Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT FACILITIES

Mr Callahan: I rise today to thank the Attorney General for the announcement that was made in Brampton today that there will be a consolidation of courthouses, provincial and general divisions, something I have worked very hard on since 1985 with the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David. He placed this on a high priority list.

I understand the construction will be completed by 1996. I hasten to add that the other night, city council of Brampton alone agreed to increase the urban envelope from 200,000 to 500,000 people. It becomes obvious that six or seven courtrooms, which is the totality that will be received, will have to be revised very much earlier.

As members know, Askov originated in the region of Peel. We would hope that Mr Askov would not revisit us and that the Attorney General and this government would continue to co-operate in bringing to us a justice system that can serve the people of the community in a due and fast fashion.

That completes or at least puts on the rails one of the things I have striven for since I was elected. The other was for a community health care centre in my community. As I look over at the Minister of Health, I would hope she too will come bearing goodies to the region of Peel. The minister has heard my comments about the growth in our area. The original documents were certainly put well on the rails by the former government, and I would hope for the benefit of the people of my community and for good health care that she would consider moving this along as quickly as possible.

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr Cousens: York region does not always have the things Metropolitan Toronto has. One of the things we do not have and are in the process of implementing is the 911 exchange north of Steeles Avenue. If you dial the 911 number and you are north of Steeles, in any one of our nine municipalities, you will get the Bell telephone operator. If you have an emergency of some kind, you are not going to get the fire wheels or the police station or the ambulance; you will just get a Bell operator.

The regional municipality of York has invested a great deal to make sure we have street numbers and street names, and now it is in the process of installing a telephone switch. Unfortunately, they could not order the telephone switch on time, because they never got a response from the New Democratic government's Minister of Municipal Affairs for over a year, when they tried to get some feedback from him as to what was going on with regard to the approval needed for legislative change in the Regional Municipality of York Act. At last, they are going ahead without the legislative approval.

Here we have another situation where, through the government's bureaucratic bungling, through its inability to respond to letters and phone calls, a region has had to delay the process of getting this done. I have to say, although the minister is now going to bring in the bill, he could at least have responded to the letters and got the thing on the rails an awful lot faster. We need 911 in York region, and we will soon have it in spite of him.

HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE STANDARDS

Mr Kormos: I do not have to tell you again, Mr Speaker, because most people know I have little use for those $1,000-a-day consultants, but the fact is there are all sorts of people out there in Ontario who have good insights into a whole lot of things and who are prepared to share those insights -- for example, Don Hammond. For 25 years Don Hammond down in Welland has been operating Hammond Appliances up at the Fitch Street plaza, handling air-conditioners, kitchen appliances, washers and dryers.

Don Hammond knows that people are crossing the border to shop, buying appliances, everything from a Mr Coffee to a fridge and stove. They think what they are buying is cheaper, but what they are buying are appliances that have not been passed by the Canadian Standards Association. These items are not cheaper. They are deficient, they are inferior and indeed they put those same consumers at risk, anything from the coffee pot that melts on the kitchen counter to the washer or dryer or stove that blows up in the middle of the night, setting the house on fire.

The federal government is doing nothing to halt the importation of these illegal products that do not pass Canadian standards. If we really want to talk seriously about cross-border shopping we should listen to people like Don Hammond from Hammond Appliances up at the Fitch Street plaza, a responsible retailer who knows that all it is going to take is for the federal government to say, "No, we're not going to let non-CSA appliances into this country." That is going to be part of the solution and that is why we should be listening to people like Don Hammond and not to the consultants.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Miclash: In his announcement last week, the Treasurer cited the need for $53 million in extra forest firefighting dollars. Let me point out some interesting facts which surround this allegation.

For the last 12 years the cost of extra forest firefighting has averaged $25 million per year, yet last year's estimates approved only a $7-million allocation, a figure which baffled many. Yes, moneys were allocated to regular forest firefighting, and yes, fires are unpredictable, as are the costs, but as climatologists increasingly take the view that our climate is becoming warmer and drier, expecting more fires and higher costs would be responsible.

I cannot argue with the need to fight the fires, and I must at this time praise the bravery and hard work of the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources who undertake this hazardous work. However, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources and the Treasurer if they intentionally low-balled the estimates' total for extra forest firefighting. Were these gentlemen betting the public would not even give a second glance and nod their heads and say, "Well, sure, we have to fight those fires"?

The estimates should more accurately reflect what can be reasonably expected in an expenditure. An estimate of $7 million, when the average over the last dozen years has been $25 million, is both misleading and, I feel, totally irresponsible. I cannot help but think that as the forests of Ontario burn, the government accountants fiddle.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to once again raise the issue of closing the new $1-million registry office in Almonte. The honourable minister has refused to consider new information provided to her regarding the service area extended outside of north Lanark, namely, West Carleton and Kanata.

The decision at present is based on flawed information. The people of Lanark, including the president of the local NDP association, travelled to Toronto in all sincerity to make sure the minister would have the correct information and carry out her promised review of the decision. Not to do this is undemocratic and a dictatorial expression to the people of Almonte, who are under the assumption that no action will be taken until a full report to the committee has been reviewed.

In one way I am not surprised at her action, as the delegation was referred to at the hearings by an NDP committee member as just a group of lobbyists. This cold and callous approach to Mayor Finner of Almonte, lawyer Pat Galway, NDP president Jonathan Robinson, Reeve Barr of Pakenham, Garth Turner of the real estate board and Warden Paul Finner is just not acceptable in my riding. The minister should extend the time, give further review and give our democratic process some credibility.

1340

AGRI-FOOD WEEK

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to remind the House that this week is Agri-Food Week. These few days before Thanksgiving are indeed a fitting time to pause and pay tribute to the people who grow and prepare our food. It is also a good opportunity to promote the purchase of Ontario products to keep this important sector of our economy viable.

The agriculture and food industry contributes some $17 billion to the economy. This is second only to the automotive industry. More than 200 commodities are produced and either shipped to market here at home or exported to a dozen international destinations. Our food processing companies account for 40% of the entire country's industry, employing some 85,000 people.

The family farm is the cornerstone of this industry and the heart of many rural communities throughout Ontario. Some 72,000 Ontario farm families work tirelessly to assure us of a reliable, high-quality food supply at a reasonable cost.

This week, special events throughout the province will draw attention to the people and processes that help bring good food from the farm gate to the dinner plate. These include a farmers' market in downtown Toronto, food demonstrations at Norfolk County Agricultural Fair, a partners-in-agriculture luncheon in Thunder Bay and much more. There are also promotions in the form of local print and radio advertising, farm tours, contests and mall displays.

In my own riding of Middlesex, members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are sponsoring a six-billboard agricultural awareness campaign as well as participating in radio and television programs.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mrs McLeod: The Minister of Community and Social Services will be aware that recently eight more women came forward to reveal that they were the victims of sexual abuse at the Grandview training school for girls in Cambridge. This is not the first time that Ontarians have become aware that children in residential institutions have been abused by those charged with caring for them, nor will this likely be the last time we hear such news.

In the past, governments have responded to calls for a public inquiry into this problem by indicating that the police investigation must take its course before an inquiry can take place. The Liberal government responded to past allegations by commissioning the Campbell report, a Review of Safeguards in Residential Treatment Centres. The present government responded to the findings of this report by ensuring that steps would be taken to prevent further abuse in residential settings, and I commend it for that.

In the face of growing evidence that this type of abuse has been and perhaps continues to be more widespread than any of us would like to believe, I believe it is time to address this issue in a broader way.

I am concerned that the problem of abuse of children is much broader and more prevalent than we have previously acknowledged. We must determine the most effective way of understanding this issue in its full dimensions. We must find a constructive method which assists victims and works towards an end to the abuse.

The time has come to confront this issue so that we can begin to address it in all the ways and all the places it occurs in our society. I therefore call on the government to undertake a province-wide inquiry into the occurrence of abuse in children's residential settings in this province.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr Carr: We have seen this government stumble from crisis to crisis without any overall economic strategy for growth and development. They have reneged on promise after promise, with no long-term planning for renewal or revitalization of our economy. We need some proactive solutions to the problems facing Ontario, especially in the forest and resources industries.

This morning MacMillan Bloedel announced that it is permanently closing its hardboard division at its mill operation in Sturgeon Falls. As a result, 162 jobs will be lost. This government knew it was happening. The northern Ontario heritage fund, which was created specifically for the diversification of northern Ontario's economic base, could have been tapped.

MacMillan Bloedel has developed plans for the creation of a mill to facilitate recycling, something which this government supposedly encourages. The member for Nipissing has spoken to officials of Fednor about this proposal and they believe it is viable. Yet our government, which says it cares so much about the north, has not provided a concrete response to this proposal.

We have seen this government respond on an ad hoc basis to eleventh-hour crises, usually after it is too late and at tremendous cost to taxpayers. What we need to see from this government is job training and retraining, private sector partnership, industrial restructuring and investment strategy. We need a government which is proactive not reactive.

BELLEVILLE FARMERS' MARKET

Mr Johnson: I would like to share with my colleagues in the House today the fact that the Belleville farmers' market is celebrating its 175th anniversary this Saturday, October 12. The Belleville farmers' market has existed in many venues in Belleville, but for the last few years it has been located behind the Belleville city hall.

It is a site where farmers have come to town in order to sell their produce for the last 175 years. It has had a very important historical role in the town. It has also had a very important social value, as I am sure many political debates have taken place at this very farmers' market.

Presently the role and function of the farmers' market is one of an opportunity for my farmer constituents from Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings to come to Belleville in order to sell the freshest, most nutritious produce that one can buy in Ontario. This allows farmers an opportunity to maximize their profit. If they sell their produce directly to the people of Ontario, they will make the maximum amount of profit.

I would like to encourage the people who have access to farmers' markets across the province to buy their fresh produce there. I congratulate the Belleville farmers' market on its 175th anniversary.

1350

The Speaker: Statements by ministers. The member for York Centre.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I am rising today on a point of order. I note that you just called for ministers' statements, and there was no minister's statement by the government today. I am rising today to put to you the argument that the course of conduct of the government, certainly since we have returned here on September 23, represents a violation of the rules of this House and of standing order 31, which provides for ministers' statements and an opportunity for members of the opposition to respond to ministers' statements.

You will recall, sir, when we revised the rules of this House substantially under a Liberal administration we provided for government ministers to make statements before the House. The interesting innovation and reform of that process was to provide members of the opposition with an opportunity to respond, and that is now found in subsection 31(e), which provides that:

"Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

I want to inform you, Mr Speaker, that the Attorney General, who is once again absent from the House, made an announcement today of a very substantial expenditure of money to look at the possible construction of more courthouses, not only in the community of Brampton but beyond that. My colleague the member for Brampton South has had an opportunity to comment on that during members' statements.

Over the past couple of days we have heard a statement outside of the House, not in this House, from the Minister of Health announcing funding for an AIDS program. We have heard via the grapevine and through the newspapers of this province an announcement from the Minister of Housing, who is not paying attention, a statement of significant expenditures, not made in this House.

I know you have commented on individual instances of this sort before, Mr Speaker, but you ought to take a look now not at the individual instances but at a course of conduct. The reforms you helped to pass when you sat here as a member from Scarborough were designed to give opposition members an opportunity to comment on government policy on a day-to-day basis.

The historic precedents of this House -- and I tell my friend the government House leader that he was most vociferous on this point during his time in opposition -- if you just bear with me for a moment, sir, I suggest you reflect on the fact that a course of conduct that has ministers making announcements outside of this House every day of the week violates the very rules we reformed during the last Parliament. We are denied the opportunity of commenting on statements.

The Speaker: To the member for York Centre, in standing order 31(a) the operative word is "may." "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement." I appreciate --

Mr Chiarelli: They are an arrogant government over there, Mr Speaker. Shape them up.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the point raised by the member and the context in which he places it. There is nothing in the standing orders which compels ministers to make statements in the House rather than outside the House. I certainly am, as most members are, quite mindful of the precedents and procedure of our jurisdiction and of others operating in a parliamentary system, but I must report to the member that there is nothing out of order.

Mr Conway: It is surely a brave new world in which that supersleuth of Queen's Park fame, Gerry McAuliffe, now apparently on the public payroll at a cost of $100,000 annually, should be advising this cabinet to stay away from this Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Conway: My question is to the Treasurer. I continue to be concerned that he knows more about the revenue difficulties in which the government now finds itself than he is prepared to admit to this Legislature. Until very recently he persisted in telling the chamber, the elected members of this assembly, that his revenues for this fiscal year 1991-92 were spot on.

Last Saturday night the viewing public of Global's public affairs program Focus Ontario heard the Treasurer say, "We now know that next year our revenues are going to be fairly flat." I took some regard for the answers he provided to my leader, the member for Bruce, and the responses yesterday to the Tory Treasury critic, the member for Carleton.

Having regard to (a) his oft-repeated statement in this Legislature that his revenues are spot on, (b) his global comments that next year's revenues are going to be "fairly flat," (c) his remarks that this year's budgetary deficit will come in at not more than $9.7 billion and that next year's deficit will be absolutely held to $8.9 billion, can the Treasurer now confirm that he is very confident that, notwithstanding what he has said, next year's budgetary revenues will be at $47.2 billion as projected?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is a lot built into that question, which deals with this year's and next year's revenues. I will try to get to what I think is the essential part of the member's question which, as I understand it, is to determine to what extent the forecast we laid out for next year in this year's budget will be achieved in terms of revenues.

I would put it into a context and I hope you will allow me to do this, Mr Speaker, but if you want to stop me midway, I will finish in the supplementary.

In the economic document, the budget, which the member has, he will note that for the next three years we have forecast economic growth averaging 7.2%, I believe, and that revenues would take a part of that economic growth almost by definition. There is a tradition that about 90% of economic growth reflects itself in revenues in terms of percentages, which means that our revenues would go up around 6.3% over the next three years. At the same time, we know we are going to have very heavy expenditure pressures during that time.

We said there is a gap between the natural growth in the economy because of rebounding out of the recession and the new revenues that flow from that, compared with the expenditures we anticipate. That gap will have to be filled either by new tax revenues or by containing expenditures in a very meaningful way, and perhaps even reducing them. That is all we said in our anticipation of where the next few years will take us.

Mr Conway: The Treasurer will know that this is the most controversial budget Ontario has seen in the modern period. There is growing concern on all sides that at the midpoint of this budget cycle the 1991-92 budget is in trouble. We had a midcourse correction last week in which the Treasurer took some very tentative steps, but quite frankly a lot of people in Ontario were distressed to see that a great many of the tough decisions about this year's budget were transferred to next year.

Would the Treasurer now confirm that he has no reasonable prospect of achieving this year's revenue target in this fiscal year and that he cannot possibly achieve next year's revenue target without two things happening: multibillion-dollar program cuts next year and at least a tax increase of anywhere between $1 billion and $2.5 billion?

Hon Mr Laughren: I disagree with the member on virtually every count. First, simply because we made a midyear adjustment to our expenditures does not mean we are in trouble; as a matter of fact, it means we are not in trouble. We did it in order to maintain our expenditures at the level we forecast.

Mrs Caplan: You said so yourself. You're out of control.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will speak more quietly and then perhaps the member for Oriole will yell more quietly.

The reason we made the midyear adjustment was so that we could maintain our expenditures at the level we forecast in the budget in the spring.

Second, I believe we are going to achieve our revenue figures this year based on our own revenue sources. The only proviso I put is that historically -- the member for Renfrew North would know this better than I -- the revenues the federal government pays back to us in the form of provincial income taxes have been a very volatile figure. We do not know that number yet. That is my only warning.

Mr Conway: I am glad the Treasurer makes the last point. He and I had an exchange back in early May of this year when I alleged, and it is still my belief, that one of the reasons this revenue line for fiscal 1991-92 cannot be credited is that all the evidence suggests the Treasurer built into his revenue base last year's $930-million windfall, which he has absolutely no reason to believe will be in this year's federal transfer.

