Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS LICENSING ACT, 1990

Mr McLean moved second reading of Bill 37, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to offer some opening remarks this morning as we consider second reading of my private member's Bill 37, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Members will no doubt recall that my bill requires operators to have some form of licence, sets age limits and requires a written examination or the completion of a motor boat operation and safety course. It also sets a maximum $1,000 fine and creates the offences of careless operation and impaired operation of a motor boat.

I am a boater. My family and I have a great deal of enjoyment on the waters of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe and the Trent-Severn waterway, and as a boater I do not like the necessity of imposing tough regulations on myself and on my boating colleagues. However, stupidity and carelessness have made boater legislation inevitable. The increased congestion on our waterways and a new breed of damn-the-consequences boaters have brought it on themselves by demonstrating that they either do not care or do not know the fundamentals and courtesies of safe boating in the province of Ontario.

Many Ontarians now spend more on leisure and recreation, and this increased spending is reflected in the proliferation of boats. There are more than one million boats in Ontario. This province has more boats per capita than anywhere else in North America, so there is no doubt that the increased number of boats results in a great deal of congestion on this province's waterways.

Boating activities continue to increase, and boaters are now finding greater demands made on their skills and experience in many cases. Boaters appear unwilling or unable to develop a responsible attitude and to practise boat safety. By 1990, more than 300 people had been killed in boating accidents over a six-year period. Police indicate that approximately 60% of all accidents go unreported because there is no obligation to report mishaps unless someone is killed.

I believe a recent report from the Ministry of Natural Resources lends a great deal of credence to my call for regulating power boats in Ontario. The ministry report, Recreational Boating Facilities in Ontario (1980-87), indicates that while boating fatalities fluctuated, without any definite trend during the study period, statistics show that the majority of fatalities occur to males between the ages of 15 and 34 in power boats that are less than 5.5 metres in length. Fatal accidents usually occur during the summer months, when the bulk of the boating activity takes place. The most common accidents result in the victim's falling or being thrown overboard or the boat capsizing. In a large number of fatal accidents, the victim was not wearing a lifejacket or personal flotation device, had consumed alcohol or encountered rough water and had been negligent or careless while in the boat.

I believe that many fatalities could be prevented if boaters were more aware of the boating environment, their own limitations and the power of the water. In other words, boaters should be required to take a motor boat operation and safety course. Skill and experience are not always enough to prevent boating mishaps. The boater must know boat safety practices and be willing to apply those practices in order to avoid critical situations.

People who perceive recreational boating as relatively safe may ignore obvious risks. They may violate regulations designed to reduce the risk of accidents. They may fail to prepare for unexpected equipment failure. Their perceptions may determine their response to dangerous situations.

There are several factors that relate to the possibility of a boating accident. The first group relates to the boater's character and condition, including experience, skills, physical condition, safety, knowledge and attitude. The second group relates to the environment and includes weather, water conditions, boat traffic and obstructions. The third group relates to the craft itself and includes structure, mechanics, equipment supply and fuel supply.

All boaters must be aware of potential dangers and risks and how they can avoid them. In an attempt to reduce boating accidents, it is necessary to raise public awareness of acceptable boating practices. Effective public education depends on knowing where and with whom potential boating problems exist. I believe that my private member's bill to regulate and license motor boat operators will contribute to public awareness and education.

Drinking is involved in nearly one half of all boating accidents. A majority of the boating charges and warnings handed out by the Ontario Provincial Police each year are for safety-related offences such as too few lifejackets, nonfunctional running lights or water-skiing without an observer on board. The closest thing under federal law to the Highway Traffic Act's careless driving charge is failing to keep a proper lookout, which carries a maximum $500 fine. The Criminal Code does not apply to water offences, but is usually used mainly to crack down on drinking boaters.

I have noticed a startling increase in the number of mishaps and deaths during my years of recreational boating in Ontario. It is most unfortunate that we have reached the point where we require the licensing of recreational boat operators in Ontario. However, I also think it is a pretty sad commentary when a 10-year-old can drive any size of motor boat he or she wants and no licence or training is required. There are too many novice skippers on our waterways who have no knowledge of water safety, and our authorities have no way to regulate who operates a boat.

Police should be given the authority to enforce the safe operation of motor boats on our waterways, inasmuch as the Highway Traffic Act regulates the safe operation of motor vehicles on our roads. Motor boat operators should be licensed and held accountable for their actions on our waterways in much the same manner as those who drive vehicles on the roads are licensed and held accountable in Ontario.

1010

I am not a strong advocate of licensing people, but I do know that there has to be an avenue whereby there can be a test. There has to be a written test where people demonstrate knowledge of our waterways, such as what the buoys stand for, and how to read a chart. The power squadron course in Ontario is one of the best courses that anybody could ever take, and I would urge anybody who is going to operate a boat to have one of those courses.

I have been a boater for over 20 years, and when I look back today to when I first bought my boat and I realize the little I knew about boating, I am surprised that I did not get into any serious trouble on the waterways. But today the boats are faster and there are more of them on the waterways, and that is where I see the problem.

The other day I noticed in front of my place, within 300 feet of shore, a boat with two outboard motors on the back of it, going probably no less than 50 miles an hour. Those are the people who are causing the problems, and the people who want to enjoy our waterways are not able to do it. These are the people this bill is aimed at. It gives the police the authority to protect them. I predict that the day will come when we will see speed limits on our inland waterways and that we will also see a regulation whereby boats will have to stay so far from shore.

I urge the members here to give this bill second reading, because I want to see this important piece of legislation passed as soon as possible, before another tragic series of recreational boating accidents, injuries and deaths occurs on our waterways. It gets very dangerous out there.

I want to thank the members for giving me this opportunity to briefly outline Bill 37, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. I would like to reserve the balance of my time for the end of this discussion.

Mr Wood: As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to speak on Bill 37, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. Before doing so, I want to emphasize the government's great concern about the safety of anyone who uses Ontario's lakes and waterways. One boating fatality, even one boating accident, is one mishap too many. While the government can share many of the concerns of the member for Simcoe East about public boating safety, it cannot support Bill 37 for two fundamental reasons.

First of all, the bill deals with areas under federal, not provincial, jurisdiction. Second, the bill does not address safety concerns and target groups that were clearly identified through analysis of fatal boating accidents conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Since 1983, the ministry has been working with a number of agencies on recreational boating issues. I want to emphasize some of the problems with the bill as proposed.

First of all, in section 2, it proposed the licensing of vessels with motors of 25 or more horsepower. One problem is the connection that seems to be made between accidents and horsepower. It is a tenuous connection. You cannot say bigger is deadlier. According to the ministry studies, non-powered boats and boats under 18 feet in length with small engines are the types of vessel Involved in 75% of fatal boating accidents. As a matter of fact, one quarter of boating fatalities involve canoes. If there is a connection to be made, it is between accidents and boater behaviour rather than horsepower.

Section 3 of the proposed bill would require that nonresident boaters have a licence from their home jurisdiction before being allowed to boat in Ontario. However, this would effectively bar anyone but Ontarians, because no jurisdiction in North America currently requires motor boat operators to have a licence. In addition, there are some 3.5 million boats registered in the states bordering on the Great Lakes. Many of the American owners of these boats regularly visit Ontario and spend tourist tax dollars here. This bill would effectively put an end to that.

Further, we believe that subsection 6(2) of the proposed bill is unnecessary. This section addresses the operation of a boat by a person who is impaired. This matter is already covered under sections 233 to 243 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which covers infractions involving the operation of automobiles, vessels and aircraft while impaired.

Section 7 deals with the suspension of a licence. Again, this is a matter already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, which allows for the removal of the right to operate a vessel in the case of negligence or recklessness. I might add that other regulations dealing with such things as boating, speed limits, safety, passing and lights are contained in the Canada Shipping Act under the boating restriction regulations and small vessel regulations.

In closing, while the government shares many of the concerns of the member for Simcoe East about public boating safety, we do not believe that Bill 37 addresses this issue effectively.

Mr Curling: I too want to thank my honourable colleague the member for Simcoe East for introducing this bill. I almost want to call it Bill 8 or call it the resurrection of Bill 8, which is now Bill 37, because previously the member had introduced this bill and it died in Orders and Notices some time ago. I want to commend him for bringing forward this bill which will license all motor boats while in operation.

Let me just quickly comment, before I go into the bill itself, that the member for Cochrane North, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, seemed to put money before safety. I just want to refresh his memory. His former colleague in the House, Mike Breaugh, strongly supported the licensing of motor boat operators. Then, all of a sudden, the bureaucrats got to the member. The bureaucrats seem to have gotten to him and given him that line, saying to him that all of these tourists are coming to our country and if we do license them, my golly, we will lose all this money. Forget about the deaths and the irresponsibility. Anyhow, I just want to remind him to be careful of those briefing notes he gets. He should go back to his conscience and it will lead him much better.

My colleague the member for Simcoe East had noted earlier, in 1988, that there were 54 fatalities due to boating accidents in Ontario -- 54 too many. It does appear that there is a growing public safety concern with regard to the operation of motor boats, because between 1984 and 1989 there were over 288 people killed in boating accidents. As the member stated, now it is over 300 people who have died because of boating accidents.

1020

At present there are over 1.5 million boats in Ontario waterways and the traffic has increased immensely. The size and the speed have also increased and the irresponsible manner of operating these boats seems to have increased. It is very common to find 11-year-olds or 12-year-olds speeding at 60 miles an hour along the waterways without a licence whatsoever. Incidents have been seen in the headlines of the paper where an individual was run over by a boat and killed on the spot while bathing.

In policing these, the OPP have a very difficult job. Currently, there are just about 105 boats and 260 officers assigned to patrol the waterways of the entire province. In addition to this there are approximately 36 RCMP boats. There are some Canadian Coast Guard search-and-rescue teams and the marine units of some urban police departments. Marine police officials have reported being often overworked and they are understaffed.

At some time an inter ministerial committee task force was led by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I would ask my colleague the parliamentary assistant for Natural Resources to check on that. Give them a call and see if they are still in operation and find out what they are doing in that respect. They were supposed to examine this issue, particularly as it really pertains to certain jurisdictional questions. We tried to contact them just to get an update and at the time of coming to the House we were unable to get information from them.

There are other people of course who are concerned about this licensing. The Ontario Marina Operators Association has criticized a proposal to license the motor boat operation and our colleagues here are quite interested to find out why they would resist this. They maintain that the real issue is the need for mandatory safety and education programs. I feel too that yes, it is a very important issue that must be addressed, safety and education. My colleague the member for Simcoe East stated that people need to be educated, to go on courses to learn that and maybe improve that.

In the meantime, licensing brings a sort of responsibility to it. It brings a serious approach to things. They realize that it is something to be maintained and they would not like to lose that. So I think in licensing these motor boats we bring some order to the scene. Of course, as I have laid out earlier on, there are areas in which we have to make sure that if we bring laws into place they must be properly enforced.

We must of course take heed of the concern of the marina association, which said that we must get enough police on the waterways to enforce laws. The government said it cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford not to do that, because in the meantime we will get rid of all those irresponsible people and in the meantime we are to make sure that before someone gets a licence he has studied and understands what he is doing and not just maybe learned from his father or by watching and trial and error, in the process causing lives to be lost on the waterways.

We must make sure that history comes into place here. Where did we stand? I would remind the honourable member that the member for Oshawa at that time, Mike Breaugh, supported that. I just cannot understand at this moment how they have gone through a change of heart. The party that concerns itself with the common people and the concerns of human beings is saying, "Careful, we may lose some money from our resources and revenue from tourism."

In 1989 the Premier of the day, David Peterson, had indicated that his government would be taking steps to regulate boaters. My colleague in the House today, the member for Mississauga North, was reviewing it at that time to see if there was an effective way that could be done.

The former Minister of Transportation, Bill Wrye, noted that there were some concerns that we should look at. One of the two main factors that had prevented immediate action by the government was looking at the cost of the policing of the waterway and to work out the jurisdictional areas. That of course can be done. We know that the federal government is responsible for the Canada Shipping Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but that does not stop us from making sure that those who are handling motor boats on those waterways are properly licensed. We know too that legislation regarding drinking alcohol on boats is also a federal matter, but we know that most of the individuals who are dying are Ontarians and we must protect our people.

We know too that licences are not required for motor vehicle operators if vehicles are operated on private property. We know about snowmobiles jumping over streets. Young five-, 10- and 11-year-olds are doing this. Sometimes, as a matter of fact, even the 11-year-olds are less irresponsible than some of the adults. But again, as I said, licensing brings about a control and a better sense of responsibility. Quite often the police officials have commented on the large number of the unlicensed individuals believed to be operating motor vehicles on public roads. We have those areas to be addressed too.

I support this bill in principle. Of course, public safety needs to be addressed. At the same time, work will have to be done to ensure that the legislation is enforceable in a meaningful way. That can be done. Just to reject it outright would be very irresponsible of this House. We need to work towards an effective means to ensure that the public safety on the province's waterways is increased.

I would strongly like to see that Bill 37 goes through second reading. If there are amendments to be done, I am sure that the honourable member for Simcoe East will gladly accommodate that. I have to emphasize again, let's put people before money because people are more important than money.

1030

Mr Harnick: I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill 37, the bill introduced by the member for Simcoe East.

It is interesting to note that as I look around this Legislature this morning I see the member for Durham Centre, the member for Durham West, the member for Kingston and The Islands, the member for Simcoe Centre, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the member for Victoria-Haliburton. I am a boater myself and I can tell members that I have operated boats and travelled in the areas where all of these members reside.

Mr White: Not too often in Whitby, though.

Mr Harnick: I can tell the member for Durham Centre I have been in Whitby harbour many times.

I can tell members that from my experience in the waterways of each of these jurisdictions I have been in places where I have seen water skiers, fishermen, sailboats, large cruisers, small pleasure craft, small sailboats, rowboats and canoes all operating on inland lakes or in small areas of open water all at the same time. There is absolutely no question that in Ontario today there has been a tremendous proliferation of the number of people operating boats of all kinds.

However, the important thing to note is that the boats that can potentially be the source of the most danger to all boaters and to swimmers if not handled properly are power boats, particularly power boats in excess of 25 horsepower. That is why I applaud the initiative of the member for Simcoe East, because it is well known that we have had a number of very tragic accidents in Ontario in the last several years.

I point out some of the very unusual accidents that have happened in the last number of years, not just boats colliding with other boats, but the idea of a boat going into a rock face on a lake in Muskoka and people being fatally injured, or the idea of a family taking a boat out of Midland harbour early one summer evening to go from Midland harbour to Beausoleil Island, a short distance, and the wind coming up and the whole family dying when the boat capsized and they did not have proper lifesaving equipment on board. These are very serious safety problems that are being incurred by people using our waterways today.

I might point out to the Legislature that there is a system of licensing and testing all boaters who use Toronto harbour. Toronto harbour is a very congested area. It has aircraft coming in to land at the island airport, it has ferry boats going to each of the various islands, and it has the gaps, both the eastern and western gaps, that are difficult areas to navigate through. Because of that, the harbour police have instituted a form of testing and licensing of people who are using the waterways on a regular basis, and to some degree that has been a successful program.

Today, there is no recognition per se in any comprehensive piece of legislation regarding pleasure craft, particularly pleasure craft of a motorized type in excess of 25 horsepower. What we have today is the Canada Shipping Act. The member for Cochrane North made mention of the Canada Shipping Act. Unfortunately, the Canada Shipping Act is designed to regulate the operation of large Great Lakes ships. By implication, there have been attempts, when necessary, to use the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act with respect to pleasure craft. It has not been a suitable bill to really regulate the waterways of this province in so far as their use by pleasure craft is concerned.

One of the things that comes to mind when one reads the bill of the member for Simcoe East is the aspect of enforcement and the difficulty that police will have enforcing the provisions of this bill. I acknowledge that in fact it will be very difficult to police this bill, but that is not the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is to provide for safety and education and training. Granted, there has to be some enforcement, but the other aspects of the bill -- and I urge the members to listen to these aspects -- the education, training and safety aspects of this bill are what it is really all about. There will always be difficulty in terms of enforcement, but the fact that this bill could become law would enhance the opportunity for education, training and safety on our waterways.

The important aspects of this bill, I submit, are in section 4. Section 4 reads as follows:

"The minister or any person authorized in writing by the minister shall issue a motor boat operator's licence to any person who applies in accordance with the regulations, pays the prescribed fee, and" -- these are the important aspects -- "is at least 12 years of age and has successfully completed a motor boat operation course in accordance with the regulations; or is at least 16 years of age and has successfully completed a written examination in accordance with the regulations."

What is very important about this bill is that young people who are learning about the operation of boats today will, by necessity, have to learn what it means to safely operate a motor boat.

Let me point out some of the aspects of operating a motor boat that these courses and these examinations could cover. They could encompass the necessity to wear life jackets, the knowledge that a person would have to have in order to be capable of performing a rescue, having the proper safety equipment on board a boat and the idea and the aspect of knowing how to navigate in our waterways.

I might tell members that from Midland to Bing Inlet is probably one of the busiest waterways in this country today. It is an inland waterway -- a magnificent waterway, I might add -- that goes up the inside shore of the eastern side of Georgian Bay. If anyone ever has the opportunity to go there and see the magnificence of this waterway, he should certainly not hesitate. But this waterway is much akin to a highway. It is a marked channel. One has to be familiar with the marking system. One has to respect that there are boats of different types -- sailboats, canoes, small craft where people are fishing and bigger pleasure craft -- going up and down that waterway and it is very important that people know how to navigate, because that is now basic on this highway-like waterway.

The other aspect that would be taught in terms of these courses would be the idea that you do not drink when you are on a boat. You might drink after you throw the anchor and you cook your dinner and spend your evening in a quiet spot. You might have a bottle of beer or you might have a glass of wine, but you certainly do not do it while you are under way.

The other aspect is, how do you handle an emergency situation? What if you have a mechanical failure in your boat? How do you handle those situations? What about the use of a radio? There is a proliferation of boaters who have radio systems in their boats, but they are not licensed to use those. They clog the airwaves and they do not know how to use those radios in the event of an emergency. All of that could be accomplished by having this bill enacted.

The other aspect is the idea of handling gasoline in boats. Fires, I might tell members, are devastating things when they occur on board a boat. In my former career as a lawyer, I acted for a family that had two children who were on board a boat that exploded while it was being filled with gas. The devastation to this family is indescribable. These two young lads were burned so badly that it really affected and will continue to affect their lives. That is why this bill that promotes education and safety by way of licensing is a very important bill, and that is why I would urge that the members opposite consider it and keep it alive.

I have a few final remarks, and I see I have some time remaining. I would like to respond to some of the remarks of the member for Cochrane North. He stated that accidents and horsepower bear no relationship. I can tell members that the bigger the boat, the more destruction it can do and the more difficult it is for a young person to handle, because when that throttle goes forward and that boat starts to move, it becomes very difficult for a young person to control it, so I cannot subscribe to what he tells us. The bigger the boat, the more difficult it is to maintain at high speeds and the more devastating the accident that can occur. Granted, there are accidents with smaller boats and there always will be. Boats tip over; people do stupid things, but you cannot underestimate the idea of horsepower, and the higher the horsepower, the more the devastation can be.

1040

The other aspect that my friend across the way mentioned was that it would affect American boats coming up here. There may be some difficulty in terms of a transition period, I acknowledge that, but it would make it more imperative for boats coming here from other jurisdictions surrounding us to be familiar with the power squadron courses that are available in those jurisdictions, or perhaps, if Ontario takes the lead, which we would be doing by voting in favour of this bill, then other jurisdictions surrounding us will follow that lead and make their own waterways as safe as our waterways would be.

The other aspect of this bill is the idea of the Criminal Code removing the right of people to operate boats if negligent or reckless. Those are pretty difficult things to prove in an area that I have already stated is difficult to enforce, but that is not the emphasis of this bill. The emphasis of this bill is not enforcement; it is not charging people who make errors. The emphasis of this bill is to promote education and safety on our waterways. The idea of having to license boats and to license individuals, particularly young people, is something that will promote safety, and that is what this bill is directed to.

As my friend the member for Scarborough North spoke about earlier, we have many problems in terms of safety on our waterways, but he acknowledged that protection of the public is what we are after here, and that the best way to protect the public is by educating it. It may be difficult to educate people who believe they are competent boaters and who take their children out to educate them when they really do not have the level of competence. What this bill will do effectively, from the moment it becomes law, is that it will start to educate young people so that 10 years from now and 20 years from now, when there are more and more boats on our waterways, we will not have these very severe accidents and injuries.

Mr Dadamo: I wish to speak to Bill 37, introduced by the member for Simcoe East this morning and given first reading last December. As this bill is now again before the House for second reading, I would like to point out to the House that the Ministry of Transportation well agrees with the Ministry of Natural Resources that this legislation does go beyond our constitutional jurisdiction.

We understand, and of course to some degree we support the member's intent here. The member is not here now, but the member for Scarborough North this morning mentioned that a former member of this side supported a similar bill. He is right. However, that was for 10 horsepower. This bill concerns itself with 25 horsepower or more. Bill 73 from 1989, section 40a, says, "This part applies only in respect of motor boats propelled by engines of at least 10 horsepower," and "subsection (1) does not apply to a person who is the resident of another province, country or state, is a holder of a motor boat operator's licence issued by the province, country or state and is at least 12 years of age."

I also understand the member's concern about boating safety. However, this bill does not adequately address this issue.

First, the proposed bill fails to cover the majority of craft which are involved in boating fatalities. Half of the boating fatalities each year are associated with vessels under 5.5 metres in length and which usually have a motor of less than 25 horsepower. Another 25% of boating fatalities involve canoes.

Second, controls proposed by Bill 37 already exist in other legislation. Unsafe boating practices are dealt with in the small vessels regulation under the Canada Shipping Act, while impaired boating is an offence under the Criminal Code.

The third major concern is the fact that no other jurisdiction in North America requires licensing of boat operators. There are 3.5 million boats registered in states that border on the Great Lakes. Many American pleasure boaters use their vessels to visit the province of Ontario. This bill would bar these people from bringing their boats into Ontario waters. I do not think our tourist industry would support this kind of restriction. Of course, in the area I come from, Windsor, on the Detroit River, this would restrict the Americans from coming over to Windsor.

On top of these concerns is the fact that establishing and operating a boat operator licensing system would be very costly. It makes far more sense to continue our current efforts to promote boating safety in Ontario. The Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and municipal police forces all carry out boating safety programs. As a matter of fact, since the OPP began its major safety campaign in 1985, the number of boating fatalities has declined considerably -- from 100 in 1985 to about 45 in 1987 -- and these efforts are continuing. I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General has provided more details to the House this morning.

In conclusion, at the present time we are unable to support this particular proposal for the reasons I have outlined. Just to go back: first, it does not deal with the majority of vessels involved in boating fatalities; second, it would have a detrimental impact on tourism in this province, and of course it would be very expensive.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise and indicate my support for the member for Simcoe East and his private member's bill, Bill 37, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is no time left. I am advised by the table that there is no time left.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order: I have been advised by the member from Mississauga that they had four minutes left on their time and wish to allocate it to us.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the four minutes be passed on? Agreed to.

Mr Arnott: As I was saying, I am pleased to support this initiative by the member for Simcoe East. I want to compliment him on his persistence, his perseverance and his good common sense, which he always exhibits in this House when he is presenting his private member's bills. I am very pleased to indicate my support.

I am disappointed to hear the member for Cochrane North indicate he will not be supporting it, as well as the member for Windsor-Sandwich, and I listened closely to the comments they have made. With respect to the member for Cochrane North, when he talks about the fact that there is a tenuous relationship between speed and accidents, I do not believe that is the case. If you look at the speed that some of the boats are going, certainly, in terms of accidents on the water, increased speed means there is less reaction time, and less reaction time generally means there is more chance of having an accident. I just do not understand that submission by the member.

My friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich apparently had a briefing note sent in that indicated that the former member for Oshawa did in fact support a bill of this nature, but it was a 10-horsepower motor boat they wanted to regulate. I do not see that there is a big difference there, and I am disappointed by his contention that he will not support this bill.

This issue is public safety. I do not think we have a more compelling issue that we should address. It is an overriding issue, and that is the main reason why I can say that I completely support in principle the intention of the bill. In my own, I would admit limited, experience with boating -- when we go boating my wife drives the boat, so I cannot say that I am a particularly experienced boat driver, but at my wife's family's cottage in the Loring-Restoule area, we see a lot of pleasure craft boating. Clear Lake has no access from rivers or other lakes, so the amount of traffic is limited. But close by is Le Grou Lake, with which I have some experience, where there is a great deal of access and a great deal of congestion, and speeding boats have in the past caused accidents.

In my own riding, in the areas in West Garafraxa township and in Peel township, Maryborough township around the village of Drayton, there are two lakes, Lake Belwood and Conestogo Lake, both administered by the Grand River Conservation Authority, where there have been fatalities. At Lake Belwood a couple of years ago there was an accident with a speeding boat. It involved, I believe, a water skier. The water skier was killed.

I just cannot imagine that this government would not look at those aspects with greater interest than the excuses it has made. I am disappointed in it and I hope that there are enough members in this House to pass this bill.

1050

Mr Mills: I am very pleased to stand in the House today and respond to Bill 37, An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, presented by -- and I should say this -- a friend and a colleague, the member for Simcoe East. The member and I go back over a number of years. We shared many occasions together and I also shared living in the Lake Simcoe area for almost 20 years. I know the member is presenting a bill that he sees is very much needed in that area. I have a lot of empathy with some of the things he said here this morning.

I would like to make some comments here today as the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. Of course, everyone here knows that the promotion of safe boating is an important duty and function of the Ministry of the Solicitor General in Ontario.

