The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN FORCES BASE TRENTON

Mr H. O'Neil: Over this past weekend, Canadian Forces Base Trenton, which is located in my riding of Quinte, celebrated its 60th anniversary.

As part of this celebration, they were presented with the freedom of the city by the mayor and council of the city of Trenton. With colours flying, bayonets fixed and drums beating, all ranks from CFB Trenton marched over the veterans' Skyway Bridge Friday afternoon. At city hall, the mayor welcomed the assembled ranks and read the proclamation conferring their freedom of the city.

The proclamation was presented to Colonel Doug Wilson, the base commander. I was proud to present plaques from the Premier on behalf of the government of Ontario and from Lieutenant Governor Lincoln Alexander on behalf of the Queen, honouring them for their participation in the two world wars, the Korean conflict and the Persian Gulf crisis.

They have also distinguished themselves by their great humanitarian efforts worldwide, along with their ongoing peacekeeping and rescue missions.

I ask the members to join me in recognizing the men and women of Canadian Forces Base Trenton.

FOOD DRIVE

Mr Jackson: I wish to announce that today marks the beginning of Burlington's first ever city-wide food drive, which will continue until Wednesday October 16, next week.

In response to an increasing demand for food banks in our community, the Burlington food drive committee was established as a coalition to help raise additional food supplies to replenish dwindling stocks and to co-ordinate the community resources of the agencies serving the needy in Burlington. These agencies include the Salvation Army, Project Partnership, the Burlington East Emergency Food Bank, the Community Unity Food Bank and the St Vincent de Paul Society.

Special dropoff depots have been set up at a number of locations around Burlington for the collection of non-perishable food items. Several high schools are also participating with their own service projects. The initial response to the food drive by the citizens of Burlington, the corporate sector and service clubs has been very good.

As chairman of the Burlington food drive committee, I want to extend an open invitation to everyone in my community to consider the true meaning of Thanksgiving and give what they can to help the less fortunate.

On behalf of the needy in our community, I want to thank all those who will participate in our food drive this week. Your kind generosity will allow many individuals and their families to welcome Thanksgiving Day this year with a sense of hope and confidence which comes from knowing there are people like yourselves who are ready to help them in their time of personal need.

CITY PLANNING

Mr Frankford: We have been celebrating the 30th anniversary of the founding of the New Democratic Party this year. I want to draw to the House's attention another landmark 30th anniversary. It is 30 years since the book Death and Life Of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs, appeared. A few weeks ago I was very pleased to attend a symposium where town planners, architects, politicians and admirers in general paid tribute to this influential book.

I would like to think it is not necessary to tell members of this House what the book is about, but for those who may not have read it, it looks bluntly at the problems of urban life and city development and finds that most city planning has gone in the wrong direction. It is not negative criticism. Jane Jacobs puts forward rules for cities that will work.

Perhaps regrettably, a new approach is still needed 30 years later. We need cities that are livable, that have streets that are safe to walk on and that develop sturdy economies and cultures. We need the mixes of neighbourhoods and housing types that Jane advocates.

Jane and her family immigrated to Toronto and have now lived here for several years, within walking distance of this Legislature. I am sure members of this House share my pride that this eminent urban critic continues to find our city a livable one.

LIFE SCIENCES TECHNOLOGY PARK

Mr Daigeler: Last December I wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology asking him to maintain the Liberal government's support for the Ottawa Life Sciences Technology Park. In his response, the minister said he wanted to review this plan and consult with the ministries of Government Services and Health.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton have now waited long enough. It is time for a decision by this government. Apparently the matter was supposed to go before cabinet in August. It is October, and we still have not received an answer. The Life Sciences Technology Park is an exciting industrial development project that has the potential for bringing thousands of highly skilled innovative jobs to eastern Ontario.

Major partners have worked diligently on this venture for several years: our two universities, the hospitals in the Ottawa area, the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp, the federal government and our own ministries of Industry, Trade and Technology, Health and Government Services. It is time to bring these efforts to fruition. Ontario's support will be the long-awaited final signal to start construction and to attract more biotechnology companies to Ottawa.

I call on the minister to exercise leadership among his cabinet colleagues and to gain their approval as quickly as possible for the Ottawa Life Sciences Technology Park.

AIDS AWARENESS WEEK

Mr J. Wilson: I rise to day in my capacity as Health critic for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party to recognize AIDS Awareness Week in the province.

In response to a protest last month and a 10-kilometre walk yesterday, the government announced $2.1 million in funding to assist in the fight to conquer the AIDS disease. While any moneys that contribute to the war on this deadly disease are welcomed, members on this side of the House and the AIDS community and the AIDS community-based groups are still left with one overriding concern.

The struggle continues. My concern is that nothing in the Minister of Health's announcement yesterday addresses the real problem, that of research and finding a cure to combat the killer HIV virus.

While the minister's announcement yesterday provides an enhanced structure to treat AIDS, it falls silent in the one area that matters most to people living with HIV and AIDS, that is, it fails to strike decisively at the source of the disease. The announcement also offers nothing in the way of research into treatment and care for infected people who are living longer lives.

Thousands are living with this disease in Canada, and they are contributing to our society. As a people and as individuals, we have a moral obligation to find both a compassionate and an expeditious cure for the destructive HIV virus.

As the sand slips through the opening and a cure for the virus remains unfound, people are dying. By killing time we are contributing to killing people. We must not deal in platitudes. We must focus upon attitudes and develop the necessary will to wipe out this dreaded HIV killer.

That is precisely the role each of us has to play during AIDS Awareness Week, as legislators, as a government and as members of a community and a society, and I would urge strongly everyone to assume his or her role.

1340

WHITBY CENTRE RECREATION COMPLEX

Mr White: I rise today to congratulate the town of Whitby and its municipal council upon the opening of the Whitby Centre Recreation Complex.

This civic project reflects the vision of Whitby's town council over the past five years. It is a building which matches the architectural uniqueness and beauty of its neighbour, the town hall. At present, this attractively appointed structure houses meeting rooms, aerobic and exercise rooms, and the best-designed indoor swimming recreational centre I have ever seen.

This distinctive building may be expanded to include the main branch of the town library and also a second phase added to the recreational complex that would include gymnasia, community rooms and racket sports facilities. Accommodations have already been made to include those expansions onsite.

These buildings are sited to the north of urban Whitby and will increasingly become the hub of the town as it continues to grow. Whitby's population is expected to grow by tens of thousands of residents, close to 50% in the foreseeable future. The town council has shown the wisdom to anticipate that growth with such a building as will be a source of pride for generations.

I am proud to be a resident of Whitby and proud that I represent that town in the provincial Parliament. I invite members to visit my fine community and enjoy the many features that Whitby has to offer.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Curling: The August 1991 edition of the Equity Newsletter has these words from Carol McGregor, a respected human rights advocate: "Over the past few months, it has become quite apparent that the Rae government has backed away from their campaign promises. The next victim may well be the employment equity legislation that was this government's priority." Ms McGregor goes on to detail some significant reversals on employment equity by the NDP.

It is interesting to note that although Bill 172 followed two years of consultation by the NDP -- with whom we are not quite certain -- the Minister of Citizenship has been singularly unsuccessful in putting together a consultation process that would last a mere six weeks.

Last spring, to great fanfare and at great expense, it was announced that a consultation document would be released late August and that the consultation would begin mid-October. The document never appeared and the consultation process was put on hold.

There are rumours that the new date for these on-again, off-again consultations is some time early in November, but nobody really knows, and the minister has apparently decided that she does not have to explain why the previously planned consultations were so abruptly cancelled. What is going on here?

I remind the Minister of Citizenship that Bill 172, despite its flaws, received support from members of all three parties in this House. If it was good enough for the Premier then, surely it is good enough to serve as basis for discussion now.

KAY LIVINGSTONE AWARD

Mrs Cunningham: Yesterday, the Ontario region of the Congress of Black Women of Canada presented the Kay Livingstone tribute and award in London, Ontario. I had the pleasure of attending this ceremony, and today I am pleased to rise in the House to congratulate Verda Cook of Toronto, this year's winner of the Kay Livingstone Award.

The Congress of Black Women of Canada was established 20 years ago by Kay Livingstone, remembered for her work among minority groups and in the performing arts. Its mandate, through a program of education and service, will motivate black women to participate in the life of their communities, clarify and bring due recognition to the role of black women in Canadian society and improve the welfare of black women and their families in their communities.

Through educational films, panel discussions, guest speakers, social functions and field trips, they have begun to establish some of their goals. Gwen Jenkins, London chapter chairperson, stated: "Our congress feels it's very important to meet and help black women. We share a feeling of togetherness and sisterhood. We rejoice in our blackness."

Prejudiced attitudes towards ethnic people can only be changed through education. It is encouraging to see that the Congress of Black Women of Canada is pursuing its goals in the hope of making a difference. I congratulate them for their significant efforts in changing the attitudes of Canadians towards minority groups, and especially Verda Cook for winning this year's Kay Livingstone Award.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr O'Connor: On August 14, 1989, in the town of Georgina, Reta Alegretti was strangled and stabbed to death by her husband. On March 18, 1990, in Georgina, Donna Morris was stabbed to death by her husband. On May 2, 1990, in Georgina, Joan Nugent was shot in the back with a sawed-off shotgun by a man she had been involved with. On January 31, 1991, in the town of Georgina, Ellen Kavanaugh was stabbed repeatedly with a knife and then axed to death by her estranged husband.

Last Thursday, the town of Georgina celebrated the grand opening of an animal shelter. Three days earlier, the committee of adjustments in the town of Georgina rejected the proposal for a minor variance on property to be purchased for a women's shelter because there were not enough parking spaces.

I am saddened and sickened by this latest decision, in an area that has three times the rate of domestic abuse as all of York region. Of course, cats and dogs have to be taken somewhere to be protected from cruel treatment, but our daughters, our sisters and our mothers have to have somewhere to turn to escape life-threatening situations.

Friends of Ellen Kavanaugh have said she would have sought out the protection of a shelter if it had been available. We are talking about women's lives. Surely we can find solutions to parking spaces. I applaud and support the efforts made thus far by the Committee Against Domestic Abuse, CADA, and the newly formed Women's Shelter of Georgina Inc. I implore the people of Georgina to put aside differences that may stand in the way of this project going ahead and to work with Women's Shelter of Georgina Inc to make sure there are no more tragic deaths.

CORRECTION

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe it is incumbent on all members to correct the record if at any time they inadvertently have misstated a case. On Thursday, in a member's statement, I congratulated the people from all four corners of this province and all regions who supported the Toronto Blue Jays so strongly. Inadvertently, I forgot to mention the far north, so my apologies to the member for Kenora and the member for Lake Nipigon for not mentioning the people of northwestern Ontario, who I know are avid Blue Jay fans and are there with the rest of Ontario.

The Speaker: Your point of order is well taken.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Elston: It does not go without notice that this government continues to announce all of its major policies outside the House so that it does not allow us to provide some comment, but we will talk about that another day.

I want to go to my favourite minister and favourite storyteller, the Treasurer, who for the last couple of weeks has been leading us on a merry chase down a very winding and twisted road, if I might say so. I would like to observe that last week the Treasurer did not believe the Statscan predictions that said retail sales were declining by some 8% this year. He did not therefore take into account the impact of these declining retail sales on his budget and, as a result, retail sales revenue.

Could the Treasurer explain the difference between the 5.3% decline in retail sales predicted on page 43 of his budget and the 2.6% decline in sales tax revenues predicted on page 60 of that document?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not have the document in front of me, so I will talk in terms more general than specific, if you will allow me to do that, Mr Speaker.

The budget forecast a decline in retail sales revenues this year. There is no question about that. We believe that forecast was reasonably accurate and we are not off the target of retail sales that we had forecast in the budget. If we look at the specific number, I believe the budget forecast a 2.7% decline in retail sales; I think that was the precise number in the budget. It was based on a retail sales decline of 5.3% in 1991. Members have to understand, of course, that there were some changes made in the budget that would increase retail sales revenues to us. For example, when you increase the price of cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline and so forth, there is a built-in increase in sales tax revenues for the province in that regard.

1350

Mr Elston: I want to thank the Treasurer for continuing my faith in him as a storyteller. There are some predictions that the Treasurer's revenues next year may be off by as much as $4 billion, thereby being below his projections, meaning a $13.5-billion deficit next year. Can the Treasurer confirm that there is in fact a $4-billion problem for him next year in his revenues and tell us what he intends to do about the problem he is faced with in trying to meet his $9-billion deficit for next year as a result of the softening revenue figures?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the Leader of the Opposition is making some heroic assumptions that at this point in time are not appropriate.

Mr Elston: I am reading the press.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is the member's first mistake.

We do think that while some of the growth in revenues next year will be based on natural growth in the economy because of increased prices through inflation and so forth, when you factor out the rate of inflation and get down to real numbers, as the economists are wont to say, then the member is quite right: The revenues, without some kind of sales tax increases -- I should not say sales tax; any kind of tax revenues -- would be reasonably flat.

Mr Elston: The plot thickens, but I am not sure what the plot is other than to say that the Treasurer continues to get mired down in his inability to understand what is going on with his budget.

The Treasurer has already speculated publicly about new tax increases. Given his fairly flat revenues, can the Treasurer confirm that raising taxes may be his only option for maintaining next year's $8.9-billion deficit?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not think so. The forecast that was in the budget, which laid out the three years following 1991-92, was based on a number of assumptions: (1) that there was going to be growth in the economy in those out years, as compared to the year we are in now, and when you get growth in the economy, you get what I would call natural growth in government revenues; (2) that there would be some tax increases during those three years, and I have never pretended otherwise; (3) that we will manage our expenditures to the best of our ability to ensure that we keep in line with what we forecast will be our revenues and expenditures, therefore leading to the deficits that are forecast in the budget paper.

Mr Elston: We will be unfolding the next page of this continuing story, which this man is trying to foist on the people of Ontario, at another date.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr Elston: I would like to talk for a moment to the Minister of the Environment, because she has had a long year of activity and she has had a chance to make a whole series of interesting speeches. I want to take her back to one of the first speeches she made. In opposition, she clearly supported refillables in the soft drink industry. In fact, during the election campaign, her leader stated unequivocally their party's commitment to a refillable system for all beverage containers.

A year ago, at the Recycling Council of Ontario's meeting, the minister, in her debut speech, announced she would require soft drink companies to sell 30% of their product in refillable containers. Is that still her position?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, it is.

Mr Elston: Having confirmed that, can she explain to us why soft drink companies are selling only 7.6% of their product in refillable bottles? If she is still willing to confirm that, can she tell us how she expects to make the 30% figure stick?

Hon Mrs Grier: Obviously I am very disappointed that the soft drink companies are not reaching the 30%. I said in the speech to which the member referred that I thought companies that had marketed their product worldwide and persuaded everybody to drink their soft drinks ought to be able to market their product in refillable containers. They made some efforts with advertising earlier this year, and they still have not.

There is a number of things that can be done. For example, in Europe there are refillable PET containers that can be used. There ought to be refillable single-serving containers. The industry has done none of those here in Ontario, and I regret that.

What we have done is say to the soft drink industry, "Give us your proposals on how we can resolve both the issue of getting to the quota of 30% and dealing with waste." I know a lot of people in the province feel the soft drink industry is a symbol of waste. The soft drink industry came back with an action plan which it gave to my ministry. It has been extensively discussed, does not yet provide a solution to the problem and is still being reviewed.

Mr Elston: I am glad the minister got back to the report which was given to her in June -- not just to her ministry, but to her. There were some three days of meetings between the soft drink industry, herself, her ministry and the environmental groups to come up with a solution. In addition to those three days, she has had that program since June and still she is unable to tell us about any concrete steps she is taking to enforce what she says is her position of 30% refillables. When is the minister going to stop telling stories like her buddy the Treasurer?

Hon Mrs Grier: I reject the last statement by the member categorically. "Telling stories like her buddy the Treasurer" is, I suspect, not parliamentary and certainly not something that either of us do in this House.

Let me say to the member that the three days of meetings last June to which he referred were meetings of stakeholders called together by my ministry. We involved the trade union movement, we involved the industry, we involved the environmental groups, we involved the bottling industry, the canning industry, anybody who had an interest in this subject.

I had hoped after two days they might have come together for a consensus. When they asked for an additional day, I was even more optimistic they would come up with a consensus. They have not, and the investigations and enforcement branch of the ministry is continuing to enforce the regulation.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Before continuing with our business, I wish to draw to members' attention that we have been joined this afternoon by an official delegation from two of the newly independent Baltic states of Estonia and Lithuania. The delegation is seated in the east members' gallery. If members would please welcome them to our midst.

1400

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Witmer: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last week a Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey revealed that nearly three quarters of small businesses in this province are extremely worried about the minister's proposed labour legislation. On September 23 my leader asked the minister to tell this House what impact studies on job losses have been undertaken. Since the minister failed to answer the question at that time, I will ask him again, has he or has he not done impact studies to determine how many jobs will be lost in this province as a direct result of his plans to change the Labour Relations Act?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would say to the member that until we have prepared and put out the discussion paper, it would not make an awful lot of sense, based on the information available, to try to conduct impact studies on what is at this point in time an unknown.

