Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

[Report continued from volume A]

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We shall now continue the debate on concurrence in supply. The honourable member for Mississauga South had the floor.

Mrs Marland: Before we adjourned to take that vote --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: My goodness, this is a noisy House, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Could we allow the member for Mississauga South the opportunity of continuing her participation in the debate by somewhat restraining our private conversations. The Speaker has great difficulty hearing.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I had just finished commenting on the Toronto Islands housing issue. Of course the issue with the Toronto Islands has a very long history, but now, by allowing this recent agreement to go forth, what we are giving the present incumbent owners and tenants is an opportunity that simply is not available to anyone else in this province. They have 99-year leases. I think the member for Etobicoke West mentioned one day that it works out to about $36 a month or $40 a month. It is just unbelievable. In so doing, of course, what is happening here is that we are creating an élitist housing settlement in what was always planned to be totally public park land.

When you look at what is going on along the waterfront on the north shore of Lake Ontario, it is really disturbing, because here we have the Toronto Islands, which are a natural environment, very beautiful, separated by the harbour on the north side and of course Lake Ontario on the south side. We have this idyllic setting for people who live anywhere in the province, but particularly for people who live in the densely urban downtown city core, to escape to, and they can escape to the Toronto Islands all year long. The ferries operate all year long, weather permitting. I think there are very few times when those ferries do not operate.

Yet this socialist government, which I really would have thought would have been totally opposed to something like this, is actually making it worse. By the way, very few, I think something less than 2% of the people who live on the Toronto Islands today, are the original home owners. So we have this élitist enclave that is now being given 99-year leases, and of course we provide the ferry service all year round at taxpayers' expense. We are saying to them: "You're there. We're going to let you stay there."

What about the people who lived in those homes originally who left because it was designated a park land and did not want to live in a public park area? Originally, if you go back far enough, those houses were all to be demolished. Now not only are those houses not going to be demolished and the government has agreed to these 99-year leases, but it is also going to build more houses, and guess what? Of course it is going to be a non-profit housing project.

I think it is outrageous that this beautiful park land known as the Toronto Islands is now going to have a number of housing units built on it. I do not think the government is firm yet in the number of homes it is going to build. Pardon me, it is 110 new housing units. "The island community will be increased by up to 110 new housing units, with at least 80 of the new homes to be managed by a housing co-operative. This will expand the community from 250 homes that now house 650 people."

So we have 250 existing homes and we are going to build another 110, 80 of which will be a housing co-operative. Does that mean 30 are going to be freehold? How are they going to decide who is going to be the lucky person who is selected to live on the Toronto Islands' new development? Talk about élitist.

It is so far in the opposite direction to what this government usually spouts off about. They are always talking about equity and equality and how everybody must have an equal opportunity for everything. I wonder how everybody is going to have an equal opportunity to have one of these homes on the Toronto Islands' park land. I wonder how many are going to have an equal opportunity to have one of the existing homes, which are now going to be subsidized by the provincial government through the 99-year leases. Who is going to be the lucky person who is going to be chosen to be one of the 110 new housing unit occupants, either through the co-operative or the 30 homes that are not included in the housing co-operative?

1800

We have seen in the past some very famous people living in co-operative housing in this city, not the least of which was a recent candidate in the mayoralty campaign in Toronto. I just wonder if this is going to be a who-knows-whom to get to be the lucky person who lives in one of these new homes.

At the time this was being discussed, I know I read somewhere that there would be a provision to make sure the resale of these homes was controlled so not too much money could be made if the homes were turned over too frequently. I do not have the details of the contract in front of me, but what a laugh that would be. How is the government really going to control the resale and turnover of these homes in terms of the costs?

I have an intensification housing project in my riding which was pushed through by the Liberal government. It was a project to demonstrate how many houses you could get on the smallest parcel of land. The original proposal was for 52 units on 2.25 acres. We were able to get it down to 42 units, because we took it to the Ontario Municipal Board. That whole issue revolved around the fact that these were going to be affordable houses at $129,000. They ended up being $159,000. Again, the argument was that they would control the resale of these properties and people would not be allowed to make a profit on them.

I am sorry, this is still a free enterprise province, in spite of the work of the socialist government. If you own a house, I do not know how the government can explain to me how it can control the amount you can sell your house for. If you buy a house, unless there is something registered on the deed or the title, you are entitled to sell your house in a free marketplace for whatever you can get for it. I am quite sure in that development at Atwater and Haig Boulevard in my riding we are going to find those houses being flipped over and over, without the controls we were guaranteed would be placed on them during the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Now we have the latest fiasco of the Bob Rae socialist government. We are going to allow more houses to be built on the Toronto Islands and more erosion of the beautiful park land that was to have been conserved for the use of the people in the greater Toronto area to escape the downtown city core, winter and summer, all year round.

The irony, when you think about it, is that we spend millions of dollars landfilling into Lake Ontario to build new parts. You only have to look out an airplane as you are flying along the north shore of Lake Ontario, or even go out in a boat or walk through some of the park land that is accessible from Oshawa to Hamilton, where it connects from one park land to another, and look at the acreage that has now been created by landfilling into Lake Ontario. Anything you build in the lake costs 10 times more than it costs if you had preserved existing land on shore to start with. From an economic standpoint, it does not make sense to landfill into the lake to create parks. Our planning has been so regressive that we have built on all our available land on shore.

Nevertheless, that is what is happening. Here we have the Toronto Islands existing and what are we going to do? This socialist government is going to build more houses on them. After all the controversy and struggle about what to do with the existing 250 homes, we are now saying: "Well, that's fine. We've got that resolved. We've got a giveaway, fire-sale, 99-year lease for them and furthermore we're going to build 110 more." Does that make sense? It is ludicrous, but then what else can we expect from this ludicrous government?

I would like to speak for a moment on the concerns that have already been addressed by my colleague the member for Waterloo North, the spokesperson for labour in our caucus. I endorse totally the concerns that she has been expressing in this House over the last several months about the proposed Labour Relations Act amendments. When anybody talks about the labour law reforms proposed in this province, people who actually understand what they might be just cannot believe it. They cannot understand how any government in its right mind would even consider these proposed labour law reforms at the same time this province is going belly-up in terms of the recession and the loss of jobs through the exodus of business, commerce and industry from this province.

So what do they do? Instead of finding a solution, they bring in proposed legislation which will only compound the situation and make it far more grave than it already is. On this subject I feel it is important to read a letter from the Mississauga Board of Trade. This letter is over the signature of David Gordon, the executive director, and it is dated December 1991. It is a letter to their board members.

"Dear Board Member:

"This is a call for action.

"Over the past few months, your board has been informing you of the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act, which the NDP is hoping to make law by early spring.

"Should these proposed changes become law, we would see serious erosion in the present balance between employer, employee and union rights. Given the union bias of the current NDP government, it is not surprising to see them attempt these changes. Given a workplace and an economy that does not need these kinds of changes, we cannot tolerate their attempt.

"Please join with us in a massive repudiation of this government's ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation by sending a letter to the Premier, with a copy to your local MPP and the board. We have, for your convenience, provided a summary of the proposed changes and a draft letter that you could use to inform the government of your concern.

"Please take the next 15 minutes to 'go on record' against these changes. It could well be the best 15 minutes you ever spend in defending your rights as a manager."

This letter is signed by Wayne Gallant, the president of the Mississauga Board of Trade, and David Gordon, the executive director.

1810

The accompanying letter reads as follows, and it is addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier:

"Dear Mr Premier:

"The proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act are ill conceived, ill timed and simply not needed. Why is this government so out of touch with reality on this issue?

"As a business person in Mississauga, I am very concerned with your government's attempt to influence the labour-management scene with legislation that is blatantly union biased.

"Our current legislation is not flawed. It works and is better than most legislation in other jurisdictions of North America.

"In expressing my objections to the proposed changes, let it be known that legislation of this kind, which is so blatantly union biased, sends all the wrong messages to those persons who look to Ontario as the best place to do business in Canada."

That letter is a proposed draft, and that letter says it better than anything else I have seen that is very short and concise. It is pleading with the Premier of this socialist government in Ontario to wake up and realize what devastation is being brought to this province by its proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

I will not take the time now, but I do have another letter here from the ABC, which is the All Business Coalition. This is over the signature of the chairman, Paul A. Nykanen. It is dated November 26, 1991. They are the same concerns. It talks about the proposed approach being harmful to investment and employment and the fact that in the long run it will cost the province jobs and investment.

It follows that any consultation process is faulty when the premise on which it is based is incorrect. That is one of the things this government is saying. They put out this stuff and sees how it flies and then they say, "Oh, yes, we're going to talk to you."

I think it is fair to tell members about one person whose operation is responsible for the employment of 3,000 people in Mississauga, 3,000 jobs. His name is Don Sheardown and he is the owner and operator of Ontario Bus Industries. Mr Sheardown offered to meet with this minister, and I see the Minister of Labour is in the House at this moment. I say to this minister, if he does not care about the 3,000 jobs for which Mr Sheardown is responsible, then he is betraying the party of which he has been a member and the doctrine of the unions it has preached for all the years we have had to listen to it in this House.

I say to the Minister of Labour, since he is in the House at this moment, that Mr Sheardown builds buses. That is what Ontario Bus Industries is. They build buses in Mississauga. They are the second-largest manufacturer of buses in Canada. They also have a plant, interestingly enough, in New York state. I said about a month ago in this House that here is a man who has a privately owned business who has two plants, one in Ontario and one in -- I think it is New York state, but in any case it is in the United States.

He can compare exactly, apples for apples, about the cost of doing business, in this case building buses. He knows for a fact that with the differential in land costs, taxes, wages and everything else to do with the cost of manufacturing, he can make an exact comparison. For Mr Sheardown, he already acknowledges that it costs him 30% more to do business in Ontario.

Mr Sheardown is quite happy to absorb that 30%. He said that. He has been absorbing the 30% differential for some years now. He accepts as a given that if he wants to have this business in Ontario, it is going to cost him 30% more to do the same thing he does in the US for 30% less. He is not quibbling about that.

What he is saying is that the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act that this Minister of Labour has brought to this House are the final straw that will make Mr Sheardown have to make the decision about whether he is going to absorb a bigger differential in the cost of doing business than 30% or simply close.

Would you not think that the Minister of Labour would like the opportunity to talk to someone who has exactly the same business in Ontario as in the United States and who employs or whose business through related suppliers, smaller industries and other manufacturers is responsible for 3,000 jobs? But what did this minister do? I can hardly believe this, but Mr Sheardown wrote to the Premier and to the Minister of Labour, who is sitting in the House now, and offered to meet with them to explain exactly how his industry -- and his is only one industry -- would be affected by the Labour Relations Act reforms.

I have to emphasize, Mr Speaker, 3,000 jobs. He gets nothing from the Premier, no response. The only response he gets from one of the minister's staff is -- and I do not have the letter with me today, but I have read it into the record in this House before. The letter simply says: "Thank you for your interest. Your name will be added to a list of people who will be considered for consultation on these proposed labour law reforms." Considered.

They say to somebody who is responsible for 3,000 jobs in this province, "Maybe we'll talk to you." They do not care. This government is the most two-faced government any province could ever have. They spout all the time about protecting jobs and protecting workers, and here's an opportunity for the Minister of Labour to meet with somebody who is responsible for 3,000 jobs. They have the audacity to say in a letter: "We'll add you to a list of people who will be considered for consultation."

They are not even going to consult with him. Do they think a businessman like Mr Don Sheardown has time for that nonsense? It is pure ignorance on the part of this government to treat the business industry and commercial sector of this province with the disregard and the disdain that it does. It is unbelievable. They are going to consider whether they will speak to somebody who is responsible for 3,000 jobs.

Every time something else goes in this province, all we ever hear from this government is: "It's not our fault. There's nothing we can do about it. It's free trade. It's this." It is never their fault. I am saying to the Minister of Labour today in this House that if Don Sheardown has to close Ontario Bus Industries, it will be on the Minister of Labour's head. That gentleman has offered to give his total commitment, advice, counselling and everything else to try to resolve what it is this government wants to do with the Labour Relations Act and what in reality could work in his particular shop, Ontario Bus Industries.

The irony of course is that it is a non-unionized shop. I am sure when the Minister of Labour's staff decided whether they would consider consulting with Mr Sheardown, they probably looked up and found out it was a non-unionized shop and thought: "We don't have to talk to him. Our union isn't there." The fact is that people who work for Don Sheardown's operation are so happy, both with their jobs and their employment conditions, that they want it to continue. So I will be the first to jump up in this House and talk about those 3,000 jobs when that happens.

1820

I have just two final comments. One is that I think we have to keep talking about the fact that through all these ministries before us today in this concurrence legislation, the NDP proposals will do nothing to create jobs in Ontario. They do nothing to make us more competitive and attractive to investment and they do nothing to renew or strengthen the economy.

This is payback time. The NDP proposals will increase the political and economic power of the union bosses and guarantee their support of the NDP in the future. The NDP has already made up its mind to make these radical proposals into law. The so-called consultation process is a sham. My goodness, everything for the union bosses.

We might as well know that it is going to take every single taxpayer in this province to get out and vote at the next election, because although 40% of the workforce in Ontario is unionized, it means the majority of people are not unionized. We still have a way to survive this socialist government, this one of three socialist governments left in the world.

Is this not interesting? I keep saying we can hardly believe the Eastern European countries are free of socialism and we had to get it in Ontario. We are getting it full in the face. The taxpayers of this province will not forget and all these people who are going to lose their jobs because the government is driving business and commerce out of this province will not forget. They can have all the union bosses and all the union members in the world -- not in the world, but in Ontario -- vote for them in the next election and it will not be enough.

That is the good news. The bad news is that we probably have three or four years to wait before this happens. But the good news is that the majority of these members will be gone. They certainly will not come back into this House with 74 seats. That we can be guaranteed. They will not even come back with a minority government, because the people of this province understand very well what is going on and they will be there to make sure they are gone.

Just before I close, I want to say something about the NDP attempt to wipe out private child care. Here we are again where this socialist government believes nobody should be in business making a profit. That is really simplistically putting what it thinks. If the word "profit" comes up, it is a dirty word. Nobody is allowed to make a profit. Woe betide anybody who makes a profit giving a service to other people, and child care is a service.

As we know, in Ontario there are two types of child care service. One is private and one is non-profit. The private are often referred to as "commercial" or "for-profit." Well, I should hope so. What is happening is that the records show that new day care facilities built with taxpayers' money at a cost of $18,000 per space are sitting empty because many parents cannot afford child care. So is the solution to put the private sector child care people out of business? This government seems to think so.

The United Voices for Fair Treatment in Child Care was formed in response to the NDP government's discriminatory action against the private sector. It consists of more than 750 taxpayers -- parents, educators and operators of private child care centres who are interested in securing fair treatment from the government for all sectors of the child care system.

Whether this government realizes it or not, there are people in this province who want to have a choice about where they take their children for their child care. Members perhaps assume that non-profit child care centres cost less. In fact, for the most part they never cost less. In fact, the Queen's Park Child Care Centre here was the flagship of former Premier David Peterson, which he opened and there was a big celebration and this was going to be the best child care centre in the province. It is also the most expensive. I have not heard the figures the last couple of years, but the year it opened it was $250 a week per child. Even at that it was subsidized by the taxpayers because it ran into a deficit at the end of its first two years of operation.

The word "non-profit" does not mean that it is non-cost. I think we had better start changing the terminology. If we talk about non-profit child care and non-profit housing, we had better really look at what is behind that word "non-profit," because you can be sure if it says "non-profit" it is at taxpayers' cost. We should come out front and centre and talk very fairly about what these programs cost the taxpayers and say that, not hide behind this label of non-profit.

Private and non-profit child care centres must meet the same requirements for licensing, so it does not mean that a government-subsidized non-profit child care centre is going to be any cleaner or have any better food or any better staffing ratio. That is all controlled by the licensing. Ontario has 35,000 licensed private child care spaces. What is going to happen when this government puts all those private child care facilities out of business? I would like this government to explain where it is going to get the 35,000 places for those children to be replaced.

Also, private child care operators do not receive funding for startup costs, which can be the case with non-profit centres. Some private operators have already closed as a result of the government's discriminatory policy, and many other private child care operators have said that they may also be forced to close.

The chairperson of United Voices for Fair Treatment in Child Care, Jackie Cousens, charged that the NDP decision to exclude private day care centres from the pay equity funding not only breaks the government's promise to support working women equally, but, "It sends a clear message to the 34,000 families who choose private day care that in the eyes of the NDP government their children are not equal to those looked after by child care educators in non-profit establishments." That is pretty significant. What we have here is a government deciding that it will fund pay equity for those women who work in non-profit day care but will not fund the pay equity in the private sector day care. For a government that beats its breast all the time talking about how great it is about equality and certainly how it is going to protect women's rights, it does not do any of these things.

Worse than that, because they give the subsidy funding for pay equity to the non-profit child care centres, the private, commercial child care centres cannot keep their staff. I do not blame the staff. If you can be paid more as a female working in a non-profit child care centre because the government is subsidizing the pay equity program, why would you not go and earn more money? Everybody needs to earn more money today, in this recession and socialist government-run province. I do not blame the workers for going, but in essence what this is doing is strangling the private day care centres. Furthermore, it says to the parents that this government does not care about their children. It says to those parents that "their children are not equal to those looked after by child care educators in non-profit establishments." What garbage. This is nonsense.

1830

Without commercial child care centres, 40,000 of Ontario's child care spaces would disappear. Now we come to the crunch. After those 40,000 child care spaces disappear when the private sector gets out of the business, what will happen? The estimates are that this NDP strategy will cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion. What have they done? They have put a whole business out of business. They have destroyed all those jobs where people were happily employed until the government decided to create inequity and subsidize the women who work in a non-profit centre and not the women who work in a private centre.

I have talked to a lot of children and parents at both kinds of facilities. What parents want is a right to choose. There are a lot of parents who choose a private child care facility, for any number of reasons. Maybe it is the most convenient, maybe it is the closest one to their home or workplace, maybe they have had other children in that centre and know the staff and now the younger siblings are coming along.

Whatever the reasons, this is a free country. At least, I thought it was. I thought Ontario was still a free, democratic province, but I am beginning to realize that under the Bob Rae socialist government we are in fear of losing our freedom and democracy. We are in danger of losing the right to choose. In this case, as far as child care is concerned, parents are losing the right to choose between a private child care operation and a non-profit. Again, I say "non-profit" is a terrible misnomer. Instead of non-profit, it is taxpayer-supported or taxpayer-costed. Members should never, ever think for a moment that non-profit means it does not cost anything. That is the biggest misnomer. We had better start changing it, because the facts are out. We now know what these subsidized programs cost.

Who is asking for it? Which parent in this province is saying: "We want all non-profit centres. We want to put the private child care centres out of business"? Which parent? I have been in politics 18 years and I have something like 87,000 people in my riding. I have never had a single parent come to me and say, "I want only non-profit child care." The more members of the public start to understand how expensive non-profit child care is and that it comes out of taxpayers' pockets, the more they will say, "Give it back to the private sector and let's have private child care back in business."

As I said a few moments ago, very often the cost to those parents and families which need the child care is less in a private operation in a commercial day care centre, and the standards do not change. The standards for licensing requirements, as I also said a moment ago, are the same whether you are private or non-profit, government-subsidized centres. You have to meet the same requirements in terms of licensing to be allowed to care for children.

There are two things. First, what is more precious to all of us than our children and their care and wellbeing? Second, if we are talking about fairness and equity, this socialist party has spouted years of rhetoric about equality and pay equity and equality of opportunity for women, yet it chooses not to fund a pay equity program except in one sector of employment. It is a lousy example. That is about the best I can come up with. It is a betrayal of the people of this province. It is a betrayal of those parents who need child care. With the economy the way it is and the socioeconomic climate in this province being what it is, no wonder both family members have to work. So there is no choice: If you want to have a family and you have to work, you have no choice about needing child care.

What this government figures is, through some miracle, after it has put every private child care facility out of business, it can pick up the 35,000 to 40,000 child care spaces that are presently in the private sector. I suppose eventually it can. It is like the housing. It is going to put all the property owners who have rental accommodation out of business. It thinks it can buy up all the abandoned apartment buildings and small town houses and so forth that are rented. This government thinks it can be all things to all people.

Do you know what, Mr Speaker? Not only can they not do it, but whatever portion of it they try to do means one thing to the people in this province: It means higher taxes and more money out of our pockets. That is what it means, but they do not care, because while they say one thing, they totally do something else. But the people of this province understand. Certainly the commercial business people who operate day care facilities in this province understand and so do the parents who do not want that private day care centre closed because the operators can no longer afford to run it without the government subsidy that is going to their competition, the non-profit taxpayer-paid facilities.

There are so many other areas that I could talk about, but I think at this point I have used up enough time and it is just the same story. If I kept talking and went on to some other ministries, it is just the same story. It does not matter which ministry we talk about. I notice the Ministry of Energy is down here. We could talk about this wonderful program of Ontario Hydro with the imported lightbulbs made in Quebec. Members should just look at this litany. Every ministry that you look at, it is depressing what this Bob Rae socialist government is doing.

I thank you for your attention, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry it is such a depressing outlook because it is such a depressing subject.

Mr Sutherland: I am going to take a little different tone because I do not think it is that depressing to talk about what this government has been doing and will continue to do in the near future related to the ministries that are open for debate. I certainly hope there are still a few viewers watching. I know we have to compete with major newscasts at this time, but hopefully people will be watching and observing.

We have several ministries here to debate and I am going to talk specifically about some of them. One of the things that all of us have to deal with now is a sense of a negative attitude out there, of being depressed, of people just not having confidence in where things are going. I think we as public officials have to try to turn that tide and start creating a mood of confidence and a positive outlook there, of optimism that the upcoming year 1992 is going to be better than 1991.

