Journal des débats 1982-avril-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With the indulgence of the House, I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the passing last night of the oldest elected official in Ontario, Alderman Charles Ward of Brantford.

Alderman Ward, at the time of his passing, had been a representative on Brantford city council for 29 years. He was certainly our most honoured and beloved Brantford citizen. He was the first president of United Auto Workers Local 458 in the city of Brantford.

He was, during the course of his long life, an employee of the Massey-Ferguson company and had been the recipient of many distinguished honours including that of appointment to the Duke of Edinburgh's committee for Canada and involvement in the arrangement of royal tours.

He was also the Junior Chamber of Commerce's man of the year in Brantford for a number of years and was honoured last year for what was, I think, generally assumed to be his last election to municipal office. He was named an honorary mayor for life of the city of Brantford.

Charlie Ward was a very dear friend of mine and of many thousands of citizens in our county who came to know and love him over the years.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Considering the importance of the situation, do you and the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) or some spokesman for the government not think it is a duty and an obligation under standing order 26(a) to make a statement about the current state of negotiations between the government and the Ontario Medical Association?

Surely we in this House are entitled to a statement that includes the exact state of OMA-government negotiations, the exact effect of the doctors' job actions on the effectiveness of the health care system in Ontario and the number of specific cases that have been referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

If the government is not ready to make a ministerial statement during the normal time for those statements, this party at least would be glad to revert to statements at some time this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I am sure the Minister of Health will take your request into consideration.

Mr. Peterson: On the same point, Mr. Speaker: I share the concerns of the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, particularly in view of the fact that there is a threatened closedown or walkout at the Hospital for Sick Children tomorrow, a hospital which the Minister of Health holds very sacred and for which he has held out special action.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) is now coming into the House, and I hope he has been deputized by the Minister of Health to speak on this matter and bring us up to date on the very serious problems that are affecting our province.

Mr. Kerrio: The Premier has been deputized by Trudeau.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don't like your national leader?

Mr. Kerrio: No. I just said you were deputized by him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don't like your national leader, except when he is up on the polls; then you all want to get on his coattails. When he is down on the polls, you all try to dissociate yourselves from him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just the way you do.

Mr. Kerrio: The Premier speaks from experience.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier like to respond to the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will respond to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot let the opportunity go by since the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) got up on his feet. Unlike him, I am consistent; I always support our national leader. I thought the member for Kitchener would have had the good sense to do the same thing. I did not think he was like the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was asking a question.

Mr. Foulds: No. I rose on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was it a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: It was a point of order. He was questioning whether the Minister of Health was going to make a statement on the current situation with the OMA. When the Leader of the Opposition saw you coming in, he took advantage of the situation to suggest that you might refer it to the Minister of Health or answer on his behalf.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if it was a point of order, I regret I did not hear it. I thought it was a question. If it was a point of order, the Minister of Health is currently in his office at the end of the phone.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You have already spoken, I would remind you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order that was raised by our deputy leader. What we asked was whether, if a statement was not available at this point, we might revert to statements at the end of question period or some time later in the day, because we feel the House needs to be filled in.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions will be coming up very shortly.

Mr. Martel: You don't have a minister here.

Mr. Speaker: That is not my concern or my responsibility.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new point?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 26(a), surely it is the obligation and duty of the government to inform the members of the House and the people of Ontario of the exact state of the most important matter of public business of this province at this time, and that is the state of negotiations between the Ontario Medical Association and the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what you said before.

Mr. Foulds: That's right.

Mr. Martel: But the Premier was not here before.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. Speaker: At this time I would like to respond to questions raised in the House on April 6 by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) concerning the use of video display terminals by employees in the Legislative Building.

With respect to the equipment installed in the legislative library, members should be aware that recent tests performed by the safety office of the University of Waterloo on similar equipment produced by Geac Canada Ltd. revealed no indication of radiation leakage. However, the legislative library is making arrangements to have its own video display terminals tested independently.

I wish to assure all members that employees in the Legislative Building who are pregnant and are required to operate a word processor with a video display terminal have the option of being transferred to another work area without a pay reduction during their pregnancy period.

I have instructed my senior staff to monitor all areas coming under the jurisdiction of the Speaker where there is video display equipment to ensure that any concerns of employees are looked into to the fullest possible extent.

2:10 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming and recognizing, in the Speakers gallery, the mayors, reeves and administrators of the riding of Cochrane North who are attending a meeting at Queen's Park today:

From the town of Cochrane, we have Mayor Raymond Fortier and Larry Adshead; from the town of Hearst, Mayor Gilles Gagnon and Jacques Coté; from the town of Kapuskasing, Mayor T. K. Jewell and Mat Rukavina; from the town of Smooth Rock Falls, Mayor Roger Duguay and Mrs. Helene Valiquette; from the township of Mattice, Reeve Paul Zorzetto and Yvan Brousseau; from the township of Moonbeam, Reeve Gaetan Filion and André Filion; from the township of Glackmeyer, Reeve Raymond Genier and Ivaneau Thomas; from the township of Opasatika, Reeve Alphonse Pineault and Ben Siguoin; from the township of Val-Rita/Harty, Reeve Muriel Parent and Richard Hein, and from the township of Fauquier, Reeve Raymond Grzela and Paul Morrissette.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BUDGET

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the members of the House that on May 13 at 8 p.m. I will be presenting my budget to this Legislature.

JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce and table with the Clerk in the House today a report entitled The Justice System in Ontario.

In co-operation with the four ministries in the Justice policy field, the Provincial Secretariat for Justice has produced an information booklet which provides an overview of Ontario's justice system. This is the latest effort of the Justice secretariat in fulfilling its commitment to ensure that the public is informed not only about how the justice system works but also about the role of each citizen in maintaining a justice system that seeks to shape a society that is fair and equal.

This booklet will be distributed widely throughout the school system and to the general public and will be available in French in about two weeks' time. I feel that this booklet is also timely in that it offers a concise outline of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I believe this publication will improve public knowledge and awareness of the various components of our justice system in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), I have a question for the Premier.

It was reported yesterday that the Minister of Health is going to investigate every instance of cancelled surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children. It was reported that he knows how traumatic these operations and cancellations can be for young children, as do the Premier and I.

I am interested in asking the Premier how he distinguishes between that traumatic experience and the trauma experienced by a 15-year-old, a 50-year-old or an 82-year-old. What criteria are the government employing to determine who is experiencing trauma and who is not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government can assess the measure of concern or trauma, whatever term one may wish to use. I know and I really think the Minister of Health was reflecting a point of view that would be shared by all citizens of this province.

I do not say any hospital is unique -- and that is perhaps not quite the correct way to phrase it -- but a particular concern was expressed with respect to the Hospital for Sick Children. The minister has said publicly that, in terms of his responsibilities, he or the ministry will be checking the situation at Sick Children's on an individual basis.

I think if the minister were present with us he would be expressing a particular regret. All of these walkouts, or whatever term one may wish to use, I believe we all feel are regrettable. I think he was expressing a view that the one at Sick Children's was perhaps somewhat unique; perhaps it is not. I think he was reflecting a concern that a lot of people would share.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to answer the points of order, I would like to make it very clear that the Minister of Health is very actively involved. I can give to the members of the House the locations, as I understand them, of the walkouts, or whatever term is being used, today. They are at Etobicoke General Hospital, Queensway General Hospital, St. Joseph's, Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Markham, Oshawa, Whitby, Simcoe, Delhi, Ottawa, Timmins and South Porcupine. By and large, that is the list of where the walkouts are occurring.

The minister may be here later in the question period. I certainly will get in touch with him, and if he has some further information that would be helpful to impart to the members of this House I know he would only be too willing to do so.

In fairness, we all recognize the sensitivity and the importance of this issue, and the minister really feels that in terms of his responsibility he is allocating his time at this precise moment in an appropriate fashion.

Mr. Peterson: We all recognize the sensitivity of the matter, and we all share the same concern for young people that the minister and the Premier have. But let me tell the honourable members of a note that I just got which says that Metropolitan General Hospital in Windsor has a sign on it that the cancer clinic will be closed tomorrow because of the doctors' walkout. What about the trauma that is experienced by a cancer patient who goes to that clinic for help tomorrow? What about the other cases across this province which are creating anxiety and hardship in people?

How can the minister selectively intervene only in certain cases? How can he intervene only at the Hospital for Sick Children? How can he go only to the Doctors' Hospital and say: "I did you a favour a few years ago; you owe me one this time. Please do not walk out"? What kind of government policy is that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize how easy it is in opposition to ask the questions; and they are fair questions. I am not quarrelling with them. I have been intrigued, as I have watched the news reports on this issue, by just how reluctant the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario is to say what his position is and what he would do.

In fact, as I understand it, when he was asked by one member of the press gallery whether the honorariums being received by the medical profession were appropriate, the Leader of the Opposition said that was an unfair question. I have never heard of such a response in my life.

Out in our part of the country we either fish or cut bait. Why does he not say whether he thinks it is an appropriate response? Why does he not say whether he thinks the 11 per cent and three per cent is an appropriate response? Why does he not have the courage to say that the Minister of Health is dealing with this in a very logical and sensitive fashion, which he is? Why does he not have the courage to say some of those things?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, in this House, in response to what I believe was my question about the strike at the Hospital for Sick Children and the withholding of medical services from a child at Etobicoke General Hospital as part of a strike action, the Minister of Health characterized that behaviour as intolerable, and has been quoted in the press as saying the same behaviour is barbaric.

May I ask the Premier very simply whether his government is prepared to bring in an amendment to regulation 448 of the Health Disciplines Act which would make the withholding of medical services for purposes of negotiation or bargaining one of the definitions of professional misconduct?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I recognize the sincerity with which the question is asked. I say to the honourable member that I believe the minister is dealing in a very sensitive and realistic fashion with this problem that is confronting all of us, and the government is not contemplating any legislative changes as part of this process.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I am going to ask the decisive Premier a question. What is his position on the walkout at the Hospital for Sick Children tomorrow, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My position on the walkout at the Hospital for Sick Children tomorrow is similar to, but perhaps somewhat different from, what it was on the walkout at Peel Memorial Hospital. I make my position very clear: it is extremely unfortunate.

It is important to remind the general public that the government of this province, through the Minister of Health, made suggestions that were implemented -- not imposed -- on April 1, when the former agreement ran out. We were able to program the computers so the medical profession in this province would not be prejudiced because there was a delay in reaching an agreement.

The Minister of Health has made it abundantly clear to the Ontario Medical Association's negotiating committee that this government is prepared to sit down and discuss the issues. There have been some preliminary conversations. I have expressed personal regret that the medical profession has sought this route to impress upon the government its sincerely held concerns.

I do understand the concerns being expressed by the medical profession. I conveyed my disappointment to the two young gentlemen who were in my office to see me, not so much as Premier but as their local member, as so many members of the OMA are doing with all of us. I said I was disappointed that the medical profession would seize this route to communicate to us its disappointment and concern.

I noted that I had been Premier for some 11 years and that prior to that, when I was Minister of Education, I had met thousands of students on the front steps. I made it clear that this government cannot be pressured in that sort of way. I think it is fair to state that our responsibility is not to represent just a particular professional group in this province, in spite of the close relationship, but to reflect the concerns of the public at large.

No one would more like to see this matter brought to a reasonably successful conclusion than the Minister of Health or the members of the government. I know that from the perspective of the Leader of the Opposition it appears simplistic, in spite of the fact that he has no position on the issue. I can only say to him that this government, through the minister, is working hourly, every minute, every day, both on the situation within the hospitals and on our negotiations with the medical profession of this province.

Mr. Peterson: I have no idea what the Premier has just said, but I thank him for his clear response.

TAX POLICY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Treasurer a question. I am sure the Treasurer is aware of the Premier's (Mr. Davis) remarks in New York this week and perhaps participated in drafting them. It was a very clear and definitive speech on the protectionist issue and came down unequivocally on both sides of that issue. He said in that speech, quoting Arthur Okun, "Economic sacrifice is acceptable to people only when accompanied by a sense of equity." These are remarks to which he wholeheartedly subscribed.

The Treasurer has been unwilling to match the federal tax reduction for lower-income families in Ontario, and he is increasing the tax burden this year -- automatically, as a result of last year's budget -- to 48 per cent. Can he explain where there is equity in this system when he is further eroding the purchasing power of the lower-income groups in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that is one of the better speeches the Leader of the Opposition has given, reading my Premier's comments in New York city. I did not help write it; I would not have the temerity to do that. But on our side of the House most of us think the same way; we do not have the problems that some members of the honourable member's party have.

Ontario does compensate at the low end of the income scale through a number of techniques. First, our rate this year at 48 per cent actually will raise less income tax from a person whose salary did not increase than it did last year. That is because the 12.2 per cent indexation factor used will lower the taxable figures for most people across the system.

Second, we do have the Ontario tax credits, which are income-related and are quite generous; so I do not think it is easy to make the kind of comparison the member is making.

We raise, through all forms of taxes, the amount of money needed to run the budget on a reasonably sound financial and fiscal basis. That is something they have not learned to do in Ottawa, and I hope they learn to do it soon.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is also aware of the discussion he had in the House the other day, trying to discover what the poverty line was in Ontario. Since he is not prepared to move on any kind of tax relief for low-income people, does he really believe that $7,380 for a family of four on welfare comes close to meeting the basic needs of that family?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I find that unrelated to the first question.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Cooke: Windsor-Riverside, Mr. Speaker. I represent the riding of Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer aware that, based on a tax chart that was part of the recent Saskatchewan budget and compared taxes paid by a family of four earning $15,000, we in Ontario pay the highest taxes of any province of this country, including the Ontario health insurance plan taxes? At that income level, $745 is paid in Ontario and in Saskatchewan they get a rebate of $241. At the $20,000 level, in Ontario $1,277 is paid in taxes and in Saskatchewan $459. Again at the $20,000 level we are number one.

In view of the fact that he will bring down his budget on May 13, is it not time the Treasurer took action on the OHIP premiums and started lowering them, since the public pays more in OHIP premiums in this province at those levels than it pays in income tax? It is an unfair form of taxation. When is he going to bring in some equity?

Mr. Speaker: Just before the Treasurer answers, I want to recognize the member for Windsor-Riverside and apologize for misnaming the riding.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to pick any specific tax and make the kind of calculations the honourable member is making. The fact is that Ontario spends less per capita to run government than any other province in Canada.

