The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Bradley: What a difference a year makes. To hear the member for London Centre, now former Minister of Education and in years gone by a staunch advocate of 60% provincial funding for education and a harsh critic of previous governments on the issue of educational finance, now lecture local people with the statement, "Boards must understand that the province does not have an unlimited supply of money," is indeed revealing and must send shivers through the provincial executives of the affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation that so enthusiastically supported the New Democratic Party.

What a lesson the member for London Centre has taught to coterminous boards of education, which after many months of difficult negotiations reached an agreement on the transfer of schools only to have the minister delay and dither and then overturn an amicably reached accord. As Lincoln trustee Dalt Clark stated, "Frankly, the public school taxpayers in Lincoln county have been shafted by the Ministry of Education."

The lesson is clear. Those who reach an agreement without public rancour, insults, violence or recriminations are rewarded with the short end of the stick. Those who demonstrate, shout, threaten and throw their local problems in the lap of the province get their way. The people of Lincoln county will not soon forget the cruel lesson from this government that good-faith negotiators will be kicked in the teeth.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Tilson: I rise to protest the cavalier way in which the Premier breaks his promises. I am referring to the case of Mrs Wilma McNeil of Sarnia. She has spent two years fighting to have the LCBO outlets closed on November 11, Remembrance Day. On October 4, the Premier sent Mrs MacNeil a letter that said in part: "Our government has the utmost respect for those brave men and women who represented our country in times of war. You'll be pleased to know that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlets will be closed Monday, November 11."

Those are fine words in that letter signed by the Premier. Unfortunately Mrs McNeil has learned that with this government talk is cheap. She has since received a telephone call from the Premier's office explaining that he really did not mean what he said, that liquor stores will be open on Remembrance Day and that the letter from the Premier was not really a letter from the Premier. It was signed by an autopen.

The Premier must realize that when his word cannot be trusted, it adds to the distrust people feel towards all politicians. I urge the Premier to honour the letter sent to Mrs McNeil that bears his name and make good on his promise.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY SESQUICENTENNIAL

Mr G. Wilson: On October 16, 1841 -- 150 years ago -- Queen's University was established by royal charter issued by Queen Victoria. Classes began five months later when Queen's College at Kingston, as it was called, opened in a small, rented, wood-frame house at the edge of the city. There were two professors and 13 students.

Throughout 1991-92, that tiny college celebrates its sesquicentennial. Known as Queen's University since 1912, the school is one of the oldest and most distinguished universities in Canada, with a long-established tradition of service. There are now two large campuses with more than 17,000 students in five faculties, 10 schools and one affiliated college, taught by a faculty of more than 1,100 and supported by a staff of nearly 3,000.

Growth was not always easy. In the 1880s there was much talk within university and provincial circles that Queen's should move from Kingston and merge with the University of Toronto. Queen's overcame adversity to become a major influence on eastern Ontario and beyond.

Locally it has contributed millions of dollars to the economy as well as to providing public access to its many activities, enriching the intellectual, spiritual and recreational life of the community. With more than 70,000 graduates living in all provinces and territories of Canada and over 100 countries around the world, Queen's has truly earned its reputation as a university of the first rank.

In celebrating its sesquicentennial, the university is hosting an array of conferences, lectures and symposia on a range of contemporary issues. By focusing on questions of public concern, Queen's is not only paying tribute to its past but continuing its mission of public service.

I know all members of the Legislature will join with me in congratulating Queen's on its magnificent achievement and in wishing it well over its next 150 years.

THUNDER BAY SHOPPING PLAN

Mrs McLeod: I rise in the House today to congratulate the citizens of Thunder Bay for their ingenious and proactive response to the issue of cross-border shopping. This Christmas, Thunder Bay's credit unions will be offering shoppers interest-free loans of up to $5,000. The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with Thunder Bay credit unions, have devised this plan to persuade residents to do their shopping in Thunder Bay rather than crossing the border to purchase goods in the United States.

The plan has garnered the support of more than 50 local businesses in Thunder Bay. This Christmas, residents will be able to shop in the city stores using "Shopping Spree" cheques that have been issued by Thunder Bay's credit unions. In this innovative move, residents will be given six months to pay back their loans interest-free.

I would like to commend the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, the credit unions, the local retailers and the citizens of Thunder Bay for their initiative. It represents a community solution to a problem that is national. While the problem of cross-border shopping cannot be eradicated by municipalities alone, I am proud of the initiative the people of Thunder Bay have exhibited at the municipal level.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Jackson: I bring to the attention of all members of the House yet another case in which Ontario seniors are being treated unfairly by the New Democratic Party government. I would like to quote directly from a letter in my possession from Medicare International Insurance.

It says, "The new OHIP rules have caused rates for out-of-country medical insurance to skyrocket and this class of insurance is now a very lucrative source of income for travel, general and life insurance broker agents." It goes on to say: "The best is yet to come. You will receive a 30% commission cheque every time your client activates their card after the initial trip, even though your brokerage agency may not continue to be associated with this client."

This letter raises a number of significant questions. Why did it take the NDP government six months to approve rate reductions requested by auto insurance companies, but only two months to fast-track increases for out-of-country medical coverage for Ontario residents? According to the letter, they made it very lucrative. Can the NDP Minister of Financial Institutions explain what exactly he has done to bring this situation about and why? Can he also explain the hardships this NDP action has inflicted on senior citizens, many of whom travel to warmer climates for health reasons? This flies in the face of what the NDP Minister of Health said about the subsidizing of seniors by her government.

It is unacceptable that the NDP, which made affordable auto insurance an election issue, is now completely ignoring the legitimate pleas of Ontario seniors for fair and sensitive treatment with respect to out-of-country health insurance.

1340

DONNA LAILEY

Ms Haeck: I rise today to tell the House of a unique person from my riding of St Catharines-Brock who has made a valuable contribution to the Ontario wine industry, 1991 Grape Queen Donna Lailey.

Donna Lailey has been a full-time grape grower in Niagara-on-the-Lake for almost 20 years. This year her 20-acre vineyard along the Niagara Parkway was judged to be the most outstanding in Ontario. Besides having this honour bestowed on her, Queen Donna also is the first woman to receive this prestigious crown in the 35-year history of the competition.

With the help of her husband David, who is a schoolteacher, Donna grows mainly Vitis vinifera grapes and sells to Cartier Wines of Niagara Falls. Table wine varieties at the Lailey Vineyards include Chardonnay, Riesling, Pinot Noir and Cabernet. Besides her commercial activities, she also developed an innovative marketing program to supply an estimated 600 amateur winemakers around Ontario. In fact, last year's winning Chardonnay at the Amateur Winemakers of Ontario competition was made from Lailey grapes.

The crowning of the Grape Queen is just one of the many events at the annual Niagara Grape and Wine Festival, which has recently been held for the 40th time. Over the next year Mrs Lailey will be busy representing and promoting the Ontario wine producers. Already this year she has participated in the Great Ontario Grape Stomp for Easter Seals held at Nathan Phillips Square and today she will be a special guest at the Speaker's wine-tasting reception here at Queen's Park. The member for Lincoln and I encourage all members to attend a very interesting function this evening.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Beer: On November 23, 1989, Bill 20, legislation which provided boards of education with the opportunity to put in place lot levies to raise money for the construction of new school buildings, received royal assent. Today, almost two years later, the implementation of that legislation has not yet taken place.

Those boards of education which are experiencing significant growth have been waiting for 22 months for the government to act. Boards in Durham, Peel, Halton, Simcoe, Dufferin and my own region of York have had their rate of grants for capital purposes reduced drastically during this period -- in York region from 55% to 27% -- but remain frustrated by their inability even to hold public meetings on the issue, let alone pass the necessary bylaws. While the months have passed, this NDP government has avoided taking action. The growth boards of education in this province remain angry and frustrated.

I hold in my hand a letter to the former Minister of Education from Mr Harry Bowes, chair of the York Region Board of Education and the chair of the Growth Boards Coalition, which speaks of their frustration. Mr Bowes is normally a calm and reasoned man who avoids extremes. When in the letter he uses words such as, "In 17 years of trusteeship, I have never been involved in such a frustrating and depressing experience," one knows the problem is a serious one.

To the new Minister of Education I say, put a stop to this disgraceful situation. He has several problems to address in his new portfolio, but none more serious than this. More delay and more procrastination is not the answer. He should act responsibly and deal with the issue now.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: As members are aware, I have been a very active participant in the fight to secure the eligibility of all residents of Nipissing and Parry Sound districts to participate in the northern health travel grant program.

As of July 1, 1991, the Minister of Health finally recognized the northern status of the riding and changed the regulations to allow residents of Parry Sound riding to qualify for this program. However, further regulation now dictates that the general practitioner who refers the resident for specialized medical treatment must be a northern Ontario physician in order for the patient to qualify for the program. As a result, some residents in the district of Parry Sound are denied access to the program.

For example, a constituent living in Sprucedale or the southern part of the riding who naturally goes to a doctor in Huntsville, which is closer, is now not given access to the northern health travel grant program. I view this as being inconsistent, to say the least, with the commitment the minister gave to the House.

There also appears to be a great deal of confusion within the Ministry of Health about this very stipulation. Information released by the media liaison officer of communication and information -- in itself a mouthful -- in the ministry indicated to a newspaper in Parry Sound riding that the program was based solely on the home address of the applicant. This is not true. Upon contacting the northern health travel grant program people in the ministry, they indicate that in fact if it is not a northern physician referring the patient, the patient is not covered.

I would like to clear up this misinformation and confusion. Perhaps the minister could address this issue once and for all.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Ms Carter: I am making this announcement on behalf of the parents and family of Nina de Villiers. Her uncle, Johan de Villiers is my constituent.

This tragically bereaved family is circulating a petition to the House of Commons in Ottawa, which reads in part:

"We, the undersigned residents of Canada, in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"That the murder of Nina de Villiers on the 9th of August, 1991, has exposed serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. There are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system. Women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.

"That statutes governing the criminal justice system in Canada must be revised to reflect societal attitudes.

"Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly."

Copies of this petition can be obtained free of charge from all members of the House of Commons in Ottawa, so please contact your local MP. Mr Johan de Villiers will assist members of the public in obtaining additional copies for circulation. His telephone number is 705-745-5600.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

The Speaker: On Wednesday, October 9, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Elston) raised a point of order with respect to statements by ministers of the crown made outside the legislative chamber. The members for St George-St David (Mr Scott), Parry Sound (Mr Eves), Parkdale (Mr Ruprecht), Oriole (Mrs Caplan), York Centre (Mr Sorbara) Willowdale (Mr Harnick) and Etobicoke West (Mr Stockwell) joined the Leader of the Opposition in expressing concern over ministerial announcements made outside the legislative chamber.

Statements by ministers of the crown have been given a recognized place in the routine proceedings. Standing order 31(a) specifically provides that "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed."

The standing orders do not require or compel ministers of the crown to first make statements of public policy or new directions to be taken by the government to the House. Standing order 31(a) is permissive; a minister of the crown "may" make such a statement in the House.

Statements of government policy or ministry action made outside the legislative chamber by ministers of the crown do not constitute legitimate points of order. This has been confirmed on many occasions by me and my predecessors as Speaker in Ontario and by Speakers in other legislatures in Canada and the Commonwealth. The definitive statement on this matter was made by Speaker Lamoureux of the House of Commons of Canada on October 30, 1969. In his ruling Speaker Lamoureux stated:

"The question has often been raised whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver communications to the public through the House of Commons or to make these announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the chamber. The question has been asked whether honourable members are entitled, as part of the parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public. I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion. There may be, in such circumstances, a question of propriety or a question of courtesy. There may be a grievance. But in my view there cannot be a question of privilege."

Although I have no power to force ministers of the crown to come before the House and make a statement on government policy or ministry action, I am of the opinion that the members who spoke on this matter have a valid grievance of which the government should take serious note.

I concur with the statement of Speaker Weatherill of the House of Commons at Westminster on July 16, 1991. The Speaker stated:

"Time was when ministers always made statements to the House before they made them outside. I hope that we can get back to that practice. This chamber is the forum of the nation. This is where statements should always first be made, not to those outside."

1350

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

The Speaker: On Wednesday last, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Elston) rose on a question of privilege soon after the oral question period began. He informed the House that a member of the Premier's staff seated in the government section of the under press gallery behind the Speaker's dais had just directed a remark to the member for Brampton North (Mr McClelland) as he was placing a question to the former Minister of Community and Social Services (Ms Akande).

Members will know that such matters are covered by our standing orders. Standing order 13(a) empowers the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in the chamber. Standing order 17 reads as follows:

"Any stranger admitted to any part of the House or gallery who misconducts himself or herself, or does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House or a committee of the whole House is meeting, may be expelled from the precincts of the House by the Sergeant at Arms, or anyone acting under the direction of the Sergeant at Arms."

And standing order 18 reads as follows:

"All strangers may be excluded from the House or any committee thereof on a motion properly moved and adopted by the House or the committee, as the case may be."

It is clear then that members' staff, the press and members of the public are permitted to be in the galleries when the House is meeting, but only as long as they do not misbehave or disrupt the business of the House.

The 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states the following at page 115:

"Any disorderly, contumacious or disrespectful conduct in the presence of either House or committee will constitute a contempt, which may be committed by strangers, parties or witnesses. Strangers have been punished for contempt for disorderly conduct for having interrupted or disturbed the proceedings of either House or a committee...."

The 2nd edition of Australia's House of Representatives Practice states the following at page 161:

"To perform its functions the House must be protected from physical disruption, disturbance and obstruction and there is no doubt that the House has the power to protect itself from such actions."

I have to say, at the time in question, I did not hear anything untoward from the under galleries, but I undertook to investigate the matter. I have had an opportunity to review Wednesday's Hansard, but it contained no record of a remark by a stranger. I am satisfied that the Sergeant at Arms dealt with the matter in the appropriate way. Members can rest assured that I will continue to be vigilant to ensure that order and decorum are maintained in the House. Misbehaviour by occupants of the galleries will not be tolerated.

In closing, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising what I took to be a very serious matter. This incident also affords me an opportunity to encourage members to do their part in the maintenance of order and decorum in the chamber. Members will recall that there were many interjections in the chamber at the outset of last Wednesday's oral question period, as has been the case in other recent question periods before and since. In such circumstances, it can be difficult to hear what is being said by members who properly have the floor, let alone ascertain whether inappropriate remarks are being made from the galleries. It would therefore be most helpful if members would speak one at a time and after having been recognized by the Chair. This would help the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in this chamber.

LAND REGISTRATION

The Speaker: On Thursday, October 10, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mr Tilson) raised a question of privilege with respect to remarks made in a court of law by a lawyer representing the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The member for Dufferin-Peel was of the opinion that the remarks constituted a question of privilege or contempt in that they were insulting and obstructed members in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to the House and its committees, by prejudicing the results of a committee of the Legislature and by calling into question the validity of the powers and integrity of the members of the House.

The member for Essex South and Chair of the standing committee on general government (Mr Mancini) also spoke to this question of privilege. He indicated this was a matter which was before the standing committee and that the clerk of the committee had been asked to obtain the court transcripts so the committee could see for itself what was said and whether the remarks attributed to the ministry lawyer were true. This is clearly a matter which is before the standing committee on general government and ought to be settled in the committee, not in the House.

After considering the court transcripts, the committee may make a report to the House on matters which affect its proceedings. There being no report from the committee, the matter may not be raised as a question of privilege in the House.

Hon Mr Rae: I think there is unanimous consent that I make a very brief statement without the benefit of paper.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

CABINET MEMBERS

Hon Mr Rae: I simply want to advise the House officially that subsequent to the resignation of the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, the new Minister of Community and Social Services is the member for London Centre, that the new Minister of Education is the member for Dovercourt and that responsibility in an administrative sense for long-term care has been given to the Minister of Health.

Mr Elston: This arrangement came about in the House so I was not exactly sure how the response was to be handled, but I might just first of all take this time to congratulate the new ministers on their new positions.

I must say I have somewhat of a difficulty in learning that the Chairman of Management Board, a place I served at for some length of time, is going to have an easy time implementing the program that his mentor, the storyteller from Nickel Belt, has foisted on all the ministries. The minister at Management Board, although I know he is not involved in all of the day-to-day fiscal planning around the cutbacks, or whatever those are being described as inside government these days, will have to deal with the issue of personnel and other matters.

He will find himself engaged fully, I suspect, in trying to discover what in the Ministry of Education is going to allow him to meet his constraints, plus being able to do what I am sure he was advocating at one time as chairman of a school board in a large municipality whose name is well known to us all. A big issue for that minister is 60% funding, and I suspect that in his new incarnation he will want to discover how at Management Board he can assist that ministry to deliver the goods this time, since his colleague the last minister was unable to convince the Treasurer of the day that this in fact should be carried out.