It has been a struggle, it has been a challenge for all of us, whether in opposition or in government, and at all levels, not just for this provincial government but for every level of government, to try to deal with the challenges and the changes that have been occurring in this province. These are significant changes in the economy that we have not seen occur in the province before, or certainly not for a very long time. The type of economy we are going to have in this province in the future certainly seems to be a significant change away from low-skilled manufacturing jobs into more highly skilled, value-added manufacturing jobs, and we as a government must assist with that transition.

Throughout this past year while that has been going on there has been a lot of legislation passed. If we look at the ministries mentioned here, it is interesting that we can see some significant achievement out of many of them. We start with the Ministry of Labour, and that brings to my attention first the wage protection fund, which I think is a very significant achievement in this province.

I compliment the minister and the ministry for developing this legislation, which is long overdue, as we know, as we debated that legislation for quite a lengthy time in this House and had quite a bit of comment through public hearings. We know the list of the number of people who were becoming eligible for the wage protection fund continued to grow and grow. We know the wage protection fund is there and is designed to help those people who, through no fault of their own, due to plant closings, do not get all the wages owed to them to get some of their benefits and vacation and severance pay up to a maximum of $5,000.

1840

I am not sure what the number of people eligible would be at right now. I think the last count I heard was up over 15,000, but it is a significant number, given the type of recession we are going through right now and the number of people who are on social assistance and really struggling to make ends meet in many, many different ways. I believe I read somewhere the average payment was going to be over $4,000 to those 15,000, so it is going to make a significant difference for many people who have been laid off.

The bill was made back to October 1, 1990, and unfortunately does not cover everyone. It certainly does not cover the many workers who worked at the Harvey Woods plant in my riding and who were laid off. Now some of them are subsequently working again through some of the reorganization that went on and are producing good product, but many of them were not rehired. Unfortunately, because that occurred in February 1990, they were not eligible to receive benefits from this, but I am sure many of them would have been quite happy to know that such a plan is in and that other employees are not going to be left out in the cold in many ways like many of them were left out in the cold.

The Ministry of Labour and I think the government as a whole should be complimented for this significant initiative in this year, for finding funds when funds were difficult and for making a commitment to people and sending a message out there that those people deserve to get what they have worked for and deserve to be compensated for that effectively.

We now know there are many other initiatives under way. We have the Labour Relations Act changes under way. I find the debate around the Labour Relations Act changes quite interesting. I have had many businesses from my riding in to see me and express concerns about it. What I find very interesting is that some of the leading opponents in my riding are plants that are unionized, plants that have made a lot of money over the years and will continue to make money in a unionized environment.

Why is it they make money? It is because those unionized workers are very productive. They have very good quality control in many of these manufacturing plants in my riding. They receive many awards from the major auto makers for quality assurance. While they are concerned, it would seem to me that in most cases they are not going to be affected by this legislation, because they have developed a good rapport with the union. They recognize the union. They recognize the right of workers to organize collectively and to be represented on a collective basis. We know there are literally thousands of plants in this province which are very successful in a unionized environment and in other areas.

I know people say this is scaring off business and new investment, but my understanding is that this province is still receiving 75% of all the new investment coming into Canada. When that figure was stated at a meeting I was at with my colleague the member for Norfolk, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, someone got up and said, "That's not a new figure; that's the way it's always been." That leads me to believe people are not being scared off by what this government is trying to do, as the opposition would allege, if that figure is staying consistent as it has been able to do over the last year.

We have much larger problems, and those are in terms of how everyone is viewing the Canadian economy as a whole. Many people are concerned about issues of interest rate differentials, the high Canadian dollar and some of the other things related to federal policies. I certainly hope some of those issues will be discussed at this first ministers' conference on the economy, because we need to get people back to work and we need to do our very best to achieve that.

I mentioned that close to 15,000 are eligible for the wage protection fund, those people who have lost their jobs since October 1, 1990. We know the numbers are far higher, so we have to try to get those people back to work.

We also have the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. As I just mentioned, it is a challenge. Right now, some of the news we are hearing from our neighbours to the south is that they are in a recession and consumer confidence is a bit low there. I know the minister and both his parliamentary assistants have been working diligently. They have been travelling around this province a great deal, listening to business and all kinds of people, hearing their input on what we should be doing to try to improve the economy, get new investment going and get the economy going overall. I know they will be continuing to work in that area, bringing in new initiatives to try to deal with promoting new industries and saving some.

We have the Ontario Development Corp, which has been a very effective tool over the years and continues to be a very effective tool. I know there have been a few industries in my riding that have benefited from some assistance from the ODC to get them through a difficult time, because they are very viable businesses and industries. Sometimes when we go into these recessions, they struggle a little bit, whether it is a question of difficulty in stabilizing financing with a financial institution or starting a new product line so they can expand, become more competitive and seek out new markets. The Ontario Development Corp overall has been a successful institution.

We did not leave it at that. The ministry came out with the manufacturing recovery program when the budget was announced -- $57 million to help small and medium-sized manufacturing get through the recession, because we know that is where a great deal of the jobs have been lost. That does not mean we are going to be able to help all industries, and we certainly know that. Of the ones we will not be able to help, there will be a great challenge for communities to try to deal with that.

I have had at least two closings in my riding. One was P & H Foods, which was a turkey processing plant. Over the last few months of its existence, it did not have many people working there, but at one point it had well over 150 people working in it. It gradually downsized and then closed permanently.

More recently, we had the closure of Borden Co, which had 79 employees. I understand that was closed due to rationalization. The production is going to be moved to a plant in Montreal and one in Pennsylvania. This plant had been very successful and productive over the years. It was a very old plant, originally built in 1895, but it had been an integral part of the community. That plant will be closing at the beginning of the new year.

Certainly whenever we have plant closings at this time of the year it is very difficult for people. At a time when we are supposed to be happy and optimistic about the future and sit there and celebrate what we have and be proud of what we have, it makes it very difficult for many families and many people.

1850

But the ministry is working very aggressively. We know it has also made initiatives in terms of helping to bring the so-called space university here as one of the proposals that was put forward. It has been active in recruiting that. It has been active in recruiting many other businesses and working with people who want to invest in Ontario -- and people do want to invest in Ontario because they know we have a very productive workforce. They know we have a very good post-secondary education system. They know they can find many skilled workers.

Many successful businesses know that the main reasons you succeed are, first, your product, the service you offer, but it is also the people -- the people who manufacture the product and the people who go out and provide the service. Here in this province we have a very good track record on that. It does not mean there is not room for improvement; we certainly know that. As we move more into a global economy and a more competitive environment, we have to work continually to increase our quality of service and to increase our productivity.

The question I guess becomes, how do you define increasing productivity? Some people believe it is simply producing more -- if I may use the expression, more widgets in one hour -- but many successful companies have defined it in a different way. They are able to produce more, but then they go to different production techniques and they make better-quality widgets in the amount of hours, so their customers are happier and they are more likely to come back for further contracts and further business.

We have to be careful we do not let productivity get caught up in this mindset that I think at times the third party wants to represent, that lowering people's wages is how you are going to increase productivity. We certainly know we do not want that and this country cannot become simply a low-wage economy or it is not going to survive and we are not going to be able to maintain and improve the quality of life and standard of living we have come to enjoy in the postwar era.

Moving on, we see that the Ministry of Housing is also one of the ministries that has been up before the standing committee on estimates and up for debate here today on concurrence. I think the ministry has been very active over the last year on many fronts; first of all, on the issue of bringing in true rent control legislation. In my riding, I have dealt with certain apartment buildings where they had proposed increases of 25% or 30% and I met with the tenants, who were very concerned about that. They will be resting far more comfortably knowing there is going to be a set process, knowing what the rules actually are and knowing they will not have to face double-digit rent increases.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think even if you counted every member twice, there would not be a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1854

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Oxford can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Sutherland: As I was saying, talking about the Ministry of Housing in terms of the initiatives regarding the issue of rent control, tenants in my riding will know with a much greater degree of certainty what type of rent increases they can expect. They know they will not have to face double-digit increases, because as members know, most people's income does not increase by double-digit figures in one year. Certainly in the case of the vast majority of people who are renting, their incomes definitely do not increase by double-digit rates.

Housing is a basic necessity and needs to be a right --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1856

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Oxford can resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Sutherland: I certainly hope the reason we are having trouble keeping a quorum is that people are out meeting the new Lieutenant Governor and not because, for whatever reasons, they are not interested in the debate. I am quite sure many members are, but if I had the option, I would probably go to see the Lieutenant Governor as well.

I was speaking on the Ministry of Housing and what it was doing on the issue of rent control and applauding it for bringing some certainty to that area in terms of the difficulty of many tenants in dealing with double-digit increases in rent, particularly when their incomes are not going to increase by a double-digit percentage, and how housing is such an essential right and a necessity for everyone in this country.

I also think it is important to applaud the ministry for some of the other initiatives it is doing on the issue of non-profit housing and co-op housing. Many people find that a very appealing way of living in this day and age is in co-ops. They feel empowered in the decision-making process of how their living conditions are going to be and how they can participate to make their co-op community a better place.

I also had the pleasure of attending the opening of the new women's emergency centre in my riding. This shelter for battered women was opened in October through a joint effort between the provincial government's Ministry of Housing and CMHC at the federal level. They were able to come up with the necessary funds to have a mortgage and to build a new facility. As I say, I was pleased to be at its official opening.

It now has disabled access, which I know all of us are certainly glad to see, because in my community, while we had the shelter, it was not accessible to the disabled before. We know from many studies that rates of abuse for the disabled are quite high, so it is important that we were able to add that. Again, I think that was a very positive step and I am sure the Ministry of Housing will be working on continuing to expand those types of facilities so that they are accessible to everyone in our society.

Moving on to the Ministry of Skills Development, an initiative that I believe my colleague the member for Durham East and the parliamentary assistant for the greater Toronto area mentioned was the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. This is a topic I get very excited about in terms of the new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and the initiatives coming out of there. I just think there are so many good things in it that need to be talked about and that the people of Ontario need to know about. First of all, in terms of what its goal and objective is, it is to set up a system so we have effective skills training for those people who want to get it, and not only skills training, but as I say, an adjustment board.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think there have to be 20 members and they are just not here again. I do not think there is a quorum and we should have a quorum for such an important speech as this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1902

Mr Sutherland: It is becoming more obvious that the new Lieutenant Governor is very popular among the members. I am sure many of them are enjoying his company. I think that is a good sign for the people of Ontario overall, how well liked our new Lieutenant Governor is going to be, following in the tradition of our past.

Before we were interrupted once again, I was talking about the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and how excited I am about this initiative because of the different positive aspects to it, and first of all, about people getting the necessary training they need. As we know, as I mentioned earlier when talking about the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, successful companies are those that have good people and it is good people having the right skills to produce the product or deliver the service that in the long run will make companies very successful.

Certainly for generations gone by they came out of high school, went to work for a company and thought they would spend the rest of their lives working there for that company. Things have changed a great deal from when many people who came out in the 1950s and 1960s went looking for employment.

We know that in this day and age we need a lot of new skills and constant upgrading. We know all the so-called futurists and the people say that many people are going to switch their professions three and maybe four times throughout their working lives. If we are going to be able to manage that successfully, then we are going to need to have an effective training program and the word "adjustment," as we also said. I think that is the other key component that needs to be emphasized.

For those many people and many of the 15,000 I mentioned who are going to be eligible for the wage protection fund when they lose their jobs and need to learn new skills, to find new jobs and to adjust to the new conditions, they will be able to do that effectively because we will have a very good system in place. People will be able to feel they can access the system very easily and know where to go to get the type of training they want to pursue.

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It would appear there may not be a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1905

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, I must tell you that it gets a little boring to hear the same stuff time and time again, but we will do our best to deal with it.

As I was saying in terms of people getting training, I talked about the adjustment process for those who lose their jobs as a result of plant closures. Many of those people are eligible under the wage protection fund, and I think the other key ingredient is the proposed setup for the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. That is a true spirit of co-operation. Members know that the Premier, in many of his speeches to labour, business and people all across this province and outside this province has talked about developing a new spirit of partnership and co-operation.

To me, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board proposal is the prime example of how business and labour can work jointly in dealing with the needs of the economy, in helping to manage the economy and in helping to make this province more productive and more competitive, to the benefit of everyone.

Obviously, businesses are going to benefit because there will be a much greater and more highly skilled workforce that will be more adaptable and more flexible, so that they can move quickly to meet the changing consumer demands out there in the global economy. Workers will benefit because they will be able to get new training and can have a greater sense of security. If they are in a job that looks like it is in an industry that might be a bit shaky, then they can have a much greater sense of confidence about being able to get new training and move into a different industry and be productive again. As we know, people are not unemployed because they want to be. People want to work in this province.

The unfortunate problem is that we have a very high unemployment rate and there are not as many new jobs being created as we would like. But this training and adjustment board initiative, as outlined in the discussion paper presented by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who is also responsible for Skills Development, is just excellent.

I think the other emphasis he has put on it, that a great deal of the skills training will continue to be done by the public sector, in terms of colleges and other public-type institutions, as has been done in the past, is just going to be wonderful because they have been doing a good job. I believe the minister, in response to a question, has indicated that much of it is being done by the public sector now because they are coming in with the most competitive bids in terms of when contracts for skills development are tendered out. I am sure that our public institutions, particularly the colleges, will continue to do that.

I also want to say that I think another positive aspect is how the provincial and federal governments are working together. I mention this not from the most political sense of federal and provincial, but in terms that two different levels of government can come together to work out a procedure to reduce bureaucracy, to reduce overlapping, to create a system that will have co-operation between the two delivered by one level of government, but both will be participating and understanding. I think whenever any government can work with another level of government and figure out how to deliver a service in an effective manner where there is overlapping with another level, that needs to be commended and praised.

I am going to leave talking about Northern Development and Mines to some of my other colleagues. Not being from the north, I do not feel that I am qualified to comment a great deal on that issue.

I am going to move on to the Ministry of Health. We heard comments from both the opposition parties during some of their presentations, by the member for St Catharines and by the member for Mississauga South, talking about health care. It is quite interesting. The member for St Catharines has certainly been advocating the needs in the Niagara region in this House for a long time, and he is to be commended for that. I know the members on this side from the Niagara region have been working very hard to ensure that their area is receiving health care service. It needs to be noted that the member for St Catharines is not the only one doing that. Many members are.

1910

We are entering a new phase in terms of how health care is delivered in this province and this country. I think, as the Minister of Health has said on many occasions, what we have really had has been a health insurance system. We have not had a managed health care delivery system. This government is committed to developing that.

To move from the one system to a new one is certainly going to require a great deal of transition. It is going to require a lot of us -- elected officials, the public at large, consumers of the system -- to rethink how we are going to use the system and what our expectations of that system are.

The member for St Catharines talked about cutbacks in the health care system and the old-fashioned view that the only way you can solve the problem is by adding more money to it. Members are certainly well aware of what the financial difficulties are for governments at all levels these days in terms of trying to find the necessary resources to meet all the needs. It has been an ongoing challenge for governments for many years, but it is growing and becoming even more of a challenge.

If we are going to be able to meet those needs effectively in a lot of areas outside of health -- I think it is important to note that many areas outside of health have grown and been recognized as areas of importance. I mentioned earlier the women's emergency centre in my riding and being at the opening. When you look at the initiatives in terms of recognition of the issues of violence against women, 10 or 12 years ago, when the shelter in my riding first got going, many people did not recognize it as an issue. It was covered up. The initiatives have really taken off there. If we are going to be able to deal with them effectively, we have to find more resources to commit to these different areas.

There is a host of other areas where I could comment to that effect and say that we need to find more resources, but we know where the health care budget has been going over the last decade: increasing at almost double-digit rates. Quite clearly, it poses a problem for any government at any level in terms of finding the necessary financial resources to keep pace with that. With these new areas becoming more important, because society is becoming more aware due to effective education campaigns and has a much more open and progressive attitude towards these areas, it is important to find those resources.

As we deal with the issue of health care and how we fund it and go to a system of management rather than just insurance, it is going to take a great deal of effort. It is going to have some struggles along the way. There are certainly going to be some bumps along the way. There are certainly going to be some difficulties along the way in this transition that will occur. I do not think any of us on any side of the House think that is not going to occur.

It is ironic to hear the leader of the official opposition talk about the deficit and tax increases one week and then talk about a cutback in services the next week. He wants to have it every way. As members know and I know, we cannot have it every way. There are limited resources. There is a great need for services and as a government we can increase revenue only a limited amount, particularly in these times. Tough decisions are going to have to be made.

This government has already made tough decisions and, I am sure, will be making more tough decisions in the upcoming year. But we are going to try to make those tough decisions with the greatest degree of compassion, with a great sense of understanding for what the needs are out there, and try to look at it from a sense of fairness and equity. I do not relish the idea of having to make these incredibly tough decisions.

I know all of us in our own communities are constantly advocating more and increased services. We all joke about it and say: "If you're going to make cutbacks, fine. Just don't make them in my riding." But we know we can only joke about it because if we are going to control expenditures overall, then there will have to be cuts in everyone's ridings, in the great part of the province your riding is in, Mr Speaker, in mine, and I am sure even in the Cochrane area there will have to be some. But hopefully we will do it, as I say, with a great sense of fairness and an attempt to meet all kinds of needs.

I do want to commend the Ministry of Health for its leadership in this area, to help to manage expenditures and to get us into a system of overall health care management. While I am saying that, let me say we are sometimes critical of how the system is administered right now. We have many very dedicated individuals in the health care system right now, doctors, nurses, health care aides, the support staff who work in the hospitals, the administrators and the volunteers on the boards. All of them are very dedicated and they are looking at the system for what they think is best for serving their community.

As I said earlier, all of us are going to have to rethink how we deal with the health care system. All those people who deliver it are going to have to rethink, and I think they are all willing to do that. I think they want to be part of the process for change. It will be important for all of us to try to make sure they are included in that process, because I think they have many of the answers on how we can change the system. In the long run, we will be able to afford the world-class health care system we have and it will continue to be the envy of many countries around the world, including that of our neighbours to the south who, although it has the great free enterprise system and the great system of efficiency, as we all know, cannot deliver health care as efficiently as we can here in Canada and in Ontario.

I want to talk about a couple of other areas, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, given the fact that Oxford county is the dairy capital of Canada and a very prime agricultural area in the heartland of southern Ontario, very diverse in its nature --

Mr Lessard: Great cheese, too.

Mr Sutherland: Very good cheese as well, that is right, and many good farmers have done very well for many years. They are very good managers of the system but they are all struggling right now. They are struggling because of the serious situation we face not only in this province but throughout the country, and I guess in many ways in the agricultural sector throughout the world. You are certainly very familiar with this, Mr Speaker, being a strong advocate for the farmers in the province. But the farmers in Oxford are struggling and will continue to struggle due to low commodity prices. Many of them have increased debt loads in the expectation that commodity prices would increase and they have not, and now they are finding that a great struggle.

I am very happy that the ministry was able to respond over the past year in terms of several initiatives, first of all participating in the gross revenue insurance plan and net income stabilization account to try to bring some stabilization to prices over the longer term. I am also happy with the initial money, well over $2 million, that was allocated in interest relief. The farmers of Oxford have benefited. I know they are extremely appreciative that this government was able to find that money.

They also will benefit from the most recent announcement, the interim announcement that came back on 1 October, the $35 million. They will be getting a good portion of that. Some communities -- and we know the member for Essex-Kent has been a strong advocate for the area that has been hit by the drought -- obviously need to get a good portion of that as well and certainly will be getting a good portion, greatly due to the efforts of the member for Essex-Kent.

1920

The farmers also realize, and I think we also realize, that this money is not a solution to the problem. It is to try and bridge and get us a little more time so that we can hopefully work out some of the things in terms of GATT negotiations. We have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food be a strong advocate in terms of ensuring our position is strong, in securing our marketing boards, our system of supply management. As members know, the system of supply management is not a subsidy system. It is a very effective system that ensures that there is an adequate supply to the consumers and that farmers get a fair return for production of their goods. I commend the ministry for its leadership on that issue.

The land stewardship II program was built on the heels of the very successful land stewardship I program, which had a tremendous impact. Farmers are very eager to get involved in issues of land stewardship and of environmental concern. There was a great response to the first one, which dealt a lot with soil erosion issues and how to more effectively manage the quality of the soil. Land stewardship II has had a much different focus in terms of trying to deal with issues related to liquid waste and its impact in terms of getting into our water streams and the programs to control that.

Farmers in Oxford have been at the forefront in providing good leadership by the significant number who have signed up to participate in the program. Obviously, not all of them are going to be able to because there is a limited amount of funds, but this is very good leadership on their part in terms of wanting to be involved. They know about the environment and they know why it is important to protect the environment as much as anyone does, because they know it is in their own benefit for the long-term survival of agriculture in this province.

On the Ministry of Energy, I am very pleased with a lot of the initiatives that have been going on in terms of the issue of energy conservation. I think it is important and we have to continue those efforts and upgrade those efforts. I know it is a struggle and a challenge for many of us to change our lifestyles. We have certainly developed a lifestyle of convenience, and we equate that to a standard of living. But I think that in the long term, if we are going to look at quality of life and be sure we can maintain a good quality of life, then we have to continue our efforts in energy conservation. Clearly, the impact of new hydroelectric dams and developing new sources of energy have detrimental environmental effects. If we are going to limit that, minimize that impact, then all of us are going to have to upgrade our conservation efforts.

I have been pleased to give several of the municipalities in my riding cheques from the Ministry of Energy because they completed energy audits and applied for programs where they could improve their facilities to make them more energy-efficient and save hydro. Many of them were municipalities, so they are saving the taxpayers money as well by participating in these programs.

While we are at a very festive season and lights are always a great symbol during the Christmas season, I certainly hope the many residents of Oxford and throughout the province will be very prudent in their use of Christmas lights. While they certainly add to the celebration, I think it is important that even at this season, the season when there are sometimes celebrations and festivities and we get a little carried away, and certainly at times of excess, we should remember it is also a time to remember to still be efficient in our energy use when it comes to issues of lights.