Mr. Peterson: What we are talking about in this series of questions is the plight of the poor in Ontario. Is the minister aware that the dean of community services at Ryerson says there are 100,000 children living in poverty in this province, and that he, as the Treasurer, has a number of options on how to correct that inequity in our system? Why does he not do something about it? Why does he not sell the jet? That alone would bring more than 3,000 children above the poverty line. Why does he not take those kinds of cost-cutting measures and spend the money where it should be properly spent in this province to solve a real social problem?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is nice to see the honourable member did not read that question: it is the first of the three that he did not.

The member has only had two things to talk about since he became leader, either Suncor or the jet. He ties everything to those two things simply because he does not have anything else to criticize this government about. This government has shown, and I am sure the people of the province agree, a great sensitivity to these people at all levels of society and will continue to do so.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade.

Is the minister aware that Chrysler's Detroit head office game plan has left Canada with a deficit of about $500 million last year, the equivalent of 5,000 jobs? Is it true that the $10 million the government has agreed to put up towards the Perkins-Chrysler diesel facility in Windsor is the same $10 million that the government previously offered to put up for Chrysler to build a new research and development centre in Windsor? Is it true that Chrysler is refusing to make a firm commitment to purchase diesel engines from the plant in Canada, should it go forward, if it can source them cheaper either in Trenton, Michigan or Mexico?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that the honourable member seems to be without his facts. The answer to the second and third questions is no.

Mr. Foulds: It is too bad the minister is not informed of what is going on.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) went to New York to complain about Japanese imports and the devastating impact they are having on the Canadian auto industry. Is it not about time the minister and the Premier went to Detroit and talked to Ford, General Motors and Chrysler to make sure we get our fair share of parts production for automobiles produced in Canada by the Big Three?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am informed that in the last 17 years during which the auto pact has operated, Chrysler in Canada has been out of whack or out of balance for two of those years and for the remaining 15 has been in total shape.

Mr. Foulds: You are misinformed and you are misinforming the House,

Hon. Mr. Walker: I rather suspect the misinformation lies mostly on the other side and not on our side. It is my understanding that at this very moment Chrysler is $500 million ahead, not $500 million behind.

The member suggests we go to Detroit and tell them we want more of the balance. He might not appreciate that the first steps were taken as recently as a few days ago to convert the Windsor van production plant with some $354 million invested by Chrysler. I think the member should be saying, "Thank goodness Chrysler is doing something." In fact, Chrysler is about the only company at the moment that is going on overtime with respect to vans and large automobiles. We should be happy that Chrysler is here in Canada.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, to return to the matter of the research facility, can the minister give us assurances that any help the provincial government may offer to get the diesel engine plant on stream will be separate and apart from the $10-million grant that was part of the Chrysler loan guarantee of 1981? Can the minister inform the House when a beginning on that research facility is expected?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is, I do not know. It is up to them to take down the money. The offer is there but Chrysler has yet to take down the money on the $20-million facility, of which Ontario would pay $10 million.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, whenever we ask this government about Ford, the reply is that they do not have a deficit; when we ask about General Motors, they do not have a deficit; when we ask about Chrysler, they do not have a deficit; yet we are still running a $2-billion deficit. How does that deficit occur?

Before the minister answers, perhaps I could ask a question. He can just sit down for a minute. I would like to ask the minister --

Mr. Speaker: That was a statement.

Mr. Cooke: That is right, that was a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary now, please.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister aware that Chrysler Corp. has made a decision to move the vast majority of its purchasing department out of Windsor to Detroit? It will now be Americans who are making the decisions, even for the sourcing of tooling, the engineering and all the equipment needed for the T-115. Does the minister honestly believe that Americans in Detroit are going to buy tooling from Canadian suppliers, or is this just another example of Americans making crucial economic decisions for Canadians?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for humble Riverside I would have to say that the move, if the move is to occur in full, may find many of the Canadian people working out of that centre and may lead to a much more beneficial approach.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. He will recall that we have asked him several times since the beginning of this session what steps this government will take to remedy the situation of people losing their homes because of the present economic situation.

Is he aware that in my home town of Thunder Bay the situation is so serious that an independent agency, the Thunder Bay Family and Credit Counselling Agency, which is funded to a large extent by this government, has written to both the local members of the Legislature indicating that in the last two months it has had 11 clients who have lost their homes or are about to lose them through foreclosure, power of sale or just by giving up their homes because they cannot maintain the payments? Six of the families have already lost their homes and the other five will lose them within the next month unless there is a drastic improvement in the economy.

What steps is this government going to take to ensure that people such as these people in Thunder Bay and the people we have referred to in Chatham and Windsor will not lose their homes? Is the minister willing to institute a moratorium?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, a moratorium, as opposed to assistance, is quite a different thing.

I am as concerned as the member is about that problem. I have been checking with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to see whether he is aware of any degree of success or even of the commencement of the announced program under which there was to be assistance for people whose mortgage payments exceeded 30 per cent of their family income.

As the member knows, that was announced and alleged to be the mechanism to help people for a period of at least one year. I have not heard of that program being in place yet. I have heard of a number of people anxious to use the proposed program and I would like to take the time to find out if the applications are being processed yet; I sense they are not.

I am afraid the member will have to wait for me to bring out a budget before discussing the balance of his question.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Treasurer think it is of very much comfort to these people and people like them all across the province who are losing their homes, to wait for the next six weeks for his budget, which has already been delayed?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It is four weeks.

Mr. Foulds: In the light of the economic conditions in cities like Thunder Bay -- where Unemployment Insurance Commission claimants are up at least 10.6 per cent, welfare payments are up 15.3 per cent, projected bankruptcies, personal and business, are up 84 per cent -- what steps will this government take to ensure that the real human costs of those statistics are met and dealt with? People in their forties and fifties who are losing their homes will never again have a chance of getting homes in this province.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Unless the statistics I receive are not correct, the actual number of people losing their homes is remarkably low. There are a lot of people in difficulties, but I am talking about the need to take action. I have been trying to keep up to date with those statistics, and I am told they are lower than they were a year ago.

That does not imply there are no difficulties, but it does seem to imply to me -- and certainly sales of major consumer items such as automobiles and home appliances would bear this out -- that people have been changing their priorities. They have been freeing up more of their money by putting off major purchases and shoring up payments on their homes first. It would seem, on the basis of repossessions, that may be the case, except in isolated cities.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of these problems, is the Treasurer again contemplating bringing in a forgiveness program on sales tax for automobiles in order to stimulate that industry?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member accuses me of having a one-track mind. He sure has.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Will the Treasurer be so good as to table the figures he has, giving us a breakdown of the people who have lost their homes? The Liberal Party may think this is a funny subject but we surely do not.

Could I ask him to tell us what steps his government will take to ensure that those people who have invested considerable equity in their homes, those people in their forties and fifties who are now losing their homes, will have action by this government, such as a moratorium, to give them a year's breathing space so that they will at least have a chance to maintain their homes, because never again will they get a chance to buy a home in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is in everyone's interest to protect people who are in difficulty on a temporary basis and to allow them to stay in their homes. I share that completely with the member.

I can tell the member that a number of us have been talking to both lenders and people in the building industry, as my colleague from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has and I certainly have, to try to find all of the inventive ways possible to prevent any massive problem.

I want to point out one thing. The simplistic moratorium such as that proposed by Saskatchewan is fraught with certain risks, because there are two parties to every mortgage. There is the person who lends and the person who borrows. The assumption that the bank is the lender is, almost in all cases, wrong. It happens to be individuals who lend. One of the quickest ways to dry up those sources of money is to pull off one of those tricks.

Mr. Foulds: You know houses for resale are being remortgaged at a figure below the going rate. You know that happens. What about tabling the figures?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. He may be aware that Ontario Hydro has announced the signing of a contract with the Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. to supply 400 megawatts of coal-fired electricity over the next 50 weeks. This power is required by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. because it has had some problems with the Nine Mile Point nuclear reactor. So that the minister does not get confused, let us call this the son of General Public Utilities contract.

Since there will obviously be acid rain impact on us, can the minister inform us whether the Ministry of the Environment was involved in discussions surrounding the signing of this contract?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the accuracy of the assumptions that were implicit in the question, but I can tell the member that I was not involved in any such discussion.

Mr. Elston: Since we know that the Ministry of the Environment was not involved in the discussions, is the minister aware that the export arrangement will result in sulphur dioxide emissions of approximately 37,360 metric tons, which has the potential to kill 26 Ontario lakes over the term of this export of power from coal-fired plants? Why was the ministry not involved in the discussions on the deal? When will Ontario Hydro provide the leadership in the reduction of acid rain emissions that the throne speech has promised?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would urge the member to be aware of the danger in that kind of mathematical exercise that he is engaged in. I can assure him that in spite of what his researcher said, or what certain other persons with a keen interest in this subject say, there is really no basis upon which one can make those kinds of simplistic and potentially very misleading calculations.

I do not know what the subject matter of that particular contract is. It may well be a contract for interruptible power to meet peak requirements, in which case it would presumably be covered by the approvals that Ontario already has through the National Energy Board and all necessary agencies for interruptible exports, which they have been engaged in for many years.

It is also important for the member and everyone else to bear in mind that regardless of what interruptible exports Hydro may engage in, or if it were to get approval for some firm exports in the future, it is bound by the requirements of the regulation placed on it in terms of sulphur emissions. It does not have any exemption from that.

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Why did the minister feel it necessary to have his district managers across the province ordered by telex not to hire up to 500 people this summer, but rather that those jobs should be kept open for referrals, as they are called, from the minister and his friends?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the policy with respect to hiring this summer. It is traditional there be some allocation from the head office. The member and others of his party have taken advantage of that.

Mr. Laughren: We on this side of the House have been maligned. Does the minister not understand the resentment that policy causes among his own district managers in view of the fact there are high unemployment levels in many of the districts, particularly in northern Ontario? Does he not understand that many of the people who will not be able to get jobs because of the minister's political referrals are the best trained people, that these are the best paying jobs, and that these are the jobs which require experience and, in some cases, college and university training?

Will the minister direct his district managers to ignore that telex order from head office so we can have some justice, particularly in those communities in the north where they want and need to hire local people to fill those local jobs?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I reiterate there has been no change. The honourable member will know, if he has done his research, that we have hired virtually every applicant for the Junior Ranger program and that we have expanded a number of other summer employment programs this summer. The next time the member or one of the members of his party comes to see me about summer employment, he should remember this question today.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege as to the minister's response: Is the minister telling us that because we ask a question on the hiring policies of his ministry, from this point on any referrals that might come from this side of the House or any concerns that may be expressed on this side of the House about employment in communities where there is high unemployment, particularly in northern Ontario, will not be given serious consideration because we exercised our responsibilities to pursue the policies of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly what I said. I said the next time I would remind them of the question. I did not say there would be any change in the service we attempt to provide to members of this House on their requests.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated in the House that the 500 positions referred to in this telex are not a deviation from past performance and past political referrals. Will the minister table in the House the number of people who have received jobs for the last five years in regard to such referrals and the parties they came from?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES; AUTOMOTIVE HARDWARE DISPUTE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister indicate what action he is prepared to take with respect to Dolores Kelly, a single mother who was denied employment with J. M. Schneider Inc. of Kitchener because of her past history of a cancer operation? Is this type of employment discrimination acceptable to the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, before I address that, I thought the honourable member was going to ask me a question about Automotive Hardware, because there is some --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will get to the answer to the question in just a moment. I wanted to advise the member, because it is very encouraging news, that a tentative settlement has been reached in what has been a very arduous and lengthy period of negotiation. That particular company is in the riding of the member who just asked the question. The ratification vote will be taken on Sunday.

In response to the question that was asked by the member, I believe he asked me if I condoned that type of action. If the facts are correct, I do not condone that type of action at all.

Mr. Kolyn: I thank the minister for the information about Automotive Hardware. Can the minister ask the Ontario Human Rights Commission to accept an informal complaint to help effect a settlement on a good offices basis in this particular case?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The new Human Rights Code, Bill 7, prohibits discrimination in employment because of handicap, unless the handicap renders the person incapable of performing the essential duties of the job. As I understand this particular circumstance, the lady's health is quite sufficient for her to do the job in a capable manner.

The new Human Rights Code will not be proclaimed until June of this year and at the moment we do not have any legislation to cover it, but I will certainly be pleased to have the Ontario Human Rights Commission look into the matter.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why the bill passed on December 11 will not be proclaimed until June? In December of last year he was made aware of another case in Etobicoke in which similar discrimination took place. In spite of statements by the Ontario division of the Canadian Cancer Society that it was a common occurrence that cancer and ex-cancer patients were being discriminated against, why has he not seen fit to proclaim at least sections 4 and 9 of the bill so that this will not go on until June?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that the plans are to proclaim it. I sympathize with the matter the member has brought forward, more so than he might appreciate or realize.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have a personal circumstance of quite similar nature and that is why I have more than normal sympathy in the matter.

PROTECTION OF FISH

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. This year the coming of spring is one of the latest on record. Is the minister going to extend the protection period for the spawning pickerel on the Thames River? A portion of the river has been declared a wildlife sanctuary and the normal expiry date is today.

I am told that on the basis of the tagging operations carried on, it appears very few of the pickerel have spawned so far. Is the minister going to extend this period for the commercial fishermen and the sports fishermen, and also the Indian people on the Moravian reserve?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it sounds reasonable. I really do not have the answer but I will get back to the member before the day is out.

Mr. McGuigan: I appreciate the minister's response. I want to note the urgency of it being done today. I would point out the same condition exists for trout fishing in the Huron-Bruce area. The time period there runs out on the fourth Saturday in April. This year that falls on April 24, so it is actually an early date in a late year. I would ask the minister to look into that situation also.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, I will.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. Since all the workers in the mill area in Elliot Lake have been considered to have zero exposure to radiation despite working there maybe 20 years, what steps have now been taken to review all the claims of mill workers in view of the fact that the Workmen's Compensation Board has accepted two claims for exposure to gamma radiation in Chalk River -- the same type of exposure, I understand, that the workers are exposed to in the mills at Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there are discussions going on on that very point between my ministry and the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Mr. Martel: Since the only form of cancer recognized now at Elliot Lake is for underground miners exposed to radon daughters, and since the WCB is now prepared to accept two claims at Chalk River, are we now prepared to look at leukaemia and cancer in other organs? This is of particular concern in view of this recent statement by the Atomic Energy Control Board: "Although at present only radon daughter exposures are generally monitored and recorded in the mill and mine facilities, the workers are exposed to other radiation, e.g., external, which is gamma and beta thoron daughters in some mines and radioactive ores or concentrate dust. All these components have a cumulative potential health effect."

With this new approach by AECB, is it not time that we get on the ball and recognize those people who have died from cancer in the mills in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to accept that last statement by the member for Sudbury East. The Ministry of Labour and the Workmen's Compensation Board have dealt with this matter in a most serious way. There has been considerable progress made. I would like to think we are certainly on the right track.

