponsibility.

I bring these forward to make this government vote against them, to force its hand. When it goes back to the electorate and the electorate says, "Why weren't these considered good ideas in your caucus?" I want to see the government members fumble around like hopelessly inept dancers, and their seal-like barks will not be considered too valuable in their own municipalities.

To implement a program freeze is another acceptable approach during recessionary times everywhere except here, because the whole world is wrong except the Ontario socialists.

[Applause]

Mr Stockwell: They applaud this. Their socialist friends in France are wrong. Their socialist friends in eastern Europe are wrong. Their socialist friends in Ottawa do not want to have anything to do with this budget and their spending because they are embarrassed. It is rather humorous. Audrey knows how to do the moonwalk. That is what we are seeing, the moonwalk from the federal leader of the New Democratic Party.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West like to wrap up his speech for the last two minutes of his time?

Mr Hope: Wrap up, will you?

Mr Stockwell: I am going to wrap up. I do not think these are the kind of recommendations that would be that difficult to accept. They are being accepted right across this country by governments. They are being accepted by municipal governments right across this country and in this province. They are being accepted by businesses large and small. They are being accepted by families at their kitchen table when they are working out their accounts and they realize they have to cut back during a recession.

Mr Hope: The workers, not the corporations. Look at what the bosses get paid.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent will come to order, please.

Mr Stockwell: This request comes forward in the truest sense, in the sense that these are the kind of measures needed during recessionary times. This is the kind of help the taxpayer in this province is looking for. The taxpayer in this province is not looking for 13.4% increases in spending. The taxpayer is not looking for $9.7-billion deficits. The taxpayer in this province is not looking for a government to double its debt in four years when it took 125 years to accumulate.

The taxpayers in this province are looking for a break. They are not looking for a break from the socialists, which means -- hopefully in their case -- that everyone in Ontario would end up on welfare, thereby guaranteeing their re-election. What these people are looking for is a government that will allow them to compete, and to compete they must have the ability to produce. With this budget, by not adopting guidelines such as this, they have not allowed the people in the province to compete.

They are so out of touch with the people that they do not understand that the people are opposed to this approach. They would like the government to adopt this kind of alternative budgeting. In four years, I doubt it is going to have official party status.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (NOTICE OF TERMINATION), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI EN CE QUI A TRAIT AU PRÉAVIS DE LICENCIEMENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Mr Dadamo has moved second reading of Bill 116.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adopteé.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The House divided on Mr Stockwell's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 13

Arnott, Callahan, Carr, Cordiano, Cunningham, Fawcett, Jordan, McLean, Murdoch, B., Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull.

Nays -- 36

Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Martin, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1214.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARABRAM

Mr Callahan: In Brampton, balmy summer breezes on the first long weekend of summer mark the beginning of Carabram, Brampton's multicultural festival. For three fun-filled days, 5, 6 and 7 July 1991, the great city of Brampton and many, many visitors from other parts of the province will experience the magic of Carabram. People have an opportunity to savour the sights, tastes and sounds of this year's 17 countries without even leaving Brampton. It is probably the most successful multicultural festival in Canada. There are some 2,500 volunteers and I applaud them.

I am sorry to say I will not be able to invite members to a special kickoff which we have held for five years here, since the Premier and the Minister of Citizenship would not respond to letters or telephone calls, nor provide a few dollars to allow people to see these people from my community down here at Queen's Park. In any event, I invite each and every member to attend one of the most successful, if not the most successful, multicultural festivals held every year.

We will continue to hold it, and perhaps next year the Treasurer and the Premier and the Minister of Citizenship will find the goodness in their hearts to really support multiculturalism. Perhaps they will provide a little bit of an effort here at Queen's Park to allow members the opportunity to see some of the participants in Carabram in person, to talk to them, to enjoy them and perhaps to emulate that multicultural activity in other parts of the province.

EVENTS IN LANARK

Mr Jordan: Mr Speaker, 1991 is a very special year for the town of Perth and the county of Lanark, which form a major part of my riding, Lanark-Renfrew.

It was 175 years ago that Scottish settlers established themselves along the banks of the Tay River and made Perth their home. The town has been a pillar of strength in eastern Ontario and draws visitors from far and wide because of its people, its heritage, its charm and its markets.

The Perth Come on Home Corp will be welcoming former residents and all visitors throughout the year, but it has highlighted 14 to 21 July as the big celebration. Events such as an international grand prix featuring Perth's own world equestrian champion, Ian Millar, along with an international fastball tournament, parades, concerts and antique boat shows will highlight the activities. We are pleased the Premier of Ontario has accepted our invitation to participate in these celebrations.

The county of Lanark, also rich with history, will be 150 years old. From Maberly and Perth to Carleton Place, Almonte and Pakenham, there will be celebrations all along the way. Again, it is the people who will make the difference.

