Ontario Hansard — 17 December 1991 (35th Parliament, 1st Session)

1991-12-17

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

December 17, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING

Mr Cleary: Many of the members will recall that on December 3, I asked the Minister of Government Services to confirm the location of the Ontario government building that was announced for Cornwall in May 1990. I might take this time to note that the Premier is also directly aware of the situation, as I provided him with press releases and memoranda on December 4, 1991.

At that time and since, the Minister of Government Services has appeared confused on the matter by stating that he cannot and will not confirm the site selection. He also has yet to respond to meeting requests I made on September 12 and December 9.

I stress again that the city of Cornwall and the Downtown Business Improvement Association have each clearly marked the preferred site as downtown between Second Street and Third Street, west of Pitt. As a result, the city of Cornwall was told by government officials in my presence to clear the titles on that parcel of land. I stress to the minister that the commitment was made for the provincial government building over 19 months ago. Decisions have been taken and promises have been made.

This project is crucial to the economy and lifeline of the greater Cornwall area. I implore the minister to follow through on commitments made by his own ministry.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr B. Murdoch: Businesses in my riding are worried. They are afraid that if this government goes ahead with any or all of the programs that are presently being discussed, they will have no choice but to leave Ontario.

If labour is not worried too, it should be, because although the NDP takes direction from the unions, it does not really seem to care much about the ordinary worker. It seems to forget that labour cannot survive without business. It seems to forget that it really does not matter what sort of wage scale or working hours or anti-scab rules you negotiate or legislate, because if the companies close down and move to a more hospitable area where they are welcome and not seen to be oppressors of the masses, there will be no more jobs for these union employees.

Although I know government members have been brainwashed into believing that the industry is merely bluffing and that there is still no place they would rather be, businesses are and will be leaving this province. There is only one solution: Business and labour must work together, as they are going to try to do in Owen Sound, to lobby cabinet. It is my hope that both sides can work together and find a compromise and a common ground so that our area will not lose its industry and our workers will not lose their jobs.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr O'Connor: During this holiday season we have become more aware of the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves. It is at this time of year that giving to others becomes so important. We should remember to support those organizations that provide help throughout the year.

On behalf of the residents of my riding, I would like to thank Mary Queen from the Georgina Food Pantry in Sutton and Rita Gould from Loaves and Fishes in Uxbridge for their hard work; also Robin Magee at the Stouffville Food Bank and Steven Hurst-Boram at the Brock Food Bank. They deserve a big thank you, and our continued support as well. I encourage everyone to give generously to these organizations, which provide food to those who need it. Anyone requiring more information can call my office.

I would also like to encourage people to give generously to their local Red Cross blood donor clinics. This is a gift of life that continues giving even beyond the season. In my constituency, a blood donor clinic will be held at the Lakeview Manor in Beaverton on Thursday, December 26, between noon and 5 pm.

In closing, I have saved the best news for last. Yesterday I received confirmation of the Women's Shelter of Georgina Inc being successful in obtaining a house for abused women in Georgina. I wish to offer my congratulations to the group for a job well done. I would also like to thank the many constituents who have contacted me in person or by mail and the residents of Georgina for their support given to this project. The shelter will be located in Jackson's Point and should be operational by April 1992.

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

Mr Miclash: My statement is in regard to forest management agreements. We know that the only documents that allow the public to examine how timber management is done on much of Ontario's crown land are grossly late at this time.

Forest management agreements, or FMAs, were initiated in 1979. In addition to harvesting, the companies that are FMA holders are responsible for all planning, regeneration and other silvicultural activities. Forest management agreements cover over 175,000 square miles, or approximately 69% of Ontario's licensed forest.

Every five years, the minister must evaluate how the company has carried out its FMA obligations. These five-year reviews are supposed to be tabled in the Legislature. These documents are crucial, being the only public documents that allow people to decide whether this portion of the forset estate is being properly managed.

Of the 28 existing FMAs, 17 five-year reviews are overdue. It is understandable that some preparation time is required, but this list and delay are much too long. There are four reports from 1989 that are due, an additional nine from 1990 that are late, and four reports from 1991 that are now overdue.

Simply put, over half of the FMAs' five-year reviews are overdue. These documents are one of the few means the public has of assessing success or failure of this program. In all instances, permission to continue operating has been granted to the companies without the public having access to the reports. I ask the minister, when will we see the five-year reviews?

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr Jordan: A funeral in Smiths Falls recently was attended by a large percentage of the people in that community. Fortunately for the area, it was a mock funeral with Rideau Regional Centre staff, Mayor Laurence Lee and other municipal officials conducting a dramatic ceremony that could realistically happen in the future. The mock funeral represented the death of Smiths Falls, Perth, Carleton Place, Almonte, Pakenham and the surrounding townships such as Montague, North Elmsley and Beckwith, just to mention a few.

This hard-hitting message is a signal to the government that staff at the Rideau Regional Centre and the community fear for the economic future of the region. This fear was realized by 24 contract staff whose contracts were cancelled as of December 15.

A multi-year plan is in place to eliminate the Rideau Regional Centre. Communities like Smiths Falls and people like those who work at the Rideau Regional Centre are being left in the dark while this government silently struggles on with no plans for the 400-acre site.

What will happen to the close to 1,000 residents? Who will be responsible for them? What will happen to the 1,000 employees? Will the government make use of the multi-acre site and the highly maintained facilities? Are plans being made now so Smiths Falls and area does not die a quick death?

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frankford: It is a source of pride to us that health care is a right in this province and this country. The fact that this produces a system of care also significantly cheaper and more effective than the chaotic free-market system south of the border is getting increasing attention there.

Published studies by physicians, notably Dr Steffie Woolhandler and Dr David Himelstein, show the appalling waste and bureaucratization of care in the United States. Literally billions of dollars that could be spent on effective patient care are wasted on administration and paperwork. This situation is becoming as intolerable to practising physicians there as it is to the general public.

The fight for national health insurance in the US is producing growing coalitions. Not only is it supported by consumers, unions, retirees and professional groups such as the 1,000-strong Physicians for a National Health Program, but major corporations there are having to admit that the expense of the current system contributes to making them uncompetitive in the global economy. Politically the issue is revitalizing debate there. It is high on the agenda of presidential candidates.

I would like to recognize a number of my Ontario colleagues, hardworking specialists and GPs who took time off from their busy practices to go on a speaking tour sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America. Dr Gord Guyatt, Dr Haresh Kirpalani, Dr Mimi Divinsky, Dr Don Woodside and Dr Rosanne Pellizari are just a few who took the message that the Canadian health care approach is an achievement we are most proud of.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Mancini: I rise today to mark the first anniversary of the decision by the NDP government to cancel funding for Hamilton's Red Hill Creek Expressway.

In doing so, I am joining with many other groups and associations that have been fighting the government's decision for the last year, including the Citizens' Expressway Committee, the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Hamilton Real Estate Board, the local chambers of commerce, the Labourers' International Union of North America Local 837, and local municipal councils in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

Over the last year, the NDP government has failed to find any alternative to the cancelled Red Hill Creek route. In fact, it was not until the middle of the recent municipal election campaign that the NDP even announced a framework for identifying alternatives.

We were surprised to hear the minister say that the previous route through the Red Hill Creek would also be considered under the review. Unfortunately, the minister said his government would not be bound by the results of this study. Why would the government spend the time and money it is putting into this review if it is not going to make a decision based on the review's recommendations?

If the review shows clearly that the Red Hill Creek Expressway should be built, as was designed and approved by the previous Liberal government, I urge the new Minister of Transportation to give this lifeline to the Hamilton area because it needs it for its future.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Cousens: The relocation of the air ambulance service from Buttonville airport to the Toronto Islands will put lives at risk and cost the taxpayers money for an unnecessary move. The Ministry of Health believes the move will result in savings, a monetary saving of $155,000 and time savings because patients will be closer to hospitals. The ministry's arguments cannot be based on facts.

Fact 1: The relocation will offer no patient benefits. Over 75% of all helicopter calls originate at locations closer to Buttonville airport than at the Toronto Islands. This makes sense because of the rural and outlying areas that are serviced by air ambulance such as Peterborough and Bracebridge. Relocation of the air ambulance service to the Toronto Islands increases the response time by about 10 minutes. Ten minutes could mean a lifetime.

Fact 2: There are no real cost savings. The proposed saving of $155,000 is irrelevant since the new hangar at the Toronto Islands will cost over $1.5 million to construct.

Finally, the Minister of Transportation is negotiating to keep Buttonville airport open. On the other hand, the Ministry of Health is taking away one of the most important services at the airport. It appears these negotiations are being conducted in bad faith. Moving the air ambulance service does a disservice to everyone, patients in need and taxpayers who will bear the cost of an unnecessary relocation.

SEASON'S GREETINGS

Mr Mills: Last week I was visiting a couple in my riding who were celebrating their 45th wedding anniversary in Pontypool. During the conversation they brought out a picture of their family and they said to me, "You know, Mr Mills, we in Ontario have a lot to be thankful for."

I echo those sentiments, and today I rise in the House to encourage the members opposite in both opposition parties, who constantly hammer this government with doom and gloom, to step aside from this rhetoric and look at themselves and ask themselves if they have not got something to be thankful for, being in Ontario.

While I am on my feet, I would like to say to all the viewers who watch us across Ontario, may you have a happy Christmas and a safe one. To everyone who provides the television in this House so that everyone in Ontario can take

part in the proceedings here, I say to them thank you, and a happy Christmas to you and all the staff. Happy Christmas and may you have many more new years.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before beginning question period, members may wish to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the assembly seated in the members' gallery east, Mr Mike Dietsch, the former member for St Catharines-Brock. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: My question today is to the first minister. Yesterday the Premier indicated to this Legislature that he was not opposed to a legislative investigation of the so-called Martel affair.