I do wish him well. I wish the Minister of Community and Social Services well, except there is one particular difficulty I note full well for her, which is that there has been a new dissection of responsibilities inside the Ministry of Community and Social Services as it shares the duties and obligations of providing long-term care for the people of Ontario.

That has been removed now from Community and Social Services to the Minister of Health. It is an interesting movement back and forth of these obligations. It is not so many months ago that I recall receiving letters from medical officers of health complaining about the fact that they had been taken off the delivery of a lot of community services and their budgets moved over to Community and Social Services administrators.

These new ministers will find challenges that are daunting. I wish them well. I do want to set out for a short period of time some concerns that will confront these people. I noticed that the Minister of Community and Social Services has again obligated her government to end the existence of food banks. We will have some questions to ask about that particular specific plan. I am sure we will find a very good answer in a very few minutes from now.

1400

Mr Eves: On behalf of our party, I rise to wish the new ministers well in their new duties. I have some idea of what the Minister of Community and Social Services goes through every day and I wish the member for London Centre nothing but the best in her future endeavours.

If there is anybody who can deliver on the 60% operational funding commitment, the member for Dovercourt, being Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, can. I am sure he will be able to persuade Pink Floyd and others down here that this indeed should be done, and I assume it will be done during this fiscal year.

I note the government has chosen this opportunity to again shuffle, as the leader of the official opposition has indicated, the on-again, off-again Health-Community and Social Services ongoing saga as to who has the responsibility for long-term care. This is yet another opportunity, I guess, to shuffle it to a new ministry again. Hopefully this time something will be done with it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MIDWIFERY

Hon Mr Cooke: I am tabling in the House today documents which were distributed this morning at an announcement by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Colleges and Universities with respect to the establishment of a program of education for midwives in Ontario. With the establishment of this program, Ontario will become the first province to offer a bachelor's degree program in midwifery.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform members that the Ontario government and the Algonquins of Golden Lake have signed an interim agreement on hunting. This agreement flows from the commitments the government has made in the course of the land claim negotiations with the Algonquins of Golden Lake which began on June 15.

In announcing this new agreement, I want to indicate that we have met our commitments to consult with the public before signing this arrangement. The agreement demonstrates that the consultation has been meaningful and that the Algonquins of Golden Lake are being reasonable.

The province discussed the ideas of this interim agreement with interested parties during the course of negotiations. Then we went back to these parties with a draft of this agreement to discuss it further and to receive their comments and input before the government signed the document.

Indeed, there have been several additional items placed in the agreement as a direct result of the consultation. For example, every effort will be made to ensure that hunting does not occur in nature reserves, wilderness zones or historic zones. The agreement also specifically recognizes the need to protect rare, threatened and endangered species as well as wolves and loons.

Other matters raised by interested parties will be dealt with on an administrative basis during the course of the agreement. The interim agreement identifies those areas, within the territory the Algonquins claim as their traditional territory, where they will hunt moose and deer for food. The claim territory includes a large portion of Algonquin Park. The agreement ensures that hunting will be within biologically sustainable limits.

As we have indicated from the outset of the discussions with the Algonquins, the interim agreement clearly recognizes the commitment of both Ontario and the Algonquins to conservation of wildlife, the preservation of the values of Algonquin Park and the protection of public safety.

The agreement has been designed to ensure that there will be no infringement of the public's ability to enjoy hiking, camping and canoeing in Algonquin Park.

The agreement also ensures that public safety and private property rights are protected outside the park.

The interim agreement expires at the end of August 1992, but I believe it will provide a framework for other agreements while the land claim negotiations continue.

I would like for a moment to highlight some of the key terms of the interim agreement.

1. Within Algonquin Park, the Algonquins will hunt moose and deer from today, October 15, 1991, to January 15, 1992.

2. Hunting inside the park is restricted to an area north and east of the Shirley Lake Road in order to ensure that as much as possible, hunting is not in an area frequented by park visitors.

3. Within the park, the Algonquins will not use all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles for hunting, and there are important restrictions on the use of cars, trucks and motor boats.

4. Outside the park, but within the land claim area, the Algonquins will hunt moose and deer from September 1, 1991, to January 15, 1992.

The hunt limits set out in the agreement are well within the level that is biologically sustainable for the area populations of moose and deer. The harvest levels represent a relatively small percentage of the total number of moose and deer hunted annually in this area.

There are other measures in the agreement to ensure enforcement and to ensure that the terms of the agreement are observed. Funds will be provided to enable the Algonquins to hire a person to be responsible for ensuring that the agreement is observed. Ontario's conservation officers will also be responsible for the enforcement of the agreement. Conservation measures will be enforced by a tribunal established by the Algonquins. Issues of public safety and private property may be enforced by the Ontario government. Both sides are committed to guaranteeing the protection of public safety and that laws are observed with regard to private property.

A joint co-ordinating committee will be established with the Ministry of Natural Resources to gather information necessary for the proper management of hunting, including game inventories, and harvesting and biological reports. In addition, discussions are continuing on developing an interim arrangement on fisheries management.

I am pleased to be able to announce that we are making significant progress in resolving outstanding issues with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. They first asked to have their rights recognized in the late 18th century. In 1983, they lodged a claim with the federal and Ontario governments that covers approximately 14,000 square miles of land within the watershed of the Ottawa River. The negotiations on the land claim will be complex and it is essential that the federal government be fully involved. So far, Canada has named an observer to the negotiations.

I believe that with patience and understanding, we will find a way to settle the historic grievances and to create a harmonious climate for everyone.

RESPONSES

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: All members of this House understand and I think have an appreciation of the sensitivity of this issue, and understand the tremendous challenge this minister has had in bringing forward this agreement.

But I must say that for the minister to stand in his place today and pat himself and his government on the back for the consultation process that has been involved in this, when it was merely a week ago less a day that the minister brought forward an interim agreement proposal that really allowed four working days for the people of this province to consider this agreement, that is really not a consultation process at all.

Let alone the fact that the Minister of the Environment on Thursday of last week received a request by the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park for an environmental assessment, on which we have had no response to date. I take it the minister has rejected that, as the agreement is now signed. We would still like to hear a statement from the Minister of the Environment.

The agreement is couched with qualifications and phrases of conditionality: "may try" to do this; "with every attempt" to do this. It is a grave concern that public safety and public security are not going to be protected. The agreement speaks of restricted zones. We have wilderness zones and nature reserves in Algonquin Park. There is "an attempt" to do this but I think it should be mandatory that this hunting does not happen in the wilderness areas. I ask the minister, what of the newly proposed wilderness areas of Algonquin Park? These have not been brought into being yet.

The agreement, again, only recognizes the need to protect threatened species and endangered species and rare species.

Hon Mr Wildman: They won't be hunting those.

Mr Ramsay: The minister says they will not be hunting those. We need that certainty. We want to make sure they will not. I would also ask the minister to make sure that non-game species are not included.

On the quota of 100 moose, biologists have said that in Algonquin Park itself most areas could not sustain a moose hunt. I ask the minister to consider a quota whereby the 100 moose that are to be harvested may be from within the park and outside the park so that we could have some certainty that the moose population within the park will not be endangered.

1410

MIDWIFERY

Mr Phillips: In response to the statement by the government House leader, on the good news side of it, clearly we are supportive of these two statements. They follow very much the proposals the previous government had made. We welcome the bachelor program for midwives, particularly the Michener Institute. We think that is the right place for the program to be. Certainly we support the breadth of choice midwives will present to the women of Ontario.

There are two things we want to register with the government. The first is that I hope you can appreciate the anger we feel on this side of the House when ministers have the time to make a public statement elsewhere but cannot find the time to be in the House to make the statement themselves. The government House leader simply tables the two statements and we do not have an opportunity to hear either of the ministers make those statements in the House, nor do we have an opportunity to question either of the ministers in the House today. I hope the government House leader and the Premier in particular would recognize that this is another example of the thing that concerns us.

The other thing -- this would be directed to the Premier -- is that this program was a program that my House leader, the member for Bruce, announced in 1986 and was followed up by our last Minister of Health, the member for Oriole. As the government looks for co-operation from this side, I have scoured this material now and there is not one mention made of any of the work of my colleague the member for Oriole.

I suggest to the government there are many people thanked in this document. The grace and the good common decency to acknowledge the work of the previous minister would go a long way towards establishing a kinder, gentler place here in the Legislature.

Mr Daigeler: I find it unbelievable that last week in this House we had a very strong presentation by our leader that it was unacceptable that ministers make statements to the press before they make statements to the House in here, and today, on the first opportunity the government has to correct the situation, what does it do? The government House leader, on behalf of other ministers, makes a statement. I certainly hope that will not be the new practice, and if that is his idea of democracy and of participating in this House, he certainly is on the wrong road.

Mr J. Wilson: I too am pleased to respond to the announcement tabled by the government House leader today concerning the province's intention to offer a bachelor's degree program in midwifery. We congratulate the government on that. We have no qualms about that. But like the previous Liberal speakers, I emphasize that our party takes very strong issue with the fact that once again this government has made a very important announcement outside this Legislature.

It seems in light of your ruling, Mr Speaker, and in light of the raucous debate we had last week in this House, that the government must take seriously its responsibility to report to this Legislature and to have respect for the parliamentary process.

I would add to the previous points by saying that as the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Health critic, I sit on the committee that is studying the Midwifery Act right now. I am extremely angered that the ministers are not here today and that the government House leader would simply table an announcement that was made at 10:30 this morning and not give us an appropriate opportunity to respond, as should be the case with respect for our parliamentary traditions. We want assurances from the government that this will not happen again.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McLean: I want to comment on the minister's announcement with regard to the draft agreement. The minister seems quite proud of his consultation record. However, the public has a different opinion of his consultation record and he has had very little public support, from what I have observed.

We have serious concerns about the draft hunting agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake which was made public last week. We are concerned that the government appears to be turning its back on its own commitment to public consultation. This document was released on October 8 and the public was asked to comment within 48 hours. Not only was the comment time extremely short, it is also unlikely to have any effect on the process since the document was to have been signed today. It is already signed.

In spite of his comment that he did not anticipate major concerns because we have dealt with major concerns, conservation groups have found serious deficiencies in the document. In the short time frame the minister has allowed, how is it possible to deal with these questions?

"1. It is misleading to suggest that 100 moose will be taken throughout the whole land claim area. Since the east side of Algonquin has the highest concentration of moose in the area, and it is free of other hunting pressures on moose, it is realistic to assume that the moose will be taken in the park.

"2. Conservation is supposed to be the top priority of the agreement, but conservation is defined nowhere in the document, nor are we given any indication of how the numbers were determined" to ensure that conservation was being looked after.

"3. The provision in number 2 appears to promote open season on all species....

"4. Sections 6 and 17 imply that changes to laws and agreements regarding hunting may be made without public consultation.

"5. The use of 'may' in number 5 with respect to the co-ordinating committee does not inspire confidence in the committee's powers to review data and supervise proper implementation or enforcement.

"6. Although 'Algonquin law' is referred to as a basis for part of the agreement, it is never defined. How then is it possible to judge whether the provisions outlined in number 12 are adequate to ensure 'that conservation takes priority'?

"7. The hunting agreement conflicts with the minister's acceptance of the parks council's recommendations on increasing the nature reserves (largely on the east side of the park) and studying the feasibility of a large wilderness zone on the east side of the park. Both these undertakings are in direct conflict with hunting.

"8. There is evidence which indicates that any added pressure on the moose population within the park will place a strain on dependent species such as wolves.

"9. Use of cars and trucks 'off-road' is unofficially permitted by allowing their use for retrieving game.

"The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has publicly stated its support for a just settlement of the Algonquins' land claim outside the park. But they have also stated that the band should have a stake in the park's future by being enlisted to take an active role as stewards within the park.

"The hunting agreement is a violation of the minister's commitment and responsibility to the park. Algonquin's centennial is almost upon us. Let that year mark both a just and publicly negotiated settlement of the band's land claim."

There are no checks and balances in this agreement. The funds will be provided to enable the Algonquins to hire a person to be responsible for ensuring that the agreement is observed. It is a sellout of Algonquin Park.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to indicate to the House that at 11:30 this morning I was visited by two officers from the Ontario Provincial Police, who are investigating the manner in which I received the spin document accompanying the release that the Treasurer had with respect to his cutbacks.

I feel this is an attempt to prevent me from doing fully the work I must do if I am to raise questions about the issues of the day. The two gentlemen who appeared took full pains to suggest it had been the Deputy Treasurer who was sending out the investigative unit from the anti-rackets group. This is the second member who has stood in this House with a document which came from inside the government, who has been visited by the OPP at the behest of a deputy minister, at least ostensibly so.

I suggest there is an attempt to prevent the release of documents, and perhaps that is how these people want to do it; that is, get the police after all of us who stand in the House to raise issues about important public business when we receive documents.

I was interested to have the document I received, a spin document, described as a government document. It is interesting to note that this spin document, a series of questions and answers that were then made widely available to people, was a government document scheduled, I am told not by the two officers but by others, to become the exclusive property of members of the government caucus as they were going out to spin the message that the perfect, tiny storyteller from Nickel Belt was trying to give us.

While I have no question about people wanting to deal with their own internal security, I find it unrealistic that the OPP is asked to investigate with respect to the members of the opposition coming into possession of documents that somebody believes would be of interest to the public.

These are interesting times. We have the release of Ministry of Labour material written in a manner which would be highly inflammatory to any reasonably unbiased mind, we have the information about the signature of the Minister of the Environment on a document which showed a new direction for her policies and now we have the spin document. In each case there are important public issues.

Why these people are using the police to come and talk to us to do the investigation is beyond me, but I feel there is a real attempt to prevent us from doing the public business. Mr Speaker, I think you should look into this and approach the chief government representative, the Premier, and ask him to explain to you, as Speaker and representative of all of us here, why the provincial police is dispatched to our offices at every release of a document to investigate that.

Even more than that, I suggest this is the type of abuse against minorities which is unacceptable in a democratic government. It is particularly important when put against the announcement of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, who released a paper on whistle-blowing. When he talks about wanting to have whistle-blowing covered under the guidelines and then we are faced with OPP investigation after OPP investigation, I believe there is something out of whack.

1420

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I am sure you will want to look into this matter, but I point out to you and to the Leader of the Opposition that I think it is quite unfair for him to characterize this visit by the OPP to his office as some instruction from the minister or the politicians.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The Ontario Provincial Police is obviously entitled to carry out an investigation. We do not instruct them how to carry out that investigation.

The Speaker: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate the serious matter he has brought to my attention. Indeed, I will take the opportunity to look closely at this and will report back later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

Mr Elston: I was doing a little reading not that long ago, which I do now and again. I like to go back to old Hansards, and particularly Hansards that deal with recitals by the then leader of the official opposition, the member for York South.

It was not that long ago that he was in this House asking us about food banks. This being a week when there is an extension on for the food banks in the province so that they can get enough food to cover the need that is now felt out in the community, I thought the Premier would want to tell us exactly what he is doing about food banks. I wonder whether he could tell us what specific plan his government has to relieve the need for food banks, bearing in mind that the new Minister of Community and Social Services has declared, as the government's first minister declared, that there was an end coming to food banks. I ask the Premier to tell us what his specific plan is for the elimination of food banks.

Hon Mr Rae: First, let me stress what we have already done and what we are doing. As of now, I believe it is fair to say we certainly have the highest social assistance rates anywhere in the country. We have done this in the face of a $1.5-billion cutback from the federal government.

The former minister announced a $215-million program to implement the Back on Track recommendations, of which $50 million will be allocated to back-to-work initiatives, which include full recognition of child care costs in calculating net earnings, continued general welfare assistance eligibility for persons working full time but still in financial need, an increase in the percentage of earnings that recipients of general welfare and family benefits can retain, and a total of $111.5 million to initiatives to provide assistance to those in greatest need.

Mr Elston: How are you eliminating food banks?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is shouting across to me, "How are you going to eliminate food banks?" I believe we are doing as much as can be done in the circumstances by providing for the most sustained support for people in the greatest need in our province. There is always more that can be done with respect to providing assistance. We are now spending $2 billion more than we were spending two years ago with respect to welfare assistance and there is always more to be done, but it is going to take the participation of all levels of government, including the federal government led by the Conservative Party of Canada, for us to be able to address this issue in the way we have to be able to address it.

Mrs McLeod: We appreciate and anticipated the recitation, although there are some things we do not know, such as what has actually happened with some of those programs. We understand, for example, that at least some $10 million of the $30-million back-to-work-initiative program is in Management Board and that those funds may not be released. The facts we do know are that there were almost one million people in this province on social assistance in September of this year, that food bank usage has grown by 44% and that the government's own statistics show there is a 42% increase in the number of people who receive social assistance who are using their food money to pay their rent bills.