However, I would like to remind members that the licensing of boating operators falls outside our provincial jurisdiction. As Bill 37 restricts the right to navigate through a requirement of licensing, it does go beyond the provincial powers. We cannot introduce something like this without the agreement of the federal government, the government of Canada.

I would like to inform the members today that 50% of all the boating fatalities are associated with power boats under 18 feet, and they are usually under 25 horsepower; another 25% of the fatalities, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich has said, result from accidents in canoes. It should be evident, then, that the types of boating that give rise to the vast majority of deaths would remain somewhat untouched by this legislation.

Further, I would like to remind members that other issues raised by Bill 37, safe boating and impaired boating, are already addressed under existing legislation.

The implementation of the marine awareness program was followed by a decrease in the number of boating fatalities in Ontario from a high of 100 in 1985. The number has dropped progressively to 55 in 1986 and 45 in 1987. But I must say that in 1990 there were 62. Though this has gone up, the number of boaters has increased significantly and the per capita number of fatalities is thus significantly lower than in 1985.

While much of the responsibility for waterways policing falls within federal jurisdiction, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is doing all possible to ensure the safety of Ontario waterways. We have implemented some fine boating safety programs. The OPP marine unit currently consists of 105 boats and 150 uniformed policemen, and each of the 16 OPP districts has a marine co-ordinator to ensure the necessary police presence on Ontario waterways. Each OPP marine unit is equipped with an approved screening device to enforce the legislation regarding impaired boating.

The OPP's marine awareness program, which I have already spoken of, alerts the public to the dangers of unsafe boating. The program, in part, is delivered through a 45-foot display trailer equipped with teaching aids to demonstrate in the areas where people are likely to take up boating. That is where this is set up. Under the OPP marine awareness program, pamphlets and posters on impaired driving are widely distributed everywhere.

Members will be pleased and interested to learn that the implementation of the marine awareness program has resulted in a per capita decrease in the number of boating fatalities, even while the number of Ontario boaters has increased significantly.

In May 1989, an agreement between the OPP and the RCMP ensures co-operation for policing on the waterways of Lake Erie, on Georgian Bay, the Kawartha Lakes and the Ottawa and St Lawrence rivers.

I would like, at this point in time, to enter on the record the high regard the public has for the policing capabilities of the OPP, the municipal police and the RCMP carrying out the safety of the waters in Ontario.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that the Ministry of the Solicitor General remains committed to reducing the number of boating fatalities through enforcement, through innovative public education programs and, above all, through the cooperation of all those people who operate boats.

In closing, I would like to thank the member for Simcoe East. I think his bill is very well placed and put. It has some flaws that I see. As an individual, I am very pleased with the effort he has brought forward here in the House today regarding some concerns that we all have about safety on the waterways of Ontario.

Mr McLean: I would like to thank those members that participated in the discussion of this bill this morning: the member for Cochrane North, the member for Scarborough North, the member for Willowdale, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the member for Wellington, and the member for Durham East. I welcome the comments and appreciate the input the members have had, although I am not overly enthused with some of the prepared remarks I have heard, due to the fact that I am not getting a good feeling about this bill being able to pass.

I would hope they would consider this. It is important for the safety and the education of people in Ontario who operate boats that there be something done. I would urge members to have this bill sent to committee. I can say that if there are some parts of this bill they do not agree with and do not like, that is fine. There are some things there that I see could be changed, and should be changed, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Some say it is not our jurisdiction. Maybe it is not all our jurisdiction, but let us have a further debate in committee, let us have some people in to appear before the committee, let us have some input from the public so that we can have a safer waterway. That is really my major concern. It is the people who are buying boats who do not know how to operate them without any courses at all. That is my number one concern, that people do have some knowledge of what a chart is, what the waterway is all about, and it is the safety and educational aspect of this bill.

I would urge the members to accept a recommendation to send it to committee to have a full and open debate.

1100

WORKER OWNERSHIP

Mr Martin moved resolution 14:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should support worker ownership as a significant initiative in the restructuring of the province's economy by:

1. developing an interministerial committee comprised of representatives from the ministries of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Industry, Trade and Technology, Labour and Financial Institutions;

2. providing development funds and seed capital for a number of worker-owned business models;

3. establishing a financial incentives program to provide venture and expansion capital to new and existing projects;

4. amending existing tax law and regulations and developing new legislation which would enable worker owned enterprises to compete on an equal basis with other business forms;

5. implementing an interim financial mechanism (to be operative while the above steps are implemented) to compensate for the financial penalties presently incurred because of discriminatory tax law and the inability of worker-owned businesses to access existing government programs;

6. developing curriculum and programs through the Ministry of Education which would support and encourage awareness of, and participation in, worker-owned and managed workplaces;

7. encouraging the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to take the initiative in providing training in the management skills appropriate for worker-owned and managed businesses;

8. including a member of the emerging Worker Co-operative Association on the Premier's Council on the Economy and Quality of Life.

Mr Martin: This resolution that I am presenting today is not a new idea, simply one whose time has come, I believe, in this province. The time has come for this government to take this type of initiative seriously and get on with it.

Worker ownership has been a phenomenon in Europe for a number of years. One that particularly jumps to my mind and inspires me is an outfit in the Basque area of Spain in the community of Mondragon. Worker ownership has also been a significant part of industrial activity in the United States.

I am aware of this because of things that are happening in my own community of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma Steel. Particularly in the steel industry, many steel companies that were experiencing difficulty in the early 1980s have now restructured. Worker ownership is a significant part of the action there and these companies are very successful.

Worker ownership has also been a part of the history of many parts of Canada, particularly in the form of worker co-ops. It is important to note, though, that even though there has been significant activity in Canada to date around the issue of worker ownership or worker control of the place of work, while there are 375 such operations in the country at the moment, only three of those can be found in Ontario. I suggest that it is because the legislative climate in this province is not conducive to that kind of idea, which is why I bring this resolution forward today.

Certainly the previous government's Premier's Council on the economy suggested that worker ownership be looked at as a significant part of any restructuring of the economy of this province, and I am simply today building on that and suggesting that we as a government take that and move forward with it.

Our government in its speech from the throne spoke of new strategies and new partnerships. Again, when we delivered our budget in the House not so long ago, I believe it reflected a new attitude around what it will take to jumpstart this economy. We clearly indicated our intention to invest in people. Today I ask this government to remove any impediment to the next step happening, which is people investing in themselves.

I think it is important to reflect, as we talk about this resolution today, on the present situation. I remember being in New Brunswick in 1987 as part of a Governor General study tour and meeting with management and labour and other folks in communities and listening to them as they shared with us the terrible impact of the changing way the economy is being done in the world today on their particular region of this country where unemployment was astronomical. They seemed to be without any answers as to how they might regain control of their economy and make life better for everybody who lived in that province.

I dare say that we in the rest of Canada are beginning to feel that particular influence even more dramatically today than we did back then. I almost felt, as I looked at what was happening in New Brunswick, that part of the country was a Third World experience. Living in a smaller, one-industry community and having friends in many small, one-industry communities in northern Ontario, one gets the feeling sometimes that maybe we are developing a Third World economy up there too.

I think some of the thoughts in the resolution that I am presenting today might give us another piece to work with as all of us who live up there attempt to come to terms with what our economy will look like as it evolves and as it gets better, as we know it will, because we are not going to stop certainly with this resolution here today.

Our present situation is one that has been evolving over the last 10 years and certainly a lot longer than that. The emergence of the global economy and what that means, new trade arrangements that we have entered into with the United States and possibly soon with Mexico, the changing fundamental shape of industry as we move from smoke tech to high tech all have a tremendous impact on our economy and on our ability to do business.

The most obvious impact of the changing economic environment is the increasing number of industrial enterprises either closing down or moving to the United States or Mexico to do business. This impacts most dramatically on smaller communities dependent on one major company for their livelihood. Many people and groups in these communities have been trying for years to stimulate new economic activity, without much success I must add.

So what do we do? Do we continue to wait for that fairy godmother to land that big Honda plant in our city as opposed to some other city, or do we do what many of us have actually been trying to do over the last little bit, which is look to the community itself, look to the resources of that community, to the resources of that area to actually build an economy and build some industry that speaks to what we have there?

As I have said before, certainly the greatest resource of any community is the people who live in it, the ideas they have, the talents they have developed, the experience they have got over the years by working. We should be somehow taking advantage of that and building economies that involve everybody to the limit of their potential.

In saying that, we obviously need to look at initiatives such as the one that I am introducing today which, as I have said before, is actually not a new idea, simply an idea whose time has come, I believe, in the province of Ontario and which we must do something about in terms of the present legislation as it exists.

I presented my ideas today in the form of a resolution because I know that our government, in various ministries picking up the pieces from the previous government, is looking at this. I think, though, it is time that we brought it all together under the guidance of one joint committee, which is the first piece of the resolution that I am presenting. If the whole House today got together behind this resolution, that in fact might happen and we might move this thing ahead.

1110

Worker ownership is a viable, proven form of business. It tends to take root in areas in which other forms of management and ownership have failed, where there has been unemployment and where plants have closed, where there has been a lack of a sense of adventure and risk-taking. God knows, any of us looking at our own communities can see that we all suffer from some degree of that. Because workers own and manage the operation and share in the decisions and profits of their own enterprise, there is a commitment to success in worker-owned businesses. There is thus realistic planning and a spirit of interdependence in the business itself and in the wider community.

An example of, rather than a competitor with, free enterprise, the worker ownership idea ensures that profits stay in a local community. Such an approach is to be lauded, I believe, and encouraged in these times of instability in Ontario.

Although there is ample evidence of the beneficial nature of the worker ownership approach to the workplace, there are blatant blocks in the way of developing this form of business. Tax laws, for example, inhibit or discourage ownership in common by disallowing access to capital gains incentives. This is just one of many issues requiring attention at this time.

I believe it is imperative that we as legislators respond by doing what is in our power to improve the climate and the processes which presently impede worker ownership in this province. This is my agenda in presenting the resolution that I do today for debate. Again I ask for members' support for this important venture and for their continued attention to this opportunity to strengthen Ontario.

Mr Offer: It is a pleasure for me to partake in this debate this morning and I state at the outset that I will be speaking in support of the resolution.

The resolution is very lengthy indeed and I do not want to dwell on any of the particulars of the resolution contained in the words in each of the eight points, but rather to speak about the principle and the direction of the resolution, which is one I have indicated earlier I do support.

However, I state to the honourable member that it would be, I think, very nice to see if he would take this type of resolution to his own Treasurer and to his own Premier for action, because to date there has been no action on the government side of this Legislature in terms of meeting the needs, meeting the issues that are contained within this resolution.

I only refer back to the last budget. The last budget contained a deficit of almost $10 billion and in it there was not one single new job created. Competitiveness in this province has been eroded. We have had our credit rating reduced and indeed our ability to compete, and for many areas across this province our ability in many sectors to exist is being called into question.

I believe there is an obligation. Certainly we on the opposition side and the third party side have been bringing it forward to the government side. But I believe it to be an obligation on the part of the member to take this particular matter, these particular issues, the principles contained and embraced in this to his own Treasurer and to his own Premier so we can get this province back on the tracks to recovery and provide the type of remedies which are needed by so many people in so many areas in this province.

We have had and still are in a recession where 250,000 jobs have been lost, where, as all members of this Legislature will know, it was not just a matter of a cyclical nature. Almost 50% of that job loss was not just job loss but indeed job disappearance: companies closing, companies moving out of the jurisdiction, things that will stay with this province for many years to come. It remains the responsibility and the obligation of the government of the province to deal with issues of that nature. To date we have not had that type of commitment.

The type of principles brought forward in the honourable member's resolution are ones which I believe should be examined, should be determined, should be analysed as to their viability. In passing, I note that much of the substance of the resolution is in areas where the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ontario development branch could be of great help. I believe that much of what is contained in the resolution was in fact in existence, put into place by the previous Liberal government and, I dare say, with the Conservative government of two or three sessions ago.

It is up to this government now in existence to make certain that those programs remain viable so that workers who have this type of initiative, this kind of vision, in many ways, can access the types of programs which previous governments put in so that the objective as envisioned in this particular resolution can be met. It will be up to the government to make certain that the good work of previous governments remains in existence and indeed is enhanced. To date, all we see is the gutting of programs which could have been used by workers for this particular resolution.

I know there are other members of our caucus who want to discuss this particular matter. In closing, I think a great deal of work could be done in the field of education. I know the member's resolution speaks well of that and I am certainly in full support of that. I believe all of these types of initiatives and alternatives to workers through worker ownership can be promoted through an in-depth form of education, and I believe there is good work that can still be done. On that, I strongly support this resolution, but I urge the member to take the principles and substance of this resolution to his Premier and to his Treasurer so that some work can be done to enhance the competitiveness of this province.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and speak on this occasion. I would like to start off by thanking the member for taking the initiative to introduce this. I was very pleased to hear that he also said the government will be taking other new initiatives and that we have to look at new and creative ways, and for that I applaud him.

I am also pleased that the member for Chatham-Kent is here this morning as well. In fact, we had a very good discussion last night at the east door on many of these same initiatives. It was very helpful to understand and appreciate some of the feelings of somebody who has been involved in a lot of the union negotiations, so hopefully we can pass on some of the comments we had last night and, if I can remember them all, go through them again, because it was very helpful to understand and appreciate where we are at. We definitely need to have some creative new ideas.

I will say at the outset that I am supportive of the idea. Of course, in the resolution the big problem is that you do not get too many of the details, so we will be looking forward to getting a little more into some of the meat. But the principles are very acceptable. I have some concerns and hope I can lay them out in the short time I have this morning.

We talk about having the interministerial committees. I guess it is one of the first points and while I favour that, one of the big problems and concerns I have as a new member coming in is the overlap. When you take a look at it and see the number of committees we have, and we strike committees, if we can somehow get rid of the entanglement -- there is a great deal of duplication, and I think the member would agree. If we can very clearly lay out the responsibilities, I think that would be very helpful. Included in that committee, what I would like to see also is some representation from the Ministry of Revenue, because of course the whole tax question that needs to be looked at should be included. I would add that point.

One suggestion I may make is that when we talk about taxes, as the member has in this, whether this would possibly be a good chance for the Fair Tax Commission to look at this whole idea and initiative. Of course they have a lot of things on their plate, but on the whole idea of the committee reviewing the tax structure, it might be a good chance for the Fair Tax Commission to do that.

1120

The next point he makes involves the development funds and the seed capital. Of course, this is where it gets a little difficult because in a resolution you do not get into any of the details. I fully expect that, but there is no definition of what type the development funds will be, whether it will be loans, grants or something else or something new. There are some of the details we would like to get in as we go. We also do not know what model any of this would be following, if in fact we are going to blaze some new trails or what some of the procedures will be.

The third point that comes in is about the financial initiatives. I will say to him very clearly what we need to do, and it has been pointed out by the previous speaker. We need to make sure the tax structure for all businesses is such that we do not impede upon businesses and help to make them more competitive. We should not just do it for this type of program; we should be attempting to do it for all business.

As my friend the member for Chatham-Kent talked about last night, we have to realize that when businesses fail, everybody loses. Management and workers lose their jobs. If we can do anything to improve the co-operation between the business community and labour, then we will have done our jobs. If nothing else comes from this government, if we can improve that we will have taken a major step forward, because unfortunately, all too often in this province we have not been progressive in our thinking. I say that not blaming any particular side.

The Canadian Federation of Labour currently sponsors a Canadian worker venture fund, which allows for tax credits for any investors. They have called on the province to take a look at that. I believe Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces that has instituted something in their area for matching tax credits. That would be helpful. If somebody does invest through this there will be some tax audits available. In fact, the last Progressive Conservative government sponsored the small business development corporation, which attempted to provide incentives for small business. That is really what we are talking about, providing incentives so that the workers can put together a program and remain viable.

The OFL submitted to the previous government, I guess, some ideas for a fund that would focus on environmental technology and affordable housing. They got very specific in a couple of areas. It would be interesting to see what some of the proposals were and how they can be incorporated, although one of the things we should do is to take a look very clearly at some of the existing business and what they say the big problem is in this province. As members know, some of the people from groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business say it has less to do with the venture capital, getting a business up off the ground, and more with the tax structure in this province. They say the number one impediment to creating a new business in this province is not availability of funds, it is the fact that people realize what you get in return after paying all the taxes is very little. We need to take a very hard look at what we are going to do to be able to say, after all this comes through, that the company will be able to remain viable, because as it stands now of course we are taxing business right out of this province.

On point 4, about amending existing tax laws and regulations, I think that needs to be done. We need to make this province more competitive. Anything that can be done in that area will be well worth while.

In some of the other areas he talks about, developing some of the curriculum through the colleges and universities and the Ministry of Education, I think that is a good program. As we all realize, the curriculum that was correct in the past is not necessarily what needs to be done for today. We should have programs that teach our students both at the junior level and in colleges and universities how to properly analyse situations, how to take corrective action, how to implement solutions, how to sustain the solutions to problems and how to reinforce them. All the things that have become part of modern management techniques should be learned, because regardless of whether you are somebody who never gets the chance to manage, being able to understand and appreciate this will be very helpful. Of course, many people who go into business may start out not managing anybody and then in a couple of years move up, so anything we can do to enhance and educate the young people would be very helpful. It is my personal belief that the overall economic benefits in this province will be in direct relation to the skills we give our workers and our young people. As we go forward, I would like to again commend the member for taking the initiative.

I think it is unfortunate that quite often we have had to face a major crisis in this area before we have really taken a hard look at that, and that is unfortunate. But we are seeing a lot of co-operation between the steelworkers, for example -- I had a chance to meet briefly with Mr Gerard in the hall when he was here -- and we need to come up with new initiatives and new ideas. This is one time when all three parties should be trying to put their collective heads together and come up with some concrete proposals that will help to improve the economic wellbeing of all the citizens, and in particular the regions that are literally facing devastation in this province.

Those would be a couple of my preliminary remarks. I will leave some time for one of my colleagues to proceed to speak on this topic as well.

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to speak in support of the resolution of the member for Sault Ste Marie.

A social economy is a humane, democratic system set up by and for the people. A new relationship is called for in such a system between labour, management and capital, and in this new relationship capital is subordinated to labour. There is more concern with ethics, equality and investment in a green environmental policy, certainly in this time of economic uncertainty. The economic uncertainty is certainly exacerbated in the north, and the member for Sault Ste Marie has spoken to that problem. But certainly in southwestern Ontario, in the riding I represent, London South, we too have suffered a great deal of economic dislocation as a result of certain federal policies, including high interest rates, a high dollar, GST and free trade. Numerous jobs have been lost in my riding for those very reasons.

In this time of economic uncertainty, great creativity must be shown in the manner in which we exercise change in the marketplace. What we need in Ontario is a self-sustaining economic development program that creates and maintains jobs, and one viable alternative to what we have right now is to reward co-operative entrepreneurship at the same level as private entrepreneurship.

With co-operative management, as the member for Sault Ste Marie has indicated, workers are allowed to participate in the creation of goals and strategies. Company democracy becomes an unalterable principle. Each worker, despite the level of his or her status or contribution, investment, has only one vote and not more than one vote. In Ontario we have only eight worker co-operatives, compared to Quebec, which has 217 worker co-operatives, and I believe that by developing the co-operative alternative in Ontario we can secure for ourselves a more progressive economy. Why do I say this? Because co-operatives provide more meaningful and stable work, a better working environment for the workers and a more democratic workplace, where the workers have a say in ultimate decisions that management takes. There is more community concern and profits stay in the area. There is more productivity and reinvestment and workers have a sense of control.

The Mondragon experiment in the northern Basque country of Spain is a singular illustration of a large-scale commercial co-operative. It has been described as a profound example of successful worker ownership, labour-management co-operation and entrepreneurial initiative, economic growth and creative social commitment. Its 20,000 members consist of fewer than 173 out of a total of 1,100 co-operatives in Spain.

Worker co-ops have also been successful in Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Yugoslavia. The report of the Premier's Council -- and I am referring to the last government -- entitled Competing in the New Global Economy, recommended the development of a comprehensive people's strategy. The Premier's Council observed:

"Successful restructuring of our core industries will depend upon our ability to retrain displaced workers and broaden and deepen the skills of those who remain in our resource-based and mature manufacturing sectors. The development of a larger base of high-growth industries and threshold companies will require a well-educated supply of workers in those industries and firms. In short, if we are not capable of providing a flexible workforce with basic and applied skills at the level of our leading competitors, the agenda we have set out in this report cannot succeed."

The challenge of maintaining a flexible and competitive workforce may well be met by an economic development strategy with an accent on worker co-operatives.

1130

Mr Cordiano: I want to stand up and applaud the member for Sault Ste Marie, because he has taken the initiative that I think should be taken by his government. But I want him to send this message to his Treasurer as well and get it through to him that he has to bring forward creative and innovative initiatives like the member's to bring about the restructuring of the economy. We have been saying this for six months. I have yet to see an initiative by this government, on the part of the Treasurer or on the part of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, which matches the level of creativity and innovativeness that I have seen displayed this morning by this member's initiative.

Let me say this: The economy needs restructuring, and whether we like it or not, the restructuring is taking place. It could take place without our directing it, without our having a positive say on how that is done. Restructuring is taking place now and we are seeing a massive change in the economy, but I think we need to redirect that, make it positive, make it work for us and take advantage of that.

I would like to say to the member as well that I am not happy that this government did away with something the previous administration brought forward, the small business committee of parliamentary assistants. That was dissolved by this government.

I can see this initiative working wonderfully in the area of small and medium-sized firms. I think that is going to be a major thrust here. I think small business can flourish as a worker co-operative enterprise.

I also want to say at this point that I am glad there are members on the other side of the House who still think in entrepreneurial terms, and that capitalism is not entirely dead on that side of the House. The government has to bring forward initiatives which seek to create new wealth, seek to create new jobs, and I have yet to see that. The budget that was presented just recently fails miserably to address those concerns, fails miserably to create new jobs.

That is something the government is going to have difficulty with in the future and I think the people of this province will not pass positive judgement on it because of that. They are going to see that this government is incapable of bringing forward the kinds of initiatives that are required, although we see today that this member is bringing forward an initiative that is important. I must say it is not a huge initiative, but it is one that is significant and I think the Treasurer has a lot to learn from what the member has done here today, so I would like to congratulate the member and say to him that I will support this resolution this morning.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Sault Ste Marie. I am thoroughly excited and very pleased about the initiative and the resolution that he has introduced today. It demonstrates that there is a willingness on the part of the government to do whatever it can not only to sustain and keep the jobs that are presently in this province, but also to look at the possibility of creating new jobs. Certainly this worker ownership model would allow for this to happen, and I think we need to actively pursue this and look at what the benefits and the implications will be, so congratulations to the member for Sault Ste Marie for bringing this forward today.

I am going to deal with each one of the points the member has made here and just state some of my concerns or some of the support I would have for them.

He talks about the interministerial committee he would like to set up. I certainly do not have a problem with that. My question is, is there a committee perhaps already in existence that could look at that particular initiative, or do we need to spend more taxpayers' dollars in establishing another one?

I also believe very strongly that the ministries of Revenue and of Treasury and Economics need to be included, because there are some amendments here to the tax law, so these ministries certainly need to be included in those discussions.

The member talks about providing development funds and seed capital for a number of worker-owned business models. I do have a few questions here. There is no indication of what is involved. There is no definition of the type of development funds or the amount of seed capital to be provided by the government, or in what form. I guess I would ask if this is to be in the form of loans or grants or something other. Another question I would have is what models of worker-owned businesses would qualify for these funds and seed capital. Obviously, those are all questions that need to be considered, and obviously the member could not have conveyed all of this in the resolution.

The member talks about establishing financial incentives to provide venture and expansion capital to new and existing projects. Certainly this whole concept of providing incentives to business is something which I feel very strongly we need to support on all levels, and I believe we need to direct it at all forms of business and not simply those which are worker-owned. If we are going to keep jobs in this province, we need to do whatever is possible to encourage the retention of jobs and also the creation of new ones, so we need to assist not only worker-owned business, but all business.

In point 4, the member talks about "amending existing tax law and regulations...." I believe very strongly that all businesses should be able to operate on a level playing field. I believe this is something the Fair Tax Commission could be taking a look at.

In point 5, the member talks about "implementing an interim financial mechanism...to compensate for the financial penalties...." I am not quite sure what he means when he talks about a discriminatory tax law. Again, I believe it is something which the committee on fair taxation should be looking at. Tax laws in this province should not be discriminatory towards any form of business, regardless of ownership.

The member talks in point 6 about "developing curriculum and programs through the Ministry of Education...." I guess with the background I have in education, that thought always frightens me because in the 10 years I was involved with education -- we seem to be adding more and more courses to the curriculum at the present time. Although I very strongly support the inclusion of this type of program, I would suggest that we include it with the new curriculum that has just been introduced entitled Entrepreneurship. I believe it could very effectively become a part of that program and would prevent an unnecessary overburdening of the educational system.

In point 7, the member talks about "encouraging the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to take the initiative in providing training in the management skills appropriate for worker-owned and managed businesses." I would very strongly support that happening. I would like to see us move very quickly in that direction to make sure that becomes a reality. I think there is a tremendous need for that to occur.

Finally, in point 8, the member talks about "including a member of the Worker Co-operative Association on the Premier's Council on the Economy and Quality of Life." As he knows, labour and management are already both represented on this committee. However, because the membership is so extensive, it is certainly not going to make any difference whether we add one more individual or not, so that certainly could happen; there is certainly not a problem there.

In looking at this, I would just again mention that I think it is very important we do a complete cost analysis in order to determine the cost of the programs. Before we deal with any specific company, we need to take a look at the cost analysis and the viability of that company to see whether or not it is going to be successful as a worker owned operation.