I would like to begin this afternoon's questions by asking the Premier to update this Legislature on his response to the member for Nipissing's request that there be a legislative inquiry into this matter -- a request to which he said yesterday he was not opposed -- and whether or not he could indicate in that first response, having regard to the gravity and sensitivity of this question, should a parliamentary inquiry into the Martel affair be undertaken, that surely he would be prepared to agree that at least, in so far as that inquiry is under way during that time at least, he would ask the Minister of Northern Development to withdraw from the cabinet.

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure the member knows, from his discussions with his colleague the House leader for the Liberal Party, that discussions are still under way between the House leaders with respect to the proposal that was put to our House leader. The position I have taken is to encourage the House leader to see if we cannot agree on the terms of reference for a committee. These things -- the questions of the terms of reference, the makeup and so on and the scope of inquiry of the committee -- are now being discussed, but the principle of there being a committee is something the government accepts.

Mr Conway: That part of my question which the Premier carefully avoided is of course the one I want to return to; that is, in the event there is a legislative inquiry agreed to, will the Premier insist that the Minister of Northern Development, as a very minimum, withdraw from the cabinet for that period of time during which the legislative inquiry is under way?

I ask the question having regard to what the member for St Andrew-St Patrick did just a few weeks ago in this Legislature in tendering her resignation pending an examination of the rental question that was causing both her and the government some difficulty inside this Legislature.

Hon Mr Rae: The answer to the question is no, and I think the situations are quite different.

Mr Conway: Again we are left with the troubling question of what kind of standards the Premier has with respect to conduct within the executive council. I raised the question earlier of what the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick did, which I thought was the honourable thing.

It was just a few years ago that my colleague the member for Oriole, faced with allegations concerning her husband -- which made no suggestion, as I recall them, that the honourable member for Oriole had personally behaved in a discreditable way -- but in June 1986, in the face of bitter recrimination from the leader of the now government, the then Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board withdrew from the cabinet pending a legislative inquiry.

Having regard to the Caplan precedent, having regard to the Akande precedent, having regard to the Gigantes precedent, having regard to the high-flown rhetoric of the Premier himself a year ago that he would be tougher in the application of these higher standards, how is it possible that he can, in the face of this controversy and in the face of a likely legislative inquiry, expect to have any credibility as a first minister or as leader of a government if he does not minimally ask the minister to withdraw for at least the period of time that the legislative inquiry is under way?

Hon Mr Rae: I have listened to the honourable member over the years and I would say if anybody could write a book on high-flown rhetoric, it is the member for Renfrew North. As I have said, there are negotiations under way and we certainly hope these negotiations will be successful.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Premier. Tomorrow, General Motors will be announcing its restructuring plans worldwide, which means that some of its operations will remain open and some of its operations will close. One of the significant factors that will determine the future of General Motors plants in Ontario will be the climate for investment in this province. That is where the Premier's responsibility lies. That is where he and his government can make a difference.

What specific measures are the Premier and his government taking to make certain that GM keeps its plants in Ontario open? What steps is he taking to ensure that GM auto workers in this province will have their jobs at the end of his term of office?

Hon Mr Rae: I spoke with Mr Peapples this morning and I have had an ongoing discussion with him and with officials in his company. Policy and priorities committee discussed it yesterday and cabinet will be discussing it tomorrow. It is of sufficient significance that I am telling the member directly about it. He will be familiar with the problems that arose from the pension solvency regulations that were brought in by the previous government, of which he was a member. These pension solvency regulations, combined with other features of Ontario law, have placed an enormous potential burden on General Motors, as well as on a number of other manufacturers in the province.

Under the guidance of the Minister of Financial Institutions, the province is attempting to respond to this question very directly. I indicated that to Mr Peapples this morning with respect to an issue that has enormous impact on the operations of General Motors in Ontario as an issue that has been in contention between previous governments and General Motors and between the Pension Commission of Ontario and General Motors for some period of time. I can tell the member that is one very specific thing which this province is looking at because of the need for us to provide a competitive climate for General Motors.

I would say very directly to the honourable member that we are obviously concerned and we are dealing directly with the issues as they arise, but there has been a significant downturn in the overall North American economy with respect to car manufacturing and this is a reality that faces this jurisdiction as it does every other jurisdiction in North America.

Mr Bradley: I would like to deal with that reality with the Premier at the present time because the deciding factor in GM's decisions over the next several months and over the next few years may be the attitude of the NDP government towards business and the impression that its policies create in the minds of hard-nosed executives who must choose a location of the placement of their investment for, if not the next few years, certainly the rest of the decade.

In the interests of 38,000 automotive employees in GM plants in this province, in the interests of communities that rely heavily upon GM investment for their economic viability, in the interests of the economic future of Ontario, will the Premier abandon the policies, taxes, legislation and regulations that are promoted by radicals within the NDP and produce a favourable climate for investment so that these jobs can be saved and not sacrificed on its ideological altar?

Hon Mr Rae: When I talk to business executives across the province with respect to problems of competitiveness, I would say to the honourable member that more frequently than not, they turn to me and say I have inherited a tremendous problem with respect to the economy of this province, with respect to the regulatory climate in this province and with respect to taxation in this province. The member shakes his head.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member cannot escape the fact that the regulatory burden, the tax burden and the tremendous problems facing manufacturing in this jurisdiction stem from decisions that have been made for governments over many years, of which he was a member and others have been members. We have to face up to that reality. Hard-nosed executives know full well the difference between political rhetoric, such as we are hearing from the Leader of the Opposition today, and the hard facts and the experience of Ontario over the past decade with respect to previous governments.

Mr Bradley: As members of the opposition, we can always tell when we have managed to get under the skin of the Premier because he starts shouting and pointing his fingers at everybody else. When we listen to Ken Harrigan of the Ford Motor Co of Canada, for instance, he suggests only one government is uncompetitive.

With sales dropping drastically and competition increasing almost on a daily basis, taxes and the cost of doing business in Ontario are specific factors that will influence the major decisions of General Motors of Canada Ltd. To create a favourable investment climate and encourage the sale of automobiles in this province, thereby putting on the roads more fuel-efficient and environmentally superior vehicles, will the Premier now withdraw the new tax on automobiles, the tax I refer to as the tax on auto workers, and will he announce the immediate removal of the sales tax from autos sold in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The suggestions that are being made by the honourable member are suggestions that obviously any responsible government would want to consider. I can tell him that whenever we look at the impact of a sales tax reduction, one of the realities we face is that the impact is not necessarily directly related to the impact of the revenue lost. In other words, we do not necessarily get the extra production and the extra job creation in Ontario in return for the revenues the Treasurer gives up with respect to that kind of measure. But I can say to the member that any practical suggestion he has will of course be considered by the government.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Harris: To the Premier, I want to come back to the fundamental issue that we have been dealing with the last little while. A minister of the crown, acting in her official capacity at a public reception, deliberately lied, or so she says. She smeared a doctor's reputation in order to defend a government policy. A member of her staff phoned Thunder Bay and tried to silence a councillor and cover up the issue. The minister did not apologize or retract her statements until three days later, only when the issue became public, only when she got caught and only when the coverup was not going to work.

This itself is not acceptable. These facts alone warrant her resignation. I ask the Premier one more time, will he ask the minister to step aside?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader's characterization of the facts is, if I may say so, personal to him. I would say to him very directly that the question of what other steps the House can take to deal with any issues arising from what has taken place are now being negotiated between the House leaders. That is where I will leave the answer.

Mr Harris: Let's be clear. What I outlined to the Premier were the facts as have been relayed by the minister. If he does not believe them now, I understand his having some difficulty; all of Ontario is. By allowing this behaviour to go by with a wink and a nod, he is sending a very wrong message to the rest of his cabinet. He is telling them it is okay to lie and slander for the sake of defending government policies.

What are the other cabinet ministers saying that has not been brought to our attention? Because only when this could not be covered up was there an apology and did it come to our attention. What are the others saying? What are they saying in receptions across this province about private day care operators, about landlords, about hunters and anglers, about small business people, who very strongly oppose the direction his government is going in? That is what else we want to know.

Hon Mr Rae: Just in answer to the preface, since I can only assume the latter part of the question was rhetorical, I would say to the member that if he thinks what has happened on this side or that the response from this side has been a wink and a nod, he has a very different

interpretation of events than I do.

Mr Harris: By defending an admitted liar and slanderer, the Premier is tarnishing the reputation of every member of his government and indeed of every member of the House. All of us have a stake in this issue because it brings into question the credibility of all politicians. He knows that. We have discussed this on many occasions, he and I, when we were in opposition. We do not chat quite as much now that he is in government. I ask him directly: Given the facts as have been outlined by his minister, not by me but by his minister, would he have accepted this standard of conduct from either Joan Smith or her boss of the day, David Peterson?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only respond to the member by referring to what has taken place. The minister has recognized that she made a very serious error of judgement. We have all recognized that. She has apologized for that, and I think we all appreciate the fact that the minister obviously feels badly for what has taken place. As I say, that sense is very strongly there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: With the co-operation of the member for Renfrew North, we can continue with question period.

Mr Harris: Last December the Premier brought down what he said were the toughest guidelines in history. He said on December 12, 1990, "It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government."

This is what the Premier said when he was in government, not when he was in opposition. I do not know why it should be different, but the Premier and his party thinks they are entitled to do that. I do not. But this is what he said when he was in government about his guidelines. When the Premier made that statement, was it his intention to exclude lying and slandering?

Hon Mr Rae: My intention was to indicate to the public that we obviously expect a high standard of conduct from people. We also accept the fact that people make mistakes and can apologize for their mistakes.

Mr Harris: When all the dust has settled there will be one issue left at the heart of the Martel affair, and that issue rests with the Premier. It is the issue about his standards of conduct for his cabinet. With the Premier's record of flip-flops, we have no idea what those standards are. Could the Premier tell us why he fired the member for Welland-Thorold when he posed as a fully clothed Sunshine Boy yet he is defending an admitted liar and slanderer?

