Hansard Transcript 1991-Dec-17 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING

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

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

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

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

LABOUR RELATIONS

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

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

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

COMMUNITY SERVICES

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

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

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

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

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

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

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

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

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

1340

HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

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

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

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

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

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

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

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

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

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

SEASON'S GREETINGS

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

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

While I am on my feet, I would like to say to all the viewers who watch us across Ontario, may you have a happy Christmas and a safe one. To everyone who provides the television in this House so that everyone in Ontario can take part in the proceedings here, I say to them thank you, and a happy Christmas to you and all the staff. Happy Christmas and may you have many more new years.

VISITOR

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Conway: Again we are left with the troubling question of what kind of standards the Premier has with respect to conduct within the executive council. I raised the question earlier of what the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick did, which I thought was the honourable thing. It was just a few years ago that my colleague the member for Oriole, faced with allegations concerning her husband -- which made no suggestion, as I recall them, that the honourable member for Oriole had personally behaved in a discreditable way -- but in June 1986, in the face of bitter recrimination from the leader of the now government, the then Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board withdrew from the cabinet pending a legislative inquiry.

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

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

1350

ONTARIO ECONOMY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

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

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

1400

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1410

SKILLS TRAINING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

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

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

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

An hon member: Great news.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1420

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: The member for York Centre --

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

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

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

1430

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

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

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

TORONTO WATERFRONT

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

1440

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr G. Wilson: My question is of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it involves an unfair tax burden on the people of Kingston. As the minister is aware, section 160 of the Municipal Act restricts the amount of payment in lieu of taxes that provincial institutions pay to the municipality of Kingston, so in 1991 Kingston had to forgo over $7 million. That is just the difference, the payment in lieu of taxes from three institutions -- Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University and St Lawrence College -- paid according to section 160 as opposed to what they would have paid if they were paying on the basis of any other corporate citizen. I would like the minister to please comment on this situation and tell us what he is going to do about it.

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

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

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: That somehow sounds reassuring.

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

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

1450

PETITIONS

PORNOGRAPHY

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

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

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

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

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

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Turnbull: I have a petition. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

CUSTODY AND ACCESS

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

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

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

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

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

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

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

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

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

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

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

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

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

Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology;

Ministry of Housing;

Ministry of Transportation;

Ministry of Skills Development, votes 3601 and 3602;

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

Ministry of Natural Resources;

Ministry of Health;

Office for the greater Toronto area;

Ministry of Energy;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Ministry of Financial Institutions.

1500

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

Ayes -- 65

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

Nays -- 38

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes -- 65

Nays -- 38

1510

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes -- 65

Nays -- 38

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

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

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

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

Agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1520

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They go on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1530

Although we thought we might be seeing the Algoma arrangement today, I gather that yesterday the parties were before the courts getting a six-week extension. I suspect the first use of this will be with the Algoma situation. Members can imagine that as the individuals lay out their own personal money, for many of them it is a kind of retirement fund. The bill, as members are aware, allows for individuals to put $15,000 a year into the buyout fund. For all of us that is an incredible amount of money. We want to ensure that as individuals are asked to invest in Algoma and other similar ventures, they have full disclosure and understand exactly what they are getting into and the risks involved. Certainly the Ontario Securities Commission has some reservations about it, as does the Canadian Auto Workers.

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

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

I think at the time the Treasurer was not aware that in other jurisdictions the venture capital program was available to employee groups besides unions. If it is limited to just unions, I think the problem is that it will undermine the underlying philosophy, which is to encourage as much as possible participation by a broad group of people in having a stake in the business of Ontario. For too long having a stake in the business of Ontario has been too limited. Certainly it is our hope that we will not limit participation to unions and that we will look at the opportunities which have been provided in other provinces. I might add that my understanding is that in Saskatchewan there has been an active uptake by organizations other than unions in running the venture capital portion of it.

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

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

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: That is not what he said.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: As a widespread policy.

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

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

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

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

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

1540

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

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

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

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

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

The reason I raise that is that as we debate Bill 150 -- and this is the second point I make with the legislation -- the venture capital part of this is available only to unions, whereas in other provinces other employee organizations can run it. That is a bit of a signal. It is sort of like: "What is going on here? Why is it not available to other organizations? Why is it just unions? Why not co-operatives? Why not employee associations?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, the version of this bill allows individuals to invest up to $150,000 of their money into this. For almost anybody, $150,000 would be a huge part of his or her lifetime savings, so we have a real obligation on this. It could be, more than many and certainly for most, the majority of their lifetime savings. It will be put into here. So we have an obligation and a responsibility. We can imagine, as many workers in this province will be asked to participate, that this will be a crucial decision for them. When their firm's future and their jobs at that firm depend on a majority of them agreeing to participate in this and to put their money into it, the pressure will be on them. Therefore, the pressure is on us to ensure that the bill provides for full disclosure for those investors.

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

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

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

1550

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1600

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By no way or means are people who are not associated with a trade union not able to participate in these programs. The federal legislation is quite clear. The federal legislation, when taking a look at the question of who is limited to being able to invest within that particular program, is quite clear. They say you have to be a member of a trade union or an associate of a trade union. The other provinces that have gone down this route, namely, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec, have put legislation together saying you can apply if you are outside a trade union, but it does not mean anything because the federal statutes and the federal law say that the only way people can participate in the investment portion is through the trade union.

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

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

1610

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see the irony here, I guess. We are seeing an old-line union boss say: "No, no, we want to stay with the politics of confrontation. We don't want to form partnerships. We don't want to get together. We don't want worker capitalism."

That, I think, is a view that cannot be maintained in our society. It is time everyone understands that workers, whether unionized or non-unionized, and management are all in the same boat and that in the financial and economic times we live in we had better start acting like it and that the partnerships we as Ontarians need will actually be made real partnerships, which I think this bill does.

1620

This is not a new concept. Of course this bill is modelled on the Quebec fund, a fund that is, I am told, the largest venture capital fund in North America, or maybe it is just Canada, whatever. It is a large capital fund that has done a great deal for the province of Quebec. Indeed, in Kapuskasing a company that is related to that fund is going to be a major partner in the employee buyout there, and we can only be pleased with that. But I am also disturbed that unions are placed in a privileged position in terms of management in this bill.

The members opposite will tell you: "Yes, well, anybody can buy in. Anybody can put up their money." But we are not talking about who can put up their money. We are talking about management control. We think workers, whether they are in a co-operative or they form their own organization, should have the same opportunities. It is only reasonable that workers in any establishment should have the same opportunity if their particular company could use the infusion of capital funds this venture capital program will provide.

We have two other provinces, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, that provide just that. This is not exactly a novel idea I am suggesting, and I am sure that as the bill goes through the committee hearings and the clause-by-clause scrutiny we will be able to correct that problem with the co-operation of the government party.

In the north we are experiencing depression. We are experiencing difficult times all over, not just in the north but through the province. The government is saying to us in this bill that it thinks it will cost $100 million per year to implement this program. I do not know what they have based that number on. I have no idea, and from what I can see, neither do they. No one knows what the take-up of this program might be. It might be more, and I would suggest it quite conceivably could be more, unless the cabinet uses its discretion to arbitrarily decide who are winners and losers in this kind of program.

I think we need strong and definite criteria to decide who qualifies, and I do not see them in this bill. I think that is one of the things that certainly we as Ontarians and we as legislators need to have incorporated not in the regulations but in the bill itself, so that the people of Ontario, when they are looking for ways to provide job opportunities, can know by reading the bill, "Here is a program, this is what I have to do, and this is who qualifies."

I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that we are supportive of this legislation in principle. I think this will be good for the communities I attempt to represent in my capacity as the opposition critic for Northern Development. We have many concerns and I think, to be fair, they are shared by people on all sides of the House. I think we will be able, when we get to committee and work this bill through, to find something that all members of the Legislature can be proud to support and, more than that, something that all Ontarians will benefit by, regardless of whether they belong to a union, they do not belong to a union, they are in business or whatever. I think it is time for us all to draw together. It is not a time for us to divide.

Mr Bisson: One more time I am going to try to allay the member's fears and maybe his misunderstanding of the bill. I would ask that he go back and read it a little more carefully.