I believe he cannot reasonably expect to meet this year's revenue projections because, inadvertently to be sure, he overstated his personal income tax revenues on that account. He built into his base a windfall of some $930 million from last year that I believe will not be here this year and that certainly will not be there next year.

My final supplementary on this point is, if the Treasurer is really going to pull out all the stops and do the incredibly fantastic restraint measure that good democratic socialists would expect, that he is going to fight to the bitter end to keep this year's deficit to $10 billion and next year's to $9 billion, would he not agree that he is going to have to contemplate next year at least a $1-billion to $2.5-billion tax increase?

1400

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure what the member for Renfrew is getting at. In the budget this year, we deliberately put in three what we call "out years," the next three years. We deliberately put in numbers there. It is not traditional that the province does that. We wanted to say to the people of Ontario: "We have a $9.7-billion deficit this year. We know that is going to be controversial, but we felt we had to do it in the middle of a recession in order to maintain essential services, especially in education, health care and social services."

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Some day the member for Oriole is going to make a meaningful contribution to this debate rather than just yelling.

The Speaker: Would the Treasurer conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: The reason we put in next year's numbers, and the next three years' numbers, was to say to people in the province: "We are going to reduce the deficit in the next three years. We have a plan to do it and we are going to do it." And that remains our position.

Mr Conway: I have a new question to the same minister on the same subject. I want to come back to the Treasurer about the fiscal plan, next year's fiscal plan, about which he now seems to be quite knowledgeable. He is prepared to say some things about next year's revenue but he does not seem to want to talk about this year's revenue. He tells Global television that he already knows next year's revenues are going to be "fairly flat." A lot of people would believe that to mean he is not going to be able to achieve the 9.8% growth, year over year, in revenues. To look at next year's budget plan -- and the Treasurer has said he is going to hold the line to his $8.9-billion deficit -- revenues must grow by at least 9.8%. He has to get real growth in the economy of somewhere between 3.5% and 4%. He now has to deal with the hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure pain that he has transferred from this year to next year.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Conway: The Treasurer is clearly going to have to raise taxes to meet that objective. What taxes is he now considering to levy next year on the businesses and the citizens of this province to meet this $9-billion deficit projection?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sure the member understands that at this point we have not looked at any potential tax increases or reductions at all. Right now, having made the midyear adjustment to this year's expenditures, we are in the process of examining all the major allocations of government: every ministry, every major allocation. That is what we are doing now to see what savings or what efficiencies can be effected for the next fiscal year. We have not reached the point yet where we are even talking about taxes for next year.

Mr Conway: It is quite clear to me, and I think to a lot of more dispassionate analysts, that if the Treasurer and the government of which he is a part have any hope of meeting these targets, they are -- and I repeat -- in the next fiscal year going to have to cut programs, I believe, by at least $1 billion to $2 billion, and they are going to have to consider tax increases of a corresponding amount to meet the objectives the Treasurer has already set. He repeated on the Global telecast that he is going to stand firm on a $9-billion deficit next year.

If he has any hope of meeting any of these very optimistic objectives, he is going to have to do it with the engine of small business in Ontario. I am sure the Treasurer has now read last week's survey document published by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, where some 83% of those surveyed in this province in recent days are very distressed about the situation in which they find themselves; their single biggest concern, almost 88%, is the tax burden.

What specific measures will this Treasurer, on behalf of this government, undertake in the very near future having regard to what he has to do about tax increases in the upcoming fiscal year? What kind of meaningful dialogue is he going to begin with small business, the engine of his recovery, if he is going to address the overwhelming concern of these people; namely, that they have no hope of participating and of producing the kind of recovery if more taxes are about to fall on their heads?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I am sure the member opposite would agree that we did not impose very many new taxes this year, in particular on the small business community. Therefore, what he is castigating me for are the taxes that his government imposed in the last five years, not the ones this government imposed.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Laughren: I look forward to the day when the member for Oriole will ask me a question instead of yelling at me across the floor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Everyone has become calm quickly, which is nice. Time is fleeting, so perhaps we could wrap up the response and then we could have a brief final supplementary.

Hon Mr Laughren: I really believe that what we did in the budget this year was probably the best stimulant for the Ontario economy we could have done, given the circumstances. I would remind the honourable members that in the budget we created or maintained 70,000 jobs with our expenditures. Second, we created a $700-million anti-recession package, which no other jurisdiction in this country did. I think we have already gone a long way to making sure the economy is in a stage of recovery rather than just accepting the fact that we are in a recession.

Mr Conway: The relationship between this government and small business reminds me of a Liz Taylor romance: flamboyant, short-lived and not very happy. Clearly that is going to have to change if the Treasurer's own budgetary forecasts are going to be met. When he has small business telling him that it is overwhelmingly concerned about his budget, overwhelmingly concerned about the tax burden, when it tells him in its fall survey that it is overwhelmingly concerned by this government's anti-business bias, how does the Treasurer expect to meet his very optimistic budgetary plan if he cannot to a greater extent inspire confidence in this, the fundamental engine of this province's economy and its recovery, namely, the small business sector?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: I would only hope this government will be re-elected as often as Liz Taylor has been remarried. I think I would prefer to end the analogy right there.

I would say, in a serious way to a serious question, that this government has negotiated and consulted more with the business community than any government in Ontario ever has done. We recognize the importance of the small business community in this province. We recognize the fact that we depend on the health of the small business community to create and maintain jobs. It is our intention, through the Premier's Council and other mechanisms, to continue to consult with the small business community, because we believe it is important.

Mr Arnott: I would compare this government's virtue to that of Elizabeth Taylor any time.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Arnott: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This past weekend, my home town of Arthur experienced an unprecedented act of skulduggery by this government. Movers arrived in the dead of night to carry out this government's ill-conceived plan to close down the local registry office. The OPP was called in to this otherwise quiet village. How can the minister condone this type of sneak attack on the people of Arthur?

Hon Ms Churley: It appears to me that both members of the opposition across the floor get their research from the National Enquirer.

I want to point out that there were no moves made from the land registry office in Arthur in the dead of night. There were attempts made over the weekend and at the planned date.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: There were attempts made, as I said, over the weekend. Because there were demonstrations at the office at that time, the movers conferred with the OPP and made a very sensible decision so as to make sure nobody got hurt.

Mr Villeneuve: Police state.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: They decided they would leave at that time and attempt to make the move on another day. That is exactly what happened.

Mr Arnott: The minister is wrong. I was there. On Sunday morning, I stood beside many Arthur residents in the rain and the wind to show my support for our registry office, but once again we were left out in the cold by this government.

The residents of Arthur have been asking for a meeting with the minister as well as a meeting with the Premier, but to no avail. The minister has not consulted. If she had, this type of pre-dawn raid against the people of Arthur could have been prevented. Will she halt all further closings immediately, before another town falls prey to her heavy-handed plans?

Hon Ms Churley: As the member knows, in the judicial review held over the Arthur closing, the judge came down very clearly and took the position that this government had the perfect right to make those kinds of policy decisions and dismissed the case.

We are convinced that although this is not fun -- this decision was not made for fun; it was a very difficult decision -- as I have explained many times in this House, it is saving the taxpayers of Ontario $1 million a year, plus $8 million in capital dollars. At this time, with all of the noise that is being made about our deficit and the difficult economic times we are in, the opposition continues to try to have it both ways. We have to make some difficult choices and get on with them.

Mr Arnott: Who knows what will happen next? The registry office in Almonte is slated to close in 10 days. Three more are slated for closing in the riding of S-D-G & East Grenville. The minister has ignored the people of Arthur. She has ignored other affected communities. She has ignored the views of the standing committee on general government. That committee is meeting this Thursday to discuss the registry office issue. Is the minister going to start listening, or should we cancel that meeting of the standing committee on general government?

Hon Ms Churley: No. In fact, I am looking forward to hearing the report from the standing committee. I am quite looking forward to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I realize that this is a contentious issue. At the same time, the member for Wellington posed a question to which I anticipate he would like to hear the response.

Hon Ms Churley: As I was saying, I am quite looking forward to the results from the committee. I would like to point out to the member that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to point out, if the members would listen, that I understand this is very hard for the areas where the closings are taking place. There are some places in Ontario where people have to travel up to 200 kilometres to register in a land registry office. We have to equalize the system. Most of these closings still do not leave very many kilometres for people --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: Please, Mr Speaker, this is important. People are asking me very pointed questions. I just want to make it clear that this is not indeed that much of a hardship compared to what other people in other parts of Ontario have had to deal with in terms of travel time for many years.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the cacophony from the other side, I heard an accusation -- I believe it came from my friend from the united counties -- that this was a police state. I would ask you to review the record and determine if that is parliamentary.

The Speaker: I did not hear the offending remark.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members come to order, please. As I did not hear the remark to which the member for Algoma refers, I will be pleased to take a look at the record. If indeed a member from the other side made such a comment and would be so gracious as to withdraw that remark, then that would be helpful.

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, when the police are called in at 6 o'clock in the morning to make a move of a registry office, I have some difficulty with that. If "being a police state" is not parliamentary, then I will withdraw and I will allow the government to make up its own mind as to what kind of a state it is.

The Speaker: My own state of mind is slightly confused at this point, but I take it that there was a withdrawal, and we now have a new question being posed by the member for London North.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Last year, within a month of being elected, his Premier told Ontario's 23 college presidents, "Accessibility is a critical issue."

Last week, the Treasurer clawed back $3.6 million in the 1991-92 fiscal year from Ontario's colleges, yet he gave increases to senior civil servants of 11% or $17 million. This government had choices: civil servants' salaries or students' education and training in our province.

Would the minister tell this House if a $3.5-million cut is his answer or the Premier's answer to accessibility?

Hon Mr Allen: As I think the House is quite aware, the government undertook an adjustment program in midyear with respect to its revenue and expenditure situation. In being asked to respond in some measure to that, my ministry had a choice of addressing the question of whether to secure an adjustment in one of two programs we offer, the only two major programs we have. One was OSAP, student support, and the other was the transfer. We chose not to touch OSAP, which we had in fact expanded this year to expand access. We preserved access to the system of colleges and universities.

With respect to the question of access, the member knows that every registration in the college or university system is ultimately paid for in the formula, so there is no reduction in access. Those students will be paid for. There is a marginal adjustment that we cash-float in such a way as to not impact on this fiscal year. So we have done everything we can to address the access question and the management capacity of both the colleges and the universities in the present circumstances.

1420

Mrs Cunningham: I will send over to the minister his own statement with regard to operating grants prior to adjustment and revised operating grants which clearly show a reduction. That is real dollars, real programs and real students. The overall enrolment in our community colleges increased this year between 10% and 11%. That is a lot of students.

Mrs Caplan: Where are your priorities?

The Speaker: Right now it is the member for London North who has the floor and the opportunity to pose a supplementary, not the member for Oriole.

Mrs Cunningham: Last year the overall enrolment in our community colleges increased 10% to 11%. There were some serious reasons for that. At Fanshawe College in London it increased by 8%: more students enrolled in classes this year than last. Yet the Treasurer has cut $221,367 from Fanshawe's operating budget. That is real dollars. No matter what way he tries to explain it, it is money that will not be there.

Since the students are already in the classroom and the budget has been set, Fanshawe has only two choices: increase its deficit or cut staff. Will the minister tell this House which course of action he will be advocating?

Hon Mr Allen: The colleges and universities are large systems. They, like government, have to examine their expenditures and revenues and they are obliged to manage those resources as best they can. We all in this province are confronted with a major recessional problem in the economy. Somehow all of us have to take possession of that problem and deal with it as best we can, and that is true of the universities and it is true of the colleges.

I want to tell the member that with respect to the funding implications of all that, I have in place at this time a funding review for the colleges which will examine all the funding problems and the pressures that are there, in the hope of being able to respond to those problems.

Mrs Cunningham: When I go to Fanshawe College this weekend, I will be telling the students that this government preferred to give senior civil servants, who make lots of money, 11% in this fiscal year. That is what I am going to tell them. That is $17 million and that is a reality. So I do not know why the government would go ministry by ministry.

Right now this government talks about fighting the recession, yet it made our community colleges the very first victims of battle. At a time of record job losses and massive plant closings, we are counting on our community colleges and the students there to help get Ontario out of this recession. Community colleges are the institutions that are working to make victims of the recession productive, and they are there. The average age of students is over 24 years of age. It has gone up in the last two years.

Since his ministry was the only one to receive a cut in funding, other than deferred program payments --

Hon Mr Pouliot: That is not true.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, it is true. The member should not tell me it is not true, or he should stand up and tell me --

The Speaker: Would the member place her final supplementary.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, somebody said I did not tell the truth, and I do not like it.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Of course the member always tells the truth; it is just that the subject matter she is addressing is totally incorrect.

The Speaker: It would actually be much better form should I just hear those little magic words, "I withdraw."

Hon Mr Pouliot: With magic and respect, I withdraw.

The Speaker: Now if we could have the supplementary.

Mrs Cunningham: I will repeat the statement so there is no misunderstanding as to what I said. This ministry was the only one to receive a cut in funding. Other ministries had program spending deferred to next year. If the government is not prepared to give community colleges priority at the cabinet table, will colleges be forced to cut enrolments for next year?

Hon Mr Allen: I want to assure the colleges and the member opposite that no, the colleges will not be forced to cut enrolments next year. As I have explained to the member, there is a rolling formula which compensates the colleges for their student enrolments, and they will get their money in due course for every enrolment they receive.

At the same time I also want to say to the member that she is quite incorrect in saying that this is the only ministry that has taken a reduction in expenditures in the course of the current exercise. That is simply not true. It just happens that in this circumstance we have one program that could possibly have been adjusted and another program which is a transfer that could be adjusted. We chose to make the adjustment in one place, Health took the adjustment in another, Municipal Affairs took it in another, Education took it in another, and they all took it in very significant measure. There is not one single ministry that has been singled out for attack in the whole exercise.

NDP CAUCUS OFFICE

Mr Mahoney: In the last few question periods I have been somewhat disappointed to wind up at the bottom of the question list with a question to the Premier. Today I get at the top and I find the Premier has not shown up. So he either leaves early to avoid my question or he does not show.

The Speaker: To whom do you wish to place your question?

Mr Mahoney: I am getting a complex. It is really somewhat bothersome. I will think of someone to ask this question to.

As you know, Mr Speaker, the province is currently entrenched in the worst recession since the 1930s: 300,000 people have lost their jobs in the last year and over 50,000 people have gone bankrupt, and the new provincial deficit is being projected at more than $12 billion. In these tough economic times people look to this government for leadership, guidance and support.

My question, in the absence of the Premier, is for the Minister without Portfolio, the minister responsible for the NDP caucus services, the chief government whip. As this minister is aware, her office authorized the redecoration of the NDP caucus room, room 247, in the Legislative Building. Estimates are that she spent in excess of $100,000 on these frivolous decorating costs.

Can the minister tell us if this is true, and if it is not true, what was the total cost of these frivolous redecorating dollars? How much did she spend and did it conform to the Ministry of Government Services unit price accommodation guideline released in July 1991?

The Speaker: It is a bit awkward in that normally in Parliament questions are not allowed to the chief government whip in that the person does not have any ministerial responsibilities.

Mr Offer: She is a minister.

The Speaker: Order. If the chief government whip is prepared to respond, that is at her own --

Hon Mrs Coppen: I thank the member from the other side. If my figures are incorrect, I will apologize later. The caucus room had not been done over in many years. We had problems with the electrical system in that office. There was not enough lighting in there, and it was unsafe. That was one of the costs. The carpeting was done over, it was wallpapered, new draperies, the desk, the chairs -- nothing else was changed in that office, none of the woodwork. If I am not mistaken, and I apologize if I give the member the wrong figure, the total cost of doing that room over with the change to the electrical system was approximately $20,000, not $100,000.