Hon Mr Rae: I have indicated already in the House in answer to a number of questions over a period of time the judgement I have exercised with respect to the conduct of the member for Sudbury East. The member for Sudbury East has very much apologized for what has taken place. The House leaders are now discussing what else might happen and I will leave it at that.

Mr Harris: I think the Premier is going to want to continue to reflect today on the signal he is sending out on the standards, on what this is doing to the impression of all politicians by the public of this province. Indeed, it is a problem across the country, but we are dealing with what the Premier can do about it in trying to elevate and correct this loss of confidence that the public has in politicians.

If the Premier is not going to change his position -- and I honestly hope he will reflect on that again today -- does he not think he should be clear and up front, take his guidelines, rip them up, tell us they are scrapped, rewrite them and in essence say, "You can do whatever you want, lie, slander, whatever you want, as long as you apologize afterwards"? That is the signal the Premier is sending out as acceptable conduct for the Bob Rae cabinet.

Hon Mr Rae: The question from the honourable member is a very rhetorical one, but I simply reply to him as directly as I can and say to him with respect to what has taken place -- he referred to it as a nod and a wink -- I do not think that is what has taken place. I do not think any reasonable person would interpret that as what has taken place over the last period of time. If that is the

interpretation of the honourable member, it is certainly not the one that I share.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Ramsay: My question today is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. While we have all been distracted by the Martel scandal, the government's economic policies are continuing to drive this economy into the ground. As the minister will be aware, our unemployment rate is 9.6% in Ontario; it seems to be stuck there. We have more than 485,000 people out of work in Ontario today, and what we have seen in November is a shrinkage of the workforce, meaning that people are giving up even looking for work. They do not have any prospect or hope.

Earlier this month the government announced its new training board, which is supposed to be the NDP's policy for training people, but the board is not actually going to be up and running for another 12 or 18 months. I would like to ask the minister, why is the government taking so long in getting this training board up and running? Is this the priority the government places on the value of retraining Ontario workers?

Hon Mr Allen: I think perhaps the member does not appreciate the scale of reconstruction of training activity in Ontario that is entailed by the creation of the board. There are, for example, 10 ministries that offer 48 different programs of training that will be brought together under the jurisdiction of a new board, pending the consultation and the fine-tuning of the model we have proposed. Also, there will be 57 community industrial training committees of various kinds across the province whose activities will be subsumed under a new set of regional boards functioning under the federal and provincial governments in co-operation.

That is a very mammoth undertaking. It will mean that some $500 million of programming will move under the jurisdiction of the labour market partners in alliance with the government. While we are proceeding on that basis, we are not in any respect short-circuiting, limiting or holding back expansion of existing programs, but at the same time, setting up this board's structure is a very major undertaking, one of the largest of its kind that is happening in North America.

Mr Ramsay: I would like to get down to some specifics with the minister. As the minister knows, the jobless situation is bad all over, but I would like to focus for a minute on older workers.

By this October, more than 50,000 workers between the ages of 25 and 44 lost high-paying, full-time jobs right across this province. As the minister and other ministers would be aware, many of those people lost those jobs in remote communities across this province attached to natural resources industries.

They need new job skills quickly. This is imperative. These people need these skills today in order to get on with some hope of attaining some new work. Only by receiving these new jobs are they going to have that hope. Yet the government had fiddled around for a year before getting this board going. Now the NDP has announced the board, but it will not be up and running for another year. Why has the government hung out the older workers to dry? What can they do today for older workers in Ontario?

Hon Mr Allen: We in fact are doing a good deal in many of the hard-pressed communities. For example, at the Sault we have a very special program we have worked out for several hundred workers of the description the member has offered with the Canadian Steel Trade and Employment Congress in order to enrol laid-off and older workers in new training programs. We are actively in discussion with various groups in Kapuskasing to do the same thing in Kapuskasing. We have a special million-dollar laid-off worker program that provides resources for other colleges across the system.

Of course, there are the agreements with the federal government in the older worker program and under Transitions that make also it possible to address their needs, as well as all the activities of specific adjustment committees that are taking place where the federal and provincial governments work to put workers at risk back to work in new work situations where they can be found. Those activities are all active and ongoing and even expanding at this point.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr J. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Health. Would she tell us who besides herself has access to confidential OHIP billing files of individual doctors?

Hon Ms Lankin: When I took over the portfolio as a result of the incident that took place with the previous Minister of Health, I made it clear to the bureaucracy that I wanted information provided to my office on a need-to-know basis and that I did not want information of a confidential nature to an unnecessary level of detail.

I have not seen any confidential information with respect to any physician's billing practices, although it is very clear I could have access to that if I chose to. Within the ministry, anyone who needed that material for the purpose of doing his or her job could have access to that material.

Mr J. Wilson: Would the minister tell us why, then, on December 5 her deputy minister, Michael Decter, told the press, "In fact, I do not even have access to billing files of individual doctors"? Clearly this is not true. Why would the deputy minister say that at that time?

Hon Ms Lankin: At this point in time it would be speculation. What I assume he was talking about was that he had not had access. It is not a question that he could not have access if he chose to and required that information.

I think also it is fair to clear up some speculation that has gone on with respect to access to information. For example, in question period earlier this week the member for Parry Sound asked the Treasurer whether or not he had seen any confidential information with respect to physicians' billings or whether or not he had heard of any confidential information about charges or investigations. I asked the member for Parry Sound at that time to put the question squarely to me as well. He declined, with some sense of humour. Let me say to him that had he asked me that question then or if he asks me today, my answer to both those questions would also be no.

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Ms Haeck: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I have a mayor in my riding, Mayor McCaffery, who represents the city of St Catharines and who refers to this city as the transportation capital of the province. I know the citizens of St Catharines, the mayor and other people in the region would be extremely interested in knowing about the comprehensive transportation study the Ministry of Transportation has undertaken in the Niagara area. At this point, I would like to ask about the status of that study, the parameters, the time frame and the completion date particularly, if I may.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is nice to get back to issues-related questions, and of course the member's is so relevant. I have some good news for the member. MTO, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, will start a strategic plan study to review all transporation in the Niagara Peninsula next month, January 1992. The work will be done by MTO. We are not going to contract out. We can do it ourselves; we have tremendous resources. It will be the first in a new generation of transportation plans.

What will it do? What will it study? It will study the social, environmental and economic needs in the context of transportation. Yes, we will look for integration. The member has asked who will be consulted. All groups in society will be consulted.

An hon member: Great news.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Good news indeed; 18 months and we will have an answer. They have been neglected in the past decades. We are trying to rectify this endeavour.

Ms Haeck: I am quite sure the Minister of Transporation would be very happy to learn that as of a few minutes ago we had the new regional chairperson, the new mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake and another representative of regional council representing Lincoln in the members' gallery. I know those members of my community are going to be very happy to know if rail is going to figure in the minister's study.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That is a tough question. This administration does not act with prejudice. Not only will all groups be consulted, but we will look at municipal, provincial, federal, and yes, even private modes of transportation. We will look at rail. The focus here is to move goods and people in the Niagara Peninsula.

The Speaker: New question, the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: For those who want a translation of that answer, apparently MTO is not moving to St Catharines. I have a question for the Treasurer, if the Minister of Transporation will take his seat.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope that on this eve of Christmas this is not the tone that will prevail, for humour does not become the member.

Mr Sorbara: I say to the minister that evasion does not become him.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Sorbara: I have a question for the Treasurer, who told me earlier on today that he was in his riding of Nickel Belt this weekend. I was in the Sudbury region this weekend as well. From conversations I have had, I have discovered the real problem that has given rise to the Martel crisis, or the Martel affair. In discussions with the people of Sudbury, other people in the north and representatives of the medical community, it is apparent beyond a doubt that there is a medical crisis in northern Ontario that has been unparalleled in the history of this province.

Is the Treasurer aware that medical specialists are now packing up and moving out of Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins, North Bay and Thunder Bay? Indeed, the kind of environment currently affecting specialists in northern Ontario was probably the powderkeg that gave rise to the fact that the Minister of Northern Development somehow was under such extreme pressure that she blurted out lies and slanders in the midst of a cocktail party in Thunder Bay.

I simply want to ask the Treasurer not to refer the question to the Minister of Health but to answer directly whether he is aware that his policies as Treasurer, as well as the policies of the Premier and of the Minister of Health, are creating a very serious medical crisis in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not believe in encroaching on my fellow minister's jurisdiction. I will refer the question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member is right when he indicates that the concern with respect to the application of the threshold on the billings of specialists in northern Ontario probably gave rise to the very explosive and heated situation in which debate in the media and in the medical society was taking place over the last number of months. I agree with him directly on that. I would say, however, and I have said this on a number of occasions, that I think the level of debate and discussion that arose from that came from a level of misunderstanding that needed to be corrected. We have spent some time trying to do that.

Also, the member should know that we are in active discussions about the application of the underserviced area program, on how to make it work better. I can tell him that over the years the program was in place when his government was in power, tremendous strides have been made with respect to general practitioners and family practices. In the area of specialties, however, there is a long way to go. We think we can refocus the program and shift the resources to support that, to try and ensure that we maintain and enhance services in northern Ontario.

Mr Sorbara: It really disappoints me that the Treasurer would not have the courage to speak to his constituents in Nickel Belt and the Sudbury region. I ask the Treasurer, through the Minister of Health and through you, Mr Speaker, whether he remembers a report called Operation Critical. I say to the Minister of Health, by way of supplementary, Operation Critical is the Report of the New Democrat Task Force on Northern Health Care Issues. It is signed by Bob Rae, then Leader of the Opposition, Howard Hampton, Floyd Laughren, now the Treasurer, Shelley Martel, Gilles Pouliot and Bud Wildman.

It says, "The chronically ill health care system in northern Ontario has taken an acute turn for the worse."