I remind the Premier that last October after the election he renewed the government's commitment to tackle the food bank problem. I remind him too that in opposition his party had a one-year time frame to end the need for food banks. I ask the Premier to explain why, during a recession, when the need is the greatest, when the Premier himself has said the province would not fight the recession on the backs of the poor and the sick, his government sacrificed the election promise to end the need for food banks.

Hon Mr Rae: I have just done a head count and have asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Chairman of Management Board and the Deputy Premier whether the $10-million figure which the former minister has come up with is correct. It is my understanding that it is not correct. In fact, the funding which has been allocated in this budget for Back on Track is intended to proceed and is proceeding on track.

I do not expect a member of the Liberal Party to take note of this, but which government increased the minimum wage to the point where we now have the highest minimum wage anywhere in North America? It is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. Which government has announced a $32.5-million program for laid-off workers at a time when other governments have been cutting back and cutting us back? It is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. Which government has announced a $700-million anti-recession fund which is the largest capital works program of any government in Canada at this point, just as we are faced with billions of dollars in cutbacks from the federal government? It is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. Not only have we done this, but we have increased social assistance rates higher than inflation, a 10% increase with respect to shelter allowances.

None of us in this House takes any joy in seeing what has happened to the economy this past year, but I ask the honourable member to tell us how much more money we should spend in comparison with the money we have already been spending in dealing with the needs of people in need in this province.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier's rhetoric is not putting food into anybody's stomach. It is his government's responsibility to set the priorities for the dollars it has to spend. I simply make the point that the Premier at an earlier time said that hunger was an Ontario problem that his government would tackle.

We also acknowledge that the same Premier very recently presented a proposal to enshrine a social charter in the Constitution. I ask the Premier how he can reconcile the goal of that proposed social charter to reduce child and family poverty with his government's inability to act on its pledge to end the need for food banks, even though he has said this is a problem his government would tackle.

1430

Mrs Caplan: Rhetoric; it is all rhetoric.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole shouts "Rhetoric." Is $175 million in a wage protection fund which is going to be passed by the House today rhetoric? I do not believe it is rhetoric; I believe it is action.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines says, "What about food banks?" I say to the honourable member for St Catharines that the money we are putting in people's pockets today is going to make a difference, we believe, over time. It is not going to happen overnight. The hard reality is that in fighting this recession as hard as we have, yes, of course we have run up a deficit. Yes, we have; we confess to that. We have had a $1.5-billion cut in Canada assistance plan payments alone from the federal government as we encounter this change. The fact of the matter is this government is putting more money into people's pockets than any goverment in the history of the province in terms of dealing with this recession.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Sorbara: I have a question for the Solicitor General. I remind the Solicitor General that we have just concluded the Thanksgiving weekend. For many there was precious little to be thankful about, and I think about the thousands of people who had to resort to the Premier's food banks in order to put a Thanksgiving meal on the table.

I want to remind the Solicitor General of the thousands and thousands of shopkeepers and retailers in this province for whom the Thanksgiving to Christmas shopping period is absolutely critical. He should know, now that he has been in his portfolio for a while, that most retailers expect to do a full third of their business during this very busy shopping season.

I want to tell him as well that retailing in Ontario has dropped by some 8.9%. The Solicitor General has an opportunity, not to solve all the problems of the retailers but to realize that his Sunday shopping bill is deadlocked in the standing committee on administration of justice. I want to ask if he will now realize that he could make a significant difference to one sector of this provincial economy by introducing in that committee some amendments that would give more freedom to some retailers so they could simply stay above water and keep their businesses going during this very hectic period.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government has of course presented itself at the clause-by-clause hearings. I have been present on each and every occasion where we wished to proceed with the amendments so that we might get the bill into the House to meet the various concerns. I continue to be available to do that. I invite the opposition to help us move along in this process because we are very concerned, with the passage of this bill, to ensure a common pause day and also add protection for retail workers in this province. As do all members of the committee and the government, I stand ready to proceed as soon as possible with this bill.

Mr Sorbara: We have absolutely no quarrel with the Solicitor General's provisions to protect retail workers in this province. We are all ad idem on that. They are not even his amendments; they are the amendments of the Minister of Labour and the Employment Standards Act, and that is not a problem.

The problem is that we went through a month of public hearings. We found that virtually no group or individual had anything good to say about the government bill. Some 75% of the people who spoke to the committee said they would favour a more flexible approach to who can and cannot buy and sell on Sunday.

After all that, the government introduces not one but two amendments that have nothing to do with the central issue. One amendment is entirely out of order and cannot come before the committee, and the other amendment is so patently unfair that it probably represents a violation of the Charter of Rights.

I just want to suggest, by way of supplementary, that the Solicitor General has an opportunity tomorrow in cabinet to take to his cabinet colleagues proposals to provide some bit of flexibility to this totally inflexible bill. Will the minister undertake, here in this House now, to bring forward some proposal or other to his cabinet colleagues so we can get out of this terrible logjam we are experiencing in the committee on this foolish bill?

Hon Mr Pilkey: This government introduced Bill 115 for first and second reading some time ago. The committee has gone across the province and has had input from a great number of citizens. We have presented ourselves at the clause-by-clause hearings on numerous occasions, all of which I have personally attended. We are anxious to proceed with this bill, and as soon as the opposition are prepared to join us in the speedy movement of it, we will accomplish it.

Quite frankly I have specific answers to the specific questions raised by the member opposite, and at the proper place and forum, which is in clause-by-clause, I am again willing to present myself in order to proceed as quickly as possible. I agree that every day that passes with respect to this bill and its non-passage creates some cause for concern in the minds of some. As soon as the opposition is prepared to proceed, I stand ready to do so as well.

Mr Sorbara: I could not give a whit about the minister's personal attendance at the committee when there is nothing to discuss.

Quebec has a common pause day in its Sunday shopping legislation, but even in that province there is an exception for the Christmas period. There is a provision in the Quebec law that gives storekeepers the right, if they so choose, to stay open from Thanksgiving until Christmas. It helps the retailing sector enormously and it helps the individual consumer enormously, because that is such a busy period of time.

I recall the Premier of this province saying that fighting the recession was going to be his number one priority. He could add to the fight a little bit, and the Solicitor General could add to the fight a little bit, by simply bringing forward an amendment which would allow those storekeepers who so wish to stay open during the Christmas period. If he were to do that, the logjam in the committee could end. We would not need his attendance and we could get through the bill in very short order.

I ask him once again: Will he undertake, here in this House today, to bring that amendment to his cabinet colleagues and fight like the devil for the retailers in this province who are looking for a little bit of help when they fight in a very difficult market?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am very pleased to see the member opposite so eager to discuss Bill 115. As I suggested to him just a moment ago, we are equally eager to deal with that item. We are prepared to answer specific questions in the committee, and we look forward to meeting him there to do just that.

APPOINTMENTS REVIEW

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier. The United States Senate confirmation hearing concerning the nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court is, I am sure we agree, a most important event. While the process in the United States Senate may have been poorly managed, to say the least, the idea of fully reviewing appointments is right. I do not do this often, but I want to compliment the Premier for having introduced an improved process of review for appointments to agencies, boards and commissions in Ontario. However, it must also be recognized that our process still needs improvement.

Some of these appointments are paid for by all the people of Ontario. Surely all the people's representatives should have the right to say yes or no. Is the Premier now prepared to complete the job and make all appointments to agencies, boards and commissions subject to confirmation by the Legislature?

Hon Mr Rae: There are some practical considerations in regard to that in terms of the sheer numbers.

Mr Bradley: I hear a no.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St Catharines again is shouting out. He is saying, "I hear no." He is not hearing "no." He should listen carefully to what I am saying.

I would say to the member for Leeds-Grenville that I look forward to some discussions with his leader and with the Leader of the Opposition or among the House leaders with respect to how this process can be improved. I would say to the honourable member that there are some practical considerations and that we are prepared to look at it in a positive way. I would say to him that we are considering this, on our side, in the context of overall reform of the rules of the House. That is the way in which we would like to address this question, and we look upon it in that regard.

I appreciate the suggestions made by the member for Leeds-Grenville and I do not dismiss them lightly at all; in fact, I am not dismissing them at all.

1440

Mr Runciman: For the clarification of the Premier, I said "subject to review"; I did not necessarily say "review." In the United States there are something like 50,000 appointments subject to review by the US Senate, and obviously it does not review every one of those.

The standing committee on government agencies has proven, for all intents and purposes, to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for all appointments and reviews. We do not have the resources to investigate the background of appointees --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Mr Runciman: We cannot call witnesses to appear before us, so in essence the committee has no real power. A good example of this is that each of the opposition parties had only 20 minutes to question Marc Eliesen, the government's appointment to chair Ontario Hydro. I do not think anyone, even the Premier, believes that anyone could determine in 20 minutes whether Mr Eliesen was competent to manage a $7-billion enterprise, $7 billion of public money spent each year. Is the Premier prepared to give this committee the expanded mandate it needs to properly do the job and fully review all appointments it considers?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say to the member that the time they had to interview Mr Eliesen was 40 minutes more than we ever had in opposition, or indeed any opposition party had with respect to any Tory appointment for 42 years. Maybe that is worth pointing out.

I would say to the honourable member that I look forward to a discussion on these questions. I do not think it is unreasonable to say, in terms of the general reforms we would like to be able to make with respect to the House and the conduct of public business, that I see this as the context in which we are going to be having these discussions.

I take the member's views seriously. I would say to him that the effort we have made has been to allow people to be interviewed and questioned, and for there to be a fair consideration of the candidates who are put forward, recognizing that all processes in this regard are imperfect. We are of course always open to improvements or suggestions for improvements.

Mr Runciman: I guess from our point of view we would rather have no time at all than 20 minutes, which sends out a message to the public that these people are being appropriately reviewed, which is not the case. It simply is not the case. A year ago the Premier promised major changes to the appointments process. They are actually minor changes and they may end up becoming no changes. This was an important election promise the Premier made, one that Ontario residents clearly want him to keep.

Can the Premier tell us why he is running for cover on this issue -- effectively that is what he is doing -- and why he apparently is not prepared to take the principled stand Ontarians deserve and make it his government's principled stand?

Hon Mr Rae: If answering questions in question period and establishing a precedent for the House the way we did last year is running for cover, then the member and I have very different definitions of what running for cover is. We are very pleased with the suggestions. If the member is saying he would prefer to have no time, I gather the time allowed for Mr Eliesen's discussion was decided by the opposition itself. So I would say to the honourable member that we are quite opposed to his saying we are looking for cover. Not only are we not looking for cover, but we are delighted to have various appointments considered by the committee and that will continue to be the case.

I believe we have lived up to the commitment we made in the last election campaign. I believe we have lived up to the commitment we made in the last speech from the throne. As I say, it may not be up to the pristine standards of the member for Leeds-Grenville, but I do not recall him making speeches on this subject when he was Minister of Government Services in the Davis administration.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier as well. The Premier is obviously aware of today's Toronto Star-CTV poll with respect to the federal constitutional proposals. I believe he shared his impressions of the poll results with the media this morning. I wonder if he would be so kind as to share those impressions with the members of the assembly.

Hon Mr Rae: When I come into the House or into the Legislature, sometimes I get interviewed by the media. I was asked this morning for my impressions of the poll, which I saw on television last night and had an opportunity to read in one of the Toronto newspapers, the Toronto Star, this morning.

My impressions are that there is considerable ground still for consensus in the country. I believe no one should be surprised about the fact that, first of all, there are a considerable number of people who are undecided, who have not yet expressed an opinion. I think it fair to say that a great many people across the country are preoccupied with other matters, and that is quite understandable given the state of the economy and the state of the country generally.

I am encouraged by the fact that there is still room for movement, I believe, and still room for dialogue and discussion across the country. That is the basis upon which I take what I have heard so far. That is the basis upon which I responded this morning.

Mr Eves: One question the media addressed to the Premier this morning had to do with the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. Apparently the Premier was not quite as forthcoming or willing to expound upon the results of the Star-CTV poll with respect to that issue. I wonder if he might share not only with the members of the media but with the people of Ontario and the members of this assembly what his thoughts are on that matter.

Mr Scott: How much dialogue are you going to tolerate on that, Bob?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David is shouting out to me and asking how much dialogue we will have on that. I think we will have a great deal of dialogue on that. I look --

Mr Scott: I know how you feel already. You are not going to change your mind.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I look forward to hearing from the honourable member for St George-St David on this question.

Mr Scott: I know where I stand. Where do you stand on it?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the comments he is making.

The Speaker: It was the member for Parry Sound who asked a question, but we will have a rotation of opportunities. Perhaps the Premier could respond to the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that with respect to the question of property rights, I look forward to hearing the views of people across the country, from a variety of groups with respect to its impact.

Last week I spoke with Premier Ghiz, who expressed his very strong concerns to me about the impact that the clause would have on Prince Edward Island. There has been a very strong traditional opposition to that. I have heard from Peter Lougheed, who expressed a similar concern to me last week when I met with him on Thursday.

There are a number of issues that need to be looked at in that regard, but of course the protection of people's civil liberties, the respect for people's rights of ownership are a very important part of the Canadian tradition. How exactly we deal with it in a constitutional sense still needs to be determined.

Mr Eves: The Premier has enunciated on several occasions that he is certainly in favour of entrenching a social charter in the Constitution of the country. The Star-CTV poll points out that 80%, I believe, of Ontarians would be in favour of such entrenchment and 12% would be opposed. The same poll says that 65% of Ontarians are in favour of entrenching property rights and the same percentage, 12%, are opposed.

I believe it is the Premier's responsibility as the first minister of this province to take both of those suggestions and proposals, along with others the overwhelming majority of Ontarians believe in, to the constitutional bargaining table and the negotiating process. He indicates that he has talked to other premiers about the entrenchment of property rights. We know he has talked to other premiers about the entrenchment of the social charter. Does he not agree that it is his responsibility to take all those matters, including the entrenchment of property rights, the social charter and other things that it was indicated Ontarians are in favour of, to the negotiating process?

1450

Hon Mr Rae: I think I have a responsibility to participate and to listen carefully to what people are saying. As I said to the honourable member with respect to the poll generally, obviously it is a factor one takes into account and an important one.

The point I made last week and tried to make in two speeches I have given over the last two weeks is that the creation of a strong and effective social and economic union for Canada is a very important objective of this government. The symmetry I see is between the creation of an economic union and the recognition of the social obligations we have to one another as well. That is a very important symmetry.

I would invite the honourable member to discuss with other members of his provincial party, with colleagues across the country, premiers and others the particular items he has raised, because I think he may be surprised by the variety of opinions he hears on that subject.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Conway: My question is also to the Premier. I think the Premier can appreciate in these very difficult recessionary times that the farmers and loggers of my part of eastern Ontario are facing some very difficult economic times, some of the worst times in living memory.

Those same farmers and loggers were told a few months ago by the new chairman of Ontario Hydro that their hydro rates would be increasing by not less than 44% over the next three years. Those farmers and loggers have also been reading in the press that the newly appointed chairman of Ontario Hydro has asked for a salary of $400,000 a year and a pension apparently of some 75% after six years.

Having regard to all the problems the Premier faces -- and I am sympathetic to the problems of food banks and trying to moderate particularly the wage demands in the public and the private sectors in this province -- I ask the Premier, and the Premier only, because Marc Eliesen is his friend and his appointment, to confirm that Marc Eliesen has asked for and is receiving a salary in the range of $400,000, which would represent something like a 300% increase from what he was earning just months ago as Deputy Minister of Energy.

Hon Mr Rae: The Minister of Energy is itching to answer this question.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I am glad the member raised this question, because I think it is time we clear the air. The member will know that the Liberal appointee who was the chair of Hydro did not earn $400,000 a year; that individual did not earn $450,000 a year; in fact that individual did not earn $500,000 a year. They kept from the public that their appointee earned $540,000 a year.

I can tell by the look on the Speaker's face that he must be asking himself, with two weeks' vacation and assuming a 4% vacation rate, how did this individual survive two weeks on over $20,000 for vacation pay? I have asked that myself. That is the answer to the question.

Mr Conway: I want to say that what we just saw from the Premier was what I would call gilt-edged, silver-stocking hypocrisy because he has the nerve to ask members of the Legislature and public servants to tighten their belts while at the same time he has appointed his alter ego, his good friend Marc Eliesen, at a salary of some $400,000. They have turned one job that Bob Franklin held at roughly $400,000 into three jobs that will be a total of some three quarters of a million dollars.