On the whole I support what is here, I congratulate the member and I hope that the government will go ahead and look at the benefits of this resolution.

1140

Mr G. Wilson: I am certainly pleased to be taking part in this debate that I think we will all agree has been very thorough, and I commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for bringing forth this resolution. I think all members who have spoken to it so far have shown that they have considered it very carefully and put a lot of thought into it.

Listening to the debate, one thing is emerging very clearly. It is that, as the member for Lawrence said, restructuring is taking place whether we want it or not, and it is just how we respond to that restructuring.

I should share a perhaps personal anecdote here in that I come from Timmins which, like Sault Ste Marie, is a northern town, a single-industry town. In fact, I made my way down south like so many of the people I grew up with because there was simply too limited a range of opportunities in the north. The reason was quite clear: Although the wealth of the gold mines was phenomenal, too little of it was staying in the north to develop industry and occupations that would keep the people who are already there employed. As the member for Sault Ste Marie well understands, when something devastates the single industry, of course that devastation occurs right through the community.

I think he has very effectively gone on to say that it is not only in single-industry towns that we are faced with this problem of how to find sustenance throughout the community. With the high level of unemployment and the job dislocation that we are faced with now, obviously there are things that are happening here that are very detrimental to community life and something has to be done.

I commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for raising the issue of worker co-ops as an alternative that should be looked at very seriously and, again, I think the members who have spoken in this debate have shown they have looked at it.

I think, though, that some of the principles that should be highlighted with worker co-ops include not simply their economic effectiveness, which some of the members on the other side have pointed to; I think one major element the member for Sault Ste Marie raised was the issue of democracy and the fact that the people who work in an industry should have some control over the things that are done in that industry, as against the model that we are following now, which is the capitalist system. Again, how it works out in single-industry towns leads to a lot of insecurity.

It comes down perhaps to a need-versus-greed outlook, and as long as investment occurs in industry simply to provide a return for people who have no direct interest in the outcome -- that is, they do not live in the community where the industry is taking place -- then many of the decisions that are going to be taken will be detrimental to the people who are living in the community. Again, I think the worker co-op model puts a brake on this in that the kind of industry that will be carried out will be much more responsive to community needs. I think the democratic model would lead to more responsiveness in this area.

One thing I would suggest to the member for Sault Ste Marie is that the idea be extended beyond a narrow industrial approach into other kinds of institutions like non-profit institutions and indeed public institutions so that workers everywhere are encouraged to take an interest in and control over their working conditions in a much more active manner rather than simply reacting to the ideas of management, which again can often be detrimental to their interests.

I would like to suggest that this is an initiative, as the member has pointed out in his resolution, and there is a lot to be done about it. He has drawn to my attention a magazine called Worker Co-op: The Voice of Economic Democracy in Canada, which I hope will soon be in our legislative library. I think by using sources like this we can go beyond this initiative into thinking about how we can restructure the economy in a way that is more beneficial to the people in communities throughout Ontario and, indeed, throughout Canada.

As the member for London South mentioned, the Mondragon experiment has a lot of lessons that we can learn from. It is this kind of co-operation, even beyond our own borders, that will lead to developments, I think, that we will find very beneficial here.

Again, economic security is the goal of our industrial endeavour. The capitalist system has been shown to fail very badly throughout not only Ontario but indeed Canada and much of the world. It is a question of this restructuring that has to take place, and I think worker co-ops are an invaluable initiative in helping us to restructure.

Mr Brown: I rise to express my support for this resolution. I know the member for Sault Ste Marie has some difficult problems in his own riding and that this, at least in part, is meant to address some of the difficulties that are now being involved at Algoma Steel. I also know that the member for Cochrane North has some interest in his riding in Kapuskasing in the same sort of model.

I am fully supportive of this, and I appreciate the fact that it is building on an initiative that came out of the Premier's Council and is something that I think Ontario has lagged behind in. I really believe that Ontario has not taken full advantage of its people resources, the people who are working in the plants and factories of Ontario, and it is about time. I appreciate and applaud the member for bringing it forward at this time, because it just is time.

One of the concerns I have, and it is certainly not a problem that is created by the member for Sault Ste Marie, is that a lot of this may not be able to be accomplished in the time frame that we need in Sault Ste Marie or in Kapuskasing or indeed in other places in northern Ontario or for that matter elsewhere in the province where this model may work very well.

I, like some members, have some difficulty just in knowing exactly what the resolution means, and again, it is not the problem of the member for Sault Ste Marie. He is trying to tell us that we need some consultation on this. We need to look at the various models that are involved across not just this country but across the world where this has worked very successfully, and I know other provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Quebec, just to name a few, have been very successful in creating the kind of worker ownership, whether it be co-operative or, let's say the words, "worker capitalism," in such various places.

I am hoping that the government will be able to move very quickly on this, because I think there are some situations that we are particularly aware of in the north that demand quick action. Consultation does not always mean taking years. Sometimes consultation can be done fairly quickly. I am pleased that the member calls for an interministerial committee, but I would appreciate if the government moved on this very quickly, because I think, as the northern members especially know and I am sure southern members, too, that we need to move on these kinds of initiatives quickly in order to address some particular situations we have in northern Ontario right now.

I, like the members of my caucus, am a little concerned. We have seen in the north some very dramatic measures in the recent budget which have caused us deep and abiding concern in terms of our competitiveness. Just to point out a thing that we in the north think is not particularly useful is a 3.4-cent gas tax hike. The member for Sault Ste Marie will know what that means to the crossborder shopping problem that we already have. It can do nothing but aggravate that, and it will cost northerners $35 million each and every year, this 25% increase.

We are not particularly pleased about the gas guzzler tax. We are unhappy. We are unhappy that in the north in many places the Jeep, or the Ford Bronco or whatever, is not just a machine of the yuppie to show your friends on Bay Street. These are machines that you need and must have, and to increase the costs of those to northern people at a time when the economy is in recession and in some places in the north is in depression, is just, I do not think, good economic policy.

1150

We are also concerned about just the general thrust of this government in terms of all energy prices. In the north we are very concerned about an energy policy which on gasoline seems to be, let's put it up; electricity, let's put it up, let's make the part of the province which needs gasoline, which uses electricity in greater quantities, more expensive. We do not think that is particularly competitive. We are not very sure that a $9.7-billion deficit increases our competitive ability either. We think our future generations will have great difficulty in paying the bills of this government. We think that as the amount of money available to any government of Ontario diminishes, and that is what happens when you have a budget that spends 20 cents of your children's dollars, you cannot be competitive in that situation three or four years down the road.

Those are some concerns we have in northern Ontario. We are also concerned with what happened to the additional $200 million that was supposed to be available this year for northern development. That is what the Treasurer told us he was going to do. We do not see it. It might be helpful in this resolution, when we are talking about seed money, that some of it appeared, but we do not see that money anywhere. We do not see the four-laning of highways in northern Ontario that the Treasurer very carefully promised on many occasions. It was in the Agenda for People or power.

We are concerned in the north about those, but we are very happy with the member for Sault Ste Marie's bringing forward an innovative model which is going to canvass all the alternatives for seeing possible ways of worker participation, worker responsibility in their own lives. On this side, we see that as a very positive and important initiative that the government has to move on quickly to help solve or at least provide an alternative for the communities of Kapuskasing and Sault Ste Marie in the near term, and for communities across the province and the north in the long term.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr B. Ward: I am pleased to see that it appears to be almost unanimous support and I hope it will be unanimous support for this resolution. I am a little bit surprised at that. I am glad to see it, though, because the Liberals and the Tories appear to be finally adopting and supporting some of our basic principles of social democracy. The concept of co-ops comes from the very roots of our party, when we signed the Regina Manifesto. I think it is great, and I hope it is a trend that will continue.

I have said many times that the old ways will no longer work, that we have to have new ideas, that we have to look at new concepts. Although this is not a new concept, it is in the sense of a new idea for the 1990s, because Ontario never really wrapped itself around the idea of a workers' co-op. That is proved by the fact of this lack of numbers in Ontario, as has been said, approximately eight in this province.

But I think it is an idea that has come for the 1990s. I think it is something we can support, this government can support, since it is the very roots of our principles. I believe this concept will work because what it does for workers is it gives them true ownership of their labour, it gives them the real benefit of their labour in profit. I think that is a very good thing to look at.

However, there are some pitfalls to this concept of workers' co-op. My fear is that some workers may buy into a company that is not viable. We really have to ensure that when we encourage workers to purchase their company it is a viable operation. Otherwise their investment, their equity, will end up being evaporated in bankruptcy.

But when you look at the benefits, to a degree there is employment security for the workers. The enterprise is locally owned. There is a possibility of improved productivity. Risk exposure is reduced and workplace quality is usually improved because the workers truly care about their labour and they will ensure that it is a safe place to work at, because it is their place.

We have asked ourselves, if all these benefits are here, why do we not have more worker co-ops in Ontario? Well, perhaps a part of it is attitude, that governments never really encouraged this concept in the past. Another reason: Workers may be a little bit afraid of the economic risk there is in any enterprise.

I think that governments can overcome this attitude in this province. I believe our government can assist workers in this province by amending existing legislation, by taking a look at the eight points in this resolution and examining them in closer detail so that we can make it easier and offer assistance wherever possible for workers to take control of their company.

Again, when we look at the resolution, some of these may not be workable, but I think they are worth while to pass unanimously in this House. I think our government should be examining them in greater detail, as is recommended in the eight points.

For those reasons, I can support this resolution. It is ironic that we are discussing this resolution today, because just last week in constituency week, I had a constituent call me about the workers in a plant he is employed with. They are interested in taking over the plant. The local owners want to get out. They are tired of the many hours involved in managing the plant, and they simply want to get out, but the plant is viable.

I think if we had some of these recommendations in place it would be easier for the workers in Brantford to take over this plant immediately. I wish them well and I think they are going to be successful.

I fully support my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie. I think this is an excellent resolution. I think we have to be open-minded enough to explore new avenues of opportunity in this province and I think this is one avenue we can explore.

As I stated, I am glad to see that every speaker who has spoken before me has fully supported this issue, which is the basic realm of social democracy of our government and of our province. So I hope that it will be passed unanimously.

Mr Martin: I would like to say thank you to all the members who spoke, first of all for their kind words and encouragement of myself as I try to be creative and innovative and courageous in front of the challenges that face us all in Ontario today. I thank members for the excellent suggestions.

One in particular that I find rather interesting, that I certainly will follow up on, is the inclusion, through the Ministry of Education, of worker owned and managed workplace principles in the curriculum on entrepreneurship. I think that is a good idea, as were so many of the other ideas that were presented.

I would also like to say to the House that certainly, if and when we move on this or continue to move on it, because it is certainly not a new idea, there are resources available to us to assist us. I bring to members' attention the presence of a representative of the Worker Co-operative Association of Ontario in the House today and say thank you to John Brauwer for coming this morning and taking time out of his busy schedule to support us in this important initiative.

I would just say that in this day of great challenge, we all have to be positive. It is time to bury cynicism and negativism and search for new and creative methods of co-operating so that we might regenerate our economy, and that we might in fact be able to develop a sustainable wealth for everybody who lives in Ontario and look forward to some good times, not only for ourselves but for our children and our children's children.

1200

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS LICENSING ACT, 1990

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

Ayes-27

Arnott, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cordiano, Daigeler, Drainville, Ferguson, Jackson, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Martin, MacKinnon, McClelland, McLean, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Poole, Silipo, Tilson, Ward, B., Waters, Wessenger, Witmer.

Nays-17

Abel, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr McLean has moved that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

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

Ayes 14; nays 30.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

WORKER OWNERSHIP

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Martin has moved private member's resolution 14.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBRARY WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr Daigeler: For three months the University of Toronto library workers have tried in vain to get a response from their campus MPP, the Minister of Community and Social Services, from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and from the Minister of Labour. All they have received so far is a two-line acknowledgement from the Premier. Why is it that the NDP government will not give the striking workers the common courtesy of a reply?

Yesterday I met in my office with representatives of the union. They asked me, as Liberal critic for Colleges and Universities, to send an urgent message to the Minister of Labour. The message is a simple one: "Minister, make an effort to bring the parties back to the negotiating table." The union did not ask me or the minister to take sides in the dispute. All they ask for is an honest attempt by the ministry to bring the parties back to the bargaining table.

The University of Toronto library workers' strike has now gone on for three months at tremendous cost to the workers and to the university community. I call on the government at least to answer the union's letters, to meet with their representatives and, most important of all, to do its level best to get the parties talking again.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Arnott: As the members of this Legislature are aware, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations announced on 7 May that her ministry would close land registry offices in Arthur and Durham and 12 other communities across the province. This announcement came with little warning and absolutely no consultation and has sparked serious concern within the municipalities which will be affected and among those who depend on the services of these facilities.

I have a constructive suggestion for the minister. The minister should immediately initiate a process of consultation with the users of these facilities and the municipal councils to accurately determine the impact of the closing of these offices on the local communities and assess how cost-effective it will prove in real terms. Pending this review, she should announce that no registry offices will close.

On Wednesday 22 May, I attended a public meeting on this issue at the land registry office in Guelph. In view of the fact that the minister was fully aware of the political implications of her 7 May announcement, one would have expected her presence at that meeting to defend her very controversial decision, or at the very least, the minister's parliamentary assistant, who also happens to be the member for Guelph, should have been delegated this responsibility. Instead, a public servant was placed in the position of having to defend this extremely controversial and contentious political decision.

We have no option but to conclude that this minister and this government have no concern or understanding of rural Ontario. Now we see that the government will not consult, that it will not listen and that the minister and her parliamentary assistant do not have the requisite courage to publicly defend their decisions. I call upon the minister to accept my suggestion and review this matter with the stakeholders before closing any registry office.

TOWNSHIP OF SANDWICH WEST

Mr Dadamo: The summer of 1991 marks a time for local celebration in communities right across Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to inform members of this Legislature about a celebration that will take place in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich this weekend, 2 June 1991, as the township of Sandwich West becomes the town of La Salle, inaugurating its official town status.

The town of La Salle has a unique historical development. It is located south of Windsor. It was once used as the hunting grounds of the Algonquin Indians in the year 1651. In 1749, it became known as the colony of Petite Côte. The settlement of Petite Côte was slow throughout most of the 19th century, but following the war of 1812, the Canadian government began granting 10- and 15-acre plots of land to war veterans. Farming the rich black soil, French-Canadian farmers prospered and Petite Côte became famous continent-wide for its flavourful radishes.

The community built its first Catholic school in 1901, and later its first parish in the 1920s. In 1924 the town of La Salle was first incorporated, but the 1930s brought with it the Great Depression, which forced harsh consequences on all the municipalities. The impact of the depression affected La Salle's economy so adversely that it chose to amalgamate with the township of Sandwich West. La Salle became know as the town that chose to die.

I would like to congratulate town council and the residents of La Salle and look forward to being with them on Sunday. I am certain that members of this House would join me in congratulating the residents of Sandwich West in its new identity as the town of La Salle.

CROATIAN GOVERNMENT

Mr Sola: Today is a significant date in the history of democracy and democratic government, especially for democracy in Croatia. One year ago the first democratically elected government since the communist takeover after the Second World War assumed the reins of power.

The fact that democracy in Croatia has survived for even one year takes on added significance in light of the provocations and hardships the people and government had to endure. For instance, the following acts -- the mining of railway tracks, armed blockades of main thoroughfares, armed terrorist attacks and murder of civilians, the massacre and mutilation of police officers and the threat to blow up the nuclear plant near Zagreb, the capital of Croatia -- were committed by imported, bearded thugs under the skull-and-crossbones banner, aided and abetted by adherents to Stalin's hammer-and-sickle dogma.

This is also a significant celebration for this Legislature. Five members of the 34th Parliament of Ontario -- Sam Cureatz, Walt Elliot, Frank Faubert, Steve Mahoney and myself -- served on the international commission monitoring the Croatian election in April 1990. In addition, many Canadians, especially from Ontario, helped out during those elections. Some helped so much that a Canadian, Gojko Susak from Ottawa, has been appointed the Minister of Immigration and Deputy Minister of Defence for Croatia.

I invite all members of this assembly to join us in celebrating this occasion tonight in room 351 at 7 pm.

BUDGET

Mr Tilson: Yesterday the Mike Harris task force on the Ontario budget travelled to Peterborough, where I and five members of my caucus listened to the concerns of six ordinary Ontarians, concerns that we as politicians ignore all too often.

The presentations we heard yesterday reinforced my conviction that Ontarians are fed up with seeing governments taxing us to the point that our uncompetitiveness with the United States has forced jobs south. Glenda Hunter, general manager of the Peterborough Kawartha Tourism and Convention Bureau, told us that in 1982, 47% of all visitors to the Kawarthas came from the States. In 1989, that figure had dropped to 17%.

The tourism industry is in trouble. Our task force has learned that a further tax on the tourism industry by this budget will reduce this number even further. Brian Tye of London Life Insurance said his company is compiling a study of how many companies have moved south of the border, what kind of companies are moving and what their reasons are for so doing. Our task force is learning that increasing numbers of Ontarians are upset with the direction this government is taking us in and are now leaving Ontario.

I hope this government will take these concerns into consideration when evaluating its budget in committee. The Progressive Conservative Party will submit a full report of our task force experience to the all-party committee.

Mr Duignan: I rise to today to draw the attention of all members of this House to my dismay at the publication I hold here in my hand, the budget analysis of 1991 prepared by the official opposition.

This little document claims to represent a budget analysis of my government's budget and asks that those who wish to comment on the budget contact their Liberal MPP. I am disappointed that the published analysis of the budget presented by the Liberals should so badly misrepresent important initiatives that my government announced in April.

I understand what a difficult job the Liberals have in getting anybody in Ontario to listen to them on these matters, when they went into the 1990 elections saying we had a surplus, when we found as a government that we were left with a $3-billion deficit. It must be difficult to have people listen to them on a subject when what they said and what they do are so different.

I must shake my head at this material in disgust when I see that the Liberals will not acknowledge the terrible role the Tory free trade agenda is playing in Ontario and in Ontario's economy. After all, they did not fight free trade and they left my government working so hard to find ways to overcome this problem.

I trust that those who read this pamphlet, the so-called budget analysis, will take time to read the real budget and let the Liberal members of the opposition know that they are out of touch, out to deceive and out of order.

Mr H. O'Neil: Talking about being out of touch, I want to --

Interjections.

Mr H. O'Neil: Let's not give me any trouble today. Do I still have my two minutes, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Keep going.

1340

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: I want to remind the government that people have not forgotten the government's decision to drop the reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance sworn by all police officers in Ontario. My office has been swamped with letters and phone calls protesting the government's decision, and I am sure other members have had a similar experience.

People are upset because the NDP is downgrading an important Canadian symbol. They are upset because the government secretly imposed the ban, with no consultation. To top it off, the Premier disappointed the people of Ontario by refusing to send an official representative of the government to the annual Victoria Day celebrations organized by the Monarchist League of Canada here in Toronto.

Elected officials representing the six municipalities which make up Metropolitan Toronto recently voted overwhelmingly to ask the province to change the law back. If the government thinks this issue is going to die a quick death, it is wrong. I call upon the Premier. All we need is a word from him to reverse this decision. Will he reinstate the oath of allegiance to the Queen?

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: With respect, I think it is worth noting that in the five years that Premier Peterson was Premier of Ontario, he never once attended the ceremony the honourable member mentioned.

Interjections.

The Speaker: On an alleged point of order, the member for Quinte.

Mr H. O'Neil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to remind that minister that whether or not the Premier was there, there was always a cabinet minister or somebody there representing the government. Also, the Premier of that day would never have removed that oath.

Hon Mr Pouliot: A point of order --

The Speaker: No, it was an alleged point of order. The member knows full well that it is not a point of order, although obviously it is a point of some interest to some members.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order under article 26(b), Mr Speaker: We had a representative there, but the honourable organization would not have him. I just want to set the record straight, sir.

The Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members take their seats, please. We do not want to forget the purpose of this portion of the program. The member for Simcoe East is quietly and patiently waiting his turn to make his statement.

MINING RIGHTS

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Mines, who is very active here today.

Next month his government will implement a new tax on certain mining lands that will quadruple existing rates over five years. This new legislation affects approximately one third of Ontario's mining lands, and many land owners feel it will have the effect of confiscating property. Owners of patented mining lands, those owned outright rather than claimed or leased from the government, will be required to pay substantially higher taxes to maintain the mining rights. The minister's government is driving land owners to cede the land or the mining rights back to the province.

This mining tax will be phased in over five years and quadruple existing rates to about $4 an acre from about $1. If land owners do not pay, they will lose their mining rights but still keep the surface rights. If these owners do not retain their mining rights, prospectors can then stake claims on their lands. With this new tax, the government is taking away the rights of land owners and allowing outsiders to come on to their properties to cut timber, blast and take advantage of mining rights that once belonged to the land owners.

I urge the minister to rescind the tax and get out of the business of forcing land owners to surrender their rights to the government.

HAMLET OF WHITEVALE

Mr Wiseman: I rise today to congratulate the hamlet of Whitevale in north Pickering. Earlier this month, my family and I spent a wonderful day in Whitevale. The occasion was Arbour Day. On this day, my family and I planted some of the 5,000 trees that the residents of Whitevale and the citizens of Pickering planted in the area around Whitevale.

I would like to congratulate the residents of Whitevale on their continued efforts to protect and enhance their environment and protect their community. I would like to congratulate Lloyd and Marion Thomas, who have been very active in the community and have put a lot of work in the organization and planting of the trees on this day.

However, on a sadder note, I must say that a tree was planted to commemorate the passing of Bev Morgan, who was the regional councillor of that area for the past four years. She was a true champion of the environment and an untiring fighter for the rights of her constituents as an elected representative in a way that all of us in this House would be proud of. She was a true champion and friend of the environment, a friend of the people of Pickering and a friend of mine. She will be missed.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would invite all members to welcome to our gallery today His Excellency Dr Assem Jaber, the ambassador of Lebanon, who is accompanied by his wife. Please welcome them to our chamber.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Hon Mrs Boyd: Today I would like to advise members of further details regarding the $300 million in school capital funding that the government has committed for the 1994-95 fiscal year. This commitment was made by the Treasurer in his recent budget. The $300 million will be divided into three parts, each directed to a particular purpose.

First, a $50-million fund will be established to encourage school boards to plan towards and assist them to build community-based, multipurpose schools. This initiative was mentioned in the budget. I am pleased that we are able to provide the money to promote a new direction in the capital funding program for education.

My ministry will consult widely with interested parties and communities about this new direction. After this consultation is completed, I expect to make further announcements about the allocation of the fund. The target date is early September.

It should be noted that there are already examples of successful and innovative multi-use schools in Ontario. Many of these examples involve the partnership of the local public and separate school boards. Others have involved different community agencies, such as library boards, municipalities and community colleges.

As part of this new direction, my ministry will be looking at these schools and studying how each works for the benefit of its community. We will share our findings with all interested partners in education, provincial government ministries and other interested groups.

The second part of the total capital funding package is $214 million in capital grants. These funds will be provided to school boards across Ontario for specific projects identified by the boards on their annual capital expenditure forecasts. Details will be announced tomorrow.

I ask members to note that these announcements will focus on the estimated provincial grant -- that is, on the number of dollars that the province anticipates contributing to each project -- rather than on allocations, which represent the estimated cost of a project. In this way, it will be clear what portion of each project's cost is being paid by the local ratepayers and what portion is being paid by the province.

The third and final part of the package is $36 million set aside for emergencies and to meet the legitimate needs of boards that are currently seeking to negotiate solutions to their accommodation problems. Many boards are currently working to meet their accommodation needs at the local levels. Boards that follow the path of local co-operation will receive full consideration for capital funding from the province.

While the $300 million in capital funding for fiscal 1994-95 is being divided into three parts, all of this funding represents an investment in Ontario. Members of the Legislature should be aware that the total net grants requested by boards across the province equalled $2.1 billion. In this time of recession, the government cannot meet all those needs. The decisions made reflect very serious consideration on the part of local trustees and the regional offices of the ministry as to the most urgent needs.

Many communities will be disappointed that their requests were not met and we hope they will recognize the restraint under which the government is forced to operate.

1350

SOCIAL SERVICES

Hon Ms Akande: As members know, this is National Access Awareness Week, a fitting time to affirm this ministry's commitment to providing access to services for persons with disabilities.

I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has agreed to assist the Canadian Hearing Society with its apprenticeship training program for interpreters through a grant in 1991-92 of approximately $200,000.

Interpreters are specially trained and uniquely skilled people who enable the deaf, the hard-of-hearing and hearing people to communicate face to face, as this House has reason to know. My colleague the member for York East makes use of their services every day and I am sure he would agree they are invaluable to him.

The apprenticeship training program has been at risk for lack of money, so I am particularly pleased that this ministry funding allows the program to carry on its valuable work. It increases the numbers and enhances the expertise of signing interpreters and therefore may improve the access of hard-of-hearing people to the job market.

Turning to another kind of access, earlier this month this ministry announced funding of almost $9 million in new funds to expand and enhance access to community-based shelter services for women who are victims of family violence.

These funds will improve access for northern, aboriginal, immigrant and racial minority women as well as women with disabilities. Renovations to buildings and other necessary non-structural modifications will be made.

By March 1992 a total of 94 shelters will be accessible across the province, providing places of safety, counselling and support for women who are assaulted.

On 2 May I made an announcement in the Legislature concerning the process of social assistance reform and how this government is putting it back on track. These reforms included instances of this ministry's concern for welfare recipients who have disabilities.