The point the opposition makes over and over again is that only trade unions are allowed to participate in this fund. The bill does not say that. The bill clearly says two things: The first one is a labour-sponsored investment fund, and we will talk about that, as per regulations set out by our federal government in Ottawa. One is not allowed to invest and have a sponsor of such a fund other than if one is a trade union. That is the federal statute.

There are governments, those of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and elsewhere, that have included within their legislation the possibility of other people sponsoring, but it does not matter. It would not stand up under the federal regulation. The federal regulation clearly says that the only people who can sponsor such a fund and tap into their portion of the federal dollars at 20% must be trade unions.

Once that fund is set up through the trade union, anyone within Ontario can invest up to $3,500 into that fund. There will be 20% which will be matched in tax credits by the provincial government and 20% by the federal government.

The second part of the legislation is the worker ownership program. In the worker ownership program, yes, trade unions can incorporate in order to purchase out their employer if he is having difficulties, but also people in non-unionized workplaces have the ability of forming that same corporation. There is no exclusion in the worker ownership program between the trade union sector and the non-trade union sector.

Clearly if members wish to organize, that is a great thing. If they want to be able to organize to do this, the organizational skills of the trade union would bring that expertise; but if they want to do it on their own, they have that ability. We have to be clear that there are two bills here: worker ownership, which anybody can get into, and the labour-sponsored investment program, which I will get into later because we are out of time.

M. Grandmaître : Je voudrais commenter les commentaires de mon collègue le député de Cochrane-Sud, qui a mentionné qu'il faut faire une distinction entre les deux projets de loi. Je crois que nous connaissons très bien les deux programmes et nous avons l'intention d'appuyer de tels programmes dû au fait que les entreprises en Ontario présentement, surtout les petites entreprises, ont de la difficulté à rencontrer la compétition non seulement de l'Ontario mais de partout dans le monde.

Par contre, je voudrais lui rafraîchir la mémoire. Dans l'administration de ce programme de corporations à capital, une personne non syndiquée n'a pas le droit de participer. Je crois que c'est très clair. Mon collègue me fait signe que non ; par contre, je crois que c'est lui qui se trompe et qui mélange les deux projets de loi. Il devrait lire les lignes fines du projet de loi. Je répète : ceux qui veulent participer à l'administration sont empêchés par ce projet de loi.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to respond to the comments coming from the opposite benches about only unions being able to be involved in this employee ownership, labour-sponsored venture corporation fund.

By creating the two different types of corporations, all workers can participate in the program. Non-unionized employees can participate better through the formation of their own investment corporation or by participating in any labour-sponsored venture investment fund corporations. Unionized employees can participate in a trade-union-sponsored venture capital corporation. There are two differences, where non-unionized workers can also become involved in their companies.

Another comment was made by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin about why people would want to invest only in companies that are going down the drain or have financial difficulties. I would like to respond by saying that this is incorrect. Many businesses now are looking for an avenue to get their workers more involved in what is happening in their business and their corporation. By having the workers involved financially, this will initiate and help to promote change in that workplace and also give a collective responsibility for everyone to be involved and feel they have ownership and can therefore become more productive in their plants.

1630

Mr Phillips: I commend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his comments. He understands the bill. The government does not understand the bill. As he points out, in this bill the only organizations that can manage the venture capital are unions. The government members have to understand that.

In Saskatchewan, unions, co-operatives and groups of employees are allowed to set up these venture funds. As well, funds established under the Saskatchewan program are eligible for provincial and federal tax credits. Members opposite have to understand that. In British Columbia it is the same thing. Unions or other groups of people with a work-related affiliation can set up employee venture capital corporations which can, in turn, receive provincial and federal tax credits for their investments. That is very clear. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin understands that. I wish the government understood it as well as he did. In the two other provinces that have set up similar things, unions can run the venture capital programs, as the member points out, but so can co-operatives and other employee organizations. That is the point he is making.

We all understand that non-union people can invest in the proposals; that is a given. It is who runs it that is at issue. In both Saskatchewan and British Columbia -- I do not think the government understands this and I am not sure the Treasurer himself understood it when he introduced the bill -- in both those cases, it is clearly our understanding from the research we have done that it is not just unions which can run the venture capital. The government thinks it is that way. They either have to amend the bill to incorporate how we interpret the bill or else understand that they do not understand the bill. My friend and colleague certainly understands it.

Mr Brown: I certainly appreciate my colleagues' comments.

The comments revolved around the issue of who can run the venture capital corporations. What I heard is that there is no disagreement here. The government believes you can be a co-operative and run the venture capital fund. I simply heard that a group of employees who band together can actually run the venture capital corporation.

If that is the case, we are really talking here about nothing. There really is not a problem. Maybe the government is right. Maybe we do not completely understand, but I have a feeling it is not us. So the government will be quite prepared, when we get to committee and go through the clause-by-clause, to accept opposition amendments to clarify that point. I do not hear any disagreement here. Everybody is saying the same thing.

We are disagreeing about what the words in the bill mean. I happen to think we have the right interpretation. I do not have such a large ego that it says to me I am always right, but I do have a sense that everybody in this place agrees that everyone, whether or not he belongs to a union, whether he is in a small company or a large company, should be able to participate in this fund. It is good for the workers of Ontario, it is good for the economy of Ontario and it will get Ontario working again.

All I can say to the government and to my own colleagues is that I am pleased this bill is before the House. I think the concept is right. I hear a general consensus about what we believe should be in the bill and I am very happy about that. We will continue working to a good solution.

Mr Martin: I am certainly honoured to rise today and speak in support of this good legislation. As the member opposite has just eloquently stated, it is progressive and challenging legislation. We may indeed have some discussion over how we might make it better.

To be honest, I look forward to that because there is nothing that we as a government want more than to be able to enter into good, constructive discussion and dialogue with members opposite and the general public about the legislation we as a government bring down. I do not think there is a piece of legislation we have introduced yet to this House and passed on behalf of the people of the province on which we have not consulted with the members opposite in significant ways and listened to the public about. That legislation ultimately reflected that we had listened and were actually enlightened by the discussion that took place. I suggest to the members that in this case it will be no different.

I have been looking forward to this legislation since I arrived in the House. As a matter of fact, I introduced a personal private member's bill on Thursday, May 30 of this year which spoke to exactly this kind of initiative. At that time I spent quite a bit of time elaborating on the reasons why I thought it was important. I look forward to an opportunity again to say some of those things and perhaps a bit more, as I have learned somewhat more since that time about how important this kind of legislation is, particularly with the economy being in the difficult times that it is and people out there wanting to participate in more significant ways but not being able to do so.

As a matter of fact, this legislation, like most legislation we will pass, is not cast in stone. Hopefully it will evolve and get better as we become more experienced with it and as we listen to people about it and as other jurisdictions of government become more progressive in front of the kind of opportunity that we want to provide the people of our province.

I am told that right now there may be limitations to the participation of the private sector with those members of labour in venture capital operations. I suggest the federal government should be looking at that quickly and seriously in order to --

Mr Cleary: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not think we have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1638

Mr Martin: I am certainly glad to be able to get back to the important work of this House. It seems to me, since I have come here, that we spend an awful lot of time playing these kinds of silly games, when there are people out there in my community particularly, and I am sure in others, who have no work, are looking for work, looking for leadership from this government, and this government is not being allowed to get on with that job because of the antics of the opposition.

It is important to lay out the context within which this legislation is being passed. Certainly nobody will debate the issue that the environment of today's economy and the environment in the communities in which we live are going through some distressing times. We are moving rapidly, some of us kicking and screaming, into a global economy where the ability to compete in ever more creative ways will be important. We are moving into a global economy where capital moves freely.

At the same time, those of us who work in industry are stuck with a job today and perhaps not tomorrow because of that reality. We cannot move. If a company decides it is not making a proper return on its dollar in a place like, say, Sault Ste Marie, and Mexico looks more enticing or attractive, there is no consideration given to the impact that will have on the community itself and the workers there. Capital has no conscience and it just moves, and more and more there are becoming less and less boundaries to that movement. That concerns me and it should concern all of us who live in Canada today.

1640

We have come to expect a standard of living I do not think is exorbitant in any way but is certainly more comfortable today than it was 10 years ago, than it was 20 years ago, and I think we all have to get our heads around the fact that we need to be creative and courageous and come up with new ways of making sure that as we move into the global economy and learn to compete in that environment, we do not lose that which we have fought so hard to gain. I refer specifically to some of our labour union forefathers who fought on picket lines and in other ways throughout the years so that we now enjoy in some instances secure jobs with benefit packages that take care of our children's health needs and so on.