1430

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate the minister attempting to answer the question. Our facts and our figures would indicate that she is substantially wrong in that estimate. If you take into account the fact that apparently the wallpaper alone was $50 a square foot --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: The minister should check her facts, and I would like her to come in with the proper facts.

Apparently the place has been recarpeted twice in the one year these people have been in office. It is quite clear to me that the socialists are enjoying life at the public trough and are being totally irresponsible in their expenditures. Does this minister, who I understand signed for these redecorating costs and approved all of them as the minister responsible for the services to that caucus, think this kind of use of public dollars is appropriate in light of the economic difficulties all Ontarians are facing, lining up for food banks and waiting for housing?

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

Mr Mahoney: We hear all the ministries are being cut, their budgets are being decimated, yet these people are spending tens of thousands of dollars on bloody wallpaper and carpet.

Hon Mrs Coppen: The amounts of money spent for that office were caucus allocations approved by the Board of Internal Economy, of which the member from the other party was a member. This was no secret. This is our caucus money.

To inform taxpayers of the province, I have the smallest ministry in this whole government. Like other ministers, I have been able to save 7% in my budget this year. I do take it seriously that this is taxpayers' money, unlike the members from the other side who thought the SkyDome would be a wonderful thing for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Tuesdays are lively days.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: In view of the absence of the Premier, I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. In 1987, when he was leader, the Premier made a submission before the Coulter Osborne commission in which he stated, with respect to the auto insurance proposals of the Liberal government: "Nor do we consider it necessary or appropriate to improve any kind of threshold requirements limiting the right to sue to those whose loss exceeds a specified dollar amount or a stated degree of injury. New Democrats are opposed to the loss of individual legal rights entailed by such thresholds."

That is an interesting statement. I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold is thrilled to hear it. All that appears to have changed, particularly from the minister's statements and statements by members of his government. The government has spent $5 million on studies as to why it is not going to nationalize the insurance industry. Contrary to their party's position, they have said they are going to have a threshold test but are not going to allow anyone to sue for economic loss. They have given to the insurance industry a discussion paper entitled Automobile Insurance Reform Objectives, a paper that none of the members of this House has seen, that no one else has seen except the insurance industry.

Can the minister tell the members of this House when he is going to introduce his bill?

Hon Mr Charlton: We have given no discussion paper to the industry, nor to anyone else. I said, in response to a question the member raised two weeks ago, that we are in the process of consultations with the industry and all of the stakeholder groups. It is this government's intention to announce here in this House a policy position later this month and then to proceed to develop legislation in consultation with all of the groups with which we have been consulting. This minister is not prepared to accept from the member that this government is doing anything other than consulting in a fair way before it announces its policy position.

Mr Tilson: The Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario has indicated that it has received from the ministry a discussion paper entitled Automobile Insurance Reform Objectives, which listed seven objectives They distributed that to all of their members. No one else has received this paper. The minister had better review his notes, because other people have received this paper.

I would like the minister to comment on a statement by his deputy minister, Blair Tully, to a group called People Against the Insurance Nightmare in a meeting on September 26, 1991. He said that legislation would not be introduced until next spring, tentatively July 1992. Is it going to take that long before he introduces his bill? Why is the minister taking so long?

Hon Mr Charlton: Obviously the member has difficulty both reading and comprehending.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, I realize the issues brought to the floor of the House are contentious. It would be helpful if we did not use language that other members could construe as insulting. Perhaps the minister, in his response, could refrain.

Hon Mr Charlton: If the member is upset by the comment, I withdraw it. The seven objectives the member has referred to are the same seven objectives released on September 6 and the same seven objectives the Premier and this minister have talked about over the course of the last month at every press opportunity and every question opportunity in this House. The papers which we sent out to all of the stakeholders who were involved in the debate on auto insurance over the course of the last year contain the same seven objectives that were announced on September 6.

Mr Tilson: No one has seen it. That's bunk.

The Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, just relax.

Hon Mr Charlton: In relation to the member's question regarding the deputy minister, the deputy's comments have been substantially misinterpreted by the opposition. I have said in this House that we intend to introduce legislation this fall, legislation which we hope will be effective, after public hearings next winter, in June 1992.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr Martin: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Late last week, one of the major employers in my riding of Sault Ste Marie, the Algoma Central Railway, gave 16 weeks' notice of layoffs to its employees. These are troubled times in the Sault. Certainly a 565-person layoff by a major employer like the ACR will cause continued hardship in the Sault. Is the minister aware of this layoff notice and what does she intend to do about it?

Hon Miss Martel: I know of the member's concern for the residents in the community and how he has worked for the last year to try and have a positive result for some of the difficult times being faced by residents in Sault Ste Marie. I am aware of the layoff notices that were given to the employees and I am aware of the uncertainty this has caused in the community. It is unfortunate that the notices were given at this time, given the negotiations going on with respect to restructuring at Algoma Steel.

I do not want to speak for Stan Black, the president, but I can only assume he did so because under the Canada Labour Code he must provide 16 weeks' notice of termination. I assume he was responding to a business plan that was released by Algoma Steel last week which indicated that the ore division in Wawa would not continue under the new plan. I want to remind all members in this House that nothing is etched in stone, that negotiations on the restructuring of Algoma Steel continue, and that this government and, I believe, all members of the House hope the outcome of those negotiations is positive.

Mr Martin: I bring to the attention of the House and the minister the fragile nature of the mental health of our community. The Algoma Steel restructuring is something the whole community supports. As a matter of fact, we have with us today in the visitors' gallery Mr Frank Sarlo and Mr Tom Bonnell, leaders of the community action team. What commitment are the government and the ministry going to make to our community to lessen this anxiety?

1440

Hon Miss Martel: There are a couple of things both the ministry and the government have done. Members will recall that last December the government provided, through the northern Ontario heritage fund, $5 million to ACR in order to have the operation continue. We also said at this time that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and ACR would enter into negotiations in order to determine their joint future.

All members will recall, of course, that given the restructuring going on right now, some of our negotiations with respect to that future are in limbo until we know what the results of the restructuring are. But in the last year we have committed $25 million to the city through anti-recession funding. We have put $3.8 million into reducing the municipal debt and we have put in $2.6 million to retrain steelworkers who have been laid off. My own ministry in particular has taken the lead in working with the mayor and the council and the federal and provincial members to put together a long-term plan for economic diversification. We expect that will be released in the new year. We look forward to working with the community to develop those proposals.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I want to refer to the recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which, as the minister knows, represents many thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of jobs. An overwhelming 85% of the firms surveyed found the current Ontario business climate to be unfavourable or very unfavourable, and one of the major factors affecting business owners' assessment of the business climate was the government's apparent bias against business.

We are now dealing with Bill 70, the wage protection plan, in committee of the whole House. An amendment to the bill has been presented which would exempt small business from the enforcement mechanism of the bill while at the same time providing protection to the workers. In committee, the government turned this amendment down. The minister has an opportunity before him to send out a positive message to the small business community in this province. Will the minister support this amendment?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, I will not be supporting that amendment.

Mr Offer: I, as well as the small business community in this province, am quite disappointed with that response. This is a no-cost amendment. It does not in any way erode the principle of the legislation. It sends out a positive message to the small business community to expand in this province. Could the minister share with us what possible reason he has for not accepting an amendment that does not detract from the principle of the legislation and does not detract from the protection afforded under the legislation, while at the same time providing a positive message to the small business community in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member knows very well the bill covers money that is already earned and owing to the workers. I do not see any purpose in setting a double standard, whether the company is large or small, in terms of money that has actually been earned by the workers and not paid.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Minister of Housing. At a sod-turning ceremony tomorrow, construction of a 111-unit co-operative apartment building in North York will begin. The total annual subsidy for these apartment units is estimated to be more than $2 million, greater than $1,500 per unit. That is over and above what the tenants will pay. Does the minister believe that spending over $1,500 per month per unit in subsidies is an efficient use of tax dollars at a time when there are over 20,000 people in Toronto who have no accommodation at all?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I will not question the facts as presented by the member opposite, because I simply do not have enough information to question what he presents as facts. I would be glad to receive whatever information he feels he has and review it.

Mr Turnbull: I got the facts in a news release from the ministry. Perhaps the minister does not read what she puts out. I looked in the papers today at what $1,500 will rent in the area. I cannot find anything at $1,500. All the things that are for rent in that immediate area are for less. Let me just read: "Avenue Road north of Lawrence, two bedroom, eat-in kitchen, fridge and stove, parking, $950 a month. Avenue Road south of Wilson, two-bedroom apartment with patio, totally renovated" --

The Speaker: Order. Your supplementary.

Mr Turnbull: -- "with or without appliances, $1,100."

There is no dispute among any of the members of this Legislature that we need to provide affordable housing for those truly in need.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Turnbull: But spending $1,500 a month of taxpayers' money per unit does not make sense when the private sector is ready, willing and a lot more able than the government sector to provide it. By 1995, subsidies will cost about --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Mr Turnbull: My question, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: I asked twice if you had a supplementary. Apparently you do not.

Mr Turnbull: I have a question, Mr Speaker. I can place it.

The Speaker: Can you quickly place a supplementary?

Mr Turnbull: In view of the astronomical figure, will the minister commit today to study the idea of shelter allowances to ensure the best use of taxpayers' money in order to give housing in this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I certainly would not suggest that anybody should question the information in a Ministry of Housing press release, but what I would suggest is that if my friend opposite would like to identify the press release, we will have somebody take a look at his long division.

Mr Turnbull: I would be happy to identify it.

The Speaker: No, would the member take his seat, please. He can pass that information along at some other time.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Sutherland: Given the desperate financial situation farmers across Ontario are facing, the farm community welcomed the $35.5 million emergency assistance package announced last week by the Minister of Agriculture and Food as part of this government's plan for economic renewal in this province. At that time the minister said he would "call on the federal government to live up to its commitment to provide financial assistance to Ontario farmers in these extraordinary times." Can the minister tell the House what he has done to prompt the federal government into action?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I thank the member for Oxford for the question. First of all, I spoke to the minister, Mr McKnight, last week. I have written him letters calling for aid, as have other ministers across the country, calling on the federal government to respond to the farm crisis we have in this country. To this point in time, none of the other provinces has had a response. The federal government says it is listening.

I would say to the member, though, that I think taking action in this province and setting a good example, by having done some consultation and listening to what the farm organizations have to say and responding, is the best way to lever some money out of the federal government, to show what needs to be done by example rather than simply calling on it to respond.

Mr Sutherland: In the emergency assistance package for Ontario farmers, there is an additional $11 million for the $50-million farm interest assistance program announced last April. In my riding of Oxford, 538 farmers have received more than $2.7 million from the interest relief fund. That financial aid is a welcome relief for farmers facing severe financial pressure. Given that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has just told this House that he has been actively prodding the federal government to come through on its promise of third-line defence assistance, can he tell us when he expects to have a response from the federal government on his request?

Hon Mr Buchanan: To date, the federal government has said there is no money for farmers. The other point Mr McKnight made to me last week was that the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg to listen to farmers and that there would be no announcement. We certainly share the frustration farmers have with that response.

The one good point I can report to the House today is that at noon we received notice that there will be a federal-provincial ministers' meeting in Winnipeg next Tuesday. Hopefully at that time the government of Canada will have something good to say to the farmers of Canada.

1450

DRUG OFFENCES

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question of the minister responsible for law and order in this province, the Solicitor General. Every day the illicit drug trade on our streets claims new victims. Our young people are a special target for drug pushers and pimps, and our police tell us that those who are hooked on drugs turn to a life of crime and destruction that costs this province literally billions of dollars.

Today, I received new statistics that will open members' eyes. This year alone, 1,703 seizures of crack cocaine were made, an increase of 343 cases over last year. In addition, because of the new, devastating guns used by the drug pushers, many more innocent people are getting killed, including some of our police officers. When will the Solicitor General get serious with these drug pushers and drug traffickers?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not aware that the law enforcement officers in this country, whether they be OPP or municipal police or the RCMP, have been anything but serious with drug pushers.

Mr Ruprecht: As members just heard, that surely is not the point. The question originally was, what is he doing and when is he going to act? But I will ask my supplementary.

Just yesterday I attended a meeting in my community and was told that our Metropolitan Toronto Police drug squad keeps confiscating large amounts of crack cocaine and Uzi machine guns, automatic machine pistols, Saturday-night specials and handguns. These are killing machines.

Most of the drug deals, as the Solicitor General knows, are made in connection with cars and the ready access to automobiles. In fact, the experience the police are telling us about has shown that the success of drug trafficking is facilitated by ready access to motor vehicles. Metro council made a recommendation to this minister. The recommendation was simple: There should be an automatic driver's licence suspension for a person convicted of dealing in drugs.

When will the minister finally implement the recommendation by Metro council to stem the tide that is destroying not only our young people but also whole communities in Metro Toronto?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I will undertake to review the resolution of Metro council and respond to the member in the House subsequently.

FARM PAYMENTS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure that not only members of my caucus but members right across this Legislature have received questions from white bean producers as to when the Ontario government will sign the tripartite agreement with the federal government in order to receive the approximately $100 per acre that is due to them. I have correspondence here that says the agreement was supposed to be signed in April. I gather it is not yet signed. Farmers are desperate for money. When does the minister feel the cheques will be forthcoming to these farmers?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I thank the member for the opportunity to answer that question publicly. The program he refers to is a federal-provincial program. White beans are grown in more than just Ontario. The reason for the holdup is that Manitoba has not yet agreed to the proposals that Ontario and the federal government agreed to back in the spring. We have no problem as a province and are quite willing to sign the agreement. The federal government, on the other hand, has decided not to proceed until we get Manitoba on side.

I was told last week that Manitoba is almost ready now to agree to the deal that was agreed to by other provinces in the spring. As I mentioned earlier, I will be in Winnipeg next week and I intend to talk to the minister about getting on with this program so that we can get the money out to white bean producers as soon as possible.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Brampton North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning the minister's disposition of a request for an order in council concerning Sabrina Panetta. This matter will be debated at 6 pm today.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker: Mr Cooke moves that Mr Cooper and Mr Christopherson, Mr Ruprecht and Mr O'Neil (Quinte), and Mr Wilson (Simcoe West) and Mr Mancini exchange places respectively in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Caplan: I have a petition that I would like to table. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

I present this petition to the Speaker and I point out that there are seven pages to the petition.

Mr J. Wilson: It is my privilege to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

That is signed by a number of residents from the village of Tottenham in my riding of Simcoe West, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition which 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 residents of nursing homes through increased funding."

This petition is signed by 120 people, and I have affixed my signature.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Stockwell: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have 1,120 names on this petition, signed from the Western Fair in London between September 6 and 15, and I have affixed my signature as well.

Mr Runciman: I have a petition which is signed by citizens of Ontario attending the Ottawa Exhibition between August 15 and August 25 of this year. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has been signed by over 1,000 citizens of Ontario.

1500

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.

Section/article 5:

The Acting Chair (Ms Haeck): Are there any further comments on Mrs Witmer's amendments?

Mr Wiseman: I would like to complete those few comments and say that I think it is important that this bill be passed expeditiously so that the negative effects of the federal policies with the dollar and the interest rates and the consequent loss of businesses do not negatively impact on the workers of this province. I hope the members of this House will take this opportunity to move quickly through these amendments and to pass this bill so that respite and funding can then be channelled to the workers who are being negatively impacted by the federal policies.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that Mrs Witmer's amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote deferred.

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I thought I heard you say that in your opinion the "ayes" have it.

The Second Deputy Chair: I did.

Mr Offer: I just wanted to make that clear.

The Second Deputy Chair: The vote is now deferred according to our standing orders and stacked with the other amendments.