I applaud the Ministry of Energy and I certainly hope it will continue to keep up its initiatives and that all of us will do whatever we can to promote energy efficiency, because we are very fortunate to have the vast resources we do. Many other countries do not, but that does not give us a right to abuse that and to waste energy. Again, we will have to continue to work on that area.

I want to speak a little bit about the initiatives the Ministry of Financial Institutions is taking with auto insurance reform, and particularly about what it is doing around the issue of students, but I know some of my colleagues on this side want to participate and give their input.

I started out my speech by trying to counter what the member for Mississauga South had said about how it was such a depressing story. I have highlighted several of the ministries and their initiatives over the last year and what they have been doing to make this a better province. To me it is not a negative story or a pessimistic one. It is a very positive one and I am very proud of what we have been able to achieve in the first year.

While the challenges are going to be more difficult because of even more limited financial resources in year two, I know this government will continue to try to make this a better place for the province as a whole and for the residents in the riding I represent, and I am very proud to represent the fine people of Oxford.

Ms Poole: I must say that over the last few hours as I have listened to the eloquence of the member for Mississauga South and the member for Oxford, I am just absolutely stunned and amazed at how many words can be used to say so little. But we do appreciate how very eloquent they have been in saying those words. I want to address the Housing estimates.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My point of privilege is that I would like the member for Eglinton to clarify her comments, because I was very complimentary to her during my speech.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): That is really not a point of privilege. The honourable member for Cochrane South, on a point of privilege?

Mr Bisson: I agree entirely with her comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Eglinton, please continue. You have the floor.

Ms Poole: It appears I have created a rift in the NDP caucus between the member for Cochrane South and the member for Oxford, so I apologize for that in advance.

Mrs Marland: But you think I am great, right?

Ms Poole: Of course the member for Mississauga South is great. She asked me if I would say that and I would be happy to say that at the moment.

Seriously, the Housing estimates are something we should not joke about, because there is a lot of money being spent and it is incumbent on us in this Legislature to make sure it is being spent wisely. I have been rather appalled in the last year to see a number of ways in which money is being spent, hard-earned taxpayers' dollars that I could not in any sense of the word say were spent wisely and well.

I will start off with this little piece called the Rent Control Options. This little baby was sent across the province to one million tenants. That is right, one million tenants at a cost in the vicinity of $500,000. That is what the government admitted it spent on it, so we can be assured that by the time it has squeezed some consultants' fees into other areas and printing into other areas, it probably cost far more.

I am all for having tenants involved in the process, but I am not in favour of having tenants involved in the process if it is a mockery, and that is exactly what this was. The minister announced on February 18 that he was releasing a consultation document on rent control and on the long-term system. The minister said, "We are going to do a mailing across the province to tenants to involve them in this process," but what they did was send out a glib little six-page sheet which gave very simplistic one- or two-sentence descriptions of very complex problems and then said to tenants, "Tell us what we should do."

I think that is an insult to tenants' intelligence. They did, to be fair, offer in this six-page blurb that if tenants wanted the full consultation paper to learn more about it, to call in or write in and they would send them one. But this is where we see the process for what it is, because on the one hand they offer to send out this consultation document so that tenants can be informed so that they can answer the survey, yet at the deadline five weeks later when the survey had to be in, there was a huge backlog of thousands of tenants whose calls had gone unanswered. They never got the document. They could not make an informed decision. At the end of the day, how many tenants responded out of the one million tenants who were advised and who were sent this mailout? Seventeen thousand out of one million. What type of response it that? A response of 1.7%, if my math is correct. They spent $500,000 on this sham, this mockery, this so-called consultation exercise, and what did they do with the results? The results meant nothing.

1930

At the same time, they held so-called public hearings, but these were public hearings NDP style. Again, taxpayers' money was being spent on a process where they sent the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the government whip for the standing committee on general government on a road trip to all these various communities. They have a funny kind of democratic process in the NDP caucus.

Mrs Sullivan: Funny is right.

Ms Poole: Funny is right, as the member for Halton Centre mentions, because what they said was: "We decide who the speakers are. We decide the speakers' list. Joe Q. Public or Josephine Q. Public who comes in off the street cannot say anything. They are just allowed to sit there and listen." The government has guests who are invited to speak. There is no question and answer period. That is missing, so there is no opportunity for people from the floor to actually ask: "What does this mean? What are the ramifications? What happens if we do this?" That was missing.

After I wrote a letter to the Minister of Housing asking whether the opposition critics could be involved in the process, they said: "Yes, we are a democratic party. We are a New Democratic Party. Come to the meetings. You can sit at the front and be part of this process, but you cannot speak and you cannot question. You may sit there and listen." I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but to spend taxpayers' dollars on this kind of mockery, travesty and sham is beyond enough.

The real irony is that they spent $500,000 on a meaningless survey, meaningless because they did not do anything with the results, meaningless because they rushed through the process. This mailout was done the end of February. Tenants had to have their answers in by April 5. Tenant leaders and landlord leaders all said the same thing: "Slow it down. How can you hold these hearings? How can you do a so-called consultation on such a complex, important issue? How can you do this and not truly involve us but railroad through your own ideas?"

What was the result? The result was Bill 121, which has been mired in controversy. We recently went into clause-by-clause. The government had 100 amendments to its own bill, 100 amendments just on its side, not to say anything of the fact that the Conservatives and the Liberals together had another 100 -- a total of 200 amendments to a 130-clause bill. So when this government talks to me about consultation, it makes me sick to my stomach, because it spends the taxpayers' dollars and what we get in return is nothing less than a sham.

That is the one area I wanted to address in the Housing estimates. The other area I want to talk about is non-profit housing and some of the difficulties we have encountered in that regard.

By the way, just before I go on to non-profit housing, members might be interested to know that when we were talking about the housing option paper, the government commissioned a Goldfarb Consultants report on tenant focus groups on rent control. They had some very interesting results.

The first thing they found out was that there was very low recall of the ministry's mailout. The government spent $500,000 -- it admitted to $500,000; we do not know how much it actually spent -- yet tenants could not remember receiving it. The second thing they found out was that most tenants were not even aware of Bill 4 and Bill 121, which meant that all this money they were spending on communication and so-called consultation was a bust. The tenants did not know about it because the government was not informing the tenants of what they needed to know.

The third thing is that tenants could not recall any public hearings. Now is that not interesting? They make a big deal about this public hearing consultation process and the tenant focus groups that were consulted by Goldfarb could not remember that they even had public hearings. They found out that tenants wanted more information and did not feel they were getting enough information.

What this does is show the government's action for what it is. It put politics before people and I think that is absolutely disgusting, particularly when there are people in this province who desperately need housing. When we have money being spent on that rather than on housing people, I call that a real shame. If they had meaningful consultation with tenants, that would be one thing. I would wholly applaud that.

I have spent the last five years informing tenants and producing tenant guides for them to explain the rent review process and to explain the Landlord and Tenant Act. But to engage in this kind of thing is just ridiculous.

Going on to the non-profit housing, we have had instances where the lack of flexibility of this government is really detrimental to making sure the taxpayers' dollars are being spent well. I give members the example of the town of Wawa. I think a number of members have heard of Wawa; some may even know where it is. It is a very small town and it has been absolutely devastated by the recession. They have lost so many jobs that the town is foundering. The town is struggling to survive.

In the middle of all this the Ministry of Housing approved a $5-million non-profit housing project. I believe there was something like 40 to 42 units involved. The problem is that Wawa's population is declining dramatically. They have vacancies all over the place because people are moving away. There are no jobs. So they contacted the ministry and said, "Look, we desperately need the $5 million to be put into jobs to keep people in Wawa." But what is the government's response? The government's response is silence.

If this was just NIMBY, if this was the not-in-my-backyard syndrome, then I would not have a lot of sympathy for that; if they just said, "I don't want non-profit housing next to me." But that is not the point of these people in Wawa. They are saying this government is committed to spending $5 million on housing they simply do not need.

The government has to have the flexibility to see where the need of the people is and to reassess. There is no shame in saying, "This housing project for this particular town at this particular time is not what this town needs." I call on the Minister of Housing to relook at this situation and at the circumstances and to review her decision.

There are other instances which I would like to tell the members about. The Ministry of Housing approved a project at 106 Beverley Street. This was not building new housing; this was renovating old housing. Do members know what the cost of the renovations was? It was $91,000 per unit, and this is not new housing. The private sector can build units for less than that. This was renovating an old building. What are the priorities of this government when it is spending $91,000 a unit? That is not even the kicker. The real kicker is that these are not self-contained units. They are not apartments. These are rooming-house units where they share facilities like the kitchens. So $91,000 was spent on a renovation like that. Where is this government's head?

I think it is the wife of a prominent NDP federal politician who recently announced he will not be running in the next election who is involved on the board of directors. The labour congress is the general contractor and management of this particular project, but let's not talk about all these conflicts of interest. Let's not talk about why this particular project got approved at $91,000 for renovation of a rooming-house unit.

Let's just talk about the cold, hard facts and how much that money could have bought in new units. If they are going to renovate, surely they can get something more cost-effective than $91,000 per unit. The NDP are quite silent now. I cannot quite understand this. I am glad they are listening. I hope they are listening, because they have to take a look at what their priorities are.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Eglinton has pointed out that the New Democrats are noticeably silent. I think it is because there are not enough of them and I suspect that we need a quorum call.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1941

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We now have a quorum. The honourable member for Eglinton has the floor and may resume the debate.

Ms Poole: I am really disappointed that the NDP members do not want to hear my comments, but --

Hon Ms Gigantes: We were watching you on TV while we were eating our sandwiches.

Ms Poole: The Minister of Housing said they were raptly watching me on television as they ate their sandwiches. That is good to know.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It was hard to eat when you were saying you were sick to your stomach though.

Ms Poole: I hope I did not ruin their dinners as I said the words "sick to my stomach."

These are the kinds of things I am talking about when I am talking about the waste of taxpayers' dollars. What the Ministry of Housing has to do is put more flexibility into the system. They have to be looking at what they can get, the best value for the dollar, and they have to be able to not only cut through the red tape, but also ensure that when people are prepared to build non-profit housing, we are going to get the best deal. If it means we have to use some flexibility with the rules, we should be doing it, because I cannot comprehend why we are spending $91,000 on a renovated unit, I cannot comprehend why we are spending $5 million in Wawa when they do not want the non-profit housing and I think we have to build in that flexibility.

There is one other example I want to use. The member for Parkdale was talking to me just today about a non-profit unit that is to be built in Parkdale, and all the community coalitions -- the tenants' federation, the local MP, the MPP, the local councillor, the community groups -- are saying, "Do not proceed with this project." The cost for this project is now up to $170,000 per unit, and when you have that kind of money being spent on one single unit, think of the cost to taxpayers. Think of what the subsidies have to be for that particular unit, not only this year or next year or whenever that building is finally completed, but think of what it is going to cost down the line.

Earlier I was looking at the Housing estimates and some of the answers the ministry gave to us in Housing estimates, and by the year 1995-96, I believe it was, we are going to be spending over $1 billion in subsidies: $1,024,000,000. That is just in subsidies.

What I am saying to the minister is that we have to make sure the money we spend is spent wisely and well. I am not saying we do not subsidize people in housing. For years, under my government, if I can be so possessive as to call it my government, the government of which I was a part, and under the NDP government, I have been talking about the in situ placements, the rent-geared-to-income placements, where in existing buildings we increase the number of placements where tenants can get subsidized and live in their own homes at a far lower cost than in a new building. I am not saying, "Don't build any new buildings." I am saying when we build new buildings we must make sure that we get the best deal on the land and the development and that the need is documented, that the need is there and that when we spend the money it is spent well.

On the other hand, in the meantime we should be providing that money we have saved by spending taxpayers' moneys wisely and well. We should be spending it on increasing the rent-geared-to-income supplements so that people do not have to move to a non-profit building in order to get some help, so that seniors, single mothers and people who are on low incomes can stay in the unit where they may have lived for 20 to 30 years and get assistance from the government. But instead of the $1,600 to $1,800 it might cost to supplement that income under a new unit, they can be supplemented for maybe $200 or $300.

It has to be a balance. It has to be a combination. Yes, the government does need to increase the existing housing stock, but it sure has to change some of those rules. It has to bring flexibility into it to make sure we are not wasting money. At the same time, it has to increase the subsidies in the existing buildings. It is the only way it can work.

I will wind up now because I know a number of my colleagues would also like to make their remarks tonight. I challenge the Ministry of Housing to look at some of these projects and rethink its views on them. The taxpayers expect nothing else and in these hard times we expect those taxpayers' dollars to be spent wisely and well.

Mr Cousens: In speaking on concurrence in the spending of the different ministries, I am putting on my hat as a member for some time of the standing committee on public accounts. One of the things we look for, certainly through the assistance of the Provincial Auditor, Mr Archer, who is retiring at the end of this fiscal year -- in fact by the end of December he will have retired. He certainly has done a great deal to assist this Legislature in getting value-for-money audits.

As we look at each of the ministries, one of the things that I as a business person bring to the table -- I think the members of the public accounts committee generally have had this feeling -- is, let's make sure we are getting value for the dollar. Where are we getting that value in this government? I have a tremendous sense that we are not getting the quality of service, the value that in fact should be there. Never mind what was there just a few years ago, but what should be there now.

I would like to touch on two or three areas that really need to be looked at in this view. One happens to be education. When we see the high school dropout rate approaching 30%, we begin to see an urgency around education. The problems stemming from inadequate literacy and numeracy skills in the workforce are well documented. What we see is that by the year 2000 we will be demanding more and more education and training of our young people.

I would like to challenge the government and the Minister of Education to place a greater emphasis on the early and formative years of education, requiring that all students acquire the basic competencies needed for further learning. If you are hiring someone into the workforce these days, how well can they read, how well can they write and what are the mathematics skills?

We should also put a higher priority on the education of students whose disadvantaged backgrounds predestine them to difficulty in school and in their careers. There are many young people whose homes do not give them a square meal to start the day and whose own home situation is not strong enough to help them get into school and take advantage of the system we have. Let's at least begin to understand their needs and try to find some answers.

Let's begin as well to integrate technology with education, finding an emphasis for math, science and problem-solving skills across the curriculum. The movement towards psychology for students who go into university, rather than into maths and sciences, is creating a real problem for us in that we are not generating the kind of growth in high-technology subjects we should be putting an emphasis on.

Education at every level needs to be given a fresh emphasis. On the university side, when you start reading about the number of students in classes and the kinds of shortages that are taking place there for supplies, for teachers and for services, you begin to see a problem being generated.

1950

I would just like to touch as well on quality and value for dollar. It is a huge dollar that we put into education. Are we getting the benefits out of it? I find more and more people worried about what is going to happen as the young people come out of any of the school systems we have. There are exceptions, and I think those exceptions start with the quality of the teacher and the principal in each school, but somehow or other society is being shortchanged for the amount of money being invested in education. I see the education of our young people as one of the greatest and most important investments we as a society can make, the education of our young people as they proceed beyond high school into apprenticeship programs or into university or community colleges, and the re-education of people once they have been out in the workforce and they come back needing to be strengthened and acquire new tools, learn new trades. Every one of the people going through school today will go back to school many times over, far more than those of us who went through earlier.

I am concerned that the value for money is not there in the way this government approaches it. This government does not stop and consider the value and the quality of the service that will be presented for what it is offering. They came along and said $30 million will go into the elimination of child care by the private sector, and the $30 million will now be spent just to convert the private sector into a non-profit sector for delivery of child care services, without creating one more unit of service. That is another example that this government does not look at value for the moneys that are being spent.

I suppose the biggest indictment against this government is the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who is now able to get away with calling someone else a liar and not even apologize for it. Her apology will only be acceptable when she resigns.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the point is that I said the minister called someone a liar. I am sorry. That is really not the case. The minister in fact has admitted to telling a lie. That is the issue that is of great concern; she did not call someone else a liar. We in fact have been hearing it the other way around; it pertains to her being called just that.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your point is made. The member for Sault Ste Marie has the floor.

Mr Martin: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House this evening and comment briefly on the concurrences that are in front of us and speak for a few minutes on the tremendous record of this government in its short term in office to date, contrary to the comments of some of the members opposite, who are digging deep and reaching a tremendous distance to try to find reason to put blame on our government for a lot of what is happening to people across the world because of a tremendous recession.

I need to tell members that I have been working for the past 15 years of my life, particularly in northern Ontario, with some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities. During the reign of the Progressive Conservative government in the early 1980s, I had the privilege of working with some community workers in Sault Ste Marie to develop a soup kitchen in response to the difficult times of that date.

Then in the time of the Liberal government, particularly in the early days when the agreement with the New Democratic Party of the day was in place, I was rather heartened by some of the new legislation coming down and by some of the new initiatives that were put in place that actually began to reflect a concern on the part of the government of that day for the difficult times of many of the people I ate with, had coffee with, visited in homes with, that there might be some relief on the horizon. That soon dissipated as the previous government grew in arrogance and pomposity, began to renege on some of the things it initially said it would do and then went into a period of drift.

Since we came to office a year and a half ago, we have consulted with the people of the province in ways they have never been consulted with before. We have co-operated with people in the communities of our province, both in southern and northern Ontario, in ways they have never been co-operated with before. We have put in place a number of initiatives I am particularly proud of to reflect the concern this government has for those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

There are initiatives of the Ministry of the Attorney General for families who find themselves in a situation of poverty because of a breakup. Through consultation and negotiation with the opposition, we have come up with a package that will ensure that the children of this province who were going without will no longer have to do that. It will be guaranteed that they will get that which they were promised by the last government but actually never got: enough money to put bread on the table, enough money so their parents can pay the rent and put clothing on their backs.

There are the initiatives of the Ministry of Housing, first under the capable leadership of the member for Windsor-Riverside and now under the capable leadership of the member for Ottawa Centre. We will no longer experience the kind of increase in rent that happened in the mid to late 1980s in many of our communities, which forced people by the hundreds out on the street. In those days I was fortunate enough to be able to travel a bit in this province. I came from northern Ontario to the south and was appalled by what was happening, the number of people sleeping on sidewalks, the number of people lying on grates in the winter, under piles of snow, with steam rising from their bodies.

In the short period of time we have been here, after a difficult negotiating process with the opposition, after having heard from the people of the province and actually sitting down with the landlords and tenants in communities, we have come up with a package we think will guarantee for some time that those who are in need of housing will ultimately get a roof over their heads and have a place they can call home.

This is a small but not insignificant indication of the kind of program we will put in place in time in many parts of Ontario which speaks to those things that many of us who have worked most of our lives now take for granted: security of employment and, with that, a wage that speaks to being able to take advantage of some of the good things that are available in life.

Not long after taking on the reins of the ministry, my colleague, neighbour and good friend the Minister of Natural Resources decided that an injustice which had been perpetrated on many of the families who live and work in northern Ontario should be ended. That injustice was the fact that so many of the folks who worked in Natural Resources, actually very hard and often in inclement weather and difficult times, always worked on contract. In fact, some of them went through their whole careers on a contract basis. They would be on for three months, off for three months and then on again for three months, without ever knowing for certain if there would be a job for them come next season.

The present Minister of Natural Resources, with one stroke of a pen, after having consulted again with the people who work for him in that ministry, found the resources the previous governments were never able to find to make those temporary contract positions permanent positions so that more people in the north of this country, who work so hard, as I said before, in sometimes challenging conditions, could now have a job upon which they could count and which would pay them that which they require to look after their families and feel secure about their future and make some plans.

2000

Last but not least in my comments this evening on the concurrences that are in front of us, I would like to speak about that which the Ministry of Northern Development has done for my community and indeed many of the numerous communities that populate that part of this province I live in, which is northern Ontario.

Previous ministries of northern development were satisfied to simply have a presence up in that part of the province. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Northern Development was initially put in place to counteract the good work that was being done by the many elected New Democratic members in northern Ontario. When I was a young man living in Wawa, there was a time when I thought the government of Ontario was a New Democratic government because there were so many members of the Legislature from northern Ontario who were of that persuasion. The Conservative government of the day, seeing the impact those members were having and the work they were doing with the people who work and live up there, decided it had best put an arm of government into that part of the province.

In fact, it was simply an information bureau, a place where people could drop in and get forms filled out and assistance of that nature. There was never any in-depth industrial development done or talk about the economy or ways of changing the system, so people went for ever having to go places, cap in hand or on bended knee, to ask for that which they needed to feed their families.

Indeed, it continued like that until the previous Liberal government came into being, and as I said before, it showed some promise. Many of us who were working very hard in the communities of northern Ontario to stimulate new economic opportunities thought that through the able leadership of then Minister of Northern Development René Fontaine we were going to get some change and that things were going to be different. He established the Northern Ontario Development Corp and the groups that operated around that initiative. He actually tried to plant an idea that was working and successful in Quebec in northern Ontario so that we might have a future up there and develop things. But as luck would have it, his colleagues in cabinet did not agree or share his vision and did not support him in those initiatives, so they failed. He, in great disappointment, I believe, left the cabinet and the government and we were never able to pick up the momentum he had generated for the time he was there.

A lot was left for the present Minister of Northern Development to do and she responded with great generosity of time and energy and has been able to do more in the north in the last year and a half than I can remember being done there in the 10 or 15 years I worked there as a professional. The names of communities I could list that she has had a hand in helping are litany, particularly over the last year as the economy struck northern Ontario and closed or had the potential to close many of the small communities that were dependent on one industry. With her able staff and the support of her colleagues in cabinet and this government, she went in and did things that we thought were not possible.

As a matter of fact, an example of that is what happened in Kapuskasing. I personally was involved in attempting to get some of the people of northern Ontario and some of the power brokers in northern Ontario to look at the idea of worker ownership and worker co-ops in that part of Ontario as an answer to some of the problems we were having and was not able to. I ran into brick walls every time I tried to do anything.

Again, in a very short period of time, in some very difficult circumstances, the present Minister of Northern Development, with the assistance and support of the Premier, came up with an answer to a community virtually on the brink of closing down, because the people who owned the capital that kept that one industry it had grown to depend on going were about to pull it out and move it someplace else. This government, under the leadership of the present Minister of Northern Development, moved in there and saved the day and saved the jobs of the people who worked in that plant and the three-to-one other service jobs dependent on that.