I would like to take the opportunity at this time, if I may, to make a couple of comments that I believe are relevant. I hope members will bear with me, because normally my responses have been of a brief nature.

I have great respect for the member for Sudbury East. He has brought many incidents to my attention in the past few weeks. I think he will acknowledge that I have attempted to be extremely co-operative and to follow up in each and every case. My approach has been conciliatory rather than defensive. I could have answered questions earlier on the spot if I had wanted to be defensive, but I wanted to be able to provide substantive answers.

I am concerned, and this is the point I am getting to, that my approach could be construed as agreement in total with the complaints I have been receiving about the enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I believe we have excellent inspectors. Their numbers are limited as far as inspections are concerned. However, I do not believe in a battalion or shock-troop approach to these problems.

The impression is being left -- I know it has not been left intentionally, and I do not want to make that point -- that all employers in this province are crass, uncaring, inconsiderate types. That is simply not so. The vast majority are concerned and responsible people. It is the 10 per cent who are not on whom we must place all possible pressure, and that is what we are attempting to do.

3 p.m.

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure what prompted that little discussion with me that the minister has been so kind to present to the House. I was talking about the effects of gamma radiation --

Mr. Speaker: Can you tell us what your point of privilege is?

Mr. Martel: He did not answer the question, first of all.

Mr. Speaker: That is no privilege.

Mr. Martel: Just a second, Mr. Speaker. You then allowed him to go on under a totally different topic from what I was saying about inspectors. I was not even talking about inspectors: I was talking about the gamma ray exposure the WCB has just recognized in Chalk River.

Mr. Speaker: I heard both the question and the answers.

Mr. Martel: If this is an apology, I accept it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A final supplementary from the member for London North. No supplementary? A new question then.

Mr. Breaugh: If you would like a new question, I have one.

Mr. Speaker: No. I have one over here, thank you.

SAFETY OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Mr. Van Horne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a new question and not a supplementary. It is addressed to the Solicitor General.

While the minister is taking his place, I will point out that on November 7, 1981, an 18-month-old child, Randall Phillip Winter, died when he fell between vertical guardrails of a staircase in London's Centennial Hall. One month later a coroner's inquest recommended that the Ontario government institute a rehabilitation program aimed at upgrading safety in public and private buildings.

Is the Solicitor General prepared to recommend to the appropriate ministries that this coroner's recommendation be acted upon?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that inquest and the results, but I will review the matter and see whether any recommendations can be instituted by the government. If there are, I will make recommendations to any of my colleagues where they would be able to update any legislation where those safety recommendations could be instituted.

Mr. Van Horne: While the Solicitor General does that, will he report back to us the status of safety inspection in public buildings?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Yes.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. In his budget projections this year he has added in excess of $12 million for assessment purposes. How much of that more than $12 million is going into the one super revenue reassessment here in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I missed the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, but is the honourable member referring to our 1982-83 estimates?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Fine. The question does allude to the 1982-83 estimates process which, of course, we are just getting into. There will be ample time to get into that in great detail. In the meantime, I am prepared to answer that question.

Regarding the responsibilities under the Assessment Act we are asked to carry forward, doubtless one of them is to respond to the request made by municipalities under section 86 of the old act, now section 63 of the Assessment Act. Delivering those responsibilities has added burdens and hence additional cash necessities. One of these is the tax impact study now under way in the Metropolitan Toronto area, in the two cities and four boroughs. That is not the only reason relating to the increased expenditures of the ministry, but there is no doubt that it is a significant portion thereof.

Mr. Breaugh: Is it true that this week, for example, the minister has 100 assessment officers from around the province working here in Metro on this project and that by next week he will have brought in somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 people from outside Metro -- assessment people from Hamilton, Chatham, Owen Sound, Guelph and Windsor -- to work on this one project?

It is reported that the price tag for this project will be about $1 million a week for those reassessment purposes. On Tuesday of this week the minister brought in special legislation to unscrew a mess he created in Metro last year. He intends to proceed with a program of reassessment that is going to cost about $1 million a week in salary, overtime and benefits, and take away assessment officers from all these other Ontario centres. How does the minister justify that?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As usual, the facts in the possession of the honourable member are in error, but there is nothing new about that.

We have no additional assessors in Metropolitan Toronto this week. There could be one here for a given reason, but there are no significant numbers here. Next week we will have somewhere in the area of 100 in total in Metropolitan Toronto. There is no doubt about that: that is an ongoing situation. We have done that in every sizeable area where a section 86 impact study has been requested by the duly elected representatives of municipal government. That is a fact that eludes the member.

As to whether the moneys are well spent, I do not agree with his conclusions as to the numbers, because as usual they are grossly overstated. If we can give a service requested by duly elected representatives in municipal government, we are responsible for any reasonable amount of moneys that have to be dedicated for the delivery of the services we are asked to provide under the statutes.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I am in possession of a letter from the minister to an assessor outside Toronto informing him that he must spend two out of every three weeks in Toronto to assist with the simulation study relating to section 63. The assessor is being provided with a minimum of $19 per day for meals and $1,000 as a salary advance.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the supplementary question.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister is surely aware that at least one municipality has complained to him about the staff shortage he is creating around the province as a result of this move. Is this not a clear abuse of taxpayers' money and an unnecessary strain on these assessors and their families, who will be separated from each other for an indefinite period of time?

Further, why is the minister unwilling to roll back the 6,826 reassessments for this year, return his staff from outside Toronto to their home offices and do the simulation relating to section 63 with regular Toronto staff when time permits?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should know but obviously does not know. He has tried to confuse and muddy the waters of two issues which do not relate to each other at all.

When the member refers to rollbacks, in my view that is an issue that has already been dealt with in a fair and equitable manner in the legislation I introduced last week, and it will be dealt with on second reading. We will be happy to hear his views the week after next.

As far as the assessors being brought in from other parts of the province are concerned, these are dedicated civil servants who are being asked to go above and beyond their normal duties and they are being advanced expense money. It has nothing to do with salary. It has to do with expenses they are going to have. They are being asked to come here on a two-week basis and then go back to the municipalities for which they have responsibilities for a week.

Contrary to what has been alluded to in the question, this does not necessarily mean the same people are being brought back two weeks out of three on a continuous basis. That will not be the case. They have responsibilities at home and, as always, their families will be looked upon with great sympathy and compassion by this government and this ministry.

Mr. Charlton: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has suggested that assessors on the two-weeks-on, one-week-off rotation will not be brought in on a continuing basis. Will he please define "continuing," because some assessors have been told they will be doing that from now until the end of August?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston). Order. I did not see the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), but he was on his feet first.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: With great respect, if you did not see him, how did you know he was on his feet first? I have seen you miss speakers on other occasions and miss the rotation here. You should go with the person you see originally. Surely that is fair in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is indeed fair, but we are going in rotation.

Ms. Copps: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. I think there have been many more questions on this side of the House than on the government side.

Mr. Peterson: Isn't that strange.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not all that strange. I guess in a sense of fairness, and I think that is really what we are here for --

Mr. Riddell: Well, the questions on that side of the House, like the answers, are a lot of drivel anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter of opinion.

3:10 p.m.

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister met the president of the United Steelworkers in Sudbury as well as the members from the Sudbury region. At that time, he gave us a commitment that he, along with Mr. Axworthy, was going to provide some relief under section 38 for some of the laid-off miners and smelter workers in Sudbury.

We have not heard anything from the minister. He made that commitment some weeks ago; I want an answer.

Mr. Martel: You never have an issue of your own.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that was a prepared question, with all respect.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a Sunday afternoon in March we met representatives of the steelworkers' union, municipal representatives and the three members from the Sudbury area. I indicated we had made application.

I just want to confirm that on February 19, 1982, I sent a telex to Mr. Axworthy, indicating that we were willing to become involved in the Canada community development program. There was one proposal under that program we were interested in pursuing, and I quote: "Another project that I have in mind is the identification and fencing of abandoned mine openings that currently represent a serious hazard to health and safety."

On February 25, I sent another telex to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, indicating that we had set funding aside in the Ministry of Natural Resources 1982-1983 budget in anticipation of allocating some money to Ontario under section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. That was to create jobs for laid-off mine workers in communities where it is important that the skills represented by those who are unemployed be retained. I indicated that the fencing and capping of abandoned mine openings was an example that I considered having some potential for employment.

We remain committed to this program. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has discussed funding of the program.

We received a reply on March 12 from Mr. Axworthy, indicating that he was looking at our section 38 employment program and thought some progress could be made that way.

Since that time, officials of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Natural Resources have been meeting representatives of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and specifically Mr. Fox, the Ontario director. We have made progress respecting some specific programs in the Sudbury area, the Bancroft area, the Timmins area and, we hope, in a couple of areas in northwestern Ontario.

We have been in touch with the companies and the manpower adjustment committees respecting specific, detailed discussions of these proposals. The federal House is off this week. Mr. Axworthy will be back on Monday, and we anticipate arriving at some agreement in the near future between the federal and provincial governments.

At the March meeting, we also received some details of proposed programs under development by the manpower adjustment committee involving the tailings area, research mines, transfers, apprenticeship transfers and a land reclamation program, which I suggested at that meeting might be the operating authority under which that program could be funded; it could be the regional conservation authority.

Our officials met the manpower adjustment committee and the companies to indicate the criteria of section 38 and the existing programs of the federal government that could be utilized to employ some of these laid-off workers, but some of these projects do not qualify under those criteria. We have been working with the groups and I am hopeful the matter will be cleared up in the next week. We have not been ignoring the situation.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In view of the fact that I raised this precise question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) last week and he promised to pass the question on to the Minister of Natural Resources, and since the Minister of Natural Resources did not respond to my question, are we to take it that the minister's finely tuned sense of political patronage extends to the answering of questions in this chamber?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I wanted to wait to reply to the question, because I would rather have had the agreement signed with the federal government than discuss who had done what.

Mr. Laughren: It's called sleaze.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Talking about sleaze, I advised the member's House leader on Tuesday afternoon and evening that I would not be here on Thursday; so the member waited until Thursday to raise the questions.

EXTENSION OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to put my foot in the sleaze here. On two occasions during today's question period, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), who happens to be the one who did it today, interrupted the question period to make a totally unrelated, prepared statement. I wonder whether you might take that into consideration, either by adding time to the question period or by providing some directive to the ministers that if they want to revert to statements that's fine, we can accommodate that, but at least we should recognize when a minister does read a prepared statement.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Of course, I recognized that. I allowed the minister to answer the question, because he could have taken time in question period to respond to a previously asked question. I thought it would be quicker and would take less time to allow him to proceed in the way he did.

For the information of all honourable members, question period has been extended five minutes beyond the time allotted. I did that intentionally.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; there are no supplementaries.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In considering the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing last week, we had a long and strenuous debate with the minister about his lack of movement in the housing and mortgage interest fields. He promised he would deliver some answers to me concerning the Alaska six per cent mortgage plan, which has things booming up there now. Has the minister given that any study, and does he have any answers for the House as to what he is going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will have the answer, but I think it should probably be in the form of a ministerial statement at the appropriate time.

Mr. Sargent: Is he going to move or not?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question that would be more appropriately asked in question period.

Mr. Sargent: Let him answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the honourable member last Tuesday in relation to my supplementary estimates and his statement about certain things that were taking place. To the best of my recollection, I did not say I would table any answer to the question in this House, but I can assure this House that any statement made by any member of the House is analysed by the people of my ministry as to the validity of trying to implement a similar program in Ontario, if it is worthy of being implemented.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously there is a difference of opinion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I ask all honourable members to cease their private conversations so we may hear the order of business going on in the House. I remind the member for Sudbury East and the Minister of Labour.

3:20 p.m.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Barrie:

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the order for third reading of Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act, be discharged and the bill referred back to the committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. Di Santo and Mr. R. F. Johnston exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the report of December 1980 of the standing committee on procedural affairs, entitled A New Committee System, be placed on the Order Paper for consideration.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the amendment bill seeks to clarify the language and intent of one section of the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, which received third reading in December 1981 and was proclaimed on February 1, 1982.

The bill sets out new procedures for the resolution of municipal boundary disputes, replacing procedures in the Municipal Act, which authorize councils to apply by bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board for hearing and decision on boundary changes applications.

It also allows the municipal board to assess costs incurred by a municipality whose territory was the subject of an application under the old process against the applicant municipality.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Robinson moved, seconded by Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, first reading of Bill 63, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives additional enforcement powers to municipalities that have enacted property standards bylaws. Such municipalities may add the cost of correcting violations of the bylaw to the owner's property tax bill and may enact bylaws authorizing tenants to pay rent to the municipality rather than to the owner until a repair order has been complied with.

Property standards officers may have repairs carried out immediately in emergency situations.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 17, 18, 28, 29 and 30 and the interim answer to question 31 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, to introduce today's first resolution, allow me to welcome representatives from across the province of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member please move the resolution in the normal manner, with the seconder, and then he may proceed.

Mr. Gillies: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.

Mr. Gillies moved, seconded by Mr. Dean, resolution 12:

That this House acknowledges the tremendous contribution of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario to the growth, maturity and development of young people across the province. Moreover, in recognition of the fact that these clubs require significant assistance from their municipalities and individual volunteers to coordinate, manage and supervise their programs, this House urges the Minister of Revenue to consider municipal assessment tax exemptions for the registered affiliates of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: If I may, I would like to remind the honourable member at this time that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation. He may reserve any portion of that time for the windup.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to welcome representatives of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario from across the province who are here today in our galleries. I understand that a number of them are viewing the House proceedings for the first time today. I hope they are finding the experience as enjoyable and as beneficial as I am sure we all do.

I would also like to thank those representatives and members of the House who dropped by today's seminar at lunch time. I think it was informative and put across, in a reasonably successful manner, the argument we are espousing today.

This afternoon, I wish to build on that success. During the next hour I will ask colleagues on both sides of the House to consider and appraise the contribution of the boys' and girls' clubs in communities across the province. Moreover, as evidence of our appreciation and support, I will urge this House to approve the concept of exempting the 22 clubs from property tax assessment.

To this end, let me briefly explain how the resolution came into being. Like many concerns brought to all members of the House, this one originated through a letter from a constituent.

Last year, Mr. Norman Graham, the president of the Boys and Girls Club of Brantford, pointed out that the club's property tax bill for 1981 had just been computed and that the club would have to return $3,500 to the city of Brantford. I say return, because the club does receive a grant in excess of this amount from the municipality.

After further discussions, I learned that the Brantford club had been returning a portion of their grant to the municipality for eight years. The total property taxes paid had been more than $28,000 and, ironically, that club has an accumulated deficit of almost $30,000.