We are now moving to an amendment by the official opposition.

Mr Offer: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am still running past that last vote.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Offer moves that section 40i of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, as reprinted, be amended by striking out "or such greater amount as is prescribed" in the fourth and fifth lines.

The honourable member for Mississauga North may want to expand on this amendment.

Mr Offer: I certainly do, and I thank you for that opportunity, Mr Chairman. This particular amendment, I believe, is very important in so far as it goes to meet some of the concerns raised by many individuals who came before the committee during our public hearing process. I hasten to add that this public hearing process was quite short. It was but two and a half days, I believe, on a bill which I felt and my caucus felt required -- in fact demanded -- a great deal more input, more consultation, more discussion and travelling. Unfortunately, the members of the government did not agree to that type of consultation, listening to the business community, listening to individuals who would have been impacted and will be impacted by this bill and, as such, we had a very short hearing process.

Notwithstanding that, even in that shortened period of time, a great many people came before the committee and spoke about the need to have a certainty that any changes to the legislation would be made in this Legislature, would be made by amendment to the bill, would be introduced by the Minister of Labour, would then be subjected to the necessary rules of procedure in this Legislature, the first reading, the second reading debate, the committee deliberation, the public hearing process, the clause-by-clause deliberation, and back to this Legislature for final passage.

The way the bill is now written is that any change to the dollar amount in the bill will be done by regulation as opposed to legislation. I have spoken about this point earlier on and will continue to do so today, because I believe this to be of crucial importance and in a very real sense underlines the concerns of those people, the business community and the like, over this legislation.

No one denies that a government has the right to introduce legislation or to change the legislation as it sees fit, but when one does it through regulation it means those changes are not brought before this Legislature. It means that changes to the bill, changes to the monetary amount of the bill, will be done outside of the Legislature, will be done through a cabinet meeting.

I see the member for Cochrane North shaking his head. With due respect, he is absolutely wrong. The fact is that when things are done through regulation, when things are done outside of this Legislature, he will not, as a member for his constituents, have any say in those changes. Those changes will be made without the member, without anyone, being able to assess from his constituents the impact of those changes. That is something that is very important. It is certainly very important for us as legislators. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a Liberal, Conservative or NDP matter. This is an MPP matter. This is the reason we were elected. Are we here to represent, to assess, to discuss how any change in legislation impacts on our constituents or are we not?

When one does things by regulation, though members may want to -- I try to make this non-partisan -- they will be unable to do so. They will be unable to do so because the change is one which they will read about in a news release. They will have no say in whether a $5,000 change should be changed at all, or changed to $7,000 or $10,000 or $15,000. They will have no say in that. They will not be able to stand in their places and discuss the impact of those changes on their constituents, their business community, or even whether there is a need for change.

1510

One of the things we have been elected to do is to bring those types of concerns, those opinions, to this floor, to discuss freely whether change is necessary and, if so, what the impact of that change may be.

When one does this by legislation, of necessity there is the opportunity to make those types of arguments. Of necessity, through our rules of procedure, those changes have the opportunity of being moved to committee where we can have full discussion, full consultation, with people who feel they are affected by any change.

In this amendment, we and members on the government side have an opportunity. We have the opportunity to send out a positive message that we are willing to listen, that we are ready to provide the forum where those concerns can certainly be made known.

I think we should also recognize what happens if government members vote against this. What happens if they say no to this amendment? What happens if they say no, no legislative debate, no public hearing? How can they then stand up, as I am sure they all will do, and make their speeches about the need for consultation? How can they stand and make their speeches, as I am sure they will, about the importance of creating a new climate of consultation and confidence with the business community? How do they make those speeches when they have shut the door to this chamber? They shut the door when they say "regulation" instead of "legislation."

What do they say to their constituents when they come into their offices and say: "A change has happened to the wage protection plan where the $5,000 level has been increased, and this is how it is going to impact upon my business. This is what it means to jobs in your riding"? What do they say to those people who have come to their offices?

Do they tell the people that the government members are the ones that shut the door for debate? When voting against this amendment, that is what they are doing. They are shutting the door on those valid concerns by their constituents. They are shutting the door of this chamber, they are shutting the door of their constituency offices, they are shutting the door of committee rooms. They are saying that as far as change to the wage protection plan is concerned, there is absolutely no need to listen to the people, there is absolutely no need to listen to what the impact of any change will be. They are saying they know what the right change should be and they know what the impact will be.

The government members know as well as I that the fact is they do not know the impact. They do not know what it means to a small business if the $5,000 limit is changed to even $6,000 or $10,000. They do not know how that affects the liability of the employer and the directors of the company. They do not know what that means in terms of the ongoing costs of carrying on business. They do not know what it means in terms of the potential premiums those small business people are going to have to pay. I do not say this as a criticism. The fact of the matter is they just do not know.

We cannot know, but what we can do is provide the opportunity to know, we can provide the opportunity to be aware of the impact of any change. Legislation allows that; that is why we have it. Regulation does not. Regulation in such a crucial aspect of this bill sends out the message that the government has absolutely no reason to listen to the people of this province, to the business community, large, medium and small. They have no desire to listen to the potential impact any change will have on their constituents. They have no interest in listening to what this means in terms of jobs and the creation and expansion of wealth in the province.

It is so unnecessary. That is what is very difficult for me to truly understand. It is so unnecessary that this very negative message has to go out. That message can be overturned by voting in favour of this amendment. This amendment will open the doors to this chamber, to committee rooms, to their constituency offices, to their Queen's Park offices. It sends out a more positive message.

Earlier today I spoke about the survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. We all know the importance of that federation and the work it has done in the past and the many thousands of businesses that are part of this federation and, as we all know, the many hundreds of thousands of jobs that are part of that.

We all know about the impact of negatively affecting small business. I believe that as late as yesterday the parliamentary assistant, in response to a question, alluded to the fact that small business is the single largest creator of new jobs in this province. We all recognize that. We have all made speeches about that. Now we have an opportunity to put some substance behind those speeches. Excuse me.

Hon Mr Wildman: I had a hard time with that one too.

Mr Offer: When I feel an issue, members hear it.

By accepting this amendment, we indeed are able to put that substance behind those speeches. I refer to the survey from the CFIB. The survey did not just appear. It came as a response -- I am reading in part from this -- to a groundswell of concern from small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario.

This survey was sent to over 3,500 members. They did confirm what I guess we all feel, that is, the deep malaise in the small business sector about the economic and political future of the province. I am going to stick to the economics of all of this, because I believe that is what is right and proper. An overwhelming 85% of the firms surveyed find the current Ontario business climate to be unfavourable or very unfavourable. We have to think about that: 85% say unfavourable or very unfavourable, from a federation which represents thousands and thousands of businesses and has an impact on hundreds of thousands of jobs.

1520

One of the major factors was the Ontario government's bias against business. I think this is too important a report not to be looked at word for word. I noted from across the chamber the parliamentary assistant stating that this was the CFIB's perceived bias against business. I must say, if the government members do not put any faith in the CFIB, if they are echoing concerns over the CFIB and what it is doing, then I suggest they should take the time to talk to some of the members of the CFIB. In fact, I would suggest they take the time to reread the submissions made to our committee during the Bill 70 hearings, because that type of concern was extremely evident as we carried out those hearings, shortened as they were.

We have to listen to those types of concerns. That is what people have elected us to do, to listen and to act. We have the opportunity to act today. We have the opportunity to say yes to this amendment. We have the opportunity to say we have heard the concerns. We want to make certain that this bill does contain within it, and through our rules of procedure here, the opportunity for those who are affected by any change in the bill to have their say, to talk to us about any impact that change may have, to be able to feel they can come to us in our constituency offices, our Queen's Park offices, to talk to us about changes, before they become the law of the day as opposed to after.

That is what the business community is talking about. They want to talk to us about impact. They want to talk to us about what it means to them to carry on business, to create new business, to expand existing business, to create wealth, jobs and an underpinning of economic strength. The government does that in a variety of ways, and one of the ways it can do that is by listening. That does not mean it is always going to agree, but it does mean it is going to listen. When the government does things by regulation, it is not listening.

Anybody over there on the government side who thinks that is the case is not in the real world. As members of the government, the backbenchers will have absolutely no say as to any change that is made at the cabinet table. They are going to read a press release by the Minister of Labour, and that press release will talk about the change to the wage protection plan. They are going to say, probably in caucus, "Hey, what's happening here?" and they are going to be told, "Well, that's what we've decided."

Then the government members are going to go back on Thursday or Friday to their constituency offices, and the lineups will already be occurring from the small business people in their ridings who are going to be saying: "Do you know what this change means to me? Do you know what this change means in terms of my being able to carry on business, in terms of my being able to expand, to create jobs?" And what are they going to say? They are going to say, "I'm sorry, the change has already been made." By accepting this amendment, they are able to say: "I will bring your concerns back. I will debate those concerns. I will make certain your concerns are heard."

By voting against this amendment, the members are not going to be able to do that; they are just not going to be able to do that. They are going to have to live with those types of changes. They are going to have to live with the impact on small business. They know as well as I that we are living in very competitive times. Every day, we are sending out more and more messages to the business community, and we want to make certain that those messages, which to this point in time have been negative -- I refer back to the CFIB report -- start to become positive.

I do not speak in a partisan manner. Creation of jobs in this province is everybody's concern and hope. We want all of our constituencies to be as strong as they possibly can. Do the members think we want to raise job loss each and every day? Do they think we want to continue to remind the government that more and more firms are leaving this province, that more young people who have a little capital either in terms of cash or intelligence and want to open up a small business are now considering whether to open it up in this province?

One of the things we want to do is take that element out of the decision. We want the young people of this province to open up businesses here. We want them to create jobs. We do not want it to be in their decision-making whether it should or should not be in Ontario. We want it in this province, but one of the things we have to do here is make certain we have created a climate for that.

One of the things we can do is accept this amendment. To a lot of people, what does this amendment mean: "Legislation or regulation? It doesn't really mean that much to me." But to us here it does and to the business community it does, because we are all very well aware of the impact of legislation and any change to legislation. What legislation as opposed to regulation means is that we know of that impact prior to it becoming law.

We have discussed moving this part of the bill to the legislative process, and in the past the members of the government side have voted against that. I hope that maybe today, after having had the opportunity to think about what their role in this Legislature is, they will see the light in many ways and see the need for this aspect of the bill to be part of our legislative process.

What is it that we were elected to do? We were elected to bring forward some of these concerns. We were elected to reach out to our communities, not just in our constituency offices but through committees, to a much larger group. We can do that and we try to do that. We have our arguments back and forth. We all have our different visions of what is the best and most proper course for this province to take in terms of health care, social services, housing or the economy.

I think people understand that we do have differing opinions. What people really understand is that they either have the opportunity to view us debating those differing views through our television station or actually coming before committees and being part of the process. I do not think people understand or accept the fact that they are shut out, and that is what this bill now does. It shuts people out. It excludes people who want to talk about why a change is necessary. It excludes people not just talking against it, but talking about why change should take place. It excludes equally those people and those speaking against it.

1530

What we do here affects in so many ways the way people live their lives. More and more people are becoming aware of that. They are tuning in. They know what we do and what we talk about increasingly has a real impact on how they lead their lives and on how they are able to compete. I think the message is clear. People want to be part of that. They want to have the option of being a part of the process.

By making this regulation, the government is taking away that option. It is saying to those people: "You don't have a choice. You can watch, but don't speak. You have an opinion but it is just not going to be listened to. You have a thought, a comment, but it is not going to be part of this debate." I do not think that is the way people, not only in this province but probably throughout the country, want to look at this institution.

They recognize that whenever they tune in, they may not agree with everything that is being done all the time. They recognize that there are times when they will disagree just as there are times when they will agree. There are times when they will say to the opposition parties, "You're absolutely right." We want to say to those people, "You should at least have the opportunity of being a real part of what we do." When the government does things by regulation it is just saying no to those people having any real part of this process.

Mr Cousens: Finish up, Steve. We have other things to do.

Mr Offer: I see that the member for Markham has made some comment. I think he would like to have some debate on this, and I hope he will take part in this debate because he recognizes there is certainly a need for the people of this province to have some impact on and input into any changes made to this bill. Whether or not they are in favour of the bill, they certainly want to be able to feel they can have a part to play in any change.

I ask the members of the government side to vote in favour of this amendment and in favour of debate. I hope that by supporting this amendment they recognize they are not detracting from this bill at all. This amendment in no way detracts from the principle of the bill. In no way does it erode the rights of the employees or impact on the liabilities of business under this legislation. In no way does it affect the enforcement mechanism of the bill.

All this amendment does is to say that if there is going to be any further change to the bill, it should be done through the legislative process; that we as members are able to debate those changes; that we are able to bring to this floor the concerns, the opinions and the comments of our constituents, and that we, through the rules of procedure, are able to make certain that any changes receive the fullest public consultation.

That is what this amendment does. The question will be whether government members want to open up the floor of this chamber, whether they are in favour of public consultation and whether they are in support of listening to constituents' concerns about the impact of any change.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to speak to the motion that has been put forward. I certainly share the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Mississauga North.

This past summer we did have an opportunity to listen to many business people. They represented businesses throughout this province and spoke to us about the grave concerns they had about giving the government responsibility and the ability to make changes arbitrarily. The type of amendment that is being proposed here would make the government fiscally responsible and responsible to the taxpayers.

However, government members need to consider what they are going to be doing. They need to consider, on matters of fiscal expenditures, whether or not there should be public consultation and scrutiny. If they go ahead and determine arbitrarily what amount is needed to fund the payroll tax and what changes are to be made, there will be no public accountability and no fiscal responsibility.

It is absolutely important that any future changes to this bill be made by amendment to the act. It is absolutely important that we allow for a full public debate.

The people who appeared before us this summer were concerned about the legislation as it had been presented. However, they were totally terrified about the ability of the government to prescribe an even larger amount than was being suggested here, the sum of $5,000, and the fact that this was going to be done without any public consultation or accountability to the taxpayers.

The employer groups are very concerned about this. I ask government members why they do not feel it would be appropriate or fair to consult with the people of Ontario. Why are they not willing to subject this to public scrutiny?

I and my party believe very strongly that whenever program spending increases are going to impact the taxpayers of this province we need public debate and public scrutiny and the MPPs need to be accountable to the taxpayers. The concern we have about this particular legislation being proposed here is that it gives such great power to the government without any consultation whatsoever. I certainly support the amendment as it is written here at the present time.

I suggest to the members of the government that they consider very seriously their responsibilities as members of this House. One of the things they have stressed and continue to stress is that they believe in the need for consultation. They believe each taxpayer in this province needs to provide input, and what they are suggesting here is totally contrary. It will not allow for consultation. There will be no public input from consumers, from employers or anyone else.

I believe very strongly that if government members are going to make any changes, if they are going to change the amount of the package, they need to do it by amendment and they need full public debate. I suggest that they give very serious consideration to approving the amendment as written here.

1540

Ms S. Murdock: I am just going to respond briefly with the reasons, as we stated in committee, why we are not in support of this amendment. Before I get into that, I would like to make some comments to the member for Mississauga North.

When Ms Ganong from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was at the hearings -- I am sure the member will remember -- the intimation was made that the consultation was not happening with business. When she was questioned, her response was, "We're consulted to death." I am not saying by any degree that this means she agreed with the $5,000 cap or any of that kind of thing. I just do not want people to believe that business is not being talked with or consulted with.

The CFIB survey has to be looked at word for word; I agree with the member and we intend to do that. We just got a copy yesterday of the exact survey and the questions asked and we will be looking at that. The survey did relate to labour changes, but it was specifically related to the proposed discussion paper coming out on the Labour Relations Act and was not specific to the employee wage protection act.