Elliot Lake is a perfect example of the kind of leadership the Minister of Northern Development has shown and continues to show in northern Ontario. She was able to pull together the resources of many sources, many ministries, to respond to a community on the brink of disaster and to provide it with the five to seven years it needs to put in place a plan that speaks to a future for that community. I dare say members will be hard put to find anybody in that community, having gone through that difficult period of not knowing, who is not thankful in some way to this government and that minister for the great work done there.

As a matter of fact, we have committed more resources to that community in the next few years to help it create an economy that will sustain itself than were promised in the election of 1990 by this party. The $200 million we said we would spend in all of northern Ontario we have been able to come up with from various sources to stimulate the economy of Elliot Lake. I think that is something we, and certainly the Minister of Northern Development, can be proud of.

Sault Ste Marie, my own community, is another community that is very thankful to the Minister of Northern Development. We are also a community very dependent on one industry and a community struck by the decision of the large entity that owned Algoma Steel to virtually write it off. Through the leadership of this government, our Premier, the Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, we now have the major partners sitting down around a table talking about the possibility of the workers of that plant buying into some ownership of it so that we can, at the end of the day, have a company that is poised to take advantage of the opportunities that will be there once this recession is over and recovery is at hand.

I am proud to say I am part of a government that is committed to that kind of activity and actually was willing to take leadership from the beginning, to give impetus and meet with people, and continues to do so as the difficult decisions continue to be made around this particular issue. As I said when I started, I am very proud of the initiatives of this government to date in front of a very devastating economy and a recession that has gripped the world, indeed in front of an industrial restructuring of North America.

This government has done things that speak to a commitment to people at a time when that is difficult to do, to an investment in people at a time when other governments have said we should not be doing that, to a concern about those who are presently unemployed at a time when the federal government in particular would prefer to perhaps just leave them unemployed.

This government, the ministers in it and those of us who form the caucus are committed to making sure that all the people in this province are able to keep their heads above water so that when the recession is over and a recovery is upon us, they are in a position to take advantage of that which will be there and all those people who live and work in Ontario will participate in the good times we know are ahead.

I thank members very much for this time and I now bow to whoever will speak next.

2010

Mrs Fawcett: I too am very pleased to speak on concurrence in supply, in particular citing the agricultural and rural segment of our province. We all know the continuing extreme pressures there are on agriculture and on the agriculture industry. I think everyone has heard and knows, yet it bears repeating, that agriculture plays such an important role in the local economy of rural communities across the province.

It is also very important to remember that Ontario is Canada's largest agricultural province, generating approximately $5.8 billion at the farm gate and over $17 billion in total sales of agricultural products and contributing over $1.6 billion to Ontario's exports. We have to really look carefully at this segment of Ontario's economy.

There are 130,000 to 150,000 people who work on 72,700 Ontario farms, with the total industry responsible directly or indirectly for one in five jobs across Ontario. The agricultural industry, as has been said, is second in size only to the auto industry. With the recent events in the auto industry, one wonders if it might even surge ahead to number one in Ontario.

The farming industry has gone through really tough times for the past decade. We have no regrets over the 60% increase in the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that occurred under our government, the Liberal government, because we understood that we must have our farm community viable and we were working very, very consciously and carefully towards making the farm economy a viable one.

Thousands of people work in that industry or in related industries. They love their work. They want to do that work. They do not want to become real estate brokers or whatever. They want to farm, but they have to be able to make some kind of living while they are doing it. They deserve as much of an acceptable lifestyle as any of us.

We have seen there is such an income crunch -- I think farmers are calling it the income crunch of 1991 -- with prices falling and depressed prices all over. It does not seem to matter which segment, especially in the oilseeds and grain seeds part and even our vegetable and fruit farmers. They are really hurting. I think we have to realize that they need some long-range help, not just money thrown at them.

Certainly under our government, the previous Liberal government, discussions began between the federal government and the provinces to design new long-range support programs for the agricultural industry, to replace the past agricultural stabilization act and through discussions between farm groups, the provincial government and federal government, the terms of the gross revenue insurance plan as we know it were finalized last year and the program was introduced this year.

Unfortunately though, there was never any coverage for the 1990 crop. The previous special assistance covered the 1989 crop and GRIP was designed to cover the 1991 crop, so farmers facing low prices this summer and selling the remainder of last year's crop were hit with a double shock of low prices and a gap until next year's GRIP assistance takes effect. As they finished selling their 1990 crop at below-cost prices, the bills for the 1991 crop costs were starting to fall past due, so once again our farmers were in a real crunch.

The federal and provincial governments have moved to provide interim payments this fall under GRIP, and while this is really welcomed by the farmers, this decision simply allows farmers to pay last year's bills with next year's stabilization cheque. Somewhere this all catches up, and once again the farmers are left really wondering what is going to happen to them.

The NDP had been unwilling to provide funding for this year's net income stabilization account, which is another program which was to help farmers. It meant not only a loss of provincial assistance but also a lower level of federal assistance under the terms of federal enhancements announced to the program last spring.

We were certainly very happy they did finally come through with their part of NISA, but it was a little late so our farmers missed out on 50% payments from the federal government which they really need, especially if they are going to think about next year's crops. They cannot just wait and all of a sudden have this money come in any old time, because crops have to be planted at a certain time. They must order all the seeds and so on that are necessary for the crop a half a year earlier, so it really puts them in a bind when they cannot get this money flowing when they really need it.

Of course in my riding there are many farmers in the fruit and vegetable industry. They count on the money flowing so that they can get their crops in, and we have associated industries with that, food-processing industries that really employ a lot of other people in the riding. They too then suffer.

The livestock industry and the fruit and vegetable sectors are also really depressed, so we must continue to press this government to live up to its promises and provide the farmers with the wherewithal so they can continue.

Last spring, the government announced its $50-million, one-year program for farm interest rate assistance, but its long-term farm financing proposals contained in the Hayes report recommended putting the burden of the farm finance on the shoulders of the rural communities themselves. It just seems strange that this government seems to think it can ignore its election promise of $100 million to support long-term lending by asking retired farmers to invest their savings instead.

Certainly in the Agenda for People the NDP promised that $100 million would be made available for low-interest loans for farmers, yet now there does not seem to be mention of that $100-million election promise in all the options that were discussed in that report. The long-term proposals in the report all involve government guarantees on private funds as opposed to direct government funding as promised in the election. The use of guarantees is not a bad idea in itself, but it is a bad idea by itself. Guarantees on private funds are really no replacement for direct assistance either through interest rebates or direct loans.

2020

Certainly we are aware of the GATT talks, which are making farmers very nervous. The trade issues continue to force pressures and instability in Ontario's agriculture industry. Certainly this present round of GATT negotiations is the focus for most of the current trade uncertainties. Supply-managed commodities are threatened by the discussion over article XI of GATT, which is the provision governing regulated marketing. Right now, according to today's Toronto Star, there does not seem to be much hope for the supply management system, which is working for that segment of our agricultural industry, namely, the dairy and feather producers. They are in a really nervous condition right now, because they really fear for their livelihood.

We must do something. Our minister, I hope, is really putting pressure and representing and making sure our federal minister represents Ontario's concerns. The finalization of these GATT talks will be the largest economic issue facing agriculture in these next few years, so it is not to be treated lightly by any chance. Compared to other provinces, Ontario is heavily dependent on the stability of regulated marketing plans.

Certainly the farmers are very concerned about the environment. They are genuinely concerned about the environment and they have always been and tried to be very good keepers of our environment, but they are concerned about some of the issues this government is bringing forward. I think environmental pressures, including soil erosion and degradation, rural water pollution, consumer concerns over pesticide use, consumer concerns on the use of animal medications and farmers' growing concerns about their own exposure to pesticides and herbicides are certainly an emerging issue facing Ontario farmers.

The NDP has indicated it will move on a number of environmental initiatives which will affect agriculture, including this environmental bill of rights and new regulations on pesticide and chemical use, but the NDP really needs to consult with the farmers, who are right there first hand and have the knowledge of what does and does not work, and they feel they are being shut out of the consultation process. I hope the government will consider having some of the farm groups represented on its new laws and regulations concerning the environment.

Farmers are aware of the importance of the environment; they have always been. They have a long and proud tradition as stewards of the land. Farmers have taken up a number of initiatives to help protect the environment.

Under the Liberal government, the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association administered the provincially funded land stewardship program, which was an excellent program. Farmers liked it, because it was a program they administered -- there again, the grass roots doing what they know how to do best.

A number of farm groups asked the government to move towards licensing all pesticide users, and a new group called AGCare had been initiated by existing farm groups to promote environmental issues and to work with government on effective solutions. Farmers are as concerned about the environment as anyone else, but they want to work with this government in an open, consultative process to find the answers.

They are demanding action. Farmers and farm organizations have a long list of concerns and requests for funding and program changes. The following represent key current demands for government action from different farm groups.

The government needs to ensure that existing and new financial programs are tailored to farmers' needs and have enough funding to ensure our family farm remains viable and will continue to be viable. This means working with farm leaders to enhance, reform and develop new and existing stabilization programs ensuring crop insurance provides adequate coverage at reasonable rates and providing credit assistance to meet farmers' long- and short-term financing needs.

Ontario needs to participate in the GATT discussions and the US-Mexico free trade talks to ensure that important legislative supports to marketing programs are not traded away. Trading away marketing boards is like trading away our family farms. At the same time, Ontario needs to work with producers and processors to ensure that our food industry is competitive with other countries.

We have to train our farmers to be effective financial managers and marketers, as well as educating them on new technology which will help them improve their efficiency and productivity. Competitiveness also depends on quality and diversity. We have to help our farmers expand into new value-added products to provide alternatives to traditional crop and livestock operations. All these initiatives will help.

The family farm depends on some off-farm income to support its farming operations now, so we need these initiatives to include developing tourism opportunities, compatible lightweight industries and food processing in rural communities. It is inevitable that rural communities will need to replace traditional farm service operations with other businesses if they want to maintain and retain their economic viability. Rural communities are looking to the Ontario government for help in planning the development of rural Ontario, the same way the government is planning the development of the greater Toronto area.

Mr Hayes: I know I jumped out of turn, but I thought I should address some of the concerns the member for Northumberland has raised dealing with agriculture. I am a little disappointed, but at the same time I think maybe she does not really understand what we are planning to do to assist farmers in this province.

As the member mentioned, we had a task force and, rightfully so, we dealt with the short term. The short term was our farm interest assistance program, which was a very successful program to the tune of $50 million. As a matter of fact, that program was so successful we added another $11 million to it. The member for Northumberland mentioned that we have to put more financing into agriculture. This is a thing farmers have mentioned for a long time. I think we have tried to address the immediate needs with the finances we have.

I am glad some the member raised some of the points she did, and I am glad she agreed with some of them. We talk about education, for example. We have to educate not only the farmers, helping them to do some of their managing, financing and marketing -- these are the kinds of things we are looking at in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; that is long term -- but we also have to educate the consumer.

I was at the Canadian National Exhibition a while back and I took a tour. They had mini-farms there. I might have mentioned this before, but I think it is important for people to know the cost of production and how much the farmer actually makes on the food that reaches our tables. When I was at the CNE, they had a miniature farm with hogs, cattle, sheep and chickens. It was a very good display. They showed the process of raising chickens, for example, or how you get milk. They had school tours and a lot of different people went through there. I stopped at each one of those and I said to the people who were putting them on, the various marketing boards and supply-management systems, that if they plan on doing that in the future, they should be putting the cost of production on those things to educate the public. That is one of the problems we have.

2030

There are a lot of factors that are really out of farmers' control. Actually, some of these things are out of our control as a provincial government, because of some of the issues with free trade. I remember that the previous government swore up and down it would not go along and would do everything in its power to defeat free trade and probably take the federal government to court if it adversely affected agriculture. The other issue was the auto pact. Those things did happen. It is very unfortunate. The farmers have certainly been adversely affected. The European Community and the United States, with their subsidies, are certainly hurting our farmers and, for that matter, this country.

The problem we have had is that why does a country like ours have to sit back and let a couple of families, like the Chicago Board of Trade, for example, decide what Canadian farmers should get for their commodities and labour? That has always upset us. I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food went with the various farm organization leaders and actually worked to support the federal government and say, "Hey, we want you to continue to fight."

Hon Mrs Grier: Support the federal government?

Mr Hayes: Support the federal government in its efforts to keep article XI to protect our supply management system. It does look pretty shaky at this time, and I hope they do not give up. I think it is about time we had a national agricultural strategy in this country, because one of the big problems we have when we talk about free trade, for example, is that we do not have free trade between our provinces sometimes. I think the provinces have to get together to put some pressure on the federal government to start protecting the farmer, not only in Ontario but in Canada, and protect the family farm.

With regard to the environmental bill of rights, I remember when the Liberal government came up with the spills bill. We had all kinds of groups and individuals that hollered and screamed that it was really going to hurt the farmer and all these kinds of things. I will ask if anybody today can give me the number of farmers who have been charged under the spills bill. I do not know of any. Every time we put in a piece of legislation dealing with the environment, we have to take in all the factors in all the different sectors in our society. It is just as important, maybe more important, for farmers that we do protect the environment.

We are concerned about the farmer. We are concerned about our future generations. We are concerned that the soil is not degraded and we have to do certain things to ensure things are done the proper way. It is just like with any legislation; there are a lot of people who say the government sticks its nose into too many things. But if everybody would work together for the environment, for example, we would not have to legislate to make those few people clean up their act. That is very important for us. It is unfortunate that we have to legislate because some people do not want to go by the rules.

The member talked about subsidies, but the intent of this government in dealing with agriculture is found in the word "self-help." When I did the tour across the province, these are the things farmers said to us. I had retired farmers approach me and say: "I would be glad to be able to invest to help my son or daughter or help the neighbouring farmer. I would even be glad lend them money at a lower interest rate if" -- there were things mentioned like the guarantees, whether we could do something about possibly exempting them from paying income tax for that smaller percentage, things like that. These are the kinds of ideas we are throwing out.

I was very pleased on November 6 when we had the various farm organizations meeting in one room to deal with the long-term financial planning for agriculture in Ontario. It was very important to know and it made me feel good that we could have the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, the Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario, the Ontario Farm Women's Network, the francophone farmers, people from the credit union -- I hope I do not miss too many -- Catholic Rural Life. We had all these people in the same room sitting down, two members from each of those organizations. The commodity groups were also represented.

I thought that was very good, and the one commitment I made to them -- the minister has supported me on this -- was that we will continually ask for their input, not only to get their ideas but also to assist this government in working out the mechanics of how to put the proper programs together that affect those people. We do not need just the politician or the bureaucrat making these decisions; we want input from the farming community, especially to protect the family farm in this province and this country.

Mr Bisson: It is an interesting time we have had here this afternoon. We have listened to a number of people from all three parties speak about various issues touching various ministries from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Energy.

I would like to start with the comments of the member for Northumberland, who gave, I thought, a very interesting speech. My colleague from this side of the House made some comments on it. I think she is right that a lot of things within the farming industry are happening today. Not all of them are done entirely in Canada. To a certain extent some of them were done because of the GATT, because of a number of things happening in the marketplace of the industry that produces the food we take so much for granted every day when we sit down to a meal.

What is happening is quite scary. Like most other people in this province, I often take for granted when I buy something that things are as well as they should be. A lot of people are not aware that recently the American government put in a challenge under article XI of GATT, charging that Ontario, and I think Canada as a whole, have unfair subsidies within our agricultural industry. If that particular challenge is accepted, it would put in jeopardy the whole existence of the farm community in Ontario and across Canada. Basically it would dismantle all our marketing boards. Without those marketing boards, the farmers who sell their goods in the dairy sector, chicken, eggs, all of that, would be -- I have no other way of saying it -- under siege, not able to sell.

I was talking to a member of the opposition a couple of days ago about what is happening with a local dairy in his riding. After a meeting with that dairy, he was saying it was looking forward to the time when it would be able to import milk from the United States into Ontario, at the demise of our milk producers here in the province.

Ms Haeck: No more family farms.

Mr Bisson: No family farms. It is really scary stuff. I think it denotes what has been happening within our economy overall for the past five to 10 years. We are now seeing a number of things happen that challenge the very way we do business within Canada and Ontario. Decisions made at GATT and under the free trade agreement, a number of them, have really put in jeopardy our whole industrial cornerstone of the economy today.

2040

One of the members from the Conservative Party talked a little while ago about the whole question of people willing to invest within Ontario or in Canada. It is scary when we look at the indicators, because what is happening by and large is that capital now has the ability to move across borders in a fairly unrestricted way. The effect of that is that as local governments, provincial governments or federal governments, we increasingly have less and less say in what happens within our own economies because of how the rules have been changed over the years. We can sit here and point our fingers at a number of things, but that really does not accomplish anything. I think most people know what has happened. It really poses an interesting challenge.

On utilise le mot «défi». Ça nous donne vraiment un défi ayant affaire avec ce dont on se trouve capable pour remédier aux situations dans notre économie. Ce qui arrive c'est qu'on se trouve dans une situation où les gouvernements de plus en plus ont besoin d'aller rechercher de nouveaux partenaires dans notre économie pour trouver des solutions et pour être capable de trouver des moyens pour arranger les problèmes.

Notre député de Sault-Sainte-Marie a parlé juste avant moi à un de mes collègues de ce qui est arrivé avec le ministère du Développement du Nord et des Mines sur la prochaine année sous la direction de notre député de Sudbury-Est, notre ministre, ayant affaire avec certaines solutions qui ont été trouvées à des situations très difficiles.

On a vu, par exemple, la situation qui est arrivée à Kapuskasing juste dernièrement où une compagnie a décidé, pour une raison juste ou injuste -- c'est vraiment l'histoire qui va dire c'était quoi l'histoire -- qu'elle ne voulait plus faire d'affaires à Kapuskasing. Ils ont dit : «Nous comme compagnie américaine on trouve que le marché du papier n'est pas un bon marché.» Ils sont partis et ils ont décidé qu'ils étaient pour retirer leur capital de l'entreprise et pour partir aux États-Unis.

Il y a certaines personnes à l'Assemblée ou certaines personnes dans notre économie qui essaient de mettre le blâme sur le gouvernement du jour : «On a un gouvernement socialiste en Ontario et c'est pour ces raisons-là que tout le monde veut partir.» Ce n'est pas vraiment parce qu'un gouvernement est socialiste ; je pense que c'est plutôt qu'on se retrouve dans une situation où les règles qui gèrent notre économie ont beaucoup changé.

The decision on the part of the government, under the leadership of the member for Sudbury East and others, was that we had to try to find new solutions to those problems. We had to try to find a way to keep local dollars within the community and keep that industry in place. After all, we are talking about a whole community, a community in northern Ontario whose main employer is Kimberly-Clark, the paper mill in Kapuskasing. If the fait accompli had been put in place, thousands of workers would have lost their jobs, not just the 1,000 workers within Kapuskasing itself at Kimberly-Clark but also people who work in the service sector feeding that particular industry and the retail sector that relies on the paycheques derived from that industry. The whole local economy would have taken a really bad downturn.

What kinds of solutions were we able to find? We were able to bring together an interesting partnership. It was a partnership of the government, the private sector under Tembec and the employees of Kimberly-Clark and the community in general in the whole area. They came together to find some local solutions. Obviously, one of the difficulties today is that no government, federal or provincial, has the amount of money necessary to bail out every company in trouble in the province or in the country overall. We have to find other ways to pull together money and put the capital in place to save that company in the long run.

Under the leadership of, yes, the socialist government in Ontario, we have a different way of doing things. We brought together those partners. The workers themselves raised $15 million -- quite an amazing feat; I really have to take my hat off to the people of Kapuskasing -- more than their share of the money that was necessary in order to safeguard that industry. The private sector came on side under Tembec, which was interested in picking up that particular mill because it was a good deal. They make a quality product in northern Ontario; they have access to some of the best wood fibre in the world when it comes to making quality newsprint. They came together under the leadership of the government and others to save that particular company.

In the end, it did mean there were job losses. They were not able to pull together a deal in such a way that every worker who worked for Kimberly-Clark saved his job, but the majority were able to hold on to their jobs, and for that we are thankful. It is because of the people coming together, the co-operative model of bringing people together, of working together on a common problem, that it was able to be solved.

Look at other examples in northern Ontario. There was a situation in Elliot Lake with particular mines there. Both the uranium producers in that area decided it was no longer viable to do business. In fact, it was costing Ontario Hydro seven times the market price for uranium coming out of Elliot Lake, which meant those mines either had to be subsidized directly by Ontario Hydro at seven times the current market rate or that Ontario Hydro would find another place to source its contracts.

Some people would have said, "It'd be really nice to source 100% of the contracts through Ontario Hydro, to be able to safeguard all of those jobs in Elliot Lake," but I think the members from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party will agree that in a business deal you have to make sure there is some basis to it that would make sense economically to survive. Again, we found a different approach to solving the problem. Rather than the government coming in and subsidizing directly the whole situation in Elliot Lake, we said, "Let the people who set up that situation in the first place ultimately be responsible." Yes, we went to Ontario Hydro.

I listened with intent when one of the members from our side -- I have forgotten his riding -- got up to speak about the whole question of Ontario Hydro. They said, "You found money from somewhere else." Sure we did. Ontario Hydro was responsible for the situation. They are the people who went to Elliot Lake in years past and said, "We want to buy uranium from Elliot Lake; therefore, we want you to build a community and we want you to build an infrastructure in order to be able to buy the uranium that is needed for the nuclear reactors."

As early as, I would say, the mid-1970s or the mid-1980s, Ontario Hydro went back to Elliot Lake and said again, "Rebuild your community." They built a whole new town site, just as you are coming into Elliot Lake; you cannot miss it. Hundreds of brand-new homes were built in Elliot Lake, and those contracts never came forward. Ontario Hydro, like any other corporate citizen in the province, made a determination: "We can't pay seven times the world price for uranium. It doesn't make economic sense."