Mrs Witmer: This morning we spoke with Lanny Elliott, the general manager of Peerless-Cascade Plastics Ltd in Windsor. If these changes become law, Peerless is considering scrapping its plans to double employment over the next few years and may leave Ontario altogether. The president of Peerless has twice written to the Premier and he said he is "appalled and terrified of the certain disastrous consequences of the legislation." In a May 21 letter to the Premier he stated, "It is time to do what is best for Ontario and not just certain interest groups." What does the minister have to say to Peerless and its 270 employees?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As we have done with any number of groups, we would be more than happy to meet with them, but I am not sure there is much merit in responding to speculation, or that the member really agrees we should not involve all the parties in the plans for the future of Ontario.

Mrs Witmer: I indicated to the minister last week that I feel it is extremely important for all people in this province to be involved and consulted. The survey last week indicated that 36% of the small businesses in this province are already considering packing their bags, and this was before the cabinet document was released. They would take with them 500,000 jobs. They are not blaming the federal government or the former Liberal government. They are blaming this government and its antibusiness agenda. Many people believe the minister's proposals are an effort to appease Bob White and the union leaders. Before we lose any more jobs in this province, will the minister agree to do an economic impact study and will he seriously consider the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You cannot make changes to the Labour Relations Act when you have not decided finally what those changes might be. Also, it seems to me we have lost probably close to 250,000 jobs with the high dollar and the free trade agreement. I am not at all sure I would give as much precedence or credibility to the statement that we are going to lose 36% of the jobs. I do not know what that is based on.

Mr Runciman: Our second question is for the Solicitor General. I understand he is going to be in attendance today. Until he appears in the House, I would like to stand the question down.

The Speaker: The question will be stood down and we will pick it up in rotation.

Mr Callahan: Here he comes.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to invite members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, a delegation from the embassy of Sweden in Ottawa headed by Ambassador Hakan Berggren and accompanied by Mr Mats Marling, the consul general of Sweden. Would you please welcome them to our midst.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Solicitor General. It deals with growing concern within Ontario. Every time we open a newspaper it reads more and more like the Detroit Evening News, when we read items like a teen tortured with a drill for 15 hours. Throughout the news this morning we were hearing about a swarming attack in Scarborough where over $100,000 worth of merchandise was stolen, and we heard about a swarming attack in the Eaton Centre a couple of weeks ago.

I think the minister recognizes the fact -- hopefully he does -- that there is growing public concern with respect to public safety within this province and I am wondering how he is addressing this issue, how he is bringing it to his colleagues at cabinet. Could the minister give us an indication here today of the kinds of specifics he is recommending to deal with this growing concern?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly do share with the member the concerns he has raised. They are circumstances that do not appeal to anybody in this province and are unwarranted actions that are not appreciated or desired. It is our hope, through the added involvement of community policing, that citizenry as well as those charged with the direct responsibility of law enforcement can work in an ever increasingly harmonious way to take an active interest in the protection of their communities and neighbourhoods. That will be pursued, coupled with the upgrading of police initiatives wherever they are appropriate and deemed to be beneficial to help stem this problem.

The basic question in terms of what motivates some individuals to these acts often is a mystery to all of us, but I can assure the member that through community policing we hope this initiative will help us to assist in this kind of difficulty.

Mr Runciman: I am sure his answer will give a lot of solace to women in Burlington or Metro Toronto who are concerned about even walking within their own neighbourhoods. We have a record murder rate in Metro Toronto. Crimes against women over the past few years are up 200%. In the last two years the robbery rate in Metro has gone up 84%. We have a policeman saying we have an astounding increase in violent crimes, street muggings and purse snatchings. That sort of crime is skyrocketing.

The minister gets up in this House and has a non-answer. I asked him for specific policies he has taken to cabinet. What kinds of recommendations is he taking to his cabinet colleagues with respect to this growing crisis? How is he dealing with it? Let's not have this kind of mealy-mouthed rhetoric. Let's have some specifics.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I appreciate the member's animated attempt at asking a question. These are societal problems. They are circumstances to which there is no easy answer in Ontario, in Canada and throughout the world. I simply want to indicate to the member that I believe our police enforcement to be one of the finest in the world, and there are our added attempts at community policing. If there are any particular suggestions the member has that will assist us, we are all too eager to have those as well so that we might incorporate them.

Mr Runciman: They have been in office for over a year and they are looking to us for direction. Obviously this minister has no ideas. He is not taking any specifics to cabinet. The Highway 401 corridor between Belleville and Quebec, for example, has hardly any coverage in the evening hours. My colleague the member for Simcoe West has expressed concern about the lack of 24-hour coverage. The member for Dufferin-Peel has talked about policemen having to drive their own cars. In eastern Ontario we have patrol cars tied down to their parking lots because they cannot afford repairs. The OPP is talking about cutbacks.

What has the minister done? He has taken away the oath of office, the Golden Helmets and the pipe band. What has he given them? He has given them Susan Eng and a commissioner in Peel region who thinks all policemen lie on the witness stand. This is a crisis situation. We are looking to the minister for direction. The police officers, men and women in blue across this province, are looking to him to stand up for them around the cabinet table, and the Treasurer is saying, "Cut, cut, cut." This is one area where we want him to stand up for policemen and policewomen. Let's hear some specifics today.

Hon Mr Pilkey: First of all, I congratulate the member for his absolutely wide range of opinions on this topic. He started with matters that are societal problems of a very dramatic nature and is now suggesting we might have solved some of these absolute tragedies perpetrated on victims by altering the Golden Helmets and the pipes and drum band.

I indicated that through community policing, adding court security to our very fine system of auxiliary policing, our drug abuse enforcement and our attempt at ever-increasing effective policing, we will try to challenge these crimes in our streets wherever and whenever we can find them. It was not a casual comment either that this government wishes to involve all members of the House on this issue or any other issue. In fact, if there are some suggestions forthcoming, I as a new minister in this portfolio would sincerely welcome them.

1410

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Treasurer. Late last week we had more examples of economic bad news. I honestly do not think I have ever seen the confidence of the business community as low as it is today. Towards the end of last week we heard of the de Havilland layoffs of 1,300, at Philips Electronics of about 250 jobs and Maple Leaf foods another 150 jobs. We have here more than a full page of complete plant closures. We heard last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's very major concerns about the economy and the direction the government is heading in. There is virtually no support out there for the Treasurer's budget.

My question to the Treasurer is, when will he bring forward some specific plans, not the next budget, to get the economy rolling again and restore confidence in the business community?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question the last year has been an extremely difficult one for the Ontario economy. However, to put the blame on a government that came into office in the middle of the severest recession in 50 years is really being simplistic and unfair. That is simply not the case.

I believe virtually every economist in this country would attach a lot more blame -- I do not say this for the purpose of finger-pointing. Virtually everybody out there who watches economies and analyses them would tell the member that the greatest damage that has been done to the Ontario economy is not from the policies of this government; it simply is not the case. Most of the damage, in particular to the manufacturing economy in Ontario, has been done through an excessively high-priced dollar and the high interest rates over the last year.

Mr Phillips: If I might follow up on that, the Treasurer really never answered my question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could we have order, please. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt is attempting to pose a question. The Treasurer is attempting to hear the question, as I am.

Mr Phillips: This is just to follow up on the need for some new economic plans. I was very disappointed in the hearings we had on the budget. In my opinion, the Premier's office phoned people, got them to come out and loaded those hearings. I do not think that can be denied. We did not have an honest debate on the budget. The government counted up the number of presentations and then said the people Ontario were in favour of the budget. The fact of the matter is that the people of Ontario are looking for a new economic direction from the government.

I am asking him the question, is he going to wait until April before he brings forward some plans to get the economy going? That is six months from now. Will he undertake to bring forward to this House quickly some economic plans that will get the economy of Ontario going? We cannot blame the federal government. We live here in Ontario. It is the government's responsibility to get the economy moving. We cannot wait until April. I hope he will commit today that he will bring forward to this House some plans to get the economy moving.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the first part of the member's comments were most inappropriate. If the majority of people who came out to speak to the committee on the budget, which travelled this province in the summer, had been in opposition to the budget, the member would have been on his feet saying, "Look, no one supports your budget."

Because the majority of people who came out and made a presentation to the committee were in support of the budget, the member says we somehow arranged for that to happen. I am sorry but the member has to live with the fact that the majority of people who made appearances before the committee understood that the budget brought down in the spring was designed to fight the recession and to protect and create new jobs, not to make the recession worse. I hear the Conservative members of this Legislature calling for us to bring in policies that duplicate the policies of the federal government in Ottawa, and we are simply not going to do that.

I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that as this fall goes on, he can expect to hear from us some of our plans. I do not disagree with him that the economy of the province has been struggling this year. We are committed to the economic renewal of this province and we are determined to do what we can to make sure that happens.

BUDGET

Mr Sterling: My question is also to the Treasurer. I want to inform the Treasurer that businesses and people around this province did not hire people to follow the hearings around, as the Ontario Federation of Labour did. It had a person trailing the committee around, contacting labour councils ahead of time, contacting unions to make certain they would be out at the hearings. It was a disgusting display of power against what a committee is set up for in the first place.

Hon Mr Wildman: I have been here for 16 years and I have never seen that happen.

Mr Sterling: I had never seen it happen until this summer either. I have only been here 14 years.

The Speaker: The member's question?

Mr Sterling: In the Treasurer's spring budget, he was very specific about his forecasts for next year's economic recovery. He predicted that revenues would rise at a rate of 9.8%. Now we find out through the media, on Focus Ontario, that next year's revenues are going to be "flat" or "fairly flat." Those are his words from the transcript of Focus Ontario. What does "fairly flat" mean to him: 9.8%, 4% or 0%?

Hon Mr Laughren: As the member opposite did have in the first part of his question some reference to the budget hearings, I assume that was a part of his question to which he wants a response.

I would just respond to the member that he surely remembers back in the days of the Frank Miller budget when he expanded the sales tax base, and how Frank Miller, unlike us, stacked the committee hearings that were held in the Legislature. We did not do that.

When I indicated that I thought the revenues for 1992-93 were going to be somewhat flat, what I really meant and still mean was that for 1992-93, the numbers in the budget indicated fairly substantial revenue increases. Those revenue increases were a combination of two things. They were a combination of some new tax revenues, combined with a growth in the economy that would give us new revenues. There is nothing mysterious about it. That was what was in the budget document, not just for next year but for the two years following that as well.

Mr Sterling: What the Treasurer is telling me is that when he says "fairly flat," the revenues -- I really wish he would make a statement on this in the House and not on Focus Ontario. The Treasurer is saying they are fairly flat if there are no tax increases; is that correct? Therefore, can we expect a 9.8% tax increase if he is going to maintain his revenue projections next year?

Hon Mr Laughren: As I recall, what I said was that the growth in the economy next year is going to be somewhat sluggish. We are not going to have the rebound from the recession that we had 10 years ago. So in the budget, when we forecast what was going to happen in the next three years, we determined that it was going to take a combination of some tax increases and some expenditure management to get us at the deficit numbers that are in the budget forecast.

If the revenue numbers in the budget forecast are not achieved, then of course we will have to take a look at our expenditures to make sure there is a relationship between the revenues that are forecast and the deficit forecast as well.

There is nothing surprising about that. It is a case of us being determined to manage our expenditures in keeping with the revenues, whether they are up, below, or higher or lower than what we forecast they would be.

1420

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr B. Ward: I think it is common knowledge and no secret that we have an affordable housing crisis in the province. Last spring I was pleased to see that part of our government's attempt to deal with that issue was to announce funding for 10,000 non-profit and co-operative housing units.

My question is the for Minister of Housing. Prior to the present minister coming on board, the previous minister, the member for Windsor-Riverside, announced details of this initiative under the Ontario non-profit housing program. I would appreciate it, and I am sure everyone in this House would appreciate it, if the minister could give us a status report on this program.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It would be my pleasure. The Project 10,000 program announced in the spring by my predecessor, the member for Windsor-Riverside, is well under way. We have 3,300 units now committed for development, representing proposals from 60 groups across the province in 38 municipalities, so we are moving.

Mr B. Ward: In my riding of Brantford we have a number of applications from organizations and groups that are in the process of attempting to get allocations. One group in particular, the Canadian Slovak League, has a very worthwhile project under way that I fully support, that I know the people of Brantford support. Could the minister give us a status on this particular application?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Canadian Slovak League project will move ahead. It is a project that will develop 150 units for families, seniors and singles. It is moving ahead. We expect that it is going to produce about 180 jobs, along with affordable housing, and the overall P-10,000 program is estimated to be creating 20,000 jobs as we move ahead.

SABRINA PANETTA

Mr McClelland: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I notice she is just stepping on the floor right now, and I wonder if I might wait a moment for her to take her seat.

Last Tuesday in this House, the minister and I had what might be termed a somewhat emotional exchange with respect to the Sabrina Panetta case. I want to acknowledge that she took the courtesy of meeting with me privately, and for that I thank her.

However, at the time in her response, she indicated to me, and I quote from Hansard, "We have received a great deal of conflicting information." In response to my supplementary she said: "The important issue here, in terms of the confusion of medical information, is that we must be absolutley certain this child is not at greater risk if taken out of the hospital. We have no confirming information from the medical practitioner" -- ie, I presume, the little girl's physician -- "that will allow us to believe that." This was in response to what I had said. "We have asked for it repeatedly."

I saw the physician on network television on Thursday evening. I have spoken with the physician. He takes the position that this is not in fact the case, that he is very clear and unequivocal in terms of what he says is best for this child.

Since last Tuesday, has the minister reconsidered? Is she prepared to show some compassion in this case and sign an order in council that would provide the opportunity for this child to die at home?

Hon Ms Akande: I recognize the concern of the member. I too am extremely concerned about this. He is correct in that I did say I have no medical information which would allow me to be certain the child was not at risk. We have even since that time organized -- I spoke to the member the day after and invited him to be a part of the meeting with us, an invitation which, I might add, he declined. Since that time my staff has been speaking to the doctor and has in fact received a change in the condition of the child, and we are concerned because the condition is unstable.

We have continued to draw upon our resources to design options and ways in which we could be certain that when the child goes home, she will not be at risk. One recognizes that it is difficult, in that we have to be certain the child will be safe at home, that when the child's instability occurs every three or four days, as we are told, she will not be at risk on her way back to the hospital in the ambulance.

I will be willing to complete the answer after the member asks his supplementary.

Mr McClelland: I thought we were doing reasonably well to begin this question today, and then the minister stands in her place and says I declined. Let's make the record very plain here. What I declined to do with the minister was negotiate a settlement -- her own words. This is not a negotiable matter. I do not negotiate in terms of a young child's dying wish. The minister asked me to negotiate and I declined to participate in negotiations. How does she square that with her so-called advocacy legislation?

Here is what the doctor says: The doctor says the government has lied and deceived. The government and the minister do not have any concern about this girl, in the words of the doctor. They want her to die before she gets home. Call her today. She will just die, probably before the minister makes a decision.

How does the minister square that in terms of how she stands in this House and talks about her advocacy legislation? She stands there and tells this House, might I say, a very liberal interpretation of what took place in our discussion. I was not going to talk about a private discussion. I did not decline. I met with her. I declined to negotiate. It is not negotiable.

Will the minister do the right thing: sign the document and give the child her dying wish? People are calling from all across the province. They are calling the Premier; they are talking to the Premier, trying to get through to his office. They are calling the minister. I know that because they are calling me as well.

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

Mr McClelland: For the last time today, will the minister please respond and do what I know she can do and what I hope she would want to do?

Hon Ms Akande: As a matter of fact, the member was not invited to a negotiation. It was not a negotiation. I recognized the concern in his voice for this child. I recognized it and I thought as an advocate --

Mr McClelland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I made an assertion in good faith in this House. I am not here to join in a debate with respect to the credibility of one or another. She knows she had a number of her staff there and the member for Willowdale. I ask the minister to go back and review precisely what she said. That is the operation, and those are the words she used --

The Speaker: We are obviously into a discussion about how events have been interpreted. It perhaps would be most helpful if the minister could conclude her response.

Hon Ms Akande: I do feel it is appropriate to respond to the member's statement. He spoke about being invited to a negotiation. It is not a negotiation. When a child is at risk, it is not a negotiation. When staff are involved in trying to find the very best program possible to make sure the child is not at greater risk at home, it is not a negotiation. When we put dollars into the support of children and the support of parents to make sure that child has the very best services at home, yes, indeed, it is not a negotiation. It is a heart-rending appeal and attempt to serve the needs of a child. This misrepresents --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale. I ask the member for Willowdale to come to order.

Mr Harnick: The only people they feel sorry for are themselves, and they laugh. They sit and they smirk and they laugh.

The Speaker: I again ask the member for Willowdale to come to order.

Mr Harnick: You people are pathetic and incompetent and you couldn't care less.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for Willowdale and all other members to come to order, please.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: The government House leader should resign. He thinks this is funny.

The Speaker: I am asking all members, including the member for Mississauga South, to come to order.

I realize, as all members in the House no doubt realize, that this is a very emotional and sensitive issue. It may be difficult to discuss it in a calm and reasoned way, but I do not know of any other way for us to do our public business properly.

1430

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr McClelland: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: You should review the record. I believe the minister used the terminology "misrepresent." I want you to review that and I am going to ask you to act accordingly.

Also, Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I at this time would give you notice, which I shall do in writing, of my dissatisfaction. I will be asking for a late show.

The Speaker: To the member for Brampton North: I am most pleased to review the record. I am sure the member will appreciate that the volume in here prevented me from hearing precisely what was said by anyone, including the minister, but I will be pleased to review the record indeed. I take it the member will file the necessary paper with the table.