The separated town of Smiths Falls will kick off the celebrations with its own contribution on the weekend of 28 June to 1 July, and we have in the members' gallery today some students from St Francis de Sales School in Smiths Falls, representing the graduating class of grade 8.

WINDSOR-DETROIT INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM FESTIVAL

Mr Dadamo: I would like to take a few seconds to say thank you to the opposition members who this morning supported Bill 116 dealing with the Employment Standards Act and plant closure legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform members of the Legislature about North America's largest international summer festival, the Windsor-Detroit International Freedom Festival, which begins tomorrow and carries on until 4 July.

The festival began in 1959 as a joint celebration of Canada Day and the American Fourth of July. In its 33-year history the festival has grown into a two-week extravaganza that attracts over three million annually. This festival is a celebration of the freedom and friendship shared by the USA and Canada, incorporating the two national holidays.

Most of the festivities take place along the Detroit River, which is the border between Windsor and Detroit. The Canadian portion of the festivities is located on the grounds of Windsor's beautiful waterfront parks. To start the festival's official opening, the freedom bell rings out in Dieppe Park on 21 June, followed by the lighting of a huge freedom torch and then a friendly tug of war over the Detroit River.

Canada's birthdate as a nation, 1 July, will open with the Canada Day parade, which has as its theme this year "Peace for All Nations." That will be followed by a family picnic.

I encourage members of the Legislature who could be in the area to participate in these festivities celebrating peace, freedom and friendship.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

The Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should all use all of their persuasive power to convince the federal government to support this Ontario industry.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Carr: I am concerned for the workers in the business sector of my riding of Oakville South, and indeed all of Ontario. They are forced to work harder to cope with the current government's policies and the future of their companies than with increasing business and employment.

Procor is a major Canadian rail lessor, supplying and maintaining rail cars for industry. It is extremely concerned because the Ontario provincial taxation policies have made Ontario a relatively undesirable place to continue its business compared to the United States, Alberta or Quebec. Ontario's income tax is the most non-competitive in Canada and Ontario tax is applied to the largest portion of the company's income. Procor is under extreme pressure from the competition outside of Ontario.

A. G. Simpson is also feeling the pressure under the NDP policy. This privately held company that manufactures and supplies components to the automotive industry has six plants in Ontario. If the proposals of the Labour Relations Reform Act, along with the reforms of the Employment Standards Act, are enacted, they will have severe negative consequences in terms of employment and future investment.

We need a long-term plan to restore competitiveness and remove the pressure on our businesses to relocate. We need a more prudent taxing and government spending agenda and a consistent policy framework that looks beyond quick fixes and long-term deficits.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Malkowski: As members are aware, my riding has the second-largest number of senior citizens in Canada, second only to Victoria, BC. I am pleased to rise to inform the House today of a significant effort to assist the seniors of York East to access government and community services.

Over the last month, my staff have been working on a booklet entitled the East York Seniors Information Handbook. This booklet will supplement the Guide for Senior Citizens produced by the Ministry of Citizenship and the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs. Together these booklets will make it easier for seniors in my riding to obtain the services they need.

The East York Seniors Information Handbook will be available later this summer for residents of the riding. The response to this work from the community has been very enthusiastic, I must say, and we are now looking at ways to improve the services in the areas where gaps have been identified.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr McClelland: The Minister of the Environment, who is a dear friend, has evidently mastered the art of avoiding ministerial responsibility. I am surprised, quite frankly. In response to my very direct question yesterday on whether or not the minister intended to carry through on her promise to enforce the 30% refillable quota, she responded by saying that this was not her responsibility but the responsibility of the investigations and enforcement branch of her ministry.

I recall quite clearly her speech last fall to the Recycling Council of Ontario in which she unequivocally stated that it was her intention to enforce the 30% sales in refillable containers. She stated "I will." That was her responsibility and her intention.

Now when it comes time for enforcement, when it comes time to carry through on the hard stand she took in the fall, it is no longer her responsibility but instead is the responsibility of one of the departments in her ministry.

We still do not know what the intentions of the minister are. Does she intend to maintain and enforce the 30% regulation or is it her opinion, as stated to the media, that "enforcement alone is not going to solve the problem"?

If it is not the minister's intention to enforce this regulation as she had previously stated, she should inform this House of the changes she is making to the regs. She may also want to inform the House of the outcome of the workshop she conducted yesterday with the waste reduction advisory committee, representatives of the soft drink industry, labour and environmental groups on this very issue.

If the minister is going to reverse her position and does not intend to carry through on the promises she has personally made, the people of this province have the right to know. Backroom deals are not acceptable any more; in this case, they cannot be tolerated.

GREY ASSOCIATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH

Mr B. Murdoch: Today the Grey Association for Development and Growth felt it was necessary to come to Toronto and hold a press conference to express its concerns about the heavy-handed manner in which this government is dealing with municipal councils in Grey.