Some people would have us say, "Why don't you source it 100%?" I heard some of the members from the Liberal Party suggesting just that. They were in power for four or five years; they knew the situation was coming. As early as 1987, when I first started servicing, as a literacy co-ordinator, the members out in Elliot Lake of the United Steelworkers, the Ontario Federation of Labour, people were talking then to the Ontario government, asking it to source. They did not source because they understood there were problems in doing that.

We found another type of solution. We said, "You who are responsible for setting up this situation should bear some of the responsibility." So we went to Ontario Hydro and, with negotiations, we managed to put some money forward to give that community some transitional time to be able to move from where it was at the time to somewhere in the future. The Ministry of Northern Development, again under the leadership of the member for Sudbury East, put together some money through the heritage board and other means by which to give the community some money directly --

Mrs Sullivan: Ontario Hydro; totally outside its mandate.

Mr Bisson: I would argue that it is not totally outside of their mandate. I am being prompted by the opposition again, but that is quite fair because they do not believe in those kinds of solutions. What the Liberals and I think the Tories would want us to do is open up the coffers and say: "Let 'er rip. Spend all kinds of money. Increase the deficit. Bring it up nice and high, so that politically, in the next election, we can go out and say what bad managers you have been."

But we found another kind of solution. We said that Ontario Hydro is responsible and will bear some of that responsibility. The Ministry of Northern Development put some money forward, and other ministries of the crown did the same thing, in an attempt to give the community some time for transition.

I note with interest that just this last weekend that particular community -- dealing particularly with this -- has started to lobby to get the French community college, if established in northern Ontario, in its community. Because of the things we were able to do to put the community in the position of having a few dollars, it is putting together a very effective lobby and a very effective argument why it would make sense to build a French community college in Elliot Lake. It goes to show that when you go out and find new partners and pull those partners together and say, "Try to find some solutions locally," a lot can happen.

We see now what is happening in Sault Ste Marie with Algoma Steel. The whole story of what has happened at Algoma Steel, where they were and how they have ended up, is a story I am not going to get into, but it comes down to the same thing. The solution is being found how? Co-operation between the local unions there, the United Steelworkers of America, with Algoma Steel itself, the municipality of Sault Ste Marie, the provincial government and the federal government; they are coming together to find a solution. It is a very tough situation. That company is deeply in debt. It is having extremely difficult times in the current economic conditions, but I have some hope. I have hope because people are coming together in partnership to find some solutions.

Je ne pense pas que ce soit une méchante idée d'essayer de rassembler le monde qui est affecté par une décision. Je pense aujourd'hui qu'on a besoin d'admettre que toutes les solutions ne sont pas seulement au niveau des gouvernements. Quand on a eu un problème dans notre communauté dans les années passées, ça a toujours été le même problème. Le citoyen de notre communauté, comme vous le savez comme député de votre circonscription pour beaucoup d'années, Monsieur le Président, va voir le député provincial ou fédéral et puis il dit : «On a un problème. Va me trouver une solution. C'est ta responsabilité. C'est moi qui t'ai élu et toi qui es mon représentant et puis trouve-moi une solution.»

Nous comme gouvernement socialiste on dit : «Ce n'est pas que nous avons toutes les réponses ; il faut travailler ensemble. Il faut essayer d'aller rechercher des idées ensemble pour être capable de trouver des solutions qui font du bon sang.» C'est très difficile des fois d'essayer de rassembler des personnes qui ont été des adversaires ayant affaire avec certaines questions, d'essayer de rassembler des fois les membres d'un secteur de travail dans une compagnie qui possiblement ont été en confrontation pour beaucoup d'années à travers de différentes situations.

La seule chance qu'on a c'est d'être capable de retrouver une situation et rassembler tout le monde possible pour trouver une solution. Je pense que ce n'est pas radical ; je pense que c'est la seule solution qu'on a devant nous aujourd'hui.

Le député de l'autre côté a dit tout à l'heure : «Vous avez un déficit ; vous n'avez pas besoin de l'aide pour mettre sur place un déficit.» Oui, c'est vrai, 9,7 milliards de dollars, mais la question qu'on a eue quand on a préparé le budget de 1991-92 c'est qu'on se trouvait dans une situation où, si on ne faisait rien, si on ne faisait que garder les services qu'il y avait à l'époque, on aurait eu besoin de couper 8,4 milliards de dollars juste pour balancer le budget. En d'autres mots, parce qu'on a perdu les revenus des taxes et que les services ont monté, on se trouve dans une situation où ça aurait coûté 8,4 milliards de dollars d'une manière ou d'une autre, n'importe ce qu'on aurait fait. Si on dit comme gouvernement qu'il faut aller trouver des solutions avec la coopération de toute la citoyenneté ontarienne, on sera capable de trouver, possiblement, des manières à règler les problèmes.

Juste dernièrement le ministre responsable, Monsieur Wilson, a dit qu'on allait avoir un système où le monde aurait le droit de communiquer directement avec le gouvernement pour donner des solutions, possiblement, ou des suggestions pour couper les coûts du gouvernement. On sait tous que le gouvernement est un organisme qui est très grand et qui coûte beaucoup d'argent, et il y a du monde qui demande : «Y a-t-il une manière d'économiser des cents à la fin de la journée ? On veut avoir vos idées.»

2050

The question we have coming into the end of this budget year is going to be fairly interesting. As all members of this assembly will know, what is happening in Ontario is not something specific to our economy only. We are seeing a very large downturn in the North American economy, in the Canadian economy, because of a number of things that have happened.

We have not helped ourselves internally. Things such as the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency have greatly affected our ability to control investment within our own country. One of the first things that was done in 1984, when Mr Mulroney was elected, was to dismantle it. Now, capital comes in and out of this country virtually unchecked. Things such as deregulation were put in place that greatly affect our ability to deal with certain sectors of our economy. Now we have to try to find solutions around those barriers that have been put before us, such as the free trade agreement.

What we need to do is build on those examples we have seen that have been working, those in Kapuskasing, Atikokan, Sault Ste Marie, possibly, Elliot Lake, under the leadership of the Minister of Northern Development, I might say; by bringing people together and trying to find solutions not just from the business sector -- it does not have all the answers -- but also the workers, the communities, mayors, councils, all those people, pulling them together and collectively trying to find solutions.

What I find extremely difficult to digest in this Legislature at times is some of the comments made by members from the opposition. They, especially our Conservative members, seem to take the view that the only people who have solutions to give in this economy are people from the business sector. Sure they have solutions. They have been in business for many years. They have contributed greatly to the economy of Ontario and of Canada, but they are not the only ones who have solutions. I meet with business people every day in my riding, when I am there, the same as any member. They know what the problem is: lack of capital. That is one of the big problems they are having. They are not able to access money. My father, when he went into business some 20 or 30 years ago, walked in to a friendly banker with $20 in his pocket and a great idea and made a living from it. Nowadays you need a little more than that to make it, because it is extremely difficult to find capital.

On this side of the House we say yes, the business sector can give solutions, but not only the business sector. We must involve the workers, we must involve the general population in trying to find solutions to very tough problems.

Members on the other side like to egg us on; if they will notice, I used the word "socialist" in my speech at least four or five times. They try to use the word "socialist" in a very negative way. The members from across the House --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Here we go, Mr Speaker. The members from across the House will yell, as they are doing right now, that socialism is a bad thing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Bisson: We woke them up, I notice.

I say this in closing: If being a socialist means I care about my community, if being a socialist means I care about equity, if "socialist" means ways of bringing people together to find common solutions, I call myself a socialist with great pride.

Mr Miclash: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the concurrence in supply. From my perspective, of course, I am going to talk about northern Ontario and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

I might begin by saying that a little over a year ago the people of the north were really looking forward to seeing what six northern cabinet ministers were going to do for the north in terms of an NDP government, in terms of the NDP cabinet. We must say these ministers have taken reasonably high profiles in terms of their government.

We have the Minister of Transportation, and people will know how important that is to us throughout the north in terms of our highway conditions and in terms of getting those upgraded to a point where we are going to need some help; the Minister of Revenue, who is taking a look at raising a good number of taxes and not really paying particular attention to what those taxes are doing to us in the north; of course, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines herself, another fairly high-profile person in cabinet, one we looked forward to seeing do a number of things for us throughout the north. There is the Treasurer, another very influential person; he sits right beside the Premier in cabinet and in the House.

We were expecting a lot from this government. If we go back to that election, the headlines read, "NDP government, six cabinet ministers" -- my God, the north is going to be represented. That has not happened. All we have to do is take a look at what has happened over the past year and so many months and take a look at what has not happened, even though billions of dollars come out of the north in terms of tax revenues, and the Minister of Revenue from Thunder Bay will know that. She will know how much is contributed to this entire province through tax revenues from our natural resources and our industries in the north, but very little coming back.

We have a government today that is looking at very short-term plans. They seem to like to get the issues settled, out of the way. Political expedience is what somebody else may term it, but I call it short-term planning because I do not really feel that this government has a plan to take us into the 21st century. There does not seem to be anything in the long term, anything to move our industries forward, to ensure they are going to be around in the long term.

2100

When I speak of our resource industries, I am speaking mainly of our forestry industry, including our sawmills and our paper mills. In Kenora we are just going through a plant shutdown which has put a good majority of our workforce out of work for a month around the Christmas season. As well, we can look at a good number of mine closures taking place across the north. Here are some statistics: Over the past two years, we have had a significant winding down of both the iron ore and the uranium sectors in the north. In the forestry sector alone, which I spoke of earlier in terms of paper mills and sawmills, there have been 2,700 people laid off in the past two years. In the mining sector, 4,000 people have been laid off because of slowdowns and cutbacks.

Mr Speaker, I cannot tell you the implications this has for northerners across the board, not only in those two sectors directly involved, but the spinoff effects are something else. Here are some figures to indicate that:

Unemployment in northern Ontario: October 1991, it was 10.2%, the highest across the province. Since October 1990, it has risen in that one year from 7.4% to 10.2%. I just cannot speak of the effects it has across the north.

Welfare case load: August 1990, 12,361 cases; August 1991, 17,299 cases; a significant increase of more than 5,000 people who have actually had to revert to welfare.

Closure of mines: Nine mines closed in northern Ontario over the past year.

Bankruptcies: 801 business and personal bankruptcies in northern Ontario in 1990. The former speaker said we do not need small business, that the world does not revolve around small business. I suggest to him that when we have this number of bankruptcies in northern Ontario alone, there will be the effects we are seeing and feeling in northern Ontario.

A little closer to myself, being the critic for the Ministry of Mines, the total number of prospector licences issued and renewed at the end of October 1991 was only 4,346, compared to a total of 5,071 in 1990. There we have a drop of a little more than 700 prospector licences issued, again showing the downturn in the mining industry.

Something else that is near and dear to my heart is the number of young people who are actually leaving the north. Outmigration is what we call it in the north. According to Canadian census data, northern Ontario lost 25,000 young people to permanent migration in a five-year span between 1981 and 1986. I cannot say enough about how this government is going to have to take a close look at what is happening to those young people. Why are they leaving the north? Why are they leaving a healthy lifestyle and outmigrating in such numbers? That number represents some 15% of the northern youth population. One can hardly imagine what it would do to take 15% out of any population.

When we look for help from this government, what are we faced with? The most recent issue I spoke about was an increase in our fuel taxes of 30%, an increase that will have devastating effects on many of our resource industries, which, as I indicated, need the gasoline and fuel to operate in an efficient manner and remain competitive.

When it came to gasoline prices, the people of northern Ontario were hoping the government would see the light. We had the member for Sudbury East saying during the campaign, "Equalization of gas prices across northern Ontario." I remember it well. I thought, how are they going to do that? They are in government now and we are still waiting for that equalization of gas prices across northern Ontario. I hate to say we are paying 65 to 68 cents a litre in Red Lake for gasoline right now, something unheard of in southern Ontario. The member for Sudbury East said they were going to equalize these gasoline prices.

The member for Sudbury had another plan. She had a plan to come up with an energy commission. She remembers it well; I hear a little chuckle from her right now. She felt if Nova Scotia can have this plan, so can Ontario. I ask her tonight, where is it? We are still waiting in northern Ontario.

Gasoline prices have a further effect on a very important industry in the north, that being tourism. Earlier this week we talked a little about that, how the gasoline prices are not only keeping the tourists away from northern Ontario but are driving some of our northern Ontario people south of the border to participate in lower gas pricing in the states south of us. Another member and I actually came up with a parallel, where we are seeing people driving from northern Ontario to southern Ontario through the states paralleling the Trans-Canada Highway. He indicated the other day that they are not only doing that but are driving from southern Ontario into eastern Canada, again through the United States, looking for those cheaper gasoline prices.

A little more about tourism: When the operator is looking at a 30% increase in gasoline prices, an increase in his aviation transportation, his outboard motors, the vehicles needed for his operation in the north, the generators he needs to operate his outpost, there is a very devastating effect on that operator.

We heard about the four-laning of highways in the north too, and I know a lot of people who elected this government to power were looking forward to that. I have to say that to date I have seen very little movement in terms of the upgrading of our highway system, but when the people on the other side of the House were campaigning, we were going to see our major highways four-laned and we were going to see a lot of road improvement on secondary highways. In the last 14 or 15 months, we have seen nothing. What I am looking for and what I am going challenge the Minister of Transportation to do -- he is raising our gasoline taxes by 30%. That should mean he will raise his maintenance and upgrading of our transportation system by that same 30%. That is something I will be watching very carefully for, and I am sure my constituents, as well as many constituents across the north, will be watching for it as well.

Another rise in costs for the northerner, for our industry and for people in general across the north, is the 44% rise in hydro rates we are looking at. As we know, the climatic conditions of the north are much more severe and we rely much more on hydro for our heating and lighting. As well, our industry relies so much on hydroelectric power as a tool. It was to be a development tool, not a tool where they would gain revenues. This government has taken a different attitude, and we see that happening.

I wrap up by saying that we have seen the cancelling of a very important development tool in northern Ontario. The minister recently made an announcement that our northern development councils will no longer exist. That has to have a devastating effect. These were northern development councils to tell the government what northerners need. Now we find them taken away from the north. It is something I just cannot speak about. Hopefully, we will see them replaced by a body which will work as effectively as they did for the people of the north.

Those are just a few points about how we in the north are suffering under the leadership of this government, which promised so much and has delivered very little.

2110

Mr Winninger: I would like to join in this debate. I remind the members that Ontario and Canada are indeed going through deep structural change. We are all aware that two thirds of the jobs that have been lost in the current recession are gone for ever. One million Ontarians are now relying on some form of social assistance. What we are experiencing is not just one wave of the business cycle; we are in new waters altogether. There are several reasons for this: the effects of the Canada-US free trade agreement, the continually high value of our dollar, the globalization of our economy and the intense, technologically based competition.

Some people want us to believe that Ontario is a place of high taxes, labour problems and a government that is unfriendly to business. That is not the Ontario I know. Let me list a few things about Ontario. It is growing at a faster rate than any other jurisdiction in the G-7 universe, projected at 3.8% per year for the next three years. Ontario's inflation rate, at 3.3%, is the lowest in Canada and in the last year Ontario has received 77% of all investment that came into Canada.

In Massachusetts a company would pay $7.65 for employee social security; in Ontario a company would pay only $2.20. In Michigan, a company would pay 8% of its payroll for health insurance, yet in Ontario a company on average would pay less than 2% of its payroll for health insurance. A dollar spent on research in the United States costs the company 97 cents, whereas a dollar spent on research in Ontario --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. There is a great deal of noise. The honourable member for London South has the floor. It is time allocation and the time is limited. Please allow the member for London South the opportunity.

Mr Winninger: As I was saying before I was interrupted, a dollar spent on research in the United States costs the company 97 cents, whereas a dollar spent on research in Ontario costs the company only 64 cents. This is a profile of a very dynamic economy which, although it has been battered by recession, is poised to take a leading role on the world stage; it is an economy that has a fundamental soundness; it is a province with a stable, pragmatic and effective outlook for its future. That is the Ontario we can take forward to the world.

The Premier has just finished a visit to the United Kingdom, France and Germany aimed at strengthening Ontario's commercial links to Europe in 1992. He spoke with business and senior government leaders about trade and investment opportunities. He has participated in a promotional campaign of international tourism for the Great Lakes region. He has signed technology exchanges and linkage agreements with the Rhône-Alps region in France and the Baden-Württemberg region in Germany, two of the four engines of Europe. This trip, I suggest, illustrates an important point about the nature of the global economy and Ontario's place within it.

Renewing our economy is the central focus of the Ontario government. Ontario is in the midst of the worst recession since the Dirty Thirties. Ontario is growing at a faster rate than any jurisdiction, as I have mentioned, in the G-7. But these are tough times for all of us. That is true for government as well and not just because we are a relatively new government and people expect a lot of us. During our time today I can talk about the recession itself and perhaps what it means for this government and what we are doing to encourage economic renewal in Ontario.

While there are many similarities to past recessions, there are also critical differences. We came into government, as the members will recall, to discover that the budget surplus promised during the election by the Liberals was actually a $2.5-billion deficit. Since then we have had to deal with the full impact of this recession. That has meant dealing with an unprecedented situation. Provincial revenues have actually fallen, as our Treasurer has observed, from one year to the next. During the last serious recession in the early 1980s government revenues still managed to rise by more than 8%. Many of the jobs that were regained after that recession are now being lost permanently.

The current recession, therefore, is quite different. Revenues are growing more slowly than before. Last year they actually went down by more than $1 billion. This fall we have had to absorb an unexpected revenue loss of almost $700 million due to recalculations by the federal government of how much it owes us for personal income tax collected on our behalf.

With a budget of more than $50 billion a year and inflation running at roughly 5%, standing still and doing nothing now requires more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue. Ontario lost more than 250,000 jobs in the first year of our recession, many of them permanently. When people's jobs disappear, welfare costs increase. This means extraordinary pressure on our spending commitments and it means making tough choices. It means doing more with less.

Some people say you can support either equity or efficiency. Either you talk the language of competitiveness, productivity and efficiency and follow policies which will produce that, or you talk the language of equality and of greater social justice and deal with that. The two, they say, are for ever in conflict. I tell the members across the House, those nattering nabobs of negativism, that this is simply not true. Wealth creation is crucial. Attracting investment, rewarding innovation, encouraging markets to work, entrepreneurship and creating profits -- these are things which have to happen.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for London South has the floor and the Speaker has great difficulty in hearing.

Mr Winninger: Efficiency is the necessary condition of an effective policy of a fair and just society. Equity and efficiency are two sides of the same coin.

I will outline initiatives that our government has been working on during this legislative session, how we are meeting the challenge of rebuilding the economy and working towards greater fairness for people in their places of work and in their communities. These initiatives include research and development, the attraction of new investment, changes to the provisions of trading in Ontario, the establishment of greater co-operation between business and labour, employment equity and worker ownership.

Long-term commitments to research and development are essential in order for Ontario to move to a healthier, more productive economy. With this in mind, on November 5, as the members will recall, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology announced the government's commitment to the Industrial Research and Development Institute. Research and development is certainly the backbone of high value added industries which create those skilled, well-paying jobs. The new research centre, as the minister has noted, will serve as a national institute for applied research and development for the tooling and related industries. Tool, die and mold making is certainly the backbone of manufacturing in Ontario, and critical to the aerospace, plastics processing and other manufacturing industries. Some 80% of Canada's tooling industry is located in Ontario. The choice of Ontario as a home for the IRDI is therefore ideal.

2120

Until now, Canada has been the only leading industrial nation without an institute of this kind. The competitive position of our manufacturers will be strengthened. This centre is a bridge between industry and the academic community.

This is certainly an investment in our technological infrastructure and a step towards a revitalized economy. However, research and development is not enough. We must also attract new investment and expand confidence as an investment opportunity. Progress is already being made. According to Investment Canada, from March 1990 to March 1991, Ontario received $11.9 billion worth of foreign investment. This is 77%, as I mentioned earlier, of all foreign investment in Canada during this period.

Another essential component of economic renewal is wage protection. When you work you expect to be paid, and the Ontario government has now made this law. On October 15, as members will recall, the Minister of Labour moved third reading of Bill 70 to provide for the employee wage protection program. This program protects workers by helping them recover the unpaid wages they deserve. Current bankruptcy laws have placed workers last in line when it comes to lining up for credit in bankruptcy situations. The employee wage protection program, I submit, goes a long way to establishing co-operation in the workplace. Workers may be far more willing to go all out and contribute their special knowledge and expertise to improve productivity when they know they will have some measure of wage protection.

Another initiative designed to increase co-operation in the workplace is reform to the labour laws of Ontario. Our Minister of Labour announced earlier this month his proposed changes. After more than 40 years, collective bargaining has been at the centre of government policies, designed to support fair and progressive bargaining. The collective bargaining process, I submit, has been durable and successful because of its ability to respond to workplace concerns and issues in the context of a market economy. Collective bargaining enables government to leave the fashioning of terms and conditions of employment to the voluntary agreement of the workplace parties, thereby decreasing the need for direct government regulation and intervention.

Workplaces are also changing. The number of small workplaces is increasing. In 1990-91 more than half the bargaining units certified at the Ontario Labour Relations Board had 20 or fewer employees. Larger workplaces, formerly concentrated in core areas of cities and towns, are increasingly located in lower-cost suburban or rural areas.

These factors combine to make employees' attempts to organize particularly difficult and the Ontario Labour Relations Act is responding to these changes. The right to organize must be equally accessible to all employees and in particular the needs of women, minorities and other low-pay workers in vulnerable sectors of the economy.

Earlier this evening I heard on television a number of members opposite me in the House indicate that this government is spending its tax dollars unwisely. I say to the members across the House that this government is spending its tax dollars in a manner more responsive to the needs of Ontarians than has ever before been the case in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I really had not planned to join the debate until I listened to the previous member. Because he actually sounded as if he believed it, I thought I should join the debate.