The arguments being made about talking to the public and not having this come before the House in legislative form in terms of future changes in this particular amendment, in our view, would mean we would then have to come before the House to make changes on the basis of the plans for this amendment to section 40i, the changes that would be required for inflationary measures. This amendment is with regard to the actual cap. For instance, it is with regard to $5,000 in this day and age being worth a certain amount of money and in 10 years from now perhaps not being worth that much. I started working 25 years ago at $290 a month; $290 a week would not be sufficient to live on now.

Times change and this regulatory power gives us the power to make those kinds of changes. It would require then that every time that happened we would have to come before the House and have it debated, as we are doing in this particular instance. I would point out that there are other acts, such as the Workers' Compensation Act, which are indexed and automatically increased without coming before the House; old age security Canada pensions are increased quarterly, rather than legislatively.

The effect on small business in this particular instance is also going to be nil. The people who would be applying for that cap, small businesses, would not be solvent. Therefore, it would be coming out of the fund and not out of the small businesses, and those that are solvent should be paying their bills to their workers anyway.

Mr Offer: I had anticipated that the debate on this particular amendment was going to be complete, but then I heard the parliamentary assistant's final comments and two questions arise. First, she said small business would not be affected by this bill. I am wondering whether she can explain that. Second, as an addendum to that first question, how is small business or any business not going to be affected by any change in legislation which has the potential of increasing liability?

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. Further debate or comment?

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, I asked a question of the parliamentary assistant. If she is going to respond, I would like to have the opportunity of listening to that response. If not, I have a few other comments.

The Second Deputy Chair: Does the parliamentary assistant wish to reply?

Ms S. Murdock: I will certainly reply to those two questions. I just wonder, is this getting into a debate format or are we going to be responding to the amendments?

The Second Deputy Chair: This is the place for both debate and questions and answers, so it is up to the parliamentary assistant.

Ms S. Murdock: Okay. First, I did not say there would be no effect on small business by this bill. I said that for this particular amendment, 40i, the regulatory power of increasing the $5,000 ceiling would not affect small business in that where employees would be applying under this fund to access the $5,000, the small business the employee had worked for would either be insolvent or, if it was already operating, those employees probably would not be accessing this particular fund. If they had accessed it, then the employment standards branch people would be going after the employer if the employer were solvent. Our estimation is that if 1% of the employers are solvent, that will be high, in the people who access this.

The second part of your question was -- remind me; I have forgotten.

Mr Offer: The second part of my question was really for you to explain how small business could not be affected by a particular amendment, part of the bill, which has as its object the possibility of increasing liability.

Ms S. Murdock: It was the liability aspect I wanted to respond to. The liability here is to the consolidated revenue fund, obviously, which has the money set aside, except for those employers who are solvent. Otherwise, there would be no liability except for what they owe the workers for work that has already been done, when the worker has earned the moneys that are owed as determined by the employment standards officer.

Mr Offer: As a short follow-up to this debate, I think the parliamentary assistant, with all due respect, is limiting the impact of the bill. I am trying to be as kind as I can be in this.

One does not look at the cost to small business as, well, the business has gone bankrupt, so any employee is going to access the fund, so there is no cost to the small business because it is out of business. That might be qualified as sort of correct, but that is not the impact this bill is going to have. I hope the parliamentary assistant, the Minister of Labour and the ministry officials recognize that the impact of the bill is going to be an ongoing cost of doing business.

The government has every right to bring forward a bill of this nature, and we have every right to bring forward concerns. But do not say there is not a cost to small business or to business generally, because the fact is there is going to be a cost to business. They are going to have to obtain insurance to cover the possibility of personal liability. That is going to be a cost of doing business. It is going to be a cost of doing business prior to the business getting into financial difficulty or going bankrupt, or for years and years and years in its existence, but it is going to be a cost, and that cost is going to be as a result of the bill.

1550

I am not saying it is something we should not be discussing. We should be. But I am concerned when members of the government believe there is not going to be an ongoing cost of doing business as a result of this bill. It may be that they are saying the cost is worth it. They have every right to say that, they have every right to argue that. We have every right to disagree or agree. But I cannot understand how they can day in and day out say that this bill, in itself, will not be a cost of doing business. It just is not in the cards. It is not in the real world.

People run businesses. They are not all big business people. They want to protect themselves, they want to protect their families, they want to protect themselves in a personal sense, and the way in which they are going to do it against this bill is to get insurance. The cost of that is going to be a cost of carrying on business. So please do not continually try to argue that there is not going to be a cost, because that is talking about a bill that is just not in existence.

It is going to be a cost. Let's talk about that. It is very difficult. I would suggest that business gets extremely concerned when the government, after looking at the bill, does not feel there is any cost involved. I think they get that negative sense that government does not understand. I think the government has an opportunity to say, "Yes, there is a cost, but we in the government believe the cost is worth it." They have every right to say that. But when they say there is no cost, the business community says, "My goodness gracious, these people are making up legislation and they don't even understand what the impact of it is." Please, at least acknowledge there is going to be a cost to the business community as a result of the passage of this legislation.

The second area I want to talk about -- the parliamentary assistant was interesting in terms of her response. She talked about my amendment and why they cannot support my amendment because it really applies to some inflationary or possible inflationary aspect of the $5,000 limit. That is sort of a neat way of arguing the matter. The fact remains that her government is not prepared to accept a change to the monetary limit of this legislation going through the legislative process.

I recognize that the parliamentary assistant does not have to answer the question, but I will pose it. If she and her colleagues are prepared to accept an amendment which will have as its effect the change of the monetary amount being moved from regulation to legislation, would she please say so now? If they are not, as has been their stated case, could she please explain the fear they have of bringing forward changes in this legislation to this Legislature?

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate on Mr Offer's amendment to Bill 70? Seeing none, 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.

Vote deferred.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to remind members that to participate in the debate or to stand up, they must be in their seats.

We now move on to a Progressive Conservative amendment.

Mrs Witmer moves that section 40i of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, as reprinted, be amended by striking out "$5,000 or such greater amount as is prescribed" in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting "$4,000."

Mrs Witmer: This is certainly compatible with our first amendment. Our first amendment was to limit the definition of "wages" to earned wages. What we were proposing was that we would only include earned wages, and that would include vacation pay. However, we were suggesting at this time, given the very uncertain economic climate and the hardships that many people in this province are facing, that we would like to see this fund compensate employees only for actual wages they had worked for and earned. To go beyond the normal definition of wages and to include termination pay -- those are usually contractual obligations. We certainly question whether or not all taxpayers in this province should be paying for contractual obligations as opposed to actual earned wages.

We are very concerned about the generosity of this program. Although we very strongly support the right of workers to protection, we question whether or not this government, given the current economic uncertainty, can be this generous at this time. Certainly, if we take a look at what is happening in other provinces, we can see that we are leading the way. Only Manitoba has a plan similar to ours. It only gives compensation up to a total of $1,200. The amount we are suggesting here, to limit maximum compensation to $4,000, is far beyond the Manitoba total, and as I have just indicated, that is the only province in Canada that presently makes this type of allotment to employees. We feel the $4,000 would adequately cover the earned wages. It is also the amount that parallels the current maximum liability an employment standards officer can order an employer to pay.

We very strongly urge the government to consider supporting this amendment. I think the one thing we need to take into very serious consideration is that in this province, because of bills such as Bill 70 and the one being proposed around the Labour Relations Act, and even the one related to the parental leave plan, we have created what appears to the business community to be a very hostile environment.

Businesses are frightened. In fact, some of them have indicated they are terrified. They are finding it very difficult to compete with their American and Mexican counterparts. They are finding the labour rates very high. They are finding the taxes very high. They are suffering from this recession. When they take a look at a piece of legislation such as Bill 70, they find it very threatening. They see the potential of bankruptcy in the event of their business failing. They are starting to ask themselves the question, "Why would I want to do business in Ontario when I'm faced with legislation that threatens my livelihood?"

1600

This bill has prompted many employers throughout the province to downsize their present operation. It has encouraged others to prepare to close down their operation altogether and move south of the border or to another province. I would urge the government to very seriously consider the impact this type of legislation has on jobs. Although we want employees protected when jobs are lost because of bankruptcy or insolvency, we have to balance that with the creation of new jobs. I think if we were to consider seriously what the number one desire or objective of most people would be, they would want a job as opposed to receiving compensation from this fund. I believe this government needs to do everything possible to make this environment more friendly for business people.

I take exception to one of the comments made by the parliamentary assistant, when she indicated that consultation was taking place. I am concerned that although consultation is taking place with the business community, its concerns are not being considered in the legislation.

I am very concerned that after two weeks of dealing with Bill 70 this summer, there was not one substantive amendment made as a result of those hearings. I question why we invited people to come and share their concerns about this bill when the government was not prepared to make any changes. If that is the way it is going to be, I feel we wasted taxpayers' money meeting here for two weeks and receiving additional pay for doing so. I suggest to the government that it take a look at real consultation, and that means changing the legislation so it has input from all the parties that have made representation.

I would like to indicate to the government that there were many small business people who came before us and shared with us their concerns about this legislation. They indicated to us it was going to increase the cost of doing business in this province, because they were going to be forced to buy insurance. I do not believe this government has seriously considered whether or not this insurance is even going to be available for all companies. The indication we have is that those companies most in need of insurance, those companies that are in severe financial straits, will not be able to get the insurance anyway.

What we are doing by bringing forward this legislation, by placing a cap of $5,000 and giving the government an opportunity to change the cap and the compensation package at any time, is saying to the small business people throughout the province, "Your concerns do not matter." I would remind the government again that it is the small business community that creates most of the jobs in this province. I ask them to start to consider not only the needs of employees, but also the needs of employers and to do everything they can to help create jobs in Ontario and give back to those who have lost their jobs the self-esteem they desire.

Mr Offer: I have a few comments on this amendment. The amendment, I think, raises three areas that have to be addressed, and hopefully the parliamentary assistant and her officials might be able to help.

The first is, what would the impact be on employees who would be eligible under this plan in the event that the ceiling were lowered from $5,000 to $4,000? The second question that arises is, is the word "prescribed" a difficulty in being taken out of this section? The third is whether there has been any agreement between the provincial Minister of Labour and his federal counterpart in terms of harmonizing the recent announcement by the federal government over a similar national wage protection plan. I wonder if we might be able to get some sense as to what the impact might be.

Ms S. Murdock: On the intimation that this government is not willing to change anything or is not willing to accept any of the amendments, I point out again that before second reading we came in with 40 to 50 substantive amendments, predominantly due to the opposition's heated remarks and the many numbers of letters the Minister of Labour and I received on the very issues of their concern. So before we went into committee we had already come up with a number of amendments that took out most of the controversial aspects of the bill.

The second thing is that I think it is a mistaken belief that insurance costs would increase for the small businessman, employer, director. That is not the case at all. Under the present Ontario Business Corporations Act they already have those liabilities. Nothing has changed in terms of their kind of liability. It is just simply the enforcement provisions.

The other thing is that the average claim by a worker is $4,200, as we have stated, and the $5,000 at least is within that. That means there is going to be a large number of people under $4,200 and there is going to be an equally large number of people above the $4,200 mark. The $5,000 cap does allow us to at least hit the average claim. That is why we are not supporting this amendment.

Mr Offer: The response by the parliamentary assistant really shows why there is such great concern, which was brought forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's current survey. I think we have to recognize that in that survey it was found that over a third of the small firms surveyed are considering moving some or all of their operations out of this province. It indicates that as many as 500,000 jobs in Ontario in the small business sector, 100,000 in small manufacturing firms, are at risk. If even only a fraction of these small firms actually follow through on their plans, job losses to Ontario from the small-firm sector alone can be forecast in the tens of thousands.

It goes on to say: "There is a widespread belief across the small business community that they could cope with all the negative economic factors, but the political uncertainty has pushed them beyond the breaking point. Many small firms feel that small business is unwelcome in Ontario."

Interjections.

Mr Offer: I note that some members on the opposite side do not like to hear this.

Mr Bisson: You're lying.

Mr Offer: The member for Cochrane South has indicated that the survey from the CFIB is lying.

1610

Interjection.

Mr Offer: Pardon me? I am sorry? Mr Chair, I think the --

The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. The honourable member for Cochrane South has made a statement for which he has apologized. He may want to make sure it gets on the record.

Mr Bisson: Yes, I do.

Mr Offer: Just to make certain, actually, as I was referring to this survey from the CFIB, the survey which represents thousands of firms in this province and creates and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs, the member for Cochrane South referred to the fact that I was lying.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member has withdrawn.

Mr Offer: There is no question that this is obviously the essence as to why the CFIB, and not just the CFIB but the business community, and in fact people not even involved in the business community, have a great deal of concern about the current government. What type of message is it actually sending out? Why the heck would anybody want to invest in this province? Why the heck would they ever want to create a firm in this province? Why would they like to create a job in this province when they have members on the government side who pay short shrift to a report and a survey which has so many thousands of member firms as part of it?

Mr White: No reliability or validity.

Mr Offer: The member -- I cannot recall what riding he is from.

Mrs Witmer: Durham Centre.

Mr Offer: The member for Durham Centre has seen fit to make some comment as he walks to and fro, but it would be nice for that member, if he feels it appropriate, to make some comment from his seat. We on the opposition side would certainly like to hear any contribution the member has to make that might be recorded in Hansard as opposed to the throwing out of comments as he moves from one member's seat to another member's seat in certain anonymity from Hansard from recorded comment, but there will be opportunity for that member once debate on this matter has been completed.

We will wait to see if the member feels strongly enough to stand in his place and make some comment on this bill. I am sure there are businesses in his riding that have felt the effects of the recession. I am certain there are businesses and people who have lost their jobs who might have benefit from the bill.

Mr Mammoliti: What does this have to do with the bill?

Mr Offer: I see a member has asked, "What does this have to do with the bill?" In fact, the genesis of this bill was the recession and this bill was designed to help those people who are the victims of the recession. It will be interesting to see if members of the government side feel strongly enough to talk about the bill and about what it means to their riding.

As I was indicating: "...that even with the negative economic factors small firms have said in the past that they realize it costs more to do business in Ontario but that other benefits of being here have made this differential worth paying." I think that is important. "They are now re-evaluating their choices. They perceive themselves as truly unwelcome in the current environment as well as being uncompetitive as the extra cost of doing business in Ontario continues to grow."

As I was trying to make this point, some members from the government side were certainly quite critical in terms of my reading this particular part of the report I believe to be in context. I do not believe I have made up anything; it is part of the public record. Maybe the disparaging comments which have been cast by the members of the government side prove the point as to why businesses are now re-evaluating their choice, why they recognize that they are feeling truly unwelcome. I think that not just members of the government but all members have to recognize that if people feel that, then there is something that has to take place and we have to send out a stronger message.

The amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Wentworth North is, I believe, an important amendment. It is important because it tries to come to grips with some of the realities of the business community. I had asked a question of the parliamentary assistant. I know she does not have to respond, but it would be nice to know what the interrelationship is between this bill, not yet passed, and the federal bill now before the House of Commons, again not yet passed.

That federal bill calls for, in essence, a national wage protection plan with, I might simplistically say, a ceiling of $2,000 and funded through an employer tax, if memory serves me correctly. It will be interesting to know what discussions have gone on between the Minister of Labour and his federal counterpart on the harmonization of these two bills, both not yet law.

Are we talking about a potential liability of $7,000, being the $5,000 and the federal $2,000, or are we talking about a total liability of $5,000 of which $2,000 will be paid by the federal bill? It is important to note that. Employees certainly came before the committee and said it was their hope that when these discussions took place on the harmonization, the liability would not be $5,000 in total but rather $7,000. There would not be a claim, as it were, for $2,000 of the $5,000.