How can the Premier expect to have any credibility when those loggers and farmers I represent say to me, "How can this government and you as a member of the Legislature ask me to conserve and pay more than 45% more over three years for something as vital as my electrical bill, which is absolutely essential to my farm and my lumber business" -- to name but two resource economies that are in dire straits --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- "when at the same time I read in the paper that Marc Eliesen, the Premier's good friend, goes from a salary of $125,000 approximately to $400,000, plus pension benefits that are absolutely unbelievable"?

Does the Premier, as the leader of this government, not feel that it is one thing to make the speech in Honey Harbour asking us to pull in our belts, but it is another thing and it is perfectly obscene to --

The Speaker: The question has been placed. Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mr Ferguson: What the member should know is that today, October 15, Mr Eliesen is not earning $400,000; he is earning his deputy minister's salary. All the Hydro jurisdictions across North America, the boards of directors of each utility, decide the salary of the chief executive officer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If a questions is asked, we must assume that the person asking would like to hear a response. Has the minister concluded his remarks?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Recognizing that it is a large amount of money and that it is not only that salary but the salary of many other individuals at Hydro that ought to be examined, I will be asking the Ontario Energy Board to do a review of all the salaries of the executives at Ontario Hydro.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Solicitor General. On October 3, the Solicitor General announced a new regulation that he assured us would guarantee political rights of municipal police officers and ensure fairness.

In response to that contention, I would like to raise the issue of Bill Hallett, a first-class constable in Brockville, who resides in the neighbouring rural township of Elizabethtown and for the past three years has served on the municipal council for the township. He has filed his papers to run for deputy reeve but, under the minister's new regulation, if elected, he has to give up a $46,000-a-year job for a $6,000-a-year job -- not very realistic.

Can the minister advise us how his new regulation in Constable Hallett's case ensures fairness and guarantees Constable Hallett's political rights?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I cannot speak on individual cases, but I remind all members of the House that the regulation brought in under the Police Services Amendment Act, 1991, was brought in by the government with the support of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and the Police Services Board of Ontario. These political activity rights, which were approved, gave police in this province a wide variety of political rights and activities in which they might participate.

This particular amendment we brought in allows officers to be involved in political office under certain limitations. The fact that there is some particular difficulty in a given circumstance -- I am not totally aware of those details except to say that I believe the legislation allows people to run, does not prohibit them, if they can meet the criteria established and approved by all stakeholders.

Mr Runciman: This minister's answers are not very satisfying to most people across the province, neither to the question he had earlier nor to this one.

This is not an isolated case. My colleague the member for Wellington today drew to my attention the case of Andy Knetsch who is a councillor in the village of Drayton. He is a member of the Waterloo region police, serves his community well and receives very little remuneration for his efforts, effectively donating his services.

1500

The policy the minister is defending here today is essentially one drafted for the big bucks environment of Metro Toronto and is yet another example of this government's virtual ignorance of small-town and rural Ontario. This regulation effectively excludes small-town and rural police officers from getting politically involved in their communities. In essence, they have taken away a fundamental right and freedom that constables Hallett and Knetsch exercised as councillors for the past three years.

In the spirit of fairness that the minister talked about in his October 3 statement, will he commit himself today to immediate cancellation of the elements of the regulation that clearly discriminate against policemen and policewomen in rural Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, these rights were totally supported by all the representative organizations. They really provided the widest range of political rights ever given in this province. Quite frankly, we did have one caveat with respect to these regulations that were passed, and that was that the police service must remain impartial and neutral. We believe, short of the collection of funds, which was one restriction, that these bills allowed everyone to run on the conditions that were outlined under the act. They prevented no one.

VISITOR

The Speaker: This might be an appropriate moment for the members of the House to welcome to our midst, seated in the members' east gallery, the Honourable Luigi Sandirocco, a member of the Italian Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Mills: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There have been a number of articles in the newspaper recently on the GATT trade talks and their possible effects on Canadian agriculture. Will producers of milk, eggs and poultry in my riding of Durham East and across the province be able to continue to operate a viable supply management system following the conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations?

Hon Mr Philip: Ontario fully supports the balanced position Canada has put forward in the agricultural negotiations, which includes the strengthening and clarification of article XI, dealing with the rules governing the operation of supply management systems. This aim is especially important if supply management is to remain an effective part of our agricultural farming.

Mr Mills: Will provincial agriculture support programs in Ontario have to be reduced as a result of the multilateral trade negotiations?

Hon Mr Philip: We do not expect that the provincial agricultural support programs will have to be cut. Any commitments made by the federal government resulting from an agricultural agreement will apply only to the federal programs and expenditures, and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture of Food has asked that consultations be initiated on how Canada's reduction commitments can be translated into cuts to specific programs. We are concerned that the federal government not use these trade talks as an excuse to cut its program spending, and we are certainly expressing that concern to the federal government.

USE OF COURIER SERVICES

Mr Scott: The Premier is always complaining that he cannot find any money for food banks. I want to make a suggestion to his government.

On October 10, I received a copy of a letter from the Minister of Citizenship to a group in my constituency, announcing a grant. The letter was nothing more than a copy of the original announcement. It was not to me, it was not personal and it was not urgent. Indeed, it arrived some 10 days after its date. The interesting thing about the letter is that thousands of these go out every year, and apparently the minister has made a decision not to use the government mail or Canada Post, at 39 cents a letter, but instead to use a private direct courier, who came to my office in this building, which costs between $5 and $7 a pop, if honourable members want to know.

It seems to me that a government that is mewling all the time about its expenses and that does not have any money for food banks would not want to extend this wasteful practice. I want to ask the Minister of Government Services if he has given a directive to any ministers on the use of cabinet couriers, and in particular whether he condones the practice of the Minister of Citizenship in delivering this form letter by courier to me.

Hon F. Wilson: I will take appropriate action on this matter.

Mr Scott: As the question has not been answered, I simply draw to the minister's attention -- he must be aware of this; he has been a minister, unlike some of his colleagues, for several months now -- that the extent to which courier service is being used by this government is absolutely unbelievable.

The Ministry of Correctional Services increased by almost $500,000 the expenditure on couriers this year over last year. I am ashamed to say the Ministry of the Attorney General is up 44% and the Ministry of the Environment, no doubt sending missives by courier that projects will be exempted from assessment, is up 51%. Members will be interested to hear that this is not peanuts. One courier firm alone, Purolator, billed the government last year for almost $4 million.

Can the minister come clean, admit he is in charge of this use of courier services, which is the responsibility of Government Services, and tell this House first of all what he estimates the government will spend this year on private courier services and how he is going to explain the really extraordinary increases, between 25% and 40%, that have occurred over the last 12 months?

Hon F. Wilson: This use of private couriers and courier services stretches back to a former regime and is under review at this time. I will get back to the member with the appropriate answer.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. She was quoted in last week's Kitchener-Waterloo Record as saying that if she was aware that the Niagara Escarpment Commission members, with whom she met in June, were formulating their recommendations on the five-year plan, she was not conscious of it. Yet she stated that she asked for a social evening to avoid discussion of the plan. She is sending out mixed signals. Which way does she want to have it? Is she in charge or is she not?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am in charge.

In response to that, I think what the member is trying to elicit is the position I have taken on the review of the Niagara Escarpment plan. That is a five-year review provided for in the legislation, and it is not appropriate, nor have I taken any position or any part in the discussions of that review. When the review is completed, it will be submitted to hearing officers. Those hearing officers are currently having hearings and then the report will be submitted to me.

Mr B. Murdoch: The minister claims to be impartial in this issue. She claims in the media that she is only one in 1,000, but she is the minister; she is the one who will make the decision. To avoid any conflict of interest, other ministers have removed themselves from the issue. As I see it, she has three options with this plan: (1) she could sell her property on the Niagara Escarpment, (2) she could move the Niagara Escarpment plan to the Minister of Municipal Affairs where it should be, (3) she can resign as the Minister of the Environment. Which will it be?

Hon Mrs Grier: The question was relating to the review of the Niagara Escarpment plan, and the member is incorrect. The decision at the end of that process will not be made by me; it will be made by cabinet.

1510

BORDER COMMUNITIES ASSISTANCE FUND

Ms Harrington: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. We all know cross-border shopping is a significant drain on the economy of Ontario, and in fact of Niagara Falls. Agreements were reached last July to try to alleviate this problem --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would like to avoid members having to courier their questions. I would like to be able to hear the questions.

Ms Harrington: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Agreements were reached last July to try and alleviate this problem, in conjunction with the municipalities and with local business groups, such as the chambers of commerce. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology announced in September a procedure for communities to access some provincial funds, and for Niagara Falls, $50,000 was earmarked. This past weekend I had people in my riding come to me with different proposals to access these funds. Can the minister please tell this House what the funding is for and to whom people should be going with their proposals?

Hon Mr Philip: The border community assistance fund has been established to finance local community initiatives, such as service excellence programs, community awareness campaigns and campaigns targeted at specific consumers and local retail marketing groups. I can tell the member that communities must form a committee consisting of representatives from local government, business, labour council and consumer groups, and after that, then locally planned proposals will be formed and funding will be forthcoming.

Ms Harrington: Who will actually be making the decisions on this funding?

Hon Mr Philip: Once the community's committee has been formed, it will be making the proposals. These proposals will be proposed by the local community, and those decisions will be made at that time.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Labour. On December 18, 1990, the minister announced in this very House that he planned to extend the benefits of Ontario's pay equity legislation to a further 420,000 women, such as child care workers, who were in predominantly female establishments. The minister said he was going to introduce this legislation in the spring session and was going to add two new methods for making job comparisons: the proportional value method and also the proxy method.

The minister did not introduce the legislation as promised. Instead, it was a stall job and all we saw in February was another discussion paper.

In the past, the NDP was very clear about its commitment to building reforms to assist women such as underpaid child care workers, but this minister continues to stall. We are now in mid-October, with no legislation in sight. Why does this minister not just admit that with the loss of the member for Scarborough West, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and the demotion of the member for Sudbury East, the NDP's much-vaunted women's caucus has collapsed? Why does he not just admit that without them there to prod him, this minister is not going to produce what he promised on pay equity?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to assure the member that the women's caucus in this party of ours has not collapsed and that we will have legislation there.

Ms Poole: Somehow the minister's answer gives me absolutely no reassurance. He says we are going to have pay equity. When are we going to have the extension of pay equity that he promised? Is it this year? Is it next year? Three, four, five years? Is it going to be during their term at all?

The irony is that the Treasurer released a statement just a few weeks ago in which he said very proudly that they were going to save $50 million as a result of delay in passing legislation on proportional value pay equity. I want the minister to confirm for us in this House today: Is the government still committed to passing legislation relating to proportional value and to the proxy method, and if so, can he tell us what is his new deadline for passing this legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are committed to passing the legislation for pay equity when we have the right approach to it, and that is what we are looking at right now.

TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the new Minister of Education. I congratulate the minister and advise him that I am looking forward to working with him as I did the previous minister, my colleague the member for London Centre.

Two weeks ago I met with Mr Kevin McKittrick, the chairperson of the London Industrial Training Board, many members of that board and Mr John Jarrel, vice-president of General Motors. They were concerned, as we all are, that our education system is not producing the number of technically trained workers that Ontario industry requires now and will require in the future.

The minister is aware that 27% to 30% of our young people drop out of secondary school. They tell us they do not feel the curriculum is relevant. As the new Minister of Education, working with his colleague the Minister of Skills Development, who is also the the Minister of Colleges and Universities, will he quickly develop a long-term strategy to train our young people in both technical education and apprenticeship school programs in secondary schools in Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: I thank the member opposite for her good wishes and also look forward to working with her. I followed with some interest, as she can well imagine, the questions she put to my predecessor over the last number of months on various issues related to education. Members will appreciate the fact that I obviously have not had an opportunity to get very much into any of the issues that will concern me as Minister of Education, but let me say equally strongly that the issues the member has raised -- dropouts and the relevancy of the curriculum to our young people -- are things that I know a little bit about and that concern me a great deal.

I certainly hope to be a minister who becomes very active in those areas and in the other areas the member mentioned, particularly with respect to skills training. There is a great deal we need to do, and can indeed do, to make sure our school system does prepare our young people for the myriad challenges they will face in the world. There is a great deal that is already under way, a lot of good things that are happening, but there is certainly a lot of room for us to improve. I look forward to being, I hope, a positively aggressive minister in that area.

Mrs Cunningham: Positive aggressiveness is what is really needed in this province, especially when it comes to training young people. Over the last decade we have seen little movement on the part of co-operative education programs. They have increased by 33%, but that is not enough. The number of students is irrelevant. We have been taking a look at SWAP; that is, the school-workplace apprenticeship program. As I take a look at the numbers, even in the board the minister represented, he will know we have something like 42 students involved in the Toronto public and separate school boards, with one registered apprentice. We are making no headway. It has been going on for 10 years.

I would like this minister to stand today and say that, at least for him, it will not sit on the back burner for the next decade but will be up there as a priority for education of young people, along with training programs, apprenticeship programs and our competitiveness in the global marketplace for Ontario now, for this government now.

Mr Eves: Tony will have this solved by next week.

Hon Mr Silipo: I do not think I will have this resolved by next week, as one of the members opposite indicated, but I will try. Let me make this as clear as I can: I remember in one of my previous incarnations, as a trustee on the Toronto Board of Education, advocating very strongly for the action a previous minister from the Conservative Party was not taking in this area of co-operative education. I do not need to be convinced of the merits of the argument that was made.

Mrs Cunningham: What about the Liberals?

Hon Mr Silipo: Yes, I did not see as much action under the Liberal government. The member is quite right.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Silipo: This is an issue that concerns us all. It is an issue that my predecessor, the member for London Centre, was also quite interested in. It is something I am very interested in and I will do my utmost to ensure that it becomes and continues to be a priority for this government.

1520

CONSERVATION

Mr Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. I am aware that there has been an ongoing review of the conservation authorities program over the last year. One of the issues scheduled to be discussed was provincial appointments. I recall that last year a number of these appointments were extended for one year while the liaison committee reviewed the process for making appointments. What will be the process for this year?

Hon Mr Wildman: Two weeks ago I met with the liaison committee to finalize the consensus we had reached on how appointments to conservation authorities should be made. The member will be pleased to know we have agreed to proceed with the appointments for next year. In September, advertisements were placed in newspapers across the province inviting residents of the watershed for a particular conservation authority to apply and indicate their interest in being a provincial appointee to the conservation authority. We have had an excellent response from interested individuals and I will be happy to report further when we are able to make the appointments, before January.

Mr Johnson: I assure the minister there are many interested parties in my constituency who would like to sit on conservation authorities. I will encourage them to get involved.

My supplementary follows up on another item the liaison committee has been looking at, the all-important issue of funding. Throughout the 1980s, the ministry, municipalities and authorities have struggled through numerous reviews and yet the issue of funding is still outstanding. The constituents in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings would like to know whether there has been any progress on this front.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is quite correct in pointing out that over the last few years there have been a number of reviews and studies done on the conservation authorities program and the funding and the mandate for the conservation authorities. There was the Burgar report and then the Ballinger report. They led to a lot of concern and problems. Conservation authorities did not really agree with some of the proposals made.

The liaison committee has been working very diligently with the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, along with the ministry. We have not quite finalized the arrangements with regard to funding, but we are very close. We have made very good progress. At the meeting two weeks ago we agreed to meet again on October 23 to consult and review the ideas and options put forward. I look forward to a swift completion of the agreement and to finalizing the agreement so that we will know exactly what the funding will be in order to ensure that the conservation authorities will be able to meet their mandate. I will be happy to report to the House when we make progress.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr McClelland: I think it appropriate that my question go to the Minister of the Environment. I think the Minister of Natural Resources has learned from the former Minister of the Environment about running down the clock.

The Minister of the Environment will know about recent press reports that indicate there has been illegal dumping on the Six Nations reserve near Brantford. In my view and in the view of many, that one incident is merely an indication of what is happening right across the province. An official in the ministry's Toronto west district said: "There's a tremendous amount of illegal dumping going on and there's going to be a lot more. The amount keeps growing."

The minister has known about this problem for several months. She knows there is a potential health risk, particularly when biomedical waste is involved. What is the minister doing to end that problem and deal with that problem?

Also, the minister will be aware there is a tremendous amount of dumping outside the province. She knows it has been going on for some time. Up to 500,000 tons of waste are being dumped stateside. It is disturbing to realize that the minister has allowed a method of diversion to contribute to her reduction. The gap between the minister's rhetoric and what is taking place really astounds me, particularly given the strong position she took last April, demanding that the regions within the GTA dispose of their waste within their own boundaries.

What is the minister doing with respect to existing landfill sites that are not being used appropriately? Illegal dumping is taking place. There are illegal dumps. In addition to that, the minister knows a tremendous volume of waste is being dumped in the United States. How is the minister going to address that?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the question is, what am I doing about illegal dumping? I assure the member I am very concerned about that. I agree with him that there has been a growth in illegal dumping. It has occurred because of changes in tipping fees that have taken place, without any commensurate increase in the ability of people to find sources that can reuse the material being dumped in landfill sites.