I am very worried about the economy and about the government's ability to get the economy rolling. Contrary to the member who just spoke, I am afraid the government does not have any plans to get the economy rolling. Most recently, just December 13, the Ministry of Labour issued its report on closures and layoffs. We can see that already this year we have in Ontario, as of the end of November, one, two, three, four pages of plants that have closed completely. Perhaps as troublesome to me are the pages that outline the plants that are going to close in the months ahead, plants that will close in December, January, February and March. Already we see 35 plants representing over 2,500 employees that will close in the month of December. That has to be something of immense urgency, I would hope, to the government. Certainly it is to the members of the opposition.

The second thing I would say is that the unemployment statistics just came out, and here we see unemployment in the province of almost 500,000 people. That, I think we would acknowledge, understates the unemployment by perhaps another 100,000 people who have absolutely dropped out of the workplace.

As one looks at those two reports -- the unemployment numbers, the layoffs and the closures of plants -- one has to be immensely concerned. I say to the government, where is its plan?

I was, frankly, very disappointed in the Premier. On November 28 in the House, he said in response to a question, "I am sure the honourable member would agree with me that the Prime Minister could do a great deal for national unity by indicating that the kind of money he is putting into the province of Quebec he is also prepared to put into all the other regions and parts of Canada." That was in response to a program in Quebec that had been worked on by the federal government and the provincial government for literally years: a comprehensive industrial plan, an industrial strategy for the province.

I would say to the Premier that before he is critical of the federal government and the province of Quebec, we would like to see his plan for industrial restructuring for this province. Before he blasts the federal government for working with a province on an industrial restructuring plan, a comprehensive one -- it may or may not work -- I would hope that, as he is going to talk with the Prime Minister and the other premiers this week, he might give this House the courtesy of outlining his plan. Because he was very critical of the federal government for allocating those funds to Quebec, I would expect that on Thursday when he meets with the Prime Minister he would have his economic plan to lay out for the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces.

The member said this is the plan for economic renewal in the province. The components of that plan, the Labour Relations Act changes, I assure him, are going to do more to undermine the confidence and credibility and partnerships in this province over the next year than almost anything else. I have never seen the business community so united in terms of an issue as it is on this. Yes, there is a need for Labour Relations Act changes; there is no question of that. But what we are facing in the next year is an absolute crisis in terms of jobs and job creation, and what is going to happen? Without any doubt, there is going to be a major fight between the labour community and the business community just at the moment when we need both of those parties working as hard as they possibly can.

As I said here earlier in the House, we have a fire storm out there, and what happens? The government starts a fight between our two best firefighters. It is nonsense. We should be getting on with the real job of building the economy, so I felt I needed to speak.

2130

First, we have seen just within the last week the layoffs and the plant closures. December is going to be one of the worst months in all of 1991. More than 2,500 people will be laid off and plants will be closed permanently. It was only a year and a half ago that Ontario had the best unemployment record in Canada. We are now fifth best. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia now all have lower unemployment rates than Ontario. It is almost unheard of. That is all in the period of 18 months. We see closures, the unemployment rate, and we see problems in that area.

What has to be done? I would say to the government that it is imperative that it gets on with its economic renewal plan. As I said, Quebec has a plan. They laid it out before the people of Quebec. They got the government of Canada co-operating and providing funds. I hope the Premier would have a similar plan available to get the Ontario economy rolling. He is meeting this week with the other premiers and the Prime Minister. This is of significant concern.

The reason I rose was that I heard the previous member suggesting he is satisfied with the plans of the government. I would say to him that as the unemployment rolls continue to grow, as a number of people get more and more desperate for jobs, we need some action from this government, not mere rhetoric.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We will now deal with items 36 to 47. First, the Ministry of Labour. Shall these estimates be concurred in?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We could institute a similar type of system to what they use in the mother Parliament and the House of Commons if we could have it noted in the record that this motion carried with dissent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): This Parliament has no provision for that. It could well be put to the committee.

Mr Mancini: If we have no provision for that, all we need to do is have the Chair recognize that it was asked to have the record show that it was carried with dissent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member has already done that. The estimates of the Ministry of Labour have now been concurred in.

We will now deal with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Shall the concurrence in supply carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the Ministry of Housing concurrence in supply carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We will now deal with the Ministry of Transportation. Shall the concurrence in supply carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We will now deal with concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Skills Development.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We will now deal with concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources be carried?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Now we have concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Health.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We now have concurrence in supply for the office for the greater Toronto area.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Now we have concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Energy.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Dealing now with concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Finally, we are dealing with concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

2140

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We will now have a 30-minute bell. Call in the members to deal with concurrences in supply.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Standing order 27(g) requests that the vote on concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Financial Institutions be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings, also deferring all other votes. It will therefore follow that the votes on all of these concurrences in supply will proceed on Tuesday, December 17, 1991, immediately following orders of the day. The votes are accordingly deferred.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Does the whip not have to specify an exact time the vote will take place, not some suspended --

Mr Abel: "Following routine proceedings."

Mr Eves: That is not an exact time. What time is that? Is it 3:01, 3:02.5, 3:03? Give me the time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): To the honourable House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, this is not unusual. It is a routine proceeding.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I then have my whip, the next time there is a deferred vote, put in a motion that says, "Until the fourth pink Cadillac goes by after routine proceedings, then we will have the vote"? Would that be in order, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): As the honourable member knows, that would not be in order. However, we do have, in this Legislature, routine proceedings. The timing is never accurate, as we know. Therefore the vote will occur following routine proceedings.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Etobicoke West was last debating, and he still has the floor.

[Applause]

Mr Stockwell: That is the best hand I have ever had, to begin my reading of the gasoline tax --

Mr Hayes: And then they all leave.

Mr Stockwell: That is the price of politics, I suppose. Why do we not take a brief moment and allow those who are leaving to leave?

I want to review a couple of the highlights of my last speech. Some will say there were no highlights, but I think I made a few points that were rather germane to this issue. I do not want to lose the finer points -- not to put too fine a point on this. I think I should review a few of the editorials we saw around this province when we were dealing with this issue, specifically last Thursday. I am sure some of the members across the floor will recall this, but for those members who are here today and were not here last time, they could talk to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, who could probably review this material as well as I. But I will offer this bit of information.

What I started with last were some of the editorials being written around this province by some of the newspapers with respect to this, in essence, gas guzzler tax. I outlined my concerns about the gas guzzler tax being put forward in the guise of an environmental tax. I had some grave concerns about putting forward a tax that was, I think, less than honourable, in the guise of an environmental tax.

Mr Bradley: Are you talking about the tax on auto workers?

Mr Stockwell: That is the tax some have referred to as the tax on auto workers. The rationale is that it is taxing away potential car sales and subsequently, therefore, by taxing away potential car sales they cut into the number of auto workers needed to produce the cars. That is not a difficult concept to grasp.

I am glad to see the Speaker back in the chair; I feel much more at home now. Last Thursday, we spent a wonderful two hours on this and I think we could look forward to it again this day.

I recall the point that was made, I think rather succinctly, that by introducing this gas guzzler tax you are introducing a tax that will impact on the number of cars sold in Ontario. By introducing a tax like this, if you sell fewer cars, you then impact the number of union members needed to build the cars.

I look across to my friend the member for Chatham-Kent, who I am certain understands this issue better than most and would understand that by introducing taxes that affect the end value of a vehicle, thereby driving the vehicle up in price, you are turning off a significant number of potential buyers. The member for Chatham-Kent would know as well as anyone that by doing so you are really putting auto workers out of work. It seems almost unbelievable to me that this government would have a policy the sole purpose of which would be to drive auto workers from their jobs. It is rather unbelievable, I agree, but that is the real extent of this piece of legislation, this tax.

To get back to the editorials, I think my first quote was from Oshawa. Our Solicitor General is the member for Oshawa. The Oshawa Times said, "They couldn't get it right the first time, so they got it not quite so wrong the second time." That leads me into this discussion about exactly what was put forward the first time the Treasurer brought down his budget. The first time the Treasurer brought down his budget he brought forward a tax, under the guise of an environmental tax, that would tax cars that used disproportionately more gas than smaller models. But during the phase of budget hearings and proposals the Treasurer got word from Mr Bob White, who I think everyone knows is the president of the Canadian Auto Workers union -- the member for Chatham-Kent looks at me quizzically; Bob White, the president of the Canadian Auto Workers.

Bob White originally thought this was a good budget. That does not surprise me. I expected the union honchos to be on side because we know how close the NDP and the unions are. But what was really surprising about the turn of events was that once Mr White, having spoken rather prematurely about this issue, went back to his electorate -- the unions, the membership -- they were not quite as excited about this tax as Mr White was. The membership said it did not think it was a good idea to drive the price of cars up in an economy that is in serious trouble and in a sector that is reeling. They said to Mr White: "I think you spoke too quickly on this one. Maybe you should tell the Treasurer we're not real excited about this tax." The way it was set up in the first place, two cars produced out of Oshawa, the Lumina and the Regal, fell just above the line. So they were going to get hit with -- there is the Treasurer right now. It is good to see him coming in.

The Treasurer found that the tax on these cars was going to fall above the threshold, so they were going to be taxed rather heavily. These two specific vehicles, the Regal and the Lumina, are very high-selling vehicles in the North American market and they happen to be produced right here in Ontario. Mr White got the word from his union people: "You spoke rather prematurely, Mr White. Maybe you should retract what you said. Go and see the Treasurer and try to talk him out of this new gas guzzler environmental tax."

2150

Mr White did just that. He changed his tune, he flip-flopped, he vacillated, he capitulated and went down to see the Treasurer. He said to the Treasurer, "You know I said I supported your budget in the beginning," and the Treasurer said, "Yes, I know that." Mr White said, "Well, I've changed my mind." Of course, that sent shock waves through the NDP caucus. The member for Chatham-Kent must remember that time. I am certain he was hearing from his membership and they said to him, "This is a tough tax to put on a reeling auto industry"; Bob White coming in and saying, "Gee, I did support your budget, but I don't any more." So the Treasurer changed his mind.

He had a tax that was put in place to penalize the cars that use disproportionately more gas than the average or below-average cars. Rather than withdraw the tax, which I think would have been a good idea and many people in this province thought was a good idea, or use an alternative, which was the incentive idea rather than the punitive idea, he chose the punitive idea -- if your car ran on gasoline. That was practically the prerequisite, because so few qualified for rebates. The Sprint and the Firefly may be two examples that qualify for the rebate; they are three-cylinder vehicles -- there are not a lot of three-cylinder vehicles built -- so they qualified. Basically, if your car ran on gasoline you were going to be subject to the gas guzzler tax, which I think is a little tough.

Anyway, Mr White went in there and said to the Treasurer, "I can't support this any more. The unions have come to me and said this is a punitive tax. You are picking particularly on the Lumina and the Regal and that's going to cause undue hardship for the workers out there. They'll lose their jobs because these vehicles will drop in sales," and so on.

The Treasurer said at that time, "That's not a problem; I'll just change my budget." So he obviously was not married to this document he put out, because he was interested enough in what Mr White and the union people had to say that he decided to change his mind. But what did he do when he changed his mind? This is of most concern to the widespread auto industry, the workers, the retailers, the employees in the Big Three, and so on. When he changed his mind he did not withdraw the tax, he simply spread the tax right across the board so that practically every car manufactured is subject to some kind of gas guzzler tax, even those cars -- I listed them the other day in the House -- that get decent kilometres to the litre, or miles to the gallon in layman's terms. You would think these cars would not qualify as cars that should get taxes, but the Treasurer decided, "No, that's just not good enough; I'm going to tax everybody."

What he did, which is very funny even though he was taxing practically every car made -- I think it comes out to some 90% -- he still pretended in this House and around this province that this was an environmental tax. I have done a little research on this and I discovered that this tax originally came out under the Liberal government.

Mr Mancini: Come on, now, you were doing well until this point.

Mr Stockwell: I am not kidding. I am not attacking the Liberals; I am suggesting they brought this original tax forward.

Mr Hope: Did they attack auto workers?

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer was sitting on this side of the House. I assume he was a critic because he said when he was on this side of the House -- this is interesting; the member for Chatham-Kent should listen -- I am paraphrasing, but it is close to what he said because I re-read it today --

Mr Owens: Did you re-read it or rewrite it?

Mr Stockwell: Where is he from? Scarborough or something, is it not?

Mr McLean: He is not even in his seat. He is on his way out.

Mr Stockwell: Anyway, what the Treasurer said when he was in opposition, a critic for the Treasury, was that anyone who would put a gas guzzler tax in place and cloak it in the guise of an environmental tax was -- again, I am paraphrasing, but it was very close -- misleading the general population of Ontario. He suggested they were being less than honest by suggesting that a gas guzzler tax is in fact an environmental tax.

I had a great deal of respect for the Treasurer when he was on this side of the House. I felt at that time that he was speaking some honest Sudbury words. He was being straightforward. He was not trying to kid the troops. He was not slipping one by the folks. But lo and behold, much to my chagrin, as he got across the House and sat there next to the Premier and read his first budget, who is standing there saying we have to increase the gas guzzler tax for environmental purposes?

Mr Bradley: Not Floyd?

Mr Stockwell: It was. It bothers many people in this province to this day that the Treasurer could stand in his place --

Hon Mr Laughren: Name one.

Mr Stockwell: Me, for instance -- and suggest that we need to increase the gas guzzler tax for environmental purposes.

Hon Mr Laughren: Put a sock in it, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer is obviously feeling his oats. He is heckling in his most inimitable fashion. He is showing us what a wit he is. "Put a sock in it" -- that is a good one. Those university days were heady times, were they not?

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I have a whole chorus of them here. This is exciting; it is like a choir.

If the Treasurer had said at the time that he was setting up a separate account to put this money into, much like a tire tax account or anything along those lines, he probably would have had fewer sceptics in the general population. He would have had fewer sceptics on this side of the House; well, maybe not on this side of the House. He may well have had fewer sceptics in his own caucus.

But he did not set up a separate account. This tax he has been collecting, this tax he has been generating money from, which he put under the guise of an environmental tax, where is this money going? This money is going to general revenue. It is not going to the environment. It is not going to the car companies to build better cars that pollute less. This money is going to general revenue to try to offset this horrendous deficit the member for Nickel Belt has saddled us with.

In the end, what does this teach us? We have a few lessons we can learn here: (1) just because they said it on this side of the House does not necessarily mean they believe it on that side of the House, and (2) there is not a tremendous amount of difference between the old government's attitudes towards environmental tax and the new government's attitude towards environmental tax.

2200

The other point I believe is very salient to this issue is the tire tax. The tire tax was introduced by the previous government as a way of generating revenue. I believe that last year the tire tax must have generated -- and the Treasurer would be a better expert on this; he knows where every nickel of revenue comes from these days -- about $40 million in revenue and, again, not a nickel went to the environment. I have watched very closely --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: How do I know that? Because Floyd told me.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: No, from the previous government, last year's revenues. This was supposed to be earmarked and separate, a distinct account set up for the tire tax, to be used for environmental purposes. I remember that the Treasurer -- and I was not in this hall here, I was down at the lower level.

An hon member: You were at the lower level making more money.

Mr Stockwell: I was at Metropolitan Toronto council. We were creatures of the province and we listened with great concern because we knew we did not need any more taxes in Metropolitan Toronto because we were having a very difficult time surviving the tax hikes we were facing. I think of the commercial concentration tax and others that were brought forward.

When this Treasurer stood and again said that hiding a tire tax and trying to pass it under the guise of an environmental tax is not proper, that accounts should be set up to direct the flows, to spend the money on environmental projects, there could be some argument for that. There is a good strong argument for that. At least that would be totally upfront with the public. If he is going to start calling them environmental taxes he should take that stream of money and put it specifically into environmental programs.

The Treasurer is not doing that. He set up a budget. The argument across the floor is, "We spend more money than that on the environment." It may be true, but that money has always been spent and he has increased that on a percentage basis. This was supposed to be new money derived from these taxes to be spent on environmental programs. Mr Treasurer, it simply is not happening.

Mr Cooper: Mr Treasurer?

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker -- I apologize. I would not want to call you the Treasurer, as I would not want to call the Treasurer Mr Speaker.

I will say that I still have some faith in my friends across the floor, from the socialist party, that maybe they can get their act together at least on this issue. It is important that if the government is going to put forward tax hikes and call them environmental taxes then it should be committed, it should be part of the legislation that if it is going to frame them that way and is going to sell them to the public that way it should have to spend the money that way. I am not in favour of any taxes, but I have learned in the last few years --

An hon member: None?

Mr Stockwell: I am in favour of no new tax hikes. I will get that right on the record. The government gets as much taxes and as much money as it needs right now and it does not need any more.

An hon member: It was a fuel conservation tax.

Mr Stockwell: If it was a fuel conservation tax, and the Treasurer did say it was an environmental tax, I can almost buy that. In the late 1980s when the NDP took the polls about the most pressing issues facing our province today, one of the top issues that came back was that of the environment. It was a way of putting forward a tax and having limited impact on their popularity because they were going to call it an environmental tax. But they never put the money into environment; they put it into general revenue, and who the hell knows what they spent it on? Nobody could follow those dollars in this maze.

That came from the first line of the first editorial of the first paper I was quoting, so we will go to the second line. It is the Oshawa Times' June 27 editorial: "They couldn't get it right the first time, so they got it not quite so wrong the second time. And we're supposed to be happy about it. Ontario Treasurer Floyd Laughren" -- the member I was speaking about earlier -- "brought a tax designed to discourage sales of Oshawa-built Buick Regals and Chevrolet Luminas, and replaced it with a tax that will discourage sales of all domestically made cars and encourage sales of a few transplant models."

That is very important to know. I spoke with a person in the American government today and I asked him --

Hon Mrs Grier: The CIA maybe?

Mr Stockwell: There is the Minister of the Environment. That was quite a line, we will have to write that down, a quip. I spoke with someone from the American government and I asked him whether this tax contravenes the free trade agreement. I get some quizzical looks. Thanks for looking quizzical; I will explain.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wants to say something, I think. No, it was just like in cabinet.

The question was put whether this tax was artificially set, through a specific lobby, to maintain car productivity in this province. The question is, did the Treasurer artificially reduce this tax below the Lumina and so on to give an artificial level of cost to it for the sole purpose of maintaining this business in Canada? The answer was not forthcoming and I doubt very much it will go further than that, but it was rather interesting and am glad of the opportunity for making the statement.

This is Oshawa. This would be in the greater Toronto area, I would say, very close to Toronto, just east, a lovely town.

Having said that, I will move on to the June 26 North Bay Nugget, in a northern town. I guess some in the caucus would have gathered that. The North Bay Nugget said of the Treasurer's new tax and rebate scheme -- and do not be misled by this rebate scheme. Way more tax money is collected than is ever rebated, considerably more. He just added the word "rebate" because he put in, I believe, the Firefly and Sprint, a couple of three-cylinder cars that no one makes except GM.

Anyway, the North Bay Nugget said, "Laughren's new tax and rebate scheme" -- this is very important; members should listen to this -- "the only signal it sends is that the consumer will pay more for a new car." That seems pretty obvious. This government did not seem to buy that theory. It figured it could just tax cars and it would not drive the price of the car up. I am not sure where they are from, but rather silly. "It is another tax, added with all the other taxes, and nothing more." Very succinctly put. "At this rate, some day the taxes on a vehicle will be more than the cost of manufacturing it." That seems to be a bit of a stretch, but not a lot. We have been taxing vehicles and gas to such a degree that I can almost foresee the day, if the NDP stays in power for another two or three years, that it would have a tax that would be greater than the cost of manufacturing. Some will laugh, but let's examine the tax on a car.

Say the Treasurer walked into a dealership in Sudbury, or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wanted to go up -- he is out of business now, is he not, in the riding of Rexdale? There are a few others he could go to, but I remember the one I am thinking of. He just closed down after many years in business in Rexdale. It is a shame, but he has closed down. He said the economy had something to do with it. But if the minister wanted to walk in and buy a car in Sudbury and he was going to buy, say, a midsized North American car, he would say to the guy who is selling the cars: "Okay, it's $20,000. I'll buy it." Then when he got the bill, he would have to examine all the taxes on this car. Let's start out with the tire tax.

The tire tax is an interesting tax. That is another tax that was instituted under the guise of an environmental concern. You pay $5 per tire. You have your four tires and your spare, so you pay $25. Even though your spare is an undersized spare, not even a full tire, you still pay the $5 on your undersized spare. I know these things because I am very close to this industry.

Mr Bradley: Is all that money going to the Ministry of the Environment yet?

Mr Stockwell: That money was supposed to be going, and I look across the floor at the new Minister of the Environment, new to this government. I remember when that debate was taken, and the suggestion should be made that there was a great hue and cry on this side of the floor, when the socialists and the Conservatives shared this side, about how a tire tax that was another tax bent on the environment should be put into a separate account and spent on the environment.

Of course, we all remember the election. Members remember that the current Premier called Mr Peterson a liar five times downstairs. He was the guy who said this money should be separate and should be spent for environmental purposes only. They have now been in power for 14 or 15 months. I have heard one minor announcement that does not even begin to cover the amount of money they are collecting on the tire tax for environmental purposes. Something is running amok on that side of the floor. Either they really did not mean what they said on this side of the House when it came to environmental taxes or they are simply so financially strapped and have spent like such demons in the last 14 or 15 months that they do not have the capacity to make those kind of environmental decisions on what they proclaim to be environmental taxes.

Having said that, it seems rather curious to me that you would be charged $5 a tire in tax, or $25 -- and the spare is an undersized tire -- and then when you want to dispose of the tires once you have finished using them, there is another tax. When did they spend the money from the first tax? The suggestion is there is no tax. I know what the Minister of the Environment is going to say. She should go and talk to those people who are taking tires off at the dealerships, at Goodyear or some of these places, because they are charging customers a tax for taking the tire and then they are disposing of the tire. If the government is being truthful and honest with the public, I suggest it send the word out to the people who are removing the tires, because they are out there charging a tax.