3:30 p.m.

The facts in this case disturb me. First, the quality of service the club provides to the community is quite remarkable. Operating in the inner city of Brantford, the club makes recreation and guidance a reality for almost 500 young people. Membership fees average $4.50 annually, and these are often optional. Programs and activities are organized six and sometimes seven days a week by more than 20 volunteers, and a free bus service assists youngsters in coming to the club. As well, the buses are utilized in the summer for outreach and camping activities.

What is most astonishing about the club's operation is the limited support it receives from charitable organizations. Since this club receives no assistance from the United Way, at least in the Brantford instance, it is largely dependent on a municipal grant, plus bingo revenues, income from bake sales and so on.

Equally astonishing is that Brantford is only one of 22 clubs in the province which attempt to provide a consistently first-rate service to the community without significant charitable support and in spite of the property tax burden.

Allow me to put the province-wide organization into some sort of perspective. The 22 boys and girls clubs in Ontario stretch from Niagara Falls to Thunder Bay and encompass communities as diverse as Lindsay and Toronto. More than 1,250 volunteers in the province coordinate and supervise the programs for over 16,000 young people. The clubs are affiliated with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, a nonprofit, nonsectarian youth organization comprising almost 100 chapters nationwide.

All clubs rely heavily on community involvement to organize activities, supervise programs and to help offset the substantial financial burdens incurred by club operations. Volunteers need no specific skill except an ability and a desire to communicate with youngsters. One free night a week and some measure of flexibility and patience are all that is really required.

As for the rewards, I can only remind members of the gratification that comes with freely contributing to the quality of a youngster's outlook and development. The Brantford club's motto brings into focus the words, "We believe in the next generation and we are doing something about it."

There are three essential reasons why this House should consider property tax exemptions for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. With the members' indulgence, I will briefly deal with each of these reasons. The most compelling argument for tax exemption is that of equity. I refer to subsection 10 of section 3 of the Assessment Act which exempts properties owned by the Boy Scouts of Canada and Girl Guides of Canada from property tax assessment.

As I have already gone to great lengths to explain the nature of the service provided by this third organization, there is no benefit in labouring the point they provide a service very similar to that provided by the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides.

I also point out that the fee structure of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario enables any youngster in the province to participate in club activities. As a result, no child is denied admission because he cannot afford a uniform or an annual fee.

This fact is all the more vital when I remind members that many of the clubs are located in the inner-city cores of their municipalities. For fear the House may be wary of extending a tax break to one organization, certain that other organizations will want the same treatment, I remind members that equity in this case pertains to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario and similar organizations that already enjoy that tax exemption.

It is important to note these three organizations provide a unique and extraordinary service to communities across the province. The fact remains that no other organization provides a similar service. Thus, in the resolution I have proposed, no other organization would be eligible for this tax exemption.

Finally, there is also a question of equity among the 22 clubs themselves, as a number of them have informal or legal arrangements with their municipalities that put into effect the tax exemption but this is not a reality in any equitable form across the 22 clubs.

A second factor which I hope will influence the decision of the House regards the question of lost tax revenue to the municipalities. The revenue collected by five sample municipalities last year was simply grant money being returned to the same municipality making the grant. It seems almost ludicrous that the clubs, already choked by inadequate financial resources, should have to pay back in tax what they receive as a grant. It is even more ludicrous when one considers that in some cases the taxes exceeded the municipal grant, or in one case a club's tax assessment will increase from $444 in 1981 to over $2,000 in 1982.

As a third argument, I would ask the House to consider the effect a tax exemption would have on the growth and development of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. As such, I wish to point out that we are indeed discussing an economic issue. This is a point I would really like to emphasize with the members of the House. I think I have introduced here something that is indeed an economic issue.

The pressures on the Boys and Girls Club of Brantford increased proportionately to the unemployment and layoff problems experienced in my community in the last year. Their sources of revenue did not increase to the same extent as the pressures brought to bear on this inner-city organization trying to help people who are disadvantaged in so very many different ways. It is indeed an economic issue. We have the power to extend valuable and timely support to an organization that services many of our province's most disadvantaged citizens.

I take little satisfaction in pointing out that the March unemployment rate among young adults in Ontario was 17.3 per cent. That is one per cent below the Canadian average, but none the less I am sure unacceptable to any member of this House. Equally distressing, the unemployment rate among youths 15 to 19 years of age was 20.5 per cent. In 22 communities these people are getting tangible help, counselling and assistance from a voluntary organization, that being a member club of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. Statistics such as these underscore the difficult economic times being experienced by Ontario, Canada and, indeed, the industrialized world. As the member for an industrial city like Brantford, I feel a particularly deep concern for young labourers at present unable to find work.

Through my involvement with the Ontario youth secretariat I am also acutely aware of how valuable direction and guidance can be for youths seeking first employment. For this reason alone I urge members to support property tax exemptions for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. I ask members to recognize that this is a positive, constructive and reasonable move which could lead to legislation to increase the visibility, the role and the viability of these clubs.

Although I wish to reserve a couple of minutes to reply to any possible questions or problems that may arise in the debate, I would like to summarize briefly the argument I am making. The resolution I have brought before the House concerns the acknowledgement and recognition by us of an organization in Ontario which selflessly contributes to the growth and development of youngsters in the province. I have described the objectives of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, their structure and their record. I have also attempted to explain that for reasons of equity, fairness and common sense, the 22 clubs operating in Ontario should not have to bear the burden of property tax.

I recognize that honourable members may now assess the validity of this argument and consider the evidence I have put forward. However, I trust they have been struck by the profound integrity of the organization, as I have been. Today we have the opportunity to give these clubs added strength and renewed purpose. In unity, the House can deliver a message to the clubs and to the youngsters of the province: We do believe in the next generation and we are doing something about it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the name of equity to support this resolution this afternoon. I do so as one who has been actively and continuously involved in youth work, since I was a participant myself until the time I was elected to this Legislature. The involvement of my family in youth work goes back very many years. I think it is appropriate to put on the record, for the sake of those Kiwanians who are here this afternoon that my father, the late Egbert C. Reed, was the founder of the Boys K Club.

3:40 p.m.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I might remind all guests in the gallery that only members are allowed to participate in any kind of verbal or other acknowledgement in the chamber.

Mr. J. A. Reed: But, Mr. Speaker, it is exciting. I am sure the Speaker will allow a little latitude.

But as history goes, with his efforts and the money put forward by the late T. P. Loblaw, the Boys K Club became a very successful institution unto itself. He was also involved in the Griffintown boys club in Montreal and later with the Newsboys Welfare Fund here in the city, so the concern for youth runs long and deep.

It would be easy in this debate to simply engage in a diatribe of apple pie and motherhood, but I also think it is appropriate to provoke some thought in this debate so that we actually understand what it is we are engaged in.

I am concerned that youth organizations in this province and in this country continue to be able to operate at arm's length from government. I am sure all of those youth workers who are here today will agree with that. I am concerned that whatever encouragement we as government give to youth organizations it always be understood it will be in an arm's-length situation so there is never any possibility in the future for any political coercion or connection.

I say that with reference to the extreme other side. For instance, in a country like East Germany the government supports the youth movement to the hilt. It supplies everything. It has adopted what were formerly excellent programs -- in that case, programs written and constituted by the late Baden-Powell, the Boy Scouts movement -- and has turned them into a medium for indoctrination. It seems to me we must always be on our guard that does not happen.

We could speak of another area in the Second World War in Nazi Germany where the Boy Scouts movement was outlawed and Hitler Youth was substituted.

I think the record should show our concern as legislators that whatever we do and however we progress in our support for youth and youth work and those volunteers who dedicate their time and talent, that should always be kept in the back of our minds.

There is one other area about which I think we should be concerned -- that is, to what extent government should become involved in the expectations of youth and youth movements. It seems to me some of the basic tenets of youth organizations are to inculcate through that experience self-reliance, the ability to become a self-starter, the ability to gain self-confidence and to become a good citizen.

It always poses something of a concern that if government becomes too deeply involved some of those very core areas of the programs that are being run may be at least diluted if there is too much assumption that the Big Brother of government might become increasingly involved.

I would like to say a word about the work the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario do. As we learned today, since 1947 there are now 22 boys and girls clubs. They work in municipal areas of the province that sometimes are not as well served by organizations such as scouting which perhaps require somewhat more in terms of individual resources.

I think it is fair as well to pay tribute to the most important element in the success of youth programs and that is the volunteer leadership which continues on a sustaining basis: leadership which is always scarce, leadership which is dedicated and self-sacrificing, leadership which never stops to think about itself but always has those boys and girls foremost in mind.

We in government can acknowledge the great work that leadership is doing and hope that through this resolution and the profile it is receiving it will perhaps inspire others to take a harder look at the boys and girls clubs and other youth organizations and give something of their time and talent to the future of our youth, which is our greatest resource in this province and in this country.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the resolution before the House this afternoon. I am reasonably pleased to do that, but I must say I would have been much happier and much more pleased to rise in support of the other option the honourable member had. That was to introduce a private bill on this matter, which would have had the wonderful ability of actually accomplishing something.

While I am happy to support the resolution as an expression of the opinion of this House, I also have to recognize it is not going to do anybody, anywhere, in any boys and girls clubs in Ontario any good. It is true they can take this fine resolution back, frame it and tack it on the wall, but it is not going to relieve them of any property taxes, it is not going to provide a penny in their coffers and it really is not going to tell them much more than what I am sure they already knew when they came in here today; that is, that most members in this House have some experience with clubs and associations along these lines that work with young people.

Almost all of us have some experience in working with those associations and I do not think there is a member in here who would be dumb enough to say he is against helping young people. I am a little at a loss then to understand why the member chose to provide us with a resolution as opposed to a bill. I dare say a private bill on this matter this afternoon would have gone through with unanimous consent from all three parties and would have added itself to that illustrious group of two private member's bills which have actually been passed by this government.

I want to point out the other aspect of this, as someone who worked on a municipal council for a lengthy period. This matter poses problems to municipalities. I know in my own municipality we always had difficulties, coming around to the argument each time we went through the budget every year as to whether a grant was given in lieu of taxes or whether we tried to exempt taxes. Then we looked across Ontario at all the organizations which had private bills, got grants, were exempt by statute, were exempt by policy, and got a grant each and every year through the municipal budget.

There is a dog's breakfast out there. If we are looking for areas where we might bring in further legislation, let me suggest to the government that it might want to bring in a piece of legislation which would finally provide across Ontario some reasonable redress for organizations which are not provincially funded and which do not have gobs of money coming out of their ears and which do, like these organizations, provide us with an extremely valuable service, and at the same time deal with the problems that municipalities have.

3:50 p.m.

While it is nice on a municipal council to provide a grant in lieu of taxes, for example, or to provide some mechanism whereby these organizations are exempt from paying municipal property taxes, one also has to balance the books at some point. That means organizations such as these, which by and large might be classified as doing some form of social work, are being put on a municipal tax base, which was not the original purpose of a municipal tax base. So it does cause a problem.

I listened with some concern to previous members who bragged that there was very little, if any, government involvement. It is true. The old jackboot of the provincial government does not even have a tippytoe in the funding of this kind of operation. In my municipality, as in many, most of the youth organizations are heavily dependent on charitable donations, and most of that money comes to them either through private donations or through organizations like the United Way.

There is no question in my mind, and it has been recognized by those who worked on the United Way campaign this year, that in a municipality which is looking at 12,000 people who are unemployed now, and more to come later in the summer, United Way campaigns this year are going to have problems they have not been facing in a lot of cities for quite some time. People who would normally want to donate regularly to private charity through the United Way or some other organization are not going to have any disposable income to do that.

While I share some concern that there always would be some room left for volunteers to provide assistance and for organizations to grow up, like Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, in a totally independent way, I also have to recognize that one has to fund them one way or the other. It would be nice if they had some assurance that there were some recognized and common bases for funding across the province so they would not be worried about an economic downturn such as we are now experiencing, which increases the need for this kind of work in every community across the province. There is the irony that the need increases, dramatically in some instances, but the sources of funding shrivel. That becomes an extremely serious problem.

If one could see the government rushing in with some amounts of money for it, if one saw that it was as committed to this kind of investment in human beings, sometimes very young human beings, as it was to out-of-province oil companies, we might then be able to say we are sharing a cost arrangement and we expect the private sector to provide operational funds.

We could be saying that the province will not punish the municipalities but will provide some grant in lieu of taxation, so that for each and every one of these organizations, in every city in the province and all of the towns and villages where there are also organizations active in this field, in all of those places there is fairness. We are not trying to load on to a municipal property tax base, through the back door, more and more social expenditure. We have accounted for that, so that there is fairness and some measure of uniformity. I am not dogmatic about uniformity. There ought to be some fairness between one organization in one community which does not pay any property tax at all and another in another community that has to pay full tilt. There is a need.

I would have preferred to see a private bill because that would have given the people who came here this afternoon, and who spoke to the members during the noon hour, something to go home with other than a piece of paper. It would have given them a commitment on the part of all members here to actually provide the legislation which would accomplish what is being asked for in the resolution. It would have been a reasonable thing to go along with that, to provide some recognition that in this particular year these organizations are going to pay the price for the economic downturn. Their resources will be less and the demands for their services will be greater. I would have liked to have seen something of a positive nature in that regard.

Finally, I would have been happier if we had been looking at something which addressed itself to the problem on a slightly larger scale. Initially, I said I am happy to support the resolution, and I am. I am just as significantly happy as when I send a good friend a Christmas card. It is an expression of concern and of support. It shows that I thought of them, but it does not do much more for them. Frankly, I think the children who are served by these organizations, the people who work in these organizations and the people who volunteer their time to make the organizations function well, deserve much more this afternoon than a simple expression of concern. I am by no means opposed to doing that.

I had the opportunity at noon to spend about 10 minutes in the committee, between one committee and my office, to kind of drop in and listen to part of their presentation. It was an impressive one, and the room was full of people I recognized from my own community and from other communities around the province.

They are dedicated and committed to this kind of work and they should be supported in every way possible. But I do find it is with some reluctance that I look at a resolution this afternoon that provides them with very minimal support.

It does not do anything for them when the opportunity clearly is there. Since we have heard from all three caucuses, I thought we would have had unanimous consent this afternoon for a private bill which would have done something for them in a very difficult time, which would have provided something that is not just an expression of concern but something which is real and concrete and helps both the organization and the children it serves.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the debate by following up on my colleagues' comments and with some brief comments of my own, particularly about the programs and activities of a specific boys and girls club in the area from which I come.