Why do I read this? I read this from the CFIB survey because the parliamentary assistant continues to state that this bill will have no impact on the cost of doing business in this province. That is just patently untrue. I state that as a subjective matter on my part. I am allowed to say that.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: I see that another member not in his seat is causing some problems. If the member truly feels it is not parliamentary, then let him go to his seat, stand up on a point of order and state that. I have the right to say I do not believe that to be the case. It is just not the case of doing business in this province. People are going to have to get insurance. The cost of that insurance is going to be based on a variety of items.

The first will be how large the liability is. That will be determined at the outset by two factors. The first is the number of employees, because the number of employees multiplied by the maximum limit will in fact increase the liability. We all know an insurance policy of $100,000 is going to be more than an insurance policy of $100. It is a matter of multiplication.

1620

The second aspect in determining the liability will be the whole question of what the ceiling is. If it is $5,000 and if there are five employees, the potential liability for those five employees multiplied by the limit will be $50,000. If the limit is increased or if the number of employees is increased, then the potential liability increases. If the liability increases, so does the premium. If the premium increases, so does the cost of doing business. It is absolutely ridiculous to think this bill does not increase the cost of doing business.

I invite the parliamentary assistant to clarify how this bill does not affect a business owner, small, medium or large, and how this bill does not affect the cost of doing business. If the parliamentary assistant says it does not, then I see the reason for the CFIB survey stating, "My goodness, the government just doesn't understand." If it is a cost, then I would certainly like the parliamentary assistant to express that, because I think the business community would at least come to realize that the government side is now starting to understand that this bill does have an impact.

The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate? Seeing none, are we ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have any further amendments to section 5? Seeing none, we will proceed to amendments to section 6.

Section/article 6:

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Offer moves that section 40r of the act, as set out in section 6 of the bill, as reprinted, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(6) This part does not apply to directors of corporations that employ fewer than fifty (50) employees."

The honourable member for Mississauga North may want to expand on his amendment.

Mr Offer: I certainly do. I want to go back really to the basic distinction of the bill. The bill is divided into two parts.

The first speaks to the fund itself, the access to the dollars, and talks about eligibility. It talks about who is eligible and for what. We know who is eligible and we know that, as the bill stands now, they are eligible for wages, vacation pay, termination and severance up to $5,000. We know that.

There is a second aspect to this bill, that is, the enforcement mechanism. The bill in itself does not create any new rights. Those rights are found now under the Business Corporations Act and continue to be in existence, so this bill in itself does not create anything new. What it does do in this second area is talk about enforcement. In the event that a person who is eligible makes a claim against the fund, proves that claim and receives dollars, then we move into this second aspect.

The employment standards branch, through its officers, will enforce the amount the employee received against the employer or the director. There is a limitation to what they can personally enforce, and that is wages and vacation pay. Through amendment, the liability in terms of severance and termination pay has been deleted, but the directors still remain personally liable to the enforcement mechanism in so far as wages and vacation pay are concerned.

We have skirted around this issue almost since the first day the bill was introduced. As I indicated before, there is a cost to business once this bill is passed. I recognize government members have the right to introduce legislation and have the right to change it. I spoke earlier about how I believed that right should be exercised. I believe it should be exercised through the Legislature as opposed to through the regulatory mechanism, but they have that right.

What we want to do through this amendment is to say clearly to the small business community and to the directors of companies which have less than 50 employees: "Your obligation remains under the Business Corporations Act. It's clear that, in the event of your becoming insolvent or bankrupt, your employees will still be able to have access to the fund but you, as a small business person, will be exempt from the enforcement mechanism under the bill."

What does all that mean? It means that, in general, small businesses, those with 50 employees or less, will be, as far as the directors are concerned, in about the same position they are today: Their employees will be able to access the fund but the directors will not have their position changed by this particular bill. What is the matter with that? I am sure the parliamentary assistant will have some comments on this, but what is the matter with that?

This particular amendment will not erode the principle of the legislation. It will have no effect on employees being able to have access to the fund. It will have no effect on what the obligations and responsibilities of directors are under the Business Corporations Act, no effect whatsoever. That will remain the same. Employees will be able to access the fund as easily as they could before or after this amendment. The directors of those businesses will be as responsible and liable today as they were yesterday under the Business Corporations Act.

1630

It sends out a very strong and powerful message to the business community. It sends out the message that you will not have to worry about getting insurance to protect your person from this bill. It sends out a message that the government is ready to listen to some of the concerns that were raised by the business community. It sends out a message that the speeches that are made about how important small business is to this province, about it being the single greatest creator of new jobs in this province each and every year -- the government is ready to listen to that, to recognize that importance and in fact to put some substance behind some of those speeches. That is what this amendment is designed to accomplish.

It does not cost the government any money. I think the parliamentary assistant herself, the minister and, I am sure, ministry officials all recognize that the actual possibility of recovering against those directors is minimal indeed. It just will not be there, because people in small business really sign away everything to the bank. They do that anyway; they do that to the lending institutions. So there really is nothing left to claim over against the directors.

So why not? Why not an amendment which does not cost the government any money, which does not affect the rights of the employees to access the fund, which does not take away from the principle of the legislation, which sends out a very strong and powerful message to the business community that the government is willing not only to listen but also to act? This amendment will accomplish those four objectives. We have to make this province more competitive. Small business does create more new jobs than anyone else in this province. What we want to do is make it, as best we can, easier for them to do it, easier for them to create, expand, continue to grow. This amendment keeps everything intact under the bill.

Everything that was there -- all the protections to the employees, all the rights of those who have access to the bill -- still remains in effect. All we are doing by this amendment is saying that the position of the small business and those directors will not be changed when this bill is passed. All we are saying is that the position they had yesterday will be the same tomorrow.

We are saying the province can be competitive, can send out the message that it is listening to business and can respond, and we now have a wonderful opportunity at hand, because it is rare to be able to send out such a message without it having to cost the government money. I know the government has made some statements about its concern, but the fact is that this is an opportunity.

Hon Mr Wildman: I actually thought you were right until I heard your comments.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Natural Resources has made some comment about my being right. I do not know if that was on this amendment or philosophical, but whatever the case, I am ready to accept that if we can get the minister's support.

I know the minister and all the members on the government side recognize this wonderful opportunity we have. We have the opportunity to make the bill sensitive not only to the needs of those who have lost jobs but also to the small business community, and without it costing dollars. This will not create any higher liability on the part of the government than now exists. We can do it all by accepting this amendment.

It will be strange indeed to hear whether the government members vote against this. I will be curious to see the government members, who so often speak about the small business community through those speeches to chambers of commerce, boards of trade, local business establishments. It will be interesting for them, I think. I cannot believe this government would vote against this amendment. Then what does it say to all those boards of trade, chambers of commerce and business establishments that say, "This amendment allowed you to give us a break without it costing you money, without it costing the taxpayers dollars and without it affecting the rights of the employees under this bill"?

This government has a wonderful opportunity at hand. It has an opportunity to put some of that substance behind those messages and speeches it has been giving. If it decides to vote against this amendment -- I would be shocked -- it is then going to have to answer the question: "Why did you? What reason did you have to vote against an amendment that did not cost the taxpayers any money, that did not affect the rights of the workers who lost their jobs, that had the objective of sending out a very positive message to business?" They are going to ask, "Why didn't you give us that break?

That is a question government members are going to have to answer in their ridings if they vote against this amendment. I hope to save them from having to answer that question. They can do so by voting in favour of this amendment.

This amendment not only builds into it a balance that is for the employees, the victims of the recession, but also builds a balance in favour of the small business where it is possible, without any cost to the taxpayers. The Treasurer was here earlier, but I know the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet is here; he will be happy to hear that it will not cost the taxpayers any dollars and will not, of course, affect and erode the rights of employees, of those people who lost their jobs.

I truly hope this government accepts this amendment, because I believe this amendment is one which we can hold up as part of the bill and say this is a much better bill, because it meets the needs of those who have lost a job, who are owed wages, vacation pay, termination and severance, and it does not foist an expense on to the small business community, those people who create jobs in this province, who create strength in this province, who create wealth in this province.

It has the effect of meeting the concern that was brought forward by the report of the survey of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Small firms have said in the past that they realize it costs more to do business in Ontario, but other benefits of being here had made this differential worth paying. They are now re-evaluating their choice as they perceive themselves as truly unwelcome in the current environment.

1640

By accepting this amendment, we are sending out the message that this survey, as important as it is in terms of the message it gives, has been listened to and that they should not re-evaluate their choice, they should not perceive themselves to be truly unwelcome in the current environment, because this amendment, in terms of small business, has been accepted and is now part of the legislation, that this is now a balanced piece of legislation where you can remain competitive, where we can provide protection to employees -- the victims of bankruptcies -- but at the same time do it without any extra cost to taxpayers and without any cost to the small business sector.

We have this opportunity before us. It is one I believe we should not fumble and hope we will not. Let us accept this amendment. Let us make this bill more balanced, more sensitive to the concerns of business, while at the same time protecting the rights of those who need access to those funds.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to speak to the amendment that would seriously improve the conditions for small businesses in this province by exempting those with 50 or fewer employees from Bill 70. I would ask the government to give very serious consideration to this amendment. We have talked at length this afternoon about the very important, significant role that small business plays in this province. We have repeated and emphasized that they are the ones that create the jobs in this province and, unfortunately, it is also the small business person who is suffering the most as a result of some of the legislation that is being proposed and from the effects of the recession.

These individuals have asked us to take a serious look at exempting them from this bill. They recognize that they are still liable under the Business Corporations Act, and they are quite willing to fulfil their responsibilities and their duties to their employees. In fact, this amendment will still make it possible for the employees, the individuals we are trying to protect, to access the fund. There is no cost whatsover to the employees, and they were the purpose for introducing the bill in the first place.

Many people appeared before this committee and many people have written us. They have told us they fear the impact of this bill. They fear they have a great deal to lose. They are very concerned about their ability to get insurance coverage. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, many of the small business people currently do not have insurance. They are not in a position to pay the additional cost of obtaining insurance, because money they use to do so is going to take money out of the operation and it is going to mean the loss of some jobs -- that is, if they can even get insurance. Unfortunately, the government has never, ever given any assurance to the members of the business community that they are going to be able to find insurance to cover the liabilities and that they are going to be able to obtain it at a fair rate they can afford.

As we know, now that the enforcement mechanism has been enhanced, they will need the insurance. Although the government keeps telling us there is no cost to small business, I would dispute that. There is fear in this province about the impact of Bill 70 --

Hon Mr Wildman: You are whipping it up.

Mrs Witmer: It is not fear that we are whipping up, as the Minister of Natural Resources has just indicated. It is fear that has been generated by the men and women in this province who are trying to provide jobs for employees.

That is one of the frustrations I hear repeatedly. People ask me, "Doesn't the government listen when you tell them we're concerned about our business, we're concerned about jobs?" I try to tell them that we do try to make the government aware of it and we do hope it will seriously consider these concerns, that we do seriously hope it will provide a balance in all of the legislation it puts forward. We would hope it would consider not only the employee but also the employer. We hope it would demonstrate it is concerned about jobs for the people in this province and is not going to introduce legislation that is going to lead to further job loss because of companies closing because of conditions in this province that they simply cannot afford.

If we are truly concerned about employees and if we are truly concerned about the creation of new jobs and if we want to make absolutely certain that we do not lose any more, I believe we have to start looking at this legislation and attempting to create a balance. We have to start responding to the concerns of the small, medium-sized and large business community. I certainly support the amendment that has been placed here and encourage the government to consider seriously the jobs in this province and the possible loss of those jobs if this legislation is passed without this type of amendment.

Hon Mr Wildman: I want to clarify something the member for Mississauga North raised in his remarks, in which he indicated that I had said he was right. I want to assure him that I meant that with a capital R.

Ms S. Murdock: I want to respond to the provisions of this amendment, which is to remind everyone that it is directors of corporations who employ fewer than 50 employees, and that is the amendment provision, whereas we are recommending that, regardless of the number of employees, directors of companies are held liable, as they presently are under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. Both members of the opposition have stated that.

The thing is that the liability provisions, as they presently are under the OBCA, are such that it is much more onerous for the employee to have any kind of satisfaction or reimbursement. This provision, in conjunction with the amendments to the Employment Standards Act, will allow the ministry offices to go after the primary person responsible, which is the employer. Then, if it looks like they are not going to get anything from the employer, the employer has absconded to Mexico or has closed his doors and there is just nothing there, if that determination can be made, they can go after the director.

Under the present OBCA, what happens is you have to exhaust all provisions with the employer first before you can go after the directors. We have stated that the intent of this bill is speed, efficiency, payment to the workers and also, if you can recoup some of your losses or some of the consolidated revenue fund's payments, then you should be able to do that. Also, directors have responsibility and have liabilities for the duties they take on.

I am not going to speak to any of the other comments that have been made, because I am sure that we will be getting to many of the points that the member for Mississauga North raised later in some of the other amendments.

Mr Offer: In reply to the Minister of Natural Resources, his response is not surprising. In terms of the response of the parliamentary assistant, I think the comments of the parliamentary assistant exactly make the case. In this bill and in this amendment we are not trying to say that the directors of small businesses are not liable. We are saying their liability exists under the Ontario Business Corporations Act. That is not going to change. What we are saying is that directors of small business should be exempt from the enforcement mechanism.

1650

The comments made by the parliamentary assistant were, "Under the current legislation it is very difficult to recover against the directors." That is, of course, the case, because employees who are out of a job do not have the resources to carry forward in trying to sue directors. That is now going to be the part of the government. That is why we are saying directors of small businesses should be exempt.

What happens is that a business goes bankrupt, people are owed money and they are able to access the fund. The government then takes action against the directors of a small business. Those directors either do not have anything left or the government gets a judgement. When the government gets a judgement, it can do a number of things. They can register it against property; they can start garnishment proceedings. There is a variety of ways in which a judgement can be enforced.

The Attorney General, who is now here, recognizes those ways. The fact of the matter is that the directors of small business really are not able to forecast what is going to happen in the long-term future as well as the medium and large businesses can. They do not have the personnel to do that. They are in there to create jobs, to create business. That is what they are doing. By not accepting this amendment, the government is sending out a very bad message to the small business community. It is sending out the message that an amendment was possible that would have the effect of keeping the liability without the onerous enforcement, not eroding the principle of the bill, not affecting the rights of the employees and not costing the taxpayers any dollars, and the government is saying no to that.

The business community is saying, "We don't have a lot of confidence and faith in the government because our concerns are not being listened to, are not being dealt with." Here the government had an opportunity to say, "But we do listen to your concerns." If the government is not going to deal with their concerns in a matter that does not affect taxpayers, in a matter that does not affect the rights of those who have lost their jobs, in a matter that does not affect the legal obligation under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, then when is it going to deal with them? They are never going to.

The concerns of the business community, as found in the survey of the CFIB, are absolutely well founded. The government had the opportunity to cut into some of that concern. They had an opportunity to send out a different sort of message, and they did not do it. It is just absolutely incredible that having that opportunity, when taxpayers are not affected, when the workers are not affected, when legal liability is not affected, they are still unwilling to act. What other result do they think is going to happen except an increased lack of confidence by the business community in this government's ability to deal with the realities of the day, the stress of being competitive?

My goodness gracious, I asked the Minister of Labour a question today in the Legislature: "We are going to be putting forward this amendment and this amendment is going to be there for the small business person. This amendment is not going to erode the principle of the bill, it is not going to affect those people who have lost their jobs and it is not going to affect taxpayers. Will you accept the amendment?" The minister said no.

That no is a message by his government to business generally. It is a no that will reverberate not only today but through each and every one of the government members' constituency offices to anybody who wants to create jobs in their ridings. The government has said no to them and it is something they are going to remember for a long period of time. I would like to know what government members are going to say to their communities, to their local business establishments, to their small business people, to their chambers of commerce, to their boards of trade, when they ask the question, "Why not?"