2210

It seems rather hilarious to me to think that you get taxed for the disposal of these tires when you buy the tires, and then when you have finished using the tires, they tax you again to dispose of the tires they have not handled yet. And none of that money goes to pursue environmental programs. Something is definitely wrong across the floor. It certainly is not consistent with the way they approached government when they sat on this side of the House.

I was just adding up the cost of taxes on a new car. The Treasurer walks into a dealership in Sudbury or Ottawa --

Hon Mr Laughren: Or Shining Tree.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. I do not know what he said, but I will nod my head in agreement.

Hon Mr Wildman: He said Shining Tree. It is a big place in his riding.

Mr Stockwell: Shining Tree. Okay.

Hon Mr Cooke: He does not know anything outside of Etobicoke.

Mr Stockwell: I do. I am obviously outside of Etobicoke and I have gotten here all right. I will get home all right too.

Here we have the Treasurer walking into Shining Tree to buy a car. He has asked, "How much will this car cost?" and they have told him $20,000 or $10,000, whatever the case may be.

An hon member: Did you lose your concentration?

Mr Stockwell: No, I did not. That was funny and I will not repeat it.

Let's say that the Treasurer is spending $10,000 on a car, because it is easier to work the mathematics. He is spending $10,000 on the car and now he has the provincial sales tax and the goods and services tax. Let's just say they are amalgamated at 15%. With the tire tax involved, we are now dealing with $1,600 in taxes on a $10,000 car.

Now you have to pay the air-conditioning tax if it is air-conditioned. Practically all cars that are sold today are air-conditioned. So that is another $100 for your air-conditioning tax. You are up to $1,700. Then you have your gas guzzler tax, depending on the model or type of car you are buying. Let's call it $250. For argument's sake, you are rounding this thing off to about $2,000 in taxes. You are buying a $10,000 car they are trying to sell to you, that General Motors or Ford or Chrysler are building, and they want to slap you with $2,000 in taxes.

Mrs Mathyssen: How much is going to the Tories in Ottawa?

Mr Stockwell: There is a good point. That is fine. When a person pays for the car and they slap $2,000 in taxes, I do not think they feel any better knowing that 8% or 7% of that is going to the Tories in Ottawa. They do not care. They just know they are paying $2,000 in taxes. When you add up the taxes, well over half is going to the provincial government. The taxpayer who is buying a new car for his family and looking to spend $10,000 is now at $12,000, and $2,000 is made up of taxes.

Do you want to know the real kicker, Mr Speaker? Again, it is a common complaint across the floor, "Blame the Tories in Ottawa." If the member thinks the Tories in Ottawa are doing such a fine job, that is fine. I do not think they are doing such a great job, but the NDP is collecting more tax on cars than they are. If the government thinks the Tories are bad, it is worse.

So the person then spends $2,000 for tax on a new car, on a $12,000 car. Now, the real shame of the whole --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: So what is the analysis of this? If it is a $10,000 car, we can figure the person in -- Rainy Tree, is it?

Mr McLean: Shining Tree.

Mr Stockwell: Shining Tree; I apologize.

Mr McLean: That's near Moonbeam.

Mr Stockwell: You can assume the person in Shining Tree, the proprietor, is probably getting about $1,000, maybe $1,200 gross on that deal. So he is making $1,000 to $1,200 selling a $10,000 car. The government, on the other hand -- sounded like the member for Welland-Thorold there for a minute -- is making $2,000 more than the owner. The government's take on a new car is literally $800 to $1,000 more than the owner is making. So we have the government collecting $2,000 in taxes. That is making one assumption; that is assuming that the car never gets sold again. But most cars get sold again. They get sold as used cars. It makes a lot of sense. In fact, some members may have bought a used car.

Mr McLean: Ed Philip has.

Mr Stockwell: I am certain, a used car. Maybe it is one of those four pink Cadillacs that are going to come by here some time tomorrow, and we will take our vote. But somebody across the floor has definitely bought a used car, I am sure. Now, do members think that the governments -- of all levels, including the provincial government, which is collecting more than the feds -- will say, "Okay, we've collected tax on that car once already; it seems pretty irresponsible to me to collect tax again." Yes, of course they do. The deal is that the taxpayers then have to front a whack of money for the government when they have already paid taxes on it in the first place. This gets all folded in, in many different taxes. I mentioned the tire tax, the air-conditioning tax, the PST, the GST, and of course this gas guzzler tax.

To anybody who suggests that by increasing the taxes on cars you do not have a major impact on a broad cross-section of an industry that is reeling today, I suggest that person does not understand the economic climate or the car industry at all. Today, car buyers are very cost-conscious. They are aware of what offers are out there, including incentives from dealerships and manufacturers and so on and so forth.

So when it comes to that tax -- and I did get that bit of information from this editorial in the North Bay Nugget -- I think it is pretty important to remember when this government is introducing its tax on auto workers, because it is affecting the number of cars sold. Clearly, when you affect the number of cars sold, you could affect the number of people employed: not just unions, but dealers, manufacturers, presidents, secretaries, receptionists, clerks and mechanics. The dealers rely on new cars for their parts department and their mechanical department and so on and so on, so it has a wide range. And from the manufacturing sector, I do not think there is a more important industry than the car industry.

So we will move on. We have been to Oshawa, and they did not like the Treasurer's tax. We went up to North Bay, and they of course did not like the Treasurer's tax. So let's go to Windsor.

Mr McLean: We went to Shining Tree.

Mr Stockwell: Shining Tree; we were at Shining Tree, and the Treasurer bought a car. So we will move on to Windsor. In Windsor they said -- and this is another big auto industry town --

Mr McLean: This is the House leader's home town.

Mr Stockwell: The House leader's home town, Windsor, Ontario. They stated, "Ontario's rejigged gas guzzler tax is better" --

Hon Mr Cooke: We heard this last week.

Mr Stockwell: I am just reminding the member what I have read. I do not think the member took it in.

Hon Mr Cooke: I read it six months ago.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, with all due respect, clearly members did not understand it, because they have not changed their minds yet. So, the Windsor paper said --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, that is another good line. The member should write that down. Do not lose it. It is a keeper. The Windsor Star, "Ontario's rejigged gas guzzler tax is better than the scheme that the government had proposed in its spring budget." So the government got full marks on it. It was better than what this government originally announced, but -- and they go on -- "Let's be honest. It is still nothing more than a new way to extract money from consumers."

Hon Mr Cooke: That's mild compared to what they say about Mulroney.

2220

Mr Stockwell: "That's mild compared to what they say about Mulroney." I guess that is some kind of measurement of their success. The Windsor Star does not dislike them more than it dislikes Brian Mulroney.

Hon Mr Cooke: Or what they say about you.

Mr Stockwell: I quite honestly cannot believe they are writing about me.

Mr Bradley: What is Bob White's position on this?

Mr Stockwell: I went over Bob White's position. His position flip-flopped. He was in favour originally. Then when he got the word from the workers -- and I assume the member for Chatham-Kent was one of them -- he changed his mind. He went in and gave the Treasurer an earful and of course the Treasurer, being close to those unions, backed down and broadened the scope, widened it and encompassed more cars.

I do not think the Windsor Star was off the mark at all. Really this tax is just a new way to extract money from consumers. By extracting more money from consumers, they then leave themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend this tax to the auto workers. Of course the auto workers are having a very difficult time holding their jobs. Why are they having a difficult time holding their jobs? Because very few cars are being sold today. Why are very few cars being sold? Because we have a recession and we have governments, as I explained, in that town -- what was that town?

Mr McLean: Moonbeam or Shining Tree.

Mr Stockwell: Moonbeam or Shining Tree, those towns are being affected because there are so many taxes on new cars, it makes it prohibitive to make that purchase, and they are driving union jobs out of the province.

So Oshawa did not like it, North Bay did not like it, Windsor did not like it. We have been really right around the ring here, but we should make a stop in St Catharines. Now, St Catharines is another town, and I know the Leader of the Opposition is here and it is good to have a lot of people here who have lived in these towns and know these newspapers, because I think they have spoken volumes in the short editorials that I have read today.

But here is St Catharines. This town is very dependent, I would say, on the auto industry. There are a lot of parts manufacturers and a lot of their jobs are in the automotive industry or offshoots of the automotive industry. The St Catharines Standard was very clear in its June 26 editorial. It said, "A tax is a tax is a tax." That was clearly in response to the Treasurer's feeble attempt to class this as an environmental tax. They were very clear. The Treasurer can call it any name he wants, but a tax is a tax is a tax.

Mr Bradley: It's a very good newspaper.

Mr Stockwell: It appears to be very good. It seems to have an editorial policy that I could even support.

Hon Mr Philip: It sounds a lot like a Tory is a Tory is a Tory.

Mr McLean: Same as an NDP is an NDP is an NDP.

Mr Stockwell: Good, sure, yes.

Hon Mr Philip: Why do you not want to admit that?

Mr Stockwell: No, I think it sounds a lot like that. Yes, that is pretty interesting.

We will move on: "It remains a regressive tax, but it is spread over a wider range of vehicles than was originally proposed and the main victim is still our industry."

So here is another newspaper which has said categorically that this tax is only going to affect -- I have got a posse here. I do not like too many cabinet ministers near me at the same time, to be perfectly honest. It may rub off. Here we have another tax --

Hon Mr Cooke: Spit it out.

Mr Stockwell: I do not like this, frankly.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, then, put a sock in it.

Mr Stockwell: Moonbeam would not like it either.

Here we have another newspaper, the St Catharines Standard -- oh, should I speak on that side of the House, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: You are still on topic.

Hon Mr Cooke: Why don't you adjourn the debate?

Mr Stockwell: No, I cannot. Anyway: "A tax is a tax is a tax. It remains a regressive tax, but it is spread over a wider range of vehicles than was originally proposed and the main victim is still our industry."

Hon Mr Cooke: It doesn't make any more sense over here than it did over there.

Mr Stockwell: I have lost them. It is obvious that they could not stand being this prosperous. It still comes down to the bottom line. My friend the Treasurer, who just bought a car in Moonbeam, will not --

Hon Mr Laughren: No, Shining Tree.

Mr Stockwell: Shining Tree, I apologize. It is close to Moonbeam, is it not?

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Stockwell: I wanted to make those points that were very clear right across this province. They are not happy with this man and they are not happy with this man's budget. They are not happy with the gas guzzler tax that was in his budget. They are not happy with the jobs it is going to cost. They are not happy with the potential union jobs, the clerical jobs, the jobs in the dealerships, the sales jobs, all those jobs that are going to go by the wayside because governments -- and I say all governments -- are so shortsighted they cannot understand what is turning this economy off. It is government interventions and taxes, and specifically taxes. Here is another example of a government that is just so shortsighted it introduced this tax and it cost more jobs in this province.

Let's move on. They are unhappy on Kipling Avenue in Etobicoke. I was out on Kipling Avenue not long ago and they are not happy.

Mrs Mathyssen: That is why they're not happy, because they saw you.

Mr Stockwell: They were happier, actually, when I was not on Kipling Avenue, which may have something to say as to why they were unhappy, but, none the less --

Hon Mr Philip: They were just unhappy because you were on their street.

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is going again.

Let's examine the timber industry. The timber industry also must pay this gas guzzler tax on any vehicle that is, in fact, purchased. Or let's examine farmers. Farmers are another industry. When they take their product or their cattle or whatever, when they are dealing with these new purchases of vehicles, most of them are four-by-fours. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. Most of those vehicles that they are purchasing are four-by-fours. There is a specific requirement, under this tax, that says four-by-fours must pay the added cost.

Now, four-by-fours, in this province -- maybe in southern Ontario, an argument could be made about the need for a four-by-four, but my friends in the northern parts of Ontario, in Sudbury, for example, where the Treasurer is -- there is another member from Sudbury -- North Bay, Thunder Bay. I do not necessarily think that simply by buying a vehicle that is a four-by-four you are doing a disservice to the environment of this province, because four-by-fours are, it seems to me, rather necessary in those sectors of this province. I do not think an argument can be made from the member from Sudbury to suggest that anyone in Sudbury who buys a four-by-four is not being environmentally conscious, because they have to have the capacity to get around in order to do business in a lot of cases.

Farmers are another example in eastern Ontario. Farmers in eastern Ontario are buying four-by-fours for the winters. Every four-by-four -- this is how much thought went into this budget -- gets hammered with the gas guzzler tax. Little if any thought went into whether or not these people need these kinds of vehicles to do their work, to do their job. It was just a total slap across the face of every person in this province who needs a four-by-four to carry on his business. There are a number of them, particularly in northern Ontario and, in fact, in the snowbelt in western Ontario or in eastern Ontario. In some cases, the tax is as high as $1,200. They are tacking $1,200 on to the cost of a vehicle for someone who needs this vehicle to do his business, to do his job. What is the government trying to do -- drive these people out of business so they can join the ranks of the unemployed?

Farmers, the timber industry -- now, here is one that hits close to home, the OPP, and I am certain the Solicitor General will give any of the members across the floor the statistics, if they would like to see them.

Mr McLean: He is not here.

Mr Stockwell: No, but I am sure he would. He would give members the numbers on the effect of this increase -- the gasoline increase and the gas guzzler tax -- on the budget of the OPP.

Mr Bradley: That is why they had to drop the Golden Helmets.

Mr Stockwell: My friend the member for St Catharines makes the point crystal clear. One of the major reasons, probably, that they had to drop the Golden Helmets was these and other taxes that were very shortsighted. Here we have millions of dollars, I would suggest, to the OPP. It would probably add up to millions of dollars. I do not know the exact figure, but if you are figuring a 30% increase on the tax portion of a gallon of gas, that is going to add up to millions of dollars.

Mrs Mathyssen: I can't follow the logic.

Mr Stockwell: You cannot follow the logic. I will slow down. Okay, if you increase the gas tax, then --

Mrs Mathyssen: Explain again about the Golden Helmets.

2230

Mr Stockwell: You will never follow it if you do not let me explain. If you increase the gas tax, OPP cars -- they are propelled by gas -- are going to have to pay more money for gas. Therefore, their budget goes up. And if that is not good enough, the member should pick up Hansard tomorrow and I am sure she can study it and she will pick it up.

The gas tax obviously drives the price of operating the OPP up, which in effect means the government has to tax more from the people to cover the cost of the OPP, which is really counterproductive. They are driving the cost of government up and they are just going to have to tax people more money to generate revenue to pay the cost of that government. I do not know the exact figure, but I will say that for the OPP it probably adds up to millions of dollars for the vehicles that are travelling around.

This government is in a sorry state of affairs in this province when it comes to the budget of the OPP. The Solicitor General stood in this House and told us that they have to freeze hiring. Certain areas are not being covered in this province. Why? Because they do not have enough money, yet they are prepared to spend millions of dollars on a gasoline tax.

Mr Bradley: They have enough money to send them after the opposition members.

Mr Stockwell: That is an important point, yes. They do not have enough money to run 24-hour service in some sectors of this province, but they have enough money to send the OPP into offices of opposition members. That is very, very striking in its statement of this government and where it stands on policing.

As I said before, not to put too fine a point on this, it is totally counterproductive. It is totally counterproductive to increase the gasoline tax, the gas guzzler tax, because it drives potential buyers out of the market, thereby costing union jobs, sales jobs, clerical jobs, all the jobs that get folded in, plus they are driving up the cost to operate their own government -- for example, in one sector, the OPP, a portion of this government so seriously short of money that it cannot provide 24-hour service to significantly populated areas in this province. That is a very, very large shame. I think this government should really rethink this issue, this tax and itself -- quite frankly, its whole being.

I move on. The other concern I have is these names they pick for these taxes. It is somewhat deceitful in my opinion --

Hon Mr Wildman: Uh-oh.

Mr Stockwell: I apologize if that is unparliamentary. I will certainly retract it. It is not aboveboard in my opinion to keep giving them names. They give them all these special names like the gas guzzler tax. They call it the retail tax amendment and they put it in the guise of an environmental tax. The tire tax is another one that they put in the form of an environmental tax. They give them all these names. The employee health tax, that is another one.

Some hon members: Employer.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, sorry, the employer health tax. Yes, that is right, I am an employer and I have to pay the health tax. There is no doubt about it. The employer health tax.

They give them these names as if there is some kind of special reason for giving them these names.

Interjection.

Mr McLean: There is a voice in here.

Mr Stockwell: There is. It is an echo.

They give them all these names, and I mentioned a few, and then when the taxpayer pays these -- and I know myself sitting down and paying the employer health tax -- you think to yourself, "Well, there's got to be some special account this goes to." You think, "Well, it must go to a health budget tax," or, "It goes to a doctor somewhere," or, "In an underserviced area, they scamper in and grab my cheque and run up to northern Ontario and give it to somebody because they've got to see that that money gets up there."

Mr McLean: The fishing tax.

Mr Stockwell: The fishing tax is another example. All these wonderful taxes -- they give them names, as if they actually mean anything when all the name means is general revenue.

Ms S. Murdock: Consolidated revenue fund.

Mr Stockwell: There is another one, consolidated revenue, as if the taxpayer is going to say, "Well, of course." It is just general revenue. Wherever your taxes are paid, whatever you pay, it goes into this big account and they give them all these lovely names but those names do not mean anything. It is just tax.

I guess that is more of a pet peeve than an actual legislative concern, but there are a lot of people out there who honestly believe by giving it a name, the government is putting it into a specific area, giving it this specific job, and it is not. It goes to general revenue just like any other tax you pay, personal income tax or any tax that goes forward. If you think because they call it a health tax or an environmental tax or a fishing tax it is going anyplace else, you are dead wrong. It simply goes to, as they say, consolidated revenue; as everyone else would say, the big pot all taxes go to. No matter how well this government tries to spend its money, there is always less money going into the pot than they spend.

An hon member: You would have done it differently.

Mr Stockwell: Very much so. I would have done it very differently, there is no doubt about that. I have said very clearly. I will tell the members of the government that I never would have done what they did when it came to transfer payments.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The member should not tell me about that. They think they have cornered the market on compassion. That is the problem with those socialists. They think they are the only people in the world with compassion. They are in the same predicament today. If they had handled the budget properly last year they would not have to be passing off 2% increases in general welfare and so on, and their transfer payments, because they spent indiscriminately last year. Everyone knows they spent indiscriminately last year.

Now they have boxed themselves in a corner and they are blaming everybody but themselves. They increased payroll in this province for the employees by some 14%. If they do not think that is spending themselves into a corner then they have not run a business. That is spending yourself into a corner. That leaves them in the very awkward position of offering 2% as an increase in social assistance. That is unacceptable, I agree. I do not think there will be another government in this province which offers a 2% increase as this government has, and not have that party go absolutely berserk in opposition. To suggest they have not spent unwisely -- I would doubt it. We move on.

Mr Winninger: We're a captive audience.

Mr Stockwell: I know, they have to be to keep a quorum.

For my friends across the floor, here is an environmental concern I have with respect to the GTA. Why is it that the government cannot take some of this money from this gas guzzler tax -- I do not think anyone would disagree that the vast majority of this money is generated though the Golden Horseshoe or the greater Toronto area, where most people are concentrated in the province of Ontario. That seems logical, but I just want to make sure the government members nod their heads in agreement. They are nodding; some are signing. Why should not some of these moneys, particularly the moneys generated in the GTA or the Golden Horseshoe, be spent on environmental programs in the GTA and in the Golden Horseshoe?

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Did Hansard pick up that word?

Mr Stockwell: I am not sure. There seems to be some charge here by suggesting that some of the gas guzzler tax should be applied to the GTA or the Golden Horseshoe that is generating these dollars -- or even take some of the commercial concentration tax. Remember, the members opposite were opposed to that in opposition; they said it was a selective tax on one region within this province. Why have they not withdrawn that tax? Why have they not taken that tax back? The people in the greater Toronto area and the Golden Horseshoe certainly do not think it is a fair tax. They are on record saying they oppose this tax. Why have they not withdrawn that tax?

Silence.

Ms S. Murdock: We are getting tired of you.

Mr Stockwell: The member should not tell me she is getting tired. She was not here. She should talk to her cabinet minister. She does not represent the greater Toronto area that is being burdened with an unfair tax, a tax on office space in Toronto, period -- nowhere else does it apply -- and parking garages. It is absolutely unbelievable a government could be selective in choosing to tax a city. That is what it has come down to, a region.

Mr Johnson: Just like the Americans.

2240

Mr Stockwell: The comment was, "Just like the Americans." They must be patterning themselves after some American as far as the tax procedure is concerned. If they were, they would certainly decrease the taxes.

Why is it not acceptable that the gas guzzler tax they generate from the greater Toronto area in the Metropolitan Toronto region be put back into the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe for environmental purposes? It seems acceptable. There is always a shortage of funds in Metropolitan Toronto councils and local councils for projects; there is no funding for these projects because of the environmental sensitivity of these particular developments. We do not see this money coming back through the GTA. We do not see any announcements of grants in the Golden Horseshoe. All we get is taxed.

Mr Johnson: No road repairs? No road maintenance?

Mr Stockwell: The argument is made about road maintenance. We could have a debate here for the next 15 years about road maintenance. Let me tell my friend the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings that if we even begun to put the money back into the roads that the taxpayers pay, we would be absolutely and totally broke because --

Mrs Mathyssen: You can't use the past participle like that.

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me. Clean my grammar up. Okay, I will try.

If the government put in anywhere near the money it collects in the tire tax, the gas guzzler tax, the air-conditioning tax and the gas tax, all these taxes it pulls out of the system -- it does not put even 50% of what it collects back into the Metropolitan Toronto area for road repairs. Do not start on me about road repairs. My goodness, the local municipalities pick up a significant share of the road repairs and expansions. That comment is just so off base and totally out of touch with what moneys they generate in taxes, to me it is absolutely unbelievable.

As I said before I was so rudely interrupted by an unsubstantiated attack, I will talk about the gas guzzler tax and why the moneys generated in the greater Toronto area cannot be spent there. Nobody seems to understand why they cannot do that. I think it is a very sensible approach. I ask the Minister of the Environment, who is the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, which is a very wide-ranging responsibility, why we cannot take some of the money generated from the gas guzzler tax and apply it back into the greater Toronto area.