The economy of today is a shifting one, a changing one, and all of us need to be part of that. Certainly this legislation will afford more of us an opportunity to participate in a more creative and courageous way. We are faced with a recession that seems to be unrelenting. When we arrived here a year and a half ago, some of us were predicting that six months, nine months, perhaps a year, and we would be out of it.

It seems that is not the case and in fact the recession is probably a natural part of what seems to be less a recession and more a restructuring of our economy, not unlike perhaps the Industrial Revolution, where fundamental changes were made and people learned to participate in new and different ways. In response to that reality, our government is being proactive and intelligent and introducing legislation today that will put us in a better position to participate and take advantage of recovery when it comes.

The free trade agreement is part of this global economy and is certainly contributing to the recession in our country. The federal government of this land would have us create a playing field that in fact suggests and invites us to a lower standard of living, a lower expectation of the kinds of services each one of us is owed simply by being a citizen of this country, instead of raising the expectations of its own people to a level where they would be willing to work harder and perhaps be more productive so that they might participate as well in the kinds of quality of life issues we have taken for granted in this country.

It is in the light of the free trade agreement that we, as a provincial government, are beginning to take some initiative to allow the people of our province to be able to compete in that environment when the federal government is not doing anything to assist us adjust to some of the very significant and real impacts that agreement has laid upon us.

The other context I think I would like to speak to that we need to look at as we look at this particular piece of legislation is the relationship that has evolved over time between management and labour in our province. Certainly nobody I talk to, either on the management side of the ledger or on the labour side of the ledger, will say that the system they have in place now is perfect and that there is not room for improvement and that when it comes time for a strike at a plant --

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum present, and the member just spoke earlier about the importance of having people here to listen.

The Deputy Speaker: Table, would you check if there is a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: In light of the importance of this legislation that we debate here today and the really desperate times that are out there and the context within which this legislation is being looked at, I think it would be really helpful and important if some members of the Progressive Conservative party were here. None of them is here. I do not know where they are. We have three, now four, members of the official opposition in the House, and it would be nice if they saw the activity of this House as important enough to be present. All we are asking for is a commitment.

Mr Phillips: We are all here. We are listening.

Mr Martin: The members are listening. I guess that probably is a good lead-in to what I was talking about in my comments before I was so rudely interrupted. I was speaking about the relationship between management and labour and how there is always room for improvement and how there is not anybody on either side of that ledger who would not, given an opportunity, speak to the need for a more creative coming together so that we might come up with ideas co-operatively that more quickly would move forward the economic agenda of this province that affects all of its people.

I suggest that the kinds of relationships that will be stimulated and initiated by the kinds of things that are suggested and intimated in this legislation will certainly move that agenda forward as well. We will see ever more creative relationships built between those two groups, who have contributed actually a lot to the economy of this province over the years.

This is not a new idea we discuss today but one that we, as a province, have looked at in other jurisdictions and have sculpted to meet our own particular needs at this particular point in time. In fact, the previous government in its wisdom, through the facility of a Premier's council, suggested very strongly that an Ontario worker ownership initiative needs to be fully examined. We were certainly happy to pick up on that and, being given the opportunity to govern last September 6, immediately moved to looking at how that might be done, and here we are today with the legislation on the table. I have to say that I am really proud of the fact we have done that.

If you look across the world today to countries in Europe, particularly Italy, Sweden and Spain, you will see that worker ownership, particularly in the form of co-ops, is a major part of the economies of those countries. As a matter of fact, an area of Spain I have become somewhat familiar with over the last 10 years as I have looked at this issue of worker ownership and worker co-operatives in the industrial sector jumps to mind: the Mondragone area of Spain where, after the revolution, the area was demolished, the people were demoralized and began to pick up the pieces.

It was five or six young engineers, who went away to be educated, who came back and looked at the needs of their people and, using some ideas that were taught to them by an old Catholic priest in their high school days, looked at the possibility of a co-operative. To make a long story short, in that area of Spain today there are 21,000 people employed under the banner of about 150 individual worker-owned enterprises. Out of that has evolved a financing operation under the heading of a credit union, a research and development department, their own health and welfare facilities, and on and on.

It is within that context that we present this legislation and I turn to the particular problems we are facing at this point in time in northern Ontario, where there is a fleeing of capital, where there is a devastation of the economy. We are a resource-extraction-based industry up there and, as new ideas come on the market, such as new ways of recycling material, we become less and less in control of our own destiny in that part of this province.

We think that through the introduction and implementation of this legislation and our becoming involved more and more in the owning of our own industries, we will be in better control of our destinies and our futures. We will be able to create jobs, good jobs that our children and our children's children's children will be able to take advantage of in times to come.

1650

It would probably be inappropriate for me today, in this time I have and speaking about northern Ontario, not to focus somewhat on the situation in Sault St Marie where we have our major industry, Algoma Steel, on the brink of closure. Through the initiative of the United Steelworkers union in co-operation with management and the banks, to which a lot of money is owed, and under the leadership of this government, particularly under the leadership of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, we have moved forward courageously to come up with an answer to our problems that is centred almost solely on the proposal that the workers in that particular mill would become, to some degree, the owners, and in that way make it more productive and have it actually placed or poised to take advantage more positively of any recovery that may come in the economy.

This legislation and what is happening in Sault Ste Marie, where people are actually doing what we are suggesting would be possible under these conditions, who are taking a very courageous, bold step forward -- those components, put together, will be good for Algoma Steel, will be good, actually, for the whole steel industry of Ontario and Canada. It will be good for the larger business community of Sault Ste Marie, and indeed Algoma, and it will be good for the people of Sault Ste Marie as a whole.

It seems to me from my interaction with people over the years and from that which I read about health and how to be healthy, the more we have control over our own destiny, the more we have the ability to make decisions about what we will do, how we will do it and when we will do it, the healthier we are as people.

This legislation has great ramifications in many areas, not only in the area of business and the economy, but certainly in the area of social development and indeed in the area of how we create a healthy population that will then be ready to participate in the business of our communities, so that we can be competitive and do well in the global market scene that is evolving ever so quickly.

I suggest that as on Thursday, May 30, 1991, when this whole House supported the resolution I put forth around the question of worker ownership, members of this House do so again in this instance. By doing that, we will be putting in place in this province part of the progressive legislation this government is committed to and will continue to bring forward and champion.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there comments or questions?

Mr Phillips: I would like to comment on the member's remarks. First, it is a serious matter that is going to affect his riding in particular, and I did not appreciate what I thought were rather inappropriate comments about how many people were in the House. It demeans the case he wants to make.

On the substance of the matter, because Algoma will probably be the first organization that will use it, I say to the member that there are some significant concerns we have raised about ensuring that the people who are going to put their hard-earned savings into this thing have adequate protection.

The people who work at Algoma and perhaps a lot of the residents of Sault Ste Marie are putting significant money into this venture. I go back to what Bob White, the president of the CAW, said in expressing his concerns about it and raising cautions for all of us: "Why is the government ignoring this other OFL proposal? Why emphasize greater worker participation and then -- without any apparent serious debate" -- this is why we think it is important that this go to committee -- "put forth a specific proposal that workers' representatives have already rejected?"

I say to the members opposite that the labour movement has had some significant reservations about this proposal. It happens that I think many of the elements of this proposal are worthy of support.

In the final analysis, the people who work at Algoma will want to be assured that they are not left holding the bag in the circumstances. They want to be assured that there is full disclosure, that they understand exactly what they are getting into and that as they put perhaps up to $15,000 a year of their hard-earned money into this proposal, the people of Ontario, through their elected representatives, have assured them they have some protection and some full disclosure on exactly what they are getting into.

Hon Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie on his presentation on this legislation. Certainly the proposal for worker ownership and participation in the management of enterprises in this province is of central importance to Sault Ste Marie and the Algoma district as we see the very serious situation facing the steelworkers of Sault Ste Marie, Wawa and area. It is important also to the whole of the province.

In the words of my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, it is indeed out of order to comment on the presence or absence of another member, so I will not draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the absence of the Conservatives. Perhaps that indicates their interest in this type of legislation. I have not been able to locate any in the House. Again, that would be out of order, so I will not refer to it.