These people feel that the latest example of loss of local control was the order given to them by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which, if carried out, will effectively stop all development in the county. They also cite the issue of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which in their view is the least democratic body in the province and one which consistently abuses its mandate.

As well, they feel their democratic rights are threatened by the Ministry of Natural Resources, which has now decided that it and it alone will identify areas of natural and scientific interest on private property, with no legislative approval or owner awareness and consent.

The association raised the matters of the unpopular county restructuring scheme, misuse by various ministries of the Ontario Municipal Board, the Minister of the Environment reversing decisions made by her own staff, and several other examples of the lack of democracy shown by this government.

These people, and over 200 supporters outside the building, made this trip because they care deeply about individual rights and freedoms. They are serving notice to this government that they will not accept the dictatorship they see coming to the province as a whole. These people believe they should be consulted, their concerns listened to and their voices heard. If not, these people will fight. They will not give in.

CALVIN PARK PUBLIC LIBRARY

Mr G. Wilson: I had the pleasure of attending the 25th anniversary of the Calvin Park Public Library in Kingston last week. I was pleased not only because the essential service the public library provides the community deserves to be celebrated, but also because for the past 12 years my family and I have visited Calvin Park nearly every week.

Like all public libraries, Calvin Park has a collection of material that provides information and entertainment for all members of the family. We have used books and magazines to help us replace the water heater, repair bicycles and renovate rooms. Our daughters have been read to since infancy from books from the children's

section and now avidly read on their own from the great variety of material they find in the library. And many of the activities around our house are done to the accompaniment of music from Calvin Park's cassette collection.

With 52,000 items in its holdings, confusion would reign were it not for the capable staff of the library. Indeed, the staff bring the collection to life as they help patrons find what they need. Members will be familiar with this type of service through their experience with the staff in the legislative library. I am sure they will agree with me that library workers provide an essential service.

Calvin Park has evolved to include a book club, the Kingston Heritage Quilters and the Read-Write Literacy Centre. The last organization will ensure wider access to the benefits of libraries, a goal we can all support.

I commend Pat Little, chair of the library board, and her fellow trustees; Lynn Jordan, new chief librarian in Kingston; Stella Carney and her staff at Calvin Park and the citizens of Kingston. With music by Quartessence and Paddy Stewart, good food and refreshment, they celebrated the anniversary in style. As a co-operative effort, libraries are a cornerstone of our democratic culture.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our assembly this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Anne Edwards.

Also seated in the gallery is a member from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Jerry Doyle.

Finally, seated also in the gallery today, Mieczyslaw Gil, member of Parliament, the parliamentary leader of Solidarity, Poland.

REPORT ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the Report on the Disclosure of Information in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on April 18, 1991, by the former Minister of Health Evelyn Gigantes, MPP.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today also laid upon the table the annual report of the Ombudsman for the period 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WORKER OWNERSHIP PROGRAM

Hon Mr Laughren: I would like to inform the members of the Legislature of the government's intention to introduce a new program to help Ontario's companies and workers respond to the challenges of the 1990s.

During the past few months, I have spoken with business and labour representatives about the current state of the economy. We are all aware that the Ontario economy is undergoing fundamental restructuring as a result of changing markets and growing international competition. To meet these new economic challenges, businesses need better access to sources of capital and employees need to be full partners in both the decision-making process and the opportunities that are being created. It is clear that new partnerships are required to ensure that employees and employers can work together to help Ontario companies keep pace with these economic realities.

The government of Ontario is prepared to introduce tax incentives that will encourage investments by workers in Ontario businesses to support these new partnerships. We will also be pursuing with the federal government ways in which this program can complement the existing labour-sponsored venture capital corporation legislation.

The proposal I am outlining today will provide workers with the opportunity to invest in their own and other companies and provide businesses with access to equity capital to modernize or restructure their operations. This program will consist of two parts. The first will provide a tax credit of 20% to workers contributing to labour-sponsored funds that invest in small and medium-sized businesses, and the second will provide enhanced tax credits to workers investing solely in their employers' corporation.

Worker ownership programs, combined with participating workplace organizations, are known to increase productivity. In addition, they can promote job creation and maintenance, stabilize local economies and improve labour-management relations. We are committed to creating the conditions where government, labour, business and other members of the community will come together to find solutions that work best for Ontario.

To encourage this, I will be releasing a discussion paper and draft legislation this summer which will outline details of this program. I hope all interested parties will take

part in this consultation and I look forward to receiving their views and comments this summer. Following this review, I hope to implement the program later this year.