BLUE-GREEN ALGAE

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the subject of blue-green algae, an aquatic plant that survives in sewage and organic waste. It is a highly toxic plant which has been known to kill cattle. It damages fish and fowl. It causes eye and skin irritations, muscular pains and flu-like symptoms to swimmers who ingest it.

On August 25 the Ministry of the Environment's labs confirmed the existence of blue-green algae in Musselman Lake in York region. On September 11, York region's public health department closed the lake and posted signs there because of the potential damage to human health by blue-green algae.

There was a 17-day delay from the time it was found in the Ministry of the Environment's labs to the time it was posted. Why did it take so long for the blue-green algae to be posted once the information was known, and what action is the minister taking to eliminate blue-green algae in other lakes and especially Musselman Lake here in York region?

Hon Mrs Grier: I regret that on this specific a question I do not have the answer for the member. I will certainly undertake to find out what date the posting went up on Musselman Lake, whose responsibility it was to put the posting on Musselman Lake and whatever else my ministry can tell me about blue-green algae, and I will get back to the member as soon as I can.

Mr Cousens: I am surprised that the minister does not know about it, because the people who have been involved have written her ministry a number of times, and I am told they have a meeting with her about it on Wednesday. Her mail has been delivered, so I did not think this would be a surprise question to the minister at all.

Three ministries are involved with this whole subject of blue-green algae: the Minister of Health certainly through the action that has been taken to close Musselman Lake; the Ministry of Natural Resources, I hope, is looking at the effect it is having on wildlife and animals, and now the Ministry of the Environment is involved as the minister co-ordinates the roles of the different ministries. None the less, we have great concern about Musselman Lake. The concern I also have is about every other lake across Ontario which has tested positive with blue-green algae.

I want to ask a question, and maybe the minister could postpone this with the answer she gets after she has looked into it further, but it has to do with when the Ministry of the Environment identifies the presence of blue-green algae in a lake. Would the minister give us some idea how quickly the action will be taken to inform the Ministry of Health, how quickly she will inform the Ministry of Natural Resources and how quickly she will inform local municipalities of the presence of this algae when it appears?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said in response to the first question, I will undertake to gather as much information as I possibly can about blue-green algae and I will get back to the member.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Winninger: My question is directed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. On December 20, 1990, Bill 18 passed third reading with the unanimous consent of this Legislature. The City of London Act was drafted to confer more authority on the municipality in respect of the preservation of heritage buildings. City council would have to issue a building permit before demolition of a designated heritage building could occur. This meant that the Talbot Street Block, the best surviving example of Victorian streetscape in Ontario, could not be torn down without the approval of the municipality. Under the existing Ontario Heritage Act, the building would have been torn down by February 4 of this year after 180 days had elapsed from the date of designation.

Notwithstanding the efforts of this Legislature, London city council voted on September 16 to allow the demolition of the building for the construction of a parking lot. The demolition commenced early the next day. What active steps is the Ministry of Culture and Communications taking to protect our heritage buildings from demolition? Not only has London suffered irreparable loss, but other municipalities face the same threat of loss of their architectural and historical legacies.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I understand the member's concern because he has spoken to me on other occasions about this.

As the member knows, the current Ontario Heritage Act gives sole responsibility for the protection of heritage buildings to municipalities. The current act does not empower the government of Ontario to protect heritage buildings.

In the case of the Talbot Block, London city council failed to use the special powers given to it by the Legislature in 1990 to protect the heritage buildings. To address the obvious limitations of the current act, my ministry has developed proposals for new heritage legislation.

In answer to the member's question about steps, I would like to inform him that I have formed a ministry advisory committee on new heritage legislation so that I am able to --

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

Hon Mrs Haslam: I have formed a members' advisory committee on new heritage legislation. The advisory committee is made up of representatives from various organizations interested in new legislation, heritage conservation groups, ethnic and cultural groups, organized labour, municipalities and the development industry.

Mr Winninger: I understand that several other buildings in Ontario, including the opera house in St Catharines, may face possible demolition. How soon will these tighter controls under the heritage act be in place?

Hon Mrs Haslam: Both the ministry staff and the advisory committee I mentioned are working hard to assist in the development of the new heritage legislation. I expect new legislation ready for introduction in the fall of 1992, and I hope to receive the full co-operation of all parties in the passage of this highly important and complex legislation at that time.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Bradley: I have a question of heritage as well, but it is a different kind of heritage. In this case it is the heritage of our farm land in Ontario and specifically the farm land in the Niagara region.

After years of study and months of meetings, the Minister of Agriculture and Food will know by now that the regional council approved a new set of farm land policies that would allow hundreds of acres of Canada's best orchard land to be turned into building lots. The head of the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture, Arnold Lepp, said, "This decision is absolutely necessary to salvage what is left of the tender fruit industry and the irreplaceable lands it occupies."

I would like to ask the minister, since his leader has made an issue of this in years gone by when he was in opposition and since the New Democratic Party has stated that it is interested in saving agricultural land of a prime nature in Ontario, what he is going to do to ensure that this land does not fall into the hands of developers in the Niagara region.

1440

Hon Mr Buchanan: The regional council came up with a new land use policy, talking about allowing small lot severances as well as downsizing of existing farm land. They are talking about bringing that policy on line on November 1.

There are existing policies and procedural ways of handling severances and official plans that will be dealt with in the normal course of events, and I would say to the member that we do believe in consultation and talking to the region. As the member probably knows, I have had one meeting with members of the regional council, and I met with the farmers about two weeks ago. I think there is room for some negotiation without simply opening the whole area up to open season for severances.

In terms of allowing developers to buy up those lots, the last point in the member's question, it is a concern of mine, and certainly we will do everything we can to work with the region to see that this does not happen.

Mr Bradley: My supplementary involves keeping the farmers themselves viable and alive. The Minister of Agriculture and Food would know, since he has that particular position, and many members would know, that as soon as they start allowing severances to take place and they have urban folks moving out into the country, they have nothing but trouble. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and Food and others are constantly going to have problems.

The minister announced last week a package which was supposed to assist all farmers in the province, but John Kirkby, whom he met with at Niagara-on-the-Lake, estimates that his costs will rise about twice as much as the program would provide to a person such as him just from the impact of higher minimum wages for farm help.

If the minister wishes to save the agricultural land, what further steps is he prepared to take to make farming in the Niagara region a viable operation so that those who presently occupy the land are able to have and maintain some kind of financial viability?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think we are working on that. The announcement last week certainly targeted some moneys for horticulture. Apples were mentioned in terms of providing money through a net income stabilization account type of arrangement, which was certainly directed to the Niagara area. We are concerned about the tender fruit land in the Niagara region, and we intend to come up with additional policies to support the tender fruit industry.

The farmer whom the member quoted in a newspaper clipping talked about the increases in the minimum wage. There are no increases this year because of the startup time on November 1. For next year's harvest this ministry intends to talk to the horticultural industry where there will be a few cost increases because of increases in wages, but we will deal with those concerns over the ongoing months in talks as to how we assist the horticultural industry.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Her Premier has stood in this House and made speeches all across this province that he wanted to develop a working relationship with business and that his government was committed to that. Yet when it comes to the minister's discriminatory policies with respect to day care, it would appear that that statement is somewhat misleading.

In light of the fact that her Treasurer stood in the House last week and said there are going to be major cuts in both health and social services, can the minister please inform this House if she is prepared to change her government's offensive policies of discriminating against women workers in commercial day care centres? Is she going to listen to municipalities that are asking her to put the money into subsidized day care spaces rather than putting money into building new buildings that are only going to be half-full and compete and drive the private sector out of the day care business and support services in this province? Is the minister changing her position in light of the economic challenges that are facing this province today?

Hon Ms Akande: This government, as did the previous government, has certainly demonstrated a preference for non-profit child care. We are, however, fiscally responsible; we are, however, dealing with the constraints, and we are, however, very conscious of the fact that it is important to keep subsidized spaces out there so that people who need them, people who need to go to work and to retraining, have those spaces available.

Because of that, we had announced the 5,000 subsidized spaces and put them out throughout Ontario so that people would have them. The municipalities have picked up those spaces and have been very supportive of that. This government continues to emphasize that we do have a preference for non-profit child care.

Mr Jackson: I was not talking about the minister's announcement of a year ago; I was talking about the crisis that is facing her currently. It costs $18,000 for every space that her government assists with funding, taxpayers' funding, to open a non-profit centre. It costs $8,000 per space when the private sector invests that money in this province and creates those spaces. Those people in the commercial sector pay taxes. They put up their own risk capital. Many of these -- 80% of them -- are women managers and owners. They put up their own homes as collateral and they are committed to expanding day care access in this province.

The minister has announced, just in April, May and June, $10.5 million in expanded capital dollars to build centres that, when completed, are sitting half-empty. The taxpayer has to pick up the operating deficits when the minister is forcing out of business a private centre that parents want.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Jackson:: So that the staff do not get uprooted and thrown out, I am asking the minister very simply, will she change her discriminatory approach with her funding preference for the non-profit sector to the exclusion of the commercial sector, when it is struggling to provide badly needed services for families in this province?

Hon Ms Akande: The member raises two issues. He raises the issue of subsidies we have provided. They are used in profit as well as non-profit spaces. He also raised the issue of our building or supporting the building of new centres or our supporting the initiation of new centres. Our support of the non-profit sector results from our belief that the non-profit sector has boards and people therefore have an opportunity to make their program and their preferences known for their children. It is much more accountable to the community.

In terms of the business dealings of the for-profit sector, when I enter a business I make it my responsibility to consider the ground on which I do so. I then make it my responsibility to address the needs of those who work for me. We support child care and people who require child care. We support them with the subsidies we provide, and they are used in the profit as well as in the non-profit sector.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mrs MacKinnon: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In Lambton county, farming is indeed one of the main industries, if not the main industry. Given that farming creates five jobs for every active farmer and farming is truly the basis of economic renewal, not only in Lambton county but throughout the province, can the minister tell us if the announcement by the Treasurer last week that all government ministries are participating in an adjustment of about 1% in this year's total budget is going to affect the much-needed programs and services delivered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food?

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is a good question. In terms of when we are discussing mid-year adjustment targets, our ministry will indeed meet its target, through reducing operating costs and delaying purchases of vehicles, supplies and other equipment. We are also slowing the pace of our computer systems development; the pace of developing that system will be slowed down.

The most important part, though, of our mid-year adjustments in terms of meeting our commitment is the fact that we are not going to be cutting programs to our clients, the farmers and the food-processing industry. We will maintain all of those program dollars. The cuts will be made in other areas and will not be reflected in transfers to our clients.

The Speaker: Supplementary? New question. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I note that with the time in question period having just run out, there is not even going to be an opportunity for a supplementary, which I find --

The Speaker: You may place a question, however.

Mr Mahoney: I am prepared to do that, but I would like to raise a point. Perhaps I will do that after I place my question.

1450

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Mahoney: My question was going to be for the Premier, but once again the Premier decided to leave halfway through the business of the day, so I will direct the question to the Minister of Revenue.

I am in possession of a number of documents, letters from ministry staff to the minister, that seem to indicate her ministry staff --

Hon Mr Wildman: How could you come upon it?

Mr Mahoney: I came upon it from the person it was written to, actually, the clerk of the city of Mississauga. It is not a secret document. The government does not need to get the OPP out to investigate how I got this document. I have told members how I got it: The clerk of the city gave it to me.

The document seems to indicate that staff have taken a position that they will not support assessment adjustment requests based on airport noise in our city. In fact, they have even gone to the extent to say that if the Assessment Review Board grants any adjustments based on airport noise, the staff will appeal them to the Ontario Municipal Board and presumably even beyond that, to the courts. It appears that this decision by her ministry has prejudiced the rights of the citizens in Ontario who may wish to appeal their assessment, because the ministry has given clear direction to the board on what the decision should be.

It also appears that they have hamstrung the board's ability to be at arm's length from the ministry. They are simply telling it what to do. If this is true, the minister might as well abolish the Assessment Review Board and make all of the decisions in her office. Would the minister tell this House whether her staff have directed the Assessment Review Board and the Ontario Municipal Board in this way, whether she agrees with it and whether she is prepared to instruct her ministry staff to allow the Assessment Review Board to operate as an independent body and to return to the citizens of this province their rights under law?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Yes, I do believe the citizens have the right to appeal any assessments. As members know, they do have the right to do that. I ask if the member could send me the letters he has so that I could review them and go and speak to my staff about them. I remember this issue vaguely when it came up a couple of months ago, and I would like to have the opportunity to take it back and review it with my staff.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you would consider reviewing something I think is of concern to all members in this House. During question period the member for London South asked the Minister of Culture and Communications a question. It took him something in the neighbourhood of six minutes to get out the answer.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: With the supplementary, I believe it did. The minister made an announcement about establishing a new board. I did not get it all -- everyone was shouting and I could not hear it -- but she should not be using question period to make ministerial announcements.

Question period is supposed to be an opportunity for the members of the opposition, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to ask questions of the government and hold it accountable. It is not to be a time when the government makes ministerial statements. I add for your edification, Mr Speaker, that we did not even have one ministerial statement today in the section that is normally reserved for that purpose. This is an irresponsible use of time in this House. I ask you to study it and give us a ruling.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the member for Missisauga West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask all members to come to order for a moment, please. The member for Ottawa West, come to order, please.

The member for Mississauga West has raised a point of order. I would be pleased to take a look at Hansard. I draw to the member's attention that the standing orders allow for a rotation of questions. Of course, regardless of which party has the floor at the time, the questions should be used to elicit information and an opportunity for a response.

I, of course, am always aware of the clock. The member will realize that. I attempt to get the members to respond quickly, both to pose their questions in an orderly way and to elicit a relatively brief response. But his point about making statements is one that I have referred to in this House on previous occasions. I will be most pleased to take a look at the record again.

PETITIONS NURSING HOMES

Mr Daigeler: I have here a petition from some 59 residents of the Ottawa-Carleton area who have asked me to present the following petition which, despite the government's recent announcement, has not been fully responded to. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

I have added my signature to the petition.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition, signed by concerned residents of Oakville and the surrounding area, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the undersigned oppose the presence of the adult-only video store in our community at Bronte and Speers and would like to see it and its material banned in Ontario, and more specifically in Oakville; and

"Whereas we find that such a store in our community does not promote anything of good moral value or help to build up and strengthen our children, youth, women, men and family units,

"We, the undersigned, would like to see that the licence of this store be revoked and removed permanently."

PARKING FACILITIES

Mr Wessenger: I have a petition signed by 613 residents of Ontario requesting that free parking be continued at the courthouse in Barrie and at the Barrie Jail.

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 la motion visant la deuxième 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.

The Second Deputy Chair: When we last sat on this bill, on Thursday, September 26, debate on sections 1 to 4 was postponed. We had a deferred vote on behalf of the member for Waterloo North and another deferred vote on behalf of the member for Mississauga North, for the two opposition parties.

I believe we have a number of other amendments to section 5 standing in the names of both the Progressive Conservative Party and the official opposition.

1500

Mr Offer: Mr Chairman, I am wondering if you can provide some guidance. I understand that at the end of the last day on which we were discussing this piece of legislation, a section that had been moved by myself under clause 40b(2)(d) had been discussed. I think that is where we ended that day. I wonder if you and the table officers might be able to refresh our memories as to that.

The Second Deputy Chair: I believe an amendment by the member for Waterloo North had been debated, with the vote deferred. Also, one of your amendments to section 5 of the bill, proposed clause 40b(2)(d) of the act, had also been debated, with the vote deferred. We are now proceeding to a Progressive Conservative motion in the name of the member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer moves that subsections 40b(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill as reprinted, be struck out.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to indicate that this is a companion amendment to our first amendment. In the first amendment we indicated that we wished to limit the definition of "wages" to "earned wages," so this would eliminate the holiday pay; obviously not vacation pay. This would eliminate the termination pay and the severance pay as well. We are concerned about the amount of money that is going to be spent on this program at this time.

We are concerned about the $9.7-billion deficit and the doubling of the provincial debt to $77 billion by 1994-95. We are very concerned about what the end cost of the wage protection program is going to be. It is projected to cost $175 million in the first 18 months. That is assuming 56,339 workers access the fund. It has also been predicted that by 1992-93 -- that is, if we have a return to normal economic conditions -- there are going to be an additional 19,411 workers accessing the fund at a cost of $55.33 million. That cost was estimated before the average claim was increased from $3,254 to $4,200.

We are concerned that the cost of this program will be high. We feel very strongly that employees are entitled to recoup the wages that have been lost, but we would support the definition of "wages" being only "earned wages." That of course includes the overtime and the holidays.

Mr Carr: I want to support my colleague on this amendment. As has been mentioned, the major problem we are looking at without this amendment's being put in is that we would be looking at a substantially larger amount of money. I am a little bit concerned that what we are looking at really cannot be defined in terms of the extra amount this will cost the province, and as a result it is going to be very difficult to project what the amount will be.

As has been mentioned just now, over the last little while we have looked at a substantial amount of deficit in this province: $10 billion-plus. It will probably be heading closer to $11 billion or $12 billion, depending on how well the Treasurer can hold it back. As a result of that, we are going to be looking at a substantial amount of debt, going up easily to $77 billion by the end of the mandate of this government. I suspect that if they are off as much as they have been to date in the few short months since the last budget, we may be looking at substantially more. If members take a look at page 2 of the bill and go through it, subsections 40b(4), (5), (6) and (7), all the way down, I think they may be looking at a substantial amount. Again, the government is not sure how much will be put into it.