What we have done, and what I am very proud we have been able to do, is begin to put in place an integrated waste management system in this province, a system that relies on reduction and reuse and that puts in place the infrastructure where we can begin to reuse those materials that have hitherto been considered as waste, as garbage to be landfilled.

With respect to specific incidents -- the member refers to an unfortunate one recently on the Six Nations reserve -- my investigations and enforcement branch is attempting to find whatever evidence there is as to the source of that material. We will investigate and take whatever action we can to make sure those particular incidents do not recur.

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Mr White: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. There has been a report recently in a Toronto tabloid alleging that I have called for air-conditioning in this building. That is not at all true. The building of course falls under your jurisdiction.

The report further goes on to indicate that an air-conditioner fell out of a press office on the fourth floor on to my car. I and many members of the government have suffered gratuitous attacks from the press. This is not one of them. My car, although 12 years old and much abused, was not abused by an air-conditioner. The reporter involved states that a maintenance worker lost his grip. The reporter involved obviously lost his grip, because he is reporting something which has no basis whatsoever in fact. My car, though abused, was not abused by that air-conditioner.

The Speaker: I am not sure who is losing his grip. Thank you. I appreciate the point of privilege raised.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: It is a privilege to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols,

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

This petition is signed by a number of good residents of Loretto, Tottenham and the township of Adjala and my grandmother, Mrs Mary Wilson. I will continue to bring this petition to the Legislature until this government changes its mind on this issue.

Mr Beer: I have a petition from the Niagara South Young Liberals Club. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

This is signed by some 100 members of the Niagara South Young Liberals Club. I affix my signature thereto.

TOBACCO TAXES

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

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

1530

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs McLeod: I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

TOBACCO TAXES

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition that is signed by 1,247 people from across Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low and modest-income citizens,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill Pr80, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill Pr86, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

La Chambre en comite plenier.

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

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.

Suite du debat ajourne sur le projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par creation d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employes et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

The Chair: Pursuant to the order of the committee of the whole House on Thursday, October 10, I call in the members for the deferred divisions on Bill 70. I remind members that this is a 10-minute bell.

1545

The committee divided on sections 1 to 4, inclusive, which were agreed to on the following vote:

Les articles 1 a 4, inclusivement, mis aux voix, sont adoptes :

Ayes/pour 85; nays/contre 16.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's first amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the same vote reversed.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's first amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's second amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 85.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's second amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The committee divided on Mrs Witmer's third amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 85.

The committee divided on whether section 5 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 5, mise aux voix, est adoptee.

Ayes/pour 85; nays/contre 16.

Section 5 agreed to.

L'article 5 est adopte.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's first amendment to section 6, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's second amendment to section 6, which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Offer's third amendment to section 6, which was negatived on the same vote.

The House divided on whether section 6 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 85; nays 16.

Section 6 agreed to.

L'article 6 est adopte.

Sections 7 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Les articles 7 a 15, inclusivement, sont adoptes.

The House divided on Mr Offer's amendment to section 16, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The House divided on whether section 16 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 16 est adoptee.

Ayes/pour 85; nays/contre 16.

Section 16 agreed to.

L'article 16 est adopte.

The House divided on Mr Sterling's amendment to section 17, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 16; nays 85.

The House divided on whether section 17 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 17 est adoptee.

Section 17 agreed to.

L'article 17 est adopte.

The committee divided on Mr Arnott's amendment to add section 17a, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion pour l'adoption de l'article 17a est rejetee.

Ayes/pour 16; nays/contre 85.

The committee divided on whether the bill should be reported to the House, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

Bill ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi devra fait l'objet d'un rapport.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

A la suite d'une motion presentee par M. Cooke, le comite plenier de la Chambre fait rapport d'un projet de loi sans amendement.

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

Mr Mackenzie moved third 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.

M. Mackenzie propose la troisième lecture du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par creation d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employes et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The detailed analysis of Bill 70 by this House sitting as the committee of the whole is now completed. When it is passed, Bill 70 will establish the employee wage protection program. I can tell members I am proud to have been the Minister of Labour who has introduced and shepherded Bill 70 through the House and through the standing committee on resources development, where the parliamentary assistant played the major role.

The employee wage protection program, which has received great praise from all corners, is designed to protect workers by helping them recover unpaid wages. Current bankruptcy laws in Canada consign workers to the level of unsecured creditors, which means they are usually among the last in line to collect when their employer is bankrupt or insolvent. Bill 70 has been designed to address this unfairness. Once it is in operation, the employee wage protection program will provide a statutory mechanism to allow workers to collect money they have worked for in good faith and are unable to recover through other means.

There are many workers in Ontario who have become victims of their employers' failure to pay, mostly due to the effects of the current recession. Last October the Premier announced the government's intention to establish the employee wage protection program. Since then the employment standards branch of my ministry has received more than 17,000 claims for compensation for wages owing. These 17,000 people are relying on us to help them recover the money that is rightfully theirs. They must rely on us because they have no other alternative.

1600

A few weeks ago the standing committee on resources development reported back to the House on its hearings into Bill 70. The report included amendments that the government had put forward to address some concerns voiced by business and the not-for-profit sector about the liability provisions for directors and officers.

We have amendments to enhance the guarantees of a more efficient appeals process. While we want to be sure that the program pays out money only in cases where there are valid entitlements, we do not wish to tie up employers, directors or employees in lengthy and protracted appeals procedures.

I would like to assure the members of this House that we are actively working with our federal counterparts to harmonize our program with the federal proposal once its long-awaited Bankruptcy Act amendments are passed. Workers who need this assistance will be able to access it easily without undue complications.

We can now proceed with third reading and proclamation, and once the employee wage protection program is operational, workers will have the security of knowing that the money they earn will not be lost due to circumstances beyond their control. I want to thank the members very much for the assistance to individuals.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Are there any comments or questions on the minister's remarks?

Mr Sterling: I only have two minutes but I want to participate in the third reading debate. I want to ask the minister if he would confirm the calculations I have now made of the amount he will be transferring to the federal government as a result of this legislation.

I understand from what his officials have said and what he has said in the House that the average claim -- I wish he would pay attention, because I am asking him a question -- is $4,200, that the number of claims is 18,000 to date, that the number of claims due to bankruptcy and receivership is 66%, as noted by one of his officials in committee, that the percentage of claims that are termination and severance pay is about 90%, as estimated by him. That adds up to $75,600,000.

When we calculate 90% of the $75 million, it equals $68 million; 66% of the $68 million equals $45 million; the UI system pays 60% of an employee's wage and when this is factored in the net amount the provincial government will be transferring to the federal government as a result of Bill 70 will be $27 million because of the clawback provisions of our UI system.

Would the minister confirm that this figure of the amount of money his government will be transferring to the federal government as a result of Bill 70 is about accurate under the present laws of our country and our province?

Mr Bradley: I wanted to have the opportunity to indicate to the minister, hearing his statement on third reading, that this bill has gone through quite a ride over the past several months.

When the legislation was first introduced, it provoked among the population of Ontario, particularly those who were involved in businesses of any kind, a good deal of opposition. I think a consensus of the people of Ontario would be that it was a valid concern that was being expressed by many people who were going to be placed in a very vulnerable position, that in fact the original bill would have had the effect of driving business out of Ontario and discouraging new people from putting new investment into our province.

The minister will face the charge by some who are on the other side of this issue that he is backsliding. He will be said to be in full retreat. He will be accused of having capitulated to the major business and commercial and corporate interests of Ontario by many who have been his strongest supporters.

But the recognition, obviously, of the government is that we must have a favourable climate for business in Ontario. So the retreat in which the government has been involved in this bill is one, in my view, that can be justified. As I say, the minister will have a difficult time because he has a long tradition in the trade union movement. Perhaps even some of his caucus will have been concerned about this particular retreat on the part of the government, this backsliding, as some might say.

I think it is a situation that has resulted in a better bill coming before the House, a bill that has a much broader base of support in this province than the one originally brought forward. That of course is the way the Legislature and the legislative process should work.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There is no clawback as such, but if the federal legislation, as we now understand it, makes them secured creditors, then they would have no claim on our money at all and there would be no payback to the federal government. If it is UIC that we are concerned about, there could be a delay before the money is paid out if they have collected severance pay and termination pay.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to rise and participate in this third-reading debate. I know there is some agreement as to when a vote is to take place, but I believe that as we are here today, there are some things that must be said.

The first thing that must be said is that this is a bill that started off, as its principle, with the protection of people who are the victims of the recession. As a result of the severe economic downturn, of the number of bankruptcies, insolvencies and the number of places that closed their doors, people who had worked all their lives, who had never, ever been out of a job, had never missed a paycheque, now found themselves without work and without any real opportunity. This bill had as its genesis the stated desire to meet those needs.

This bill was announced to be forthcoming last October. This bill was not forthcoming in October or November or December or January or February or March. The government did not bring this bill forward until the last session. Though we had second-reading debate in the last session, we were only able to deal with the bill through the public hearing process and through clause-by-clause deliberation in this session and in the last recess.

This is in many ways the very earliest opportunity we had to deal with some of our concerns, some of our attempts to make this a better bill, a more balanced bill, a bill that not only met needs of those people who were the victims of the recession, but the needs and the concerns of many people who came before our committee process.

It is, at the outset, somewhat disappointing for me to have seen the government, in its participation in the process, not accept an amendment by either of the opposition parties, amendments that I believe were well-thought-out, that were balanced -- I speak from our caucus's point of view -- and that did not erode the rights and privileges of those who were the victims of the recession.

To put the bill in some context, we have to recognize that the bill was first announced, in terms of its intention, at the very same time the government announced it was going to allow Varity to leave this province, that it was going to allow Varity to move down the highway to Buffalo and allow a lower employment level.

Those who are aware of the transaction between the government of the province and Varity recognize that there were guaranteed employment levels in the understanding. In fact, the government not only allowed Varity to leave the province, but allowed those particular employment levels, in the depths of the recession, to be reduced. It was at that point in time that the government announced it would be bringing forward a bill to deal with those people who were the victims of the recession.

1610

We waited for this piece of legislation while the recession raged in Ontario, while bankruptcies were at an all-time high. As we stand here today, almost 300,000 jobs have been lost in this province. The jobs lost are not of a cyclical nature where people who are laid off are going to be recalled. Over half of those jobs that have been lost have disappeared, and those people who maybe in their lives were never without work now have a more difficult time finding work.

We have all recognized the need to make the province more competitive, to send out a positive message to business, to send out a message to our small business person that this is a place where he can open up, where he can create wealth, where he can expand and create jobs. There were opportunities as we went through the deliberations in this bill to deal with those types of concerns, to deal with the concerns of those people who came before the committee to talk about how we could send out a more positive message to the business community.

We have to recognize that when the bill was first introduced major concerns were voiced, concerns that the bill in its first incarnation carried the liability for both directors and officers of corporations, and that personal liability to those individuals was not limited to wages and vacation pay but also to severance and termination, and thirdly that there was in fact a non-exclusion; in other words, non-profit corporations and charitable corporations were included. There was great and grave concern about what this meant to those people, to those officers, to those directors, to those non-profit, charitable organizations, volunteer associations across the province, all of which are vibrant and running within our own constituencies.

We brought forward those concerns in the second-reading debate. We indicated, because of the concerns, because of the widespread nature of the concerns, because of what the impact of this bill meant, that we could not support this on second reading, that we needed those changes, at the very least, to be made. While we were in committee, the government moved amendments which met some of those concerns. However, there are still concerns that were untouched, concerns which we heard during the committee deliberations. Before I move to those concerns, I want to touch for a moment on the committee hearings.

We were dealing with an important piece of legislation and we were dealing with a piece of legislation at a very important and vulnerable point in time. We in our caucus felt that it was absolutely necessary that there be extensive hearings on this particular piece of legislation. What more important legislation can there be than a bill which has as its genesis the recession and dealing with it during the recession? We felt that it was necessary to hear from as many people as possible both as to the pros and cons of the legislation and indeed what it meant to them, the impact it had upon them. We felt that it was not enough to meet within the committee rooms in this Legislature but that it was absolutely imperative that we hear from people in other areas of this province, in the Windsors, the Ottawas, northern Ontario, the peninsula. We had to meet and listen to what this bill meant to them and what its impact would be on them.

I am sure the minister and the parliamentary assistant have heard me say this before, but it was very disappointing to our caucus when that vote came before the committee. The members of the NDP and, I dare say, the members of the Conservative caucus voted against travelling, against our moving out from this Legislature to areas of the province which had been so badly hit by the recession, devastated in many regions, all of which wanted to have some input and some part of this process to share with us what it mean to them. That is something this bill is going to have to carry with it.

This bill is going to have to carry with it the fact that it did not have the extensive consultation our caucus wanted. It did not have the opportunity to go out to other areas of the province. The shameful, sad part of it is that the opportunity was there. If only the members of the government party, the NDP, had voted in favour of travelling, then we would have done so. We would have been able to visit other areas of the province and talk about some of the aspects of the bill that other people felt were important. That is one of the roles and responsibilities we have as legislators. In fact, the problem with this bill will always be that it was stopped, curtailed.

I spoke about some of the initial concerns that were heard when the bill was introduced last spring. By no stretch of the imagination were those the only concerns people had. There were concerns raised over the fact that the monetary amount of this legislation could be changed by regulation as opposed to legislation. I think it is important for us, as we talk about this bill in third reading, to revisit once more some of those concerns because, as was made known not only during the committee but certainly during the committee of the whole discussion, we were talking not only about this bill but about about what our roles and responsibilities are as legislators. In many ways we were talking about the heart and soul of the legislation.

We are talking about the dollar amount for which an employee might be able to access a fund. We felt very strongly, as did the third party, that if there is to be any change to that amount -- and in the words of the legislation, the change can only be upwards; it can never be down, it can never be reduced. The words of the legislation clearly indicate that any increase to the amount of $5,000 may be done by regulation, and we feel it is our right, our duty and our responsibility to discuss that through the legislative process.

If it is done through regulation, we as members of the Legislature will not have that opportunity. We will not be able to talk to all members of this Legislature about the impact of any change, what it means to us in our riding, what it means to our business communities, our chambers of commerce, our boards of trade and people who have come into our constituency offices or Queen's Park offices and spoken to us about any particular impact of change.

When things are done by regulation, when the heart and soul of a piece of legislation is changed by regulation, we are really sending out a very negative message. We are really sending out a message that no matter what the government says about consultation and its new climate of co-operation, those are very much empty words. They are words on a piece of paper. The government had a real opportunity to put some substance behind those statements.

Probably every member on the government side has made some statement about the need for small business and job creation in his or her constituency and what it means to this province. Probably every member of the government has spoken about a new climate of co-operation, co-ordination and consultation at one time or another. They are always going to have to remember one thing: When they had the opportunity to stand up and talk about some substance being behind those statements they have already made, they did not do so. It was just an hour ago that they voted against that. That is something they are going to have to carry with them, not only as it affects this bill but as it affects all their statements and speeches about how important it is to consult, because when they had that opportunity they voted against it. They voted against debate on any change to this bill in this Legislature.

Members opposite voted against committees travelling to different parts of the province to listen to the impact of any change and against some of the things for which we were elected.

1620

I am always going to remember that when the members opposite had an opportunity to stand in their places, as they did today, to make that part of the law, they said no to that, no to debate, no to the committee room hearings and no to travelling across the province. I tell the members opposite right now that I shall be reminding them about this as we proceed, because words on a piece of paper at a time such as we are going through now are very empty indeed. The people of this province and business communities of this province are certainly looking for an awful lot more. We were left with that, and the members opposite voting against that amendment really sent out a very bad message about what this government intends to do in terms of fostering a new climate of co-operation.

There were other concerns. Another concern we discussed was that there was an opportunity, again through amendment, to give a small break, as it were, to the small business community. Because of the amendments, we know that the bill really is in two parts. First is eligibility, who is eligible and when they are eligible, and second is the liability of directors. In fact, because of the amendments that were made, no new rights were created. All this bill created was, first, the fund and, second, an enforcement mechanism against directors.

Certainly we are cognizant of that. We recognized that, but we also recognized that through our committee hearings, no matter how shortened they were, there was an opportunity to reach out and give small businesses an opportunity to be exempt from the enforcement mechanism. We spoke long and hard about that particular amendment because of the fact that we recognized it was not going to erode or take away from the rights of those employees who were the victims of the recession.