That was a year and a half ago. The doctors in Sudbury are saying: "It's much worse now. Specialists will not stay. They're leaving. They're going to Toronto, to New York state, to Los Angeles because of the policies of the Treasurer and his government." I want to ask him directly, has he read this report? Does he know the commitments the New Democratic Party made to improve health care service in northern Ontario? Is he going to stop what he is doing now so that specialists will stay in the north and give the people of northern Ontario the service they deserve and the service these members who served before he was elected promised to give them?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am very well aware of the statements and the commitments that have been made by our party with respect to northern health care. I am personally very committed to it. The question was put through you, Mr Speaker, and through me to the Treasurer, whether he is aware of that document. I know he is aware because he speaks to me about northern health issues regularly. He is an advocate and a fighter for northern health issues, as is the Minister of Northern Development, the Attorney General and all the other members. If the members look around me here, I hear often about northern health issues.

Mr Sorbara: This document was a lie, talking about lying.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre --

Mr Sorbara: I referred to a document, sir. A document can misrepresent things.

The Speaker: It really would be helpful for the atmosphere of the chamber if we did not throw words like that around.

Mr Sorbara: I will withdraw my reference to this document being a lie and simply say that it is really the high-blown rhetoric the Premier referred to in the answer to the question from my friend the member for Renfrew North.

The Speaker: Well, "rhetoric" is certainly better than "lie." Could the minister succinctly conclude her response.

Hon Ms Lankin: I barely got started, but let me try and do it succinctly. The issues facing delivery of services in northern health care are serious and continue to be serious. We are working on the issue of the underserviced area program. We have supported residencies for family services in the north. We are looking at ways of trying to improve services in northern Ontario. We remain committed to that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I appreciate the continued concern of the member opposite, the member for Kenora and members from other areas who talk to me about these issues.

Issues of equity and distribution of resources and physician services are important, but we are not going to get the answers by simply saying that when a doctor threatens, because he cannot make all the money he would like to make, we are going to just give a snap answer. We have to look behind that. We have to sit down and talk and we have to address the issues where they are serious and legitimate.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Premier. On July 2, 1986, he said: "What difference does it make what guidelines exist if the Premier is not prepared to do what is necessary to see that those guidelines are enforced? What good are any guidelines if at every occasion the Premier is simply going to wash his hands and say: 'It is not up to me; it is up to the people of any given constituency to decide'?" When the Premier said these words, did he mean them? If he meant them, what the hell is he doing?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When the House has come to order, then we can continue with question period.

Perhaps in a calmer moment the member for Etobicoke West could find a different phrasing for the latter portion of his question.

Mr Stockwell: I will replace it with the word "heck," Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Rae: We are trying to respond to a number of questions that have been asked by members. We are having negotiations among House leaders to try to reach a resolution of the questions that are in dispute between us. We recognize that a minister of the crown has made a mistake in regard to a conversation she had. She completely apologized for that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I asked the Premier, did he mean these words? That is the question that is on everybody's lips on this side of the House. Did he mean what he said when he was on this side of the House? He has an opportunity to prove it. He has a member in his cabinet who has admitted to lying and to slandering a doctor.

He had very clear alternatives in the Joan Smith affair. He had very clear alternatives in any number of affairs when he sat on this side of the House. The question is, did he mean what he said? Did he mean it when he stood up here and said these lovely words, or was it just rhetoric? The question stands: Did he mean these things? If not, he should tell the people of Ontario that everything he stood for on this side of the House was nothing but a phoney attempt to get himself elected as Premier. He should tell them.

Hon Mr Rae: I think I got the gist of the question. I would like to respond to the honourable member simply by saying that the circumstance that we are facing and that we have been facing for a time is that we are dealing with a situation in which the minister has clearly apologized for what took place in the conversation with Ms Dodds and has indicated that she has made a mistake. And, as I say, there are still discussions going on among the House leaders.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mr Marchese: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As a result of the International Joint Commission 1985 report on Great Lakes water quality, Ontario, in co-operation with the federal government, agreed to develop remedial action plans, or RAPs, as they are more commonly known, to restore the use of water in the areas of concern.

I know that a draft discussion paper on remedial action was released in April last year, to be reviewed by the public advisory committee, and a major workshop was held to draft a strategy working paper.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Mr Marchese: My question is, what is the status of that paper and what news can I bring to my constituents on the progress that is being made on the Metro Toronto waterfront RAP?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member is quite correct that a great deal of voluntary effort by all the agencies concerned with the Toronto waterfront has gone into the preparation of remedial action plans. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the Metro Toronto remedial action plan has released its draft report, which is called Strategies for Restoring Our Waters.

This report lists 16 principles by which to evaluate options for remedying the damage that has been done to Metro Toronto's waterfront over lo, these many years. The report seeks feedback from the public -- I know in Metro Toronto there will be a great deal of that -- and I just want to say how grateful I am to the participants in the remedial action plan for the work that has gone into preparing this strategy.

Mr Marchese: I understand the importance of this and I also understand the uncertainty of today's economic situation, but when can we expect the implementation of the recommended actions to begin?

Hon Mrs Grier: That of course is the nub of the question. I am glad to report to the House that under my predecessor, in fact, work on taking action to clean up the Toronto waterfront began at the same time as the planning.

Over $50 million has been spent through the waterfront water quality improvement program. There is a lot more to be done. Remedial action plans are very much a partnership, and we are currently negotiating with Environment Canada for renewal of the Canada-Ontario agreement on Great Lakes quality. In view of Environment Canada's renewed commitment to the Green Plan, I certainly look forward to productive discussions with Environment Canada about the funding of the actions that have been recommended for the Metro Toronto waterfront.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister has confirmed that her office has access to confidential files and information. Would the minister confirm whether her executive assistant, her policy adviser, her legislative assistant, her communications assistant or any other member of her personal staff has seen or received the sensitive information which was requested by her office regarding a Sudbury physician that was sent by the ministry office in Kingston to the office of Dr Eugene LeBlanc?

Hon Ms Lankin: From my questioning on this matter, what I can confirm for the member is that the detailed information -- which Dr MacMillan determined by my direction not to receive too detailed information could be rewritten in terms of the background information -- was circulated to about five or six people we think.

The copy that came to our office which was retrieved from our office, we were assured at the time by the person who delivered it, had all references to any names blacked out from it. The staff person who received it does not recall at this point in time actually ever having read it. There was no information with respect to a name on it and the information was never conveyed to me.

Mrs Caplan: The information the minister has shared with the House today is very relevant and very damning. Apparently five individuals received that information. She has confirmed that her office did request specific information on a Sudbury doctor and that it just blanked out his name and the information was then circulated.

In light of this information, will the minister expand to her own office the investigation which she has asked of the Information and Privacy Commissioner? Will that investigation be expanded to include her own office, since we now know that the conduct of her personal staff is in question?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member says that I have now provided information which is damning. I provided this information last week. I have said this on the record a number of times and there is nothing new about this.

The information which had been prepared on request for the background documentation to a briefing note to the minister was provided by Kingston and was retrieved by Kingston within the matter of a number of hours. Of the five people who had access to it, four were involved in the bureaucracy in preparing the briefing notes. The member knows well some of those people who were in that room.

May I also say that as that information was retrieved and sent back, copies were not kept and copies were not provided. The briefing note that was provided to me did not contain the detailed information, so let me say that all of us had absolutely full entitlement to have access to that.

The member asks, will I expand the investigation? The investigation is not narrowly focused. The request that we made was for the commission to look into the use, the circulation and the possible disclosure of confidential information with respect to the specific physician. Wherever that investigation takes those individuals, that is fine with us.

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. She was a member of the official opposition caucus during the Joan Smith matter. I was not terribly sympathetic at that time with respect to Mrs Smith's activities, but I think we could all agree that she made an honest mistake with respect to doing something on behalf of a family friend where there was no personal gain and no effort on her part to do wrong to anyone. I want to have an indication from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines as a part of the NDP caucus. Where her leader was saying, "I want her out," what was her position? Did she support the removal of Mrs Smith from office? Yes or no?

Hon Miss Martel: If I might, I think the focus of what has gone on here in the last number of days is on my actions and no one else's. I have made it very clear to the House that I recognize I made a serious mistake. I have done everything I can to make amends. I have apologized to all those people who were involved and I have assumed responsibility for it. It seems to me that what I should be answering is with respect to my own actions and no one else's.

Mr Runciman: I think we have to assume that the member did support her leader when he said, "I want her out," with respect to Mrs Smith for going to the defence of a family friend. How can she justify her position and remain in the executive council when she lied and slandered -- and she admits to doing that -- and when she supported her leader saying, "I want Mrs Smith out"? How can the minister stand here and support that?

Hon Miss Martel: In the last number of days, I have made every effort I can to answer the questions that have been raised by the members. I have been very open and honest about that and I do not think there is any more that I can add.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Will the member for St George-St David please come to order.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr G. Wilson: My question is of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it involves an unfair tax burden on the people of Kingston. As the minister is aware,

section 160 of the Municipal Act restricts the amount of payment in lieu of taxes that provincial institutions pay to the municipality of Kingston, so in 1991 Kingston had to forgo over $7 million. That is just the difference, the payment in lieu of taxes from three institutions -- Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University and St Lawrence College -- paid according to

section 160 as opposed to what they would have paid if they were paying on the basis of any other corporate citizen. I would like the minister to please comment on this situation and tell us what he is going to do about it.

Hon Mr Cooke: The member has spoken to me about this matter several times. At his urging, we met with the mayor of Kingston, Helen Cooper, representatives from the community college, the university and the hospitals to discuss the impact this problem is creating on Kingston. I certainly agree with him that the amount of money paid in lieu of taxes for provincial facilities has not kept up with the rate of inflation and Kingston is having financial difficulties which are particularly contributed to by this.