When they make their projections and they talk about the $175 million it will cost, that does not include some of the amounts that would be looked at here with the overtime pay and the termination. As we look over the last little while, the number of workers who have had to access this fund has gone up dramatically. The overall thrust of this particular amendment would be to restrict it to the wages earned.

I would feel a little more confident if the government had been able to show us what the projections were and if it had some credibility in its figures already. Unfortunately over this short period of time their projections on an economic forecast of what exactly will be paid out have been so far off that I suspect this one will be as well. In fact, over the last little while it has been dramatically off, so the total amount we are looking at for this entire package is something we do not know at this time.

As a result, I think the government of the day should be careful not to run up the amount that will be paid into this, because the amount that goes into this, as we have already heard the Treasurer say over the last few days, is going to have to come from someplace else. Whatever amount it ends up being, if it ends up being the $175 million the government says it will be, then that will be $175 million that is going to have to come from someplace else; where, we do not know. The Treasurer is going through it now. It might be the hospitals; it might be education, or it might be some of the other areas that are so critical to this province, but very clearly he is going to have to cut from someplace else to make that.

If we are talking about a substantial amount more than that, which I think we will be, then we might be looking at closer to $200 million or $225 million. When you look in percentage terms at how much they have been off in their budget projections, we unfortunately cannot trust the figures they are looking at. So this is a companion amendment to the other one we discussed earlier.

These have been some comments that I think would be important as people reflect on it. Very clearly what it boils down to is that we have a situation that is so far out of control we do not know how much this is going to cost and the last thing we need is more cost lobbed on to the people who are trying to make a business survive.

Ultimately the ones who are going to be hurt, if as a of result this it costs more in terms of taxes, are the workers out there. Very clearly that has not been factored into this. What we should be doing is ensuring that the amount we spend on this program does not go up dramatically, because the amount that will have to be spent will have to come from higher taxes -- payroll taxes, I suspect, is the way they would do it -- or they will have to slash other programs. I think these are some things the government should look at. Hopefully the members will support this amendment.

Mr Offer: This picks up on the part of the debate we had on the last day this bill was discussed. I imagine the amendments by the honourable member are truly complementary to the first amendment to the bill put forward by the member the first day. Before I make some comments on this particular amendment, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant or ministry staff would be able to provide information as to what they anticipate the rate of recovery will be against directors of businesses under this piece of legislation.

1510

Ms S. Murdock: We can get that information for the member. The ministry staff will provide it to me, if I may give it to him later.

Mr Offer: I thank the parliamentary assistant. If that is all we are able to obtain, then we will have to be satisfied with that, but I hope that information is readily at hand in the Ministry of Labour, because it is important. It is important when we deal with not only this amendment but also the following amendments. We want to know specifically from the Ministry of Labour, as specific as it can be, what it anticipates the rate of recovery will be from the directors of businesses that are, for instance, declared bankrupt. We want to know what the rate of recovery will be in the event the government has to take action against directors.

We think that is important because of the message it sends out to business generally in the province, and we would like to hear from the ministry officials, first, that this work has in fact been done and, second, as a result of that work, what the rate of recovery will be.

Dealing with the amendment specifically, as I understand the amendment, it will in effect delete the severance-termination pay from the fund. When speaking about this earlier, I voiced some concerns that we had on this side about those deletions. The reason we have these concerns is that termination pay and severance pay, and in fact vacation pay if applicable, are areas which are determined by the Employment Standards Act. Those are areas which this Legislature has in the past seen fit to include. In fact, when the opposition was in government, we brought forward changes to the Employment Standards Act which in fact enhanced those particular rights. We should not forget that for a moment.

It is clear that if it was good enough for this Legislature to have debated these areas in the past, to have passed these areas into the Employment Standards Act, to have on occasion and on a continuing basis enhanced those particular rights, then I believe they should stand.

There are other areas in this legislation where we can deal with accountability and responsibility. I believe the business community fully understands and recognizes its obligations to its employees under the Employment Standards Act and indeed under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

These amendments do not, in my opinion, deal with some of the concerns which were brought forward during our hearings. Though I understand the reason for the movement of these amendments, they are ones with which I am not in agreement. To do so means we are short-shrifting those rights and obligations already provided under the Employment Standards Act.

As we get in on this debate today, we have to recognize that this bill is really made up of two parts. The first part is the fund itself, how employees who are the victims of a bankruptcy or, in many ways, the recession can access this fund, can acquire reimbursement for their wages, vacation pay, termination and severance. I believe, as we heard throughout our hearings, the business community certainly recognized that right and obligation.

There is a second area to the bill, the enforcement mechanism. That is the government, through the employment standards branch, taking action against employers or directors and, as a result, an employee of that company or business receiving dollars.

We have to keep those two areas of the bill clearly distinct. I recognize that they have a certain relationship, but I believe there is the opportunity to make this bill better by changing one area of this bill which will not in effect impact on the other area.

We can make this bill better through changes which will not impact on the rights of an employee to have access to the fund. We can make amendments to this bill, we can make this bill better, while not eroding the rights given to employees under the Employment Standards Act in the areas of severance and termination or in fact vacation pay. The question will be, as we deal with this, whether the government-side members are ready and willing to agree to certain amendments. That is the question that members of the government side are going to have to ask themselves.

Earlier on, we went through a process very similar to this. Now we are commencing again. We have to realize that an awful lot of people were hurt by the recession, a lot of people who lost their jobs. There are a lot of people who had never lost a job before, but as a result of the recession and other areas and other factors, they did lose a job. They were out dollars. We can dress it up in terms of wages, vacation pay, termination and severance, but the fact of the matter is they were out dollars. They felt that and their families felt that.

That is why I am against the amendment put forward by the member, because those are areas to which the workers are entitled under the Employment Standards Act. If we agree that the principle of the legislation is designed to help those who have been and are the victims of a recession, then let us give them those rights which this Legislature has earlier provided to employees. But also let us make certain that there are ways in which this bill can be improved, that there are ways in which this bill can meet the concerns of the business community which we heard in the hearings, while at the same time not eroding the rights of those employees, those workers, who find themselves, many for the first time in their lives, out of work. The question will be whether the members of the government side are ready to accept some of these amendments.

1520

When ministry staff provide to us some of the facts and figures and estimates as to the amount of recovery against directors or employers, I believe we will find that rate of recovery is going to be very low indeed, that the amount of money the government, through the employment standards branch, will be able to acquire or be reimbursed is going to be very low and small. If that be the case -- and I feel it will -- then there is a tremendous opportunity here for the government. The opportunity is to provide those rights to the employees, but at the same time send out a more positive message to the business community. It will be interesting to see how the government responds.

On the last day, we spoke about areas of amendment. The government was very clear. It was not ready, it was not willing to respond. Now we will find out. Another day is here. Further amendments will be put forward, further opportunities will be given to the members of the government to take that step towards sending out a very positive message to the business community in this province, that community which creates the jobs.

It is not government that is going to create jobs. It is not government that is going to create high-paying, highly trained, good long-term jobs. It is going to be the business community; it is going to be the small business community.

I hear that some members on the other side agree with what I am saying. If that is the case, if my ears do not deceive me -- and they do not -- then I will expect that member, whom I have noted, to stand up in favour of the amendment, because the government members will now have the opportunity to put some substance behind some of those speeches they are making. They will have the opportunity to stand up and say, "That's the way in which it should operate."

I will be watching closely. I am somewhat heartened by the member saying that it is the small business community which creates the jobs. It is the small business community and the business community itself which creates high-paying, highly skilled, long-term jobs. It is the business community which creates the economic underpinnings of a strengthened economy and a strengthened future.

I will be looking forward to the member's support because I think there is a wonderful opportunity for that member to lead the way for his caucus, to show the way, to be a leader in terms of his caucus, saying, "I believe in the business community."

On this amendment, because these are rights which are founded under the Employment Standards Act, because these are rights which have been at length debated in this Legislature on numerous occasions, because they are rights which have been conferred upon employees as a result of committee hearings, consultation and a variety of other methods, I believe the amendment put forward by the member is one which cannot be supported. We cannot support an amendment which takes away rights which an act of this Legislature has given.

I look forward to continuing the debate. I look forward to talking about, in real ways, how this bill can be improved, how this bill could be strengthened, how this bill could be made more sensitive to all those who will have dealings with the bill.

Mrs Marland: I am happy to have the opportunity to support this amendment to Bill 70. Obviously, from all the concern that has been expressed around this province, everyone realizes what significant legislation Bill 70 is. When we look at the impact it is going to have on small business, the biggest employers in this province are small businesses.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Please protect the workers.

Mrs Marland: I hear the member for Lake Nipigon saying, "Protect the workers." The irony is that while this member of cabinet sits in his seat this afternoon spouting "protect the workers," what is it that he is actually saying? Is he really saying, protect the workers while their employers go into the ground? Do we protect the workers to the point that there are no jobs for those workers? If this member of the socialist government cabinet in Ontario today were really sincere about protecting the workers, he would make sure he protected their places of employment.

The only way you can protect workers is to protect the place where they work. It is very obvious with this kind of legislation that their jobs will not be protected, if that is this honourable cabinet minister's goal. They cannot be protected if we drive those businesses out of this province. Obviously an expanded definition of wages should include severance and termination pay. Wages are one thing. They are the cost of doing business. They are wages we are paid for our labour, no matter what it is.

Mr Mammoliti: All those workers are listening to you.

Mrs Marland: How interesting that this government has such absolute blinkers on, particularly the member who is interjecting now, the member for Yorkview. I realize he has been elected only one year. I would have thought that in one year the member for Yorkview would know a little more about what is going on in this province. I can forgive him for the fact when he was elected a year ago -- I do not know the honourable member's background -- perhaps he did not understand what small business does in this province.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Perhaps a year ago he did not understand what employment meant in this province. Perhaps a year ago this member did not understand common etiquette in this Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The member for Mississauga South, quite rightly, though I disagree with the position, is putting forward her points of view on this matter and the members from the other side are interjecting to such a degree that I cannot hear exactly the points she is making. I think, Mr Chair --

Interjections.

Mr Offer: Even as I speak now, they are continuing to interject. It might be advisable that if those members have something, some small point to make, the opportunity will be there for them to stand in their places instead of interjecting. The question will be whether they have the guts to stand up and take part in this debate.

When the member for Mississauga South has finished, I will be watching to see if they have the courage to stand and make some recorded comment about this debate.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. I want to remind all members that interjections are out of order. The member for Mississauga South has the floor, and you will have the opportunity. We have all afternoon.

Mrs Marland: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The comment of the member for Mississauga North is very apt when he refers to the fact that the member for Yorkview might have some small comment to make, because that is about the size of the comment that member would be able to make.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would the honourable member address the Chair, please?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I will address you.

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I have a concern for this member for Yorkview, who, in one year, has not learned the rules of this House. He has not, in one year, learned that interjections are out of order. He is sitting in the House today and he does not even have the decency to have his jacket on. He is not even observing a code of dress in this House which I would suggest shows --

1530

The Second Deputy Chair: We are addressing Bill 70 and we are addressing some amendments to Bill 70, please.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I am addressing Bill 70, but it is very difficult with the interjections from the member for Yorkview.

The Second Deputy Chair: Please attempt to ignore the interjections, and do speak through the Chair.

Mrs Marland: I do, however, expect the Minister of Transportation to know the rules of this House. He is sitting in this House making his own interjections this afternoon, which frankly none of us appreciate. It is just too bad this socialist government does not know how to behave. I hope the minister, for whose ministry I am critic, does not enter into this fray or else we will have the full theatrical display of our Shakespearean actors.

Anyway, on this amendment to Bill 70, I would like to point out to those members who are not aware -- and I would guess the members of our socialist government in Ontario do not care what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says. They have no concerns for anybody except workers, and what a narrow view. The very workers whom they would protect will be out of jobs, because this kind of legislation will drive business out of this province.

In creating such an uncertain economic climate with this kind of legislation, how can we possibly think there are going to be jobs for anybody? If they want the definition of wages to include severance and termination packages, then I say to them they have no concept of what business is about. Would they not rather have the highest wage settlement paid on a daily basis while they are working than be asking for the moon, which is what they are asking for in the kind of legislation that is before us?

This amendment is critical. This amendment is terribly important to all the people of this province, the workers and the employers. When those employers who are the largest employers in the province, namely, small business -- if this socialist government thinks that small business can manage to absorb wages which include severance and termination packages, then it is more out to lunch than we thought it was.

Small business is hanging on by its fingernails in the kind of economy we have today in Ontario. How impossible it is to say to small business employers, "We want more and more for our workers." Why do they not go to Britain and see what happened to British Leyland? British Leyland went out of business. They should look at the businesses around this province that have been driven out of business by the union contracts their workers demanded.

It is critical that the amendment placed by our Progressive Conservative caucus is supported. Otherwise we are throwing this province into a further, deeper recession than it exists in today.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. Anyone wishing to add comments, now is the time, please.

Mr Offer: I have a question to the parliamentary assistant or ministry officials on this point. I am wondering if they might provide to me, on the basis of the wages, vacation pay, termination and severance, what the average claim will be. It is a question I believe I asked last day, and I am wondering if the parliamentary assistant can provide that information.

Ms S. Murdock: As I stated on the last day we were in debate on this matter, the average claim is $4,200. In response to the question put before by the member for Mississauga North, we expect to recover between $440,000 and $380,000 in the 1992-93 fiscal year from directors. The member did not ask about employers, he asked about directors. If federal legislation is introduced, we expect then that the recovery from directors will be between $230,000 and $200,000 in the 1992-93 fiscal year. Generally, as a rule of thumb, you could probably use the figure of 40 cents per $100 which would be recovered from directors.

Mr Offer: On the basis of that response -- I think this is crucially important information -- the ministry is expecting to receive, as a result of the $175-million wage protection plan, approximately $440,000 as a claim-over from directors?

Ms S. Murdock: Yes. They would get $440,000, on average, from directors in situations where a claim has been made under the employment standards branch. Either the employer could be solvent or insolvent and subsequently they would be able to get that from directors. Out of the $175 million that is provided by the consolidated revenue fund, there would be a recapture of $440,000 from directors.

Mr Offer: My mathematics, poor as it may be, says that if there is a $175-million fund of which $440,000 is recoverable, that is nowhere near 40 cents on the dollar; it is probably somewhere in the vicinity of four cents on the dollar. It is a very small amount of money which is going to be recovered through directors as a result of the fund. The parliamentary assistant might want to clarify that matter. I can see she is nodding affirmatively, so I will allow her to do that at this point.

Ms S. Murdock: Since the directors, as the member is aware, are not liable for severance and termination, they are only liable for what they are presently liable for under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, that is why the amount does not jibe with the member's calculation.

1540

Mr Offer: Again on this point, there was a statement by the Treasurer last week that $85 million would be delayed. I am going to read actually from the words of the statement. This is from Hansard: "...$85 million as a result of the late startup of the wage protection plan due to a delay in legislative approval." I have two questions on that statement. The first is, where is the $85-million saving? The second I will reserve until the member answers the first.

Ms S. Murdock: The $85 million is in the fiscal year 1991-92 in which $90 million of the fund would be spent, and the saving would be because it would not be spent in this fiscal year, it would be spent in the next fiscal year.

Interjection.

Ms S. Murdock: The way it is working out in this legislation as it is, with the debate that is going on, it probably will not even be a law then anyway.

Mr Offer: I understand the Treasurer is using the legislative process in this way, but the fact of the matter is, when we talk about this bill, we all recognize it is retroactive to October 1. Here we are on this date of October 7, and it is not October 1, 1991, it is October 1, 1990. I am not certain why the Treasurer is cutting the funds from this plan when it is, in the words of the bill, retroactive to a time period in excess of 12 months ago, October 1, 1990. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant or ministry staff will be able to comment on that and be able to assure us that there is not some sleight of hand going on here, that an amount of money, $175 million, which has been allocated retroactive to October 1, 1990, has in fact been effectively reduced.

My second question is -- and this is something I guess I am just sensitive about -- "due to a delay in legislative approval" connotes some blameworthiness on this side. Maybe I am just sensitive to that, but if the Minister of Labour believes there should not have been public hearings, if the Minister of Labour believes that hearing from the business community, hearing from employees across this province, was not important, then let us hear that from the parliamentary assistant. If that is not the case, if as the minister's speeches indicate, he believes there is a necessity for consultation, then where was the delay?

The minister introduced this bill. He announced this bill in October 1990, at the same time that Verity was allowed to leave this province and have a reduced employment level. That was the same day, the same table, the same announcement upon the wage protection fund. He did not introduce the bill until the spring session. There was no opportunity on this side of the House to have second-reading debate or committee hearings until the summer recess.

I would like to know why the Treasurer now feels there is some delay, because if there is to be a delay, it is a delay caused by the Minister of Labour. He announced that this was going to be a piece of legislation. He could have introduced this bill in November; he could have introduced the bill in December. We could have had public hearings over the winter. The bill could then have been brought forward in last spring's session for committee of the whole House, third-reading debate and possible passage. I am one who can sort of count the members on both sides of the House. Where was the delay and why did the Treasurer use those words?

Ms S. Murdock: I will respond to the last portion first. We were the only committee -- I say this proudly -- that worked so well together that we finished clause-by-clause in the summer. The Treasurer used those words because the expectation was that when the House opened, we would be able to get this bill introduced for third reading. As we had already debated it fairly extensively in committee, we would be able to debate fairly quickly in the House, if necessary at all, and it would become law.