We spoke at length about being in favour of the principle of the legislation. These are earned benefits. Under the Employment Standards Act wages, vacation pay, termination and severance are earned benefits which, I remind the government side, previous governments have enhanced. We spoke in favour of enhancing those particular benefits. In fact, we passed into legislation those enhanced benefits. On principle, we were very much in favour of protecting that which has been earned. But we also recognize that because of the way the bill reads, there was nothing new created, save as an enforcement mechanism.

We felt there was an opportunity where we could save the small business community from that enforcement mechanism, save it the cost of acquiring insurance and save it the excess costs, through premiums, of carrying on business. It would in no way erode, and we have in no way eroded, the rights of those people who fell within the legislation.

It is one of those curious things. As we went through our deliberations, I wondered why the government would not see the balance in the amendment. I speak not because it was an amendment put forward by our party; that is not the point. The point is that it was an amendment which did not erode the rights of the worker. It also would not have cost the taxpayers any dollars. We received information during our deliberations from ministry officials, from the parliamentary assistant and from the minister as to the real likelihood of collecting from the directors of small business, that it was very minimal indeed. Why not save them the cost of having to acquire insurance and having to pay a premium on that insurance each year?

I was always curious to hear some of the reasons for voting against it. I know there will be the opportunity for members of the government side to respond, but I never heard a single reason. The only thing ever said was, "That's the way the bill is, so that's the way the bill is and that's the way the bill's going to be." The fact of the matter is that there was a tremendous opportunity to make it a more balanced, even bill which met the needs of those people who were the victims of the recession, and an opportunity at a very crucial period in our time to send out a very positive message to the business community that here is a government that listens, that this is a place where you can create jobs and wealth and that there is an opportunity for consultation and a new climate of co-operation. That, unfortunately, was not forthcoming.

We were left in many ways on the horns of a dilemma. After those amendments we had a bill, the principle of which we very much agreed with. We recognized the many thousands of people who have been the victims of the recession. I know in earlier comments it was said that there were something in the area of 18,000 or 19,000 people who might be immediately eligible for this fund. I see the minister is here. He will recall that he sent to me a letter saying it is the government's estimation that in the first 18 months of this bill, 55,000 people would be eligible.

We are not talking about a small group of people; we are talking about a large group of people, a lot of people who were never without a job, as I indicated earlier. We know what the recession meant to them and their families and we know there are benefits under this bill that are going to be secured to them. We have had that as a principle which we certainly agreed with. Surely we agreed with it after the amendments.

On the other hand, we had concerns about the real opportunity the government had to send out a message that it was listening to the business community and the fact that it had seen those amendments, that it had listened during the committee process, as shortened and narrow as it was in terms of our inability to travel, and that it was ready to respond. Unfortunately the government did not see fit to do so.

This bill certainly has addressed some of the major concerns we had at its outset. It certainly has addressed some of the reasons for which we voted against it on second reading. Those reasons have been addressed by amendment. But members should make no mistake about it -- there are still concerns with the bill. There are concerns dealing with the question of changes by regulation as opposed to legislation, in terms of sending out a positive message to our business community. Those concerns were not really addressed by the government.

At the end of the day a decision is required. We have put forward those particular amendments, we have argued those amendments and we think about the many thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, are out thousands of dollars. This bill will be able to address some of those concerns. Many thousands of workers will be able to take the benefit of this particular fund.

There are issues which still remain unresolved. We are going to be keeping a vigilant eye on the minister. We are going to be watching in terms of what the harmonization is between this bill and the federal bill when it has been passed.

1630

The minister will recognize that there are many people who spoke, first, about the need for harmonization, and second, about what that meant to them. We will be watching very carefully to make certain the Minister of Labour has heeded some of those concerns. We are going to be watching very closely to make certain this bill does not result in an employers' tax. I think the minister is well aware, and the parliamentary assistant too is well aware, as well as all members on the government side, that a concern was raised in almost every presentation that this bill should not, in the end result, have an employers' tax added to it.

I know the minister heard that message very clearly. In fact, if there was a single message that was uniform throughout our hearings, it was that. We posed that question many times and did not receive any response. I want the minister to recognize that this is a very large concern of the business community, and much wider than the business community, of the general public at large. They recognize it is the business community that creates the jobs and that if an employers' tax is imposed upon them as a result of this legislation, it is one that may impact upon the creation of jobs. The minister will have the opportunity in wrapup to address that particular issue, but it is one we are going to keep a very close eye on.

A third area we are going to be watching very closely is in the event the legislation is changed. We have said and we feel very strongly that this is a piece of legislation that, if changed, must be done through the legislative process. We recognize the minister has every right to change whatever piece of legislation he wants in whatever way he wants, but we also have an obligation and a responsibility as elected members -- I speak not as an opposition member; I speak as an elected member. I have an obligation, and everyone here has that obligation, to bring to this floor the impact of changes to legislation: what it means to our communities, what it means to the small business person, what it means to the creation of jobs. This bill really does in many ways stop me from making those types of representations. We have in many ways shut the constituency office doors on those concerns.

The minister looked up as I said that. I hope the minister recognizes that when matters are changed by regulation, members of this Legislature usually read about it in the media. We have not been able to share with the government what the impact of any change will be, what the impact of insurance premium changes means to the cost of doing business and to the creation of jobs in our ridings. There is not a person among us who has not had in his or her constituency a story, and many stories, about what this recession has meant to them, has meant to their riding, and has meant to the many families they have been asked to represent. Changes by regulation really do stop us from hearing that impact prior to the changes being made.

We are going to be watching very closely to make certain, as best we can, that when changes are made -- and we hope not -- without learning the impact of those changes, those matters are brought to the minister's and to the government's attention.

There are many people who are watching not only this debate, but who are watching the government very closely. Many people are very well aware of some of the speeches that have been made by members of the government, by backbenchers, by ministers, about this whole new era of consultation. If this bill is any example of this new era of consultation, then that is something which is greatly lacking. It is something which many business communities and many groups of individuals feel they have been shut out of.

We are going to be watching very closely. We are quite cognizant of the fact that many thousands of people are going to benefit by the bill. We have a balance here. We recognize that this bill does have some problems within it and that it has certain concerns that have not yet been met. We recognize that many of the major concerns that cause problems throughout this province in the business community and the volunteer associations have been addressed, but that there are a number of areas which still have not been addressed, areas such as regulation or legislation, and certainly the issue of the cost of doing business in this province.

These are areas we are still going to be watching. We are going to hope that the government will at some point in time put some substance behind some of the speeches it makes about consultation. We expect the government will live up to its promise that no changes will be made without consultation and without our being able to fully debate the impact of any changes. That is the very least we can do at a very difficult point in time.

There are people feeling very shut out from what we do here, people feeling very distanced from the process we undertake each and every day. Regulation does not reduce the distance; regulation increases the distance. Regulation moves people farther away from what it is that we do. Regulation makes people very much apart from the process and we want them to be a part of the process.

Though we have these concerns, we recognize that there are many thousands of people who are going to be able to receive the funds, the benefits they have earned. We believe, in principle, that this is the right direction. We believe those people should have that opportunity. Though the bill does contain certain frailties and does still have certain concerns that have not been addressed, we recognize that when one looks to those, and on balance looks to the many thousands of people who would benefit, we will vote in favour of this legislation.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: From the beginning, my concerns about Bill 70 were that there were unnecessary fears, fears that never had to take place, put through communities. If this bill had been well-thought-out, this never would have happened. Although I really do believe in supporting the workers whose wages have been earned and that they are now certainly equal in line with those people who are in the unfortunate circumstance of a business failing, my concern now is that we are now being asked to have faith in government intervention by regulation and government intervention by way of funding, funding for which, at the moment, we do not know the source. These are still my cautions as I support the right of workers to collect wages already earned.

The fears engendered by Bill 70 could easily have been prevented if this legislation had been well-thought-out in the beginning. To include non-profit and charitable organizations in this kind of legislation was reckless. The word "thoughtless" is not strong enough; it was reckless. Volunteers throughout this province who came to those of us whom they could approach so we could bring their concerns to the floor of this Legislature did not need to suffer needlessly.

I hope there have been some lessons learned in the presentation of Bill 70. I too am concerned that our amendment on small business did not receive government approval. I have had no explanation that satisfies me on that. I really do think the member for Mississauga North's amendment regarding small business and how this is possibly going to affect small business could have been much better vetted as we went across the province, if that had been permitted. Ottawa would have been a very good venue for hearings. That did not happen. I am sorry.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and questions? The member for Mississauga North has two minutes if he wishes to add a further comment.

1640

Mr Offer: I think many of the concerns have been canvassed. We recognize that this bill is not a perfect piece of legislation. We also recognize that many people who are the victims of the recession have earned benefits under the Employment Standards Act, areas of which, when we were in government, we enhanced and stand very proud of so doing. We would be able to recover those. That is, in essence and in principle, why I will be supporting this legislation.

Mr Harnick: At the outset I wish to say I support the intent of this bill, which is to provide assistance to those whose jobs have been lost due to bankruptcy or insolvency and who have earned income they are going to be unable to collect. But I have been concerned from the outset, because this bill goes beyond that concept and certain aspects have created a nervousness in our communities which tends to make the bill unpalatable.

The flawed process of the presentation of this bill and the liability of charitable organizations, which the member for Ottawa-Rideau just mentioned, sent out a horrible message in our communities. It said to me that the preparation for this bill and the presentation of this bill were bad. It told me there was no real consultation prior to the presentation of this bill and that has created a bad atmosphere.

The minister has said many times in response to questions that the problem with labour law is that the history of labour law in this province has been marked by the adversarial nature between business and labour. To a certain degree, although not in the most recent of times, I would agree with the minister in that characterization. I agree there has been that adversarial nature.

The way this bill has been presented, the contents of this bill and the atmosphere within which the bill has been brought to this Legislature have only heightened the adversarial nature which the minister has stated so categorically he wanted to deny. That causes me some real concern. This bill from the outset pitted labour against business.

When you add to that the compounding factor of the general atmosphere with respect to intended Ontario Labour Relations Board amendments which were leaked, listed in graphic detail, signed by the minister, and which found their way into this Legislature and to members on all sides of this Legislature and to the public, there was cause for real concern. When you compound that with the original contents of this bill, the only conclusion you can come to is that there was absolutely no consultation taking place between business, labour and the government. That got this piece of legislation on the rails but on the wrong track.

I have some other concerns, and my friend the member for Mississauga North mentioned this earlier: Every time an amendment was proposed that would help small business without in any way affecting the intent of the act, the amendment was defeated. There was absolutely no intention to try to help that entity in our community which creates the wealth and provides the jobs.

What we saw was an absolute denial of any of those amendments either by way of passing them or even by way of real consideration. That causes me some considerable concern about this legislation. The ability to produce a piece of legislation that can help all parties is something I think all ministers should strive for when they present legislation in this Legislature. This bill did not accomplish that.

The aspect of the changes by regulation we spoke about in some detail in committee of the whole House. I merely wish to reiterate that the idea of changing legislation in significant, material ways without bringing that legislation to this Legislature is reprehensible. It negates the job we are all supposed to do together. I have some regret that amendments directed at stopping legislation by way of regulation were not accepted in committee of the whole.

The other aspect of this bill that causes me some concern is the underlying aspect, which the government does not wish to discuss, of how ultimately this bill will be funded. My colleague the member for Waterloo North, our critic of the Labour portfolio, has asked both the Treasurer and the Minister of Labour about the prospect of a future payroll tax to fund the legislation. Neither the Treasurer nor the Minister of Labour has given any assurance that he will not institute a payroll tax to fund the wage protection program.

I point out to the minister that people are concerned about that. I point to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which indicated: "No employer tax or payroll tax be established to fund the program in the future. To do so would be detrimental to the economy of Ontario by making it even less competitive, resulting in fewer jobs for Ontario workers. Almost all jurisdictions with which we compete offer a far more competitive tax environment."

Mother Parker's Foods Ltd stated, "You must realize that another payroll tax would send a great deal more small businesses straight into bankruptcy and put even more individuals out of work."

From the More Jobs Coalition: "The More Jobs Coalition is firmly opposed to any initiative which would add an additional payroll tax on the already heavy burdens employers must bear."

The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has stated: "No employer taxes should be introduced to cover the cost of payments made in accordance with the bill. These are social benefits that should be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund."

The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada has stated: "We cannot support financing the program by means of a flat payroll or corporations tax. Clearly any additional cost of doing business will negatively affect the industry's ability to compete in the North American marketplace."

Steve Yeoman of Bates and McKeown stated, "In the aftermath of the GST and the employer health tax and the Ontario budget deficit, small business in the province of Ontario cannot afford another tax."

The Information Technology Association of Canada stated: "A payroll tax willdrop with a thud on the scales when weighing in against the investment case for Ontario. You should recognize that it is not only the cost of doing business in a given environment that investors will measure."

Finally, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, "The regressive character of payroll taxes makes them much more burdensome to the small business community than to large corporations."

1650

I point out that the minister can allay the fears of a great many organizations, corporations, individuals and groups by categorically stating that the wage protection fund will not be financed and paid for by a tax on jobs. I think he would be well advised, if I can say with respect, to send out that kind of message, and then a bill such as this bill would be received a little more positively.

Finally, I just want to point out that in sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 there are elements of those sections that have nothing to do with the wage protection fund. These are sections that entitle the ministry to make orders to reinstate a person in employment, or to hire an employee who had been let go, with or without compensation, "or to compensate the employee in lieu of reinstatement or hiring for loss of earnings or other employment benefits," if there has been a contravention.

"Where an employer dismisses an employee who refuses any work that is a contravention of subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act, an employment standards officer may order the employer to reinstate in employment the employee concerned, with or without compensation, or to compensate the employee in lieu of reinstatement for loss of earnings or other employment benefits.

"If a trade union has entered into a settlement agreement under subsection (15) and the employer does not pay the severance pay agreed to or the trade union demonstrates that the agreement was made as the result of fraud or coercion, an employment standards officer may make an order under section 47 as to what action, if any, the employer shall take and may make an order to compensate the employee for the severance pay that is owed."

These in and of themselves may be sections that are reasonable sections, but the first thing we see is that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is eliminated from consideration of these sections.

What kind of message does that send out in terms of fairness to the employers of this province, those who create the wealth? The fact that these find their way into an act that primarily deals with wage protection, a wage protection fund and eligibility for that fund, I find somewhat curious. I think these sections send out a message that makes it very difficult for business, particularly small business, to accept this bill in a non-adversarial way.

I had the opportunity to comment on this bill earlier in committee of the whole and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill on behalf of my constituents and to express some of their concerns. I do state that in principle the bill is a proper bill, if it were confined to providing the assistance to those whose jobs were eliminated by reason of bankruptcy and insolvency and for money they had already earned. But the bill goes beyond that, it causes concern and it may not be effective as we watch it in years down the road.

Mr Mammoliti: I too stand in representing the constituents of Yorkview, and I know the concerns my constituents have. They are totally in favour of this bill. They have phoned consistently and talked about wage protection and about how quickly we can get this bill passed. They have talked about the stalling in the House. They have talked about the stalling in committee. They have talked about the deliberate stalling in committee and in this Legislature that has taken place from the members across the way.

We need wage protection. I say "we" because this is where I come from, labour. I do not forget my roots. I represented a number of employees in a particular ministry prior to the election. I know a lot of union leaders who represent workers in the construction industry, workers in factories, workers in small businesses, the Becker's, the Mac's milk stores. I know individuals who work in those areas. They are concerned that nobody is really paying attention to them, that nobody is really bothering with them, and that nobody has paid attention to them, that nobody has bothered with them in the past.

Through this bill, I believe we are paying attention to those individuals, the average person. We are trying to make life a little more comfortable for them in that they need security. When the average person looks for a job, that person wants to know that he is going to be there for a while, and that if he is not, there is compensation for him if something should happen.

I cannot condone what the federal government is doing in this country. The federal government is making it more attractive for business to leave. I do not understand the logic behind that; I never have. I can remember all kinds of rallies we held prior to the election of 1990, of course not supporting the views of the federal government. Those rallies told them that this would happen, that people would leave, that they would leave the country, that they would go to the United States, that they would go into Buffalo, that they would go to New York, that they would go into all those cities that were giving them all kinds of attractive proposals, for instance, about land. They can pick up land cheap. They do not have to pay tax for land, that sort of thing. Labour, of course, is cheaper there as well. They are making it attractive. People are leaving. Of course you talk about the GST, another area the federal government really did not put any thought to.

Individuals have left, are gone and I am not sure how to get them back. I would love to be able to come up with a plan to get these people back. I am not too sure how we would do that, but it is certainly something I would like to sit down, even with my colleagues across the way, and talk about, a plan to get them back into Ontario. We may have to get rid of the federal government first, because it certainly is an enemy, as far as I am concerned.