In my meeting with the mayor I indicated that the cost of making these adjustments right across the province would be millions of dollars and the financial situation of the province right now does not make it possible to adjust for the grants in lieu of taxes because they had not been adjusted by the previous government for several years. I did indicate to the mayor that we will continue to examine the situation, but the matter has also been referred to the Fair Tax Commission, specifically the property tax working group. I hope that together we will be able to find a solution.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Ruprecht: The Minister of Housing will be aware that her ministry has earmarked $14 million to the support of a housing coalition for the construction of a non-profit housing project in south Parkdale that has been earmarked by controversy. The local ratepayers' association, the business association -- in fact, all four levels of government and their representation -- have criticized the NDP and the minister for approving funding for the Queen-Gwynne project, which will cost the taxpayers over $170,000 per unit. That is more than the entire cost of a house in the area.

The project is also fraught with design problems in direct conflict with the main street planning principles of the city of Toronto.

Based on these concerns that have been raised by all sectors of the community, when can we expect the minister will announce that her officials will order a review of the Queen-Gwynne project?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I am pleased to tell the member that officials of the Ministry of Housing have reviewed the project and in fact, as with all projects which have taken time under this 1988 Homes Now program to get going, there has been careful monitoring of its progress. It does in fact meet all the requirements of the city of Toronto main street project. It will not cost $14 million. The member has a serious overestimate, which apparently several people at various levels of government are spreading about this project, which is too bad. This is a supportive housing project of 84 units. It is desperately needed. Would the member prefer to see people left on the streets in his area?

Mr Ruprecht: Of course not. What I would expect is to look at those conditions that are substandard in housing, those the minister should be addressing, not to support obscene costs of $170,000.

I hope the minister reconsiders her position so she would know and would not try to mislead this House. There are fundamental problems with this project: obscene costs, design problems --

The Speaker: Would the member for Parkdale pause for a moment. It makes it very awkward when a member attempts to do something indirectly which is not permitted directly by the rules, and suggesting in his question that the member would be misleading the House is really not appropriate.

Mr Ruprecht: In the spirit of Christmas, I will withdraw "mislead the House" and I will simply say the minister should be looking at the facts.

Here is my question. The minister will hopefully know there are fundamental problems with this project, and just because this project is supported by the Supportive Housing Coalition does not necessarily mean an automatic approval by the minister or by this government. When we have, as I stated earlier, conflicts such as obscene costs -- the project looks like a jail, and let me say this officially on behalf of us, it does not agree with the city of Toronto main street proposal. It simply does not.

When will this minister be sensitive enough to look at some of these problems within our community and agree to meet with the residents, with the business associations and with the representatives of all four levels of government that are elected there and reassess the situation with a view to looking at it again?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member has repeated figures which are inaccurate on the cost of this project. I hope he will stop doing that. It does not serve anybody well. There is a need for supportive housing in the area in which this project has been brought forward. It has encountered a lot of difficulties, to the point where, because of delays at the level of political approval at the city of Toronto, we have a situation where the coalition has decided to go ahead to the OMB to have an understanding worked out that the process can go ahead.

If there were less political interference on this one and less negative political interference, this project would have been established and under way before now. I hope the member will from now on take a positive position on this much-needed project.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr McLean: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to draw to your attention the fact that for a long time in this Legislature we have had Orders and Notices questions. Those questions are to be answered. I have one question here that has been on since June 27. I think the people on whose behalf I have asked the question should be given an answer. I wish you would bring this very fact to the attention of the government.

The Speaker: Could the member for Simcoe East provide the Speaker with the number of the question on the order paper and the minister to whom it was directed? Could you do that now?

Mr McLean: It is number 710 on the order paper. The question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The Speaker: The member indeed has a valid point of order and it has now been drawn to the attention of the minister who is in the chamber, and hopefully there will be a quick resolution to the difficulty.

Hon Mr Wildman: I just want to assure the House I was not treating two weeks in the way that a day is treated in terms of Genesis.

The Speaker: That somehow sounds reassuring.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order relating to order paper questions number 750 and number 571, the first being an inquiry of the Minister of Health relating to the financial status of each of Ontario's 224 hospitals and the second relating to the financial status of each of Ontario's nursing homes. Those questions were placed on October 24. I have raised this previously as a point of order on November 28. I am raising it for the second time. We are very anxious for these responses. I would also like to point out that I have a question, number 787, relating to long-term care delivery projections to which I anticipate a response before the House rises.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre indeed has a valid point of order. It has been drawn to the attention of the Minister of Health, who is in the chamber, and hopefully the matter can be resolved quickly.

PETITIONS

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Offer: I wish to table a petition to this government, provided to me by the Mississauga Gospel Temple, which reads:

"The petition of the undersigned residents of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, in certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly showeth;

"Whereas that we are opposed to the production, sale and rental of hard core and obscene material in Ontario, because of the associated negative and destructive influences leading to sexual assault upon women and children, degradation, exploitation and humiliation; pornography also claims men as its victims through obsession, addiction, moulding of criminals and autoerotic suicide;

"Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to strictly uphold the present laws on obscenity and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

This petition is signed, through the Mississauga Gospel Temple, by hundreds of members and I affix my name to it.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Jackson: This is a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

This has several thousand additional signatures and has my signature of support.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Turnbull: I have a petition. It reads:

"Whereas Mulmur council adopted market value assessment without due warning to residents and ratepayers, said change resulting in a disastrous increase in the amount of property tax to be paid; and

"Whereas the said lack of warning denied residents and ratepayers information as to the mechanics of market value assessment and thus denied them the right to be heard in the matter; and

"Whereas market value assessment has serious inequities resulting in a shift of the tax burden without any cushion for those who would be steamrollered by a 150% tax increase to the backs of those least able to bear it, the old, the disabled, the poor;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, protest Mulmur's middle-of-the-night change to market value assessment and the resulting unconscionable increase in our taxes, and we ask that a more equitable scheme be used for the computation of property taxes."

This petition is signed by more than 100 people, and I have affixed my signature.

CUSTODY AND ACCESS

Mr Rizzo: I have a petition from the Heritage of Children of Canada, which reads as follows:

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

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

"That the Ministry of the Attorney General hereby amend

section 21 of the Children's Law Reform Act so that the ward grandparents be included to apply for access of their grandchildren. The existing law must be improved so it is recognized a child has a legal right to his or her heritage."

The petition has 2,230 names, and I have affixed my name to it.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

Mr Arnott: I have a petition today which is prompted by the uncertain signals that have been sent out by the Minister of Transportation with respect to the road safety agency he announced last week, as well as the issue of licence issuing offices in rural Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

"We, the undersigned, agree with the licence issuers. Issuing offices should stay with the private issuers in the small towns, as they are now."

It is signed by myself as well as about 400 good people from my riding of Wellington.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Jordan: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

I have affixed my signature to that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Deferred vote on the motion for concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology;

Ministry of Housing;

Ministry of Transportation;

Ministry of Skills Development, votes 3601 and 3602;

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, votes 3001 and 3002;

Ministry of Natural Resources;

Ministry of Health;

Office for the greater Toronto area;

Ministry of Energy;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Ministry of Financial Institutions.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 65

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays -- 38

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Mancini, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poole, Runciman, Scott, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Housing, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Transportation, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Skills Development, votes 3601 and 3602, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, votes 3001 and 3002, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 65

Nays -- 38

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Natural Resources, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Health, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Office for the greater Toronto area, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which was agreed to on the same vote.

The House divided on the motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Financial Institutions, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 65

Nays -- 38

LABOUR SPONSORED VENTURE CAPITAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CORPORATIONS A CAPITAL DE RISQUE DE TRAVAILLEURS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the Creation and Registration of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations to Invest in Eligible Ontario Businesses and to make certain other amendments / Projet de loi 150, Loi prévoyant la création et l'inscription de corporations à capital de risque de travailleurs aux fins d'investissement dans des entreprises ontariennes admissibles et apportant des modifications corrélatives.

The Speaker: It is the third party's opportunity to participate.

Mr Eves: I believe we have unanimous consent among the three parties to allow the member for Carleton to defer. He had briefly gained the floor, but he has some other duties that prevent him from being in the chamber during this part of the debate. I believe there is unanimous agreement that he will be allowed to resume the floor at a later date.

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: Because our members thought Mr Sterling was going to go, perhaps we can get two seconds to line up our speaker.

Mrs Mathyssen: It is with genuine pleasure and excitement that I rise today to speak to Bill 150. I am pleased to support this legislation for many reasons. This legislation will contribute to the economic renewal of this province. Bill 150 illustrates that my government is responsive to people's concerns. It is willing to listen to stakeholders and is willing to facilitate the necessary changes.

One of the reasons I am so excited by this legislation is that it fosters a new relationship, a positive relationship between business and labour. That positive relationship is long overdue. The 1990s should not be, and cannot be, an era of confrontation. Rather there must be co-operation. This piece of legislation really seeks to foster a co-operative relationship.

This bill will accomplish many important objectives. It will provide business with new sources of much-needed capital, assist in increasing worker productivity, permit employees to have a greater opportunity in workplace decision-making, promote regional development designed to help save jobs for workers who would otherwise face layoffs, and foster a better understanding between employees and business.

In today's economic climate, a climate that has been brutalized by the disastrous economic policies of the federal government, it is extremely difficult for small businesses to secure the funds necessary to maintain operations. Unfortunately, bankruptcies are on the increase, but this legislation presents an opportunity and encourages workers to invest in the companies in which they work. By so doing, small and medium businesses will be able to obtain the funds necessary to continue operation, and generally, businesses will have a new ability to access desperately needed capital.

Part I of the legislation provides a tax credit to encourage workers to invest in small and medium-sized businesses through a labour-sponsored investment fund. Workers are also given credits to facilitate ownership of small companies.

This legislation can only assist in the economic renewal of this province. It will herald a new relationship in the economic community. One of the many things I like about this legislation is that it gives working men and women an opportunity to participate in workplace decision-making. It allows workers to invest and/or own businesses and it assists in creating a fair, level playing field for labour and business.

A better understanding can develop as each group becomes aware of the other's needs and challenges. This new, co-operative approach can only benefit the province's work climate.