I want to say, though, that the comments made by my friend the member for Sault Ste Marie are most apropos, particularly when one considers that he himself introduced private member's legislation in this assembly that led to a debate very early on in the mandate of this government about the need for different mechanisms to allow for worker participation and ownership by both organized and unorganized workers.

I commend him for his dedication in this regard. One of the reasons we have been able to make some progress, although it has been slower than most of us would have wanted, in resolving the Algoma Steel situation and the future of the workers in Sault Ste Marie is the leadership that has been shown by the member for Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Bisson: The Minister of Natural Resources has pointed out the work the member for Sault Ste Marie has put into this type of legislation and into the whole concept. From our initial days of walking into this Legislature back in October 1990, the member for Sault Ste Marie was one of the members in our caucus who was most adamant on the need to be able to put together such a fund. He understood the realities of what was happening inside our economy. He realized the difficulties businesses were having in attaining capital to stave off takeover bids and the problems happening within the industry.

He really pushed quite a bit within our own caucus -- and, I think, in discussions he has had with members of the opposition -- to make sure such a program would come forward. I want to tip my hat to the member for Sault Ste Marie for standing up today in this Legislature and speaking in detail and quite eloquently on this bill.

The member is quite an extraordinary fellow in his approach to this whole issue, understanding the technicalities of it and the importance of being able to put a bill like this. I think it is an opportunity for us, at least on this side of the House, if the opposition will not join, to applaud the member for Sault Ste Marie on his efforts to be able to find a way of making sure such things like this happen. For that I applaud him.

1700

Mr Martin: I thank my colleagues for their kind remarks. I certainly thank the opposition members for the challenges they threw this way.

I would not suggest for a minute that this legislation is in any way going to be something soft that will allow people to participate in some way that does not reflect the reality of doing business anywhere in the world today. Certainly there is risk involved. If my understanding of the person who is actually championing the restructuring of Algoma Steel at the moment, Leo Gerard, and his ability to lay it out as it is and he sees it is any indication of the reality with which the employees at Algoma Steel will be presented this particular new scenario, then they will not be going in there with any wool over their eyes or in any way misinformed or less informed than they should be.

I am personally looking forward to this going to committee so that we might have further discussion. As I said in my remarks, this legislation is not perfect, but it is certainly a good start towards what I think will be very good legislation down the line which will provide an opportunity for all of us who live and work in Ontario to participate more constructively and creatively in the economies we all depend on to create the jobs and provide the quality of life that we have all come to expect in this province.

Having said that, I again invite the members opposite to support us in this legislation. I would hope that when it comes to a vote they will all be here and that this will be good for us and for the constituencies we represent, and particularly for my own community of Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Cleary: I am also pleased to enter into this debate and I am also looking forward to getting this to committee. I also hope the government will weaken a bit and include all groups in the program, whether they are union or non-union. I know the $100-million estimate that was brought forward in this difficult time may be very light.

Not to repeat what my colleagues have said earlier, but in our part of eastern Ontario we have had over 20 plant closures. We had a vehicle there, the Eastern Ontario Development Corp, that lent money interest-free to industry that wanted to expand or build. I hope the government will also look at that. That was one of the last incentives we had to keep companies on this side of the river and not locating in the United States.

We are losing many jobs to cross-border shopping and I have to blame the government. They are part of the cause. I introduced a private member's bill almost a year ago that would have given a tax break on gasoline at border communities. This government saw fit to stack the House that morning and vote that bill down.

Just a few short weeks ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology happened to come to Cornwall, and he left a cheque for $54,000. This was to help combat cross-border shopping. Yet my local service station operators came to me and they thought that was a very small donation to a community where the increased gas taxes this government had levied would be $1.4 million.

The other Sunday night I happened to be at the Cornwall Civic Complex watching the traffic return from the United States. It was bumper to bumper. It was an inaugural meeting of the city council. That is the main thing the residents of Ontario go to the United States for, the gasoline, and yet this government sees fit --

The Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt the member for Cornwall, but you must speak to the bill.

Mr Cleary: I am just trying to say that this is all increase and losing jobs and that if we are shopping in the United States, we are going to lose jobs here, so we are going to have more participation in the plan.

I guess some of the other worries we have in the communities that will cause companies to restructure and maybe introduce employee participation in administration would be the increased hydro rates and the Labour Relations Act. Anyway, I think if all parties on all sides of the House work together on this, I do hope the government will listen and probably come up with a bill and legislation -- I know it will be a lot more costly than $100 million, but I do wish them well and we look forward to participating in that debate in committee.

Mr Bisson: Finally we have an opportunity today to get into the whole debate on some very important legislation under Bill 150. We have before us today a bill that basically does two things. Before getting into the explanation of what those two things are all about, namely, the labour-sponsored investment fund and also the worker ownership program, I would like to do a little bit of a journey to look at what has got us into this position of having to go out and really find some challenging solutions to be able to solve quite a difficult situation we find ourselves in generally in Canada and to a certain extent what we find here in North America.

Not too long ago, some 10, 15 or 20 years ago, Ontario and other regions within the country really prospered under a fairly strong economy. A lot of members in this Legislature would say that was because they happened to be the government at the time, but I would beg to differ. We happened to be in an economy that was expanding, that was growing, that was feeding the Vietnam War, to name a few things, and after that whole thing, what happened under Reagan and being able to field that industrial-military complex that was so necessary at the time in order to promote what was happening in the United States in regard to its foreign policy. It affected us greatly here in Ontario and we had an economy that was really feeding into all of that. We had a building economy.

But what happened, I guess, starting from about 1984 -- and I notice the members from the third party are not here to listen to this -- is that we had really a change of landscape federally. I think there is no other way to explain it. We had a government come to Ottawa that had a mindset that the best way to make things happen was to do it its way, not to listen generally to Canadians from coast to coast about what they were concerned about when it came to problems of regional development within their particular areas of the country or problems that beset them as citizens of this country.

We have seen this federal government really go on to a journey that is, I would say, at the least is bizarre. They decided that one of the first things they should do was dismantle the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That happened without as much as a whimper within this country. I think most members would agree that the Foreign Investment Review Agency was a mechanism put in under the Liberal government that sat federally at the time that said if you are going to invest foreign dollars into this country, there had to be a certain amount of guarantee of Canadian content and control. We recognized that basically we were a branch plant economy of the United States and some way or other we had to get some control of that economy so that we could really decide what we were going to do here, by and large, and create our own policies, both economic and social, within this country. For that I give credit to the then government, which happened to be a Liberal government federally under the leadership of Mr Trudeau.

When Mr Mulroney came in, he decided that --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Members behind me remind me that it was done in a time of opposition. I think most people will recognize that maybe that is the case. But what happened was that when Mr Mulroney came in, he said: "Listen, we're open for business. Let it rip. We're going to get rid of FIRA. We're going to allow capital to come in, but also outside of Canada, without any restrictions." So what we have today is basically an unrestricted right of capital. Basically capital has no allegiance in coming in and out of this country without there really being any say from the provincial governments or the federal government on how those dollars are going to be spent here in Canada, or if those dollars leave, what kinds of consequences that would have on our economy.

1710

I worked at a mine during the 1970s and 1980s in Timmins that at the time was owned by Noranda Mines. It was called Pamour. We were an employer. The employer I worked for at the time had an hourly rated workforce of some 1,400 employees with probably a staff of from 400 to 600 people. I might be a little bit off on my numbers, so I ask people to be patient on that.

The point is that as soon as the Foreign Investment Review Agency was dismantled, what we ended up having was that Noranda was allowed to divest that particular segment of its operation, sell it to a company that came from outside Canada -- which would have been okay if it had really had an interest or had really maintained that employer as it was at the time, or at least given it a good attempt -- and what we saw from there was a successful takeover and flip of that company, as if you were flipping properties, to the point that that company now, under the stewardship again of a Canadian company, Royal Oak Resources, which is really trying to make a go of it -- I really have to give the present owner, Mrs Peggy Witte, some credit -- and re-establish that company, but the long and the short of what FIRA did was to drop that employer from about 1,400 employees to down to some 200 or 300 now.