For example, special necessities such as wheelchairs and respiratory supplies will be provided to all benefit recipients who need them. Parents may now bequeath moderate sums of money to disabled children without causing them to lose eligibility for social assistance. Personal needs allowances for those who live in institutions are being increased and also benefits for boarders, many of whom are disabled.

Further, a number of our vocational rehabilitation officers who work out of ministry area and district offices mark National Access Awareness Week by setting up major displays in community malls. Again this year they are taking to the public our message that vocational training opportunities are available for disabled persons. They also encourage industry and business to consider such persons as the best possible candidates for certain jobs, taking into account that their mobility may be limited.

In all these different ways, the Ministry of Community and Social Services recognizes and shares the vision and intent of National Access Awareness Week and continues to translate that intent into action year round.

NET INCOME STABILIZATION ACCOUNT PROGRAM

Hon Mr Buchanan: I rise to inform the members of the House of another initiative this government has undertaken to assist the farmers of Ontario.

As the members will know, my ministry has been negotiating with the federal government on possible participation in the net income stabilization account, or NISA. The objective of this federal-provincial program is to encourage growers to set aside savings in good years to give them a financial cushion in bad years.

I am pleased to announce today that the province is committed to full participation in the NISA program starting in the 1991 tax year. The program is open to grain and oilseed producers and producers of edible horticultural products. We estimate that more than 10,000 producers will benefit from this program.

Ontario producers can sign up for the NISA program for the 1990 tax year and they will receive provincial contributions next year. Application forms will be issued shortly by the federal government and we expect that federal funds will start flowing to Ontario farmers this summer because of our decision.

The province's financial contribution will be phased in starting in the program's second year, an approach similar to what is being done in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba.

Ontario's phase-in to the NISA program is in addition to our commitment to the gross revenue insurance plan and the $50-million 1991 farm interest assistance program.

With today's announcement, we will ensure that participating Ontario farmers receive NISA assistance from the federal government in the short term and federal and provincial assistance in the long term.

Under NISA, individual producers can put up to 2% of their net sales of eligible agricultural commodities into an account. The contribution will be matched by a combination of federal and provincial government funds.

Producers will have access to the NISA accounts when the farm's gross margin falls below the five-year gross margin average or when the individual farmer's net income falls below $10,000.

I am pleased to say that we were very successful in bringing horticultural producers into this program. It was largely through Ontario's negotiating efforts that horticultural producers were brought into this program.

I would also say that Ontario has been negotiating with the federal government to incorporate environmental cross-compliance requirements and income caps into the NISA program. These negotiations are ongoing and I will be discussing the direction and long-term goal of these negotiations with the Ontario farm community. The continued involvement of Ontario farmers in the evolution of these initiatives is critical to their success.

We are pleased to offer this program to the farmers of Ontario. This government firmly believes that in providing individual producers with income stability we are also strengthening our rural communities.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

Hon Mr Farnan: I am pleased to announce that I have established a seven-member Appointments Advisory Committee to make recommendations to me for the selection and appointment of volunteers from our communities to local police services boards.

The new committee is made up of representatives from the police leadership, as well as from the community, and reflects this government's continuing commitment to community policing.

I would like to inform members of the House about the individuals who have been named to the new Appointments Advisory Committee.

From the police leadership, members include Gord Noels, chairman of the board of the Police Association of Ontario; Sandi Humphrey, executive director for the Municipal Police Authorities; and Merv Johnson, deputy chief for the London city police and third vice-president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

From the community, committee members include Kathryn Barnard, an Ottawa lawyer who specializes in immigration law; Bettye Clark, executive director of the Family Crisis Shelter of Cambridge; Lois Miller, a teacher at Manitoulin Secondary School; and Jang Singh, associate professor, faculty of business at the University of Windsor.

These members are present in the gallery today and I would ask that they stand and be recognized by members of the House.

This new committee has the expertise and ability to carry out its duties with sensitivity and fairness. It will ensure that interested men and women from our communities have the opportunity to take an active role in the development of local policing policies. Names of qualified candidates will be presented by the committee to assist me in appointing those candidates who best demonstrate a commitment to ensuring the safety and the security of our communities.

As members will recall, section 27 of the Police Services Act requires all municipalities that maintain police forces to establish police services boards. Currently, 80 municipalities have police services boards in place and 58 more need to establish such boards before the end of this year.

The mandate of this new committee has been established in keeping with this government's commitment to ensuring greater fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions. My ministry has already advertised in 53 communities around this province to encourage applications from men and women to serve as volunteer members of their local police services boards. It is my hope that the men and women who are recommended to me by the committee will represent the varied experiences, the abundance of talent and the racial and cultural diversity that makes up Ontario. I am fully confident that this committee will perform its duties well.

1400

RESPONSES

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

Mr Curling: I want to applaud the message that came from the Solicitor General. It has been long awaited and it is certainly welcome. I am sure that all the individuals who are appointed are qualified and committed individuals who want to serve their community and see that we have a good police service in this province.

I would like to say too, though, while I commend the message, I question the messenger. I think the messenger is under question, and as you can see from my party here, we have always asked, and with a cloud that hangs over the situation now we ask again, that the Solicitor General himself and all the matters involved be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice. I know that the Solicitor General, when he goes to the justice committee, will be of course cleared, but the process is important. The credibility, as I said, is in question.

I would like too if some time the Solicitor General could clarify the employment equity provision that is in the Police Services Act. There are many people who are questioning that provision to see how it applies.

While I have a great respect for the Solicitor General personally, I think the office itself is under question. I would like to see this matter that has been under this cloud a long time cleared so that we have no doubt that justice can be served to all in our province.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to respond to the announcement from the Minister of Education today. I am very happy that we have the announcement, as promised, before the end of this week, and indeed this is an announcement that is an investment in the most valuable resource we have in this province, which is our children.

I do find that the good news, however, has a couple of surprising caveats. The $50 million to plan and build community-based multi-use schools, with a consultation process built in, is rather confusing, since, as the minister mentioned, we have many such examples in the province that already exist. We have had, from both the Children First report and the select committee on education report, extensive recommendations and studies in this area. Boards have responded and indeed there are many projects that I think will qualify that await approval. Therefore, I am not sure that further consultation is necessary and I really do hope that delay will not be the result of this consultation and that these projects that I think we can all support and we know are the best use of our resources will proceed very quickly.

The $36 million at the end of the announcement is even more confusing to me, because where it talked about emergencies, where it talked about the legitimate needs of board who are currently seeking to negotiate solutions, I would suggest that every board that is spending time in this province trying to seek a negotiated settlement and has been doing so over a period of four or five years considers its needs legitimate or it would not be spending the time.

It is certainly rather frightening to me to have put before us that, "Boards that follow the path of local co-operation will receive full consideration." If I look at Essex, which many, many boards in this province have been watching with anguish, I am not sure what the minister means when she talks about full co-operation, because there was much there before interference.

I really am concerned that there are judgement calls here and that the boards do not know what these judgement calls involve. I hope this announcement of $36 million, which indeed is rather a small sum for the outstanding projects that are still to be judged, will not engender further fears.

NET INCOME STABILIZATION ACCOUNT PROGRAM

Mr Elston: It is always more easily within our range to grasp the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. They come in the smallest envelopes and they are going to take the longest time to take effect.

It is not for this year, we are talking about next year. If they had decided to go into the NISA program this year, they would have got 30% more funding. However, the minister chose not to fund them this year. However, it is a small victory for the people who are in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and for our critic, the member for Cornwall, who, when he asked the Treasurer why they were not going into it, was told by the Treasurer that they were doing enough already for farmers.

That is not the case, and it is not the case for the Minister of Agriculture and Food today to announce that so little funding is available for the current year. We are happy, by the way, that it is taking place, but you will always find the smallest envelopes from the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Jackson: I would like to respond to the Minister of Education's four years premature announcement on capital for schools in the fiscal year 1994-95. I underscore that, because I think it is worthy of note that that is when we are talking about the expenditure of these funds.

In fact, the minister will be aware that she has cancelled the select committee on education from further activities in this province. It has made substantive recommendations to her ministry about resolving matters with respect to capital grants. In fact, there has been a call for a wholesale review of capital grants, and what we have today is, as I say, an announcement several years away.

We have on page 2 of her brief statement a reference to her changing the formula. We know that under the Conservatives we were getting 75% provincial grants, 25% local contribution. It was dropped to 60% by the Liberals. The NDP said, "For sure we'll change that back when we form a government." Now we see them reducing even from the 60% figure. What they say is that you are going to be able to tell exactly what you are going to get from the province. What you are really going to be told is how much more the municipality is going to have to put up through property taxes in order to build anything in this province for a school board.

Third, the $36 million set aside for emergencies to deal with boards seeking to negotiate accommodation problems: I remind this government that it created the problem. These are the moneys that were dedicated by the former government to resolve these problems. The minister, with her heavy hand, came in and put a no order on several negotiated settlements in boards, and she is rehashing old dollars to indicate that she might be able to resolve problems with it. There is a lot lacking in this.

Finally, it is quite clear that her universal plan for day care will have some opportunities when community use of schools is expanded to include full day care services in all public schools in this province.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Jackson: Briefly, I would like to comment on the Minister of Community and Social Services for the third and in part fourth time she has made the announcements about National Access Awareness Week.

She does do credit to the member for York East for his contribution, but, as all members of the House know, he was the only member of the disabled community who was elected to this House in the last election and there are a great number who were not who would like to be assured that this government is listening to their legitimate needs also, needs such as those children in the Niagara Peninsula who presented their case to her with the Down syndrome association. Those children have been denied access to speech pathology. They have no way of learning one language. Her government spends millions of dollars for third-language instruction in this province, and yet disabled children are denied an opportunity to communicate in one language in this province. We have a responsibility to those children, and National Access Awareness Week is a time when her government should stand up and make a substantive announcement.

1410

NET INCOME STABILIZATION ACCOUNT PROGRAM

Mr McLean: We welcome the minister's announcement committing the province to participate in NISA. We have strongly supported both the GRIP and NISA programs, which were designed by farmers and government working together, and we look forward to this same co operation in the future.

However, the minister's statement only talks about the provincial contributions starting in 1992. This means that in 1991 producers will not receive maximum benefits. If Ontario had agreed to make a 1% contribution in 1991, our producers would have received between $60 million and $75 million from the federal government. Because the province will not participate this year, federal funds will be $10 million less.

In summary, while we are pleased to see Ontario in NISA, we condemn its reluctance to take full advantage of the federal assistance for this year. Farmers need this help and they are not going to get it. The minister has cost the farmers of this province $10 million this year.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

Mr Carr: I would like to add my congratulations on the new committee and to the fine men and women who are here this afternoon and who will be working to ensure that there is greater fairness in appointments on our boards and agencies.

The big concern I have is that this will turn into a situation like we have with the other Premier's commission which looks at government agencies and boards, which has just become nothing but a rubber stamp. I hope that that will not happen with this group, because we cannot afford to let these men and women be used as pawns to rubber-stamp.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Elston: A question to the Solicitor General: On 24 April the Solicitor General clearly stated in the Legislature that he had provided direction to his staff: "Both in writing and verbally I have said there must be an arm's length from the Solicitor General to the judiciary. Yes, yes, yes." I think that represents a pretty definitive statement.

Yet while speaking to the RCMP in an interview regarding his intervention in the justice system, he stated he had informally spoken to some of his staff to inform them that they ought not to contact any police agency or judiciary. Moreover, his staff had denied receiving any written guidelines or directions, and that is clear.

Will the Solicitor General kindly tell us today which of the statements is correct?

Hon Mr Farnan: My attitude towards this issue has been very consistent from the very beginning. From the very beginning, I have made it absolutely, abundantly clear that I wanted every piece of information surrounding this issue to be available. I have made it available, there has been an investigation and that investigation exonerated both myself and my staff.

It was entirely consistent from the very beginning that the verbal instructions, the oral instructions, that I gave to my staff since I became minister on 1 October and the communication of 4 March reinforced that arm's-length distance between my ministry and the judiciary.

Mr Elston: We know that the Solicitor General has two different versions of what happened depending on where he is at. Yesterday at 5 o'clock, in a vain attempt to clear his conscience, he released some correspondence to the media. The memo from the Premier's office outlined the way the minister's offices are to deal with the judiciary. Why it took over six months for this to be sent out no one will really know, but that is another question.

Then late last night, our leader's office received another letter. This letter, dated 24 April, two days after the news of the SG's interventions in the justice system broke, clearly outlines staff responsibilities regarding contact with the judiciary. If the Solicitor General felt that he had clearly stated to his staff previously the necessary directions when he stood in the House on 24 April, why did he consider it necessary to send this memo again?

Hon Mr Farnan: I would have thought it was very obvious to the member. I have accepted the fact that a seriously inappropriate error of judgement was made. I have accepted that fact unquestionably. Therefore, what we did was we examined those procedures and reinforced those procedures to ensure that this could never happen again.

Mr Elston: We know that we have now been able to extract two pieces of information from the Solicitor General that to this point he has been unwilling to make public. We now have that, but we still do not know the nature and dates of other correspondence sent by his office; we still do not know exactly what happened with respect to the activities in his office: when correspondence was received, when people have met with him or his staff, and exactly the nature of all the details that generated these material problems in the judicial system.

I have to say that it seems to me the only way to clear the air, if the person has nothing to hide, is to send this off to the standing committee on administration of justice and to allow the members of the Legislative Assembly to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Yorkview. Due to the volume that is emanating from this side of the chamber, including the member for Yorkview, I was unable to hear the question. Could the member place the question again?

Mr Elston: I think they know what the question is. If this man has nothing to hide, why will he not let a standing committee of this Legislature look into every detail of this incident? Will he agree to have this matter sent to the justice committee for a complete investigation?

Hon Mr Farnan: All members of the House will recall my statement in the House, and it was this: I want everything to be open and aboveboard. I invited, before it was even necessary, the RCMP, any investigative team, to come into my office. They did precisely that. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, two officers, went through every file and every piece of literature within my office and what they came up with is contained in the report. Any piece of literature, anything at all that is within my power to give to members of the opposition, I will do so.

Mr Elston: It is quite clear to see that this government has taken the Mounties for a ride, and a musical ride at that. I believe that minister should tell us whether he has seen the report. Let me ask him a separate question.

On the second case of the Solicitor General's political interference in the policing system -

Hon Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: The member has suggested that I may have seen the report. He impugns the integrity of the Attorney General of this province, and that is a shame.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully to both the questions and the comments, the statements that have been made. No doubt there are questions posed and there are suggestions. The member does not have a point of privilege, but it is certainly something about which he is most concerned. I certainly caution all members to try to temper the comments that they make.

Mr Elston: It is pretty obvious these guys have been directed to do this to make delays. More than a minute and a half has been taken up on this.

I would like to turn my attention to a second --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Place the question, please. New question, please.

1420

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Elston: I would like to turn my attention to the second case of political interference by the Solicitor General's office, this time with respect to policing in the province. It was established yesterday that the Solicitor General's personal staff received a call from a CAW union representative, and it was also established that the staff asked the Solicitor General bureaucrats to call local police to, in his words, "assist the union in communicating with the police." He states this even though the police have noted they already had excellent lines of communication with the union.

What the Solicitor General did not do was tell the union chief that he should not be calling the office of the Solicitor General, but calling the regional force directly. He has once again failed to show good judgement the necessary judgement, to carry out the duties of his position. Why did the Solicitor General feel that it was his responsibility to act upon the requests of the union chief, and why did he feel that the Waterloo regional force could not handle the situation without his direct intervention?

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is no strategy. I remind you that you ruled recently in regard to a point of order I raised with regard to comments made by a member opposite about an allegation of political interference. That has just been made again in this House. You said in your ruling, Mr Speaker, that this issue must be raised immediately in the House and brought to your attention, and that is what I am doing. I am asking you to rule again, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask members to come to order. To the member for Bruce, the member who I know has a great respect for the decorum of this House --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, before you go any further, I will withdraw the allegation of political interference.

The Speaker: That is fine. Would you stop the clock for a moment?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, it is the end of the week. Before we proceed further, there are a couple of things that would be of help. First of all, I draw to members' attention that points of order are to be considered at the time when they arise and they are part of our 60 minutes. I have always requested members, if it is at all possible, to raise matters pertaining to order outside of the question period.

The Minister of Natural Resources was quite right in rising in his place to bring to my attention something which had occurred immediately and needed attention, and the member for Bruce withdrew the remark, so I think we are ready to proceed. However, since all of us are aware of the constraints of time, and all of us want as many members as possible to participate, it would be very helpful if people could restrain their enthusiasm. Now we are ready to start the clock and for a new question from the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: I finished my question.

The Speaker: That is right. The Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Farnan: I would like members of the House to listen very carefully to this response. It is a letter that I have received, a letter written to the Leader of the Opposition from the individual who has been quoted at length by the questioner today. I was copied this letter today.

This is what it says in part: "I can honestly say that to the best of my knowledge there was no pressure from Queen's Park on the regional police." This is Mr Coleman, whom the member is quoting. "It was clear that they" -- the police -- "had made the decision to adopt the similar policy taken by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police during the Stelco strike."

Let me further add, contrary to all of the statements that have been made in this House, Mr Coleman said, "I did not make the call to Queen's Park." Let me also suggest that the result of the dialogue and the interaction that took place was this, "The company were able to move their product and we had our strike issue addressed without any further violence."

Mr Coleman says he has never personally made a contribution to my campaign, as was suggested yesterday by the former Attorney General, and what he finally says is this: "As a matter of fact, I am not even a card-carrying member of the NDP party. However, I may certainly reconsider after this fiasco."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government members come to order, please.

Mr Elston: This is laughable, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I draw to the government members' attention that the enthusiasm, well demonstrated, is indeed utilizing a great deal of the clock, and all members, including backbench members of the government, are anxiously waiting to place questions. I would very much appreciate their co-operation.

Start the clock, please.

Mr Elston: That sort of gets me to this particular part, which was going to be in my final supplementary. Finally, there are numerous individuals who say they were told that his office, that is, the Solicitor General's office, was, in their words, interfering in the matter. Yet the Solicitor General says that he says the statements of these individuals do not amount to anything. How can he explain the fact that these individuals have told us that they are willing to sign an affidavit to the nature of their conversations with the police and also that they are willing to come before a legislative committee to tell us exactly what took place?

If this Solicitor General has nothing to hide and does not wish to hide behind the barracking and laughter and clapping of his colleagues, let him come to the justice committee and allow us to investigate this series of very serious allegations.

Hon Mr Farnan: Those who were present in the House yesterday will know that a great number of the allegations were based on presumably what Mr Coleman had said or was saying. Mr Coleman has written to the Leader of the Opposition and he has clearly stated that nothing that was said by the Leader of the Opposition or by the member today is true. Is he saying that Mr Coleman is substantiating this? Not at all.

The Speaker: New question --

Mr Elston: Final supplementary.

The Speaker: I heard you say "final supplementary."

Mr Elston: I said in light of what had been answered I went to my final supplementary. We have checked in our office with respect to that letter. The Solicitor General gets it from his buddy but it does not come to us, so that he can embarrass us, he thinks, in this House.

I want him to answer the question: What has he got to be afraid of by coming in front of a legislative committee in this House, in front of his colleagues, his peers, to go through the material about which the allegations have been made? Will he come clean with us and just appear in front of the legislative committee?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member has chosen an unfortunate range of vocabulary today, "Will the member come clean?" From the very beginning, I have said every piece of evidence is open for scrutiny by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am entirely consistent. Any document that is within my power to make available, I make freely available. I cannot be more open than that.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General. For the past month, the Solicitor General's defence has been based solely on his repeated claim that he specifically informed his staff that they should not communicate with judges. Yet the only piece of concrete evidence -- and he talks about evidence -- that he can produce is a generic memo to all staff from the Premier's principal secretary.

Is it therefore accurate to conclude that at no time during the past five and a half months prior to 24 April did the Solicitor General personally write a memo to all his staff advising them to never communicate with a judge or a justice of the peace?

1430

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me reiterate once again for the member that both in writing, in print form, and orally, the communication of 4 March in the context of my repeated explanation about arm's-length distance from the judiciary is very clear. It is a single message that there cannot be contact between my office and members of the judiciary or policing services.

When did we hear a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, or to the ministers of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mines or Transportation? The people of Ontario expect the business of this government to proceed, and we cannot afford to continue to waste time on this kind of nonsense.

Mr Carr: The problem is that the Solicitor General is the only guy who keeps getting in trouble and going from scandal to scandal. That is why the questions come to him. The other guys are not involved in the scandals as he is. He is the only one involved in the scandals. The RCMP clearly says in its report that at least one member of his staff did not receive the guidelines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Carr: My question is very simple: Is that staff person not telling the truth, or did the Solicitor General fail to specify very clearly instructions to her that she was never to contact a justice of the peace or a judge in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: It would be a sad world indeed if every time someone shouted scandal, people were tried and convicted without evidence. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has investigated very thoroughly and has clearly exonerated.

I have consistently said to this House that since 1 October, I have put out communication in terms of arm's length. I have acted as a model for my staff. I accept that there was a serious mistake made. We have put in place those kinds of changes to ensure that this cannot happen again. The people of the province demand that we get on with the business of this province.

Mr Carr: What the people of this province are demanding is that we get the answers we are asking for. We are going to continue to ask those questions until we get them.

We are not dealing with any other cabinet minister; we are dealing with the Solicitor General, the chief law enforcement officer in this province. He, above all other members, should be above reproach in his conduct. It is clear that he has no defence and no credibility. Surely responsibility for the actions of his staff lies with the Solicitor General. Will he do the responsible thing and resign?

Hon Mr Farnan: I feel obliged to refer the member to the summary of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as it evaluated my general performance as Solicitor General. I ask him to review the report. I think it is quite praiseworthy. I have a job to do. I intend to do it and I do not intend to be sidetracked by allegations, accusations or anything else.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: During the exchange, the member for Downsview referred to a cop hater in this House. I would ask the member for Downsview to withdraw that comment, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute. I am more than pleased to deal with points of order, etc. I do ask, first of all, that the members listen, including the member for Mississauga North. Come to order.

Mr Offer: The member should be ashamed of himself.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga North, come to order. I did not hear the remark. The member alone knows whether or not he made the remark. If indeed it was made, it is not appropriate language, and should properly be withdrawn. I leave it to the member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, the member is right. What I meant to say is that he has been questioning the integrity of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and I think that is an inappropriate thing for any member of this House.

The Speaker: Do you withdraw the remark?

Mr Perruzza: That is what I meant to say and I withdraw the other remark.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are at the stage of a new question and perhaps we can continue uninterrupted, if at all possible. The member for Willowdale with the second leadoff question.

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Solicitor General. He told us originally that he --

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe my ears are correct and I heard the honourable member for Markham say something to the effect that there is honour among thieves. I do not consider the government to be thieves and I take exception to that.

Mr Cousens: The taxpayers think they are thieves, Mr Speaker, and I think there is something wrong with the Treasury of this province. That is why I called them thieves. If that is not parliamentary, I withdraw it.

The Speaker: We have managed to raise the temperature in here to exceed that which is outdoors, and without the benefit of air-conditioning, perhaps if we all just relax a little, it will not be so hot in here. Would the member for Willowdale place his question.

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Solicitor General. He received the Premier's guidelines on conflict of interest in December. He told this House earlier that he conveyed the contents of those guidelines to his staff some time in February. He has now produced a letter the top of which indicates it was faxed to his constituency office on 4 April, I believe.

What I would like to know is, when did he receive the guidelines and would he give us a date, and when did he convey them to his constituency personnel? Can he please just give us those basic facts without a speech and without his hand on his heart?

Hon Mr Farnan: The guidelines the member refers to were received in my office on 4 March. In order to prepare myself for this House at a certain stage when this matter was being questioned, one of my staff phoned the office to confirm that they were in the office and indeed they forwarded by fax a copy of the guidelines. That is whatever date is on the top of that, the fax date they were sent back in which it was reaffirmed that they were there.

Nothing has changed. The guidelines were received on the 4th. They reaffirmed what I had said verbally and committed to my staff on an ongoing basis.

Mr Harnick: The Solicitor General never ceases to continue to confuse me, and that may be easy, so I hope he will be very elementary with me and lay out what these dates are.

At the top of that letter it indicates, "April 4, Constituency Office." I assume that some time between 4 March and 4 April he had discussions with the members of his constituency office about these guidelines. He told us in some circumstances they were written and in some circumstances they were oral.

Why did it take the Solicitor General from 21 December, I believe, or earlier in December, when he received the guidelines, until 4 March or 4 April to convey the contents of that information to his staff?

1440

Hon Mr Farnan: I believe these guidelines the member refers to were developed in late February and received in my office on 4 March. Again, they reaffirm the verbal directions I had given my staff. The message then was arm's-length distance from the judiciary. The message remains the same. We have taken additional precautions to ensure that this cannot happen again. We want to get on with the business of serving the community of Cambridge.

Mr Harnick: I happen to know, and I will produce and deliver to this Legislature this afternoon a copy of those guidelines, that they are dated December 1990, not February 1991. If the Solicitor General is standing in this Legislature saying he did nothing with these guidelines between December and February, which is obviously the case, because he never saw them or never deemed it necessary to open them until February, then he should resign because it puts into question every single answer he has given to this Legislature. He received those guidelines in December. If he alleges he did not receive them until February, it means everything he has told us is questionable. His credibility is shot.

He indicated that a serious mistake was made and he admitted that today. Whose fault was that mistake?

Hon Mr Farnan: There are several questions there. I want to say, even before the guidelines came out, on 1 October -- I gave this information before, but on my very first visit to my ministry I sat down with the then Deputy Solicitor General, Stindar Lal. We had a conversation, and the most important aspect he emphasized was that we must clearly have an arm's-length relationship with the judiciary.