By encouraging workers to invest and own companies, we are encouraging productivity from those same workers. This will in turn make Ontario's businesses more efficient and effective. The fact is that studies show that employee participation in the workplace increases productivity. This can only help Ontario's economy.

Bill 150 will also help to protect jobs, jobs that are being lost to a destructive free trade deal. Indeed there are many practical reasons why this is a good piece of legislation, a good direction for this government to be taking.

However, one of the most important aspects of Bill 150 is that it encourages capital to remain in Ontario. When small businesses turn a profit, it is often the result of the efforts of the workers. As a result, profit should remain with those workers who produced it, with those small businesses that produced it, in this province, the place that produced it.

The new relationship made possible by worker ownership will make this investment in Ontario by Ontarians a reality. It will encourage fairness, fairness that is deserved. Finally, it will contribute to the economic renewal of this province.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to join the debate on Bill 150. The members of the House would probably agree with both of the major objectives of this bill, the first objective being to encourage more employee participation in the workplace. The term "partnership" and the term "participation" are both crucial words as we look at restructuring the economy for the future. On the one hand, I think all of us can agree to that objective and I think we would all support that part of the bill.

The second objective of the bill, where a firm may be in some difficulty, is to provide the employees of that firm an opportunity to purchase the organization. That too probably is a worthy objective. As we deal with this bill, let's say for our party that we can certainly agree with the two objectives of the bill.

Where we begin to run into difficulty is on the specifics of the bill. What I want to outline today is the areas we have some concerns about. I might add that I think the members of the House should be aware that many people in the labour movement have some significant reservations about this approach. It is important for the House to recognize that.

For example, I was reading the comments of the Canadian Auto Workers on the bill from their president, Mr White, who along with the CAW has some thoughtful comments on it. What the CAW says is: "We want to emphasize our opposition to the worker financed venture capital fund. There has been no research presented to indicate that a lack of venture capital is a principal problem in the province and, if it were, why workers -- rather than those with the capital and those who are in the business of 'risks' -- should be placed at the centre of any solution."

There are other aspects of his document that I think are worth putting on the record. He also says, "Why is the government ignoring this other OFL proposal?" The Ontario Federation of Labour, as I think many members in the House will recognize, had a different approach to this than the one proposed. "Why emphasize greater worker participation and then -- without any apparent serious debate...."

I would say to the House, as we look at dealing with this bill, that this is not a simple bill that one passes quickly in this House. It is a major undertaking involving probably about $100 million worth of taxpayers' money. But probably equally important for the members, it will probably involve anywhere from $200 million to $250 million a year of funds that the employees will invest. What we are asking of the people of Ontario, the working people, if you will, of the province is to invest their own hard-earned money at the rate, probably annually, of $250 million a year. As well, the Ontario taxpayers will invest probably $100 million a year.

As we move forward with this, we have a fundamental obligation to ensure that those investors, those working people who will be encouraged through this bill to invest their money, have some protection. That is one of the things the CAW is getting at. They raise several significant points, as I said before, in this letter. One is that they have a basic concern about the thrust of the bill.

They go on to say:

"The point of such funds is to get workers to 'buy into' capitalism and the culture of tax breaks. This means playing at the margin of the economy and divert attention from the real...problems of economic strategy. It is not a coincidence that business...has been much less critical and in some cases even supportive of these initiatives.

"None of this should come as any surprise to you. As is well known, the Ontario Federation of Labour has debated the role of venture funds in the past and...rejected their usefulness to working people." The OFL suggested an alternative approach.

I am not sure all the members of the Legislature are aware that within the labour movement there are some significant reservations about the approach that is being taken in this bill. I will return to the letter later on, but our first concern is about this investor protection.

Members may recall that the Ontario Securities Commission, as it dealt with the Kapuskasing-Spruce Falls development, said, "We will approve this arrangement as a one-time arrangement, in the interest of getting on with that important saving of that particular factory." But the Ontario Securities Commission said, "We want to alert the government and the members of the Legislature that we have some severe concerns about the level of disclosure the investor is going to get under this proposed worker ownership."

Our first concern is for the individuals of this province, the people who are going to be asked to put their money into these ventures, ensuring that they have adequate knowledge and disclosure of the investment. Certainly the body we hold accountable for ensuring that the investors of this province have adequate disclosure and are treated fairly and equitably, the Ontario Securities Commission, has alerted us that it is concerned about the disclosure provisions in this bill.

It would be my hope, and I hope there is agreement, that this bill will go to a committee and that the Ontario Securities Commission would have an opportunity to spell out for the Legislature its concerns about disclosure and perhaps give us some advice on how we can ensure there is proper disclosure. Make no mistake about it: As we head down this road and as we look at annually, as I said before, probably $250 million of people taking money out of their pocket and putting it into these ventures, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are treated fairly and equitably and that they know what they are getting into, particularly, I would say, as on the worker ownership

part I suspect this will be used in the Algoma situation.

Although we thought we might be seeing the Algoma arrangement today, I gather that yesterday the parties were before the courts getting a six-week extension. I suspect the first use of this will be with the Algoma situation. Members can imagine that as the individuals lay out their own personal money, for many of them it is a kind of retirement fund. The bill, as members are aware, allows for individuals to put $15,000 a year into the buyout fund. For all of us that is an incredible amount of money.

We want to ensure that as individuals are asked to invest in Algoma and other similar ventures, they have full disclosure and understand exactly what they are getting into and the risks involved. Certainly the Ontario Securities Commission has some reservations about it, as does the Canadian Auto Workers.

The second big area of concern for us is the venture capital portion of this bill. The bill provides for two streams. One is the establishment of venture capital funds where individuals can put $3,500 into a venture capital fund each year. They get a tax credit of 20% of that $3,500 off their provincial tax payable and 20% off their federal tax payable, so we are looking specifically at a 40% tax saving for investing $3,500 each year.

The venture capital funds under this bill can be run only by unions. We have some concerns about that. There are other employee groups, it seems to us, that should perhaps have exactly the same opportunity to run venture capital funds. Certainly in the two provinces where these have been set up most recently that flexibility was provided. In Saskatchewan and British Columbia, co-operatives or employee associations can run these venture capital organizations. It is not a new idea. We hope that at committee there will be an opportunity to debate and amend it so that we do not treat other employee groups unfairly.

I might add that when the bill was introduced here in the Legislature by the Treasurer, I pointed that out in my response.

I think at the time the Treasurer was not aware that in other jurisdictions the venture capital program was available to employee groups besides unions. If it is limited to just unions, I think the problem is that it will undermine the underlying philosophy, which is to encourage as much as possible participation by a broad group of people in having a stake in the business of Ontario. For too long having a stake in the business of Ontario has been too limited.

Certainly it is our hope that we will not limit participation to unions and that we will look at the opportunities which have been provided in other provinces. I might add that my understanding is that in Saskatchewan there has been an active uptake by organizations other than unions in running the venture capital portion of it.

I also hope that the worker buyout part of it will not be something used to encourage employees to purchase the companies that no one else wants. I think that was the fundamental concern Mr White from the CAW had in his letter and comments. Somewhere in here he said, referring to the worker buyout:

"We are not, however, going to sell such interventions to our members or to the public as a great new innovation to deal with this country's economic problems. We are not enthusiastic about workers using their savings in hard times to take over failing firms in crisis. The reality is that this option has rarely involved workers taking over strong and profitable firms. It has generally emerged to take over facilities that employers don't want -- something that can hardly be the basis for a widespread alternative to restructuring the economy."

What Mr White is pointing out here is that in a situation where there is a company that does not have a viable future, it is a huge mistake to let the taxpayers and the workers assume that long-term liability. That is what Mr White is pointing out, the need to ensure --

Hon Ms Gigantes: That is not what he said.

Mr Phillips: That is exactly what Mr White said. Mr White has expressed his major reservation in here about encouraging employees to purchase firms, "workers using their savings in hard times to take over failing firms in crisis." This is exactly what Mr White has said.

Hon Ms Gigantes: As a widespread policy.

Mr Phillips: The member is yattering on, but not making sense over there. That is what Mr White says in black and white, and I just encourage her to listen. Perhaps she would learn something about the needs of the working people of this province and about the concerns the labour movement has about this bill instead of trying to interject. If she would just stay calm, I think she would probably understand this bill to a much greater extent than I am afraid she does right now.

The third concern we would raise is that the pricetag on this bill is about $100 million a year. This is what the taxpayers of Ontario are going to invest in this bill: $100 million. The question is, and Mr White raises it in his letter as well, is this the best use of $100 million? Is this where we should be spending $100 million? Members can tell by my opening remarks that we see some real merit in both objectives, but I think the taxpayers, the people of Ontario and the workers of Ontario should realize this is the pricetag in this particular initiative.

Would there be a better use of $100 million? Mr White's letter suggests $100 million of direct intervention rather than encouraging individuals to get themselves involved on a long-term basis in any potentially failing organization. Would the taxpayers be better off to take that $100 million and see it in a direct investment?

These are questions I hope we would be able to deal with at the committee. I am not sure anyone who has been involved in the information that has been disclosed to date about the bill understands, first, the amount of money that is involved and, second, that it is an issue for the labour movement, an issue, by the way, that has been debated many times at the OFL convention, as members will be aware, and rejected by the OFL several times because of its concern about investor protection and because of its concern about encouraging working people to get involved in a venture that may use up their savings.

I hope that through working on the first point I made, the investor protection, working with the Ontario Securities Commission and by having people like Mr White appear before the committee, we can lay out the necessary safeguards for the investors so that the essence of the bill could proceed.

The last overall point I would like to make is that this bill forms part of a four- or five-part economic renewal plan by the government. The economic renewal plan includes the Labour Relations Act changes. That is often one of the first things the Premier says in the economic renewal plan. This worker participation or the worker ownership, Bill 150, is the second part of the economic renewal plan.

The third part we have yet to see, and that is the use of pension funds for capital. That, by the way, is again the point Mr White makes in his letter. Is there any evidence that a lack of venture capital is the principle problem? He asks that rhetorical question. I think he goes on to suggest there are other more fundamental issues at stake.