This is the Hamilton East Kiwanis Boys and Girls Club, which is in the riding of Hamilton East, represented by our colleague, Mr. Mackenzie. It is an outstanding example of this kind of community service, reaching beyond the borders of political divisions.

The Hamilton East club is located in a residential area near Hamilton's industrial heart. More than 1,600 youngsters are card-carrying members of the club and a further 1,500 drop in from time to time for athletic and recreational activities. Most of these young people come from the immediate area, where the need is the greatest, although some of the boys and girls come from farther away to take advantage of the excellent club programs.

Like most clubs in Ontario, the Hamilton East chapter charges a nominal membership fee of $2 a year, but it is widely known that if, for any reason, a boy or girl can not meet that fee, it is waived.

The history of the Hamilton East club reflects the dedication of volunteers to serve this community the same way they do throughout the other 21 areas of the province. The first club was founded in 1940, when some of us were just about finished high school and others were not even born. They met in the basement of a school. After the war, they bought a half of what was known in those days as an army H hut and set it up on property nearby, having acquired it from the army trade school.

This wooden building could be a symbol of what was going on. It was temporary in the nature of its construction; it was permanent in the nature of the community's commitment, especially the club's, to provide a place where children could find a range of activities to keep them busy and happy.

After operating out of this structure for several years, the Hamilton East club secured a site on Ellis Avenue in 1961 from the city of Hamilton and carried out a very successful fund-raising drive to erect the present club. Even with this new facility, the club was swamped with applications for programs, as it has been ever since. Interestingly, during the mid-50s girls were permitted to join the club for activities one day a week. On that day, boys were not supposed to be there. That is quite a contrast to today when everything that goes on is completely co-educational.

Indeed, the Hamilton East club, open from seven in the morning until 11 at night six days a week, is an example of one that is a thriving operation. It attracts an average of 500 youngsters each day and without ever having used any advertising as such, attendance at the club grows steadily. In many cases, it is serving a third generation of youngsters. There are more than 100 volunteers and five full-time staff to co-ordinate and supervise the programs.

4 p.m.

In 1982 the club will be funded by $50,000 from the city. It is also informally exempt from paying property tax, one of the few organizations that is exempt by the action of the city. In addition to a grant from the United Way of about a quarter of its revenues, the club generates additional funds through private donations. This is no doubt a result of the astonishing number of additional community activities in which it is involved. In some cases, it is able to secure some rental from groups, union associations and other private individuals who want to take advantage of the recreational facilities in off-hours when the children are not using them.

In addition to that purely recreational and social aspect, the Hamilton East club has other programs. It administers a day care facility operating out of its own building and provides households in the area, many of which are single parent households, with the assurance that children are being responsibly cared for in the absence of adults, which is often necessitated by the need to earn a living.

A second program the club is involved in is the managing of a group home for young adults. This was launched three years ago and is managed by the club through the supervision of a family residing on the premises. Like so many other group homes, it provides an alternative to institutional care, a stable environment for six or seven teenagers, and encourages them to develop responsibility and maturity while they continue their high school work.

The final example I wish to mention of the club's community involvement is its leadership in a nonprofit housing venture for residents of the inner city. The directors of the club became increasingly aware in years past that many problems experienced by youngsters were a result of poor housing accommodation because of a money crunch, unsatisfactory buildings or whatever. In co-operation with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., it has recognized the serious impact on young people when a family cannot afford adequate housing, and it is doing something about it.

I will conclude my remarks with two observations on the general nature and role of this club, which is certainly a bellwether for other clubs around the province. First, the range of the club's services to the community is astounding and inspiring. It has built on its contribution to youngsters in the area and now operates programs for individuals of all ages, interests and backgrounds, from preschool to seniors, from swimming to crafts, from drama to baseball.

Second and more important, I wish to underline how the club's operation is just a reflection of similar programs throughout Ontario. As I mentioned before there are 22 clubs throughout different areas of the province providing a very similar quality of service.

The resolution we are debating will help the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario to devote more of their precious resources to one purpose, to help our young people to grow into responsible, helpful adults. I hope all members will support it.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly, but I do appreciate the opportunity to rise and associate myself with the honourable member's resolution and to express my appreciation to him for introducing it. It is not necessary to speak at length on this because I think the member has given a great deal of background on the work of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, the number of people involved and the work they are doing.

I am pleased to associate myself with the resolution because I had an opportunity to serve for a term on the board of Kawartha Youth Inc. in the town of Lindsay. I wish through this debate to pay tribute to all who have served and are serving in a volunteer way to assist the operation of Kawartha Youth in that town.

There is a need for such clubs in the smaller communities and not just the larger urban areas. We often think these clubs are more or less a part of a large urban community but, with our lifestyle today and with what is happening in our communities, there is a need for such operations and such a volunteer spirit to help young people in our communities, regardless of their size. I am pleased to say that, while I am not sure if Lindsay is the smallest community to be involved in Kawartha Youth, we certainly must rank high as one of the most active communities. The story of Kawartha Youth is one I am sure all members of this Legislature and all citizens of Ontario would be proud of.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Bob Steffler who was at the meeting at noon hour. He is one who has given great service to Kawartha Youth in Lindsay until just recently. I am sure it is because of his excellent work over a number of years that he has now accepted a position in the national office. It speaks well not only of his work in the Lindsay club but also of his ability as a director. He has been a great citizen in that town. The people there are going to miss him very much and I know his heart will still be with the young people he has served and they will not forget him. Bob Steffler and Norm Cooper before him deserve a great deal of credit.

I recall the early days in the formation of that club. There was a need within the community. Some young people came together in a small way to do something for those who needed assistance in counselling and other service. Out of that grew a total community involvement and spirit which formed the Kawartha Youth Inc. I pay tribute to the generous support of the various churches in that community, all of the service clubs, and certainly the town of Lindsay. They have played their part in helping this organization to get off the ground and be maintained.

I would point out to the members we must be careful not to discourage the volunteer spirit behind such clubs by necessarily looking for total funding. I think this would be not in line with the operation of such a club and I suppose this would never happen. Kawartha Youth in Lindsay, which I am proud to say raised well over 50 per cent of its funding needs, is an example of helping young people who need this assistance. The young people have also helped the community as a result of their involvement with Kawartha Youth. It is a two-way street. They have been helped and they have helped the community.

It is an organization, an association of boys and girls clubs across this province, that deserves support and encouragement. I express my appreciation to the member for Brantford for introducing the resolution. I support it and I am sure my colleagues will support it. I hope all members of the House will lend their support.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion brought forward by the member for Brantford.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This is a very interesting debate but I do not think we have a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

4:13 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member for Scarborough West may continue.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not I should thank the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) for bringing me an audience because as soon as I start I know the audience will start to disappear again.

The Acting Speaker: Take advantage of it; you have the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In case those members are not aware of what is on the Order Paper today, I am rising to support the resolution brought forward by the member for Brantford to provide municipal tax exemption for the boys and girls clubs of the province.

I do this for many reasons. One is that if there had been these kinds of organizations where I was raised, my misspent youth might not have turned me into the kind of member the members see before them today.

Second, I have seen in this House, day in and day out, the need for boys-and-girls-club-style service for the page-boys and page-girls here. They are becoming more unruly as each session goes on. They must be picking it up from the members. It is an awful thing.

As the members can tell, both of those things were said with tongue in cheek.

Mr. Nixon: The member has to say that or the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) gets all worked up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I know. I am not advocating that we bring back the strap. I want to make that very clear at this point.

Mr. Stokes: She is very sensitive to everything that is said in here and insensitive to the needs out there.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A good interjection, after all.

I did want to question the member for Brantford --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is not trying to make any aspersions about the pages in any way. That was humour that was being offered, I assume.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A good point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: Quick.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Very quick.

I wanted to ask the member for Brantford why he brought it in as a resolution. It seems to me a very strange approach to take in this kind of matter where there is an overall acceptance by all members of the House that assistance to Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario is a good thing. I never would impute motive, but I heard a rumour that one of the difficulties was that he was not being invited out to lunch very much recently and this was one means of guaranteeing a number of people to go out with at lunchtime. I have no idea if that is true.

My not attending the lunch today was by no means a statement about my friendship with Mario Ferri, the director of the West Scarborough Boys and Girls Club. I might have been wrong but I thought there might have been just a tinge of partisan attempt to glorify a situation, to make it seem as if only the Tories were in favour of this kind of assistance and that I did not really wish to participate.

I have been involved with the West Scarborough Boys and Girls Club, and in my view property tax exemption is not their major need, although I welcome this initiative. I would have welcomed more a bill that might have brought in legislation which would assist them directly now rather than just a statement of good intentions, which is what a resolution is.

My feeling is that boys and girls clubs need stabilized funding. I am not talking about total government funding, but they need a stabilized funding base if they are going to provide the kinds of services they have been. I do not think we can talk, as one of the members of the Liberal Party did, about a total arm's length kind of situation with boys and girls clubs.

My God, right now they are involved in the grantsmanship they all have to go through just to meet their operating budgets. They participated in Experience '77, '78, '79, '81 -- and hopefully in '82, God knows -- to get the grants in order to get money for programming during the summers. They also get money from federal programs for programming during the summers.

They are involved with government support. It just happens to be ad hoc and totally inadequate now, which means that directors of boys and girls clubs and their staffs spend so much time fund-raising that they do not have enough time to concentrate on the programs which should be their main concern.

I have been involved in an advisory capacity in terms of fund-raising for my boys and girls club and I have also been involved in a more practical way. I participated for two years in a row in a program which takes place every December to make up for funding shortfalls, in order to make sure the staff are paid. The West Scarborough Boys and Girls Club holds a swimathon and for two years in a row I swam 50 lengths. Members will be proud to know that. I can see the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) is proud to know it, as he is yawning as I speak. I swam 50 lengths to raise some money for that need.

Last year I was unable to do it. I happened to be doing lengths of the province instead, and was unable to make it when I would have liked to have been there to assist the club. That points out a terrible problem. If just to meet their regular staffing needs, the payments to their staff, they have to hold a swimathon at the end of each year and hope it has raised enough to maintain that staff at the year's end, something is wrong with the funding of that institution. I would suggest that a municipal tax break is not going to be sufficient to deal with it.

I had a picture I wanted to provide to Hansard of myself diving into the pool at the West Scarborough Boys and Girls Club -- a little overweight I might say -- with the mayor of Scarborough shooting off a gun in another direction. However my assistant told me that it might breach the obscenity laws of the province if I were to introduce it, and if not, it would definitely breach anybody's sense of common decency.

Let me praise the work of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, their counselling and the recreational programming. I think it is admirable. I have found that they operate very well in co-operation with other groups in my community. They do work in an inner city area in my riding where there are many problems and many needs of people in a fair degree of poverty.

The people there do not have the capacity to provide the kinds of services for their children that middle class people like ourselves perhaps take for granted. They work very closely with Mennonites in my area who work in inner city programming. They work very closely with the board of education and with other groups. I appreciate the work they have done in the Oak Ridges community and Regent Heights community in my riding. Their volunteer boards do sterling work, as do the many volunteers who assist the staff in that facility.

4:20 p.m.

If I could just talk to the notion of municipal tax equity for a second, it is true that Scouts and Girl Guides receive that kind of assistance, but I would point out to the member for Brantford that day care centres are now being taxed municipally in this province and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) thinks that is fine. If we are talking about equity, I think we should be looking at other kinds of groups that could use this kind of break as well, not just the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario. We should also look at senior citizens of this province who are paying inordinate amounts of property tax to pay for education. That is the kind of thing we should perhaps be looking at in property tax if we are looking at that kind of exemption principle.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario are now relying a great deal on municipal grants and United Way grants. Those are not going to be adequate in the next little while because municipal governments are feeling the crunch of cutbacks even more severely than we are at this level. The United Way is most certainly feeling that crunch. What they need is some kind of guaranteed base from the provincial government. They would still do their fund-raising, still go after local support from community organizations and their own fund-raising approaches, but they need that base and the province should be providing that base to them.

Although I support this notion of giving extra assistance to this organization, as the critic for ComSoc looking at priorities in this province, I do not think anyone in the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario would disagree that we have children's mental health centres where children have been waiting a year for service because of lack of funding and we have day care needs that are not being met anywhere. People are losing their jobs because there is no 24-hour day care provided in the province. When I look at the poverty of pensioners and at people on general welfare I say, "My God, maybe we should be looking at other priorities."

If I can get one dig in at the member for Brantford, he comes from a riding that has been sorely hit by the deindustrialization of this province. We get up on these rotations to do a private members' bill once a year or once every two years if we are lucky. I am surprised that, when the member could speak directly to the economic needs of his municipality, he did not at least come up with a practical bill to give something specific and hard to these people, instead of a nebulous resolution of support.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate with pleasure and pride. I will only speak briefly to emphasize my strong support for the adoption of the resolution of the member for Brantford. Today this House will be doing a great service to the boys and girls of Ontario and to youngsters throughout the province by taking this significant and appropriate step. It is a pleasure to see the interest shown in this resolution by the people here today. It is enlightening to learn a lot of people are concerned about the youth of the province. I agree with the quorum call suggested by the member for Downsview, but I wonder why he did not stay to hear the debate on the resolution. Perhaps he called it so he could get out for a while.

I would like to focus my comments on the history and growth of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, and Canada. I do so, not only to enlighten and inform members of the constructive work being done, but also as a reminder to the House of the sizeable contributions volunteer organizations make in the growth and development of the youth of our province. As we move into the 1980s we do so with the recognition that seldom in our history have the problems and challenges of our society's youth been of greater concern to ourselves and to governments alike.

We are often reminded that today's only constant is change. We must not fail to remember that the youth of our society is especially prone to these difficulties of adjustment. In their personal lives at school and play today's youth profit immensely from the same direction and guidance that characterized the adolescence stage in the lives of many of us. It is therefore with great admiration that I remind members of the beginnings of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada. The clubs have been a focus of guidance and direction for youngsters of all ages and backgrounds since 1868.

The first club, launched in Montreal, provided much the brand of athletic and recreational activities that is their trademark today. In 1900, the name Boys Club was coined for a youth centre in Saint John, New Brunswick. This marked the organizational beginning of the clubs in eastern Canada and the Maritimes. In 1905, the Griffintown Boys Club of Montreal was the first to establish itself in a permanent building. The first Boys Club in Toronto opened at the conclusion of the First World War. By 1924 there were nine clubs in six cities across Canada.

Five years later the Boys Club Federation of Canada was formed, providing the clubs with a nation-wide network of human and technical resources with which to expand. The organization grew to 30 clubs in 10 communities by the end of the Second World War, with growth concentrated in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. This was also the period during which the Kiwanians became involved in the operations of many clubs, a proud and honourable collaboration that exists to this day.