When we talk about communication, I agree; there has to be communication between government and opposition. There is no question about it. The committee work is important. We have to go around. We have to consult and all of that.

However, I would like to take the view of the person at 5 o'clock tonight, eating his dinner and watching me speak and watching us speak in this Legislature, turning it to the channel and listening to us debate on this thing. This person, perhaps one who may be out of work and waiting for this cheque, is saying to himself or herself: "What's taking so long? It's not so much the consultation I'm worried about at this point. I'm worried about eating. I'm worried about putting food on my table. I'm worried about putting food on my table so that my children can eat. I'm worried about my home. I'm worried about my mortgage. I'm worried about my rent."

When I hear arguments in this particular case, when we talk about wage protection, I have to say that I do not agree we should hit every particular city in the province and should conduct a massive communication strategy. We want this through. I believe the communication has been satisfactory up until now. I believe all the committee members have done their work and have done a very good job. It is unfortunate a lot of amendments were not passed, but I am glad this is going to come to an end, I hope, today. I am glad this is going to be passed today because there are a lot of people -- yes, in my riding of Yorkview -- waiting for this bill to be passed, waiting for that cheque. In terms of the number of people, about 18,000 workers are sitting there right now, probably a hell of a lot of them anyway, tuned in and watching today, knowing this is the last day and asking themselves, again while they are eating their dinner, "What is taking so long?"

1700

I do not have too much to say; I never do. I try to keep it as short as possible and to the point. This whole thing with free trade and the GST and all of that really gets to me. On the one hand, we sit here and talk about cross-border shopping and about what we should do as the provincial government and, on the other hand, our hands are tied. When we talk about transfer payments and all of that stuff, it is really irritating and very frustrating for a backbencher such as myself, somebody who is trying to learn, trying to figure out a way of doing things in a manner and a way the constituents can appreciate, to know there is another level of government that is hurting us drastically. I have to plug in the fact that people are out of work because their company, their factory or their store moved elsewhere. The government has made that possible by making it more attractive to go somewhere else.

I have been working quite extensively on the whole drug treatment area. One asks, "How does it relate?" It relates. The previous governments really did nothing about cross-border shopping that way. How many millions of dollars have been spent across the border looking for treatment? It is $51 million, to be exact. We have not really improved our treatment here. How many of those people go across to the United States to look for help and how many of them actually spend money while they are down there? How many of them actually spend perhaps another $51 million on their clothes and on their food? That money could have been spent here in Ontario. How many jobs could have been provided already if the previous government had perhaps taken a look at this and restructured it the way it should have done?

All that relates to what I have been saying. As far as I am concerned, it has a lot to do with people going to the United States, that whole attraction. Whether it is jobs or businesses moving to the United States or whether it is drugs, it all has to be looked at. How can we better spend our money in Ontario? This is what this government wants to do. We do not want to waste time. We want to do it as quickly as we can and as efficiently as we can.

As a backbencher, I really get upset knowing that the opposition stalls. Frankly, I think they are doing it on purpose; the same thing with the third party. If they are really sincere, if they really care about their constituents, they will know this is a good bill. This is a bill we need. This is protection workers need. If they have been canvassing door to door, they know the average person wants it and needs it.

I am counting on them, after the bill is passed, to go around and talk with their constituents and let them know of the bill and the effect this bill is going to have on communities in general. I would like them to tell people the positives and not the negatives, to go to a front door and instead of saying, "We should have visited all the cities in Ontario and there should have been a wide consultation on this and we should have talked until we were blue in the face on it," say: "It was so important to get this passed. We did what we could in committee and we did what we could in the Legislature. Let's take this forward and hope things will work out."

I also ask the members of the third party again -- I have done this consistently -- to please go to their federal counterparts, their federal friends, and say, "Do something."

Mr Runciman: Don't bother me. Go to them.

Mr Mammoliti: The member for Leeds-Grenville says, "Don't bother me." This is the sort of frustration we as the government are coming up against when I say to them, when I plead: "Go speak to your friends in Ottawa. Tell them we need them. We have to work together with them, not against them. Tell them this whole area of free trade and the GST is crippling us to a point where we cannot survive any more, to a point where we are out of work and we just cannot cope." I plead that they please do something. Nobody is listening. This is how frustrating it is for a backbencher such as myself.

Mr B. Murdoch: You haven't said a thing since you have been here.

Mr Mammoliti: Again we get interjections for me to say something. I have been saying something. I have been saying something for the working person, that person who is sitting in front of the TV eating dinner and asking: "When is this going to end? When is this bill going to go through? When am I going to get my cheque?" These are the questions the average person, the average voter is asking, not: "How much time can we waste? How long does it have to be? How much time we do have to sit and talk about it and debate about it in the Legislature?" Even as I speak they are probably asking, "How long does Mammoliti have to speak?"

On that note I say to the members of the third party opposite to please take in everything I have said today. They should take it in because it is important. They should go to the doors of those average people, knock and ask them how they feel about wage protection, how they feel about the future of their children, how they feel about that mortgage payment being at least a little secure if their company were to shut down at this point. I ask the members of the third party for the last time to do something, to go to their leader and tell him he is ruining our country and put up a fight. I dare them to put up that fight. I do not think any of them have.

Mr Speaker, I will close on that note and I will say thank you very much for the time. I thank the minister for this excellent bill. On behalf of my constituents, I thank him. We need it. I am looking forward to other bills being introduced for labour.

Mr Tilson: I have a question to the member for Yorkview. He is quite right that, as I understand it, the federal government did introduce a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act in June this year which included provisions to create a wage claim payment program. Under that federal program employees caught in bankruptcy, receivership or liquidation can receive up to $2,000 for unpaid wages and vacation pay and up to $1,000 for unpaid salesperson expenses.

The federal program, as I understand it, is being funded through a payroll tax. Back in the fall, the Premier indicated that the government would be setting up this wage protection fund to guarantee unpaid wages of employees who lose their jobs when their companies go bankrupt or are shut down. He indicated that the seed money for that fund would come from the $5 million that the government received as a settlement for Varity Corp moving to Buffalo.

My question to the member is, once the seed money is gone and the 18 months suggested in the bill have expired, how does the government propose to fund the particular fund that this bill is setting up?

1710

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would just like to respond to the member for Yorkview by stating that this bill would not have taken so long to progress through the Legislature if this government had been more forthcoming on how it is going to finance the bill. As members of this Legislature, we are being asked to support something we believe in, but we are being asked to do that with a giant leap of faith by a government that has changed its mind, has flip-flopped and has certainly been less than secure in its financial and fiscal planning. These are things that make us very cautious and certainly are meant for much discussion, and without the amendments, we could not have supported this bill.

Mr Mammoliti: I will say it again. As a backbencher, I look at cabinet, I look at the whole structure of government, and I would probably take the same approach to answering that question as the average person, eating dinner at 5:15 at home and tuning in, would take, and that is: "Let us lead. Let us determine where the funding is going to come from. Let us determine where we are going to spend the money. We are the government. We were elected to do that, to govern." Frankly, again as a backbencher, I am sick and tired and fed up with the opposition wasting valuable time in telling us how to manage.

As a labour leader, I have heard consistently from business: "Let us manage. Let us do what we think we can do best. Don't interfere." I have heard it continually from the opposition as well in the past: "Let them manage. Don't interfere with business. What the hell are you doing interfering with business?"

Why are the members opposite interfering with us? Let us manage. Let us deal with our affairs. Let us find the funding. The members opposite are not letting us do that. I ask the third party again, for the third time today, to go to their federal people, to go to their friends in the federal area in Ottawa and say to them: "Stop free trade. Use that clause. Stop the GST. You are crippling us. You are not letting us do our thing in Ottawa. Do what's right for Canada. Do what's right for Ontario." That is what I ask.

Mr Conway: That was quite a performance. I am afraid it is one we are getting all too accustomed to in this House.

I just want to make some comments around Bill 70, because as has been indicated by previous speakers, this has been a matter of some interest to this Legislature and the public beyond. I find it incredible that people talk about -- when it comes to some of the comments of my friend opposite, I suppose if I wanted, imputation of motive comes to mind rather quickly.

This bill was introduced for first reading in mid-April. We are now in mid-October. A bill of this kind, with these consequences for the economy, being dealt with in six months is, given the history of this legislative chamber, expeditious.

I want to repeat for the community out there watching this on television after dinner, as my friends who have spoken before me have rightly observed, you will remember the circumstances around the introduction of the bill. There was a tremendous concern about the scope of Bill 70. To his credit, the minister moved some time ago to amend the more offensive sections of this bill, but Bill 70 dropped on the heads of the province with quite a notable effect. That we have taken but six months to discuss it in the light of its highly controversial character upon introduction says something about the expeditious way in which the assembly and the committee has gone about their work.

It should not surprise anyone that a bill with this kind of principle and this kind of potential pricetag would attract the interest of people. I was not around when the committee was deciding where it was going and not going, but I have to tell members that if I had been there, I think it would have been a more difficult battle to restrain this committee from going into those parts of the province where clearly it did not go. That apparently was a long list.

For me as a Liberal, the essential core of this bill is that there will be a legislative protection for earned work and related credits. So if I, as a working person, am duly in receipt of wages and vacation pay that I have earned, I will have some legislated protection for and claim to that earned credit. I think a Liberal has to support that kind of legislation, that kind of principle, but I do not do so without reservation. There are aspects of this bill that I truly do not like. That principle, it seems to me, properly belongs in the federal Parliament with the Bankruptcy Act.

Mr Huget: You know the feds will never do anything about that.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Sarnia says the feds may not do anything. I do not know what the federal government is going to do. I am simply telling members that I accept the principle. I think it should be supported by all reasonable people and certainly any person who considers himself or herself to be liberally minded.

I do not expect the entire community to embrace this. I have had a number of business people come to me as recently as the weekend and continue to express deep-seated concern about the bill. In some cases they are talking about the bill before the government amendments proceeded. They are also apoplectic about what they read in terms of the next item of business on this government's legislative agenda.

I am telling members what they already know, that Bill 70 has caused great concern because it was poorly drafted in the first instance; enormously controversial, because of the exposure to our charitable organizations, our non-profit corporations, among others; but it also fits into a broader piece, and that broader piece has attracted the interest of a great number of people in the community.

I would say as well that the bill has some elements I do not like at all. I just do not understand this government in its enthusiasm for an expansive use of the regulatory power. I think back to their railing about the McKeough days of regulatory powers, yet this government, in two of its first major legislative initiatives, Bill 70 and Bill 118, seeks to give itself either an executive or a regulatory power that is in relative terms sweeping if not breathtaking. The executive power that this Rae government sought to give itself with Bill 118 was as dramatic as anything I have seen in a long time.

My friends opposite say what their intentions are with respect to Bill 70. I want to tell my learned friend, the hockey-playing Attorney General from Rainy River, that he would do well to look at what section 16 of this bill entitles the minister, as an executive personality, to do by regulation. If he wonders why there are people out there concerned about what the government is up to, it is exactly because this bill, by regulation, gives the executive council -- more important, the government, the cabinet minister in charge -- the right to expand upward the entitlement, to expand outward the criteria --

1720

Hon Mr Hampton: Is that a little bit like auto insurance?

Mr Conway: I cannot believe my friend the member for Rainy River wants me to engage in a parenthetical debate about auto insurance. I can still hear the swallow-tailed coat he was wearing on swearing-in day snap as he makes a 180-degree turn on that subject.

I simply want to say that people are right to be concerned about the regulatory power that is contained in section 16 of this act, and I do not say that lightly.

Hon Mr Hampton: Remember 162?

Mr Conway: I remember 162. It is too bad the pale shadow of Fred Young has just left us, because what I remember about Bill 162 is the stampede that almost broke down the doors in here. I remember well how utterly inadvertent that all was, how completely spontaneous. The member asks me about Bill 162? He bloody well has his nerve, quite frankly. When I think about the kinds of tactics --

Hon Mr Hampton: I think I touched one.

Mr Conway: He has bloody well touched something, because we are now 13 months into his mandate and no one has come to storm the doors here, however spontaneously, however inadvertently.

Hon Mr Pouliot: And it was spontaneous.

Mr Conway: Yes, of course, absolutely.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Are you imputing motive? Are you saying we sponsored this? What are you trying to say? Say it, Sean.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The debate is on Bill 70. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I am not surprised at all that the then Leader of the Opposition calmed them down.

I simply want to say that I support this bill because for me it has a very fundamental principle, and that is, ordinary working men and women who have earned credits in the workplace ought to be able, in most circumstances if not all circumstances, to get those credits. That for me is the basic principle of Bill 70. That is why I support it.

I share absolutely the concern that others have articulated around a payroll tax. I want to say, on behalf of my constituents, and I must say my business constituents more particularly, that they will recoil if there is going to be a payroll tax announced at some later point to fund this. It would be a deception of a very serious kind to be engaged in this debate and not to be told that in fact the second piece of this policy is a payroll tax to be announced at some later date.

I have to tell my friend opposite the Minister of Labour, with whom I have rarely agreed, that I must say I respect him for what he is, which is a very stout and reliable defender of the labour interest. I say that quite respectfully. If as a companion piece to Bill 70 there is a payroll tax contemplated, then he has to know that he is going to re-ignite this debate.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Like a health tax?

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says, "Like a health tax." That was a payroll tax and perhaps we should debate that at another time. I am quite prepared to admit that the payroll tax has landed on the backs of the business community now in a way that is not helping. I will be perfectly frank in saying that.

As all of us come to this place on a daily basis with interesting schemes to spend money on highly meritorious projects, we owe it to ourselves and to our community to be very serious and responsible, particularly in these times, as to how we are going to pay for this. I am sent here by my constituents, who tell me that, yes, they think the principle should be supported but they do not want it paid for with a payroll tax, particularly in these kinds of recessionary circumstances.

I want to say, as I look at the clock, that the Bill 70 piece fits into other pieces. It relates to the fiscal policy this government is pursuing. It relates to other issues on the labour agenda. When I talk to people about Bill 70, I have to first get them down from the ceiling about the original Bill 70 and then I have to try to calm them down about the Bob Rae-Bob Mackenzie-Bob White labour relations amendments.

If my friend the member for Yorkview thinks that there was a little debate over six months with Bill 70, I am going to tell him that he had better get ready for a long march on those amendments whenever they come forward.

One of the other reasons why I can support Bill 70 is that I can honestly say that in the main it will support and assist Ed Broadbent's ordinary Canadians, the working men and women of my riding and all the other communities around the province. When I see some of the other things on their labour agenda, it is quite clear that this has a much more narrow focus in terms of its understanding of the public good. But I am sure they understand, because they are all bright people over there, as far as I can judge in a charitable frame of mind, at least.

Mr Mammoliti: Come on, Sean.

Mr Conway: The member for Yorkview has just returned, and I get kind of annoyed when I hear the speech --

Hon Mr Hampton: Have you had a bad weekend?

Mr Conway: No, I have not had a bad weekend at all. But I am just telling the members that as a government, they are doing a variety of things that affect the business climate in the province.

I think we all know that this fund is not going to be heavily drawn upon if we have some kind of recovery. If the recession continues, then the pressure on the Treasurer to pay for this -- let's not kid ourselves. The Minister of Labour, I know, has talked about this. If we have, for the sake of argument, 10,000 claims and if they average $3,500 a claim, then we are looking at what, $35 million? Is that the right arithmetic? If we have, however, 50,000 claims at $4,000 or $5,000 a claim, let none of us kid ourselves as to what we have and what kind of pressure that puts on the Treasurer in particular.

One of the reasons I am prepared to support the government's restraint initiative is that I want to see something done for these men and women in my constituency, in the main in the private sector, who do not have these good public sector pensions.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I am being quite frank. My farmers and my sawmill people, to use two sectors, are really in trouble. I am quite prepared to support this legislation because I think it is going to help some of those people, but that lineup is going to be very long if we do not smarten up and start to realize that the recession can only end if public policy starts to understand something about how we go about creating some wealth.

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Conway: Our friends in the Progressive Conservative Party have a particular point of view, and that is their entitlement.

But I want to say to my friends from Durham West and Yorkview that I hope we have all got beyond the point of getting up here and doing what the member for -- and I apologize if I was a little rude to the member for Yorkview, but I am sick and tired, and I think most of the taxpayers are sick and tired, and I would have thought most members of this Legislature who have been here for more than two years are sick and tired, of getting up and saying: "Well, it's all somebody else's fault. It is city hall's fault. It's Ottawa's fault."

Mr Mammoliti: It is.

1730

Mr Conway: If the member wants to engage in the federal debate, he should run for the Parliament of Canada.

I watched Mike Harcourt the other night deal with some of the tough questions that were put to him in the leader's debate, right around this subject, interestingly. The skating and the obfuscation were breathtaking, but if I do not like the fact that he would not answer any of the tough questions, then I can leave Ontario, presumably, go to British Columbia and engage him in the British Columbia debate and in the British Columbia political process.