The First Deputy Chair: Shall 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.

Vote deferred.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Offer moves that subsection 40s(2) of the act, as set out in section 6 of the bill, as reprinted, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) Despite subsection (1), the employer is primarily responsible for the employee's wages and proceedings may not be commenced to collect wages from directors under this part until proceedings against the employer under this act are exhausted."

Mr Offer: I have a few comments on this particular aspect of the bill. Previously we had been discussing some areas of the bill dealing with the monetary amount of the liability and, for us on this side, how changes to that amount should only be made through legislation as opposed to regulation. We have also spoken about giving a break to small business, and those types of amendments, as we have noted, have been defeated by the government members.

This is more of a technical nature. Under this particular piece of legislation there is no obligation on the part of the employment standards branch, those people who are responsible for the enforcement of this legislation, to take all steps under the Employment Standards Act against the employers. Basically, if there is a claim made by an employee, they can, after validating the claim, immediately go against the director. They do not have to go against the employer of the company. They do not have to take any action under their own act, the Employment Standards Act.

1700

I thought maybe the amendment should read that the employer is primarily responsible and that proceedings may not be commenced until all proceedings have been exhausted. I thought it might be a bit too onerous for the officers under the employment standards branch to take all actions against an employer, because that would be even wider than the Employment Standards Act. They would have to take the actions they can take under the Employment Standards Act together with all their civil remedies. They would have to get a judgement. They would have to make certain the sheriff tried to serve that judgement. In that respect it might widen out the process and make it unduly long. There may be a substantial delay before any dollars are recouped.

I thought I would try to balance that type of amendment, so I cut it down by saying that under this legislation the branch officers must at least take all action against employers under the Employment Standards Act; they must at least get an order against an employer under their own act. I believe that to be essential before going against the director, because we know what is going to happen. The members on that side know what is going to happen. We can all read between the lines on this bill.

Notwithstanding the greatest and loftiest intentions now, when there is a claim made to the employment standards branch those officers are going to take the quickest route, in accordance with the wishes of the government. That route is going to be: "Who are the directors? Who is the director with the deepest pocket? Who is the director I can get the easiest? I'm not even going to try to get the employer. I'm not even going to use any effort to seek out whether an employer is there and whether he has funds that can be used to recover some of the moneys that have been laid out."

We know that is going to happen. In fairness to directors -- some of the members may have been directors of corporations. If they were directors of companies that had difficulty, would they not like to know that before this legislation kicked in to their personal liability, every effort under the Employment Standards Act would be taken against the employer? It sounds right, sounds fair.

This amendment puts in legislative form what the stated intention has been of the minister, of the parliamentary assistant and, I expect, of ministry officials. The intention is not good enough. If it is the government's intention not to take action against directors until it has exhausted remedies against employers, it has the obligation to put that in the legislation. That is where people are going to look and that is where people get their direction. If the government's intention is in word only, then when a company gets into difficulty, officers in the employment standards branch are going to look at the director who is easiest to attach to.

I hearken back to the CFIB research survey, because when we started this discussion we did not have this survey. I am certain even members on the government side will admit to having business people, people who are working, come into their constituency offices and say, "I have some concerns about some of the things you're doing."

There are people coming into my constituency office talking about the problems they had working with the government. They were talking about the concerns they had, the fear that the job they have today might not be there tomorrow, that the government was really cutting down on some of their options and that maybe it was not the greatest place any more to open up a business. They were really concerned about the direction the government was taking.

We have an opportunity here to put in legislative form some of the intentions stated by the ministry.

Hon Mr Hampton: Steve, you should be over here.

Mr Offer: I heard the Attorney General make some comment about where I am standing in this Legislature and where he perceives I should be standing. A lot of the concerns voiced, not only by myself and my caucus, I am sure he has heard in his constituency office. I would be absolutely surprised if the Attorney General stood in this House, as he will have the opportunity to do when I finish my remarks, and said no one ever came into his constituency office in Rainy River in the depths of this recession to say he had some concerns. We will wait and hear if that is the case. If that is the case, his constituency office stands separate from all others.

That is not a partisan comment on my part. This is the worst recession since the 1930s: 300,000 jobs have been lost and jobs have disappeared; more than 50% of all the jobs lost in this province in the past year have disappeared.

All our constituencies felt the ravages of this recession, though some of the early returns coming in are that we seem to have bottomed out. There are still a lot of people saying: "The recession may be over for some people, but it isn't over for me. I'm still without a job. My company hasn't opened up. My company hasn't recalled. My company has closed up. My company has moved out."

We have to be very cognizant of those particular realities of the day, and I say that not in a partisan fashion. I think every one of our constituencies suffered greatly in this recession. People were badly hurt by this recession. Their way of life was changed dramatically. People who held a job all their lives were out of work for the first time. There was no need for some of the skills they had acquired over many years. There was nothing to be found. Those are some of the challenges for us.

With this amendment we are talking about putting into legislation the intentions of the ministry. Is it the intention of this legislation? Will the workings of this legislation be such that all remedies against an employer under the Employment Standards Act will be exhausted before directors of a particular company are potentially found liable, or will it be something else?

If it is going to be something else they should say so. They should not say, "This is our intent but the legislation won't reflect it." If they are going to say it and mean it, then they should do it by this amendment.

1710

The First Deputy Chair: Are the members ready for the question? Shall 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.

Vote deferred.

The First Deputy Chair: We shall move on to the next motion, which is also brought forward by Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: I was very concerned over that last amendment failing, because I think it just sends out the absolutely wrong signal. But I know I will have to --

The First Deputy Chair: Please move on with the business and on to the next motion.

Mr Offer moves that section 40s of the act, as set out in section 6 of the bill, as reprinted, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(10) Despite subsection (1), no director is liable under this part if the director exercised reasonable diligence in carrying out his or her duties as a director."

Mr Offer: I have a few comments on this particular amendment because in many ways we have an opportunity of charting some new ground here. One of the submissions made by the Canadian Bar Association in the hearings spoke to this issue. They put forward in one area of their brief that the time is now right that directors, not only in this legislation but I think they even went so far as to say under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, should be able to absolve themselves of personal liability if they have taken certain action in a certain way and under certain circumstances.

If I might, I would like to allude to their particular brief, because they indicated that this, though new in this legislation, is not a new idea:

"The liability of directors under the Income Tax Act is limited in two ways. First, Revenue Canada imposes statutory trusts and 'superpriority' provisions to ensure that there is the greatest likelihood that there will be assets available to meet its demand. Second, it is a defence to a claim by Revenue Canada that the director acted reasonably in the circumstances."

I will repeat that. "Second, it is a defence to a claim by Revenue Canada that the director acted reasonably in the circumstances. Actions brought by Revenue Canada have been dismissed when it is proved that the director took reasonable steps to ensure that Revenue Canada was paid." That is "reasonable steps to ensure."

It is pointed out that: "The government, in Bill 84...establishing liability on directors...under the Tobacco Tax Act, provided in subsection 20a(3) that it was a defence to a claim by the Minister of Revenue that the director had acted with reasonable care in the circumstances." I am going to repeat that because even the current government, under the Tobacco Tax Act now before the Legislature, provides a provision that it is a defence to a claim by the provincial Minister of Revenue that a "director had acted with reasonable care in the circumstances." The point made by the Canadian Bar Association is that it sees no reason that a similar defence could not be available under Bill 70 to those exposed to the risk of liability under it.

Think of what that means. It means that in terms of the business community, when a company is experiencing difficulty and there is now a personal liability under Bill 70, the directors of that company recognize that the efforts they make in trying to save the company through a whole variety of ways -- I think some of us know some of those ways, and certainly some of the people who are watching the legislative channel, through their businesses, know of ways they take in, for want of a better word, trying to save their company. They are trying to do everything it takes to save their company, and there are a whole variety of ways in which they can do that. They can try to sell part of the company; they can enter into a whole variety of other types of arrangements, all very valid, all designed to save the company and which will have, as a direct result, the saving of jobs. This bill does not put any importance on that as far as a director is concerned. This bill says that no matter what the action of the director was, no matter what the director did to try to save his or her company, no matter what the director did to try to ensure that the jobs would be there, if the director fails, that director is personally liable to the full extent and the strongest arm of the employment standards branch under the Ministry of Labour.

We now know, because the previous amendment failed, that those directors are going to be liable and the branch does not even have to go after the employer. Those who are in this Legislature today, as Hansard will record, and certainly those people who are watching this on the parliamentary station will recognize that after the points I made in terms of the intent of the legislation -- being that action should be taken against an employer, that it was possible to put that intent in legislative form -- no one but the parliamentary assistant and no one on the government side had any comment on that. That remains in Hansard in terms of its silence.

The message is clear. The legislation is such that if a company goes bankrupt, the employment standards branch and those officers do not have to, and will not go against the employer. They will look to who the director is, who is easiest to attach, and who has the deepest pockets. That is what this legislation has now become because of the fact that the previous amendment was not accepted.

1720

We have that aspect. We also have once more the aspect of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's recent survey, which talked about the very fundamental lack and loss of confidence that business clearly has in this government. During this afternoon, and even in previous days, we have tried to build a balance into the legislation, through amendments, that will not detract from the rights of the workers, that will not take away their rights that are contained under this bill and under the Employment Standards Act, but will provide a balance to the business community so that the cost of this legislation will not be borne, I feel, in an unfair way by the small business community. We could do that without any cost to the taxpayers of this province. That opportunity apparently has also been lost through the government's stated intent to vote against that amendment.

Now we come to this amendment. What do we have in this amendment? What we are doing is saying that a director of a company that goes bankrupt -- I know the bill is not limited to bankruptcies, but I will use that -- is not a bad person, is not a bad director. For a variety of reasons, many of which are really outside the control of the people, the company has run into bad times which have resulted in its going bankrupt. This amendment says to those people, who worked hard to create the business, to maybe even have that business expanded, probably put in 30 hours a day when that business was having difficulties, that the cost in terms of worry and stress, which cannot be --

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. I am having difficulty following the speaker due to the number of private conversations taking place in the House. I would appreciate the contribution of all members to this debate. The member may continue.

Mr Offer: It cannot be quantified. The effort that person is going to make in terms of trying to save the business, trying to save the jobs, trying to use all the things he has learned in all the ways he can, is not going to be recognized. This bill will not recognize the efforts of those directors.

Directors do not want their businesses to go bankrupt. They want their businesses to succeed and to succeed again. When those businesses start to have some difficulties, they will take action. They will do what is necessary to keep their businesses in existence. I believe this amendment is important in terms of sending out a message that this bill recognizes that when a business goes bankrupt it is not because of some wish of a director, that when a company goes bankrupt a director puts in and has put in a great deal of time and effort to make the business a success and is also putting in maybe even greater time and effort to try to save that business.

I could see, through the acceptance of this amendment, a whole case load of decision-making being developed that really would comes to grips with what is necessary for a director to do in order not to be found personally liable under the enforcement mechanism of this bill. I think that would be a very strong and positive result of the bill.

This amendment would not erode or detract from any of the rights of the people who lose jobs. They would be able to receive dollars from the fund just as well as before. Because we are dealing with this bill, their liability under the Ontario Business Corporations Act would not be affected. What would be affected would be the enforcement mechanism: the long, strong arm of the employment standards branch officers reaching out to the director who is closest to them, reaching over the employer because they do not have to go after the employer, picking out that director because they do not have to go against all of the directors. They get to pick and choose and do whatever is necessary to recoup those dollars, even if it means a judgement against a director, even if it means future garnishment proceedings against directors who are trying to look for jobs. That is what this bill will potentially become.

This amendment, again, does not cost the taxpayers any dollars. It does not affect liability. It does not affect the employees, those people who lost the jobs. It does not affect the principle of the legislation. That remains intact. What it does is say to the survey by the CFIB: "The concerns expressed in your report by your member corporations" -- once more, remember we are talking about thousands of corporations representing hundreds of thousands of jobs -- "we have listened to that. In fact, we're prepared to do something about that. We're prepared to send out a message to the business community that you can create jobs, expand your businesses, do what is necessary to create wealth and remain competitive in this province. If things go bad for a whole variety of reasons, most of which are out of the control of those running the company, then your efforts to try to save the company, to try to save those jobs, will be reflected in this legislation."

We are saying, give the directors an opportunity. This is an issue of fairness. If one creates a piece of legislation which says, "We are going to sue you if your company goes bankrupt," at least give an opportunity to those to whom you have said that to have a defence, to have an argument to be made, that this argument and defence are something the government is ready to listen to through legislation.

Where should legislation be introduced and passed which creates a penalty, a personal liability on someone without that same person being able to argue: "But I did everything I could do. I took these actions. I tried to save this company. I tried to save these jobs"? This bill does not do it. The Income Tax Act of Canada does it. This government's Tobacco Tax Act does it. Their own legislation which is before this House provides that opportunity for someone to say, "I've taken reasonable action."

Why cannot this bill do that? Why is it so difficult for the government to say it is absolutely ready to make this bill a better bill, a more balanced bill, a bill which will not only meet the concerns of those who lost their jobs but will also provide an opportunity for those to argue that they have taken the action; that the government is ready, willing to listen and act in terms of substantive change to this legislation, and that the directors of companies will not be found liable if they have taken reasonable action.

I sometimes get a certain sense that the parliamentary assistant is telling her members, "Don't speak on this bill." I have been watching very closely. Would we on this side not find it incredibly surprising that with a bill of this importance, a bill that affects everybody in this province, in all ridings, the parliamentary assistant is saying to members of the government, "Don't speak; let's get this bill through"?

1730

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please. I am going to ask for the members' co-operation. Would the honourable members please co-operate by reducing the level of private conversation? I am having difficulty following the member's comments. I think we all have a responsibility in this House to listen.

Mr Offer: As I was saying, I have this suspicion that --

Hon Mr Hampton: You are repeating yourself.

Mr Offer: I want to make a point. The Attorney General says I am repetitive. By repeating the Attorney General's remarks, maybe that makes the case. I have a concern that on a bill of such importance, which affects all our ridings, which affects everything about the future growth of our ridings generally, members of the government side want to say something but the parliamentary assistant is saying, "Listen, let's be quiet now, let's just be quiet."

Interjection.

Mr Offer: The member for Mississauga West says "Muzzle them," which might be exactly the case. They say: "Listen, let's not speak our minds on this bill. We have absolutely no comment to make on a bill which is changed by regulation as opposed to legislation. We have no comment to make on our rights, obligations and responsibility as MPPs to debate these things. We have no comment on giving small business in this province a break in this legislation. We have absolutely no comment to make on whether directors should have a right to state they've made some reasonable effort to try to save the company."

Members of the government side are saying "No comment" to that. I hope their statements about business will be reflected, if they have no comment to make, in their approval of this amendment.

Ms S. Murdock: I want to assure the member for Mississauga North that the reason I did not respond to the last amendment the official opposition put forward was because I had responded to it in the amendment before, and I did not want to waste everybody's time listening to me repeat myself. However, I will repeat it for the benefit of the member for Mississauga North.

Exhausting avenues against the employer and then going after the directors, in our view, means there would be some instances where it would be obvious that the employer is nowhere around to go after but where we would have to proceed through all kinds of court procedures in order to close off and exhaust all of those avenues before proceeding against the directors. As has happened all too frequently in this province lately, some companies have left the province entirely. There is no one to go after except the directors. The liability, as I said, is not any different from that presently under the OBCA.

As well, in this amendment to section 6 on the "due diligence" argument, there is no due diligence in OBCA. It is exactly the same as the Ontario Business Corporations Act. Corporate law in this province does not excuse directors from liability for having done their work with reasonable diligence. We are not in favour of this amendment.

We are trying to get this bill passed; that is right. There is no question we are trying to get it through. The arguments have been stated very clearly. Repetition is not going to solve anything here in terms of getting this bill through.