Not all that is just because of FIRA. It is a recognized fact that this particular mine operated with probably one of the lowest grades of gold of all gold mines in North America, but a contributing factor to what happened to that company was FIRA. I was one who experienced that as an employee of that company. I understand far too well what precipitated the decisions on the part of the company to do what it did and eventually put us in the positions we were in.

We saw a federal government decide to go along with the whole idea of being able to support a high dollar and high interest rates. I do not need to speak on that very long. You do not have to be very brilliant to deduce that if interest rates are high, people do not go out and borrow money to be able to build homes, to invest in factories, to do all those things that are so necessary to drive this economy. In the same cost of the high dollar, nobody has to really be brilliant to figure out that if you have a high dollar it is extremely difficult to compete in the United States in the face of what is happening in the United States.

It is interesting to note that recently there was an article I read out in one of the American trade journals, basically saying that the low wages that are sustained within the southern United States can be considered a subsidy to what is happening within those industries.

We have seen a number of other things come along. We have seen the whole question of deregulation. The federal government of the day decided to deregulate the airline industry, the trucking industry and others. We have seen the effect of that today. The trucking industry in Ontario is quite in decline. I think it points to why it is necessary for us to go in the direction of making sure we have some capital to put into our province.

What has happened is a whole change of direction at the federal level away from what this country has always been used to. I would say this country has been one that has always wanted to have a balance between economic justice and social justice. I think what this Bill 150 does is bring in that other part of saying: "Yes, we recognize that to create good social policy you have to have dollars within the private sector. That is so necessary at the end to be able to drive and pay for the legislation we want."

I just said that because I want people to understand, before I get into the actual explanation of what these two bills are about, how we find ourselves in the position we are in right now. We find ourselves in that position because, yes, there has been a change of direction.

The members opposite have pointed to a couple of points within the worker ownership program and the labour-sponsored investment fund. I want to go through both these components of this one piece of legislation so people out there understand quite clearly what this is all about. I think most of the members within this Legislature would understand the bill well enough to be able to decide for themselves what is good or what is bad or what they can accept or not accept in this, but the people at home really need to understand what these two bills do.

There has been a bit of confusion on a couple of points, which I will return to at the end in order to get into this.

The first thing that is put into place is something that is called the worker ownership program. Very simply put, that is a fund by which employees are able to invest in their own employer to be able to save that company or, quite frankly, if there is a need because of other reasons, to be able to purchase their employer. The employer does not have to be in a financial situation of closure for the worker ownership program to kick into place.

One of the things that is being said in the House is that this program is only good in those situations where companies are in trouble. Clearly, if all we can invest in is companies that are in trouble, I would wonder a little about that investment.

What the plan does is say to employees, unionized or non-unionized, in Ontario, "If you as workers have a need to invest and take over your employer, for whatever reason, and it is an agreeable takeover, you will be allowed to do that under this bill."

The bill sets out the following conditions. To be bought out, to get into this program, the eligible company has to meet a certain number of criteria. First, it has to be a taxable Canadian company doing business here in Ontario, or at least 25% of the salary dollars being paid by that company have to be paid to Ontario workers. If the company meets that criterion, any employees within that company, unionized or non-unionized, who want to group themselves together to put together an active bid to purchase that employer can do so.

If the employer and the employees come to an agreement -- it is not a question of the employees going and saying, "We're buying you out"; the employer obviously has to want to sell -- what will happen at that point is the provincial government will put a 20% return on the first $3,500 that is invested on the part of each individual employee in that business. That 20% is a tax gift. It comes out of our share of income tax from the federal government in base Ontario tax dollars. For the money above $3,500, up to $15,000, the provincial government will then make a 30% gift on taxes. What you have is the first $3,500 at 20% and the following, up to $15,000, at 30%.

It is interesting to note that this is a provincial program. The federal government does not in any way contribute to this program. We certainly wish they would. If we could get the federal government to buy in on this, it would mean that employees investing in their own corporations would have not only the 20% for the first $3,500 and the 30% above that from the provincial government but a matching contribution from the federal government. That would be a desirable situation. But up to now the federal government has not participated in that part of the plan.

As a provincial government, we are going ahead with that. Again, I make clear to the members of the opposition that you have to be a company that is taxable, resides in Canada and has 25% of its payroll being paid to Ontario workers. Each employee is allowed to invest up to a maximum of $15,000. If you meet those criteria, that can go on.

What are the benefits of that? One of the benefits obviously is that the employer has a new source of capital. We have seen the situations in Kapuskasing, Elliot Lake and other places across the province, where the real problem the employer faced was either insolvency or difficulty in being able to raise the capital necessary to modernize the plant to remain competitive, and was not able to access the capital. This gives the employer another source of capital very directly. That is something important in today's economy. One of the biggest contributing difficulties business is having today is access to capital.

Dans les années passées, on le sait tous, en 1950, 1960, la personne qui voulait entrer dans le commerce, la petite ou moyenne entreprise, pour être capable de commencer une entreprise, si cette personne avait une bonne idée, un bon concept et qu'il y avait on va dire un banquier qui était assez ami avec la personne, elle avait la chance d'avoir un emprunt à la banque pour être capable de transformer son idée en réalité.

Mon père, qui a été propriétaire d'un petit commerce pendant des années dans ma circonscription, a travaillé 30 ans dans ce petit commerce où il avait trois ou quatre employés à la fois qui y gagnaient leur vie. Lui, avec quoi a-t-il commencé ? Il a commencé avec 40 $ dans sa poche, une idée et le désir d'avoir du succès dans son commerce. Il est allé à la banque et la banque a dit : «Oui, on a confiance en toi. On te donne une chance.»

Avec ça, pendant 30 ans mon père a tenu un petit commerce dans ma circonscription et en même temps il a créé des emplois pour d'autres personnes. Le point que je veux faire c'est qu'il est très difficile pour cette même personne d'il y a 20 ou 30 ans d'aller aujourd'hui au même banquier et dire : «J'ai une bonne idée. J'ai 40 $ dans ma poche et je veux commencer un petit commerce.» Le banquier dira : «Bye-bye. Viens nous voir quand il y a au moins 20 % ou 30 % d'équité dans ta compagnie et là, possiblement, on va te parler.» Ce projet de loi donne la chance à l'employeur d'aller chercher du capital.

1720

L'une des bonnes affaires qui arrivent c'est que les employeurs ont la chance possiblement de faire à ce que leurs jobs soint plus sécures. Si la compagnie a des difficultés, comme ce qui est arrivé dernièrement à Kimberly-Clark à Kapuskasing, l'employeur décide : «On ne fait plus de commerce dans ce coin-ci ; on a eu des raisons des entreprises, qui nous disent, "On va aller ailleurs."»

Premièrement, les employés avaient besoin de ramasser de l'argent pour être capable de mettre en place l'argent nécessaire comme leur partie du deal pour acheter Kimberly-Clark, mais en même temps les employés ont besoin de rechercher pas mal d'argent pour investir dans leur compagnie.

Où aller chercher le capital ? Dans les banques, possiblement, mais aussi à travers ce projet de loi. On a la possibilité de former ce qui est appelé en anglais «labour-sponsored investment fund», un fonds du patrimoine d'investissement pour les travailleurs, la chance d'aller chercher du capital nécessaire pour investir dans nos compagnies.

Je pense que l'affaire la plus importante c'est qu'on se trouve aujourd'hui dans une situation où il est nécessaire que les employeurs et les travailleurs se retrouvent. La compétition globale aujourd'hui est très féroce. On le sait tous. Les députés de l'opposition nous le disent chaque jour. Moi j'ai travaillé dans le secteur. Je comprends bien que, quand on parle de la compétition, si on ne fait pas d'argent dans une entreprise ça ferme les portes et on est parti. D'abord on a besoin de s'assurer d'une compétence dans la gérance de la compagnie, et il y a une meilleure manière de donner la chance aux employés d'avoir un peu de pouvoir dans les décisions qui sont prises dans leur compagnie.

Si l'employé est content, il pense : «Oui, je peux faire une différence dans cette compagnie-ci», et ce travailleur va travailler plus fort. S'il travaille plus fort, ça donne à la compagnie une meilleure chance d'être productrice et tout le monde en gagne. La communauté et la compagnie se retrouvent.

I think it is an excellent idea in that term.