From that moment on, with my staff here in Toronto and with my staff in Cambridge I was preaching the message of arm's-length distance, before the guidelines came down. With the guidelines coming down, I continued verbally to reinforce and indeed a communication of 4 March reaffirms those verbal communications. The reality of the matter is that communications were made and a mistake has been made. In place now are those processes that ensure it cannot take place again. It is time to get on with the business.

TAXATION

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Treasurer.

[Applause]

The Speaker: You are making someone happy.

Mr Kwinter: I do not know whether the applause is for me or for him, but I welcome it no matter what it is.

The Treasurer will know that shortly after he tabled his budget, I questioned him about the efficacy of the gas guzzler tax. As a result of those questions, there has been some speculation in the media and there have been some discussions about the impact it is going to have.

Yesterday, in Kitchener-Waterloo and in Brantford, when Liberal members were listening to people commenting on the NDP budget, they heard from Shelly Schlueter of the executive committee of the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association. This group represents over 1,000 businesses in Ontario. To say the least, they are extremely upset about the proposed extension of the gas guzzler tax to midsized family cars and four-by-fours.

Both the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Treasurer, in their defence, claim that a relatively small number of those cars was produced in Ontario. What they did not seem to grasp is, notwithstanding that those cars are not produced here, they are sold here, and there is not an automobile dealer who can survive unless they can sell the whole range of products available to them.

To quote Ms Shlueter, "It is a negative and perverse notion that actually discourages consumers from purchasing new fuel-efficient vehicles" and to retain their older, less efficient, higher-polluting vehicles.

How does the Treasurer react to this criticism, and has he made any effort to meet with these people who are represented by that organization?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member is aware that I met two weeks ago today with representatives of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, the industry itself and the Canadian Auto Workers to deal with the whole question of the gas guzzler tax.

At that point, the Treasury, the motor vehicle manufacturers and the union representatives agreed to establish a working group of the three organizations to look at the whole question of the gas guzzler tax. From the beginning my concern has been the whole question of the impact on jobs in Ontario. I was concerned about that both before the budget, when we were contemplating the change, and afterward when there was a reaction to the gas guzzler tax.

I do not want to prejudge the results of the working group, which will report back to me very shortly, within a week I believe. But at this point there does not seem to be any contradiction of the statements I made earlier that there would be any impact on jobs in the province of Ontario. But having said that, I do recognize the problem of existing stock on the dealership lots, if that is what the member is referring to.

Mr Kwinter: What the Treasurer has just said really highlights the concern I have. The assumption of the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is that this is only impacting on the manufacturing side. It is impacting on the manufacturing side without question, because the Lumina and the other cars such as the Buick Regal are going to be impacted. But it is going to impact even more severely, because it hits every community in Ontario that has a car dealership, on the people who are selling the cars. They are stakeholders and they have been shut out. They have not been included in the discussions and, according to Ms Shlueter, despite repeated attempts by the association to join the working group examining the tax, the Treasurer has continually shut them out. In his words, he does not want too large a table. They have also been told that in order for them to join the group, they must have the permission of Bob White to sit on the committee, which has not been forthcoming.

The Treasurer has had a meeting and is going to have another meeting. He is going to make a decision, I understand, by 10 June. Could the Treasurer give assurance to these people that they will have a chance to present their particular point of view on the deleterious effect that this legislation or change to the budget is going to have on their incomes, on their livelihood and on the economy of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I regret that the member cluttered up what is basically a very good question with the rather silly comment that the dealers could not meet with me or anybody else until Mr White had given approval, which is a silly accusation. I regret that he felt he needed to insert that into what was otherwise a very legitimate question.

I would remind the member opposite that this is an issue about which I am concerned. I am taking it very seriously. We wanted to put together a working group to deal with it very quickly so we could make a decision very quickly, I think for obvious reasons, the implementation date of the tax being 1 July.

I would also remind the member opposite that there has been a very real expression of confidence in the Ontario market both by Chrysler, with its announcement of an expansion of the shift in Windsor and I guess also in Bramalea, and also by the major expansion of Ford at Oakville. So I do not share the member's pessimism about the car market in this province. I think it is very healthy, and we look forward to an expansion of the market, as a matter of fact.

1450

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On or about 15 May, municipalities all across Ontario received a rather extensive document which was her ministry's guidelines for implementing changes to social assistance and the implementation of back-on-track action items. In fact, there are 88 of them to be implemented by August of this year.

The minister would be aware that virtually every member of this House has received some sort of correspondence from constituents expressing concern about the nature of these changes; not that they increase the levels of support for the needy in this province, but rather that her actions open up and allow a system with much less monitoring and accountability of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars.

I have raised this question with the minister once before and she indicated there was minimal fraud. I wish to advise the minister that six years ago the Quebec government implemented some of these changes, including the elimination of a home visit. They found such widespread abuse of welfare in Quebec that they had to hire special welfare police.

At a time when this province is borrowing more money than at any other time in Canadian history for a province, how can the minister move in this direction of non-accountability, when taxpayers are requesting that we have sufficient dollars to take care of the poor and that we minimize fraud and not encourage it in this province?

Hon Ms Akande: I believe that our move in this particular case to make it possible for municipalities not to visit the homes is in fact a move towards having greater monitoring ability. We have replaced that with a demand not only that people be registered for social assistance, but that there be a counselling and service arrangement set up with the social assistance recipients which would allow even more frequent interaction with them.

That frequent interaction is in order to ensure that people will move from social assistance into opportunity planning or into back-to-work initiatives and retraining. We have recognized that this type of counselling, this type of direction does in fact necessitate greater involvement with the workers, rather than just visiting and monitoring.

Mr Jackson: The minister has changed her tune. At least the NDP is not applauding innocent welfare fraud any longer. That was what she answered three weeks ago. I want to bring to the minister's attention that if Quebec had to go out and hire additional people to monitor, what are we going to be doing in Ontario? What kind of message is she giving to the civil servants in this province who are charged with the responsibilities of bringing in these reforms?

I want to advise the minister that this document only talks about her ministry's enforcement of municipalities giving the money out. It says nothing about the responsibility of the civil servants to ensure that it is given out without any fraud. The fact is that Thomas Burns, a retired policeman who was a welfare case worker, was let go by her ministry because of his obvious interest in and concern for welfare fraud. He was let go because he made the mistake of talking publicly about the fact that there were serious cases, an overabundance of cases in his area, of abuse and fraud. What kind of message is the minister giving to civil servants in this province if in fact they are not to assist by stopping fraud, but rather to be quiet and ensure we just continue to give out this money in Ontario?

Hon Ms Akande: Let me first correct two of the premises on which the member's question is based.

First, let me assure this House and everyone in it that we do not support fraud, nor have I at any time in this House supported fraud or suggested that it should be condoned by the ministry.

Second, we have only the member's assessment of why the gentleman was let go, and I would wonder whether that would indeed be accepted as accurate or as general.

Third, let me assure members that the monitoring process being replaced by a demand for much more involvement of counsellors not only ensures that people are in the correct place in terms of level, but also assures that those members of our society who require the money most are in the right place and are not being cheated by getting less money and it also prevents them getting more than they deserve. And it puts them back to work, out at opportunity planning and back-to-work workshops or retraining. That is a most important concept.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Ms Harrington: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. All of us from border communities, no matter what side we are on, know that cross-border shopping is indeed a serious problem. All of us also know that the underlying reasons for this problem -- the border, the duties, the value of the dollar, the interest rate, even the GST -- are federal matters.

None the less, we care very deeply, those of us who represent border communities, about the economic health of our communities. Often one might even think that the federal level does not care if there is a southern border at all. Two weeks ago the minister met with the federal minister. I was wondering if she could let us know what happened at that meeting.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to speak on the very serious issue of cross-border shopping.

On request from business people, labour, retailers, my caucus colleagues and members of the opposition, I went to meet with the Minister of National Revenue, Otto Jelinek, several weeks ago to discuss cross-border shopping and the effect it was having on our province, particularly the cross-border communities. I presented Mr Jelinek with the opportunity and asked him if he would collect the retail sales tax at the border. Mr Jelinek refused to discuss that with me, saying that unless we agreed to harmonize the GST with the retail sales tax, we would not be able to discuss the issue.

Recognizing the major differences in the two taxes, I said we could work together to try to eliminate some of those major tax differences and then perhaps he would collect the retail sales tax for us. Mr Jelinek then again refused to discuss anything further.

I would like to make everyone in this House aware that this government is against the GST. Through debate on Bill 1 I am sure all members in this House have had the opportunity to discuss this bill.

I would also like to make it clear that the federal government has not agreed to collect provincial tax for any other province in Canada, including Quebec and Saskatchewan, which have harmonized with the GST.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Cross-border shopping has increased since the increase of the high interest rate, the high dollar, the free trade agreement and the GST. Until the federal government recognizes its responsibility to our country and our province, we will be unable to resolve this problem.

Ms Harrington: I would like to ask the minister if she would let us know what the terms are of the agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the federal level.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: New Brunswick also met with the federal minister, Otto Jelinek, just after my visit. Mr Jelinek offered the same offer he offered to us as a province, something we said we would look at. That offer was to share information, and not, as the member for Ottawa-Rideau stated yesterday, to collect the provincial sales tax. The federal government has not agreed to do that with any province. They have agreed only to share information.

This proposal is being looked at both by my ministry officials and the ministry officials from the federal government, and I believe that is also what is happening with New Brunswick. So there has been no agreement to collect for any province in Canada at this point.

1500

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health and it is on the recent Ontario Medical Association agreement. The minister will be aware that the OMA handed out its explanation of the agreement and, honest to goodness, it looks like a completely different agreement than the one that she explained in the House. She said it was close-ended and it says it is open-ended; she said there would be a 5% saving and it says the maximum will be 1%.

I have a specific question for the minister because there are many areas of this agreement where there seems to be some substantial disagreement on interpretation between the OMA and the government. One of their charts shows that there is population growth and demographic shifts that will represent about 2% growth in the payments to doctors. The minister in her statements and in briefings to the House has said that the savings as a result of the threshold would be used to offset that. Clearly the OMA feels differently. They say that money will be simply added back to the pot and distributed to doctors.

This is a $40-million decision, the interpretation of this. The OMA has one interpretation; the government has a different one. Which one is right?

Hon Ms Lankin: I sort of smiled when the member said that he was reading the OMA interpretation of it and that it is entirely different than the government's interpretation of it. It is no secret to the members in the House that I have a background in negotiations, and in fact that does not surprise me. Both parties present issues and present the points of an agreement that are important to them. I think if the member looks at the interpretations, he will see that in certain key areas there is substantial agreement about what that deal meant.

With respect to the specific question that the member asked, we have said from the beginning that the moneys that will be saved as a result of the threshold that has been negotiated, that is in place on doctors earning over $400,000 a year, go back into the pool. Our estimation is that it is an offset to about the 2% growth in demographic population, in population adjusted for age. That is what will cover that before the cost-sharing formula with respect to growth and utilization kicks in. So my response to him is that the position I have put forward here in the House and the government has stated, that this is an offset to that, is in fact correct.

I think what is difficult to understand about this is that it is a pool of money and that the cost-sharing formula --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I understand your wonderful attempt to impose discipline. It is a complex subject, and I am unable to answer it in a much quicker fashion. Perhaps what I will do is wait for the member's supplementary. If I need to clarify it more, I will attempt to on that.

Mr Phillips: I assure members that there is a difference in interpretation between what we have been told by the minister and what the OMA interpretation is, and it is worth about $40 million. There is a difference in interpretation and I do think we need that.

The minister has said that this agreement represents a major step forward in managing health care. At the same time I think the minister would agree with the statement that the future determination of this $5-billion pool will be made by an unfettered, independent arbitrator, who will make a $5-billion decision. The decision, including the threshold that the minister has talked about -- I realize there is a threshold now at $400,000 in the future will be made by an arbitrator. Utilization will be made by an arbitrator, and it is an unfettered arbitrator.

In fact, in the explanation, does the arbitrator have to consider the government's fiscal policy or the government's ability to pay? No, there is no reference to government's fiscal policy, budgetary policies, level of indebtedness or ability to pay in this agreement. It is clear that it will be an independent arbitrator making a $5-billion decision, 10% of the provincial budget.

After the arbitrator has made the decision on all of these things, can the minister tell me exactly what things she has responsibility for managing in that $5-billion budget?

Hon Ms Lankin: I have to start back at the beginning of the response the member made to the supplementary in terms of saying there is a difference of interpretation. What we have put forward is perhaps unclear; perhaps he does not understand it. I do know that we have sent a letter directly to him on this issue of the threshold money savings and how it applies. I am prepared to take a look at the OMA document he is referring to. It appears to be a question-and-answer document from the OMA that I am not familiar with.

With respect to the member's supplementary question, he put a question at the end after a preamble that I have to fundamentally disagree with. His preamble says that there is an arbitrator who is totally unfettered. It says that the thresholds will be open to arbitration. It says that utilization will be open to arbitration. I must ask the member, first of all, in going to a supplementary, to be clear about those things. The threshold itself and the level of threshold in the first three years of a six-year agreement is not open to arbitration. What happens is that it is adjusted by whatever the fee adjustment amount is.

With respect to utilization, the formula is not at all arbitrable in the first three years. It is not until we have got some experience, some management systems in place through the committee, that this opens up. At that point in time, and in fact before that, the arbitrator is in fact fettered.

The question that the member read specifically refers to budget policy and ability-to-pay language. I will agree with the OMA's interpretation -- I assume that is an OMA document he is reading from -- that those specific words are not there. However, if he reads the agreement and he does in fact have a copy of the agreement, there are economic criteria, the economic climate within which the province finds itself, that do fetter the arbitrator. I have to fundamentally disagree that it is an unfettered arbitration.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Tilson: My question is for the Solicitor General. During Police Week I met with police officials from various detachments throughout my riding of Dufferin-Peel. At each meeting, it was clear that police are deeply concerned about the province's commitment to the safety and security of their communities and of their own forces. The crime rate in Ontario continues to climb, and it is becoming evident that the police cannot keep up.

An example of this, which causes me great concern, is the inability of the Shelburne police force and Ontario Provincial Police to provide 24-hour policing. While doing their best, they are only able to ensure the security of the community 24 hours a day for half of the year.

What is the Solicitor General going to do to ensure the safety and security of communities outside of Metropolitan Toronto that are dependent on the services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police and yet are not receiving 24-hour policing?

Hon Mr Farnan: I welcome the member's concern in terms of policing. I myself have taken the opportunities to work with our policing services in terms of foot patrols or ride-alongs, whether it is on the highway or other areas. I know my critic in the Conservative Party has done the same, and I think that is important for members.

Our resources are being stretched. It is a very serious concern. There is right now a comprehensive review taking place by the OPP. That review will be presented to me, and in the context of that review we will have perhaps some recommendations we will look at that speak to the concerns that have been raised. But we will have to look at those concerns in a very broad context in terms of financing and in terms of the resources that are needed to do the very demanding job that is required.

Mr Tilson: There are a number of communities in this province that are greatly concerned that they are not getting 24-hour policing, and I am afraid the minister is going to have to move a lot faster than he has been doing.

If the minister was paying more attention to the job at hand, he would certainly be aware of the fact that the crisis facing Ontario police forces has arrived at such epic proportions that in my riding alone the OPP officers have been forced to resort to using their own personal vehicles to respond to crime calls. These vehicles are not equipped for responding to a crime scene. They do not have sirens, they do not have radios, and as such are woefully inadequate for the protection of either our officers or our citizens. The security of both our citizens and our police officers is therefore at peril.

Will the Solicitor General make the commitment to the people of Ontario that instead of his government spending millions of dollars on salary increases for its senior management it might purchase police cars for the Ontario Provincial Police?

Hon Mr Farnan: There are some areas of the province where we do not have 24-hour service. Obviously we look at that situation and we want to address it, but I must say that always there is response from neighbouring units available for the areas that may not have the full 24 hours. They may have 18, but the neighbouring area will then provide that service during the intermittent period. Let's not exaggerate and blow it out of proportion.

Second, I want to know the details. I want the information that is available to the member. I want all of that information. I would be happy to receive it and I will certainly investigate it. I certainly consider it very serious. Please, I would have been happy if the member had thought it good enough to come over to my office and discuss it rather than have this kind of situation in the House. It would make good sense if the member would give me all the details.

1510

QUARRYING IN PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Drainville: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. There has been recently quite a bit of controversy and questioning around the extraction of aggregates in Sleeping Giant Provincial Park. I am just wondering if the minister could comment on whether that is going to be allowed or not.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is quite correct. There has been a lot of attention given to this issue in recent times because of the Ministry of Transportation's commitment to reconstruction of Highway 587. I would like to inform the member, though, that I am not willing to allow aggregates in the park to be used for this project.

Mr Drainville: Nothing could be clearer than what the minister has indicated to the House, but there is still some concern around this issue. Is this a specific policy on the part of the minister or is it a general policy for all parks at this time?

Hon Mr Wildman: That is a very good supplementary. I think it is fair to say that this is specific to Sleeping Giant at this time. In order to address the broader issue, the ministry has established a working committee that will provide a province-wide policy statement on aggregates extraction in provincial parks. We expect that work will be completed very soon.

It would have been more appropriate perhaps if the previous government had ensured that its policies and legislation coincided with one another so that its parks policy in the new Aggregate Resources Act which was just declared would not appear to have left any loopholes and we would have ensured that we would have had a policy for all of the province. But we are trying to clear up what they were unable to do.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to present my question to the Minister of Revenue. I find that I cannot share her confidence. The results of the meeting were certainly not nearly as congenial from my reports, and certainly even some of the facts she stated regarding the status of the New Brunswick negotiations I have in question. But I want to turn to another matter.

Today the Liberal task force has been in Niagara Falls and Welland. They were told that the NDP budget has only exasperated the problem of cross-border shopping and further damaged the local tourism industry.

Hon Mr Wildman: Exacerbated or exasperated?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: We will leave that.

Mr Callahan: Exacerbated the problem.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Exacerbated is the word I want to use, and that is the word that needs to be used. Americans just do not come across the border any more. In an interview with the Niagara Falls Review printed on 27 April 1991, the member for Niagara Falls said that the government is considering a plan which would cut back provincial gasoline tax in border communities. She said: "The differential in the price of gas is something that brings people across the border. If you're not selling any gasoline, you're not collecting any taxes."

When will the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer implement that plan announced by the member for Niagara Falls?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Again, the cross-border issue is very serious. We recognize that here in Ontario, as my colleague across the House recognizes that. It is the federal government we have to get to recognize that. The federal Minister of National Revenue is quoted as stating, "Tinkering simply with gasoline prices is not going to change the cross-border shopping issue." There is more to it than our gasoline prices.

There is the high interest rate, there is the high dollar, there is the free trade agreement, there is the GST. Those are having a very high effect on cross-border shopping in Ontario and across our country. The federal government has to listen to what we are saying in Ontario and across Canada, that this is having an effect, and it has to be prepared to do something about it.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: As usual, the Minister of Revenue refuses to talk about this province. I have asked her and asked her, but she continues to say something else. She is quoting a person with whom she had a very disagreeable meeting two weeks ago today as her resource in her confidence. I find that very confusing and, in fact, difficult.

The member for Niagara Falls, in that same interview, said that government workers in particular should be required to shop Canadian because it is Canadian taxes which pay their wages. She said these people have good jobs, paid for by the government. Can the Minister of Revenue confirm or deny that this government is considering this plan put forward by the member for Niagara Falls that government workers will be required to shop in Ontario?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: People are free to cross that border and free to shop in the USA or wherever they want to shop. Any border, they can cross and shop. I am not prepared to stop them from shopping.

I think people have to realize what they get from paying taxes in Ontario. They get health services. They get an education system and a social system. People have the right to choose what they want to do. We are definitely committed to working on the cross-border shopping issue, but until we have the federal government's commitment to work on it also, with us and with the other provinces, it is going to be very difficult to resolve the issue.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

VICTORIA DAY PARADE

Mr Mills: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Early this afternoon the honourable member for Quinte made some allegations to the effect that there was no member of the government present at the Victoria Day parade on Monday past at Queen's Park.

I would like to inform the House that I contacted the president of the Monarchist League of Canada personally. I indicated to him that as a member of Parliament and as a member of the New Democratic government I would be pleased to appear there as a representative. I also added that I was the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, who is vitally in focus with the monarchists' view about the oath, and I said I would be glad to be there and meet with them.

I was not welcome there. They told me that they did not want me there because I was not official. I said that I am an MPP and I wanted to represent the government.

The reason why they did not want me there is very plain: It would have upset their agenda for the day, when all their speakers lined up and blasted this government. Their behaviour -- some of the councillors from the city of Toronto -- their agenda was solely directed towards making the NDP government look bad, and that is why they did not want me there.

The Speaker: It may come as a surprise to the member that he does not have a point of privilege, but it is certainly a point of great interest.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you whether you would review the previous request for a point of personal privilege. I believe the member had the right to stand in his place and correct the record as he saw fit, but I would ask the Speaker whether he would review the way in which we in this House are able to then proceed to draw innuendo, not only with members of the Monarchist League of this province, who are not here to defend themselves, but also with prominent members of city councils across this province, who the member also named.

I do not challenge his right to state what he said as he rose to comment, but I do believe he is being grossly unfair to an issue and not contributing much to a rather sensitive issue that is confronting us in this province.

The Speaker: To the member for Burlington South, I certainly draw to all members' attention that we really do not have anything called a point of personal privilege. Members may rise on a point of privilege. They may rise on a point of personal explanation. They may rise to correct their own record, not someone else's.

When members rise to make points of order or privilege, they make certain assertions. Those assertions may or may not be greeted with enthusiasm by other members, but they reserve the right, provided they maintain parliamentary language, to make those assertions. There is no particular element of fairness or unfairness which enters into it.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I was asking to draw that to your attention. In the previous Parliament it was the habit of the then Speaker to rise in the middle of a point and not wait until it was concluded to routinely advise people that it was, as you know, not in order. It was perhaps more helpful, and what I was asking you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of my privileges was that you would examine this practice and that of the previous Parliament so that you might consider standing when it is apparent that the member has gone beyond the point to which he has addressed his personal privilege. It then could lend itself to abuse, and in the case of this member opposite, it went beyond, in my view, to create innuendo.

I was asking you, sir, to review your practice of when you stand to advise a member of the House that obviously his point of order was not in order.

The Speaker: I appreciate the observation by the member for Burlington South. I will reflect upon it. He will perhaps be pleased to know that there have been occasions indeed where I have followed his very advice. But as always, I appreciate the advice of all members. I will reflect upon his comments.

1520

PETITIONS

OPP CUTBACKS

Mr McLean: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The Ontario Provincial Police Golden Helmets and pipe bands have served this province for many years and have been held in high esteem by all who had the privilege of watching them perform. They have been instrumental in creating good public relations, which is a necessity, between the public and all police forces, especially during these troubled times. These traditions should not, and in fact must not, be discarded.

"The provincial government should be as proud of these officers as the citizens of the province are. We therefore request that these units remain intact and are able to stay as an important part of the communities of Ontario and continue to promote good public relations."

That is signed by 49 people from the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 67, in Lindsay, Ontario.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr McLean: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Her Majesty the Queen:

"Resolved that the delegates to the 37th biannual convention of the Ontario provincial command of the Royal Canadian Legion, established at London, Ontario, on 12 May 1991, solemnly affirm our loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and offer our unstinting service on behalf of the Dominion and Commonwealth of Nations.

"Some 1,500 legion members attended this convention and took part in this resolution and do not want to see our loyalty to the Queen disappear. When you join a legion, you stand for loyalty to the reigning sovereign and to Canada.

"Ontario has about 177,000 legion members who affirm our loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II."

That is signed by Norman Lywood from the legion in Lindsay.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SPECIAL EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENFANCE EN DIFFICULTÉ

Mrs Boyd moved first reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts with respect to Special Education.

M^me Boyd propose la première lecture du projet de loi 114, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur l'éducation et de certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'enfance en difficulté.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Special Education Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991, amends provisions in the Education Act, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act, 1988, dealing with special education programs and special education services for exceptional pupils by (a) revoking the provisions dealing with trainable retarded pupils; (b) revoking the provision dealing with hard-to-serve pupils; (c) eliminating the regional special education tribunals and streamlining the procedure for appealing the decisions of appeal boards to the new Ontario special education tribunal; (d) permitting minority language sections of boards to establish their own special education advisory committees, and (e) permitting the area boards in Metropolitan Toronto to take over the provision of special education programs and services for pupils with developmental handicaps who are now being served by the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFLANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYÉS)

Resuming consideration of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par création d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employés et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

Mr Offer: It is a pleasure to rise and take part in this debate. This debate is one that was commenced, I know, a number of weeks ago. For a variety of reasons, I have been dutifully waiting in my chair to take part in the debate. I am pleased that it is today that we are finally resuming discussion on what is and what has become a very contentious piece of legislation.

I say that with some regret, because I did not believe this had to be the case. This is a bill that has caused a great deal of concern for a great many people throughout the province. I say that because since the inception of its introduction, which, I believe, was 11 April 1991, many individuals from across this province have contacted me, speaking to some of the issues contained within the legislation, issues that I have, on occasion, brought forward to the Minister of Labour.

I know my colleague in the third party has also attempted to bring forward some of those concerns to the Minister of Labour during question period, with a view to ascertaining whether the minister will be prepared to indeed look at and accept amendments to the legislation, amendments that could only improve the legislation, that can only alleviate some very grave concerns that have been indicated, the arguments of which have been posed quite clearly, certainly to myself and, I would anticipate, to all members of this Legislature, and surely to the Minister of Labour.