At this point, I move adjournment of the debate.

2315

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

Ayes 40; nays 0.

Mr Johnson: In the absence of the minister, I move first reading of An Act to provide for the creation of labour sponsored venture capital corporations.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: First, it is totally unacceptable; the minister is here. Second, this is not introduction of bills. The member cannot move first reading unless it is introduction of bills. He said, "I move first reading." This is totally out of order and out of line.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, it is certainly in order for someone in the absence of the minister to move second reading and I believe this is what the member meant to say. Would the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings take the floor please?

Mr Johnson: I regret that I made an error.

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

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

Mr Johnson: Bill 150 puts into place a plan for business, labour and government to work as partners to help Ontario meet the challenges of the changing economic environment. The Ontario investment and worker ownership program is an example of the government's commitment to create and maintain jobs, improve labour-management relations, increase productivity and competitiveness and bring stability to Ontario's economy.

The new program is the result of consultations with many groups and individuals in the business, labour and venture capital sectors. It will be Ontario's contribution to the network of labour sponsored venture capital corporations in Canada. The tax incentives will encourage people to invest in a labour sponsored investment fund and encourage workers to gain significant or majority ownership of their employer's business through an employee ownership labour sponsored venture capital corporation.

Under the investment fund option, a labour organization can set up a fund similar to a mutual fund to invest in a portfolio of small and medium-sized businesses. Ontario residents who invest in the fund get a 20% Ontario tax credit on the first $3,500 invested in the fund and a matching 20% federal tax credit.

Under the employer ownership option, a group of employees can gain a significant or majority interest in their employer's business regardless of the size of the business. Employee investors receive an Ontario tax credit of 20% on the first $3,500 and 30% on the next $11,500 invested in the venture capital corporation in any one year. An employee's total tax credits for all years are limited to the first $150,000 of the investment. As outlined in this year's Ontario budget, the new Ontario investment and worker ownership program is the first step in the government's economic strategy for sustainable prosperity.

I am pleased to present this program which is designed to help Ontario business and labour come together to find positive solutions to the economic challenges facing us.

The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: You are not going to ask for questions or comments?

The Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Cochrane South.

2320

Mr Bisson: I am pleased, finally, to get this legislation up to second reading. A piece of legislation, I think, that we talked about a little bit earlier, about the importance of being able to find new solutions, at finding ways of raising capital and finding new solutions in order to assist the economy of Ontario.

It is a well-known fact that what is happening across this country and generally in North America is something that is brought along by a whole change of rules and regulations by which we do business over the past number of years. I think this bill is actually a good step in the right direction.

We have seen initial works of what can happen underneath a plan of worker ownership. We have seen in Kapuskasing, for an example, a bringing together of the community of Kapuskasing, bringing forward the workers from within that plant, to bringing people in from the community as well as the private sector, and trying to find solutions to the problems that we have in the economy of today.

I think the introduction of this bill is a good sign of a step in the right direction, at really trying to find innovative solutions to the problems that we have inside this province. For that, I think a lot of people in northern Ontario, as a matter of fact all across this province, are looking at this bill with a great amount of excitement, I would say. I know, speaking to people up in the north, people who have seen what worker ownership can do in places like Kapuskasing, are really looking forward to the ensuing debate that is going to come on and the eventual introduction, may I say, in royal assent of this bill.

Mr Bradley: I can understand why the government may be introducing this bill, because it must be concerned about the state of the automotive industry in the province of Ontario. We know, of course, and the member did not mention it but I am sure he was just forgetful, that a major decision is going to be announced this week by General Motors as to the future location of its operations in the province of Ontario, whether there will be a closing of any plants or any specific operations within those plants. Of course, TRW as well will be making an announcement that will affect its worldwide operations with thousands of jobs going to be scaled down. It is estimated, for instance, at General Motors that a large percentage of the management jobs, as well as those where there is labour representation, will be lost. For the communities that are directly affected by this, communities such as Oshawa and St Catharines, there is a lot of apprehension at the present time.

I can understand why, in introducing a bill of this kind, perhaps that same apprehension is being felt by some members of the government. A couple of weeks ago, however, when I asked the Premier a question about this matter, everyone seemed to say everything was fine and there would be no problems and the future of the auto industry was secure, our plants are productive, and so on.

I think what is happening is that the major auto manufacturers are looking beyond simply the productivity, although that is extremely important in the plants. They are looking to the atmosphere for investment in any particular area, and comparing the province of Ontario in 1991 with many other jurisdictions where there is a possibility of investing those funds. So I do hope the government takes the appropriate action. Whether this bill will be that or not, remains to be seen after this debate.

Mr McLean: I wanted to speak briefly with regard to Bill 150 and indicate the concerns that I have with regard to the bill, which provides for income tax credits for investments in corporations registered under the proposed act.

This bill allows an application to be filed with the minister with a proposal setting out: the name of the corporation, the location of the registered office or permanent establishment in Ontario of the corporation. It allows the amount of equity capital to be raised on the issue of each class of shares of the corporation, whereby it gives the employees who have been working at that industry the opportunity to purchase shares of each class and series with regard to a maximum number of shares that the corporation is authorized to issue in each class.

Really, what it is doing is certainly indicating to me that it gives the employees the opportunity to look at the availability of purchasing the corporation or the industry that we have seen in the likes of Kapuskasing. When we look at what is happening in Sault Ste Marie and some of the other areas in the province, it is certainly a bill that will give the employees the opportunity to have a share in the company they are working for.

I can certainly see some of the benefits within the bill whereby there are many people who would like to have a share. At one time, I was a shareholder in a company, as small as it may be, and it certainly gives you the incentive and the initiative that you were part of that company. There was something that made you feel good about it.

The explanatory notes with regard to this bill indicate what the ownership should be. I am looking forward to the debate and listening to the pros and cons with regard to Bill 150.

Mr Johnson: I think the Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act is a very good piece of legislation. It is going to allow opportunities for employees to invest in their places of employment. It is going to allow them opportunities to invest in their futures.

Given the nature of the economic environment in Ontario today and the situation that employees find themselves in, they would be most interested in opportunities not unlike the opportunities that are being made available by this act.

People in Ontario who have an interest in investing in businesses in Ontario will have an opportunity to invest, as was indicated in the opening remarks, moneys in venture capital into businesses in the province. I think this will allow them, through tax incentives, an opportunity to invest their money, to help and assist business in Ontario to be successful in these very difficult times.

Some of the members opposite are very curious to know where the money is going to come from. Certainly, people will be able to invest their own money, people who are interested in investing in Ontario. God knows that the scaremongers on the other side, they do not want to encourage people to invest in Ontario. In fact, what we hear so often is, we hear them say that Ontario is not the place to invest. We hear this time and time again. They say that this is not the place to invest. This is not the time to invest. In fact, Ontario is a great place to invest.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: We are, at this late hour, beginning what I consider a very important initiative, an initiative that I feel we must go at with some caution. I do support the intent of Bill 150. I believe it is a step in the right direction, a step to facilitate and encourage Ontario's workers to show their confidence in the companies which employ them by being able to personally invest in those companies and to receive incentives and tax credits for so doing. I believe that all workers should be so encouraged. Unfortunately, that is not what Bill 150 permits. In fact, the federal government in four other Canadian provinces already has legislation, as many of us know, in place to encourage this kind of employee investment.

Serious concerns about certain aspects of this particular bill present themselves. My concerns involve a lack of clear definition of terms in Bill 150, which, as many pieces of legislation brought forward by this government do, overrelies on regulations.

2330

I believe that employees will be encouraged to invest in financially troubled companies without adequate explanation and thus knowledge of the personal financial risk they are undertaking. These businesses, let us not be mistaken, are businesses that those people who are usually in the investment business, as they are sometimes called, the Bay Street crowd, are looking at with a great deal of caution. But the employees are being asked to invest, and in many cases when the employees invest they are being asked to invest in a company which is in grave and serious financial difficulty.

As we have seen, there are two distinct investment vehicles provided for in Bill 150: employee ownership labour sponsored venture capital corporation -- a mouthful, I must say -- and labour sponsored investment fund corporation, two distinct investment vehicles. Although the program is administered by the Minister of Revenue, the Employee Ownership Advisory Board is appointed by cabinet and reports to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

First, please let me make a few comments on the regulation aspect of this legislation that I intimated earlier is troublesome. I have mentioned before in this House while debating various pieces of revenue legislation that I am concerned about this government's habit of entrenching important aspects of their revenue policy legislation in regulation -- regulations which can be enacted and changed without the approval, or often even the knowledge, of the Legislature, with no possibility for amendment, no possibility for input from those of us who serve on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Again, in Bill 150 we find much of the substance of this bill is yet undefined. It requires a leap of faith. A leap of faith in a government which, in my humble opinion, does not deserve that leap of faith. It will only be defined, all of this definition will come by regulation after this House has passed it in good faith. These regulations will therefore be formed and implemented without any further input, discussion or amendment.

One of my specific concerns in this area involves the process by which the proposed investment, business plan and human resources plan will be reviewed and evaluated. A new board representing labour, business and government is to be established as a result of Bill 150. The board will advise and report to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on whether the proposed investment in the business of the employee-owned, labour sponsored venture capital corporation is equitable and reasonably commercially viable over the period covered by the business plan. We have no indication of how long that business plan will be for. We do not know what the term "reasonably commercially viable" means in this piece of legislation. Qualifying proposals will then be recommended by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology for approval by cabinet. But at the moment --

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It appears that there is not a quorum in the House. I think the member is making such fine points about this legislation that she ought to be respected with a quorum present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present.

Ms S. Murdock: Apologize.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau may continue.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: What concerns me, Mr Speaker, if I may continue, is the definition of the phrase "equitable and reasonably commercially viable" as it applies to the proposed investments. This determination will be left solely under the jurisdiction of the Employee Ownership Advisory Board, a board whose size can range from three to 12 members. Again, the exact number and makeup is going to be determined by regulation some time off in that distant future, at a table which we will not be privy to.

There is nothing in the legislation itself to guide the board in its judgement of the viability of the proposed investment and, as I say, these are investments that are risky. These are investments which must be taken with caution. I believe the word "reasonable" in this context is in itself quite vague. Neither is there anything in the bill to guide the board in its assessment of the commercial viability of a company covered by this legislation.

As every member well knows, in order for an employee-ownership labour-sponsored venture capital corporation to be established, the employees of an eligible business must apply to the Minister of Revenue for certification as the employee group entitled to incorporate such a venture capital corporation. The employee group must represent a majority of employees affected by the proposed investment by a simple majority after a vote. However, Bill 150 gives us no guidance about how these votes are to be conducted, whether or not secret ballots will be required -- a very important component. What kinds of information must be circulated to the employees to enable them to make an informed choice? Or what level of support will command the establishment of a venture capital corporation?

I could go on and on about the parts of the vote and the kind of education and information levels that will be given to the employees which I find quite lacking in this legislation. We are all told these details will be spelled out in regulations. Do you see a trend here, Mr Speaker? The word "regulation" keeps coming up over and over again. I believe these issues are of key importance to this legislation. Let's face it, this is an initiation of a different thrust. Such should have been written into the bill itself, rather than demand leaps of faith, as I have mentioned, on behalf of the province.

I am talking about leaps of faith on behalf of the province because as we look at this piece of legislation, the costing of it is quite indefinite. We think there will be quite a pickup in interest in this legislation, but at the moment we have no idea of how it will be financed other than through the general revenue fund or through a loss of revenue on the tax credit side of things. We feel, on this side of the House, that our indications of the estimates are very low indeed. I simply ask that adequate safeguards be put in place to ensure employees are given every opportunity to assure themselves they are being made fully aware of the risks they are being asked to undertake.

Eligible employees who purchase shares will be entitled to receive tax credits, as I have just mentioned, against Ontario's personal income tax but we must bear in mind that these employees are going to be putting their own hard-earned money into these venture capital corporations. Many of these employees will not be experienced in making investments of this nature. That is the root of my concern. Much of the collateral and many of the investment funds will have been obtained by mortgaging personal property and principal residences bought over a lifetime with hard-earned money. In addition, I remind this House that most of the companies involved will be experiencing grave and serious economic hardship. As Bill 150 mandates, the control of the company must change hands if an employee-sponsored venture capital corporation is to be established.

Let us take an example -- the first example we have in this province for the implementation of Bill 150 -- and that is Spruce Falls Power and Paper, which is one of the early beneficiaries of the plan and for whose benefit the government is really making this legislation retroactive. This case points up some of my concerns with the bill. It is very fresh in our minds. As we have read in the newpapers, a very complex deal has been struck between the Premier, Kimberly-Clark, the New York Times, Tembec Inc and an employee ownership group and Ontario Hydro -- quite a partnership.

According to news reports, employees of the mill have come up with more than $11,000 each to invest in the Spruce Falls mill and have created an employee-ownership group. For that, I want to compliment these people who have faith in their own community, in their employer and in the province of Ontario. Eleven thousand dollars is a lot of money to most of these employees. As I have said, many of them have mortgaged long-time earned possessions such as principal residences and are now mortgaging their future, hoping to maintain a viable employee relationship with their employer.

2340

Now that that deal has been completed and the employees have control of the company, let's look at what it means for the employees. The economic climate coupled with low newsprint prices and changing technologies have made this a very difficult time for the pulp and paper industry. We all know that.

The Spruce Falls mill exists within the difficult economic climate I have just described. First, it has a severely reduced workforce cut by over half to 800 employees. This number will be further reduced to 670. That is a minimum protection for the year 1994, leaving the new ownership liable for all those severance payments -- severance payments are expensive -- and other benefits owed to employees who lose their jobs. That is not even mentioned anywhere in the description of Bill 150 and this is certainly not going to be unique to the Spruce Falls situation.

The employees in the surrounding communities will be responsible to raise over $12 million for mill upgrading and modernization, something else that nobody is talking about. The sites of these companies that are having difficulty financially often have to be upgraded. Further investment will be required of the employees.

The business plan calls for the mill to get 50% of its wood fibre from wood chips sourced from local sawmills. The sawmill market is extremely depressed right now, another fact we all know, and there is some question about the future availability of this source of supply. The business plan also calls for more recycled-fibre content in its product. This will negatively impact on the woodlands employees of the mill whose jobs will become redundant as these plans are fulfilled.

Complexity after complexity, and this is just one small example of the difficulties and cautions that must be exercised as we talk about the implementation of this Bill 150. In addition to all of this, there is an outstanding lawsuit in Spruce Falls for $1.3 billion against the former owners of this mill and the Ontario government respecting 60 years of accumulated environmental damage. The potential impact of this lawsuit on the new ownership is unknown -- unknowns, unknowns, unknowns.

This is what the samll investors are being asked to take on, to jump in to take risks towards. Professional investors have known for some time that this company was for sale and yet in balancing the risks against the benefits, which is what they do for a living, they did not see fit to make this investment.

But I said I applaud the employees and the citizens of Kapuskasing for their courage. I sincerely wish them every success in this venture but I wonder what will happen to their investments if it fails. Will they lose their homes, their bank accounts as well as their jobs? Will this government be quick to jump in to protect their investments? If so, at what cost -- the question I asked earlier. What are the implications of these questions for the Ontario taxpayer?

I therefore believe that the requirements surrounding the disclosure of all pertinent information should be even more stringent in cases of employee buyouts than they are for the more sophisticated professional investor who is accustomed to making informed investment decisions and is more knowledgeable about what to look for in a potential investment.

Again, these are important investments to employees who participate in the programs we are debating today. They will be investing their own money earned to protect their own jobs. I want the assurance of this government that any information they need to help them to make the most informed decision possible will be fully available to them and I have not been able to find that in this legislation. We have not been made fully aware of the cost of this program, as I mentioned to members earlier.

I have read estimates that the annual cost is $100 million in lost revenue but I fear that this is only the tip of the iceberg where the taxpayer is concerned. What will happen when the questions that I have just posed present themselves, when the businesses fail -- and some of them surely will -- when there are lawsuits to settle and severance cheques to pay? We are talking about risky investments. Will the Ontario taxpayer be asked to pay again for these business failures, having already paid for the tax credits of the employee investors?

The second major aspect of this legislation is that is provides provincial-level trade union organizations, and them alone, with the opportunity to establish labour-sponsored investment funds. Each fund will have a board of directors the majority of which will be appointed by the sponsoring labour organization, which is a trade union and will give the union control of the fund.

We understand that individual investors will receive matching federal and provincial tax credits of 20% each on annual investments of up to $3,500. This part of the program could prove to be an important source of investment capital for small and medium-sized Ontario companies which often have difficulty receiving bank or equity financing, and for that I feel the incentive is good.

However, only unions may incorporate and register labour-sponsored investment funds under Bill 150 in Ontario although that is not the case in other provinces in this country. The organized labour movement in this province is a very important component of Ontario's labour market and we know that. However, only 34% of Ontario's labour force is represented by organized labour. In fact, I have been hearing recently from the government benches that they regret that labour unions do not make up as much of a component of the labour force as had been in the past.

But Bill 150, in any case, even though labour unions may be on somewhat of a decline, restricts the investment funding to trade unions. What this means is that some 66% of the labour force is expressly excluded from this part of Bill 150. Similar legislation exists in both Saskatchewan and British Columbia. In both of these jurisdictions, co-operatives and non-unionized associations of employees are permitted to set up investment funds along similar lines. Since this piece of legislation is directed at small and medium-sized businesses, this is a very significant difference in Ontario's legislation from Saskatchewan's and British Columbia's.

In fact, in Saskatchewan, according to officials there, six venture capital funds have been set up under their legislation and all of them, every single one of them, has been set up by a co-operative and not by a trade union. It is interesting to note as well that these groups are eligible for a federal and provincial tax break. Why is it possible for Saskatchewan to provide a venture capital plan which meets the federal guidelines and is open to non-union sponsorship when the Ontario government was not able to get the same concession? At least, that is the excuse we were given for limiting this investment opportunity only to trade unions.

I think this inequity must be addressed by this government and I am sure there will be others beyond myself bringing that to the minister's attention. There is no doubt that this government has pretended in the past and continues to pretend that the only workers who count in Ontario are the workers who belong to trade unions. We, on this side of the House, believe we have a strong obligation. Truly, each of us represents all workers whether they belong to trade unions or not. We certainly want to speak on behalf of those not represented in Bill 150 and we want to remind the government that this is 66% of the labour force of this province.

In closing, I would like to say I believe the spirit of this legislation is valid. I hope and trust the minister has heard my concerns and will continue to hear the concerns of my colleagues as the debate continues. The workers of Ontario who are faced with plant closures and the loss of jobs deserve our very best efforts to provide them with the legislation which offers them a full range of informed choices.

I am not sure, as I have said throughout this speech, that there are informed choices, that we truly know what Bill 150 means. I think Bill 150 is a step in the right direction. However, I am not about to take the leap of faith with all of the concerns that I have presented. I do hope that in the course of this debate, some of my concerns will be allayed.

2350

The workers of this province have been through a very difficult time. We know the unemployment rate is at its highest. We know that the manufacturing industry is shaky and fragile at this moment. Incentives such as this bill can certainly play their role. I do hope, however, that the concerns I have brought forward about the individual risks that will be taken will be well explained and well protected and that this province and the people who will be benefiting from Bill 150 will be well informed of what its implications are.

On that, I close for the moment and look forward to the comments on my remarks.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her contribution to the discussion and invite comments or questions.

Mr Sterling: I hope the parliamentary assistant, who is here with us today, will respond to the member, and perhaps by him responding to the member we can shorten the debate in terms of the points we might raise.

The section which I think the member for Ottawa-Rideau has mentioned as a concern, and which is of concern to our caucus as well, is the go-ahead for an eligible business to be brought into this. It is not quite clear in section 4 of the bill exactly what is required in order for a plan, a buyout or an employee attempt to take over a business.

It is not quite clear from the legislation, either clause 4(2)(a) or clause 4(2)(b) -- that is under subsection (1), Mr Speaker; I am sure you are quite aware of this -- what is actually required. Is it a secret ballot that is required in order for employees to go ahead and buy or take over a business, or under clause (b) could a union, for instance, unilaterally make a decision to take over a business without having a vote of the employees that were there? At least, that is the way we read clause 4(1)(b).

Those are very, very important questions for us because we do not want to pass legislation here which gives to a very few individuals the power which appears to be given to a great number of people, and the commitment to go into this kind of thing is very, very important.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? No? The member for Ottawa-Rideau has up to two minutes for a response.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I guess it is the hour because, particularly when the first or second comments are made on a bill that engages this much change in procedure, there is usually much more discussion, and I hope there will be on another occasion.

I just want to say that I feel we are talking here about a new kind of initiative in this province, and I still find great difficulty with the role which the unions are going to play in the investment funding portion of the bill. What we are asking for here is the subsidizing of investors because we all know that we are giving tax credits in that subsidization in an indirect way or perhaps even in a direct way.

We are also talking about a loss of revenue. We know there are going to be risks taken and we know there are protections built into other pieces of legislation that will mesh with this. The subsidized investor, in any case, has to be a union member. If you are not a union member, this bill and the investment portion of it does not apply.

It certainly reduces the flexibility of the bill and, as I indicated earlier, this bill, particularly the investment corporation part of it rather than the buyout section, is geared to small and medium-sized businesses. As we have indicated, often these are businesses within a community that are not unionized. There seems to be some kind of conflict, or at least what I would suggest is not a very focused initiative, to help those businesses which this government says are of interest to it. I feel very strongly that there are some misconceptions about Bill 150.

I am worried also that the workers will not have all the information they need. Naturally, they will all be in a fragile decision-making mode when they know their company is going to go under if they are not co-operative in mortgaging their futures. I hope these cautions will be explained and given every consideration.

Mr Sterling: As it is about four minutes to the hour we are quitting, I would like to move to adjourn the House at this time.

The Speaker: Perhaps this would be an appropriate place for the member for Carleton, who now has the floor, to pause in his contribution. It being almost 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 2356.