The second part of the program is a labour-sponsored investment fund. We have to be clear on this. Let me first explain how this works. I want to come back to one of the points the opposition has been raising just to clear it up. First, the way this program works is that a trade union must sponsor a labour-sponsored investment fund within Ontario. The way that works is that basically it is a federal-provincial program. An employee is allowed to invest up to $3,500 in that particular fund. In return for investing up to $3,500 maximum, that employee will get a 20% tax credit towards his income tax at the end of the year from the federal government and a 20% tax credit from the provincial government at the end of the year for a total of 40%.

In order to be able to invest that money, the company has to be eligible. How is a company eligible? First, 50% of the employees of that company have to be working and residing in Ontario. In other words, if you invest money, that company has to have 50% of its workforce based in Ontario. The company cannot have more than $35 million in assets and cannot have any more than 500 employees working within that particular company. If the employer meets those criteria, a labour-sponsored investment fund can be set up through a trade union in order to be able to put together a labour investment fund that can be invested in that company.

Members opposite have been saying the government is wrong because this is strictly a program that is aimed towards putting together an investment fund from the trade union sector. We need to be clear that the federal regulation, set out through the federal government, says that an investment fund of this nature must be sponsored through a trade union in order to qualify for the 20% it is giving towards tax credits. I hope the federal government will change that position, and other co-operatives or whatever other format can be done could be put together in order to get that 20%.

Members opposite have said Saskatchewan, British Columbia and others have this in their legislation, but the federal governemnt does not pay the 20% towards that investment if it is invested outside the trade union sector. In other words, if it is not a trade union that has a labour investment fund in place, if you live in Saskatchewan and you invest in it, you will only get the provincial dollars, if you get any at all. I would have to check on that fact, but I know they do not get the federal matching dollars. They do not get that 20% from the federal government.

Let's hope that together, the members opposite from all parties, from the opposition, from the Liberals and the Tories and ourselves will be able to convince the federal government to do otherwise. God knows, everybody in Canada has been trying to change their minds, but it does not seem to be working. Let's hope we are more successful.

The other point is that in each labour-sponsored investment fund you are only allowed to invest up to 10% of the total assets of that company. Why? Because this fund is not intended to be a source of capital in order to run on takeovers from one end to the other. It is an opportunity for employers to go and find some money to be able to invest inside their companies for restructuring, for modernization of their plant or whatever it might be.

The other thing is, the investors of that fund have to be restricted to a minority position of shareholders, for the same reasons I pointed out a little while ago. There is a way the shareholders can become the majority shareholders in that particular situation. We said you are only allowed to invest up to 10% in any one particular company. Under the minister's permission you can go further, but you can only go further in certain situations and those situations are if you are trying to prevent insolvency or a takeover. Then that money can be utilized in order to stop the run on that company, if this is something that is desirable. A situation might be whatever, and somebody can draw a scenario to that one if they want. As a rule, 10% is the maximum amount of money you can be able to do in that.

The whole idea of these two programs is basically to instil a certain amount of confidence, number one, within our economy through the ability to be able to raise capital. If we can raise capital and make capital possible to the companies within this province, it is obviously something that is desirable.

I think most of the members opposite have gotten up and spoken in favour of this bill. I welcome that. They see that this is a positive thing and that in the end, if all the members come together and take a look at ways of amending this bill and making it a better piece of legislation, I am sure the members on this side of the House will certainly listen.

Une chose qui est arrivée justement c'est que le projet de loi qu'on a devant nous aujourd'hui a été mis en place après des consultations auprès de la population ontarienne. Une consultation pas mal extensive a été faite partout en province. Nous avons parlé aux employeurs, aux travailleurs et autres de cette province. C'est après cette consultation-là que finalement le gouvernement a mis en place cette législation qui, je peux dire, a changé depuis le concept initial qui a été mis en place lors de cette idée.

L'autre point que j'aimerais faire avant de finir c'est que ceci n'est pas une nouvelle idée. On sait que dans la province de Québec, un fonds de patrimoine pour les travailleurs est fait par les syndicats de la province et que d'autres provinces ont des programmes qui font pas mal la même affaire, comme en Saskatchewan et en Colombie-Britannique.

Je peux dire avec fierté que ça a pris un gouvernement néo-démocrate en Ontario en 1991 pour avoir le bon sens de voir que de tels programmes peuvent être vraiment bénéfiques aux travailleurs et aux entreprises.

Avec ça, je me trouve très fier de pouvoir dire oui, une autre solution un peu différente parce que le NPD est différent : on trouve des solutions qui peuvent amener, à la fin de la journée, à résoudre des problèmes qu'on a concernant l'économie dans la province.

I invite all members to participate in this debate and to recommend to the government points that would amend this legislation to make it better. I welcome members to participate in that debate in being able to put together something that, quite frankly, at the end of the day could be a very positive thing to the economy of Ontario.

The members opposite talk about the $100 million dollars this will cost the government. Yes, if there are investments of a significant portion that we expect to have, it will be $100 million lost in tax revenues. But what it means is $500 million in new investment directly to the enterprises within Ontario. For that, I think it is well worth the price and I welcome all members in the debate.

1730

Mr Phillips: Just to comment on that, I was pleased the government member suggested the government would have no difficulty with broadening the participation of the venture capital beyond unions. I think that is a helpful comment, as it is my understanding, by the way, that in Saskatchewan and British Columbia the federal 20% tax credit is available to other employee groups besides unions who sponsor the funds.

I say to the member that I think he can appreciate the concern many have about protecting the investors. I think this is what held the OFL back for so many years. This very proposal was debated many times in the OFL. I followed it very carefully and the member was probably there at that debate.

I think the OFL's concern was that, as you invest in your firm, the firm you are working in, for a while it becomes an investment to help keep your job. Then, if things are going badly, you are in double jeopardy because you not only are attempting to keep your job but you have an enormous amount of your own personal savings invested in there.

If by chance the employees are participating in a firm that has long-term difficulty, if we have not protected those investors, those employees, well with full disclosure, we put them in an intolerable position, because now not only are they concerned that this is where they have to keep investing to save their job, but they have their whole life savings also invested in it. You can imagine the terrible agony that would put someone in. I hope the members can appreciate why we on this side are so interested in ensuring proper disclosure and proper investor knowledge.

Mr Bisson: Just on what I would term the double jeopardy question the member raises across the floor, if I understand correctly what he is saying, the concern is that not only would the worker be in a position of losing his job but possibly having to lose his investment. Listen, in a free market economy, there is no such thing as a safe investment. If I go out as a person and I decide to invest $10,000 into the stock market or $10,000 in a small business, I am taking a chance on losing that $10,000. There is no such thing as a safe investment.

On the question of double jeopardy -- is the employee put at risk because of investing within his own company? -- that is a risk I think the workers have to decide whether they want to take or not. It is not one for us to decide. If the employees at the end of the day decide it is a good deal, as they did in Kapuskasing -- they raised $15 million within that community, of which over $10 million was raised within that particular plant. That is a decision they decided to take. A shot was better than no shot at all.

My guess is that company has a far better chance of succeeding down the road because the workers are involved. Nobody has a monopoly on good management. I used to service all employers in northeastern Ontario, from the big ones to the small ones, when I was a member of the Ontario Federation of Labour as a staffer, and nobody has a monopoly on good management. All I know is that when employees feel as if they can participate in the decision-making process and they have a say in what happens within their plant, then those employees are more likely to be able to understand why they need to do the things they do in order to make them more productive. I think that is a desirable effect, and that is what the effect of this legislation would be. The fund would make it possible for that whole scenario to be set up. For that, I think it is a good thing.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to join in the debate on this particular piece of legislation. I think it is an important piece of legislation, and certainly members of my caucus have spoken in support of the legislation and its principle but have also expressed some concern, some reservations, about some aspects of the legislation. We are certainly hopeful that in the ensuing time we can bring out some of the concerns we have and make the bill a better bill.

What I would like to talk about is really that part of the bill which talks about the venture capital. As the Labour critic for our party, I guess it is no surprise to me or to any member of this Legislature or to a number of people watching that we are going through a very difficult time in the province. A great many jobs have been lost and we all recognize that these jobs are not coming back in a cyclical form, but rather there has been a lot of job disappearance. One of the purposes of the bill is maybe to curtail some of that job disappearance, and do so by allowing the workers in a particular company, through venture capital, to keep a company in existence which otherwise might have closed down. I think, on the face of it, many people here would agree that is a laudable course of action. However, in moving towards that goal, that hopeful end result, we must not unwittingly provide and create some very strong and large difficulties for the workers who are part of that company.