It has been, I must say, disappointing that the Minister of Labour has been unwilling to entertain those types of amendments, to acknowledge the argument made by many people, to acknowledge the substance of the argument made by many non-profit, charitable organizations across this province. It is also very disappointing that the minister has not been forthcoming -- that is the word I use -- when the question was posed to him as to whether he would encourage public hearings on this particular piece of legislation.

It is not something that requires further discussion. It is a question that only ascertains or attempts to ascertain the willingness of any one particular minister to acknowledge that there are concerns, to acknowledge that there are people who want to make their voices heard, to have their arguments listened to, their substance of matter analysed, and a public hearing is one of the most effective forums in this Legislature that we have to do so.

It has been disappointing that the minister has not been able to acknowledge that there are such concerns, that there is this method of consultation -- I know from his experiences in this Legislature that he is well aware of this avenue -- and has not said, "Yes, there shall be public hearings."

1530

It is specifically on those two issues that I will speak in opposition to the action of the Minister of Labour, to the direction that he has taken, to the gutting of the principle that was first espoused by his government, effective 1 October, in the month of October. It was in that month, on the day the Premier allowed Varity Corp, first, to leave the province as its head office and, second, to reduce the required employment level in the province, that they announced their intention to introduce a wage protection plan.

I will tell members that when I first heard that announcement -- I make no reference to the Varity matter, which is another issue for potentially another day -- on this one particular area dealing with the wage protection and what was stated, I was quite favourable to the principle which was indicated by the Premier on that day in October, that retroactive to 1 October wages of employees who are the victims of bankruptcies will be protected by the government, an announcement which stated as a principle of the government that it will be a program of the government and by the government that the wages of employees will be protected.

There are, I believe, few who would argue against that principle. It was announced in October; it was retroactive to 1 October. I spoke with many of my caucus colleagues on this issue and we were in favour of that principle and continued to stand in favour of such principle, but with a caveat, and that is that we wanted to see in the legislation. We wanted to see that the legislation, the substance, the words were true to the principle announced in October.

We waited. We waited through the month of October for legislation. We waited through the month of November for legislation, through December, January, February and March. Finally, in the month of April, there was legislation announced. I take note that the honourable Minister of Transportation makes light comment over a matter which our caucus does not view lightly. Those particular months were, in the words of his own Treasurer, the months where this province went through the worst recession since the 1930s.

In the past year this province has lost 250,000 jobs. Bankruptcies are up to astronomical proportions. I think all members of this Legislature recognize that the job loss during this recession is not just cyclical in nature. It is not just layoffs. It is not a job loss where the jobs are coming back, which in many ways was the experience of the recession of the early 1980s. In this recession there has been not just job loss but in fact job disappearance. A great many individuals lost their jobs for a variety of reasons. Almost 50%, if I recall correctly the figures of the Treasurer, are as a result of plants moving out, plants closing.

I make the point to stress and underline the severity of this recession, the harm, the devastation that has befallen not just the employees but, as we all know through our work in our constituency offices, the families, in fact a whole destruction for many of a way of life. I do not think I overstate the case. These have been and continue to be for many very, very difficult times.

I have spoken about the germ of the idea for a wage protection fund. I have spoken about how it was first announced as a secondary matter in the month of October and how it carried the principle that workers who are owed wages from companies that go bankrupt would be protected by the government. As I have indicated earlier, I and my caucus certainly agree with that principle. We recognize that it is the right and it is the obligation of a government to announce programs of that nature and kind, but it is our right, as it is the right of all persons within this province, to wait until the legislation is introduced to make certain that the legislation in substance carries forward the principle as previously announced.

We waited, as I said, for that legislation. Finally, after the legislation was introduced, we looked at the legislation and looked hard, severely, critically at the legislation. There is nothing the matter with doing that. I think all members would accept that not only is it the role of the opposition and third party to do so but in fact also of the government. They want to make certain that the piece of legislation carries forward the principle and does so in an effective and efficient manner.

A cursory glance at the legislation on that day in April would, I think, have caused little concern, but it is our obligation of the opposition to take more than a cursory glance at legislation. It is our obligation as members to analyse such legislation. It is our responsibility to make certain that legislation achieves the purpose for which it was designed. We must examine the government legislation as to its fundamental principle, which we debate today at second reading, where we debate the principle of such legislation, and certainly we must look to its substance, how it will achieve that principle.

1540

I have done so. My caucus colleagues have done so. We have had good discussion. Many other organizations across this province have done so. I can tell the minister that this legislation does not embrace the principle that was first announced in October 1990. Concerns have been raised that the principle has been gutted, that the principle has been ripped apart, that the concerns of the people, organizations and associations across this province, clearly, substantively made, have not been listened to by the government.

I can attest to that because just two days ago I posed a question, and by way of supplementary two questions, to the Minister of Labour to ascertain whether there was even a glint, a possibility that the minister, well aware of the arguments made, would deal with the concerns of so many individuals. I am disappointed that in his response the minister, in essence, denied that.

By supplementary, I again asked the minister, "Is there the possibility that you would stand in supplementary and say, 'I support public hearings over the summer,' where those individuals can come before a committee, express those concerns, where we can get into a full committee and clause-by-clause debate, where we can make the bill the bill it was designed to be in the month of October?" The minister's response -- and I suggest that anyone who wishes just turn to Hansard of two days ago -- is clearly one that leads to much disappointment.

We have the concerns. We have the reaction of the minister. We recognize that the principle which we so supported in October is one that is not carried forward in this particular bill, Bill 70. What do we do? Do we stand by today and say: "Oh well, we'll accept this bill, on principle, in second reading, with all of its major faults. Oh, we'll accept this particular piece of legislation without a commitment by the minister to truly look at amendments to make this bill the bill it was supposed to be. Oh, we'll accept the bill on second reading without a clear commitment by the minister to have public hearings"? We cannot do that.

We need more commitment from the Minister of Labour. It is a simple task before the minister to commit to public hearings. Governments before have done so.

Hon Mr Cooke: He's already done that.

Mr Offer: I hear the Minister of Housing say, "He's already done so." All I can do in response to that interruption is to ask the Minister of Housing to look at every question dealing with public hearings posed to the Minister of Labour from the introduction of this legislation and to point out where that minister has committed. There has been no commitment. For the Minister of Housing to say that there has been is not to bear truth to what has happened in this Legislature and through Hansard.

Hon Mr Cooke: He is not allowed to say that.

Mr Offer: I see that the Minister of Housing is speaking to the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Speaker is looking at the Minister of Housing.

Hon Mr Cooke: He is not allowed to call someone --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the member has said something which is not acceptable to the member for Windsor-Riverside, please stand up and let me know, because I did not hear anything.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, the member was saying, and fairly clearly saying in a roundabout way, that something I interjected was lying, not bearing truth. That is the same as lying. He can play fast and loose with his language in here if he wants. The Minister of Labour has been absolutely clear. The member's House leader knows exactly what the process is. Why does the member not get on with debating the bill instead of playing games in public hearings?

The Deputy Speaker: Did you refer in any way to --

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, I think even in the Minister of Housing's response he said "roundabout." He never stated any one particular fact. If he wishes to, let him stand now and do so. I will await the Minister of Housing making that statement.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. My question was straightforward. Did you refer --

Mr Offer: I will continue with the debate on the principle of this particular legislation, which of course --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have asked you a question. Did you refer to the minister as lying?

Mr Offer: Absolutely not.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine, please go on.

Mr Jackson: You twisted it around. Quit queering up Hansard.

Hon Mr Cooke: Talk about twisting.

Mr Offer: The member for Burlington South is now in some discussion with the Minister of Housing and I must say that I support the statements by the member.

Before having had to respond to those interjections, I believe we are dealing with an important piece of legislation. This is a matter where we in this debate must deal not only with the principle of the legislation but with whether the particular piece of legislation in its current form carries forward the principles that were announced in October 1990. I have been clear in our party's concerns that the legislation, for a variety of reasons which I will get into in some detail in the next while, clearly does not. The legislation does not address the principle that was announced in October, which we supported.

However, I think we should be aware that much of the need for this legislation is as a result of the wording of the federal Bankruptcy Act. I do not think there is a member in this Legislature, and surely not anyone within this province, who would not agree that many of the difficulties and the need for this legislation are a direct result of the wording of the Bankruptcy Act, an act which in matters of bankruptcy determines which creditors receive their funds first, which people owed money as a result of a bankruptcy receive them in priority to another.

It is how the wages, vacation pay, termination and severance are prioritized after the secured creditors, or what are usually lending institutions, receive their dollars first. There are not sufficient funds after the secured creditors receive their funds for those employees who are owed wages, termination, severance and vacation to fully recoup all that is owed, and so it is in large measure a need for change to the federal Bankruptcy Act that would alleviate much of the concern.

I just refer to an article which appeared in the Financial Post of 30 May. "The provincial government could avoid all this" -- and they are referring to the wage protection fund -- "if Ottawa moved on a long-standing promise to amend the Bankruptcy Act to give employees a preferred claim to wages and severance pay ahead of some creditors." I do not think we have to get into too many of the complexities of the Bankruptcy Act and the different levels of prioritization, but rather to say that a change in the Bankruptcy Act would in fact meet much of the need which is contained in the wage protection act.

1550

If that is the case, and I believe it to be, it would be nice to hear what the minister has done, to share with us his discussions with his federal counterpart to indicate whether such amendments to the Bankruptcy Act are forthcoming. I state that recognizing that the Bankruptcy Act is a matter of federal jurisdiction, but I state it also in light of what I believe to be an obligation of a minister to share with us what actions he has taken with his federal counterpart to promote the need for change.

To date, I have heard of no meeting having taken place between the minister and the federal minister charged with the responsibility of the Bankruptcy Act. I have heard of no letters being forwarded or exchanged, no telephone calls being made, no action being taken. I believe that is a necessary aspect, an action that the Minister of Labour should undertake.

I suggest that in certain circumstances, recognizing that the Bankruptcy Act is one of federal jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of provincial ministers, on issues which are not within their jurisdiction but certainly of concern to their province, to take that concern to their federal counterpart, to discuss with them the need for change and the possibility of change.

I state this in this Legislature at this time in second reading with the minister in attendance, hoping that when the time comes in this debate, the minister will use some of that time to share with us what he has done to promote the need for change.

I recognize that the minister cannot change the Bankruptcy Act. I do not ask the minister to do that. I do say that the minister, a provincial minister, recognizing a need and a concern in a province which may not be within his or her jurisdiction but indeed one which underlines or underscores a very important need, does have a responsibility, a right to act to take that matter to the federal level. There are ministerial and justice conferences throughout the year where provincial ministers and federal ministers get together on issues for discussion.

I will invite the Minister of Labour, when the time is available, to share with us what he has done in this regard, what he has heard in this matter, to share with us the likelihood of change to the Bankruptcy Act. I recognize that does not have to do with this particular legislation directly, but it does have to do with this particular legislation in a very important and fundamental way because, with a change to the Bankruptcy Act, much of the legislation before us contained within Bill 70 is unnecessary.

Now I would like to deal with the legislation at hand. Before doing so, I hark back to the statement by the Premier in October 1990 that the Ontario government would create a wage protection fund for employees who have lost wages as a result of a bankruptcy; an initiative funded by a government, an initiative to be embraced in legislation, a principle which on this side we can support.

Let us look to the existing law. I must in all good conscience certainly acknowledge the good work of many law firms in this area that have provided through a variety of ways information to myself as to what the current law is, what the remedies are for employees under the current law and what the implications are of this new legislation. Basically, under the existing law without change, there are two areas where an employee may obtain recourse in an action where a bankruptcy has occurred, where an employee has recourse to obtain lost wages. The first is under the Employment Standards Act, the second is under the Business Corporations Act.

First, I want to deal with the Employment Standards Act because under that act currently, an order to pay amounts up to a maximum of $4,000 plus any severance pay owing can be issued by the ministry against an employer. Where the employer is insolvent or bankrupt, the employee is treated as an unsecured creditor. I now move back to my comments on the Bankruptcy Act because, given the non-preferred ranking that employees have, they can in fairness seldom recover the amounts owing from the company under the statutory rights where the employer is bankrupt. In fact, though there is recourse under the Employment Standards Act, that recourse when intertwined with the Bankruptcy Act provides very little real recovery.

The second area is under the Business Corporations Act. A director can be held personally liable for unpaid wages not exceeding six months and for vacation pay accrued for not more than 12 months. This does not include severance or termination pay, and the vacation is calculated at 4% of the employee's annual wages. So we have these two areas: one under the Employment Standards Act which meets a barrier as a result of the workings of the Bankruptcy Act, and the second under the Business Corporations Act.

We must talk about reality, and in reality rarely do the claims of an employee in terms of wages and vacation under the remedies under the Business Corporations Act amount to a great deal of dollars. Claims are minimized because workers, as we all know, expect and find unsurprising, would not allow their wages to go unpaid for any significant amount of time. They would recognize that there is a difficulty and, as such, that remedy for wages and vacation pay is in many ways protected under the Business Corporations Act. Payment is secured in that area. Wages earned in that aspect are not lost. Vacation pay accrued is in fact recovered.

I do not want to get into too great detail but to say -- if I might, by point of order, Mr Speaker: I noticed that the clock was running. I am sorry. For those who are watching on television, I thank them very much. I was somewhat distracted by the clock doing strange and funny things in my face. However, I am now back on track and I will no longer refer to that and just continue on.

1600

As was indicated, and we are talking about a very serious matter, wages earned in many ways are not lost; vacation pay accrued is recovered. I believe it is important that when we speak to this issue, we recognize that we are not talking about the establishment in many ways of a new set of rights for the employees in this legislation where none existed before. We are talking about an expansion of those rights, an expansion of the rights of employees in certain circumstances to obtain more than wages and vacation pay. It is our responsibility to ask as a result of that, how is that to be accomplished?

We now go and review the bill. How does the bill in substance deal with the principle previously announced? Does the bill do so?

The changes in this bill do not apply to the Ontario Business Corporations Act. They do apply to the Employment Standards Act. Members will recall that earlier I spoke of basically two routes that employees had, two alternatives. This bill speaks to the Employment Standards Act.

What does this bill do? Basically, four things. It expands personal liability beyond the directors to include officers. Second, it expands an employee's claim against those directors and officers beyond wages and vacation pay to include termination and severance pay. Third, it carries with it a fine on a director or officer up to, I think, in fairness, a maximum of $50,000. Fourth, the personal liability of an officer and director in a company insolvency will remain for one year after he resigns. Those are the basic four principles as contained in the legislation.

I do not wish to misrepresent the legislation by stating that these are all of the aspects contained within it, but I believe and suggest that these are four of the major areas stated in the legislation which are designed, I would imagine, in principle to carry forward that which was announced in October.

Here we are with those four basic aspects of the legislation, and from those four aspects concerns have arisen. I want to share some of those concerns with members this afternoon. I want to do so because it is the position of our party that the legislation as worded does not further, does not embrace, the principle that was announced in October, that principle with which we were in agreement. The legislation says and does something else. The legislation and its implication means something else and the concerns of many people across this province are growing each and every day.

I think at this point it is important to say it is not the concerns of business. I do not want this debate to be interpreted as there being two camps, employees and business. That is not how this debate is evolving. It is not what these concerns are all about. These are the concerns of men and women who are giving of their time freely to community, non-profit corporations. These are the concerns of men and women who have agreed to take a particular position in a corporation without having the responsibility of the day-to-day operation of that particular corporation, who are not given that responsibility, but who have none the less agreed to sit on the board as officers and to provide a certain experience and expertise to the board. This legislation will, without any question, expand the personal liability of these individuals in areas and matters which I do not believe even the minister can estimate at this point.

I will provide in short order some information which was provided to me as an example of the type of liability that men and women who do not have responsibility in the day-to-day operations of corporations will subject themselves and their families to.

They are concerns which we felt could be rectified. They are concerns which we felt must be rectified. We were very disappointed in the minister's response to questions posed, not only by myself but by other members of the Legislature. It would have been nice if one of the members of the government side would have posed the question. The minister seems unwilling to deal with it, and it causes us no other alternative but to say no to this legislation, that it is so badly flawed and that the minister is so unwilling to permit public hearings to take place to deal with matters of concern, which he knows the arguments for, that we have to use this opportunity, as members of the opposition, to say we cannot allow this matter to go forward without the minister and members of the government recognizing how seriously the opposition party views these concerns.

We are giving the minister notice. The opposition party feels very strongly that the concerns, which I will get into in just a short while, are so fundamental and so substantial that the minister has no alternative but to address these concerns by amendment to the legislation.

I can count the numbers in this House, and certainly we could take the easy route out by saying, "Well, we have these concerns, but we still agree with the principle." We cannot in all good conscience do that, because this principle is not the one which was first announced in October. The bill is so badly flawed that we give notice. We give notice by our opposition at second reading that we demand changes to this legislation, that the concerns of those individuals are so very important, send out such a clear message, they must be met.

Where in fact do our concerns rest? I have spoken about them, and I feel that it is necessary that we deal in some substance with them. First, the liability has been expanded. Personal liability has been expanded from what is now directors to directors and officers.

1610

Interjections.

Mr Offer: Some across the floor yell, "Hear, hear," and that speaks mountains as to the likelihood that the government will change this legislation. That says it all. That states that the position which we have taken on second reading is one which I feel absolutely comfortable with.

We have to recognize that in many instances, officers do not carry on the day-to-day operations of the corporation. They do not. They have been asked in many cases to sit. They have been asked in many cases to share with corporations and companies an experience, an expertise, and they do so. It makes the underpinnings of our economy stronger. It makes the message that this province sends out, not only to those within the province but to those outside the province, one which is positive.

What does the legislation do? It says: "We do not care whether you have any responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the corporation. We do not care whether you can or cannot share your experience and expertise. This legislation will, on a personal basis, outside of the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, subject you to a potential liability of thousands and thousands of dollars, a liability which you will feel, which your family will feel, which could result in your whole way of life being destroyed."

What do reasonable people do? They say: "I'm not going to sit on this board. I'm not going to give any contribution. I, in all conscience, for my family, can't do this."

I again refer to a Financial Post article, and there are many other articles, not just from the media, please; I do not want anyone to think that it is just from the media. Many individuals and businesses across this province have sent me letters. This was written by Michael Crawford, who writes:

"When I first sat at my desk looking at it" -- it being the legislation at hand -- "I was stunned, physically stunned. I couldn't believe it. To me, this is the most threatening piece of legislation I've ever seen. The employee wage protection program, given first reading last month, has prompted a rarely seen flurry of urgent bulletins and alerts from law and accounting firms warning clients that their life's savings, home, registered retirement savings plans and personal assets are in danger."

I do not think we can make light of those things. I see some members across the way smiling at this. I do not think we can make light of this. I think this is an issue and a concern which must be addressed. I think this is a matter which it is the responsibility of the government to address.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Offer: I am disappointed in the extreme that it appears that the members opposite do not recognize the impact of this, and worse than that, do not recognize that it is capable of being corrected. It can be corrected. This issue can be dealt with. But the question will be, of course, in the end result, will the government do so? At this point in time I stand here with some concern whether they will in fact do so.

What could this potential personal liability be? I have one example, referred as a representative example, which assumes that if company A goes bankrupt and had 100 employees with an average salary of $35,000 a year, $675 per week, every employee would be entitled to the following minimum in law: unpaid wages, we assume one week, $625; termination pay, eight weeks, because there are over 50 employees terminated, $5,400; severance pay, 15 weeks, with a 15-year average seniority, $10,125; vacation pay of 4%, $1,400. Adding those four aspects together, they come to a minimum liability per employee of $17,550. That is the type of liability this legislation will foist on individuals, officers, who do not have any ongoing operation of the corporation. And that will potentially be increased very much if certain signals from the Minister of Labour in increasing the severance pay in all of those types of aspects of the legislation would be implemented.

So we are talking here about a minimum. We ask ourselves who is going to potentially sit as an officer? The member across the hall waves a hand showing five, making $5,000, I would assume. Unfortunately, that is just not the legislation. The member should be aware that the personal liability extends beyond that. If the members on the government side think the personal liability of directors and officers is going to be limited to $5,000, I invite them to read the legislation and, I hope, some of the letters of concern that I know they must be experiencing.

Is that the only concern we have? No, it is not the only concern, because this particular piece of legislation goes even further. It attaches itself to non-profit charitable corporations. That is what this legislation does. It attaches itself to that area of endeavour. Is there a member in this Legislature who does not know of individuals in his or her community or constituency who have given of their own time to sit on non-profit charitable boards to make their community in many ways a better place to live and work?

We in this Legislature recognize that much of the very good work done in all of our ridings is done by the volunteer who selflessly gives of himself and herself each and every day. What does this legislation do? It says to those people, "You are potentially personally liable for thousands and thousands of dollars." What does the reasonable person do? I think the reasonable person does what this person did. He speaks about his wife. This person is the president of a not-for-profit charitable corporation. This is what is happening in members' communities now. If this legislation before this Legislature is passed, that corporation will lose not only the president, but the other seven officers and directors who cannot afford to put their families' personal assets at risk.

My goodness, this is what is going on in the communities of the members on the government side. Would they please listen. Would they please take a look at what people are saying. This person who writes this letter has no care whether there are Liberals or Conservatives or NDP. This person writes a letter as an example of other people who have given of their time for their community. These people are leaving. These people are moving off the boards. We are losing the lifeblood of our communities. The worst aspect of all this is that it is capable of being rectified. It is capable of being looked at and solved. Is there the inclination, the willingness by the members of government at this point in time? I and my caucus believe not.

1620

We will wait to see if the minister will stand and finally state whether there shall be public hearings. We recognize the rules and the process available in this Legislature, but we will certainly be waiting to hear. We certainly are cognizant of the comments made by members across the floor, I think, in a certain jocular fashion, but it bothers me and our caucus. This is happening, this is real, this is going on in their communities right now and they can change it if they want to.

To sit and joke and chuckle over people leaving charitable, non-profit corporations in their communities, who have given years of time, is not a joking matter as far as our caucus is concerned. We are demanding that this particular legislation be changed, and because of the actions and the reluctance of the minister to acknowledge it, we are prepared to stand in this Legislature and vote against this particular piece of legislation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Order. We have one person on the floor already. Please continue.

Mr Offer: If I might, I would like to continue with a few more points. These are very serious concerns, both as the personal liability will attach to the officers of corporations and what that means, and certainly as it will attach to those men and women who give so much to their community and what that means, and certainly the government's response to these concerns in such a lighthearted manner and what that means. That means a great deal.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Parkdale is not in his seat and should refrain from joining in the debate.

Mr Offer: At one point in this discussion there was a comment made by the member for London South, I believe, who spoke when I spoke about the impact this will have on those individuals giving of their time for nonprofit corporations and charitable corporations, and I believe the comment thrown across the floor was, "Well, let them get insurance."

Is insurance available? We will be interested in seeing and we will be interested in hearing if it is available, what the cost is, and as a third observation, we will be interested in hearing what that means for the ongoing operation of those particular non-profit, charitable organizations.

It is not enough and it is not an easy answer to say, "Well, let them get insurance." That insurance may not be available. That insurance may be prohibitive. In the same lighthearted fashion let me say, "And if they can't get insurance, let them go to the government for that insurance." What do they say to that? Their lives, their personal assets, their homes and their way of life are all at risk because many of those particular organizations are certainly ones which, in fairness, need government funding. What happens if that funding does not come forward? The government itself will cause the demise of the individual's organization and kickstart the personal liability -- issues we believe must be addressed, again, issues where to date they just have not been.

I have spoken to the principle of the legislation as announced in October by the Premier -- I do not have the announcement before me -- that there would be a government program initiative where wages for employees of bankrupt companies would be protected by the government.

At that point, without seeing the legislation but certainly on the principle enunciated, this party was in favour. The legislation came forward and we took a hard look at it because we wanted to make certain that the principle enunciated in October was the same in Bill 70 and, second, we wanted to see the process as to how that particular principle was going to be accomplished.

We looked hard. We had great discussions throughout our caucus about this legislation. We heard from many individuals, again, not just business but people who have given years to their community by sitting on boards for non-profit corporations, who have given so much. They said: "We have concerns. Under this legislation, we can't sit any longer as officers of these corporations and we need change to the legislation."

We in our caucus feel that the principle is different and that it has been gutted and ripped apart. The minister is unwilling to receive amendment in an open fashion. To date the minister has not acknowledged the need for public hearings or given a commitment to do so over the summer.

There comes a time when a party recognizes that a principle has been altered in such a manner and to such a degree that in essence it has been gutted; when a party recognizes that a minister is unwilling to correct those errors; that it is improper to replace one very unfortunate set of victims with another equally unfortunate set of victims; that a statement must be made as to how deeply we feel about these concerns, how much we accept the principle of 1 October and how much we believe that principle is not embraced in Bill 70. That time is now, and this party will vote against this bill on second reading.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The employee wage protection program is one of the most important initiatives this government has undertaken to ease the damaging effects of the recession. It forms part of the government's comprehensive measures to help workers through these difficult times. Because of this, we must not lose sight of the true significance of Bill 70.

1630

When workers are denied money that they have earned that is rightly and legally theirs, we feel it is absolutely necessary, indeed it is our duty, to help them recover that money, and in an extremely timely and effective way.

Workers have waited years to no avail for the federal government to overhaul the federal Bankruptcy Act. In the absence of new federal legislation, we decided that people in Ontario could not wait any longer for wage protection. We acted on our own commitment in the throne speech and introduced Bill 70.