Although each new boys club was being developed along lines most suitable to the community concerned, the national organization developed a constitution of its own in 1949. The constitution helped administer increasing numbers of clubs during the 1950s. For example, in 1952, there were 40 clubs; in 1954 there were 46; in 1956 there were 56 and by the end of 1958 there were 69 clubs in 38 communities from coast to coast. This expansion has continued to the present with more than 100 clubs now in operation. In 1976, the organization adopted its present name, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada. Today as a result, no child is refused membership for any reason whatsoever.

I will conclude my remarks by pointing out that 50,000 youngsters throughout Canada are served by boys and girls clubs -- 16,000 of them in Ontario. As well, 7,000 volunteers nationwide ensure a continuous flow of programs and activities.

With astonishing figures such as these I think it is clear these clubs are making a sizable and unique contribution to the social fabric of our country. Perhaps the historical perspective I have offered this afternoon will further inform members of the worthy, significant strides being made by the boys and girls clubs to youth development in Ontario, Canada and indeed nations all over the world.

I compliment the member for Brantford for introducing this resolution and I urge every member to support it.

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kent-Elgin has four minutes.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in support of this resolution. I join in all the very complimentary remarks on matters of history that other members have expressed in regard to boys and girls clubs.

However, as others have mentioned, I wish the member had brought in a bill and specifically addressed it as an amendment to the Municipal Act or as an act by itself that would have addressed the problem we have in so many areas of senior citizens clubs, farmers clubs and youth clubs throughout the province.

I am speaking especially to those in rural areas who, I believe, in many cases do not benefit from the charitable operations that take place in the larger cities. The money that is raised by sophisticated programs tends to go to larger centres. I believe that is true also of Wintario. I am grateful for the moneys that have come to my riding, especially to arenas, but these tend to be large-scale operations and they do not get to the back roads where there is a particular problem that I have had brought to my attention. I beg the indulgence of the House to mention this.

When the school system changed from the small, rural public schools to centralized schools, many of the old school houses were bought by community groups, often by farmers clubs. Those are expensive buildings to maintain and especially to heat in this day of high energy costs. These people have gone ahead with programs looking after the youth in the area and catering to the older people to develop a sense of community. That sense of community is becoming a greater problem as our farm population drops and as more parts of our society are centralized in the larger cities.

A number of these school houses -- I think there are five in my township of Harwich -- went for a good many years without being taxed. Perhaps they should have been taxed, but they were overlooked. This past year, with the reassessment under section 86, they have now been brought in to pay taxes ranging from $250 to $1,100. That, of course, was from a base of zero.

I bring that to the attention of the House. What we really need is a resolution of this problem so that we can have a uniform system across Ontario whereby various worthy organizations are granted a certain amount of tax relief. I know that at present under the Municipal Act they can give grants in lieu of tax relief. However, this puts quite a burden on councillors to decide what is worthy and what is not. It lacks uniformity across this province.

In the moment I have left, I would like to read from a letter from the Guilds Hall Committee in the township of Harwich. I am reading from the body of it, "Since the hall is used mainly for use in community activities which are nonprofit and all money raised for maintenance and upkeep is donated by community members, this taxation is an extra burden for the people who are already supporting this hall."

I will not take up any more time. I support the resolution, and I join with other members in challenging the government to go further and bring in a meaningful piece of legislation to correct this problem.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry indeed that my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) will not have an opportunity to join in the debate but, for the record, I think his long involvement in the boys and girls club movement is well known. Indeed, he has served as a board member in his riding.

I thank all honourable members for supporting the resolution. I am pleased indeed that it appears it will pass the House unanimously.

I wish to address a few of the specific questions raised by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) as to why I brought in a resolution as opposed to a bill. Some of the comments made by the member for Oshawa partly answered that very question.

There is already a hotchpotch of private bills, grants in lieu, legal and informal arrangements, between a myriad of different organizations and their municipalities as to whether part, all or none of the property tax would be paid. My feeling was that to bring in a bill would just exacerbate that problem.

Rather than doing that, I met with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) several weeks ago. As a result, I hope the spirit of this resolution may be incorporated in some broader piece of legislation at such time as the minister comes to amend the Assessment Act. He assures me that will not be too far in the future. That is part of the rationale.

Members today have spoken in terms of how it was obvious the resolution would pass unanimously and asked why I did not bring in a bill so it would join the select company of the two bills that have passed this Legislature in private members' hour.

Frankly, I had no way of knowing until today that all three caucuses would support the resolution, let alone a bill. On reflection, a member of the caucus of the party opposite told me two weeks ago that he would be speaking in opposition to the bill, and it is really only today that I figured out he must have been joking. But there it is anyway.

I am very pleased that all members appear to be in support of the bill. The member for Scarborough West also questioned whether I should have brought in a resolution or a bill that, in a broader fashion, addressed the economic situation in my riding.

In response, in the few moments that remain, I would say that I work in my riding, as all members do in theirs, on a day-to-day basis on dozens of different questions and issues. In my riding they are predominantly economic. I feel that our ongoing work on these efforts, and indeed the effort all of the elected representatives in the city of Brantford put into obtaining further aid from the federal government and the province to try to start alleviating the situation in my riding, is more meaningful than perhaps expending a ballot item on it.

When members do work diligently on these questions in their ridings on a day-to-day basis, they can be allowed during private members' hour to indulge a desire to do something very specific. The very specific problem I was faced with was the desire of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario -- not just the club in my riding but the organization across the province -- that we do something to help them. They are very much part of the response to the economic difficulties in which we now find ourselves. Their work and their pressures did increase in my riding directly in proportion to the unemployment situation.

While it may not be the shotgun approach, and it may not be the broadest resolution that has ever been brought into the House, I would like to think it is specific, positive and helpful. I am very glad that members agree with me and will be supporting the resolution.

PLANT LAYOFFS OR SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Sweeney moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, resolution 6:

That in the opinion of this House, and as a result of the heightened vulnerability of workers throughout Ontario, the government should introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act to create, in specified cases, an obligation upon an employer considering worker layoffs or plant shutdowns to consult with the employees prior to the tentative decision to lay off workers or shut down the plant.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, in proposing this resolution, I want to indicate my full appreciation of the significant departure it represents from current practice by both management and labour in Ontario.

Let me also suggest that the present adversarial or confrontation approach, which seems to have met the needs of both management and labour in this jurisdiction, no longer works in Ontario. Clearly, the time has come for a change. My resolution is intended to be the edge of that change and by no means the complete answer.

I sincerely hope that we can have a fruitful dialogue in this assembly this afternoon on the implications of what I am proposing and that the government will see fit to approach both labour and management in Ontario to find ways to implement the best part of our discussion this afternoon.

While my proposal deals directly with labour- management relations in a near-crisis situation, namely, an impending layoff or closure, it is not intended to stop there. I hope that the procedures we debate this afternoon will lead to a much longer-term resolution of the present confrontational type of conflict between management and labour and that we will find ways in both the short and long terms to resolve some of the difficulties.

In other words, I am suggesting this afternoon that the time has come for labour and management to recognize that they can no longer operate in isolation from one another. Both the short-term and long-term health of the business enterprises in which they are involved requires their mutual co-operation.

This afternoon I am saying clearly to management that their responsibility is not just to stockholders and to making a profit; they also have a responsibility to their workers and to the community in which their plant operates. I recognize that this is a radical departure from the current thinking of the majority of business operations in this province. Some, however, have already moved in this direction, and we will talk about them shortly.

I am also saying clearly to labour that their responsibility can be no longer just the needs of their members; they too must consider and contribute towards the continuing health of the enterprise in which they work. In difficult times such as right now, management must be prepared to accept lower profits; labour must be prepared to participate in the necessary discussions for the economic health and the long-term future of the enterprise.

In my own riding the president of Budd Automotive, up until recently the largest employer, has indicated publicly on several occasions that management can no longer make decisions by itself which affect that enterprise.

The president of Sutherland-Schultz, a very large electrical and electronics contractor, has structured his business in such a way that his employees make an input on a continual basis into the direction that business is going.

The recent agreement in the United States between Ford and the United Auto Workers provides for a much greater degree of sharing with labour information upon which business decisions are made.

Firestone in Hamilton recently put into place a co-operative plan with its employees called Impro Share by which both sides benefit from improvement.

The high-technology industries around Ottawa have prospered by allowing employees considerable freedom to make on-the-spot decisions as to how to proceed with the job at hand.

Such businesses as these are showing the way. Granted, they are few. Now is the time for this Legislature to provide the opportunity and the responsibility for other businesses to proceed as well.

My proposal to begin this process is to make it an obligation on businesses to consult with their employees before the decision is made to institute layoffs or closures. Current legislation requires advance notice after the decision is made and does not provide for employee input regarding possible alternatives.

My proposal recognizes that some layoffs and closures may be unavoidable. It does, however, provide the opportunity for employees, who sometimes know the production end of the business even better than management, to propose alternatives. This may include such things as different production procedures, different production timetables, different work schedules or different materials handling. It does give employees the opportunity to take part in deciding their own future as well as that of the business in which they are engaged.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then the potential loss of livelihood will certainly stimulate many employees to bring forward ideas that otherwise might have lain dormant.

If one wants to see clear evidence of the potential success of this approach, let us look at other jurisdictions that currently practise it.

In West Germany since 1972 and in Sweden since 1974, countries whose economies and labour management relations are much better than ours, legislation such as I am proposing is already in place and is working well.

In both countries, workers are informed in advance of possible cutbacks and are able to participate in the decision as to how they are to proceed. Employees are given full access to the corporate data on which the decisions are being based. It is interesting to note the relationship between the branch plant and the home plant in the case of SKF Canada Ltd. in Scarborough, which was closed in 1981.

At the home base in Sweden, legislation required labour consultation, and nobody lost his or her job in that company-wide reorganization. In Ontario, where no such legislation exists, 310 workers lost their jobs.

It is also interesting to note that subsequent information reveals that SKF probably closed the wrong plant in its international organization. Had the employees in Ontario had access to some of that information and the opportunity to make an input, it is entirely possible that a different decision would have been reached and those 310 people would not have lost their jobs. Swedish workers were protected and Ontario workers lost their jobs.

During our committee hearings on layoffs and plant closures, we heard the case of Outboard Marine Corp. of Canada Ltd. in Peterborough, a company that had been profitable. Because the parent plant in the United States had some problems, this plant was closed, with no employee input.

We also heard about Bendix in Essex, which had been profitable for the American branch plant for more than 50 years; but because that particular branch plant had one year of company loss it was also closed. Here, too, the employees had no chance to make an input.

I suggest that legislation such as I am proposing might have made a difference in the decision to close those two plants.

It has been argued that legislation such as this would be seen as too restrictive by some potential investors in Ontario. I would have to say that any investor or parent plant that planned to invest in Ontario and based its decisions in that way is probably a plant we do not want here anyway.

The time has surely come when we in Ontario, the members of the Legislature and all the people of Ontario, clearly say that we place people above machines and that those who would build in Ontario should do so with their employees and not on the backs of their employees.

4:50 p.m.

It is now well known how well and how closely Japanese labour and management work together for the good of their enterprise. Their outstanding economic example and success is something that we all look to with envy.

While we cannot transfer their history and their culture to our jurisdiction, we surely can learn something about the attitudes between labour and management and the way in which they co-operate with one another.

Our backgrounds may be different, but our needs are very similar. We must adapt or, I am afraid, like the dinosaurs, we are going to perish here in this jurisdiction.

In proposing this particular resolution, my assistants contacted the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for their reactions.

I must say that in all cases the reaction was favourable with respect to the principle involved. In each case, however, whether it was the Ontario Federation of Labour or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, there was some concern expressed about the specifics of implementation.

It is precisely for that reason that I have put this in the form of a resolution: so that all of those who would be subject to the legislation that would eventually flow from it would have an opportunity to make an input into the mechanics and the procedures themselves.

The large number of people unemployed in Ontario as a result of layoffs and plant closures represents a wasted potential that we cannot continue. The social unrest that has flowed from unemployment in other jurisdictions, including the riots in England, may be much closer than we imagine.

We need a significant change in attitude by both labour and management in Ontario, if for no other reason than their mutual self-interest, if we hope to weather the economic storms ahead.

We are talking here about a changing attitude. We are asking labour and management in Ontario to sit down and jointly and co-operatively talk out -- not just at crisis times, although this particular resolution deals specifically with a crisis time -- their mutual self-interest.

The resolution itself, if it were passed by the government and legislation were introduced to change the Employment Standards Act and the Business Corporation Act, would place a requirement on businesses in Ontario -- and this is the key -- prior to a decision being made for either layoffs or closure, to consult with their workers, with their employees.

They would be required to lay before their workers the problem that the company faces, to lay before them their financial situation, to lay before them their marketing problems and to lay before them perhaps their production problems.

Mr. Wildman: To open their books.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, to open their books.

Quite frankly, they would be required to say to their employees: "We are both in this. We would like your help in suggesting to us what we might do to solve this particular dilemma."

It is my suggestion that labour and management begin this way, at a time when they are both going to be effective. No employee wants to lose his or her job, and no manager wants to have to close down or to significantly close part of his or her business.

In other words, neither of them want that to happen; so surely this is the time we would make it a requirement in Ontario that consultation would have to take place, significantly in advance of a decision being made and not when it is too late to do anything about it.

From past experience and from hearing the representatives and the witnesses who came before us in the layoffs and plant closure committee, we know that often far in advance, sometimes a year or even longer in advance, the companies knew that they were going to be in trouble; but they were struggling themselves to try and solve that problem, without going to their employees, without going to their workers to bring them in on that decision-making.

Here is what we require: they must bring them in and give them an opportunity to participate. There is no way of knowing at this time the extent to which that would make a difference. We do not know that. But at least we know that in other jurisdictions where it is being done it does make a difference.

What it does is it sets up a whole different climate in terms of the way in which management and labour co-operate with one another. That change in climate is just as important as the legislation I am proposing at this time.

For these reasons I ask for the support of all members of this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to bring to the honourable member's attention that he has four minutes left. Does he want to reserve that time for the end of the debate?

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, thank you.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have some little difficulty in containing myself. I am not going to spend very long on the resolution.

In terms of approval of the idea in principle, it is like motherhood. Who could be against it? But I have never seen more of a motherhood joke before this House than the resolution the honourable member has just moved. It is an absolute Mickey Mouse resolution. What does it tell us? It says:

"That in the opinion of this House, and as a result of the heightened vulnerability of workers throughout Ontario, the government should introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act to create, in specified cases" -- we do not know what that means, to begin with -- "an obligation upon an employer considering worker layoffs or plant shutdowns to consult with the employees prior to the tentative decision to lay off workers or shut down the plant."