Mr Mammoliti: That's a silly argument.

Mr Conway: It is not a silly argument. What is not silly but insulting is for my friend opposite to get up and say it is all a matter of the GST and the federal fiscal policy. I am an elected member in Ontario to tell the members opposite that the fiscal policy, the tax policy, the labour policy, the energy policy of the duly elected Bob Rae government in Ontario will have a great deal to do with how long the line is standing in front of this wage protection fund. That is my point.

In conclusion, there are real and legitimate concerns around the bill. I congratulate the government for backing off the really controversial components which have been mentioned earlier. I want to repeat that I expect this fund will be concerned with what the bill focuses upon in principle, the earned credits of working men and women that are in jeopardy or at risk as a result of bankruptcy or what have you. This government ought not to fund this with a payroll tax. It should be ashamed of the expansive regulatory power and it should be very reluctant to use that, particularly to change the basic policy which this Legislature will today affirm.

The government, in light of what it has heard over the course of the last six months, will surely think deeply and carefully about what it wants to do with the other legislation affecting the relationship of labour and capital in this province, where we all want this terrible recession to end and where we want to get as close to full employment as is possible in a modern industrial and commercial society of the kind in which we live.

Mr Bisson: I always have the greatest respect for the member for Renfrew North when he gets up in the House, normally to bring up very good points which I think are beneficial not only for myself as a member but for all people participating in the debate, either here in the House or watching it on television at home.

But I take some offence -- and I have to say this -- when the member says my colleague on this side of the House is trying to lay blame at the federal feet and that we should not look elsewhere to try to lay blame. I have sat in this Legislature for a year and have watched exactly that on the part of the opposition parties, so I ask that the member looks in a mirror when he makes comments like that.

I agree with him that what is needed in this Legislature, as in any Legislature in this country or in the federal House of Commons, is the civility of members from all sides to sit down on key issues and go through an issue to try to make legislation better. The member for Mississauga North mentioned that this legislation was made better because amendments were put forward based on the consultation process that happened with the people of Ontario and, may I say, from members of the opposition as well. It is exactly true. That is part of the process. Yes, when we sit down as members and go through the whole process, we tend to make better legislation in the end.

But let's not accuse one person of laying blame and pointing fingers. I think we should look in the mirror. The reality is that there is a federal government in place that has quite regressive policies. We cannot escape that as a provincial government or as members of a provincial Legislature, and to say the federal government is exonerated from any blame for the recession we have today is wrong; part of the problem does lie with the federal government. But it is up to us as members to work together at trying to find solutions for the people of Ontario. Sitting here as we do in question period, with some interesting points made that are quite colourful at times, I do not think we add to the civility of this House or the attempt to resolve some of the problems for the people of this province.

Mr Tilson: I have listened to the amendments put forward by the member for Mississauga North and the very reasoned arguments he put forward. I think our party has supported him on all those amendments and I believe the government has rejected all those amendments.

I find it strange that I hear the official opposition, the Liberal Party, indicating, at least so it would appear, that it is going to support this bill. My question to the member for Renfrew North is the same question I asked the member for Yorkview: When he realizes what this is going to cost, when he starts realizing that the Ministry of Labour estimated in April that the average cost per claim would be roughly $3,200 and that in July it crept up to $4,200 -- I have no idea what it is now but I am certain that with the recession as described to us by the Treasurer it has increased even further.

I listened to the fear in the community, the fear that has been expressed by many of us in this House as to how this is going to be paid for, where the money is going to come from. I ask the same question of the member for Renfrew North, who has indicated he is going to be supporting this bill. Once we get past the seed money, once we get past the first 18 months, once we realize that many of the regulations are going to be -- we in this House will not even see what is going to happen as to the definition of "wages," so my question of the member for Renfrew North is the same question: How in the world is this going to be paid for?

Mr White: I want to respond briefly to the member for Renfrew North. He, as always, spoke brilliantly. I think at the outset he did indulge to some degree in some desultory philippics because he was goaded from our side and unfortunately did not direct himself properly through you, Mr Speaker.

I was thinking, though, of a couple of things he mentioned, the issue of responsibility and the issue of obfuscation. The member for Renfrew North has given us ample opportunity to learn from him marvellous skills in obfuscation, something perhaps someone on the west coast is learning now, but certainly not the members here present.

The energy devoted here to obfuscation and negativity about economic renewal, I think, is very unfortunate, especially given the concentration we have had in the last while on a real renewal which includes all of our country, not simply business, not simply the well-to-do, not simply the investors.

Also, he spoke of how this bill assists Mr Broadbent's ordinary Canadians. Mr Broadbent's ordinary Canadians live in all our ridings, in the riding of the member opposite riding as well as in my own. I am surprised that somehow these people are excluded from his universe. However, I am glad to hear that despite that exclusion, he is supporting the bill. Were he in opposition to it, Lord knows what fury he might mount.

Mr Elston: I rise to congratulate the member for Renfrew North on his comments. I have to say that I, like he, am concerned that this bill is, for those people who have lost their jobs, just a little hope and a very short term sort of fix for their situation.

I saw the member for Yorkview here not long ago speaking about how this would help them deal with the possible loss of ability to pay mortgages or buy food, or all of those things. The thing that has struck me most about this, as it is a short-term intervention on behalf of any worker who has lost his job, is the fact that there is no long-term creative strategy coming forth, no energy coming from this government whatsoever to really address the real problem.

The real problem is that there is no incentive to create jobs and to maintain jobs in this province. Over the last five or six years there have been lots of people saying it costs too much to do business in this province and that it is onerous, that there is a whole series of problems associated with this, and that has resulted not just from one administration, but from administrations of all three parties.

1740

What we have to do is not just tell these people who have lost their jobs that this will save them -- because it will not; it merely gets them by a rough spot -- but that we are going to dedicate ourselves to making it less onerous to be employed and to be an employer, and make it more enjoyable and acceptable to be resident and employed and working productively in this province.

None of the people in this Legislature represent parties that have not participated in a problem that has gained new momentum, against doing business here. I have to say that is a sad comment. We have to get on with doing real work for people permanently.

Mr Conway: I am interested in some of what has been said by the member for Cochrane South, the member for Yorkview and the member for Durham Centre. I think it would be a good use of the growing budget in the Board of Internal Economy for somebody in the Speaker's office to organize a little seminar for some of our good, newly elected friends who clearly do not understand how the British parliamentary system works. It never ceases to amaze me that they just do not seem to have any idea. They seem to think they are running some kind of plebiscitarian democracy, where they once win an election and that gives them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want anywhere, any time and on anything for the next five years. I am sorry; it does not work that way.

Hon Mr Hampton: Sean, that was the last government.

Mr Conway: The last government may have done that and it got what governments sometimes get.

I want to deal with my friend from Orangeville who said, "How are we going to pay for this?" We are going to have to look very seriously at how we pay for this. It is going to cost money. I am opposed to a payroll tax. I recognize that it is going to take money. It is going to take --

Hon Mr Pouliot: You sat right here and you voted for that same guy.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I have the floor and my friend the member for Lake Nipigon should not engage in the debate.

In these recessionary times, a payroll tax is an unacceptable and undue burden on the part of the community that we expect to create the new wealth, the new employment and the new jobs across the province. I argue that we should find the money to a large extent from within.

I do not know whether anybody noticed, but last week the Treasurer stood up and said he would have to find $215 million of real money to support the teachers' pension fund, almost a quarter of a billion dollars. If we can do that for some of the most protected people in the community, we owe it to those men and women who are largely in the private sector with relatively little in comparison to some of these very powerful, well-established interests to find the money from within so they can have some equity and fairness and protection.

Mr Tilson: I would like to relate two major concerns our party finds in objection to this bill, which appears to be supported by the Liberal Party. Those objections are twofold. There are items in this bill that are being delegated away from this House. Things will get passed that we will not even know are being passed.

Specifically, with respect to increasing the severance and termination pay threshold, that could be passed by regulation, the maximum amount of compensation could be increased by regulation and the whole definition of "wages" can be changed by regulation. Those topics should be dealt with by this House. I have asked specific questions in this House as to how this legislation is going to be paid for, and I tell the members who is going to have to pay for it: the taxpayers of this province.

We saw how the last government spent, I think, 32 or 33 tax increases in the period it was in power. This government, the NDP, went around the province in the last election and literally tore them apart for the increases they put on the people of this province. Businesses are moving away from this province because of the very things the government is about to do. How else are they going to fund it? I will tell them how they are going to fund it: It is going to be through the payroll taxes. There is no question that is what they have planned, and for that reason we are dead opposed to supporting this bill.

Mr Hope: I have just one quick comment dealing with the whole issue. We would not need this legislation if those who were owed money were paid the money and the corporations were liable to their employees. This bill would not be required. There is a federal policy out there making sure that people are leaving this country and workers are being victimized. It is very important that if the federal government changed its economic policies and got rid of its trade deal, we would not need a wage protection fund to protect those wages earned by individuals.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, I have two minutes to go here, so I will simply offer this. It has been an interesting debate. In my office I had the opportunity to watch the member for Renfrew North making his presentation and talking about some of the concerns people out there would have about this bill and some of the interventions that have been made today.

Once again I must emphasize to members of the House that the member was quite correct when he said that the initial concerns about the bill are ones that remain in the minds of many people in this province. But the modifications that have been made have made it a much better bill than the original one that was presented to the House.

Those of us in the Liberal Party have not taken a dogmatic stand on this. We have looked at this legislation and we believe it is required. People who are in the circumstances of losing their jobs seem to be last in line to get at least some semblance of the money owing to them. It is not something they do not have coming to them. This is money owing to workers in this province. I think a lot of people forget that when they are making their interventions in this House. We believe there should be a mechanism for them to retain or to get back at least part of that money.

I think initially the bill gathered a lot of opposition because it had some provisions that were going to be difficult for individuals, that would discourage people from serving on boards of directors of companies and that might have influenced non-profit organizations. However, with the changes made to this legislation, this particular compromise, we have a bill most people who are fairminded and know what is in the bill would be prepared to accept. As I indicated earlier in the day, this is a good example of the parliamentary system working best.

Mr Stockwell: The very great concern I have is that the bill is dealt with as if the only person who suffers any hardship during a bankruptcy would be the individual who worked for the company. Yes, for all intents and purposes they do suffer a hardship, but there are many creditors out there who suffer hardship. Members should look at the creditor of a small business who is owed a lot money. Should a large company go bankrupt, those people are left hanging out to dry. They do not receive their money. They stand in line and they clearly are not given any consideration in the lineup at the banks.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, order, please.

Mr Stockwell: The bank is not the only one that should receive any payment, should a company go bankrupt. Those are small businesses. They are run by individuals. They suffer equally. In fact, they just go out of business due to bad debts. It happens all the time.

The next point I would like to make is that I will make a prediction in this House that two years from today this will become a payroll tax. Within the next two years this government will find out that it is going to have to foist this on the private industry.

Mr Kormos: You just don't care about the workers. You just don't give a tinker's dam.

Mr Stockwell: It is a shame that Curly and Larry did not get elected too, Peter.

They are going to find out that they are going to have to pay for this through the private sector and a payroll tax. That payroll tax will be another tax on businesses that will force businesses out of this province. If the suggestion is made that the timing is right on this tax, it is not. Businesses cannot afford these kinds of incurred costs. I will wager that in two years this government will make this a payroll tax, because the people cannot afford it.

Mr Bisson: When the honourable member speaks about securing liabilities on the part of other people who are owed money, the thing he is missing is that a lot of these people are secured through the Bankruptcy Act. The problem is that the workers are not. The workers have no other recourse in order to get their money back.

If the member is implying that somehow those people who are owed money, other than workers, are somehow more important because they need to be at the head of the line ahead of time, I beg to differ. It is not that small business persons who are owed money because of supplies or services given to a company are not important, but they have mechanisms by which to have some of their money secured. The workers have not.

1750

Mr Stockwell: You can't get blood from a stone.

Mr Bisson: The member says you cannot get blood from a stone. That is quite correct. But what we are interested in doing in this province is at least making sure that the rules that are set forward on how we do business in this province have a certain amount of equity, that workers can measure up equally to those to whom money is owed by other people, those who are owed money for services they may have provided.

The problem is that we need to put together --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: It is quite difficult sometimes when everybody is heckling over here. The problem is that we need to put together bills such as this in order to put some equity within our system. We need to make sure that at the end of the day the rights of the workers are not any more important or any less important than those of other creditors. That is what this bill is speaking to.

The other point the member talks about is that he is worried this is a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. This money is being taken from general revenue. Neither the government nor the minister nor anybody else on this side of the House has ever advocated that this should be put into a payroll tax.

The member for Renfrew North stood up in this House a little while ago to say he was opposed to those types of taxes. What happened in regard to the employer health tax? If I remember correctly, if I go and look at Hansard, he voted for that tax, so he should not stand in this House and tell me he is opposed. We need to work together; we need to be able to put legislation like this together. I think this is a good example of how, by working together, we can put together good legislation for the people of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to reply.

Mr Tilson: The concern we have in this province is the loss of jobs and the reason businesses and people are leaving this province. The reason is the lack of confidence in this government. All members have to do is read the newspapers and talk to their constituents. I can tell them that the people who have come into my office are afraid of losing their jobs. Businesses in my own riding are going out of business; companies are going out of business. They are leaving the province. I have one particular company in my riding, Canada Wire, which is moving to Winnipeg.

There is no question that the whole reason this government is doing it is to try and solve the problem of businesses going bankrupt and the effect on the employees who are losing their jobs. I appreciate that. However, the old question comes back: How are they going to pay for it? My final words are that we all know who is going to pay for it. The taxpayer in this province is going to pay for it. I say that with this recession we cannot afford it.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate? If not, the minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I will be very brief. First, I want to say that I was pleased to hear the member for Renfrew North indicate that for some good, sound and I think maybe even old-fashioned Liberal principles he was supporting the bill, even though there were things about it he did not like. I want to point out to him that we did make a number of amendments relatively early on, as most members in this House know, to areas that concerned people about this particular piece of legislation.

The bill itself does deal with workers who have earned the money that is owed to them and who are not able to collect it. As to who is going to pay for it, let me make it clear that we decided in our discussions that the first 18 months would be general revenue. I am talking now about when we first looked at the bill. That is where it is, in general revenue. What are we going to do with it in the future? Obviously we want to leave some leeway for the Treasurer and find out what is going to happen.

I want to make one further brief comment on that. We came right out with general revenue on this, even though it is an area in which I have heard members opposite accusing us of wanting a payroll tax and all the rest of it. Some of us may even have had that idea. But when we saw the first piece of federal legislation, which I suspect will not see the light of day, it had a payroll tax in it. That is the Conservatives' federal cousins. It was not until the pressure was on there that they now seemed to have changed it. That is one of the reasons I am not sure they will even proceed with the rest of the bill.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What will happen in 18 months? A decision will be made collectively at that time. It may very well stay the way it is; it may not.

The other point I want to make is that one of the things we are trying to do in this Legislature -- and the members opposite do not have to accept it; I do not really expect that many of them will; I know how rough I could be on the other side of the House as well -- is make some changes that allow us to deal with the kind of economic situation we have, the kinds of trade deals we have and the kind of unemployment we have in this country. Workers who have actually earned their money and who were promised that money under some federal legislation for a number of years, at least for the eight or nine I was raising it in this House, have not had an answer to that. We are trying to see that they get some of the money they have actually earned.

The other point was also referred to by the member for Renfrew North. Sure, we have taken a serious look at labour legislation in Ontario. There is a reason for that as well. We are going to need all the people in this province and this country working together. We are going to have to change what even these folks admit has been the pattern -- and that is confrontation, not co-operation -- between business and labour in this province. That is going to have to be changed.

One of the ways we will do that is by bringing about a little more fairness. I guess the question in everybody's mind is, what is fairness? The intent is not to set up labour, in terms of wages earned, in the driver's seat. The intent is to try and see if we can come up with a means of working co-operatively, not confrontationally, with labour and management in this province. That is absolutely essential if we are going to make basic changes in the way we do business in Ontario.

In conclusion, there are several thousand workers who are entitled to money they have earned, over 2,000 to whom we hope to have the cheques out in the first week. That is now a reality for these workers. For that I thank the House and the members for letting the legislation through.

1809

The House divided on Mr Mackenzie's motion for third reading of Bill 70, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Mackenzie pour la troisième lecture du projet de loi 70, mise aux voix, est adoptee :

Ayes/Pour -- 81

Abel, Beer, Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard,

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McGuinty, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 14

Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, McLean, Murdoch, B., Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J.

The House adjourned at 1813.