At that point the Treasurer expected that the bill would be legislation by the second week of October; we were hoping. At present people have applied to the fund for some $60 million, but by the time those are processed and so on -- as we all know, sometimes you operate that although the application is made at this time, you may not receive the money and there is no actual cash flow. I am not an accountant, but I know you can hold moneys for certain periods of time, and on that basis $90 million could be "delayed." Basically it means there is not actual cash flowing, despite the retroactivity.

Hopefully we will get back to the amendment before us, but in response to the comment of the member for Mississauga North with regard to the delay, we brought in the bill as soon as we could. As we all know, the original bill was significantly amended because there were 40 to 50 substantive changes and amendments before we even went into committee to debate.

Mr Offer: I have a question dealing with the $60 million of claims the government has received and has somewhere in the Ministry of Labour. I have a letter from the Minister of Labour, who states that 55,000 workers are going to be helped by this plan in the first 18 months. Using their figure of $4,200 as an average claim, that would be something over $200 million; in fact, it would be getting close to $250 million. I wonder how the member can square her figure of $60 million with the minister's letter to me, of September 20, 1991, which states 55,000 workers would be helped during the first 18 months of operation.

Ms S. Murdock: As the member has already stated, we expect that in the first 18 months 55,000 workers may apply to the fund for assistance, but at present about 18,000 have applied. So far it has worked out that we will owe about $60 million when it is all paid out. We may not get 55,000. Our expectation is that we have erred on the side -- hopefully, we will err on a lesser amount. That will be great if that is the case. That will mean fewer workers are doing without moneys they have earned.

1550

Mr Mammoliti: I have to respond to the member for Mississauga South. She made some comments earlier that I am particularly offended by. She wanted to know my background. My background is as a worker. I wore boots. I shovelled with my hands the stuff she dished out today quite extensively. I do not appreciate the comment she made. She gave me the indication she is not in favour of workers and rights for workers.

I had to say this. I had to stand up and tell you how appalled I am and how appalled, I am sure, about her comments today are all those construction workers and all those factory workers out there who wear the boots and do that hard work.

I could be wrong. Maybe I misread her, but I got the indication that she was not in favour of a worker and that her sole interest in this case is for the owners of the companies and profit. Frankly, I am a little appalled at that. I think we should be working together. I believe this government she has referred to is doing its best to try to work together with everybody and treat the workers as fairly as possible.

I know we are doing that. I will close by saying that I speak for all the workers who are watching out there today. Frankly, I apologize for the member's comments, because I think they are ludicrous, they are ridiculous.

Ms S. Murdock: I want to respond to the actual amendment, now that it seems the debate is done. As I stated earlier, we brought in a number of amendments prior to bringing the bill into committee. In those amendments the termination and severance liability of directors was removed. There is no difference between what we are suggesting under the employee wage protection plan and what presently exists under the Employment Standards Act, except that I think it makes enforcement a lot more likely and certainly easier and that workers will be guaranteed up to a maximum of $5,000, even if some are owed more than that.

To speak to the member's specific point, as we know, the $175 million is guaranteed under the consolidated revenue fund for the first 18 months. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee for the member for Oakville South that it is going to be any higher, or make a prediction that it is going to be higher or lower. We just hope it will be lower as the economy improves. We are not expecting the amounts to go up dramatically.

With regard to the member for Mississauga South, and as the member for Mississauga North no doubt will be happy to hear, we recognize that small businesses make up the backbone of this province and that 63% of all workers come from small businesses in this province. But these amendments and subsections 40b(4), (5), (6) and (7) are not going to affect them, because it will be the insolvent small businesses which will not have the money to pay anyway. That money will come out of the consolidated revenue fund or the employee wage protection program, so the effect on small business is not as dire as predicted by the members for the opposition.

The Second Deputy Chair: This ends debate on the amendment brought forth by the member for Waterloo North. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

An hon member: Defer.

The Second Deputy Chair: If we are going to defer, we have to have five people stand and then defer, as we did earlier in the debate. No.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Second Deputy Chair: We now proceed to a further amendment, as proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mrs Witmer moved that section 40e of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(1a) Despite subsection (1), an employee is eligible for compensation from the program only where his or her employer is bankrupt, is insolvent for an extended period or chronically fails to pay the employee's wages."

Mrs Witmer: This deals, of course, with the employee's eligibility for compensation from the program. As I have said earlier, we certainly recognize the right of all employees, whether you refer to them as employees or workers, to wages earned. We are concerned, however -- and this was a concern was brought to our attention during the discussions on Bill 70 this summer and in a paper -- and certainly some of the small business people in this province are concerned that as it is presently printed, there will be recourse to the wage protection fund even in the event of a small business failing to meet its payroll due to a temporary cash flow problem.

If there were an order to pay from the employment standards branch this could prematurely bring in other creditors and, as a result of this action taking place, the fund could inadvertently force small companies into bankruptcy.

We would very much like the government to consider this amendment. We feel it is an amendment that will protect jobs. It will prevent premature recourse to the fund and could prevent the forcing of small companies into bankruptcy and as a result it certainly could save jobs.

I think we in this House all agree that what we are most concerned about at this time in the province is the effort and the compromise that are needed in Ontario. We need to do everything possible to save jobs for workers who are losing their jobs daily. We continue to hear about companies that are moving south or out of this province to other provinces. If we support this amendment, I think in many ways we could be saving some small businesses from being forced into bankruptcy prematurely.

Mr Carr: I guess this particular amendment comes from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which was concerned about some of the provisions of Bill 70 during some of the hearings. It is kind of ironic that it was the federation that was involved with this becasue, as we know, it was only last week that the survey of the federation's members came in, talking about some of the concerns they have with this provincial government. One of the big concerns voiced was that of small businesses over this particular bill; for those who have not had the chance, I encourage them to take the opportunity to look at it. It is not lost on some of the small businesses that it will jeopardize some of the very perilous situations some of them are in.

1600

For those members who remember, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said he was listening to business and was going to be concerned about the concerns of some of the people. They said very clearly that the reason they were thinking of leaving this province is this provincial government, notwithstanding the fact that the Premier then came and said, "No, it isn't because of that; it's because of other reasons." The fact is that in a survey done by members, where they can tick off the reasons they are concerned and thinking of moving from this province, one of the big reasons is this piece of legislation and some of the other actions of this provincial government. This amendment will attempt to get some of the concerns on the table.

These are businesses that have in the neighbourhood of 10 or 15 employees. They are not the large multinational corporations that can withstand more pressures on them; these are the small operations that are finding it difficult to compete. If the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology really believe some of the words that were said in the House last week, they will take a very hard, close look at this, although I suspect that the Minister of Labour has won the battle, that the fight has already been won by him at the cabinet table and that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has lost this battle.

As you look at the amendment, the purpose is very clear: to ensure that some of the small businesses remain viable. With the precarious situation many businesses find themselves in now, it is ironic that this government could inadvertently hurt those very people it wants to help. What may happen if some of these amendments do not go through is that the piece of legislation may come in and inadvertently force some of the small businesses, particularly, to close prematurely in order to bring in the creditors.

We continually hear the other side, even today on some of the justice issues, saying: "We want to listen to the other side. We want to hear. We're listening to businesses." Well, now is the chance to put it into action. If the members opposite do not implement any of this, all it will be is hollow rhetoric in this Legislature.

This is a chance to take some amendments that have been proposed in good faith by the opposition in consultation with the community. I quite frankly am one of the individuals who will say, if some of these amendments are not approved by the government of the day: "Stop saying you're listening. Stop saying you care about the small businesses." If some good amendments are brought through as a result of the consultation process, now is the chance to implement some of them. This is one that is very simple. It simply says that we do not want to force any companies to close prematurely. We want to give small business in particular a chance to work things out.

What may happen is they may force some of the businesses to close prematurely by forcing them out. This would be a proposed subsection of 40e, when you look at the piece of legislation that would be entered there, that would attempt to protect some of those small businesses that are fighting every day. What essentially happens now is that some them are finding it difficult to meet the demands on small businesses today, whatever they be, whether it be taxes or the regulations that have been imposed on them higher than anywhere else, and quite often they also have the banks hounding them. If anybody is aware of what transpires when a company is heading down some of the difficult roads that many businesses face, there is a tremendous amount of pressure from the banks and from suppliers, as well as from the employees. We do not need added pressure put on them by the government, which may inadvertently hurt those very people we want to help.

It comes back to the fundamental principle. What a government should be doing is ensuring the prosperity of the small and medium-sized businesses in this province, and indeed the large ones as well. We often think large business is a bad word in this province, but it is not. Those produce jobs in record numbers as well, so it is all businesses. It is not a bad word in this province to be of any size.

What we have attempted to do is take some of the input from those very people who are saying, "We're thinking of leaving." The very ones who came and did that survey are the ones who, notwithstanding the Premier and notwithstanding what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said the other day about the reasons, are telling us very clearly that one of the reasons they are thinking of leaving is because this piece of legislation, on top of all the other regulations and taxes in this province, may drive them out.

The survey was not done as a result of any of the opposition parties. It was done by a group of businesses that took a look at their own members, and those members have voiced their concerns. I think that if they did not get a chance to take a look at this amendment beforehand, they may want to reflect upon what business is saying. One of the reasons businesses are potentially leaving is that they are not being heard by this government. If the members opposite will take a little bit of time to reflect on this amendment, I think they will be well served by that.

I think, however, that this one is like some of the other amendments that have been brought forward. I do not think it will go too far. I would hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and some of his parliamentary assistants, particularly the member who has responsibility for the small business community as part of his parliamentary assistantship, would be able to voice some of the reasons they will not be supporting this amendment, if they choose not to. I suspect from the look on the other side that they will not.

What we have is the business community saying: "This is a piece of legislation we are a little bit concerned about. Here are a few amendments that we think will make it a little bit easier on our members, and this government of the day has a responsibility to take a long, hard look at it."

Mr Harnick: I was interested a moment ago when the member for Sudbury stated the statistic of how many people are employed in small business. I think she said some 60% --

Interjection.

Mr Harnick: She tells me 63%. This amendment is strictly directed to that 63% of the workforce. It is a small amendment. It is only really three and a half lines long. It is a three-and-a-half-line amendment that can go to protect all those small businesses that employ 63% of Ontario's workforce.

The amendment is directed at a small businessman who is attempting to take the risks and keep his business solvent. It is attempting to protect that businessman and to protect the viability of his business. If the viability of his business is protected, then the workforce he employs is going to be protected. That is why I think this is an important amendment for the parliamentary assistant to listen to and consider. I hope she will consider it.

In terms of what this amendment does, let's take the example of a small businessman who has a major customer, and for whatever reason the end of the month comes and that major customer decides it does not need to buy that small businessman's product any more. All of a sudden that small businessman is in jeopardy and his business is in jeopardy and all the people he employs are in jeopardy. Come the next month when the cash flow has slowed down, he may well not have enough money to meet the payroll of the individuals who work for him. Those individuals who work for him may be the most understanding individuals of all, and they may say, "We want to save our jobs and we want you to be able to continue to employ us and to meet the payroll." Those individuals may wish to give the employer the extra time he needs.

Unfortunately this wage protection program will not give that extra time. As soon as the person is unable to meet the payroll, this wage protection program may kick in. As a result of that program kicking in, it may mean that other creditors of this business are going to petition the business into bankruptcy. How does that in any way help those employees?

This is in essence a good program. It is a worthwhile program to pursue, but let's not pursue it in such a manner that it is going to force people prematurely to see their businesses go down the drain. This very simple amendment is something that can protect that small businessman and those employees who are employed by him.

1610

It is interesting. Everybody makes light of these amendments and this process. If this process is taken seriously, we should look at whom we are protecting here. In this amendment, we are protecting the small business and we are also protecting the individuals who work for that small business who want the opportunity to continue in the employ of that small businessman.

It is a very interesting phenomenon that when someone owns a small business, he gets to know the people who are working for him and generally gets to know the families of those employees. No one is more concerned about the families and the individuals than the small businessman. The small businessman is someone who plays a very large societal role. This amendment takes a look at the relationship that should exist between the small businessman and the employee. I think it is an amendment that can help everyone very much.

I strongly urge the parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Labour and the other members here today to take a look at this amendment, because it in no way abrogates the intent of this bill. In fact, it would make this bill a much better bill in that it would protect the businesses that continue to employ 63% of the workforce in Ontario.

I urge the parliamentary assistant to convey to the minister, who is not here today, the importance of this amendment. I certainly applaud the member for Waterloo North, who has proposed the amendment, because it is a very sensible amendment. It should be passed. It will not in any way abrogate the bill that is before us right now; it will make it much better.

Mr Offer: This is an important amendment in so far as it clearly indicates that the principle of the bill is not what was originally stated. I think all members of this Legislature recognize that when this bill was initially announced in October 1990, it really was in response to those many people who had lost their jobs as a result of what was then the recession flaming throughout this province.

As we know, there was a great deal of sympathy for the need for this type of bill. There was a great deal of support for the principle, about those who lose their jobs as a result of the recession, for which they are in no way responsible, and who as a result of losing their jobs have dollars owed to them, be it in terms of severance pay, wages or vacation pay, very much found within the Employment Standards Act. The principle that says, "We are going to create and pass a bill that protects the $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 owed to you," is something about which I think a lot of the members of this Legislature felt: "That doesn't sound too bad. It sounds right. It sounds proper."

But this bill is not that. I do not think anybody in this Legislature should think this bill just is that principle, because this bill is much more than that. It is much broader. It is much wider in its scope. It is almost intrusive in terms of its legislation. The amendment the honourable member for Waterloo North has brought forward is one that I must say I have concern with, but on the other hand it brings to the fore the fact that this bill and its principle are much wider than what was initially indicated.

This bill does not just apply to people who lost a job during the recession. It does not just talk to people who are out of work. This bill allows people who may have been docked pay, for instance, on account of Sunday shopping legislation or on account of certain areas of breach under the Employment Standards Act, and who are still working, to come and access the fund. That is clear in this legislation. It became clear during our committee deliberations and it became patently clear during our previous clause-by-clause analysis. The bill does not apply just to people who have lost a job and are out of work. This bill also applies to people who never did lose a job and who are not out of work. The amendment here proves and goes along to bring forward that principle.

I have concerns with the amendment because it seems to strike at the eligibility of employees. It seems to foist on an employee who is not working, who is jobless, a certain degree of having to wait, having to prove what "chronically fails to pay" means. I do not know what that means, but I do know that if we are talking about somebody who is out of work and who does not have a job, it creates a certain whole other procedure.

How do you prove "chronically fails"? What is the time frame? Who brings the application? How long does that application have to be brought forward? Who hears it? What does the employee do? Who looks after the interests, the rights, the responsibilities of the employee and the employer? Who protects those interests of the employer and the employee? That is not contained in this particular amendment.

It causes me some difficulty when we talk about an amendment that uses the phrase "chronically fails to pay the employee's wages" and we do not talk about: How do you prove that? What do you have to show? When do you have to show it? Where do you go to prove it? What standard of proof is necessary? Who brings what, where? All I know is that in the instance the employee is not working and is out of a job. I think this might create a certain burden that might be unfair.

I am pleased the member for Waterloo North has expanded the eligibility to include bankruptcy, insolvency and "chronic fails" and has not limited it just to the way the federal Tories have done in their proposed legislation, which only comes into play in the event of a bankruptcy. But I have a concern with the amendment because it leaves too much out. It leaves too much to be determined somewhere else. I do not know if an employer's best interests are going to be served well by this amendment, nor do I know if an employee's interests are going to be served. There are too many questions through this amendment.

1620

Although I have concerns with the amendment, I think the principle is important. This is the first opportunity, because when we started this bill we asked, and Mr Chair will remember, that sections 1 to 4 of the bill be stood down. We will be debating those sections at the end of the bill. Those sections clearly indicate that this bill is not limited to people who are out of wages, out of vacation pay, out of termination, out of severance pay that are owed to them, and out of a job. This bill is much more. If one indicates that the principle of the legislation is to protect those people who are the victims of the recession, then I say that the stated principle of the legislation flies in the face of the words of the legislation. The words of the legislation are much broader.

We are going to have to discuss this. We are going to have to really talk about what that means to those people who are trying to create wealth, jobs, employment and opportunity in this province. We are really going to have to discuss whether that principle is one which should be in this legislation. That is going to come at another time. It is going to come at the end of this piece of legislation.

I indicate that I have concerns with the amendment because of what is not said. I do not know how it is going to affect employees and employers. I do not know how the burden of proving "chronically fails" will come into existence. I indicate my concern on this amendment to the bill, but I really signal to all members of the Legislature that this now marks the first time in this Legislature that we are talking about the true principle of the legislation, the real principle, the real import and impact of this legislation. It is something we are all going to have to grapple with in the next while ahead, but in terms of the amendment before me, I want to indicate that I have some strong reservations.

Mr Cousens: I can see the member has reservations. I wish he had had reservations a few years ago when his party had a chance to do things a little bit more right, but the Liberals were awfully quiet during those stages, except when they wanted to bring in payroll taxes. Now we will probably have a new payroll tax probably brought in for Bill 40. Reservations are one thing. I think we really have a job to try to get this government to accept some sense of responsibility. Never mind reservations; it is called responsibility.