Let me explain. As I have indicated, we have gone through and are continuing to go through a very difficult and deep recession. Something in the area of 300,000 jobs have been lost in the province, and we know that the jobs that have been lost have disappeared. People, for the first time in their lives, are out of work, and this particular piece of legislation speaks to the issue where a company which is having difficulties, which requires capital, may look to its own workers to provide that necessary capital to allow the company to continue.

I guess people would say, "Well, that sounds good and it looks good and it feels good," but the fact is that we have to take a look at what type of protections are being given to the workers. We cannot divorce ourselves from this area. These are workers who would be in a company that is having difficulties. Workers on the floor will know of that difficulty. There will not be the type of orderly discussion without the threat of loss of jobs to proceed. People will be looking very quickly, very hard, at, "How can I keep this company running?" So there will be this bill in place, which potentially will allow workers to invest their dollars.

Why are they investing their dollars? They are investing their dollars because they want to keep their jobs. That is what this is about. They want to keep their jobs. At the end of their work day they are going home. They are opening up the refrigerator. They want to see milk, they want to see butter. They want to be able to feed their family, so their main concern is, "Can I keep the company in operation so that I can receive a paycheque so that I can provide for my family?" That is understandable.

But the question and concern we have is, what protection is being given to those workers that before they invest in the company that they work to keep running they will be fully apprised of all the risks of the investment? That is an important aspect, and I see the legislation, in substance, deficient in that area. I do not see the protection being given to those potential investors who are employees of a company to make certain that the company they are investing in, which is the one they work for, is viable, that there is a prospect of success, that the company will not be running into problems a year or two down the line, that there will not be a further call for dollars. That is where this bill, I believe, is lacking.

1740

In moving towards a hoped for or stated desire, it is in many ways really putting at risk the interests of the workers -- the people they are hoping to protect -- because those who invest, whether they be the workers of the company investing in their own company or any other people, it is important that before they invest dollars they are apprised of the status of the company right at that point in time, how the future looks for the company, and what the prospects for that company to survive, to continue to exist, to potentially expand, will be.

For a bill to just say, "You have this right to invest in the company so that in essence you will be able to protect your own job," I think needs some work. It needs some work to make certain that the people who do invest, the workers of the company, are protected, that they are given all the information necessary before they make the investment. The bill must be clear. It may be that a worker in a company, even if his or her job is at stake, after being given the information as to the prospects of future success for the company and being told, for instance, "Even with your investment the prospects are not good for the company," may choose not to invest, even though he or she is putting his or her job at risk. That is an option that must be given to the workers. They must know the status of their company. They must know the potential liability they are taking when they invest. This bill does not do that.

We know, for instance, that there are new liabilities that are being foisted on investors all the time. There is an environmental liability, and that represents an important form of risk. It is a risk an investor may be liable for as a result of a company contaminating property and having to clean it up. What I am trying to get at is that the risk is not just the thousands of dollars the employee has invested in the company. That is surely one risk. That risk will be secured or unsecured as the company is or is not successful. But there are other risks that we in this Legislature and through legislation must make certain the employees know. That may be, for instance, environmental risk. What is the risk to the investor, the employee, of a company that may be liable to clean up contaminated property? What does that mean? He may have his job but he may find himself with an incredible personal liability upon himself. This bill, though permitting employees to invest, does not really safeguard the employees' rights.

What we have been saying in this Legislature from this side of the House is that yes, we understand the purpose of the bill, but we also understand that in moving towards that purpose we cannot unwittingly put the employees' interests in jeopardy. The way we can do that is to make certain the bill safeguards the interests and the rights of the employees. It can do so by making certain there is full disclosure to the employees before they make the investment.

They must be aware of their liability, not only in terms of the money they invest -- they will know that -- but also in terms of a whole raft of legislation that the business community knows full well. The employees must be given that information. This bill is lacking because it does not mandate that type of information to be given to the employees. We know that when an employee is in a company that might be having some difficulty, he is going to be worried about retaining his job and may make a bad investment. The member for Cochrane South alluded to the fact that there are risks in everything. I understand that. But I also hope the government member understands we are talking about employees of companies in difficulty. They are not companies that are moving along happily and expanding. These are companies in difficulty. As a result, there has to be some safeguard for those employees so that after being given the status or position of a company and the potential liability the employees may suffer, not only from their investment but in terms of a raft of environmental legislation, they may decide not to invest in the company.

That is the choice of the employee -- I understand that -- but let's make certain the legislation gives that information to the employee. Let's not hold out a piece of legislation saying, "You can do this, you will receive a tax credit and your job will be secure," without saying: "As a result of your investment, the company may not be any more protected and you may be liable in other areas. If you want to invest, do so with your eyes open and with the protection of legislation."

The legislation here does not provide that protection. It provides the road to make the investment, but it does not provide the safeguards on the road. That is extremely important. We have to realize we are not talking about employees in companies that are not having difficulties. We are talking about employees in companies with difficulties. There is a whole area of concern. It is human nature. People want to save their job. They want to provide for their family. They get concerned. They have a whole feeling of insecurity when they think their job is at risk.

We do not want people jumping into an investment. We do not want to dangle, "Your job is going to be safe and secure for ever and a day." We want to make certain that if employees take advantage of the tax credit situation proposed in Bill 150, they are also fully aware of what the risks and ramifications of the investment are. We then have to be very clear that employees must be aware that does not necessarily guarantee their job. It does not necessarily make a bad company good. It does not necessarily make an uncompetitive company competitive. It does not necessarily make a company with outdated and outmoded machinery and capital a company with up-to-date capital. Employees have to know that before they pay the dollars.

There is a responsibility on the part of the government. Certainly we will be saying this on the opposition side, that there is a responsibility to make sure those safeguards are there in legislation. But we also have to make certain, because of our tax credits, that we are talking about taxpayers' dollars. We are not just talking about that employee making the investment. As he or she does so, there is a tax credit. That tax credit results in fewer dollars to the government. It is something that is paid for, in small way, by all taxpayers of the province.

There is an obligation to make certain in the legislation that everyone is protected. We are not saying not to make the investment. We are saying that before you make the investment, make certain the legislation gives to the employee all the information to make a choice.

1750

I want to deal very briefly with a concern I have with the legislation apart from the increased protection for the employee. I have heard members from the government side talk about how this venture capital can be taken advantage of by labour. In my respectful opinion, that is not correct. What they are alluding to is unionized labour.

The Minister of Labour is here, and he will know that the unionized component of labour in this province is around the 30% mark. The vast majority, approximately 70%, is not organized, is not unionized, so I suggest that for the government to say labour can take part in the purchase of this venture capital program is not actually correct. What they are saying is that unionized labour, organized labour, can take part, because that is what the bill says. The bill excludes those aspects of the labour market that are not unionized, so a vast majority of the labour market is excluded from that part of the bill.

Other provinces which have similar pieces of legislation -- and it has been mentioned earlier -- such as Saskatchewan and British Columbia, do not have that limitation. The opportunity for the employees to take part in venture capital to save their particular companies is not limited to just organized, unionized labour but applies to a whole variety of employee associations.

I think we have to look very carefully and hard at why that is not here. Why does Bill 150 not apply to the larger labour market, the 70% of the men and women who are not unionized? Why does Bill 150 apply to only the 30% who are unionized? I believe we have to make certain this bill does apply to all. I believe we have to follow in many ways the examples shown in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They saw no problem in expanding the opportunity for labour to take part, but they saw that it should not be focused just on unionized labour.

Our labour force is represented 30% by the unionized worker; 70% is not unionized. Why should we exclude 70% of the labour force of the province, as Bill 150 does? Why should those employees not have the same opportunities that the unionized workers have in the province? What could the reason be for the government to exclude fully 70% of the men and women who work in Ontario?

We are not saying that everyone is going to take advantage of Bill 150's purpose. What we are saying is that everyone should have the opportunity to take part and in so doing, before they take part, they must be apprised of all the risks of investment. It is not enough, in my opinion, for the member for Cochrane South to say, "A risk is a risk is a risk." You just cannot do that. You cannot be that hard. You cannot be that callous. You have to provide to those workers who may invest what the ups and downs are, what the possibilities are for the company to succeed next year. What are the long-term plans in terms of modernizing a company? What are the risks involved in environmental protection, cleaning up contaminated property? These are the questions and the issues I believe a bill such as Bill 150 must ensure as information to those potential investors.