This is important and responsible legislation. We have consulted widely before the legislation was introduced and during the last few weeks. We are listening to the arguments of organizations that have concerns about the proposed liability of officers, particularly in the charitable and non-profit field. As a matter of fact, I do not think our opposition members have been listening very carefully or they have selective hearing in this issue because I raised that in my opening statement on this bill and mentioned it in responses to at least two of the questions that we have been asked.

These are legitimate worries and it is clearly not the intent of the legislation to punish individuals or organizations. On the contrary, our overriding priority is to help workers who have lost their jobs without receiving the wages they have earned. It is impossible to find anyone who would argue with this principle, and that is why this legislation needs to be passed and passed quickly.

I want to say as well that it is pretty obvious to me not only that the opposition has not been listening but, in terms of hearings and anybody having a chance to appear before the committee, I just presume -- maybe I made an assumption I should not -- that when this went out to one of the standing committees of the House, the first thing the members would want is to have people appear before that committee. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever.

It seems to me that there really has been selective listening across the way.

Mr Hope: I would like to reflect on what the member was talking about. He focused on one particular issue that this government has been listening to and the minister just cleared that error up.

What we have to do is lay the focus back to where it should be. The focus is back to those corporations that, through corporate restructuring, through the free trade agreement -- and I must add the Mulroney free trade agreement -- are closing plants and leaving workers without any money, dependent upon the UIC and then to be collecting welfare. There is where the concentration of the wage protection fund has to be.

To look at one particular issue, and this just tells us how much they really paid attention to the wage protection fund, they were not listening to the minister or the government on this side of the House as to exactly what we are trying to do.

But I think it is very important that the focus of concentration is happening around plant closures that are happening through corporate restructuring. A lot of corporate restructuring is taking place, through the charter, through the federal government's responsibility. There are corporate loopholes that people are being victimized by.

Do we wait for this federal government? Or do we do things within the power of this provincial government to help protect people until the federal government finally decides one day to call an election and let the people of Canada determine their future, which we know will be very short after the election, to make sure until the new government is in place and the New Democrats are federally in place? Then we can look at the changes and our wage protection fund will not be required any more.

I think it is very important to look at the broad base because, let me tell members, I have approximately 420 workers who are waiting for this wage protection fund and for the opposition to get on with it.

Mr Ruprecht: I have listened to the comments from the member for Chatham-Kent, whom I normally regard as making a great deal of sense. Normally, I say, he is making a great deal of sense, especially because he is responding to my friend on this side of the House. But let me simply say it makes no sense to stand up and blame each other and to say it is the Mulroney trade deal that is going to close companies and that is why this country is in such an economic mess.

Let us be a bit more reasonable. We could stand on this side of the House and simply say to all members opposite that the reason why the Ontario economy is in a great deal of a mess is because of this government's policy. But we are not going to do that today; we are not going to do that right now.

What we have got to do is to come to some kind of consensus and make amendments in this place. We are simply asking the government to make amendments that are reasonable and right, so that all of us together can move forward and not blame each other when industries are shutting down left and right and jobs are being lost, and the people of Ontario are going to be in a position where they will say one day, I hope within this term of government: "Yes, we have employment. We have a job and we will not be interfered with by a government that is really very directly interfering in creating new jobs and new employment in this province."

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Is there anyone else who wishes to partake in debate? Response?

Mr Offer: Oh, that is wonderful. Thank you very much.

I have been listening intently to the comments of members opposite and I very much agree with the member for Parkdale that this is not the time that the government should be pointing fingers at the federal government. This is a time where we are going through one of the worst recessions in the history of this province, where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, and I do not think that the government should take that aspect and that tack, because it was not long ago, and I have to speak over the interjections of the Minister of Transportation. I hope, since he seems to have so much to say in interjection, that he will take part in this debate, but we will wait and see.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Transportation, of course, raises his voice but still refuses to take part in the debate. However, that may say an awful lot of things. But I do believe we should be mindful, and certainly the government members should be mindful, especially the Minister of Transportation but all members of the government, that it was not too long ago that a budget was introduced by the government, which called for a deficit of almost $10 billion. I posed a question to the Treasurer in this Legislature for him to point to one single job that budget created and the Treasurer could not do so.

Those budget papers do not indicate one single new job. It is not the creation of a job to say that if worker A is working today and worker A is working tomorrow, that is one job. That is not, that is Floydian economics. No one believes it, and this province is suffering for it.

Mr Runciman: It is a privilege to participate in this debate on a bill that is certainly significant with respect to this government's agenda. The minister intervened in the questions and comments section, which is not all that usual in this place, and perhaps he intends to continue to do that. We will encourage it. But he was talking about the principle, and I do not think too many of us have difficulty with the principle of the legislation. It is indeed laudable.

But when we are talking about terribly flawed legislation -- and I think that certainly the comments from right across this province indicate clearly that indeed it is badly flawed legislation -- we have a responsibility on this side of the House to make sure that the appropriate changes are forthcoming. If they are not, we simply will not be in a position to support the legislation, regardless of the merits of the principle behind it.

I have a lot of difficulty with the minister and his backbench colleagues frequently getting on their feet and saying, "Look, we're talking about laid-off workers in this province and obviously the opposition members do not have any real concern about those individuals who are facing very difficult times or they would opt for speedy passage of this legislation." I think that is a very unfair comment. It is certainly not an accurate assessment of the very genuine concerns held by opposition members with respect to this legislation.

With respect to all kinds of initiatives being undertaken or being promised by this government, especially some being touted by the Minister of Labour, some of the legislation that we have heard is going to be coming forward in the fall, which is scaring the bejabbers out of most business and industry folks in this province.

1640

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: One of the members is interjecting that it is good stuff, but he should go down and check with the American consulate with respect to the run on applications for green cards since this government came into office and since they brought down this draconian budget and its $10-billion deficit.

They are chasing people out of this province; there is no question about it. We see so much emphasis on and concern being expressed by the government with respect to the poor and the jobless, I guess one has to wonder about job creation. There just does not seem to be any real interest in terms of job creation, only in bringing more and more measures that are going to scare people out of this province, the people who invest in the economy of this province, the people who are really the job creators in what has been the economic engine of Canada. We are seeing that being eroded. We have lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last number of months and we are not going to see those return. Even in terms of a turnaround in the economy, we are going to see a very slow turnaround.

Hon Mr Philip: Be even worse after free trade with Mexico.

Mr Runciman: He will have to stand up on a point of order. I cannot read from 50 or 30 feet away.

I want to say it is these kinds of people, those who finance new enterprises, who are being penalized. These kinds of initiatives, added penalties, are simply going to force more businesses to leave the province, and taxes will rise for those who do indeed work.

What we have here -- someone has referred to it as the People's Republic of Ontario, some sort of Marxist philosophy governing the enterprises of this government. I am not sure, when it is Marxist, whether it is more on the Karl side or more on the Groucho side. I think, from some of the antics of cabinet ministers in this House and some of the efforts of cabinet ministers, it is more on the Groucho side.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Well, you know, it is strange. We have seen the cabinet ministers being rather testy in the last few days. I do not know whether it is the weather or what it is. No interjections and points of order and standing up making all sorts of comments.

Hon Mr Philip: What happened, did somebody set fire to your sheet?

Mr Runciman: I did not hear that. Probably it is as well I did not hear it. Yes, just as well, knowing the calibre of the interjections from that particular member in the past.

Hon Mr Philip: That's all right. You need somebody to explain them to you.

Mr Runciman: Yes, the member is a high-quality guy.

In any event, I want to talk about things that are happening in this province and specifically about this legislation. I will talk about an article that appeared in the Financial Post today. It begins:

"'When I first sat at my desk looking at it, I was stunned, physically stunned. I couldn't believe it. To me, this is the most threatening piece of legislation I've ever seen.'

"That's Toronto insolvency lawyer Dan Dowdall's reaction to Bill 70."

We see the members of the government, and it happened with the previous speaker as well from the Liberal Party -- they are being scoffed at and laughed at when they are raising legitimate concerns about a piece of legislation that is, in its current form anyway, going to have a significant negative impact on Ontario and certainly will not help the economic climate in this province. What do we get? This sort of catcalling, interjections and laughter which I do not think serve this House well or serve the debate well.

In any event, I want to put some of my party's views on record with respect to this legislation.

With respect to the expansion of the definition of "wages" in the Employment Standards Act, the expanded definition enshrines employees' rights to these debts in legislation rather than relying on the courts' interpretations as they have done in the past with respect to the definition of "wages." Expanding the definition greatly expands the immediate liability of directors and now officers, as they were not previously liable for termination or severance pay. Employees can get up to eight weeks of termination pay and 26 weeks of severance pay under the Employment Standards Act. This could amount to a liability as high as $20,000 per employee.

This is the point I have been trying to make, that this will significantly increase the cost of running a business in Ontario. Corporations will now either have to put aside significant amounts of cash in case of a future insolvency situation or obtain liability insurance. I know the minister and other members have talked about liability insurance, but I think the people in the know with respect to this matter say that obtaining this kind of insurance is not going to be an easy piece of business for many of them, especially those who are having financial difficulties. Obtaining this kind of insurance is simply going to be impossible for them. So to rely on that as a fallback position with respect to the concerns being expressed about the legislation just does not hold water upon close examination.

The biggest change to the concept of making directors liable for owed wages is the fact that the mere filing of a claim against an employer by an employee makes the employee eligible for up to $5,000 in compensation from the fund. The program administrator then subrogates the rights of the employee and carries on the suit against the employer and directors and officers of the company on the employee's behalf.

Mr Speaker -- Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I have to keep looking.

Hon Mrs Grier: Look once and you'll figure it out.

Mr Runciman: Is that right? Thank you.

I am telling members that we are simply going to have to give those folks an even harder time in the House in question period. They are getting so nasty with the warm weather approaching.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Just don't get me worked up.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: No, I am trying to be a changed person.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Please continue.

Mr Runciman: There is no provision in the legislation to cover the increased administrative cost to the employment standards branch for pursuing claims on behalf of employees. The model envisioned by the federal government has a 10% deductible to cover these costs, but this government is not making those kinds of provisions available.

We talked a bit about the expansion of liability to officers, which is subsection 40r(1). The Ontario Business Corporations Act makes only the directors of corporations liable for wages. Bill 70 also makes the officers liable. In addition, it greatly expands the definition of both "officer" and "director." The bill's definition of "'director' includes a shareholder who, as a party to a unanimous shareholders' agreement, has the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a director."

We have heard a lot of comments from Gary Luftspring, the head of Goodman and Carr's litigation division. He is again quoted in the Financial Post this morning saying, "It's not clear as to whether this will include a situation where only part of the rights and duties of a director are undertaken pursuant to the unanimous shareholders' agreement." Also, the bill defines "officer" as anyone "who performs functions for the corporation similar to those normally performed by a person who is designated an officer." The definition also specifically includes anyone performing those functions for an unincorporated employer.

This vague definition opens the door for numerous interpretations. Mr Luftspring believes it may include lawyers acting as secretaries at meetings, accountants acting as financial advisers, and consultants effectively acting as members of senior management. An Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt report asserts that the receivers and lenders appointed as agents of the company could be interpreted to be liable under the legislation. These potential interpretations aside, the whole premise of making officers liable is also questionable.

Fred Holmes of William M. Mercer Ltd, a consulting firm used on a significant basis by the Ministry of Financial Institutions, believes that the bill will put responsibility on the shoulders of people who essentially have little control over a firm's fortunes. He gives the example of a corporation with 75 vice-presidents, where only a handful of these may have actual day-to-day control over the financial situation of the firm. Making all of these people liable is simply unfair. They are being held responsible for situations out of their control. Directors, being the fiduciary trustees of the shareholders, are the ones who should be held liable in the case of mismanagement.

1650

Furthermore, a gentleman from Chubb Insurance has pointed out that officers of the company are also employees of the corporation, who will have outstanding wages in the event of the firm's bankruptcy. Past claims under section 131 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act have included cases where officers have been the plaintiffs. Bill 70 will put officers in a position where they could be suing themselves for their own unpaid wages. This, again, is an example of how the legislation was just not thought through by the Ministry of Labour.

Perhaps I should not say the Ministry of Labour. I think it is probably more accurate to say the minister's office and the minister's advisers. When they made this commitment and speedily drafted this legislation, I am not sure what kind of consultative process took place within the ministry, but obviously it was not adequate. We hear stories where certainly people within the ministry have extreme difficulty getting to the minister to provide advice and getting through the lackeys who now populate the minister's office, the NDP faithful over the years who are now getting their just rewards at the political trough.

Mr Ferguson: You had been at the trough so long you didn't even have time to oink.

Mr Runciman: We are going to be back there, too, very soon. Just three more years. The problem is, the damage may be irrevocable. That is my concern, and certainly the concern of many Ontarians in respect to having to deal with this kind of government for the next three years in this province. They may even drag it out for an extra year. This is a government that expresses concern while at the same time giving a 6% increase to the public service in this province while we are having hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs being lost.

One of the problems, of course, is that what we are going to see in a growing basis in this province in what they describe in Europe as the Swedish sickness, where we have about 25% of the workers in industry on sick leave in Sweden. Of course, that is the ultimate experience in social democracy, which has failed miserably. We saw it happen with the Labour Party in Great Britain as well -- a miserable, miserable failure. The Premier seems to want to take us back to those sad, sad times in Great Britain with some of the policies and initiatives of his government and his ministers.

I want to assure members that this party is certainly going to do all it can within its power, with only 20 members, to do whatever it can to ensure that the damage done by this socialist government over the next three years is not irrevocable; that indeed when the Progressive Conservatives assume office once again we will be able to turn things around in relatively short order.

I want to put a few more matters on the record before I give up the floor. I want to talk about the joint and several liability and lack of contribution clause. That is subsection 40s(1). That section makes directors and officers jointly and severally liable for wages in certain prescribed circumstances. This means that the employees or the program administrator with the employees' subrogated rights may sue any of the directors or officers for the full amount of the liability owing to the employees. Presumably, then, the employees will sue the directors or officers with the greatest personal worth in order to make sure they get all the money owing.

That is not unusual. The Ontario Business Corporations Act, again, makes directors jointly and severally liable. However, that act also contains a separate clause stating that a director who has satisfied a claim under this section is entitled to a contribution from other directors who were liable for the claim. This allows the director who was successfully sued to turn around and sue the remaining directors to pay their fair share or contribution of the claim. The process facilitates the employees' suit and puts the onus on the director to seek contribution. However, Bill 70 contains no such clause, and the gentleman whom I quoted earlier, Mr Luftspring, has pointed out that there may be common-law rights to contribution, but this is also something that will have to be considered.

We have concerns with respect to subsection 40s(2), that the claim against the employer need not be exhausted first, and one of the efforts of this particular section says that "proceedings against the employer under this act do not have to be exhausted before proceedings may be commenced to collect wages from other directors, under this part." The potential for this clause is to allow an order to be made against the personal assets of a company director, while the corporation may still have funds to be retrieved. In contrast, the Manitoba wage payment fund is accessed only as a last resort, and only after all reasonable efforts to recover wages have been made.

Another area of concern with respect to the resignation of directors or officers has been talked about by a great many commentators and had scathing attack after scathing attack in respect to the claw-back clause of this legislation, which makes directors and officers liable for wages even if the bankruptcy occurs up to a year after having left their jobs. Again, this is something that obviously has not been very well-thought-out by the minister and his socialist cronies in the minister's office. The clause states that a person who has ceased to be a director or officer within one year of the employer becoming insolvent remains liable under the order, if any, under this act.

The firm of Lang Michener commented on this section. They expressed concern about the word "remains" and indicated that that suggested liability somehow existed before the triggering events. They have described that as an illogical premise, and we share that view. This is more evidence of the inexperience of whoever wrote this legislation, a very clear indication. Obviously, changes to this kind of ambiguous wording are very much necessary.

The wording of the section aside, we want to express our concern and point out that the concept of making directors and officers liable for one year after their resignation creates a number of rather absurd situations. For example, when a company is sold through a purchase of shares, the prior directors will be liable for actions of the new directors for up to one year after the sale. Similarly, directors who are not happy with the way the company is being run may offer their views at a board meeting but be outvoted. So if the protesting directors then resign, they will be still be liable one year later for actions of the remaining directors that they warned about before their resignation. The effect of this clause is to render responsible people who may not have any control over the management of a firm's finances. The concept of a responsible person may be a better way of dealing with the problem of directors than officers' resignations. Again, under the Business Corporations Act a director is not liable unless the corporation has been sued within six months after the wages are due and the corporation is unable to satisfy the client.

1700

We have had concerns expressed about non-profit and charitable organizations. The minister has indicated he is going to look at that particular element of the legislation, although he has certainly not given an undertaking to change that particularly offensive area of the legislation, simply to review it. Obviously we and many others in Ontario would like to have something a little stronger in terms of the commitment to change than simply an indication in the House that he is prepared to look at it.

Interjection.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I have an individual interjecting on a frequent basis who is not in his own seat, I believe. I could be wrong, but I am drawing that to your attention. If the member for Scarborough Centre wants to interject, I would encourage you to suggest that he do so from his seat, if he can find it.

An hon member: What about those gentlemen behind you?

Mr Runciman: They are not interjecting, they are making positive contributions.

I want to spend a little bit more time on the question of liability insurance, because certainly this has been a strong emphasis on the part of the government and the minister and members who have spoken in support of this legislation. That is the matter of the availability of liability insurance and the assumption that it is readily available.

In the announcement of the bill on first reading, the minister said he would give directors and officers a three- month grace period from the effective date of the legislation to obtain liability insurance if they had to. The minister seemed to be implying that directors and officers might easily obtain insurance to protect themselves against the possibility of the bankruptcy of their firm. However, a look at the market for directors' and officers' liability insurance tells a very different story.

Currently there are only two firms offering this kind of insurance in Ontario, serving only a minute percentage of all corporations in Ontario, never mind partnerships or proprietorships. The prime aim of this type of insurance is to insure directors and officers against liabilities arising out of the normal, everyday operations of the firm, but they currently cover liabilities under section 131 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act. The prime factor in determining the willingness of an insurance company to underwrite the directors and officers of a corporation is the firm's financial stability.

I mentioned the Chubb Insurance comment earlier. It is one of the firms that offers this kind of insurance. The gentleman said quite simply, and I think it really hit the nail on the head, "We don't take on burning buildings." You can understand that, Madam Speaker, when I said that they are certainly going to go in and take a look at the financial viability of the firm before they provide this kind of insurance. If indeed the firm is not on sound financial footing, is having some difficulty and some question about its ability to survive, what are the chances of its obtaining this kind of insurance? Virtually nil. Again, the minister's point that this kind of insurance is going to be readily available simply does not hold up in the cold light of day.

It is obvious that the firms most in need of insurance against claims under Bill 70 will be those whose financial situations are unstable. These firms will undoubtedly either find insurance companies unwilling to underwrite the risks associated with Bill 70's liabilities or the premiums will simply be prohibitive.

The other firm offering this kind of insurance, Encon, indicates its existing policies will continue to be covered under the original policies. However, this is simply because the financial situations were stable enough to warrant the coverage in the first place, and they are unlikely to go bankrupt in any event. So the current directors and officers who stand to receive claims against them as a result of Bill 70 will most likely not be able to obtain insurance to protect themselves.

I have just very quickly tried to put a number of the concerns of my party on the record. Certainly other speakers and our Labour critic later on in this debate will elaborate on many of those points in detail. I simply want to reiterate our concern about this initiative.

I think it is an indication of problems within this government. I am not sure whether it is a lack of experience. I know we have seen some columnists speculating on the fact that the NDP came to power in September-October 1990 and did not have the resources in terms of trained personnel that the Liberal Party could draw upon in 1985, when it was able to draw on experienced people from the former federal Liberal government.

What we have seen is a situation where perhaps a lot of cabinet ministers have got themselves into difficulties, perhaps because of a lack of staff expertise. There is another matter, and it is a very real concern of mine. I think there is a very serious suspicion within the ranks of the NDP, within the executive council, about the objectivity and neutrality of the civil service and the significant players in the civil service, senior civil servants. I think it verges on paranoia.

Mr White: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member's oration on the trials and tribulations of the government, which I am sure he can remember himself from years gone by, are all very interesting However, I think we are much more interested in hearing his discourse on Bill 70.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Runciman: I do not object to the interjection. I think what I am saying is indeed relevant to Bill 70, because I am indicating to the government that this is such a terribly drafted piece of legislation. We have seen commentator after commentator comment on how flawed this legislation is. I think it is a reflection of the fact that the government simply does not have the staff resources.

The second element of this in respect of legislation coming from this government is the fact that it simply does not trust senior civil servants. It thinks that many of them are out to get it and it is not prepared to listen to their advice. I would suggest, having been in government and having been in cabinet and had two portfolios for a brief period of time, I grant members --

Hon Mr Cooke: How long?

Mr Runciman: Six months. Sure, six months, as long as the member for Welland-Thorold. In any event, I also served on Management Board of Cabinet and had some exposure, certainly even as a government backbencher, to the senior civil service in this province, and under the Liberal government as well. I think the government's suspicions and lack of trust are not going to serve it well, and they are certainly not going to serve the people of the province well. I think that is very clearly indicated by this kind of legislation.

I think we are going to be faced with, and this supposedly responsible government is going to be faced with, ongoing problems of this nature simply because it does not trust the bureaucrats. It does not trust their opinions, it does not trust their views, it is not going to take their advice. It is going to take the advice and heed the advice of some ideologues who have stuck with the government party for many years with the dream of obtaining power and putting into place measures which, in a real world, simply will not work. That is a clear indication in respect with this legislation that we have before us today.

1710

I think this kind of legislation, as well as many other measures being undertaken, is starting to sound alarm bells within the business community in the province. They are not going to sit back as they did during the Liberal years when we saw all sorts of initiatives undertaken which did damage to the business fabric in this province and started the move towards losing jobs in the manufacturing sector and moving more and more people out of this province. They sat back for the most part and lived with it.

I want to say I do not think they are going to sit back now. I certainly hope they do not. I hope they continue to play an active role and get much more actively involved in ensuring that the people of the province understand the full implications of having a socialist government, a government which is directed in many instances by ideologues, people who felt very comfortable in the Waffle faction of the NDP a number of years ago.

Hon Mrs Grier: You mean there are no ideologues on the right?

Mr Runciman: None whatsoever.

Hon Mrs Grier: You don't think you're an ideologue? It's just the ideology is different, my friend.

Mr Runciman: Sorry to wake up the Minister of the Environment.

In any event, I have put my concerns on the record. We are going to fight this bill very vigorously. I am sure we are going to hear as the debate goes on that we are doing wrong to the people who will benefit from this bill. I do not think we are.

We have to take a look at the overall impact of this legislation, its implications for all kinds of people in society, its implications for business and industry, the people who create jobs. If indeed those impacts are not going to be favourable, are not going to be positive, are not going to have the kinds of impacts we would wish to see as legislators, we simply are not going to succumb. We are not going to give in to the kind of intimidation effort that the government appears to be willing to try and foist upon us.

Mr Mills: I have only two minutes to respond, I believe -- I wish that I had at least 20, possibly 40 -- to some of the rhetoric I have heard here this afternoon about Bill 70. It is absolutely amazing to hear these comments.

I am going to take up one comment the member for Leeds-Grenville made about the queue of people with green cards who are waiting to go to the United States. I have never heard such rubbish in my life. I have many friends in the United States who would give their right arm to be in Canada, to be in Ontario.

I think every person from the United States we speak to knows of or has a relative whose life has been decimated by illness and the inability of a health scheme. That is just one thing I am focusing on. For the member to stand there and say people are queuing up to go to the United States, to get a green card is absolutely ridiculous and it does not deserve any more comment.

In so far as the insurance companies are concerned, it is my understanding that there are at least 10 companies in Ontario willing to insure directors of companies. The premiums, contrary to what the member for Leeds-Grenville says, are quite inexpensive and, above all, they are tax-deductible. So I dispel that rumour that this draconian Bill 70 would make insurance absolutely impossible to obtain.

I would like to talk during the last 19 seconds I have of the human tragedy in my own riding where companies close up, where ladies of 50 to 60 with no money come to me for help and the same company shifts up the street, relocates and opens under another name. That is why I am so proud to stand here and support this legislation.

Mr Ruprecht: Unlike the member for Durham East, I found the comments by the member for Leeds-Grenville quite interesting, especially when he says he finds that this piece of legislation the most threatening he has seen. That should wake up not only members of this House, but all the people of Ontario.

I would very much like to ask him whether he would be able to expand later on on the Manitoba option, which is another way to make some changes and amendments to this particular bill. I think we would be very interested in hearing from him further.

What I would like to respond to really is the government's idea on this Bill 70. Who in its ranks could possibly think of this kind of legislation? Who among them would sit down and figure this out that it would cost the Ontario economy, that it would cost the people of Ontario, that it would destroy, I think, in the future many of the possible jobs that we may be able to get from other countries? Who is this person? Is it the Minister of Labour, is it the whole caucus or is it just one or two people who think of these things that would be tremendous in terms of the effects they would have on the reconstruction of this province? I wish I had more time, but we would like to know who made this proposal.

Hon Mr Charlton: I would like to take just a few moments to comment on the speech by the member for Leeds-Grenville.

The member suggests, as do many who have spoken so far, that to name the directors and officers as the responsible parties in this legislation goes far too far. Unfortunately, the member for Leeds-Grenville does not tell the House the other side of the story. The corporate sector in this province would prefer to say that no individual is responsible and that no individual should be liable. If the corporate sector in Ontario is prepared to come before the committee and tell us how it would like us to define the responsible and liable parties for the irresponsible actions that have been taken that have caused workers to go unpaid, then we are prepared to deal with amendments to ensure those are the people who become liable.