The concern we always have to have is that the workers' rights and privileges have to be protected. I do not think that anyone, ever, should try to take away those rights and privileges, but we have to understand that there has to be a context for that to take place in. Part of that context is to create a climate for business to prosper, so that there is an environment for business to understand that the world of business is welcome in Ontario. What we are trying to do is make sure that happens.

Unfortunately the New Democratic Party, through Bill 70 and through the earlier stages of this bill, really did not show very much sense as to what it takes to keep this province going. It is marvellous that they were able to back off on a number of those amendments and I compliment the government for having had the wisdom to do that. Mind you, it took an incredible amount of pressure by everybody to get them to wake up to the need, but aside from that, we want to be graceful and kind and supportive where we can be.

The fact of the matter is that when we bring forward a bill such as this, what we are really trying to say is that there are exceptions that are going to come into the scene and that should be considered.

I happen to have a number of people within my own riding who have been given notice from their employer. They have been told they are no longer on staff. Here is how the letter went. I will leave the names out but the company is owned by Columbia Lumber Co on Victoria Park Avenue in Toronto. They have a very large establishment in my riding in which a large number of people have worked. When they said, "We want to get rid of a certain number of employees," they said: "Due to the company-wide reorganization and downsizing of the Building Centre and the emergence of the Giant Home and Building Supply Stores, we are forced to lay you off effective Saturday, September 14, 1991, in order for us to complete the massive changes and transition involved in the new venture. In connection with the emergence of the Giant Home and Building Supply Stores, it is anticipated that a callback from your layoff might be in place by the end of November 1991."

Dig that one, "that a callback from your layoff might be in place by the end of November 1991." Therefore, instead of this being interpreted by the Ministry of Labour as what it is, a dismissal, because the company is obviously on another plan to close down its business, it is taken as a layoff. So this company, which is going out of business, has laid these employees off with nothing more than their vacation pay and they are out on the streets, some of them having worked for the company for as much as 18 years. Of the four who came to see me, one had worked for four years, another 17 years, another 10 years and another 18 years.

The letter of dismissal they were given says, "We're letting you go, but 'it is anticipated that a callback from your layoff might be in place by the end of November.'" A callback; that was said on September 14. Just a short time after that, what you get in the paper, and this a photocopy, is that they are closing down for ever. They are going out of business. It is a total liquidation. "First come, first served. All merchandise up for grabs. Many items at cost or below cost." It is under the business liquidation Metro licence number 18-588 and another number.

What they did as a company is despicable, and I say that in the House. I would probably have a lawsuit chasing me as soon as I said it outside here because "despicable" is a little bit strong, but I am talking about people who are being hurt because someone is using the existing laws to his own advantage and the workers are being abused because of it. None of us in this House can ever tolerate that. We have to stand up to make sure the people within our province are protected. When we have companies coming along and playing the law, there are losers out there. The four people who met with me just over a week ago are among the losers, because they lived in a trusting relationship with their employer that they should stay there.

One of the people who was let go had recently been offered a position with another lumber company and turned it down because he felt he had his friends in this business. They were there and he would stay with them. That was a few months before he got another letter, and his letter really had the same kind of effect: "Due to the company-wide reorganization and downsizing to the Giant name in our stores, we are forced to lay you off effective Friday, August 30, 1991, in order for us to complete the massive changes and cost controls in the new venture.

"We thank you for your support in the past and wish you success in the future."

What does this constituent get? He gets a letter, he gets his vacation pay but he does not have anything for the years of service he has given.

So they close down, they go out of business and what happens to them? There is going to be someone around there interpreting the law to his own advantage. We have to have something within the law that protects the employee from unscrupulous employers. What we are trying to address by raising this kind of amendment in the bill is that there has to be something for an understanding of when an employer tries to play the game. What we see here is an amendment that would begin to address some of those kinds of concerns.

1630

I respect the position our PC critic is coming from on this. Having sat down and looked at it, she is really trying to address part of the concern that has been raised by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, to prevent recourse to the fund when a small business fails to meet payroll due to a temporary cash flow problem. Some people will call a temporary cash flow problem just the kind of thing I described here. Who is ever going to know what is happening? They send one letter to an employee saying, "We're going to be having some changes to the corporation," and then come along a few weeks later and say, "We're closing down." Meanwhile, what does the employee do?

There are enough laws in trouble in this province and enough people who are taking advantage of employees that we have to look at some way of balancing the act. If we look at what is going on, we are in a position in this Legislature to modify a bill that needs just a little more control to it. What we are asking for is the kind of balance that would make that happen. What we are really saying is that the employment standards branch could bring up other creditors and the fund could inadvertently force small companies into bankruptcy. We want to be very careful that this does not happen.

I started by questioning where the Liberal critic was coming from. I thought the Liberals would have had some kind of balance to this thing. Maybe he is in a position to review his thinking on it.

Mrs Marland: I rise to speak in support of this particular amendment. Because it seems to be so difficult for this socialist government to understand where business is coming from in Ontario today when businesses say, "Please, please, no more," and as continually the interjections across the floor of this House are, "Protect the workers; save jobs," I think it is appropriate that I tell members about a letter I received from a business person in Mississauga.

This business person is Mr Donald K. Sheardown. He is the owner of Ontario Bus Industries. On May 9 of this year he wrote a very short, explicit letter to the Premier. The easiest thing for me to do is to read it, because it has direct relevance to the amendment that is on the floor at this time.

"Dear Premier Rae:

"I'm writing this letter to you as a concerned owner of a manufacturing business in Mississauga, Ontario.

"Our company, Ontario Bus Industries Inc, manufactures urban transit buses, presently operating in 260 cities in North America and Europe.

"We are a nonunion company, with 670 employees located in Mississauga, supported by approximately 450 local Ontario-based vendors who employ approximately 2,400 employees.

"Our subsidiary company, Bus Industries of America Inc, is located in Oriskany, New York, and employs 470 employees.

"At the present time we are number two in our industry in North America, with a 30% market share, and 80% of our product is exported from our Mississauga plant to the United States and Europe.

"Our costs to operate in Mississauga, Ontario, versus Oriskany, New York, are as follows:

"1. Labour costs -- 30% higher in Mississauga.

"2. Average hourly rate of pay: C$16 per hour, Canada; C$11.50 per hour in the US.

"3. Employee benefit package is approximately equal in both locations.

"4. Workers' compensation costs 50% higher in Ontario.

"5. Realty taxes -- 60% higher in Mississauga.

"6. Bank interest costs -- 4% less in US.

"7. Industrial land costs $5,000 per acre in Oriskany and $600,000 per acre in Mississauga. Industrial building rental costs $4 per square foot in Mississauga and $2 per square foot in Oriskany.

"Mr Premier, this is a small example of the high cost of operating in Canada. You can understand, therefore, my concern over an article which appeared in the Toronto Star's business section on May 2, 1991, with regard to the proposed changes in the Ontario labour laws which will, if enacted, force companies such as ours to look for other alternatives.

"The province of Ontario has the most progressive labour laws in North America, of which we can all be proud. Changes made to these laws have always come slowly and are well-thought-out and balanced. The present proposed changes, however, will be unacceptable to today's business leaders.

"We have worked hard to build a strong and viable company, which has never experienced a layoff in 12 years. We are constantly facing new business challenges throughout North America, challenges we can meet and solve. However, the proposals as outlined are challenges we are not prepared to face unnecessarily.

"Due to the seriousness of this matter, I am requesting a meeting with you to further explain the issues which I feel could further erode manufacturing businesses presently located in Ontario."

What I want to say about the amendment on the floor at this moment, in reference to Mr Sheardown at Ontario Bus Industries, is that he is just an example of what businesses in Ontario are saying. If this socialist government does not care to listen, Mr Sheardown, who, I may say, from the figures I have just given, is responsible for over 3,000 jobs in Ontario today, is not going to be here.

Mr Sheardown is a passionate Canadian. He is a passionate Ontarian. He is doing business today in Mississauga and this province even though the cost of doing business for him today is 30% higher than at the same plant in the same business in the United States. This is not fiction; this is fact. Mr Sheardown has a plant in Mississauga and he has a plant in New York state. He has accurate figures to compare the costs of doing business, but because he is a loyal Canadian and feels so strongly about keeping his business, which is obviously a tremendous success if he has 80% of the market share -- because he is so concerned about keeping his business in Ontario, he is already willing to write off one third of his potential profit by doing business here.

If it costs him 30% more to do business in Ontario, he is quite happy to do that. He has been absorbing that 30% differential for some number of years now and he is willing to do that. He is willing to stay in Ontario and do business although he could do the same business in the United States at 30% less, which means 30% more goes into his pocket in profit. That is not what he is about. That is not what this superb human being is about in business today in Ontario. He is about protecting the economy of this province. He is about protecting those 3,000 jobs in this province with which he is involved directly and indirectly. He is about keeping a vision for Ontario in terms of successful industry and business here.

1640

What he said on May 9 to the Premier was, "I would like a meeting with you." What happened? He got referred to the Minister of Labour; he did not even get a meeting with the Minister of Labour. This socialist government does not care about those 3,000 jobs that are directly attributable to Mr Sheardown doing business in this province. He is simply saying that if this socialist government wants to keep those 3,000 jobs, then: "Would you please listen to me? I have a story to tell. I would like to sit down with the Premier and tell him that it costs me 30% more to do business than in the United States, but I am happy to stay here." But the Premier would not meet with Mr Sheardown, and the Minister of Labour would not grant a meeting with Mr Sheardown.

Do members know what he did? I have the letter here. I will read it. This is the kind of thing we get from this socialist government.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Stop that word.

Mrs Marland: Oh, we are touching a nerve. It is so interesting; we are touching a nerve now.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Because we call this government what it is, which is socialist, we have the Minister of Transportation saying, "Don't use that word," and we have the parliamentary assistant saying, "Use it; we're proud of it." I suggest they get together. It would be great if they would either unite or divide on what it is they all believe in over there, but certainly the Minister of Transportation is very sensitive when I use the word "socialist." I call things the way they are, and this is a socialist government in the history of Canada at the same time that the rest of the world is discontinuing socialism and socialist governments.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to remind the honourable member that we are working on amendments to Bill 70. It may involve some of what she is saying, but please, do try to stay on topic.

Mrs Marland: I appreciate that. I am trying to stay on the amendment.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: There is one member here who is interjecting who is not even in his own seat, but I guess he does not care about the House rules either.

I want to emphasize the kind of arrogance and ignorance that this socialist government shows the business community of this province. As an example, I have just given members the request of Mr Don Sheardown of Ontario Bus Industries to meet with the Premier, which was then referred to the Minister of Labour. The kind of answer we get is this; I quote from a letter to me of August 20. Bear in mind from May 9, I might add. This is a letter over the signature of Valorie Taylor, secretary to the minister, on Ministry of Labour letterhead.

"Dear Mrs Marland:

"On behalf of the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 31 (which we received in our office August 15) regarding your constituent Mr Donald K. Sheardown, president of Ontario Bus Industries Inc, and the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act.

"We have had Mr Sheardown's name added to the list of those who will be considered for consultation on the proposed changes."

I think that is the biggest insult, to suggest that Mr Sheardown's name was added to a list of those "who will be considered for consultation." Who do the members of this socialist government think they are? This man is directly responsible for 3,000 jobs and the Minister of Labour says: "We'll put you on a list. We'll consider consulting with you." I think that is the height of insult to a prominent, successful businessman who wants to stay in Ontario, even though today it costs him 30% more.

If Bill 70 goes through without the amendments my colleague the member for Waterloo North is proposing, if these amendments are not supported to try to clean up this dreadful piece of legislation, then when these 3,000 jobs are lost, I would suggest to the Minister of Transportation, who finds it humorous, that he no longer come into this House and say, "Protect the workers." I say with sincerity, if he wants to protect the workers, he has to protect the businesses that employ them. Without this amendment to Bill 70, the businesses are not protected and the jobs will be gone and the workers will be out of work.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Briefly, I have listed some questions for the parliamentary assistant. They deal with the intricacies of the bill in terms of workers' protection. I wish to avail myself of the opportunity, with high respect for the member and of course the minister involved and the ministerial staff, who have worked diligently to come forward with what are not complexities in the deal.

It never ceases to appal and, yes, to shock me to some extent, that people standing in their places, representing the workers in their constituencies in this instance, will choose to ignore the compendium, the intent and the purpose of the bill, which is simply to guarantee that an hour's work will be equal to an hour's pay.

It is to guarantee, for instance, with the highest of respect to the banking institutions, that people, only too often a member of a minority, a worker, one of the working poor, who are exchanging their dedicated labour at the marketplace for the minimum wage or a few cents above the minimum wage, in terms of the legislation, because of the complexities of our system, because of what has been allowed to happen, not only are treated as second-class citizens but are treated in a climate of uncertainty, that of unsecured creditors. It is appalling and shocking indeed.

The words of my colleague, what has been put forth here, will correct that anomaly. It is appalling and shocking inasmuch as fictitious Maria Lopez, having worked at a dress factory, and be it a worst-case scenario -- I do not wish to catastrophize but merely to illustrate -- working at a few cents more than the minimum wage, will have to wait for her two or three weeks' wages behind the Royal Bank of Canada, for it has first recourse.

The human dimension is what is being put forth. Surely not one member, not one distinguished colleague, could ever deny the right of workers to get compensated for each and every hour spent at a designated workplace constituting a day's work. Who can deny this? It is so commonsensical. This is the essence of life. This is what it is all about.

My colleague has answered all the questions. She has been a tower of strength. If only the opposition would have availed itself of the opportunity to say the method, the mechanism, the road to arrive at, and to meticulously describe, by way of offering alternatives, how to arrive at that. This is not what has been said.

We have been the victim -- and it is okay, but sometimes it lacked in substance and rationale as well -- of an unwarranted attack. All we are trying to do here, and we say this with a great deal of pride, is to reconcile and to recognize what had been lacking in the administration -- I do not wish to be unduly harsh, but it is a fact of life -- previous to ours. Ours is a lifelong commitment. Ours is an evolution. We do not wish to scare anyone, certainly not the workers. We wish to give them their due; no more than this, no more than that.

1650

Ms S. Murdock: Just to respond to the amendment and to explain why we will not support this amendment, I want to say first of all that all the speakers from the opposition and from the third party have mentioned putting small business persons prematurely into bankruptcy. The corollary of that is that workers are not charity operations. They do not work for nothing. For one of the members to have said that some small businesses may have an understanding with their employees, so that when they cannot meet payroll their employees will understand how that can happen, then in no way are the employees able to meet their bills, able to pay their rent, able to order food.

In any case, regardless of the bill that we are putting through, under the existing act you can still have an order to an employer and then, if members look at the process and as members well know, if someone is not paid for whatever reason, the employee then has access to the employment standards branch and can file a complaint or ask for an investigation to be done.

At the end of that investigation, the employment standards officer will write an order. The employer, as well as the employee, has a right at that point to appeal the decision. The employee obviously will not appeal if it is to his benefit, but if it is not, then he has that right. The employer still can appeal that, so bankruptcy is not the name of the game. But if an employer is in a position where he cannot meet payroll, maybe he should be looking at the whole idea, number one, of looking at insolvency.

The other point I want to make, which was raised on the other side, is the possibility that other creditors of small businessmen are going to find out these people's names and, because of the fact that they have put in a complaint to the employment standards branch, are going to suddenly then force small businessmen into bankruptcy. There is absolutely nothing under the employee wage protection program that allows for any listing in any trade journals announcing the names of the people who have employed or the companies that have employed.

I also point out that this amendment would cause immeasurable administrative problems both in process and in terms of costs. The definition alone under this amendment of what could be considered chronically failed -- does that mean that you can chronically fail every month or does it mean every week or does it mean yearly? There is no definition. It is very vague and ambiguous, and we cannot support it on that basis.

I just want to stress that the existing Employment Standards Act has already got orders to pay in it and that this amendment will do nothing but just create an administrative nightmare. We are not in favour.

Mr Harnick: I am dismayed because the whole essence of this amendment seems to have been misconstrued. The essence of this amendment is to ensure that people maintain their jobs so that companies remain viable. There is no point having an act which is going to force people into bankruptcy, and that is what this amendment is trying to prevent. This is trying to prevent a situation where an employer, for whatever reason, has his business suddenly fail because he has lost a customer and he is trying to keep that business alive. This amendment prevents the bill from becoming the nail which closes the coffin on that business.

I am dismayed that the parliamentary assistant, the member for Sudbury, has construed the amendment in the way she has, because this is an amendment that is going to provide continued jobs in viable businesses. It is a last-ditch attempt to take a business that is in trouble and make sure it remains viable.

The government should give it that last chance. They should not create unemployment so that they have to call on the fund. They should do things that are going to keep these businesses viable. Is that not the first priority, or is the priority to say, "Everything's going to fail, so we'll just have this act and we'll call on the fund and that'll be it"? Is this not an opportunity for this government to show it is trying to help businesses, that it is trying to give businesses that last little bit of support so they do not fail?

Is this not a place where the employer and employee can work together? Certainly that is the spirit of this amendment and that is the intent of this amendment, but the fact is that it has been totally misconstrued by the member for Sudbury and the member for Lake Nipigon. Certainly if they are concerned about the words "chronically fails to pay" or the fact that it may be difficult to define, then let's hold it down and let's work together and let's come up with a definition that is compatible rather than see this amendment defeated and see the whole spirit of what this bill should be thrown out.

That is what the attitude towards this amendment is going to do. It is an opportunity for a socialist government to indicate to business that it issupportive of business, particularly small business. The way the member for Sudbury has defined this amendment and tried to explain it is quite contrary to that. I am frankly surprised, and I urge her to reconsider and not defeat this amendment. If she wants to tidy up the language or there is something we can do to make it better, she should hold it down but not defeat it.