By golly, that would give me an awful lot of confidence if I were one of the workers who was going to be involved in a plant shutdown.

What the member fails to realize when he mentions Sweden, West Germany or some of the other countries he talked about is that the workers there start from a much more even position and have some clout and some say in the economic decisions and, indeed, some say in the kind of government planning that goes on.

What have we got in this province? Much of our problem has been in the branch plant area. We have no say whatsoever. The decisions are made outside this province and this country in terms of whether companies will shut down, move or transfer an operation.

I remind members of this House and the member who quoted from the plant shutdowns committee -- I am not sure, but I do not think he served on that committee with us -- that in the case of Bendix, for example -- and I cannot help but use this example again and again, because it so effectively outlines the problem we have -- there were still more than 400 employees at the time the company was preparing to shut down.

Bendix was one of the companies we had before our committee. The Canadian president, a chap by the name of Smith, came before the committee and said that in May -- I forget the actual date -- he got a memo from the head office. I think it was from Milwaukee; it was somewhere in the United States. It gave him two weeks to justify why he should not shut down the Bendix plant in Windsor.

This same Canadian president laid before us the fact that the company had made a profit in 40 out of the 41 years it was in business. It had done a fair amount of modernizing in the plant; it was in good shape. When he took it over less than a year previously, he expected to improve it still further. It had the market, and he expected to make even more money. Mind you, it had made a profit in 40 of its 41 years of operation.

He got two weeks' notice to justify not shutting the plant down. I give him credit to this day; he was very frank with our committee. He said: "I knew of the nonutilization of part of our plant in the United States. I knew the bottom line was profit."

He was upfront with us. He said: "I knew that we were making a profit and that we had more than 400 workers at work here. I knew that we would have to import those parts, and that would further affect our balance of trade and payment deficit. But I also knew that the Bendix Corp. could make even more profit if the entire production were done in the American plant and if it shut down the plant in Windsor."

Although it was under some pressure, the company made arrangements that were a little better than those some plants made for their workers. But we still lost the 400 jobs. We still lost the production of those parts we now have to import. We still lost the cost to us as a community, to the city of Windsor, and there was not a damn thing we could do.

5 p.m.

That was a branch plant, owned and operated from the outside and with decisions made outside. Even the Canadian president was not prepared to say, "We have some obligation in terms of the cost to these workers in this community." We are operating a branch plant economy in Ontario. What is the suggestion that there should be worker consultation going to do? It is absolutely beyond me.

If it has not gotten through to the member yet that there is a necessity for justification as well as advance notice, and for the government itself to start playing a role in the industrial economy of this province, then we are really naive today.

I cannot help but ask as well, when I see a resolution before this House which is so vague and which has so little meat to it, where were the members of the party he represents in that same committee when I first moved the motion dealing with severance pay? This is where we do end up in this kind of position.

The motion I moved was that severance pay be available for any size plant, from day one. Long before the Tory members, who I knew would oppose or raise objections to that kind of position, it was the Liberal members who said to us: "You are going to kill small businesses. You are going to hurt us. You cannot do that to small businesses." They refused to support that kind of position in the committee.

If ever I have seen a phoney argument it is the one made now with this weak resolution. Maybe the weak resolution is the only way they can try to recoup some ground. I am not sure. The only way we got the recommendations on severance pay through that committee was by reverting to what was said by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). He said, "Let us see if the Liberals will go so far as to support a motion that says, 'Those that have to give notice, which is over 50;'" at that point they came in.

That is also one of the reasons I sat here in amazement the other day when I heard the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) get up and say: "What is wrong with this government? Why will it not bring in some lowering of the 50 requirement?" My God, it is because of them that we have it in the doggone legislation in Ontario.

With that performance and record to date, what does this kind of resolution mean? I am sorry to have gotten a little exercised about this situation, but I simply want to point out that government involvement and justification is going to be required. We should be lowering it. Just last week I moved a motion to reduce the 50 requirement and to make it after one year's service. If they now mean what they have been saying, I presume they will support that bill in this House. We will see where they are when we put that up for debate in the House.

I want the member who moved the resolution to know that we have also discussed this with the Ontario Federation of Labour and some of the unions. How can they say we should stop beating our wives? That is their impression of this resolution before this House. One cannot oppose a suggestion that companies should be talking to workers before they lay them off or shut down the plants, but it does not mean a darn thing if one is not going to put some teeth into it and if one is not going to say they have an obligation and a requirement for justification. What are we fooling around for? Is it to try to get some publicity over some of the past positions they have taken in this House? That is really what bothers me about having to get up and say I will vote for the darn thing. It is so patently phoney.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, while I certainly agree with the motives behind the resolution as explained by its sponsor, frankly, I am perplexed by the form of the motion, given the reasoning that has been put forward by the member. It seems to be a shotgun type of resolution more akin to our socialist friends' approach to the private sector than would come from the Liberal Party.

I think it is interesting to note, as the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) indicated, the confrontation attitude would surely be visible when the member for Hamilton East rose in the House to speak to the issue. It was apparent that 19th century style of confrontation in the labour- management field is what prevails in this province and has to change.

I agree that consultation and co-operation is the route to go and it is being achieved much more rapidly and with more positive results in other jurisdictions than here. Confrontation is not the route to go. That is why I am surprised that a shotgun approach is being applied to this motion when the philosophy behind it appears to be otherwise. I think the cold, hard facts of the matter are that when there are no goods or services to be bought in the private sector then there is no revenue by which the business enterprise can survive.

I think what is implicit in this resolution is the idea that you cannot lay off or shut down without the approval and consent of the employees. In my mind it raises the spectre of the philosophy espoused by our opposition friends from the days of the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustments, namely that government should take a role in the decision-making process prior to plant closures. That is the socialistic spectre that I see implicit in this resolution. That is why it disturbs me. It is in this type of climate that the business entrepreneur is no longer master in his own house. In my mind this resolution is simply another example of government interference in the marketplace.

For the record, I want to make it clear that in this country there is no government that is more sensitive, more understanding and more responsive than the Conservative government in Ontario, not only to the workings of the private sector but to the people who work in the private sector. That is clearly demonstrated when we understand the aggressiveness of our Ministry of Industry and Trade and its predecessors over the years, that have been in the forefront in bringing industry into the province to enhance the standard of living we have come to enjoy. This is why we not only have development corporations in the province but also aggressive marketing offices in the major cities of the United States, Europe and the Far East.

Because of the awareness and sensitivity of this government, we have developed what are the most progressive and humane labour laws found anywhere on the North American continent, derision that may come from our socialist friends across the way notwithstanding. It is apparent to many private entrepreneurs around the world that Ontario provides -- socially, economically and politically -- the most stable jurisdiction within which not only individuals but private businesses can comfortably and securely undertake their business projects.

The fact is, businessmen must first and foremost be prudent when making risk decisions about where to locate their business enterprises. Just in the past few days I talked with a businessman who has discussions going with some European businessmen interested in setting up in Ontario. Before they would even consider coming, prudent as they are, they insist on having a complete dossier on all past laws and all the labour laws enacted in the province and what is on the calendar for future legislation so they could analyse and assess whether it is a climate they want to come into.

They must know whether it is positive and responsive to business and a place where they feel they can take business risks. Then they would benefit not only their business concerns but the country that they want to do business in by hiring people to not only build their plants and facilities but also to operate and manage them. There has to be that positive and stable attitude between labour and management, as well as political and social stability. That is why this government has been so successful in developing Ontario as the industrial heartland of this great nation of Canada.

5:10 p.m.

This resolution concerns me because it develops a type of aggravation I do not think the business sector would appreciate or need. This is that they have to be told they must consult in each and every instance with their employees when they have to make that heart-rending and difficult, harsh economic and social decision to close down their plant or to cut back on their operations such that it will either mean layoffs or permanent terminations, including their very own source of employment.

What is overlooked on many occasions is that the men or women who have to make these decisions, as the policy people in these companies, are themselves just as hurt by the layoffs. In fact they are doing themselves out of jobs when they find they just cannot make an economically viable go of it. It is a tragic situation that none of us relish or even like to talk about in a way other than out of shock and concern.

With respect, I do not think it will work to insist by legislative imposition that there must be consultation. It has to be optional depending on the circumstances of that company, on its size, on the nature of its operation, on its employees and on a host of individual considerations that can only be determined on their individual merits.

I might point out that the efforts to consult with employees have backfired in union operations more often than not. I think it is regrettable that management, when in labour negotiations or on the eve of entering into labour negotiations, is accused of bargaining in bad faith. When management has cautioned the employees and the union representatives that they are on a precarious economic brink and that they should try to be moderate in the increases and benefits they are asking for because they might jeopardize the very wellbeing of the company, the unions can turn around and say management is going to bargain in bad faith because company executives are threatening them.

They are saying the company is likely to be closed down and put out of business and they won't have a job to come to. This type of situation has backfired when companies on occasion have felt that they could, given the circumstances of their operations, take all of their employees into their confidence and discuss the economic problems and trials and tribulations.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Williams: We have in place in this province, under the initiatives of this government, the type of legislation that I think provides the appropriate balance with regard to labour and management. We have our Employment Standards Act which does provide review processes. It provides that after the decision has been made for cutbacks and temporary or permanent layoffs, or even the closing down of an operation, the Ministry of Labour and its resource people are there to ensure that any of the rights or benefits under the collective agreement with the company, if there is one, will be lived up to and adhered to. The government is there to assist in those difficult times.

I think we have struck the appropriate balance in that this type of resolution would only tend to inflame the situation and is one, therefore, that I feel we cannot support at this time.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I do not use my full time I would like it used by one of my colleagues from the Essex county area.

Mr. Martel: That is a new rule. I am sorry it does not work.

Mr. Newman: We are up first so it will automatically come to us the third time around.

I would first commend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for introducing Ballot Item No. 4, the resolution which reads:

"That in the opinion of this House, and as a result of the heightened vulnerability of workers throughout Ontario, the government should introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act to create, in specified cases, an obligation upon an employer considering worker layoffs or plant shutdowns to consult with the employees prior to the tentative decision to lay off workers or shut down the plant."

I commend my colleague for presenting this resolution in the House for discussion. I know some may call it a Mickey Mouse and a motherhood issue, but it is better to be discussing things than simply using the confrontation approach.

I happen to live in an area where there is not only high unemployment but, in the past, cyclical unemployment. Coming from a town like that, I know the social effects on individuals as well as on the community as a whole. The municipality cannot provide services because so much of the budget is being expended on other services.

The city of Windsor has had its ups and downs, but it is going to survive. It would have had this hope much sooner if the government took into consideration the most difficult conditions under which it is now attempting to run its own municipality.

The resolution is not the final answer, but it is the start of a dialogue between three sectors -- management, labour and government. The government introduces legislation so that management and labour can live without using the confrontation tactic all the time, know management does not want the confrontation tactic any more than does labour. I probably should have made that remark in the reverse order.

On April 27, 1970, I asked the following question in this Legislature. That was at the time Erie Flooring and Wood Products overnight laid off workers and closed. It meant the loss of 142 jobs. I think it was in West Lorne but I am subject to correction. I asked the Premier of the day, Mr. Robarts, why the government did not examine the company's books to determine whether there was a legitimate reason for the shutdown. Apparently the company just closed its doors without justifying the fact that they were not going to operate.

That is completely wrong. In an attempt to have a closer dialogue between the two parties, I asked the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in 1978, "Will the minister require industry to give substantial notice of any production changes that may adversely affect either the industry or any community in Ontario?" The question was self-explanatory.

I have also introduced the community as the third party in the whole agreement, because not only is labour adversely affected but also the city and/or the province. A lot of additional charges are involved to a community as a result of plant layoffs. Whether it is a small plant or a big plant, it is all according to the size of the community in the first instance.

In a city like Toronto maybe 1,000 employees would not mean too much unless they came from one plant. But in a smaller community 15 or 20 employees being laid off is a substantial number. When it came to West Lorne and the 142 woodworkers who lost their jobs, it was an extremely traumatic experience. We have to think of an approach to get the two parties involved, at the bargaining table, to attempt to resolve their differences. They must come together in an attempt to resolve the problem and build for a better province.

5:20 p.m.

Back in the same year I asked the Minister of Labour if he would require Chrysler to give substantial advance notice of any changes in production plans. Members might wonder why I ask about production plans. Changes in production plans, whether they substantially increase or decrease employment, have an effect on the community. Production plans may mean the municipality will be involved in heavy financial outlays for various types of services. It could also mean there might be substantial numbers of layoffs, which will adversely affect the community as a result of the greater demand for social service benefits.

I also pursued this subject as recently as a year and a half ago, when I asked the Premier if he would require industry not only to give substantial notice of production changes but also ensure that the actions of the company involved do not violate the intent of the auto pact. I have been alerted to a lot of the difficulties a municipality is confronted with as a result of having these mass layoffs, and the dramatic changes that are involved when a new type of equipment is introduced in the plant.

The changes tomorrow are going to be more substantial as we get into computerization in the manufacture of practically everything.

When we see the robotics that are used in Japan at present we can foresee what will take place on this side of the ocean in the manufacture of practically everything. Robotics may not be adapted to certain things, but manpower is going to be substantially reduced unless governments start preparing for that day tomorrow. There are many other things I could mention; however, I would like one of my colleagues to have an opportunity to speak and use up my unexpired time.

The Deputy Speaker: We have a problem with your suggestion. You must understand it is not the established practice to give your time to one of your own colleagues. Once your time is expired, we just go on to the next speaker.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to use his time.

The Deputy Speaker: You are not allowed to have it either.

Mr. Wildman: This is by mutual agreement here.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit when I first read this resolution I was a little perplexed because, as my colleague said, it is very vague. I read it very carefully and I tried to determine what the member for Kitchener-Wilmot meant by the word "consult." I also listened to his speech today to try to determine what he meant by consult, and I am afraid I still do not know. He did mention notification, which is required under the present legislation. We in this party believe it should be greatly strengthened, and notification should be extended significantly. There were discussions about that in the plant shutdowns committee.

I can certainly support the view that there should be notification, and substantial notification, not only in terms of a shutdown or a layoff, but even in terms of changes in marketing strategy, changes in the technology that is going to be used. I can certainly support that if that is what is meant. However, I think consultation should go farther than just plain notification. I did get some indication of that from the member's speech introducing his resolution but, again, he was vague about it.

Today there does tend to be some consultation, depending on the industry. For instance, we could look at the recent experience at Inco where the company suggested it was going to lay off 850 employees. The union there went to bat, along with the local members of this party, and made proposals for alternatives. These led to a change whereby early retirements, leaves of absence and a number of other changes were introduced which lowered the actual layoffs to something like 200.