Ontario's success in meeting the challenges of the 1990s will depend on the ability of business, labour and government, working together, to increase the flexibility of our economy and its supporting institutions. Sustainable prosperity is possible only if everyone believes they will be full participants in economic and social change and will share the benefits of this participation. We believe this new program will be a strong step in meeting this challenge, and I am pleased and proud to be announcing it today.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hon Mr Cooke: Today I am pleased to give members details about a new housing program that was announced in the budget of 29 April -- the creation of an additional 10,000 non-profit and co-operative homes across Ontario. These homes will be created under the Ontario non-profit housing program, which will provide an estimated 10,000 person-years of employment in the construction industry and related sectors.

The Ontario non-profit housing program offers some significant changes from the previous non-profit housing programs.

First, we will require sponsors to make a minimum of 50% of the units in each project available to needy households. This replaces the current ministry requirement of 40% rent-geared-to-income units. I am pleased to report that the projects we have approved devote, on average, 70% to 80% of their units to families or individuals in varying degrees of need. As before, the remainder of the units will be rented at market rates, with no income ceiling for tenants, so that people can live in well-integrated communities with a healthy social and economic mix.

Second, priority will be given to sponsors who can start construction quickly so that construction-related jobs are created and affordable housing is built as soon as possible. In addition, priority will be given to groups who donate land, services and/or funding to share in the cost of providing social housing. This will reduce the government subsidy and save taxpayers' dollars.

A third feature is that new construction will account for about 80% of the units. Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings will account for the remaining 20%. I would add that these numbers are targets. We will assess each proposal on its own merit.

I know many members of the House are interested in the status of the Homes Now program. I would like to say a few words about its progress. As members are aware, the previous government announced that 30,000 non-profit and co-operative housing units would be provided under Homes Now. As of 31 May 1991, 14,000 units have been committed. When this government came to power, we discovered that little more than 3,000 units had been committed. It was obvious that most projects would not meet the program's 31 March 1991 approval deadline. The rescue of the Homes Now program was the first thing we did, by extending the approval date to 30 September.

The second thing we did was to streamline the Homes Now approval process for some non-profit housing sponsors. We knew there were a number of non-profit and co-operative housing sponsors who would be able to start construction within a month or two if they had an allocation under Homes Now. However, to make this happen the Ministry of Housing would have to accelerate some parts of the approvals process. To get these units to the construction phase as quickly as possible, that is just what we did. To date, we have identified 2,800 units which will proceed under this quick-start approach, and that is over and above the 14,000 units I have already mentioned.

That approach will have several beneficial effects. It will stimulate the construction industry and it will allow sponsors and government to take advantage of the lower development costs reflected in today's recessionary market. As members can see, we are doing all we can to pull out the stops and reach the Homes Now target.

Under the Ontario non-profit housing program and with the changes in the existing Homes Now program, the ministry will increase the stock of affordable non-profit and co-operative housing across this province, and at the same time we will be creating thousands of urgently needed jobs in the building sector.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Hon Mr Wildman: I am releasing today for public comment a report which will assist our government in implementing a new strategy for wildlife in Ontario. The report, entitled Looking Ahead: A Wild Life Strategy for Ontario, was prepared by the Wildlife Working Group, which was appointed in 1989 by the previous government.

This report begins the process of developing and implementing a new approach to wildlife management in Ontario. We are at the crossroads of wildlife management and protection in Ontario. It is important that we take care for our wildlife resources now and in the future. Our wildlife resources are under tremendous pressure because of increasing land use activities and because Ontarians differ in their interests and objectives with respect to the values and use of wildlife. The challenge in re-examining our current wildlife management program is to work with the public to take greater care of the natural environment in order to ensure the sustainability of our wildlife resources.

Looking Ahead: A Wild Life Strategy for Ontario approaches wildlife protection and management in Ontario from an ecosystem perspective, which is reflected in the goals, objectives and a number of strategies and associated recommendations contained in the report.

The working group recommends that the goal of provincial wildlife strategy be a diversity of healthy ecosystems and associated wildlife populations and habitats which provide sustained social, cultural and economic benefits for all people. The group recommends that this goal be attained by meeting four objectives: maintaining biodiversity; rehabilitating degraded systems; treating all wildlife in a responsible and respectful manner; and attaining widespread appreciation of the importance of wildlife and healthy ecosystems.

The Wildlife Working Group's report is being made available for public comment. There will be a 90-day public review period during which I invite all Ontarians to share their views. The ministry will also hold public meetings across the province during September and October, and members of the public may complete a questionnaire on the report, which will be available shortly.

In addition, and in an effort to ensure that wildlife laws keep pace with evolving wildlife management and protection requirements, I propose to introduce amendments to the Game and Fish Act this fall, which will take effect in the interim period until this House enacts a new wildlife act.

I would like to thank the 11 members of the Wildlife Working Group for their dedication and commitment. Dr David Fowle is the chair of the committee and he is here with us in the gallery.

I would also li