Mr Offer: I find the comments of the parliamentary assistant quite surprising when she speaks to the issue of repetition. The parliamentary assistant should be aware that we are in committee of the whole. We have every right to bring forward these amendments. After a great deal of thought, we very much believe these amendments are balanced and not only meet the needs of those people who are the victims of the recession but indeed send out a more positive and progressive message to the business community.

I believe this type of debate is very important. I believe it is this type of debate we were elected to do. This is not repetition. The parliamentary assistant should not think it is.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Health made some comment. I was not able to catch it, but I hope when she takes her seat she will be able to clarify what she said.

We are in committee of the whole right now and one of the things we want to do is talk about some of the things we think are important, some of the things we think can make this a better bill. We have some concerns about the bill. We want to make certain the bill meets the principle and meets as well some of the concerns that have been raised through the public hearings.

May I remind the parliamentary assistant that the public hearings on this bill were greatly restricted and that the members of the government side voted against travelling. They voted against listening to people, not just the business community but indeed the people outside of the Toronto area. That is something we have to continue to keep in mind. It must be borne in mind that some of the areas of concern we are talking about are those we heard -- and the presentations were well made -- from the greater Toronto area. There were an awful lot of people who wanted to provide some comments on the bill, probably both for and against. That would have been quite helpful. It is unfortunate the members of the government saw it as unnecessary to listen to those concerns or points of approval. They found it necessary to vote against our committee travelling. It is something this bill will have to carry with it, no matter how it ends up.

The First Deputy Chair: Are the members ready for the question?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

1740

The First Deputy Chair: We will proceed to the next motion. Before we deal with this motion, can we have support for sections 7 through 15. Will this carry? Okay, this section will also be stacked.

Ms S. Murdock: Mr Chair, is clause 65(1)(rb) stacked now? Is that what I heard you say? Which amendment is stacked?

The First Deputy Chair: The amendment we just dealt with has been stacked. I asked for support for sections 7 through 15. Shall this carry or shall it be stacked?

Vote deferred.

Section/article 16:

The First Deputy Chair: We will move on then to the motion introduced by the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer moves that clause 65(1)(rb) of the act, as set out in section 16 of the bill, as reprinted, be struck out.

Mr Offer: I have some comments on this. I think those of us who were on the committee and those of us who have been watching this debate recognize that if there was one common concern, it is found in this amendment. In passing, I will note that the member for Waterloo North has also moved the same amendment. It is, I believe, word for word the same amendment. The reason for that is that if there was a single common concern, it was this.

Let's be clear: This amendment states that any changes must be made by legislation as opposed to regulation. That is talking about changes to, "(rb) prescribing other payments that are wages for purposes of" subsection 40b(2). What this means is that the changes to the wages can be made by regulation and not legislation.

This really strikes at the heart and soul not only of this legislation but what it is we do here. We have really spoken about this on other amendments earlier on. We are talking about what it is we do. Are we ready to say to those who have concerns about the legislation that if there is to be any change, it will take place in this chamber?

The Minister of Labour himself recognized and was not afraid to bring in the dollar figure in terms of legislation. He was not afraid that those particular areas of the legislation should be debated. He wanted the bill, even if it was shortened, to go out to committee hearings. Why can we not carry that on? That is what this amendment does.

There are those who will say the bill should be changed; there are those who will be opposed to any change. Whatever their positions will be, do we not believe in this chamber that it is our duty, that it is why we were elected, to take their concerns, to take their opinions through debate, to take any potential change out to committee, to use the committee in the way in which it was designed to be used, to take a matter of change out to the general public, to listen to their concerns as to what the impact of any change might be, what the impact might be in terms of business, the cost of doing business, job creation, the creation of wealth, strengthening the economy of this province, embracing an aspect of competitiveness? Are they not some of the things that we think we were elected to do, to seek out people's opinions on change?

If the members vote against this amendment, they are saying that change is done by regulation. When it is done by regulation, it is done without input. They have no knowledge what the impact of change will be. They do not know what it is going to mean in their constituencies. They just do not know what it is going to mean in the cities, in the municipalities they now represent, in the areas in which they live. They do not know what it means in terms of cutting down options for future job growth.

By moving this to legislation, what they are doing is saying: "I realize I don't know that, but by moving it to legislation I want to find that out. I want to know what it means. I want to know what it means to the province before I vote yes or no on any change, what it means to my constituency, what it means to the future of our economic strength." Those are some of the things we were elected to do. We should not be afraid of doing that. We should be asking for more. We should be asking for more things to be debated here.

Through regulation, they will read of those changes. They will read press clippings about those changes, their own ministry reports and media reports as to changes announced. They will have no input as to those changes. They will have no say as to whether those changes benefit their community or benefit their constituency. They will have no answer to constituents who come into their offices and say, "I'd like to give you my opinion as to whether this change is necessary or not." They will have no answer because the change will have already occurred and they will be defending the change already made. But even more so, in this political climate they will be defending why it was made without their constituents, whoever wanted to, having an opportunity to have some input into the process, being more a part of the process.

We are going to have to answer that question. We are going to have to answer the question why, by not accepting this amendment, they are saying they are not ready to listen, are not ready to use this chamber, are not ready to use their constituency office, their Queen's Park office or committee rooms in the way they were designed.

We are talking about changes to the very essence of this legislation. We are not talking about technical changes -- its to ands, and ors to buts, and mays to shalls, all of which are very important -- but this talks to the real heart of the legislation.

What do the members say to themselves when they do not support this amendment in terms of their being able to defend this, if they cannot even defend this type of amendment which is the heart and soul of the legislation? People may be for this bill, they may be against this bill. They may have major concerns, they may have minor concerns. But whatever they be, major or minor, for or against, members will have to recognize their obligation and responsibility to defend in this chamber and to vote accordingly.

1750

When they do things by regulation, they do not have to do that. The members really do not have to defend, they do not have to have an opinion, and they have no obligation to talk and raise some of the concerns of their constituents. I am not talking just of the business community, because this bill is not just limited to the business community. There will be those who will say that maybe the bill does not go far enough, just as there are those who will say the bill goes too far. The fact is, future change to the essence of this bill will be done at the cabinet table.

It will move from the minister's boardroom table to the cabinet table, to the media room, to press releases, to the government members' constituency offices, and the members will read them four or five days after they have happened. They might be content to do that, but we are talking about the ability of the constituents to have input, the ability of our province to continue to compete, the message we send out to our business community.

We have an opportunity here, as we move to some of the final sections. I know we have stood down the first four sections. We have here almost the final opportunity to grab hold of some of the concerns raised by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in its research report. They are concerns not only on their part, but which we hear each and every day in our Queen's Park or constituency offices, every time we pick up the telephone with our constituents, concerns about how they are going to be able to live their lives and concerns about whether their kids are going to have the options they had as kids. There are fundamental concerns that those options are not going to be there.

One of the ways we can do that is by making certain, wherever possible, that changes to the heart and soul of legislation are debated in this Legislature, that in fact there is the opportunity to discuss those changes through committees in each community in this province, that we can invite people in.

If members vote against this amendment, they close their constituency doors, close their Queen's Park doors, lock the door to this chamber and shut down the committee rooms. They say no to anybody who has a concern and, yes, that the survey report of the CFIB is right. The members say yes to the concerns of business, "Yes, you're right to leave this province." They say yes to those people who are losing confidence in this province and say no to greater options for people.

In my opinion, there should be no hesitation by members of the government side to say they are ready to have the opportunity to listen to people. Whether they meet with their concerns or not, that is the government's right, responsibility or obligation. That is what this will do. This amendment at least provides the opportunity for future debate. By voting against this amendment, they vote against future debate of this bill. They turn the key on this bill, lock it up, shut it up and say, "I don't care about your concerns."

I do not think the people of this province want that. I think they recognize that they do not agree all the time with what government does, that there is room for disagreement, but what they want is the opportunity to be part of the process. This amendment makes that happen. It makes our rules of procedure kick in. It allows them to have a part in debate. It allows them to share with all of us their concerns about any future change to the bill.

I hope members of the government would not be afraid, would not be reticent to listen to people's concerns and would be ready to back that up in substance as opposed to speeches. By voting in favour of this amendment, this is their opportunity.

Mrs Witmer: As has been indicated, the Conservative caucus supports and had the same motion, the same amendment. Of course, the intent of this amendment is to remove the ability for the government to make changes by regulation, because we feel it is imperative that all future changes to Bill 70 legislation should be made by amendments to the act after a full and complete debate in which the public is allowed to participate.

We believe that if any changes are made to increase the program ceiling of the wage protection fund beyond the $5,000 cap as proposed, or if additional components are going to be added to the compensation package, then this government needs to make sure it consults with all of the taxpayers in the province.

I feel that as members of provincial Parliament we have a responsibility to discuss all financial issues with our constituents. I believe we need to remain accountable to our taxpayers and our constituents, and in order for that to happen we need to make sure that a full public debate does take place. We also need to allow for public scrutiny into any program spending increases that are made in this House. Although this government might agree that an increase to the ceiling should be made or that additional components should be added, we need to give the public the opportunity to share information with us as to why that should or should not happen.

This government has talked about consultation, it has talked about co-operation, and certainly if it allows the changes to be made by amendment, there will be an opportunity for full and complete consultation. I would remind the government as well that every employer group that appeared before us this summer indicated that it believed very strongly that any changes that are going to be made should be made only after a complete and full public debate. They are very opposed and very concerned about the ability to make changes by regulation. I guess some of that fear was created by the move before Christmas which allowed the government to create French school boards by regulation.

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Will the member take her seat.

On motion by Mrs Coppen, the committee of the whole reported progress.

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

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

1800

SABRINA PANETTA

The Speaker: The member for Brampton North has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given yesterday by the Minister of Community and Social Services. The member for Brampton North has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr McClelland: I sincerely say that I regret we are here this evening on this matter. It was my hope that we could come to, I do not want to use the word "accommodation," but I was hoping the minister would find some possible way to accommodate not the request that I put forward but indeed the one the family of this dying child and the child herself have indicated. In the method she is able to communicate with her family and with her physician, it is her wish.

Over the course of the debate and exchange in question period both last Tuesday and yesterday, a number of issues have been brought forward. I have put forward as well as I am able the plea on behalf of the little girl and the family that an order in council be granted by the Minister of Community and Social Services that would provide the financial means necessary for this little girl to receive nursing attention at home, so that she could die where she and her family would like her to be.

I might add that as of literally within the past hour, the physician has indicated he feels there is infection with respect to this little girl's lungs, that her lungs may collapse and she may not live very much longer.

That raises an issue that has been brought forward in rebuttal by the honourable minister. She has said she is concerned about the wellbeing of the child and this is the principal reason that she is not able to grant the order in council.

It is simply stated by myself that we recognize the child's wellbeing is in jeopardy. In fact she is dying. It seems to me the wellbeing of this girl is not in question. The question is what is best for her under the circumstances that are before her and her family.

The doctor has said: "She belongs at home, not at York Finch Hospital, where she has been for the past five months, and not in an institution. She has been receiving fine care at York Finch, the nurses are terrific, but she is a terminally ill child and could die any day."

He also went on to say, and I quoted this in Hansard earlier, that he believes -- and after caring for her over the course of seven years, he is perhaps as able as anybody else; he is a specialist and has cared for her -- he has made, in his view, a professional judgement that not only the quality of her life but indeed perhaps the longevity of her life, the length of it, may be extended if she were afforded the opportunity to die at home. It is his belief that a substantial contribution to her wellbeing has been the love and affection and the atmosphere of nurture that she has received in and around her family.

I want to draw the minister's attention to some things that I would ask her to comment on in her response, that on their face to me, quite frankly, are hard to reconcile. Following question period yesterday, the press spoke with both the minister and myself, and I will, I am sure, hear her response with respect to the fact that she said this is not a financial concern. She then went on to say, "It is not a financial concern, but there are 30 other children out there who are in similar circumstances." I ask the minister to reconcile that apparent contradiction on its face.

The issue in terms of her wellbeing, I think, has been addressed by the physician; not by myself, not by the minister, but by the physician. Ultimately he, together with the family I believe, is the one able to make that decision. I say this in light of the background of advocacy legislation, the position the government has taken throughout so many years of standing up for people's rights to make choices for themselves. I say that in response to a government whose Premier said, when he was sworn in on October 1 a year ago, "I have always fought for the little guy, and now that I am Premier, I am not going to stop doing that."

I would ask people in this province, those who might be watching, that if nothing else, they would consider appealing to the Premier of this province, calling his office and indicating their concern, because I do not know what else to do at this point.

The minister has also indicated her concern with respect to what might happen to this child. I would invite the minister, if she can find some way, to allow the child's parents together with the physician to assume that risk. They are prepared to do that. They want to do that.

The minister indicated in her response that she has not spoken with the parents. I am sure her staff have, because she indicated also in her response that many hours had been invested in this case. I would invite the minister, in fact I would implore her, to please talk to the people involved directly to find some resolution within her mind about the apparent roadblocks that stand in her way.

I ask the minister to consider those factors. It is not a great deal to ask. The wish of Mrs Panetta is: "My daughter is dying. I would like her to spend her last days at home." I am asking the minister again if she will do all within her power to accommodate that request -- her request, not mine -- of the child and the family.

Hon Ms Akande: I come reluctantly to this House to speak on this matter. It is a serious matter and it is not my feeling that this is an appropriate place for it to be discussed. We are discussing a child. We are discussing a child who is dying. We are discussing our services to that child.

Let me say, first of all, that this ministry, this government, has never said no to the family. It has been our intention, our direction, our work, our focus to find a way to support the family and the child in the home. I feel the demonstration of our support started long ago when we supported the family and the child with services right in the home.

I am not at liberty to speak specifically about anything we have in place for that family, because the legal department tells me we have not been given that permission. I feel, as probably they feel, that to do so would make their hurt public, and since I have not been given that permission, I cannot do that. Let me say that the primary concern of this ministry and this government has always been and continues to be that the child not be put at greater risk at home than in the hospital. Our focus has always been to support life, not to anticipate death.

Currently there is no program in the Ministry of Community and Social Services nor in the Ministry of Health that provides 24-hour registered nursing care. There is no such program. The Ministry of Community and Social Services does provide special services at home, and that is to support families so that their child can be at home, but it is not a registered nurse. They do provide a handicapped children's benefit, a certain sum during the month. They do provide respite care from community agencies to support families. But none of these programs are designed to provide parallel services to a health care facility; none of them.

In order to respond to the needs of any child, it is necessary for us to bring together a variety of resources, and we have done so and we continue to try to do so. All of these resources are used in a way that says to us we have supported the child in the family in a way that the child is not at greater risk because the child is in the home. The co-ordination of these programs is difficult and costly, but cost is not our primary concern. To have a registered nurse 24 hours a day in the home costs $660 a day; in the hospital it costs $382. To have a registered nurse for a week in the home costs $4,620 and it costs $2,674 in the hospital.

But I say again that finance is not our primary concern. I mention the cost only because our opposition has pointed out to us, and I recognize it, that there are limited resources to meet the needs of many children who are in similar circumstances. We strive and we struggle to meet those needs, to support all those families and to support all those children who have very similar needs. It is difficult.

If the child's condition is unstable, we may have to back it up with hospital care, which may mean and often means the child has to be transported back and forth to the hospital in periods of instability. This might put the child at greater risk.

I was touched by and I am concerned about the fact that the member mentions he held the child in his arms. I recall that I have held dying children in my arms. I know that it is no happy, pleasant sight; it is no wonderful feeling. Your heart goes out to them, your mind goes out to them and you try to figure out what you can do. But when the member held the child in his hands, did he ask if the child would be at greater risk if she were in the home? If he did, then he should remember that is what we are asking. I do.

The Speaker: The time has expired. There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House adjourned at 1811.