That is obviously possible today. I would agree, however, that kind of consultation is probably only viable under our present laws where there is a strong union that can work and speak for its members in dealing with a company that is used to dealing with the labour movement in that process. That might not be viable with a smaller operation, a weaker local or a weaker union.

How anyone could argue against consultation is beyond me, but I still have the problem of exactly what the member means. I thought from some of the comments he made, especially when he was referring to Sweden and West Germany, that he was actually talking about industrial democracy. I thought he was not just talking about layoffs or shutdowns but was talking about a role for the workers in decision-making in the corporate boardrooms. I thought he was actually talking about the government obliging companies to move to a point where they would involve workers in everyday decision-making in terms of profit and loss, marketing technology and all the other decisions that have to be made by business.

I will be quite frank. There are people on both sides of the fence, management and labour, who might have some difficulties dealing with that because of the old attitudes we have seen over many years in North America, not just in Ontario but throughout North America.

I am still not sure if that is what the member meant when he was talking about consultation. I am not sure the West German experience would work here, but it is something worth looking at. However, the member did not spell out that was what he was talking about. He did refer to the Japanese experience and talked about the different relationship between management and labour in Japan. There is no question that is correct.

But there is something else the member did not mention. This is that in Japan they have an accepted tradition of lifetime job security. Once an employee takes a job with a company and shows himself to be a dedicated worker he knows he will not be laid off no matter what. That is the situation in Japan. I am not sure the member for Kitchener-Wilmot is suggesting we should attempt to legislate that kind of relationship in this jurisdiction. He does not seem to be saying so, but I do not think he can deal with the Japanese experience and say we have to have the kind of consultation that takes place there unless he involves all the components, including lifetime job security. That is a very different attitude which would have to be accepted in this jurisdiction.

I am not sure that kind of proposal would meet with much acceptance in the corporate boardrooms of Toronto or New York. As a matter of fact, I understand there is a proposal before the European Parliament now, introduced by a socialist member from Holland, which would require a significant increase in consultation between workers and management.

Right now there is a tremendous lobby being mounted in Washington by the transnational corporations that are centred in the United States for the Reagan government to use all its powers to persuade the members of the European Parliament against supporting that resolution. That is in a jurisdiction in Europe where most of the social democratic countries have much more consultation and required notification.

5:30 p.m.

When they talk about notification in Europe they are not just talking about notification of workers; the government is involved. That is not spelled out in this resolution. If they are going to lay off in West Germany they not only have to notify their workers, they also have to notify the government and they have to justify why they are going to lay people off.

That is a route we should be looking at, but this resolution does not talk about that. It does not talk about a tripartite system; it does not talk about anything. It talks about motherhood, as my colleague said. Obviously we are not opposed to motherhood and we are not opposed to consultation.

The member did mention a couple of things that alarmed me. He referred to times of economic hardship when workers and unions must be prepared to consult -- and I think he was talking about negotiate -- with management. He referred to the Ford-United Auto Workers deal as a situation where I believe the member said there was a sharing of information. It is certainly true there was a sharing of information and there were some concessions won, I suppose, by the employees.

Let us look at that agreement. If a union, a bargaining unit, agrees to give up paid holidays in order to gain job security, has it really won what the workers are looking for? If they give up holidays, that means the company does not need as many employees as they suggest they needed before a layoff and it will probably mean fewer jobs. In the next few months it will be interesting to see what that agreement means for the United Auto Workers in the United States. We may find that the position taken by the UAW in Canada will be borne out by what happens in the United States.

The member spent a lot of time talking about foreign ownership and, as my colleague said, that is the main problem we have here. We have a problem in that industrial and economic decisions are not made in this country, they are made for branch plants by parent firms elsewhere. We do not control that and the resolution will not do anything about that. If the member is as concerned as he says he is about foreign ownership, I would have preferred if he had moved a resolution in this House requesting the federal government to strengthen the Foreign Investment Review Agency so that the federal Liberals would have to do something about the sellout of this country since the Second World War.

There are decisions being made that mean layoffs and plant closures in this province because we do not have any real say at all. Those decisions are made in New York and Washington, and when there is a slowdown in that country we pay for it.

I will support the resolution because to be against it is like saying one is against motherhood.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, in recent years worker layoffs, partial plant closings and entire plant shutdowns have been of increasing concern to the members of this House, indeed to all Ontarians. Closures and layoffs have also affected our neighbouring jurisdictions. The unemployment rate in our sister province of Quebec remains about four percentage points above ours. The situation in the neighbouring Great Lakes states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York is not much better. This is not a reason to congratulate ourselves but it is a fact.

Another fact, and we all recognize it, is that workers in Ontario are more likely to be laid off today than they were a year ago. That is sad but it is true.

The problems facing Ontario's employers at this time are also great, and we should remember it is not only the workers who suffer in these times but also the employers. High interest rates, declining consumer demand, tougher competition, not only here but on the international scene, as well as little growth in labour productivity, have all contributed to pressures that employers must face, particularly those in the manufacturing sector.

This government has acted to address the problem of plant closures and the layoffs associated with them. I can assure members that, where practical suggestions are made, we will remain ready to listen to them and to act upon them. Unfortunately, the proposal before us right now could well work against the creation of new jobs in Ontario, and I do not believe any member on either side of this House would quarrel with that or place obstacles on creating jobs.

The problem of plant closures and layoffs is a serious one, and it is reassuring to know that the members opposite are just as concerned as those of us on this side of the House, and that there are members who are willing to propose solutions to ease the hardship these workers face upon learning they will be laid off, their plant closed and their future unknown. These are the same concerns that prompted this government in 1980 to create the plant closure review and employment adjustment branch.

This branch has been given a number of responsibilities, including information gathering, mediation and co-ordination of local counselling and training. It examines the reasons given for the closure of a plant and looks into the possibility of avoiding the closure or even reducing the number of workers affected. The branch also helps in coping with labour relations problems that may lead to a plant closure or labour relations problems arising from an announced shutdown.

In 1981, the branch intervened in 24 instances where closures were either announced or were pending. The information gathered in these instances has been used to determine the government's response in those particular situations. Counselling programs at community colleges have also begun, with co-operation from the Ministry of College and Universities.

Mr. Martel: That's going to help.

Mr. Barlow: It sure will.

Such an arrangement has provided laid-off workers with career counselling and job counselling, as well as training. As my friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot well knows from the Ontario Manpower Commission report on the labour market outlook for Ontario from 1981 to 1986, individuals with community college training are now, and will remain, in great demand on the job market.

The experiment in counselling was first tried in co-operation with Seneca College for the former employees of Schick razor blade company. That experiment, judging from the feedback from participants, was very well received -- and by the way, the follow-up was conducted by an independent consultant group, so it was not a matter of the bureaucrats congratulating themselves on that point. The unfortunate shutdown at Canadian Admiral came near the end of the experimental period, which was then expanded to cover that layoff. Later the closures at Shop-Rite Catalogue Stores, Levi Strauss and others benefited from that.

Sheridan and Conestoga colleges also began participating in this program, which the government is now funding in instances where over 50 employees are affected. In Cambridge, the Canadian Admiral closing affected 452 workers, and because of the remote chance of the plant reopening under the Inglis company, some 200 of the laid-off employees decided to attend the presentation. About 170 actually went through the counselling, and about 75 of them are now retraining and upgrading themselves in courses such as metal machining, welding, food preparation, butchering, industrial maintenance, clerical, secretarial, registered nursing assistant and upholstery repair.

The final report on the progress of the counselling has not yet been completed, so at this time it is impossible to know how successful the counselling has been. Needless to say, the counselling provided through this program is far superior to that received elsewhere. High unemployment has resulted in Canada Employment Centres being swamped and, as a result, counselling there has suffered.

5:40 p.m.

Through the counselling program and community colleges, the government is able to provide 18 hours of counselling and placement assistance with provision for more one-on-one counselling later. While the cost to the government varies from $150 to $200 per individual, it will work to our benefit if they are ready for meaningful jobs when things open up rather than receiving public assistance for long periods of time.

The members will also recall that about 10 months ago, in June 1981, this government amended the Employment Standards Act to provide severance pay in those instances where 50 or more employees lose their jobs as a result of the full or partial closure of a plant. The act now requires that one week's pay for each year of service be given, up to a maximum of 26 weeks for employees with five or more years' service.

With the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, the Ministry of Labour has authority to provide for employer participation on manpower adjustment committees. I hope I have been able to convey to my neighbours and my colleagues on the other side of the House that this government has done a great deal already, possibly more than any other jurisdiction, to reduce the burden on workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

I recognize the concerns expressed by my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot. However, I am concerned this proposal would not prove to be practical in preventing layoffs or even in providing any meaningful assistance where a layoff is contemplated. For business reasons, an employer in all likelihood would not be able to provide the information the employees or the union would want. Unfortunately, the consultative process would not achieve anything useful. It may result in the deterioration of labour-management relations.

An hon. member: Is this one of the official languages?

Mr. Barlow: This is the official language at the present time.

An hon. member: You are not supposed to read a speech in the House.

Mr. Barlow: I hope my colleague opposite will continue to provide suggestions on this important topic. I look forward to the next time, when he can provide a constructive proposal that we on this side can accept without reservation.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise --

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the honour- able member that he has four minutes.

Mr. Mancini: Thank you. You are being very generous today, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the extent of the time you are allowing me.

I rise in support of the resolution that has been presented by the Liberal member for Kitchener-Wilmot. As members of the House know, I had the opportunity to sit on the committee that studied plant closures and employee adjustment. We certainly do need consultation when serious matters such as plant closures or the mass layoffs of employees are concerned.

It is clear that the record of the plant closures committee will show that the Liberal members of that committee were strong in their efforts to convince the management that came before us and to assure the leaders of the labour community that we were in favour of such consultation and would go even further if necessary.

I am somewhat disappointed with the Conservative member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) and the Conservative member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) -- especially the member for Cambridge, whose riding is experiencing quite a bit of employment difficulty now.

The news media has carried several large articles about the mass layoffs going on now in the area of Cambridge. It would, I am sure, be beneficial to that member and to the people in his area if he were to support something such as has been proposed by my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. All he has asked the House to endorse is a consultative approach to these severe problems. I would be willing to support even more stringent measures.

It is my view that when plant closures occur there has to be justification. We cannot allow small and large communities to spend taxpayers' dollars to build an infrastructure to support industry in the area -- in many cases providing government assistance through the Ontario Development Corp., through Board of Industrial Leadership and Development funds and through other agencies of provincial and federal governments -- and then have these plants leave for what they consider to be greener pastures, specifically the southern United States.

For large corporations making profits in these plants, it is not good enough that they want to close these plants just to increase profits, say, from six to eight per cent, because of different circumstances prevailing in various parts of North America. Such actions by large corporations, especially the ones witnessed in the plant shutdowns committee, are irresponsible.

For example, I now recollect the mayor of Hanover who came before our committee. He urged us to order these companies to consult and to justify. In his view, a plant closure in a small community not only lays off the workers, not only causes unemployment, but brings economic disaster to the whole community. That is why I support my colleague, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I am disappointed in the government.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues to the left indicate that I have not gone far enough and those across the floor that I have gone too far, I am led to believe that perhaps my proposal is at least somewhat responsible. It is precisely that kind of confrontation I am trying to get a handle on, to alleviate.

Business and labour in Ontario have for far too long accepted the premise that the only way to resolve anything is to fight with one another. A number of my colleagues have indicated that during the work of the committee on plant closures and layoffs the issue of justification came up time and again, and that many witnesses indicated it was needed. What I am suggesting is the beginning of that, just the beginning of justification.

If we put, as my proposal suggests, an obligation upon an employer that he must sit down with his workers and talk to them, show them why closure is pending, that is the first step in justification. In order to give that information the employer will have to lay his cards on the table, to open the books, to indicate what the problems are. That is the first step in justification. Maybe it does not go far enough; but somewhere, somehow, we have to make a beginning.

It is also very well for my colleagues to the left to say: "This is not the same cultural situation we have in Sweden. We do not have the same historical background we have in West Germany. We have too many branch plants in Ontario." All this is true. That happens to be the reality of Ontario. I do not like it any more than they do, but that happens to be the reality.

The question is, what do we do about that reality? Do we put our heads in the sand and say that because we do not have that background, because we do not have the same tradition as Japan, because we do not have the same lifelong employment tradition, there is nothing we can do in Ontario? Is that their recommendation? I suggest no. I suggest that we recognize the reality in the province and begin to do something about it, begin to make it an obligation of employers and management in Ontario to justify to their workers what they are doing, because their workers' livelihood and their workers' lives are at stake.

5:50 p.m.

I really have a problem when the members for Cambridge and Oriole say this will not work. They imply two things. The first is that the workers really do not have anything to contribute; whether they intend it or not, that is the implication.

I suggest something quite different. I am suggesting that we have proven, time and time again, that the workers have much to contribute. They can advise and suggest things that management may not have thought about, or at least some other way of doing things that management may have thought about. The very fact that they are prepared to sit down and act in a co-operative manner may give management second thoughts about what it is going to do.

The second thing implied is that management or companies in Ontario are not prepared and would not be prepared to share with their workers some of the problems they are facing. I do not think that is true either. It is that very implication that workers cannot have anything to contribute, that the companies are not prepared to share, that kind of attitude that is at the base of all our problems. How do we break that logjam? I suggest this is at least a beginning to break it.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gillies has moved resolution 12.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

PLANT LAYOFFS OR SHUTDOWNS

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 6:

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Fish, Gregory, Harris, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, Mitchell, Norton, Robinson, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, Stevenson, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Villeneuve, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman -- 35

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow and next week. Tomorrow and Monday we will continue with the debate on the throne speech motion, with the likelihood that the House may sit Monday evening to allow all members to participate in the debate. I hope we will know for sure by adjournment time tomorrow whether Monday will be a sitting night or not. If so, I will announce that.

On Tuesday, April 20, we will be concluding the throne debate. We will be continuing the debate in the afternoon and conclude it with the vote on the amendments and the motion at 5:45 p.m. with a 15-minute bell.

On Tuesday evening we will do legislation in the following order: Bill 10 in committee of the whole House; Bill 175 in committee of the whole House and Bill 36 for second reading.

On Wednesday, April 21, the usual three committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, April 22, we will consider private members' ballot items standing in the name of the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg).

On Thursday evening, the House will debate the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on public accounts regarding the decision of the federal government to change existing established programs financing legislation.

On Friday, April 23, we will deal with legislation. We will continue any bills still remaining from the Tuesday evening list and then add Bills 38 and 41 for second reading.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.

15 avril 1982