Another part of the economic renewal plan is the Fair Tax Commission. I gather they are almost at this moment reporting on the first two things they were designed to report on, the minimum corporate tax and the land speculation tax.

The reason I raise all those economic renewal plans is I have a fundamental concern that in just six months or so, when the consultation is coming to a conclusion, we are going to be into a major debate in the province between labour and business. The members in the House will realize that the lightning rod for that right now is the Labour Relations Act.

We can banter back and forth here all we want about the need for change and what not, but there can be no question that those Labour Relations Act changes, just at the moment when all of us are trying to get the economy rolling and develop these partnerships, are going to develop into quite a firestorm.

The reason I raise that is that as we debate Bill 150 -- and this is the second point I make with the legislation -- the venture capital part of this is available only to unions,

whereas in other provinces other employee organizations can run it. That is a bit of a signal. It is sort of like: "What is going on here? Why is it not available to other organizations? Why is it just unions? Why not co-operatives? Why not employee associations?"

As we are trying to develop some trust and some understanding among the various communities out there, the antennae go up by the business community. They say: "Aha, I see the real motive of this. It is not to encourage worker participation. It is not to encourage a broader commitment to the economic renewal in the province. It is not to give everybody a stake in the province. It is to increase the power of the unions."

We divert attention from the essence of the bill, at least what I hope is the essence of the bill, and that is participation by a broader group of people and finding ways organizations can encourage their employees in circumstances where they need the involvement of the employees. Frankly, I hope in some circumstances the company just finds it is an opportunity for a change in ownership. But when one looks at unions only, they say, "Why is that happening?" The antennae go up and the suspicions go up and we are sidetracked in the debate.

The reason I raise that is, I think we are going to have that debate on this. I predict tragically, while the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board conceptually is a terrific idea, in my opinion -- I am not sure too many share this view -- we will shortly have an incredible debate about what I call the governance of that.

It is the intention to take about $2 billion worth of the most essential spending in the province on our skills development, on our retraining, on our helping people who are either unemployed or trying to get into the workplace to become trained, on assisting co-operation and co-ordination, on matching skills in the workplace with the needs in the workplace. It is absolutely essential to the future of the province.

But the governance of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is going to be -- and by the way, this will be an independent, arm's-length crown organization that we, as public officials, will not be able to guide because it will now be taken out of the hands of the elected people.

I apologize slightly for being a little off the topic on this Bill 150, but it fits within, if you will, the economic strategy.

The governance of OTAB: First, it will be arm's length; second, six business, six labour and four community people essentially -- I worry that this is a recipe for ongoing battles rather than for finding solutions to those crucial issues. I raise that because each of the economic renewal plans has the opportunity for some suspicions and debate and for sidetracking our getting on with the major issue of rebuilding the Ontario economy.

I will go back to my comments when we begin debate on this bill: that our party supports, understands and encourages the underlying objectives of the bill. We have three or four major questions about the bill, and those questions and concerns are shared, I might say, by some people in the labour movement. I believe the Canadian Bankers Association had some concerns about assessing the rest of the program from the investors' perspective, the same underlying issues Mr White had.

By the way, the version of this bill allows individuals to invest up to $150,000 of their money into this. For almost anybody, $150,000 would be a huge part of his or her lifetime savings, so we have a real obligation on this. It could be, more than many and certainly for most, the majority of their lifetime savings. It will be put into here. So we have an obligation and a responsibility. We can imagine, as many workers in this province will be asked to participate, that this will be a crucial decision for them.

When their firm's future and their jobs at that firm depend on a majority of them agreeing to participate in this and to put their money into it, the pressure will be on them. Therefore, the pressure is on us to ensure that the bill provides for full disclosure for those investors.

I repeat, I think the Algoma situation is perhaps the first one we face with this. For those workers at Algoma, if in fact this is a part of it, we can imagine the emotional attachment they will have to participation. We just have to make sure there is a disclosure. We will be raising issues about why unions only for the venture capital; why not like the two most recent provinces which have set these up, Saskatchewan and British Columbia?

We have not actually seen a full costing from the Treasury. The Treasurer though has said in public comment I believe that he expects there is about $100 million a year. As I said before, there are a couple of aspects to this bill that I think will raise the question of individuals out there: "Does this reflect the needs of all the working people of Ontario or just the unionized working people of Ontario?"

We look forward to a chance to hear from some of the interested parties to give us some help in terms of how we can improve this bill as it moves to committee. I would hope that in the end we can have a bill that all of us can support.

Mr Johnson: I just wanted to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He has raised the issue that the Ontario Securities Commission has some concerns about the disclosure provisions. The legislation requires investment corporations to comply with the Ontario Securities Act, including all disclosure provisions and requirements of that act. I think that is something that needs to be made clear.

He also asked the question, why should workers rather than investors be placed at the centre of risk? The bill is designed to give workers the opportunity they want and the opportunity they might not otherwise have to put forward investment proposals to save their companies and secure their jobs, particularly in those situations where the closure of the particular companies they belong to may be imminent.

With regard to the suggestion the member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes that it is just unions that can be involved in this and the proposals are limited to just unions, in fact, the proposal in respect of employee ownership, labour-sponsored venture capital corporations will allow employees to form a corporation to purchase their employer's business. They do not have to be members of a union to take advantage of the proposal in these circumstances. When the labour organization forms an investment corporation, any Ontario resident may invest in the union investment corporation. That resident does not have to be a member of the union.

I would like to suggest too that this does not increase the power of unions in any way, shape or form. I think my time is just about up. I will maybe get a chance to respond to some of these concerns later.

Mr Phillips: I do not know whether the member could not hear me or whether he is just confused on it, but I stand by what I said, and this is why I worry about whether the government understands what it has in the bill. I said that the venture capital programs can only be run by the unions. That is what I said. That is the case in the bill. That is not the case in Saskatchewan and it is not the case in British Columbia. I understand that you do not have to be a union person to invest in it, but I am talking about who runs the venture capital programs.

I would say to the parliamentary assistant, if he is involved in all of this, just as I guess the Treasurer did not understand my comment, that is what we worry about.

When he said I was worried about workers being involved at the centre of risk, it was me quoting from Mr White, president of the CAW. He said:

"We want to emphasize our opposition to worker-financed venture capital funds. There has been no research presented to indicate that a lack of venture capital is a principal problem in the province and, if it were, why workers -- rather than those with the capital and those who are in the business of 'risks' -- should be placed at the centre of any solution."

As I say, maybe I am not speaking loud enough, but I respond to both of those comments. It was not me who said that about the workers at the centre of the risk; it was Mr White. He raised that concern. I just say to all of us, that is why we have an obligation to the workers of this province to ensure their adequate protection. On the venture capital part of it, I think the parliamentary assistant is going to have to look at the bill more carefully and realize I am right in that aspect.

Ms Harrington: I wish to address Bill 150, the proposal for worker ownership and investment. This is part of a broader plan to build partnerships and to help renew our economy, which is of course the most important thing we are trying to do at this point.

First of all, I would like to say a few words about Niagara Falls. Along with the rest of Ontario, Niagara Falls is going through major industrial restructuring. With the help of our local economic development agency and the Niagara Region Development Corp, we are attracting new high-tech manufacturing. We are also taking advantage of our skilled labour and we have the unique advantage of access directly to the US market across the border. We are even attracting offshore investment.

Just a few short weeks ago, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I were at the opening of a large manufacturing firm from Austria. They mentioned they were locating here because it was close to the United States. I asked them, "Why, in your first operation in North America, are you here on this side of the border instead of on the US side?" They said to me that the lifestyle in Canada, the actual culture, was closer to their European culture and they felt more comfortable being in Canada.

There are many problems in manufacturing in Ontario. I would like to address that. For instance, in Niagara Falls our historic industries, such as the abrasives industry, which goes back at least 70 years to the introduction of cheap power in the Niagara area, is in trouble. The food processing plants across Niagara have been under great difficulty since the free trade agreement. Heavy equipment manufacturing is going through difficult times. We all realize this.

I might also mention that this year we have had several very difficult strikes in Niagara where management and labour have really had difficulty sitting down and talking to one another. I believe that plant owners, management and labour who are serious about the long-term good of the industry and contributing to society must get together for the benefit of everyone and for their own benefit.

When I speak with managers of various industries in Niagara, they tell me: "Yes, we live here. We are interested in the very same things that labour is, and that is a good environment, good schools, even good working conditions for our workers."

I want to quote from the Premier when he spoke to the Economic Advisory Council last June. He said: "Confidence is so important. Wealth creation is crucial. 'Competitiveness' is a word that makes a lot of sense to me. Prosperity, the creation of wealth, attracting investment, encouraging innovation, encouraging...entrepreneurship" -- which is what this bill is all about -- "change, accepting markets, making them function effectively, rewarding innovation, creating profits -- these are the things which have to happen in any society.... Unless these things happen, it becomes very difficult for that society to function effectively or fairly. In fact, it becomes impossible."

Those were the words of the Premier. Co-operation is important. Management and labour have for too long been in two solitudes. He also said he would like to see any business leader go down to the Empire Club and say: "Enough of this nonsense, attacking trade unions. We have to get them more involved, not less involved, in how we do things."

The Premier also said he would like to see a trade union leader go in front of an audience of workers and say, "Look, folks, we have to be concerned about wealth creation, we have to be concerned about the efficiency and productivity of our firms, because unless that happens, we simply will not be able to sustain the kind of life that we have grown used to and that we need to have in this province."

I think everyone on all sides of the House would agree with those comments. Our economic picture is changing. We need new ideas, we need co-operation, we need restructuring.

Once when I talked to some of our industrial owners and leaders in Niagara, I said to them, "I don't recognize any of you from my nomination meeting a year and a half ago, but regardless of that, we're still in this together and let's co-operate." In fact, just as recently as this past noon hour, the small business committee of this government met with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the chamber of commerce and the Retail Council of Canada in a spirit of co-operation.