Ms S. Murdock: I am going to respond to the comments that have just been made in that regard, because I have not misconstrued anything. I have read this. I am not questioning the intent or the spirit that was intended by those who drafted this amendment. I am simply saying the effect is unrealistic.

The other thing is that it is not the fund that is the nail in the coffin for the small business. Those things already exist under this act. The existing Employment Standards Act is already there, except that it gives them money to go in and get it, to pay the employees who would normally get nothing if the employer was insolvent and had no money to pay them. That is what this provides.

I do not know where the mistaken idea is coming from that this fund, in and of itself, suddenly slams a small businessman into bankruptcy. If he is in that position, if the situation was such that there was no Bill 70, right now under the existing Employment Standards Act, if I was working for a small employer and my boss was unable to pay me, I automatically have the right under the existing act to put in a complaint to the employment standards branch. An officer investigates, determines that I am owed wages or whatever and puts in an order to pay against the employer.

If the employer does not have the money, the employer then has to find the money somewhere, close his doors or whatever, and the employee then is stuck with nothing. Even if the employer does declare bankruptcy, the employees are still sitting there with no money, because they are not a priority creditor and so they have no status on the bankruptcy list.

This fund, however, once we finally get this passed and into law, will allow an employee rights to money, so that when a small business does go under and has no money to pay workers who have not been paid wages, vacation, severance or termination, they will get some money, at least up to a maximum of $5,000. They are not left out in the cold and the creditors can still go the bankruptcy route. But as it is in this province, workers have to have access to something and deserve the money they have earned.

1700

Mrs Cunningham: I am speaking basically to respond to some of the remarks made by the member for Lake Nipigon on this particular piece of legislation, Bill 70 -- and to the member for Sudbury, to a point.

What we have all been advised to do as we represent the public is to go back to what it is all about, that is, to express the views of the people we represent and from time to time explain to them just what the government is trying to do. I did make that effort on a number of occasions, and that is one of the reasons our party has put forth the amendment we are supposed to be speaking to right now.

This amendment really is to address the concern raised by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which I think most of us take rather seriously. I do not think it is an amendment that should worry the government in any way. From everything I have heard from the member for Sudbury, I would think she would support the amendment, because all it really does is clarify everything she said happens anyway.

We are just reassuring the business community under very definite circumstances, and the word "only" in the amendment is the important one. It says: "Despite subsection (1), an employee is eligible for compensation from the program only" -- I underline "only" -- "where his or her employer is bankrupt, is insolvent for an extended period or chronically fails to pay the employee's wages." Therefore, the citizens of Ontario will pay up to $5,000 if a company goes bankrupt and it has employees who are entitled to money they have paid into a fund. It is like insurance. There are many who are watching us right now who would ask, "Why should we pay anything?" but we are saying that is fair.

Personally, I would like to hear better arguments from the government as to why that is not fair and does not clarify the situation. If we do not, then perhaps my letter, which I wrote in kindness, that the government would be listening to amendments put forth by the opposition parties or would amend the bill itself, to people like the president of Aylmer Toolcraft Ltd -- I tried to reassure that this government would be listening to the public. He certainly made his views known. His name is Mr Nutley, the president of Aylmer Toolcraft Ltd, and he wrote to us. I have to listen to them. These are the people who are in the front lines, who are trying to run a business. He is really angry, and I do not blame him.

It is not just this bill, although this bill is the reason he was prompted to write to us in the spring of the year. I have responded and I think others have to many members in their constituencies. Sometimes people are writing to myself and to members of the opposition parties because they are not getting timely responses from some members of the government. I am certain the member for Sudbury would not be one of those people, but some of her colleagues are, and from time to time we get letters instead. This letter is addressed to myself and it says, "I would like to express my views on Bill 70, as far as what I have been able to digest from watching the debate in the House" -- it is not always of the highest quality, Mr Chairman; I am sure you would agree to that -- "and from the media."

I think this amendment today has been spoken to by both sides of the House and I do not see a problem with it. It just underlines and clarifies the intent of the government.

Mr Nutley goes on to say, "As a small businessman in Ontario, I don't mind telling you I am as scared as hell." That is a pretty strong statement to start with. "It is hard enough keeping a business going" -- I think members had better listen to this, because this is the impression of small business people. This fellow is the president of a company. In fact, he is a builder of special equipment, machining and welding; very important to our economy, I would say. "It is hard enough keeping a business going without a bunch of union-oriented buffoons putting up more road blocks." I am not here to insult the government, but that is the impression the government members are leaving with our communities.

I will say something about my own party here. I do not mind taking criticism when it is warranted. The letter goes on to say: "I watched the leader of the NDP and PC parties in Ottawa some time back." I have to take this criticism from time to time. "They both stated that they wanted more high-tech jobs, instead of lowering our standard of living and becoming more competitive." We are all good at talking about what we are going to do, but boy, in my critic responsibility as the critic for Skills Development, I am still waiting for this government -- they were the best critics when they were in opposition and I applaud them for it. They were very keen about bringing forth programs, in co-ordination with colleges and universities and school boards, to provide the training programs for our young people. There is not one of us who is not concerned about a dropout rate of some 27%. This gentlemen is just saying: "You talk about it. What are you going to do about it?"

After he talks about lowering our standard of living and becoming more competitive -- that is what is happening if we do not have the high-tech jobs -- he says, "The fact of the matter is, when you compare us with the USA, we are not competitive and our standard of living is much higher on average." I do not see any editorial comment, whether he thinks that is a good thing or a bad thing, but he goes on to say: "It may come as a surprise to them, but I have lots of low-tech employees, and the low-tech jobs are going south because we are not competitive. What will they do in a high-tech world?"

That is a very responsive chord. We do think of us just losing people who are highly skilled and highly trained, but we are losing regular, everyday persons whom we depend upon to keep our province and our country moving. What this employer describes as low-tech jobs has a lot to do with young people and family people trying to earn a living and paying very high taxes in the province.

I am quoting again: "Companies are leaving Canada in droves, and if our Treasurer, Mr Laughren, doesn't believe it, as he has stated, then he is living in a never never world and needs to get out into the real world. Maybe he should talk to the B. F. Goodrich employees, or maybe Tupperware. Does he really think General Motors is kidding? Does he really think they can't build a better product more efficiently and generate more profit for their shareholders south of the border? I really think he needs to wake up and smell the roses."

Why do members think this gentleman is writing to us under the guise of his concerns around Bill 70? Because every little piece of legislation that affects the ability of employers to do their work concerns the public. That is why he is writing all these concerns he has.

It is just one more piece of legislation, one more intrusion into the small businessman's world, one more expense, one more fear. As the member for Sudbury says, it may have nothing to do with Bill 70, but in the eyes of the public it does have something to do with Bill 70, and we are trying clarify it or make it stronger on behalf of the public we represent. This is an amendment that was raised in response to the concerns of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I do not see that the government has told us why it does not support it, not to the extent I would like to be briefed at least.

This gentleman, who is the president of Aylmer Toolcraft Ltd in Aylmer, goes on to say in this letter:

"Let's talk about the liability of directors and owners if a company goes bankrupt. It's not always their fault and in most small businesses the owner has probably invested all that he has, is taking all of the risks and has the least protection. He does this not only to provide a living for himself, or because he enjoys the challenges, but also to provide employment for members of his community."

1710

I suppose the point in my even reading this letter today and raising this issue is that we want people to do business in Ontario, we want our people working and we really want our young people to have a future to look forward to, whether in the view of Mr Nutley they are low-technology or high-technology employees. It takes all of us to produce and work so we can enjoy a quality of life we have become used to in the past.

"Believe me, in most small businesses the owner puts out the most effort, longest hours, takes all of the risks for the least thanks.People think just because you own the business, you're the highest paid and least worked. I have news for them. In fact I have several employees who take home more than I. Yet if my business goes under for any reason, not excluding government roadblocks to free enterprise in the form of excessive taxes or a horrendous debt" -- that is underlined in big, black letters -- "that scares away our customers, and that we will probably never be able to put aside once incurred, or just because of poor economic times we as owners or directors are expected to shoulder the whole burden."

I think this person who employs people in Ontario is saying it is not always the words that matter but the signal we send out. The problem with Bill 70 is the very first signals it sent out. Let's face it, the biggest problem of all was when people who were giving volunteer hours on boards of directors were going to be liable. That was a silly thing to send out, a wrong message, and it is one that is hard to overcome.

If the members of this government have learned anything in one year, they had better think clearly about the message they send out before writing their legislation. If they do anything in the next few months, if there is legislation on the table that is frightening to our business community, for heaven's sake, they should deal with it right away and get it off the table. I think the damage has been done and we can only hope to recoup what we can.

"It may come as a surprise, but we'll be out of work also, without the benefit of unemployment insurance to help us find new jobs." I think he is referring to a country and a province that are basically bankrupt. "We are, to all intents and purposes, workers also just doing a different jobs. If we as a company do go bankrupt, it's because we have no money, and yet they want me to dip into my own pocket and shell out I believe the figure I heard bantered around on TV was an average of $20,000 per employee."

Can the members imagine the kind of public relations we have as politicians? We took care of that in responding to this gentleman and clarified it on behalf of the government. At one point he thought that if he had 25 employees, he had to dish out $500,000, but that is the kind of misunderstanding we clarified immediately.

He had another concern: "If I have to dish out that kind of money after we go bankrupt (praise God we don't), then the only alternative left to me is to put a gun to my head, but even then the insurance would not be enough." He is saying he cannot get that kind of insurance.

Let's face it, he does not have to divvy it out but, boy, we had better be pretty wealthy in Ontario, because guess who has to give it out? The province of Ontario, out of its coffers. We had better make sure that people are paying into that fund and that we are investing it wisely so that we are not always going into debt and adding to the debt. Although he thinks he probably has to pay it, he does not have to pay it, but the taxpayers do. Mr Chairman, I should be looking at you when I am speaking. That is why, if we are clever at all, we want to instil confidence in the business community. We want them to stay in Ontario. We want people still to work. We do not want bankruptcies so this bill never has to come into effect. That would be the ideal world. Having said all that, I still do not know why the government will not accept our amendment to section 5 of the bill as we put it forth.

Mr Nutley goes on to say:

"There is more to a successful business than just good management. Employees have to do their share as well, and since we all reap the profits (employees through wages and benefits), we should all share in the risks. I am not saying that there should not be some sort of protection from unscrupulous owners who abuse their powers and privileges, but don't paint us all with the same brush.

"Employees are paid to do a job, just as we as a business are paid by our customers to do a job." We forget that some days. "What this country and in this case this province needs to get back to is a day's pay for a day's work. If we don't get our heads back out of the clouds and down to earth, there will be no jobs for anyone in Ontario and the jobs that companies like mine have now will be filled by Americans or Mexicans that want to work." We are seeing that.

"To our current government I say: "Wake up. You are creating another made-in-Ontario recession and destroying all that it has taken generations for us to build."

I know sometimes we do not like to think of people going to the US or to Mexico for lesser wages, but I think people have to go where they can work. If that is what is happening in Ontario, I hope at the end of the term of this government we can stand up and say they turned it around somehow. But if more people are leaving and we do find ourselves, with our young people, lacking in confidence, if we find them not investing in Ontario and starting their own businesses -- because after all, this amendment is for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business -- if we do not find them with confidence and if we do not listen to them, then I say right now this government will have failed after the promises it has made for decades. We have to start listening to the front-line workers and to the front-line business people, and that is what we are trying to do today.

"To Mr Laughren and Mr Rae, if you still don't believe that business is packing up and leaving Ontario in droves, then you are welcome to look at the package I have received from North Carolina" -- and many of us have received others -- "and then tell me why any businessman in his right mind that is capable of making a move would stay.

"To all MPPs" -- that is me as well -- "I urge you to stop this madness and start building an environment in this province that will encourage business to locate and to stay, thus creating and securing the jobs that are so important to all of us. The NDP don't have a monopoly on caring. We all care. It's just that some of us can manage to see past the blinders."

For one thing, I have to say I have noticed a difference, I hope, in the attitude in the House in the last year: All of us have come to understand that when we got ourselves elected to this Legislative Assembly, it was to represent all our constituents. No one has a monopoly in this province as an elected member on caring.

I may have deviated just a little from the intent of the amendment, but I felt that Mr Nutley has a right to be heard in this House. He as well as many others -- and I may have to read other letters in -- is concerned about the bigger picture, that is, the intentions of this government when it comes to some of the labour amendments it tabled in this House last spring.

In listening today, I hope the government will move very quickly to put aside the concerns of the constituents, not only as they relate to Bill 70 but as they relate to other legislation this government has on the public agenda, many intentions that have not yet been spoken to because we have not gotten the legislation from the government. I would say the sooner the better. The sooner the fears are put aside with regard to labour amendments, the better with regard to the rumours and misunderstandings -- I hope they are misunderstandings -- that are going out in the province.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to this amendment this afternoon.

1720

Mr Cousens: One of the things raised by the member for London North has to do with the whole issue of competitiveness. If there is anything I believe, it is that if we can adjust or modify bills coming from this government so as to improve Ontario's competitiveness so that business will want to invest in this province, we will have done the right thing. We have to do an awful lot to correct the impression that this government is antibusiness. The government really does not accept the fact that it is antibusiness, and it may not be.

Mrs Caplan: You can't correct that impression because that is the reality.

Mr Cousens: I have to respect the fact that the member for Oriole would say that. She is saying it is a reality that the government is antibusiness. It is the perception of the business community that this government does not care about what the business community is all about, and that this government, by having its own philosophical positions, is really going to disregard what an owner of a business or someone who has an investment in Ontario might have to say on what their long-term interests are. Therefore, it ends up having legislation that is antibusiness.

Antibusiness really amounts to an impression. I have to believe that there is not a member of the New Democratic Party who sees himself or herself as antibusiness, and yet the perception by the marketplace, by those who already have businesses in Ontario and by those who are looking at this province, is that this is a dangerous climate for them to invest in.

I have to challenge the government in another way. Maybe we have not been successful because we try to browbeat them and we try to beat them up. Maybe we need to have more of a love-in here that says, "Hey, please come along and try to open up your minds to some of the concerns the business community has so that the province begins to prosper again." We are not seeing that now.

It was unusual, to say the least, that an ambassador from Sweden was here in the House today and would twig our minds, sitting beside the member for Leeds-Grenville. Is it not odd that he is coming over here to look at what we are doing, and yet what we are doing is mimicking in so many ways the way in which Sweden has gone for the last 30 or 40 years, since the Second World War? Their socialist government has now gone off the rails and they have now removed the socialist government. They are trying to move out of socialism and to have more of a capitalistic society so that a balance can exist.

I want to see balance. I see the people in Sweden shifting away from socialism and moving into capitalism as Ontario now has a socialist democratic government moving us into --

Mr Duignan: What about Saskatchewan and British Columbia?

Mr Cousens: The honourable member asks about Saskatchewan and BC. I have to say that I am very worried about what is going to happen to Canada when we have three governments that are New Democratic governments, and we might well have a fourth government.

Ms S. Murdock: Deal with the amendment, Don, the amendment.

Mr Cousens: I did not say it. It was raised by the honourable member. I am dealing with the amendment. I am dealing with the taking away of Ontario's competitiveness by having a spirit here that is just removing that sense of zeal for business, and it is a perception.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That is unfair.

Mr Cousens: I am being told by my very good friend the Minister of Transportation that it is unfair. It is a perception, though. It is a perception of the business communities, not only the existing communities here in Ontario but the ones that fly over, look at Ontario and say: "Oh, oh. We have a socialist government there. They are not going to be a good climate to invest in."

I do not think there is as much money to be invested anyway right now. Japan is certainly retrenching. They are not investing as much as they were a little while ago. With eastern Europe opening up now, there is money flowing in to try to get them started. So where are we going to find capital to invest here in Ontario? A friend of mine was at a conference recently, and in the northeastern United States -- I do get some things I am not going to read, that kind of biased view. I do not know how the honourable member ever bought that writer, and I would have to look at -- before you start quoting from something, you have to know what you are quoting. That is really a danger.

Ms S. Murdock: It is nice to see you are blushing.

Mr Cousens: You will have to understand that in this House sometimes there are dynamics that go on that one does not fully understand. I do not know where that came from. The fact of the matter is --

Mr Mammoliti: What does it say?

Mr Cousens: Mr Chair, control these people. It is almost feeding time for the New Democrats. When they get to the trough again, they can dig in deeper, roll up their sleeves and eat away, which they are going to do for four years. Then it is going to come to an end, because the people of Ontario do not want to see Ontario swing so far to the left. I thought the pendulum had swung far enough when David Peterson was in power and it swung to the left. Then what happened? We elected -- we? Not me. Enough people in Ontario, 38% of them, elected a New Democratic government, and the pendulum is still swinging.

Unfortunately, when you get the pendulum away up there, you cannot just bring it right back to normal. It is going to take a while to notch it back so that people can have the kind of environment I am talking about, where business will prosper. The pendulum is up there; let's bring it back. I am suggesting to this government that through the kind of amendment we are tabling today, we will do something to give confidence back to the business community. The business community at this point in time has the lowest morale.

Members in this House keep talking about Saskatchewan. I worry about Saskatchewan not just for a few reasons, but number one has to be that if it goes and elects another socialist government in this country, it is going to be eating the same kind of legislation we are going to have tabled.