These are people who are working in companies that are at risk. They feel it. Those people watching on television who may have lost their jobs or know of people who have lost their jobs know full well what I am speaking about. It is not just dollars and cents on a piece of paper, it is an insecurity. It is a feeling as to: "What can I do to save my job? What can I do to make certain I can provide for my family?"

When they look at those things, we want to make certain, if they take advantage of Bill 150, they do so with their eyes open, they recognize all the problems, all the ups, all the downs, all the implications, all the ramifications, all the possible liability questions and then make the decision. That is fair ball. Let those who wish to make an investment do so knowing exactly what the risks are. For a bill to provide the vehicle to make that investment without providing protection to the employee making the investment is lacking. We will be making certain as best we can that the bill is refined to provide that type of protection.

I reiterate that I have serious concerns about a bill that is so limited in nature. I have serious concerns about a province with a workforce of 70% unorganized, nonunionized labour not being able to take advantage. Do we think for a moment that employees, even if they are not unionized, do not care for the company for which they work? If their company is having difficulty, do they not want to try to save that company as much as a unionized worker, to try to make that company is competitive, to try to modernize that company? Why should we in this Legislature, with the way our workforce is made up, exclude fully 70% of the men and women who works in this province? I think that is not right. I think the legislation is lacking because it shuts the door on the nonunionized worker.

We believe, as did Saskatchewan and British Columbia, that there are other workers in this province who care about their company, who want to try to maintain that company in tough times, and they should be given the opportunity to do so. Bill 150 shuts the door on 70% of the workforce in the province. We believe it must be expanded to incorporate all those workers. We recognize that a bill that is narrowly focused on the unionized worker means it is lacking in terms of the realities of the workforce in this province.

I believe these are issues which must be addressed in committee. We must make certain this bill is applicable to all workers in this province, not just unionized workers. We must recognize that an employee who is not unionized cares as much and as deeply as a worker who is unionized about his or her company and his or her job. A bill which does not reflect that -- and this bill does not at this time -- is sadly lacking. Certainly we agree with the vehicle itself, but the government of the province must make certain that this bill applies equally to non-unionized and unionized workers. The market demands it; the reality of this province expects it. To do anything less is to do a disservice to those men and women who do not happen to be unionized.

Last, we must absolutely make certain before anyone makes an investment as an employee through Bill 150 that this legislation carries the protections to that person, so that when he makes the investment, he is fully apprised as to the standing of the company, its prospects for future success and the potential liability he may expect, not only through his investment but through the interplay of other pieces of legislation. Again, for a piece of legislation not to address those issues is sadly lacking.

Certainly, the bill provides a framework we can approve in principle, but a great deal of work has to be done in order to make certain that all employees are covered and all employees receive the protection of investment they deserve.

1800

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to have the opportunity to respond to the members opposite. I noticed many of them have been quoting the BC and Saskatchewan model and I would like to clarify some information for them. The legislation in the other provinces allows employee groups to be certified as an employee organization, which would enable them to establish an investment fund as though they were trade unions.

However, there is a federal government requirement that only funds sponsored by trade unions would qualify for federal matching tax credits. As of this date there have been no investment funds established by non-union groups in other provinces, including BC and Saskatchewan. None of the other provinces has allowed any group other than a trade union to establish an investment fund, because those non-union-sponsored funds would not comply with the federal requirement and therefore would not qualify for federal matching tax credits. That is why we have the other fund that will qualify them as non-union people to buy into their business.

The other thing I would like to comment on is the protection we do have for people wishing to invest in their company. There is an advisory board made up of union, business and government people who will provide advice. There has also been some advice that will be given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I believe, to all workers to have a feasibility study done so that they will know what they are investing in.

I must also add that if a company is in financial difficulty and is not going to survive, at least if the workers see that making an investment in their company will protect their jobs, they will do that. They would rather have a job and feel part of the process than let their company fall down around them. We are giving them that opportunity with this legislation.

Mr Phillips: I congratulate my colleague on his thoughtful comments. I think what is required, as he points out, is that this bill should go to committee for clarification, because it is clear from the research we have done that my colleague is absolutely right that in Saskatchewan unions, co-operatives and groups of employees are allowed to set up these venture funds. As well, funds established under the Saskatchewan program are eligible for provincial and federal tax credits. It is clear that in Saskatchewan various employee groups are permitted to set up these venture capital funds, not just, as this legislation does, make it available only to unions to set up the venture capital programs. Similarly, in British Columbia it is exactly the same.

The other thing I would say, in reinforcing what my colleague said, is that the comment of the Ontario Securities Commission, which has the responsibility of ensuring that the people of this province have full access to information as they are investing, was, as I understand and have read, that it has worries about this. They said they would approve the Kapuskasing arrangement as a one-time-only deal, but what they want to do is to ensure, as my colleague said, that this legislation provides for the investors the proper disclosure and the proper information so that the investors putting money into this are assured that they will have the same rights and the same knowledge that other investors in the province have.

Based on information we have, the government is still somewhat confused about who qualifies and who does not. I think my colleague has spelled it out very well and I compliment him for his remarks.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your following a rotation in these matters.

I was very disturbed to hear the minister, in response to the very thoughtful comments that were put forward, saying, "The only reason we're limiting this to unions and employees who are members of a union is because of our good friend Brian Mulroney and the federal government." I do not know why it is that this New Democratic Party government hides behind and wants to be lockstep with Brian Mulroney and the federal government every step of the way.

Surely here we have an opportunity to say -- if indeed the minister's interpretation is correct; we have had considerable dissenting opinion that in fact in other provinces other employee groups are eligible, even if they are not members of a union. But what does that have to do with Ontario's 20% tax credit? What is the matter with Ontario leading the way, and if we disagree with Brian Mulroney and the federal government, so be it. If we say it should not be limited just to big unions, so be it.

I am tired of this minister and this government saying: "Brian and I do it this way. This is the way Brian and I want to do it. Therefore, we can't strike out on our own." We can strike out on our own. We can breathe a breath of fresh air for democracy and for all workers in this province. The government has an opportunity right now to do that, and we will assist it.

Mr B. Ward: I would like to thank the member for the thoughtful debate on this issue. However, I had one concern, and that was around the fact that it was apparent, at least to me -- he was inferring this bill would mean that all workers who invested in this fund would be backing or supporting companies that would no longer be relevant in the marketplace and in fact would be bad investments.

I have a plant in Brantford where the employees are investigating the purchase of the company from the owners, and it is not because it is not a viable company, but simply because the owners want to retire. The plant is viable, and if this bill was in place, it would be of tremendous benefit to those employees in their attempts to raise the capital to be able to purchase this plant.

I just wanted to point out that there are good instances where this bill would be of benefit, and I think that can be spread throughout the province. It is not just isolated in my riding of Brantford. I just wanted to point that out to the member.

Mr Offer: I would like to thank those members who took part in the two minutes available to them.

I certainly would like to reiterate the point made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. According to the latest information we have received, the fund and the establishment of this type of a program in Saskatchewan are eligible for provincial and federal tax credits, and there is not the type of concern that was raised by the ministry and the Minister of Revenue.

I would like to thank the leader of the third party for his thoughts, because I think he clearly brings forward the fact that it is not acceptable that a government in this province continue to look at others as the cause of its difficulties. There are 300,000 people that have lost their jobs in this province, many of whose jobs have disappeared. Not just those people, but the many small businesses that are still in existence are looking to the government to say: "This is our plan. This is how we want to create wealth. This is how we want to be able to expand in this province."

It is no answer for a government of Ontario to say: "This is not our fault. This is not our responsibility." It is their responsibility to act, and if they are unable or incapable, they should just say so and take the ramifications of that.

We have concerns about the bill. We have brought forward those types of concerns. We believe the bill can be improved. We expect the bill to be improved through committee.

[Report continues in volume B]

December 17, 1991

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING

LABOUR RELATIONS

COMMUNITY SERVICES

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

HEALTH SERVICES

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SEASON'S GREETINGS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

TORONTO WATERFRONT

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

PORNOGRAPHY

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

CUSTODY AND ACCESS

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

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