I would like to take a moment to have a look at this bill. As members know, there are two parts to the legislation. What it does first of all is enable the creation of labour-sponsored investment funds. It is essentially a mutual fund type of investment controlled by the labour union, with tax credits that provide an incentive for the individuals to invest their much-needed capital, as we know, to help modernize Ontario companies.

The legislation also enables the creation of worker-owned, labour-sponsored venture capital corporations. Now that is rather a long term and I am sure the parliamentary assistant knows it. Maybe it will be shortened and called EOs, or something like that, for employee-owned, labour-sponsored venture capital corporation.

This corporation is controlled by a board that of course is selected by the labour organization and bought with money raised by the members of the labour organization. The Ontario government will allow tax credits to workers who invest in this enterprise: 20% of the first $3,500 and 30% of the next $11,500. This corporation then likely would come into existence when a company needs a cash infusion to modernize, to get through a cyclical downturn and not to invest in something we know is not a viable enterprise.

We hope it will do the following things and it will certainly do the most important thing: try to help maintain jobs; second, it will bring more investment dollars into the province's economy and not sit in someone's bank account, or sock, or under the bed or wherever the money in this province is.

Most important, I believe the creation of these EOs make working people active partners in the economy. This is what we want people to be: active partners in our economy, bringing more understanding and more stability to manager-worker relations. As I mentioned, we certainly need stability, understanding and involvement in Niagara Falls.

This legislation ushers in new ideas, and at this point in the economic life of our province this opportunity is seriously needed. We must try new ways of doing things.

I would also like to say that we certainly look forward to this bill going to committee so we can hear from all interested stakeholders and look at all the minute details of the bill to make sure that it is exactly what we intend and what will benefit most the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? Questions and comments? Are there any comments?

Mr Johnson: I want to thank the member who just spoke for her very good words with regard to this bill. There seems to be some confusion as to exactly what the bill intends. The question was raised that it is a concern that there is some risk involved. I think it is important to reiterate that ultimately the Ontario Securities Commission will make clear to the workers the risk that will be involved if they should choose to invest in their company, in their future. It will ultimately be the workers' decision. They are the ones who will decide, given this information, whether they will invest in the company they work for, whether they will invest in their future.

No one will be forcing them to do this. It is certainly clear that it is legislated that the Ontario Securities Commission make any risks involved in an investment of this sort of company clear to the investor. I just think it is important that this is very clear.

Another concern is the fact that there will be $100 million of the taxpayers' money, through tax incentives, going into this investment. I would like, too, to make it clear that this is only 20% or one fifth of the total investment that will be made in Ontario in any of the corporations or companies that individuals or workers would want to invest in. I think we want to make it clear that the $100 million the province, in essence, is contributing is only one fifth, is only 20%. The grand total will be about $500 million on that $100 million investment.

Mr Grandmaître: Such a program is welcome news in this province. I know that three years ago the former Liberal government introduced such a program, and at that time we made the program open to any employees. Restricting the administration of such a venture program limits the opportunities of workers to participate.

I know the present government is talking about partnership and consultation, but when it comes to creating a new program in this province, there are all kinds of restrictions. In the venture capital corporation there are limitations, but the government members will not agree with us that these limitations will certainly prevent non-unionized people from taking

part in this program. This is the wrong way to go about it. If we are talking about a partnership, it should be a true partnership, with union or non-unionized employees.

There is a possibility this program will work, but I think it should be left open to all workers in Ontario. This is what we are trying to tell the government, to try to improve the program and permit everybody to participate in such a venture.

Mr Bisson: I am glad that finally we have had an opportunity to get into this debate, because I think everybody in this House would agree that this program is something that is dearly needed to try to restructure some of the problems of our economy.

More specifically, to my colleague from the Niagara region, I think there is a little bit of misinterpretation on the part of the opposition on exactly how this bill will work. What she is explaining, and I thought it was fairly clear, is that in the labour-sponsored investment fund there are two different programs, one of them being the labour-sponsored investment program and the other one being the employee-ownership labour-sponsored program.

By no way or means are people who are not associated with a trade union not able to participate in these programs. The federal legislation is quite clear. The federal legislation, when taking a look at the question of who is limited to being able to invest within that particular program, is quite clear. They say you have to be a member of a trade union or an associate of a trade union.

The other provinces that have gone down this route, namely, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec, have put legislation together saying you can apply if you are outside a trade union, but it does not mean anything because the federal statutes and the federal law say that the only way people can participate in the investment portion is through the trade union.

I will speak in a little bit more detail about that when it comes to my turn in debate. It is not that complex, but I think that point has to be made so that people understand quite clearly what this is about. There are two bills. The first bill is for employees to have the opportunity to buy their employer who is having difficulty. That can be done either if you are in a trade union, or in a non-unionized workplace; no difference.

The venture capital fund is a separate program altogether by which to raise capital that could be reinvested here in Ontario, the same as in other provinces across the country from Quebec to Saskatchewan to British Columbia, and we are regulated by the federal statutes. That is what this legislation is speaking to, according to the way the tax credit works at the federal level.

Mr Brown: I appreciate the government coming forward with this legislation. I think it is useful and that we will find, after a lengthy discussion in committee, a compromise that all members will be able to support.

I have a concern, however, with the fact that we are asking workers to invest in companies that have not been doing particularly well. As a matter of fact, these companies are in very difficult circumstances. What we are asking workers to do, along with the people of Ontario through tax credits, is to support this industry and to keep it going because it is a "bad risk." We have seen the banks and the investors all over the province decide that, no, they do not wish to continue with this investment; therefore it falls to the workers.

My concern is that the worker's capital, much of which might be in a mortgage or a remortgage of his home, may be put at some risk. Perhaps the assurances we have had from the parliamentary assistant can allay that fear. But I would ask members to also consider that if workers are in this kind of investment, it generally means they should have a high rate of return. High-risk investments, generally speaking, mean investors want a high rate of return.

I wonder whether the workers' investment would not have been better placed elsewhere for their own return. These are just questions I am asking now. I am going to speak a little more -- next, I think -- but I wonder if the member for Niagara Falls would comment on those.

Ms Harrington: I certainly appreciate the support from the opposition, that it understands what we are trying to do here. I would like to let the member opposite know that any proposal like this cannot be registered unless there is an acceptable business plan that is received by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and approved by cabinet.

I share the member's concern that this is an investment. He and I do not want to make an investment unless it is the best investment we can make. There should be, and I believe there are, guarantees that there will be a business plan that will be scrutinized and approved so that this will go forward.

I would also invite anyone who is out there watching across the province to address our committee, which I hope to be a part of, in the new year. The committee will be looking for people to comment on this. It will probably be at the end of January or the beginning of February. We would like, as I mentioned before, to improve this bill in any way we can and make sure it works.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Brown: This is one of the opportunities an opposition member has to stand up and say: "Yes, I think you are doing the right thing. At least I think you are going in the right direction." We may not agree with all the precise details of this bill but certainly we agree with the principle. We must understand, however, what the backdrop of this is. We are encountering in Ontario some of the gravest economic times we have experienced in recent memory. We are seeing in my part of the world in northern Ontario some very great difficulties.

On the weekend I was in Sault Ste Marie, a community that is working very hard to keep its spirit alive and ensure its future. Of course, without Algoma Steel the Sault would have a very difficult time providing diversification. Let's say it: Sault Ste Marie without Algoma Steel is almost unimaginable, so therefore this kind of program is something we could support to help Algoma Steel.

I recall speaking on a private member's bill that was put forward by the member for Sault Ste Marie and supporting him at that time as he urged us to go forward with legislation similar to this. I applaud the member for Sault Ste Marie for taking this idea and putting it to the forefront, because I think it is very important that the communities in the north which will benefit from this particular piece of legislation will be able to continue.

I was distressed, as I am sure many people in Sault Ste Marie were distressed, to hear recently that again we are into another five or six weeks of waiting for another restructuring proposal. That is beyond any of our control, but certainly it would be most helpful to the people of Sault Ste Marie and the people who are working so hard in that community to have this issue settled so that we could go on with that.

But it is not just about Algoma Steel, it is about Spruce Falls and it is about other companies that are in difficulty. Although the ones I can think of are perhaps in northern Ontario, and that is natural for somebody who is the Northern Development critic, there are companies across this province that will be in the same sort of situation.

I do have some concerns about this legislation. I was just talking with the member for Niagara Falls, conversing -- if anyone actually has a conversation in here -- about some of my concerns surrounding who qualifies. It offends me somewhat that workers under this legislation will have the ability to participate in the ownership of companies that are in financial difficulties. Why should the legislation be restricted only to companies that are in financial difficulties? It seems to me that workers across this province should be encouraged --

Mr Bisson: Get your facts straight. Read the bill.

Mr Brown: I have read the bill. I am concerned that workers will not be able or are not encouraged, because, as members know, in the bill it is subject to cabinet approval how many of these companies are allowed to participate. Which ones? There are criteria that are not laid out in the bill. We do not know. It looks more like an aid package to particular companies that are in difficulty, and that is okay, but as a principle I would like us to think about the fact that co-operative worker capitalism, if you will, is a pattern that has worked in other countries and other provinces and should work here.

It must work here. For the survival of some of our communities, it is a necessity that it work here.

I am concerned, however, that in companies that are profitable, we will continue to have the traditional labour-management confrontation instead of encouraging this kind of partnership, which I think is what this bill is really about. It is encouraging everyone to work together for a common goal.

I am therefore sort of surprised when I read Bob White's quote on this. What is the position of the Canadian Auto Workers, according to Bob White? He says:

"We want to emphasize our opposition to the worker-financed venture capital fund. There has been no research presented to indicate that a lack of venture capital is a...problem in the province and, if it were, why workers -- rather than those with the capital and those who are in the busines

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1991-12-17
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p35 s1 1991-12-17 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bb1b8dfb3e22fac8df516bd8f4bdd6cc973868c1

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).