Mr Turnbull: That is all we will have to eat.

Mr Cousens: That is it. Words do not feed people. The kind of dogma and doctrine that is motivating this government to bring in such legislation, that is causing such disease among the business community, is a matter we have to face up to.

The business community is calling upon all of us to set up a climate so that it can succeed and prosper, so that we can draw in business. Right now there has been an exodus of business, from my community at least, to parts of the United States. They are not going to Quebec at this point. A lot of them are moving to the United States. We had the movement from Quebec to Ontario, and now those people have sensed they are no longer welcome here. They are going to go elsewhere. I do not want to see that happen. With the kind of legislation we are bringing in, we have to make it possible for them to say: "I want to be here. I want to raise my family here. I want to have my business here. I want to make my money here." We are not doing anything to create capital in this province. What the government does is to tax it away.

This kind of bill, through this kind of action, just removes that sense of confidence. It is such a simple thing. Business people have come before our committee in the Legislature. The committee only sat two weeks, and I think I am correct on that one. The member for Waterloo North is our critic for the Ministry of Labour. There were two weeks; one week in which we received public input. It would have been far better -- I do not agree with the Liberals all that often -- if we had gone across the province and solicited more views. For once, the member for Mississauga North --

Mr Offer: You voted against it.

Mr Cousens: I was not on the committee that day. I would sometimes support the member for these things. The fact is, the member would probably do a lot of politicking for the leadership when he went into those communities.

Mr Offer: You were complimenting me. Pick that up from there.

Mr Cousens: This is another moment of truth, when I come along and compliment the member for Mississauga North, who is now running for the Liberal leadership. If he is not, he should be, because they could use a man of his kind of integrity. There is not much integrity in the Liberal Party, but if the member can bring some to it, I would be very pleased.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would the honourable member please stay on topic? We are addressing amendments to Bill 70.

Mr Cousens: I am sorry, Mr Chair; I get carried away.

We are dealing with the Employment Standards Amendment Act, and we are talking about an amendment to the motion that has been proposed by our critic for Labour. I am speaking in support of that because I believe that in supporting her amendment, we are trying to give business a better climate for prosperity in this province. Through this kind of action, we might be able to entice more investment back to the province.

If we measure the movement of funds away from Ontario to other jurisdictions, we are seeing a permanent decline in the manufacturing sector in this province. Manufacturers want to make sure that if they establish their business here, there is going to be an ongoing climate between government and themselves of a trusting relationship. If that relationship is being destroyed through initiatives of this government -- do members know what the problem is? This small amendment is not going to change it. It is more symbolic of the kind of change that could exist, where this government shows itself to be listening to business rather than listening to Bob White. He is behind the Premier, giving him guidance on what he should be doing. If they could somehow show that it is not Bob White running this show, that they are really open-minded to business and have a business sense of things, then the people of Ontario would begin to have more confidence in them, and they are lacking that now. Here is a chance of a symbolic gesture by the New Democratic Party to do a pro-business decision, and that would be to support the amendment that has been tabled by the member for Waterloo North. In that way we are at least showing good faith to the business community.

1730

Labour legislation has business terrified, not only with the leaked cabinet document that is going to be brought forward in the House very soon which shows a very strong bias against business, but if the government is able to remedy Bill 70 in a way that touches on some of the concerns we have, I give credit to the New Democratic government.

I do not think the public realizes that the New Democrats have backed off on a lot of the stupid parts of this bill from when they first brought it in. When the Minister of Labour announced that he would bring amendments to it and he was able to back off on those amendments as they affected directors, as he was able to limit -- okay, there were several points, and they really do not pertain to this amendment, but the fact is that the government has moved. I give credit to the socialist government here in Ontario that it did make a number of amendments to this bill, but it has not gone far enough. They have not gone far enough but there is still time for them to take just a few more steps.

They have taken all business and the people of this province right to the edge of the cliff. We are looking over that edge and seeing people moving elsewhere. The government should bring them back, bring them back through a couple of moves like this.

It is not an awful lot to ask. It is just a simple amendment, and we have explained it. It would appear that there are a number of New Democrats in this House who would vote in favour of this. I know it is time, and maybe the member for Mississauga North would have a few more comments.

Ms S. Murdock: He is supporting us. He is not supporting your amendment.

Mr Cousens: I just complimented him for the Liberal leadership; I would have thought he would come back now and support this bill. I think he has now had a conversion because there is a chance that could be done.

Mr Harnick: Make him an offer.

Mr Cousens: Make Offer an offer; I would really like to do that.

Anyway, this is something that has to be dealt with. The Second Deputy Chair would certainly lead this House in understanding what we have been talking about.

Mr Perruzza: It is very much an honour to be able to stand and speak to such an important piece of legislation as a new member in this House. I note that my Conservative colleague who just sat down is applauding the fact that I am standing and speaking to this particular bill, Bill 70.

As I listen to some of the comments that have been made by both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party about abstract concepts, about pendulum swings and about socialism versus capitalism and about a movement to the left and how this party and this government is mimicking what is taking place in Sweden and so on, I cannot help but think how quickly some of the more senior members of this Legislature, people who have had a full-time paycheque, people who have been on the payroll and have been secure in their payroll for many years, forget some of the pain and some of the suffering that is being experienced by families, both in Ontario and across this country, the kinds of pain that hard times inflict on people. We have a tendency to forget some of those things. We have a tendency to not see how the screws are tightened on people, from government pressures to private-interest pressures. The pressures on families and on working people to make ends meet are very great indeed.

As I watch the proceedings in this House as a new member I cannot help but be dismayed by how lightly we take the plight and the hardships of working people in this province and this country. If I were an unemployed person sitting at home right now looking for work and looking around and trying to figure out where my next paycheque would come from, I would be applauding the initiative of this government. I would be applauding the initiative that has been taken by the Premier of this province and by the socialist government, the labour government, the NDP government, the people on this side of the House.

Whatever label you want to give to the people on this side of the House, you would stand in your seat and you would applaud it, because this gives and renders some sense that there is some protection out there, that there are people in politics who are sensitive to some of the needs and pain that is being inflicted on working people across this province and across this country.

If I were an employed person just getting home from work and tuning in to the television I would applaud it as well, because what this says to me is that there is a government that is actually talking about implementing a program which says that if I all of a sudden find myself out of a job, and for whatever reason my employer has not been able to pay the kind of moneys I was owed, there are some moneys and there is some tide-me-over hope that by the time I find my next job I will be able to make my mortgage payment, I will be able to pay my property taxes, I will be able to pay my heating bill, and yes, I may be able to put some bread on the table to feed my children. That is what this says.

When I look across and see people making light of such a sensitive subject, when I see people in this House who have been used to receiving paycheque after paycheque for years on end and secure in those paycheques, then I can see why we lose touch with the hardships that are experienced by working families, by working people in this province and right across this country. I would hope that we move from discussions of abstract, intangible kinds of things and really deal with the meat of this bill.

What this bill says is that there is some sense of protection for working families. What it says is that working families in this province -- and it should be across the country. I welcome the thought that there may be some NDP governments elsewhere in Canada besides the Yukon which may do the same kind of thing for the working families within their jurisdiction. I applaud that.

Mr Harnick: I have listened intently to the member for Downsview and it is quite clear that he just has not read this amendment. He does not understand the intent of this amendment. Nobody denies what this bill is intended to do, nor does anybody in this party deny the necessity of having this bill and for having a fund available for employees who lose their jobs because a business becomes insolvent or is bankrupt or fails to pay an employee's wages. No one denies that at all.

1740

What this amendment says is: "Don't do anything prematurely to cause a business to fail. A premature payment from this fund can in fact cause this business we are trying to save to fail." We all know that an order to pay from the employment standards branch could prematurely bring in other creditors, and the result of bringing in other creditors is that a business could face premature bankruptcy when a business might otherwise be able to survive.

All we are saying by this amendment is, "Don't force an employer to go out of business so that everybody loses his job." The members opposite should do everything they can to save that business. They should make the intent of this bill positive and such that we are going to continue to help business people keep their businesses solvent, so that we can keep people employed.

Mr Mammoliti: Hypocrite.

Mr Harnick: It is interesting that the member for Yorkview calls me a hypocrite.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please.

Mr Harnick: Mr Chairman, the member for Yorkview quite obviously --

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Please take your seat. Did I hear someone accusing someone of being a hypocrite? I believe I heard it. Would you please withdraw it?

Interjection.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Am I correct in interpreting that you have just declared that the use of the word "hypocrite" in this chamber is unacceptable?

The Second Deputy Chair: I have not tolerated one member accusing another of being a hypocrite.

Mr Wiseman: This has happened on at least two occasions in this House prior to today, and we have had two occasions where the ruling of the Chair has been contradictory. On one occasion the Speaker ruled that the use of the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy" was not unacceptable.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Would the member resume his seat, please. I understand what you are saying. I believe the words "a hypocritical statement by the government" were used. I was here then and I believe it was let go. One member accused another of being a hypocrite. I will not tolerate that. I am sorry.

Interjection.

The Second Deputy Chair: I am sorry. To the honourable member for Durham West, that is the ruling.

Mr Wiseman: I am merely asking for clarification or a ruling on when the words "hypocrite" or "hypocrisy" can be used.

The Second Deputy Chair: The ruling is made.

Mr Cousens: One honourable member did call the member for Willowdale a hypocrite. He is now sitting in his seat. It would be appropriate, I think, for him to stand in his place and at least apologize for it, because it is not parliamentary language. I would really appreciate it if he would do it, because it really takes down the whole tenor of this place when one member --

The Second Deputy Chair: Your point is well taken. The honourable member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chairman, yes, I did call the honourable member a hypocrite and I do withdraw that. I will let the viewers at home determine whether the member is a hypocrite.

Mr Harnick: The fact that the member would use that terminology about my position on this bill shows quite clearly that he does not understand this amendment. It also shows that he is predisposed to seeing every business in this province fail. That is what he wants. He wants a province where no one is left to create the wealth that pays the people who are employed. That is exactly what this member wants.

This member cannot look at the words of this amendment and see anything in those words that he can interpret in a positive way. He will twist those words and turn those words, because he believes every business in this province should fail and when that happens he will be happy. But let me tell that member, when every business in his riding closes up and every person is unemployed, let them stand at his door -- which I understand is somewhere in Bowmanville -- and let them seek refuge at his doorstep.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I do not know whether the member is referring to me or not, but first, I do not live in Bowmanville and, second, I cannot understand the logic --

The Second Deputy Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr Mammoliti: Let me finish, Mr Chairman. I cannot understand the logic in what he is saying and what his federal government is doing when we talk about free trade. If he is so worried about business, why is he not out there trying to convince his federal government to change its policy on free trade?

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Would the honourable member for Yorkview please be seated. You will have your opportunity to participate as soon as your turn comes up.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I recognize that the government members and the third party members are engaging in duelling points of order. The Liberal caucus just wants to get on with debating this bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Please resume your seat. The honourable member for Willowdale.

Mr Harnick: Duelling points of order? I have to take a moment from berating my friend the member for Yorkview to compliment my friend the member for Mississauga North. "Duelling Points of Order" could almost be the theme song of a movie.

To get back to what I was saying, I only want the member's address so that when all of the businesses in Yorkview fail his constituents can know where to find him, because they will probably want to come for breakfast, lunch or dinner and for shelter over their heads.

How he could interpret this section in anything but a positive way is beyond me. I put it to him to take a look at that amendment. I really wonder, on the basis of what he said, whether he ever really read the amendment. I suspect he has never read it, but I am going to read it to him. What it says is, "Despite subsection (1), an employee is eligible for compensation from the program only where his or her employer is bankrupt, is insolvent for an extended period or chronically fails to pay the employee's wages."

I said it before and I am going to say it again, because I do not think he was here earlier. What I put to him is, what happens when a business that is viable loses its biggest customer and is on the verge of failure or cannot make its payroll for one or two or three weeks? What happens if in the interim there is an order to pay from the employment standards branch? As soon as that order to pay becomes public, every creditor of this business is going to be at the doorstep of the registrar in bankruptcy with its petition, and this business is going to fail. When this business fails because he has not given it three or four or five more weeks to get back on its feet --

Hon Mr Pouliot: GST.

Mr Harnick: No, the one thing has nothing to do with the other. The GST may be bad and he may not like it, but to heap this on top of the GST when he knows the GST is there is only going to make it worse. He should not heap one bad item on top of another. I am giving him the chance not to make the GST even worse. I am giving him that chance.

The fact that he will not give a business three or four or five weeks to dig itself out of the problem it is in, the fact that he will not do that and the fact that he wants that business to close and he wants all of those people who were, up to that date, employed gainfully with secure jobs to be out on the street and to collect their $5,000 under this act and then be unemployed for an extended period is appalling. The fact that he wants that to happen and he wants to put small businesses in jeopardy is appalling.

1750

I cannot believe that a person who knows that 63% of all workers in this province are employed in small businesses would suggest what he has suggested in this Legislature. I urge all the people on the government side, if they do not like the GST, fine, but they should not pass legislation that is only going to compound the problem of GST on small businesses. That is what they are doing. This amendment gives them an opportunity to opt out of what this act can do to hurt businesses. This can make the act better.

I appreciate that they did not think of this amendment, so right off the bat it has one strike against it. They did not think of it, so they may not want it. But I am urging them to look at the intent of this amendment and I am urging them to go ahead and pass this amendment, because it is going to make this bill better.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to make a few comments. The honourable member for Willowdale has raised a very interesting point about wages and the impact that wages will have in terms of their not being paid and the cataclysmic events that then will cascade on to a business.

If a company is in default to the extent that the member is talking about and has that number of employees, it is very difficult for the rest of the creditors and the banks to hold off looking at that company in terms of calling its solvency. The federal government in the Bank Act makes it almost impossible for a company to hide the way the honourable member has suggested it could do if this amendment was there. The federal banking act very quickly calls in these questions. As soon as the bank thinks there is any kind of insolvency in a company, it reacts very quickly. So this amendment does not aggravate that situation, and in fact we are hopeful that the federal government will see fit to make some changes to the federal Bank Act to allow companies to have a greater latitude.

Mrs Cunningham: Is it not the Bankruptcy Act?

Mr Wiseman: The Bankruptcy Act, sorry. I thank the member for that.

I would like also to address at this point the notion of competition that has continually come up this afternoon. I would like to make a few quotes.

I have a quote from a person by the name of Rob Hammond, a Guelph manufacturer who builds transformers. He states that he is not panicking about what the government is doing or the economy is doing, because he sees that there is a good competitive advantage for him to be in the Ontario market. He goes on to say that OHIP provides at least a $2,500 to $3,000 employee benefit over the US market to be here.

He also says in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of May 24: "We don't know why the Canadian dollar is so high, we don't know why interest rates are so high and we don't know why free trade came. No one phoned us for advice." I think this speaks to the notion of competitiveness and saying that we do not have a market here that will be beneficial.

I would also like to address for a moment the notion that this bill somehow is going to bring companies into jeopardy and that we do not care about businesses and say that this government has brought a number of things through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology that allow companies to be and will make companies even more successful. For example, if you have a company that has more than 10 employees but fewer than 200, you can qualify for grants to hire people to help you expand your company, help expand the export market. This is not a government and this is not a program that says this government is not interested in promoting business.

This socialist government that the honourable members from the third party continue to deride has also supplied a great deal of funding for other businesses. For example, in Hamilton the Enersearch company, a subsidiary of Westinghouse motor company, has received $114,000 to improve industrial electric motors, which represents approximately 37% of a $308,000 project. This is not a program in terms of the wage package --

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Earlier this afternoon, everyone on the government side of House was complaining about being referred to as a socialist government. I find it very interesting --

The Second Deputy Chair: Sorry, that is not a point of order.

Mrs Marland: My point of order is that this member is not addressing the amendment that is on the floor.

The Second Deputy Chair: That is not a point of order. Would the honourable member please stay on the amendment to Bill 70.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, Mr Chair. I agree with you there.

This amendment, as I mentioned earlier, will kick in if companies are not solvent, if they are indeed on the verge of bankruptcy. Out of that discussion earlier came this notion that we were promoting an uncompetitive climate which would in fact force this amendment to be used. I am trying to point out that in fact when this government gives a $300,000 grant to General Motors of Oshawa, it clearly is an indication that we are trying to promote jobs in this province and to prevent the need for this bill or for any part of this bill to be enacted.

When the Canadian Photovoltaic technological company in Ottawa receives $138,000, this is another attempt to forgo the cataclysmic events that would trigger the use of this bill, and when the St Joseph Printing Co in Concord receives $213,000 from this socialist government to keep people employed and therefore prevent the need for this bill to be used, I think there is an important point to be made, that we are encouraging companies to expand.

I would also like to say that we need to put this in perspective.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Chair: With due respect to the member for Durham West, some of us were reading letters of concern from constituents with regard to Bill 70 and we were reading from those letters as we presented our position in the House today on their behalf. There is a very big difference between somebody standing up and making a political speech in his own words as opposed to what we were saying on behalf of the public.

The Second Deputy Chair: Sorry, that is not a point of order.

Mrs Cunningham: I object to this speech. I think it is totally out of order.

The Second Deputy Chair: That is not a point of order.

On motion by Mr Pouliot, the committee of the whole reported progress.

A la suite d'une motion presentee par M. Pouliot, l'etude du projet de loi en comite plenier de la Chambre est ajournee.

The House adjourned at 1800.