As I have said, the corporate sector would prefer to see nobody responsible for those irresponsible acts. I remind members that this piece of legislation will see nobody liable so long as no corporation calls people to come to work and asks them to work for a week or two weeks or three weeks when it does not have the ability to pay them. When corporations in this province act responsibly they will not have any liability under the employee wage protection program. This is a piece of legislation to deal with the irresponsible acts of employers and corporations in Ontario that have not lived up to the legitimate expectations in this province.

Mr O'Connor: Today I would like to rise and respond and encourage the members opposite to support Bill 70 to amend the Employment Standards Act. Coming from a labour background as I do, I am pleased to see that our government is undertaking the wage protection program to help the laid-off workers for the wages that are rightfully theirs.

I want to remind the last speaker that all the workers who are not organized are the ones we are trying to protect because there is some protection for some of them who are organized. Our experience, the experience that he said we lack, we share with the workers who have lost jobs, the ones who have suffered because they have not had their separation pay, have not received their holiday pay and have not received the last paycheque that was owed to them. These are the workers whom we want to support, this is what the legislation is directed to and that is where our experience comes from. These workers have earned these wages -- the vacation, severance and termination pay. In business failures they never receive a penny.

The previous speaker spoke about ideologies. I want to say he is right. Their ideologies as well on that side of the floor are very far removed from all the working people of this province and the people who are going to suffer if this is not in place. So it is there for the right reasons.

The last speaker should have a little correction, because this is not aimed at penalizing the employers, but it is aimed at helping the thousands who are going to lose their jobs as a result of a recession as we continue.

I hope the member shares some of these concerns, because some of the concerns he has raised, yes, we have shared as well, and I am glad it will be going to committee, where it will be fully debated and everybody who has any impact on it will have a chance to have some input, the employers as well as the employees. I think that is an opportunity that everyone should come to support it.

1720

The Acting Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville has two minutes to wind up.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the contributions of the other members. I want to say that I was concerned by the Minister of Financial Institutions comments tarring everyone in the corporate sector with the same brush and suggesting the corporate sector does not want anyone responsible.

I want to say that there are a lot of good corporations in this province, a lot of people who are truly committed to this province and truly committed to this country and are creating jobs out there, and we have the Minister of Financial Institutions, a member of the executive council, who has to deal as part of his responsibilities with many of these corporations, having that kind of attitude. What message does that send out to the corporate sector in this province? A pretty scary one, I would suggest.

The minister and this government seem to adopt the approach that anyone going out of business in this province, anyone going bankrupt, has some sort of sinister motive, that they are out to do their employees dirt. I want to say that many of them are risk-takers. They are entrepreneurs who have taken a chance and are in positions where they certainly in many instances do not want to do dirt to employees and have found themselves in very difficult situations.

As I expressed earlier, my major concern and the concern of my party is this legislation, how badly flawed it is, how badly worded it is and its implications for many people in this province other than people who are out of work. It has implications which are severe and are going to have the impact of further eroding the attractiveness of Ontario as a place in which to do business.

Ms S. Murdock: I am actually very pleased today to speak to Bill 70, mostly because I have had a lot of input in working on it. The implication has been made that this was done solely by the minister's staff. I would like to point out that I have been working very steadily with bureaucrats whose judgement I respect and who have worked long and hard hours to put this together.

There are basically so far only two areas that I have been hearing people complain about, and those are section 47 and section 40. On those two sections, I would like to clarify a couple of points.

In terms of the increased cost to the Employment Standards Act, clause 47(1)(c) applies to where the appeal is filed. The member opposite mentioned that he wished that something would be done in Ontario similar to the federal legislation whereby a 10% fund would be allotted, or a 10% application. I would point out that in the amendment under that section of the act the only change to the whole thing under clause 47(1)(c) is that instead of the words "penalty of 10%" being used under the old Employment Standards Act, the amendment recommends administration costs of 10%, and other than that there is no change. So I would suggest that the member for Leeds-Grenville has got his wish, even though we have not even taken this to committee yet.

I would also point out too that on subsections 40f(1) and (2), which have been mentioned so far by both opposition parties, the minister has made it quite clear both in his answers in question period as well as the comments he made today that this is wide open. We are certainly open to suggestion. We still have to go to standing committee and of course then it will be the standing committee that decides exactly how we are going to be doing things and whether there will be public hearings or otherwise.

I would like those things clarified before I begin as to why I am supporting Bill 70.

Many of us in this House, on all sides of the House, know of a person who is owed money for termination, severance, vacation time, simply because the company that he or she worked for went out of business or it moved or for whatever reason had to close down. Too often, the families are left with nothing when the company and the job are gone. At least with the money they are owed, there can be a period where new work can be found and money, then, is not one of the worries they have to be concerned about.

To say that I support Bill 70, introduced by this Ministry of Labour, is an understatement. Workers and their families in this province deserve this money -- again, and I am going to repeat it 1,000 times -- which was earned money. Bill 70 is a measure intended to protect the money that workers have earned, money that is rightfully theirs. It is not a gift. It is certainly not welfare, and this bill is intended to set up an administrative recourse for workers to obtain money that is legally theirs.

It covers wages and it covers vacation pay. It covers termination and it covers severance pay, money that is given in lieu of notice or of layoff or of termination and as a return on the investment that the worker has put into that company's wellbeing.

Right now, an employee has recourse through employment standards, but the process is long and it only pays the wages earned if the company is solvent and still in existence in this province.

Once this bill gets through the House and gets through committee and gets through third reading, workers, in order to obtain their money within a two-year limitation period, will have to make a formal application to the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour. The branch will then investigate the claim, and if the claim is valid an order to pay will be issued. That is only in the situations where the companies have not already done that, because in many instances, the companies are good employers. But there are some instances where you just do not have that kind of relationship and they have to get it.

When the order to pay is not obeyed, this program, funded by the consolidated revenue fund, will pay out money up to $5,000. Many employers, as I have said, promptly obey an order. However, an employer might not pay due to insolvency or may not comply for whatever other reason, and qualified workers who are eligible will then receive wages and vacation pay owing, along with the statutory severance and termination pay already paid out, as I said, up to $5,000 for each qualified worker.

That is not to say that we will be paying $5,000 for every worker. For instance, you may have a situation whereby an employee would only be owed $3,000. If the company cannot pay it or is unable to pay it or cannot be located to pay it, then the worker will get $3,000 out of the consolidated revenue fund. If the employee is owed $10,000, then he or she will still only get up to $5,000 under the consolidated plan.

The thing is that they will at least have some of the money they are owed, and $5,000 will not be enough to fully cover all the wages owing to all workers, but given the current economic situation and the strain that is being put on the Treasury, we have to set a limit and the limit we selected was $5,000. We feel this limit will cover the majority of workers and it does provide some measure of security. It is better than what they get now.

What is important as well is the quicker appeal procedures, and no one has really mentioned that in any of the speeches I have heard today. The quicker appeal procedures are extremely important, because part of the problem within the whole process that we presently have is that it is very encumbered by time and things are backlogged. We have to speed things up, so we are not only speeding it up for the workers, but we are also speeding it up for the employers.

If an order is disputed, an appeal must be heard within 45 days, and this is the part I think is extremely important. If only a portion of the order is disputed, only the disputed part will go through the appeal system, so that whatever money is not in dispute by the company will be paid and only the disputed area will be appealed. That alone should speed things up and make resolutions much more quickly, forgetting the fact that we put a 45-day limit on it.

1730

When all the parties agree upon the amount, the question -- say that they are owed for wages earned but the question is only for vacation pay -- the worker and the family do not have to wait around for the whole amount until a decision is made. They are able to use that money right away.

Bill 70 will go a long way to establish a fair employment situation in Ontario by removing the uncertainty that employees may feel about the security of their wages. We are helping to create an atmosphere where workers can be confident that they will get the money they have worked for.

We have estimated that this legislation will probably assist about 56,000 workers in this province over the next 18 months. Hopefully by the end of that period of time we will not have to use it as frequently. But right this minute as we speak, there are approximately 13,000 people eligible now and waiting.

We have had to wait for a whole ream of reasons in the last three weeks with the third party getting through all of the game playing that we have been going on with, but the thing is now we have a chance to pay 13,000 people the money they are owed and due. I think and I appreciate and I encourage all the members of this House to support Bill 70, give their support for a speedy passage through this House, let us get on with it and pay these people the money they are owed.

Mr Offer: I have a short comment on the parliamentary assistant's speech. I do not think she can in fairness comment on the length of the debate on this piece of legislation, which is finally before the Legislature, because it was her government that introduced the principle in October and did not act until April.

The Premier stated in October that he was going to bring forward a wage protection fund. October passed -- and I stated this earlier -- October to November to December to January, February and March and then finally it came in April. So I do not think it is proper for her to comment on us on this side taking all of three hours so far to debate this very important piece of legislation and address some very important concerns when the government could not bring forward the legislation in six months in the midst of the worst recession that this province has ever experienced, when thousands of jobs have been lost. I think that it is very right and proper that we take the time in this Legislature to deal with the legislation, to bring forward the concerns not only of the management but of many individuals.

This is not a piece of legislation where one should be divided into camps of employees on one side and management on the other. That is not what this legislation is all about. There are concerns about the legislation from people who do not want to be referred to in either one of those camps. There are people in the community, people who have given a great deal of their time to non-profit charitable organizations, who have asked the government to deal with some of their concerns, who have been rejected, who have shared with us on this side their concerns. We are bringing them forward in the Legislature, we are going to continue to bring them forward and we are asking the Minister of Labour to stand up and say that there will be public hearings and that those concerns will be addressed.

Mr Silipo: I am happy to have the opportunity to comment briefly on some of the things raised by the member for Sudbury in her presentation.

I for one certainly have no quibble with the time it is taking us to debate this issue. I for one am glad we are finally debating something of substance in this Legislature. With a piece of legislation as important as this I am happy that we are able to have some debate here and look forward to the debate continuing beyond second reading and into the committee and indeed into the hearings, because I heard the Minister of Labour say very clearly that he has always presumed and always assumed that in fact this bill would be going to committee and in the committee there would be hearings because that is the normal process around here. I think that is certainly something that all of us on this side and indeed around the various sides of the Legislature would support.

The other concern that clearly has been raised is the question of personal liability of directors. Again, I certainly heard the minister say very clearly that that was an area that he was quite concerned with as well and that he was prepared and indeed was looking at that. What I assume from that is that we will probably be seeing some amendments that might come forward as the process develops.

I think the basic line and the basic point to be made is the one I have heard people agree to on all sides of the House, which is that this bill ensures that people who have worked and earned certain wages and other moneys will be able to get paid for that amount of money. That is the important principle in the bill, and certainly I am glad to see that that is something that we all support.

Mr Hope: To my fellow colleague who is the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Labour, I would just like to make a few general comments. I appreciate the effort and the concerns in the short time period that she had to put this legislation together, as we hear contradiction of how many months it took for this legislation. As we refer to the opposition, who get mad at us when we announce programs outside of this House, we had to wait for the House to be sitting. When we sit in November and December and return in March and introduce it in May, that sounds like a very timely manner, as most people have waited for the last five years to receive compensation for being victimized. Workers were actually being victimized the last five years while waiting for some type of protection of this nature.

It only took this government approximately 10 weeks to get it into this House, because we can only introduce legislation in the House. I think on my behalf -- and I know the people of my riding who are going to be recipients of this program are very appreciative -- that this government has moved in a speedy time to make sure this legislation is very effective. I know the parliamentary assistant consulted with a number of groups and I know the effort behind the private sector, the unions, the non-unions and the groups that are out there played an important role in putting this legislation together.

As a labour leader in my previous life, reading legislation from other governments and knowing all the miswording that took place and all the misinterpretation -- you did not know whether it was white or black -- it is very clear legislation to me. I think the workers of this province are going to be very appreciative of this legislation coming forward and adding some type of protection for the people of this province. I just want to thank her for her efforts.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments. If not, the member for Sudbury, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms S. Murdock: Mr Speaker, I do not plan on using the full two minutes but I definitely want to respond to the comments made by the member for Mississauga North because it is appalling to me that he would even suggest that we have delayed bringing this forth. Admittedly, on 1 October when we formed the government of this province officially and got sworn in, we did in the throne speech on 18 or 19 November, I believe, say we were bringing this forward.

We also said we were bringing a number of other initiatives forward. We sat until 20 December, as everyone knows -- but for the benefit of the people in the public out there who happen to be listening to this, that was all of five weeks -- most of which was spent on Bill 4, a moratorium on rent review. We then came back in March -- and we have only been in the House -- we introduced this in April. So to imply -- well not even imply -- to state baldly that we have been dragging our heels and not caring about the workers of this province or about this legislation in particular is absolute nonsense. I find it offensive, but I guess everything is allowed in this House, and I just want to make sure that the member clearly understands and it is on the record that we brought this in as soon as it was possible.

1740

Mr McClelland: Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity, and thank my colleagues for the opportunity, to join this debate, which I consider to be one of the more important debates we have had in this House in some time. I want to say at the outset that I think the basic principle in the remedy that is sought, as enunciated not only by the minister's statements early in October in the throne speech but also in the explanatory notes as set out in the legislation itself, is laudable.

Having said that, in my view there are some very grave concerns. I want to say candidly at the outset of my comments that I would like nothing better than to have a piece of legislation which I felt I could stand in my place and support, that seeks to address the issue before us with respect to wages owing to employees. Indeed, historically it has been a foundation of law that goes back thousands of years. Some of the earliest law recorded by organized civilizations speaks to the issue of wages due for work done.

There is a very clear responsibility set out in books that various faiths refer to as their holy books, with that issue or that particular principle. I think it is a principle that is well founded. It is a principle that is significant in terms of societies that seek to work in an atmosphere that recognizes the weak or the poor or those who in many cases are less empowered than employers, given the economies and the complexity of the corporate structure -- if I use this word, it is not in a disparaging sense in any way -- but the average simple worker. I do not mean "simple" in a disparaging sense, but a person who is working with his or her hands, or whatever the work might be. Certainly there is a principle that is literally thousands of years old and has been embodied in law for generations in other civilizations.

In my view, this legislation is of such. It has some flaws in it and some grave concerns that I see which will not enable me to support it in its present form.

The minister has gone on the record and said that he will allow this legislation and indeed has indicated that it will be referred to committee. I think the issue and the salient point here is that in our party we are looking for a commitment that this legislation go to public hearings. My friend the member for Chatham-Kent has said that he understands and believes there has been wide consultation. Indeed, he has worked in the past looking at legislation.

Without calling into question his character in any way, I would simply say that it stretches credibility and that it is the height of naïveté to suggest that the business community, the non-profit and the charitable sectors of our province, have been consulted on this legislation. Given the myriad of concerns that have been raised surrounding this bill, it is clear that they have not been consulted, that they have not been given an opportunity, or if in fact they have been consulted their concerns have not been embodied in this legislation whatsoever.

The member for Leeds-Grenville made some comments that I think bear repeating. I am pleased that the Minister of Financial Institutions is here at this time, as I think it only courtesy to direct comments to an individual when he or she is present in the House. The Minister of Financial Institutions made a comment that I think tells much and says much about the philosophy that underlies, the thread that runs throughout this legislation.

I do not think he really believes this in the absolute sense, because I know him to be a reasonable man and have had the privilege and opportunity of working with him over a number of years. But I think it embodies the concept that is seen very much by the government of the day that somehow the corporations and/or the business community are the bad ones in any scenario. It presumes that when companies go sour, as they will, when oft-times men and women who run businesses in good faith lose their life savings and oft-times their homes, there is some sense of malfeasance on their part, and that those individuals who are running the corporations have somehow sought unjustly to squeeze money away from the people who are properly employed by them.

The Minister of Financial Institutions indicated that great injustice is brought on people who lose their wages by these terrible corporate executives, directors and officers who are out to squeeze these people. I want to say very plainly that there are, and always will be, incidents where directors and people in power and authority may act inappropriately. I do not think that is the general case. I believe with all my heart that is the exception. I believe in the higher principles of individuals.

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: But sometimes, I say to my friend the member for Chatham-Kent who laughed as he said I do not have to worry about this, there are thousands of people who put their life savings or their family's life savings on the line. They put their best efforts into running businesses and through no fault of their own, for a variety of reasons, sometimes bad luck, bad management, a combination of many things or as a result of being in a chain of organizations, lose their businesses.

Interjections.

Mr McClelland: He says, "Well, those companies don't have to worry." I think there is something else we have to bear in mind. The member for Dovercourt would certainly understand this, given his background, and our friend the member for Chatham-Kent espouses understanding knowledge of the way the business sector works. We have to bear in mind that as companies set themselves up, they operate on certain structures and certain premises. The premise is that they are going to put investment on the line and then try to turn a profit, and ultimately that profit is distributed throughout the economy. It generates jobs. It creates jobs.

I ask members to consider this question very carefully: In attempting to set out legislation they feel may help people, will they ultimately do them much more harm? Would they rather have people out of work altogether, or perhaps have the potential for job creation, where people will be actively participating in the community and doing what gives them a value of wellbeing and a sense of worth by giving of themselves and their abilities, receiving remuneration for that, and in contributing to the overall economy?

I suggest that if members consider some of the implications of this legislation, ultimately they will be doing a lot more harm to the working men and women of this province than they are helping. As I said at the outset, I have no difficulty with the principle of trying to ensure that wages are paid, but I believe this legislation, in attempting to do that, will not only cost jobs now, but will cost future jobs.

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: The member for Chatham-Kent shakes his head. He sits there and espouses by interjection that he understands the way the business world runs. I think his attitude right now belies that fact. It is clear that he does not really understand what is happening there.

I want to touch base on some of the specifics of the language of the legislation. It has already been referred to, so I will not debate it at length. As I proceed to some of my comments, I want to look at this from two perspectives. First of all, I want to look to the business community. I think that is primarily the target, if you will, of this legislation. I believe it was embodied -- and the parliamentary assistant is nodding in agreement -- that the thrust of the legislation was to provide primarily for the business community. I am going to touch on that and in the second part of my comments, I want to talk on the volunteer, non-profit charitable sector in our province as well.

Some of the things I will touch on with respect to the specific language of the legislation, with respect to business and the corporate community, the corporate sector, will apply as well to the non-profit and volunteer agencies, the charitable organizations.

Clause 40r(b) has been made reference to by the member for Leeds-Grenville, I believe. It reads, "any person who performs functions with an employer that is not a corporation similar to those performed by a person described in clause (a)." It is an expansive definition of the word "officer." In so doing it expands the scope of who would be liable in a situation where a company was insolvent or went bankrupt without sufficient resources to pay wages due and the severance and so forth that this legislation sets out to cover.

There are a lot of businesses in trouble. A lot of businesses are cyclical in nature, both in terms of years, a year operating, and also in terms of the general economy. When a company is in trouble, from time to time it asks for outside resources to help. A lot of companies get that. They are able to turn the corner and end up being profitable and men and women maintain their jobs. Communities maintain their vitality.

If members think carefully about what is being said here, it is that if a company seeks outside consultation, outside help, whether it be professional counsel in the legal field, as the parliamentary assistant with Labour or the member for Dovercourt may have been prepared to provide to a corporation in a previous life, perhaps an accountant, or perhaps some labour expertise to come in and resolve some difficulties and work through some difficulties with management and labour, those individuals, according to this definition, are potentially liable for their wages. The member for Chatham-Kent shakes his head and wants to overrule the legal opinion of very many people much more learned than I and, I suggest with respect, much more learned that he. There is a tremendous body of opinion in the legal community that says the definition as set out in this legislation would be expansive to a point that it would include those people who come in on consultation to try to help companies out of difficulty when in fact they are in trouble.

1750

The minister should stop and think about that for a moment. He should think about that if he has a business in his neighbourhood or in his community, in his riding, that just might make it with a little bit of help. Would he, having the expertise, be prepared to go and help them, knowing that he may be liable if that company does not make it? Would he, if he was one of the best men in the field, be prepared to provide his expertise and assistance, at cost but none the less perhaps at considerable cost, to the company to try and help it out, knowing that if it did not work, he could potentially be held responsible? I think the question basically answers itself. I think there would be tremendous reluctance on the part of many people to proceed under those circumstances to provide that expertise.

I suggest to the minister as well that what he is going to do in so doing is move the threshold of a company going insolvent much closer, to make that fine point, that balance point, much more difficult. If I were operating a company and I thought, if I were a director -- let me make it even more remote. If I, in my former law practice, happened to be the secretary of a small operation -- which happens from time to time, as many members will know. A person in a profession or an accountant or whoever he or she may be, it may be a member of the family who is not directly involved, but for the sake of convenience for the company provides that service, allows himself to stand in terms of the incorporation of that operation as a secretary or director or officer, as required by the Business Corporations Act to establish that company as an entity unto itself in this province. In so doing, he then exposes himself to liability.

How many people do members think are going to be prepared to continue to do that? What is the government doing? What are the implications for small business in terms of having outsiders provide that very valuable and necessary service so that corporations and businesses can be viable and in fact get off the ground? I ask the government to consider that.

I ask the government to consider the wisdom of what it is doing with the expansive language of clause 40r(b). Does that make sense? Does it make sense to allow people who perform that function or assist in it or those who are directly involved, and directors, even if they have no direct, hands-on management of a company, to be ultimately responsible?

The government should consider that, consider the wisdom of what it is doing in terms of job creation, in terms of investment. I would hope we would have much more domestic investment, but the reality is we also depend on foreign investment, which is already looking with some grave concerns at the viability of investing in the current climate in this province. I say that with respect to the political climate as well as the economic climate.

I think that was embodied very much in the statement we heard from the Minister of Financial Institutions, that sense of an us-and-them scenario, that business and the people who bring money in here are the bad people. I think we have to be very careful about that. I say with respect, and I think maybe I should flesh it out a bit more --

Hon Mr Cooke: That is not what he said.

Mr McClelland: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing says that is not what he said and he is quite right -- he did not say that, he said much more than that. He said that those corporations that come in here --

Hon Mr Cooke: Be fair.

Mr McClelland: I am trying to be fair, and that is why I want to be a bit more expansive, because he raised the point, I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside, the minister, that that is not exactly what the Minister of Financial Institutions said. I will in fact, with the minister's indulgence, come back next Thursday or whenever this order is called again, and read into the record for his consideration what the minister actually said I think the member will be surprised to find the sense of implied acrimony that was contained in that two-minute dissertation by the Minister of Financial Institutions.

I asked rhetorically what the minister would do if he were put in a position of being asked to serve as a director or working at providing professional help or counsel to a firm that may be in trouble. But the minister should think about if he were a director of a company that, let's just say for the sake of argument, employed half a dozen or 10 people, and he knew he was facing difficult times. He had been through difficult times before. He had seen good times and bad, and he had survived. He is a fighter and a survivor.

He has his home, as is often the case, as part of personal security on the line for the operation of his business. Perhaps some of his family members are directors of the corporation, because they have believed in him and they have invested. His family has put money in. He knows exactly what we are talking about, because he knows that in his community this happens.

Having done that and facing the prospects --

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: The member will bear with me, because I think he will understand where I am going on this. I say to the member for Yorkview that he is getting all excited about where he thinks I am going, and I think he will find that I am going in a different direction on this.

Given a situation where a company is facing difficult times, knowing that in the past you have been able to recover and that you have a bit of a financial cushion right now -- some financial cushion -- you think you are going to make it. But there are no guarantees in this life. There are certainly no guarantees politically, and I certainly learned that last September. But there are no guarantees in business either. What happens to that person? Members should think about it, put themselves in that situation. You have a bit of a financial cushion.

Mr Mammoliti: What would you do? Abandon your employees?

Mr McClelland: I would not abandon the employees, I say to the member for Yorkview. What I would do is I would make my decision now, say: "I have that cushion. I hope it goes well, but I cannot guarantee it. I am going to cut it now. I am sorry, we are shutting down. We are out of business. We might have hung on for six weeks, and we may have turned the corner, but I cannot run that risk. I cannot put my home, I cannot put my life savings, I cannot put the future security of my children and my spouse on the line with what looks like a good prospect, but there are no guarantees. So I am going to cut it right here and now and pay everybody and close the door. There is no incentive for me to stay in business and try to make it work."

That is reality, and the member had better stop shaking his head and wake up and talk to the people who run the ma-and-pa stores in his constituency.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr McClelland: Members opposite should talk to the people, walk down the street tomorrow when they have a break and talk to some of those and understand what they are doing to the private sector.

At the present time the acting government House leader will certainly want to indicate business for next week, and our time is approaching 6 o'clock. I have much more that I would like to comment on with respect to this legislation.

On motion by Mr McClelland, the debate was adjourned.

À la suite d'une motion présentée par M. McClelland, le débat est ajourné.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Minister of Labour for second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program, be deferred.

The Deputy Speaker: The debate has not ended yet.

Hon Mrs Coppen: I am sorry. I stand corrected.

The Deputy Speaker: We are looking for business statements for Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mrs Coppen: I will begin again. I am sorry. Mr Speaker, if I might, I would like to give the details of the business for next week. I apologize for the other.

On Monday 3 June, debate on second reading of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

On Tuesday 4 June, committee of the whole consideration of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

On Wednesday 5 June, debate on concurrence in estimates of 1990-91 for the Ministry of the Environment; first, second and third reading of the 1990-91 supply bill; debate on the second reading of Bill 81, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

On Thursday 6 June, orders of the day: resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: There is something over on your sheet also, I understand.

Hon Mrs Coppen: On Thursday 6 June, private members' public business: ballot item 23, second reading of Bill 102, An Act to protect the Economies of the Border Communities of the Cornwall Area; and ballot item 24, second reading of Bill 103, An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime.

The House adjourned at 1800.